Varge as Plural - Similar Example - Chandrashekhar ji/Rahu Ketu

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

I am not trying to undervalue anybody's view.Explanations are

present in Dashadhyayi helping me to get an authentic confirmation

for my own understanding.

 

Now regarding Rahu-Ketu,i could find only couple of references.This

is from chapter two.As Varahamihiracharya did not comment much on

Rahu ketu,Dashadhyayi kara too did the same.

 

1)Shloka 2 or 3 from chapter 2 ,pointing to synonyms of

grahas.Dashadhyayi says -The last two are Tamograhas(Rahu Ketu),after

Parakasha,Tara.It talks about Jupiter and Venus as shubha,Saturn and

Mars as ashubha etc , and then says Rahu and Ketu are ashubha as

they DO NOT have any own,exaltation rashis etc.But

Varahamihiracharya advises us to use infos from places regarding

planets apart from those mentioned in this text.

 

Thus one thing is pretty clear -Even for Varahamihiracharya

Own/exalation etc of Rahu/Ketu was unknown.I assume that was the

case with Kalyan Varma too.

 

2)In Shloka 5,Rahu is is assigned with directions.I feel there are

two opinions.a)Rahu rules the corresponding 4th direction after

Sun,Venus and Mars.b)Rahu rules the Ishana Kon.Combining this with

info from Krishneeyam,i feel Rahu related points are basically used

in nashta prashnas etc,to find the direction of theft etc.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I have not understood why only principles of Dashaadhyaayi are to

be

> followed and also whether the Dashaadhyaayikar has given any

principles,

> or if the text is a commentary on Brihat jataka. Do you mean that

the

> Dashaadhyaayikar has given certain principles from which the yogas

given

> in Brihat Jataka emanate? If this is so, it may help the

astrological

> fraternity much. Do post the principles given. I am also curious

to know

> as to how the Dashaaadhyaayikar explains, Kalyanvarma not

mentioning

> anything about Rahu and Ketu in " Saravali " , since according to one

of

> your posts, if I have understood it right, he gives references

from

> Saravali during his interpretation of Brihat Jataka. It would

really be

> interesting to know what his principles say about Brihat jataka

giving

> yogas emanating from relative position of rahu and Ketu vis-a-vis

> Saravali not even mentioning those shadow planets.

>

> I look forward to the opinion of Dashaadhyaayikar on this

difference

> between Brihat jataka and Saravali. I am sure the readers will

learn

> much from the comments.

>

> Take care,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > You had brought in shubha grahas placed and aspecting karakamsha

and

> > lagnamsha.Lagnamsha is one among the six vargas of lagna and

hence

> > the relevance.

> >

> > If aspects in general is not possible in varga charts(as

drishties

> > emanate by longitudinal distances),then how will one interpret

this

> > is the doubt.

> >

> > When one follows the principls in dashdhyayi,when one follows the

> > principle in nadi transits,when one follows navamsha tulya -rashi

> > tulya -this shloka is not at all difficult to interpret.

> >

> > Kindly see that Shukra and Saturn exchanging amshas and amsha of

> > birth Lagna(not shukra) in ghata rashi is mentioned.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I can not understand the relevance of the shloka to the topic

under

> > > discussion. The shloka does talk about graha drishti but then

there

> > is

> > > more to the sphuta drishti than what the shloka conveys. But

the

> > shloka

> > > does not certainly have t do anything with bhavas from

karakamshas

> > > having to be sen in rasi chart, by itself.

> > >

> > > The shloka itself is clear enough to say that these are two

> > different

> > > yogas. Shukra and Shani can not simultaneously occupy each

other's

> > > navamsha and also occupy the navamshas of Shani. However

everyone

> > is

> > > free to his own interpretation.

> > >

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

I think you did not read what I said properly. I was asking about

Dashaadhyaayikar's comment on Saravali not considering Rahu Ketu at all,

since he does quote Saravali as an authoritative text as indicated by

you in one of the mails. Varaha Mihira does talk of results of rahu and

Ketu. So I would be interested on the opinion of Dashaaadhyaayikar on

this apparent anomaly, if any.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> I am not trying to undervalue anybody's view.Explanations are

> present in Dashadhyayi helping me to get an authentic confirmation

> for my own understanding.

>

> Now regarding Rahu-Ketu,i could find only couple of references.This

> is from chapter two.As Varahamihiracharya did not comment much on

> Rahu ketu,Dashadhyayi kara too did the same.

>

> 1)Shloka 2 or 3 from chapter 2 ,pointing to synonyms of

> grahas.Dashadhyayi says -The last two are Tamograhas(Rahu Ketu),after

> Parakasha,Tara.It talks about Jupiter and Venus as shubha,Saturn and

> Mars as ashubha etc , and then says Rahu and Ketu are ashubha as

> they DO NOT have any own,exaltation rashis etc.But

> Varahamihiracharya advises us to use infos from places regarding

> planets apart from those mentioned in this text.

>

> Thus one thing is pretty clear -Even for Varahamihiracharya

> Own/exalation etc of Rahu/Ketu was unknown.I assume that was the

> case with Kalyan Varma too.

>

> 2)In Shloka 5,Rahu is is assigned with directions.I feel there are

> two opinions.a)Rahu rules the corresponding 4th direction after

> Sun,Venus and Mars.b)Rahu rules the Ishana Kon.Combining this with

> info from Krishneeyam,i feel Rahu related points are basically used

> in nashta prashnas etc,to find the direction of theft etc.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I have not understood why only principles of Dashaadhyaayi are to

> be

> > followed and also whether the Dashaadhyaayikar has given any

> principles,

> > or if the text is a commentary on Brihat jataka. Do you mean that

> the

> > Dashaadhyaayikar has given certain principles from which the yogas

> given

> > in Brihat Jataka emanate? If this is so, it may help the

> astrological

> > fraternity much. Do post the principles given. I am also curious

> to know

> > as to how the Dashaaadhyaayikar explains, Kalyanvarma not

> mentioning

> > anything about Rahu and Ketu in " Saravali " , since according to one

> of

> > your posts, if I have understood it right, he gives references

> from

> > Saravali during his interpretation of Brihat Jataka. It would

> really be

> > interesting to know what his principles say about Brihat jataka

> giving

> > yogas emanating from relative position of rahu and Ketu vis-a-vis

> > Saravali not even mentioning those shadow planets.

> >

> > I look forward to the opinion of Dashaadhyaayikar on this

> difference

> > between Brihat jataka and Saravali. I am sure the readers will

> learn

> > much from the comments.

> >

> > Take care,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > You had brought in shubha grahas placed and aspecting karakamsha

> and

> > > lagnamsha.Lagnamsha is one among the six vargas of lagna and

> hence

> > > the relevance.

> > >

> > > If aspects in general is not possible in varga charts(as

> drishties

> > > emanate by longitudinal distances),then how will one interpret

> this

> > > is the doubt.

> > >

> > > When one follows the principls in dashdhyayi,when one follows the

> > > principle in nadi transits,when one follows navamsha tulya -rashi

> > > tulya -this shloka is not at all difficult to interpret.

> > >

> > > Kindly see that Shukra and Saturn exchanging amshas and amsha of

> > > birth Lagna(not shukra) in ghata rashi is mentioned.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I can not understand the relevance of the shloka to the topic

> under

> > > > discussion. The shloka does talk about graha drishti but then

> there

> > > is

> > > > more to the sphuta drishti than what the shloka conveys. But

> the

> > > shloka

> > > > does not certainly have t do anything with bhavas from

> karakamshas

> > > > having to be sen in rasi chart, by itself.

> > > >

> > > > The shloka itself is clear enough to say that these are two

> > > different

> > > > yogas. Shukra and Shani can not simultaneously occupy each

> other's

> > > > navamsha and also occupy the navamshas of Shani. However

> everyone

> > > is

> > > > free to his own interpretation.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

If you give the relevant shloka or chapter/number ,i can see what is

his opinion.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I think you did not read what I said properly. I was asking about

> Dashaadhyaayikar's comment on Saravali not considering Rahu Ketu at

all,

> since he does quote Saravali as an authoritative text as indicated

by

> you in one of the mails. Varaha Mihira does talk of results of rahu

and

> Ketu. So I would be interested on the opinion of Dashaaadhyaayikar

on

> this apparent anomaly, if any.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > I am not trying to undervalue anybody's view.Explanations are

> > present in Dashadhyayi helping me to get an authentic confirmation

> > for my own understanding.

> >

> > Now regarding Rahu-Ketu,i could find only couple of

references.This

> > is from chapter two.As Varahamihiracharya did not comment much on

> > Rahu ketu,Dashadhyayi kara too did the same.

> >

> > 1)Shloka 2 or 3 from chapter 2 ,pointing to synonyms of

> > grahas.Dashadhyayi says -The last two are Tamograhas(Rahu

Ketu),after

> > Parakasha,Tara.It talks about Jupiter and Venus as shubha,Saturn

and

> > Mars as ashubha etc , and then says Rahu and Ketu are ashubha as

> > they DO NOT have any own,exaltation rashis etc.But

> > Varahamihiracharya advises us to use infos from places regarding

> > planets apart from those mentioned in this text.

> >

> > Thus one thing is pretty clear -Even for Varahamihiracharya

> > Own/exalation etc of Rahu/Ketu was unknown.I assume that was the

> > case with Kalyan Varma too.

> >

> > 2)In Shloka 5,Rahu is is assigned with directions.I feel there are

> > two opinions.a)Rahu rules the corresponding 4th direction after

> > Sun,Venus and Mars.b)Rahu rules the Ishana Kon.Combining this with

> > info from Krishneeyam,i feel Rahu related points are basically

used

> > in nashta prashnas etc,to find the direction of theft etc.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I have not understood why only principles of Dashaadhyaayi are

to

> > be

> > > followed and also whether the Dashaadhyaayikar has given any

> > principles,

> > > or if the text is a commentary on Brihat jataka. Do you mean

that

> > the

> > > Dashaadhyaayikar has given certain principles from which the

yogas

> > given

> > > in Brihat Jataka emanate? If this is so, it may help the

> > astrological

> > > fraternity much. Do post the principles given. I am also curious

> > to know

> > > as to how the Dashaaadhyaayikar explains, Kalyanvarma not

> > mentioning

> > > anything about Rahu and Ketu in " Saravali " , since according to

one

> > of

> > > your posts, if I have understood it right, he gives references

> > from

> > > Saravali during his interpretation of Brihat Jataka. It would

> > really be

> > > interesting to know what his principles say about Brihat jataka

> > giving

> > > yogas emanating from relative position of rahu and Ketu vis-a-

vis

> > > Saravali not even mentioning those shadow planets.

> > >

> > > I look forward to the opinion of Dashaadhyaayikar on this

> > difference

> > > between Brihat jataka and Saravali. I am sure the readers will

> > learn

> > > much from the comments.

> > >

> > > Take care,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > You had brought in shubha grahas placed and aspecting

karakamsha

> > and

> > > > lagnamsha.Lagnamsha is one among the six vargas of lagna and

> > hence

> > > > the relevance.

> > > >

> > > > If aspects in general is not possible in varga charts(as

> > drishties

> > > > emanate by longitudinal distances),then how will one interpret

> > this

> > > > is the doubt.

> > > >

> > > > When one follows the principls in dashdhyayi,when one follows

the

> > > > principle in nadi transits,when one follows navamsha tulya -

rashi

> > > > tulya -this shloka is not at all difficult to interpret.

> > > >

> > > > Kindly see that Shukra and Saturn exchanging amshas and amsha

of

> > > > birth Lagna(not shukra) in ghata rashi is mentioned.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > I can not understand the relevance of the shloka to the

topic

> > under

> > > > > discussion. The shloka does talk about graha drishti but

then

> > there

> > > > is

> > > > > more to the sphuta drishti than what the shloka conveys. But

> > the

> > > > shloka

> > > > > does not certainly have t do anything with bhavas from

> > karakamshas

> > > > > having to be sen in rasi chart, by itself.

> > > > >

> > > > > The shloka itself is clear enough to say that these are two

> > > > different

> > > > > yogas. Shukra and Shani can not simultaneously occupy each

> > other's

> > > > > navamsha and also occupy the navamshas of Shani. However

> > everyone

> > > > is

> > > > > free to his own interpretation.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

Saravali does not mention rahu and Ketu at all. I am sure

Dashaadhyaayikar, not being mere commentator, as you have said, must

have given some opinion on this when he gives reference from Saravali to

support his translation/commentary/ original work on Brihat Jataka.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> If you give the relevant shloka or chapter/number ,i can see what is

> his opinion.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I think you did not read what I said properly. I was asking about

> > Dashaadhyaayikar's comment on Saravali not considering Rahu Ketu at

> all,

> > since he does quote Saravali as an authoritative text as indicated

> by

> > you in one of the mails. Varaha Mihira does talk of results of rahu

> and

> > Ketu. So I would be interested on the opinion of Dashaaadhyaayikar

> on

> > this apparent anomaly, if any.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > I am not trying to undervalue anybody's view.Explanations are

> > > present in Dashadhyayi helping me to get an authentic confirmation

> > > for my own understanding.

> > >

> > > Now regarding Rahu-Ketu,i could find only couple of

> references.This

> > > is from chapter two.As Varahamihiracharya did not comment much on

> > > Rahu ketu,Dashadhyayi kara too did the same.

> > >

> > > 1)Shloka 2 or 3 from chapter 2 ,pointing to synonyms of

> > > grahas.Dashadhyayi says -The last two are Tamograhas(Rahu

> Ketu),after

> > > Parakasha,Tara.It talks about Jupiter and Venus as shubha,Saturn

> and

> > > Mars as ashubha etc , and then says Rahu and Ketu are ashubha as

> > > they DO NOT have any own,exaltation rashis etc.But

> > > Varahamihiracharya advises us to use infos from places regarding

> > > planets apart from those mentioned in this text.

> > >

> > > Thus one thing is pretty clear -Even for Varahamihiracharya

> > > Own/exalation etc of Rahu/Ketu was unknown.I assume that was the

> > > case with Kalyan Varma too.

> > >

> > > 2)In Shloka 5,Rahu is is assigned with directions.I feel there are

> > > two opinions.a)Rahu rules the corresponding 4th direction after

> > > Sun,Venus and Mars.b)Rahu rules the Ishana Kon.Combining this with

> > > info from Krishneeyam,i feel Rahu related points are basically

> used

> > > in nashta prashnas etc,to find the direction of theft etc.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I have not understood why only principles of Dashaadhyaayi are

> to

> > > be

> > > > followed and also whether the Dashaadhyaayikar has given any

> > > principles,

> > > > or if the text is a commentary on Brihat jataka. Do you mean

> that

> > > the

> > > > Dashaadhyaayikar has given certain principles from which the

> yogas

> > > given

> > > > in Brihat Jataka emanate? If this is so, it may help the

> > > astrological

> > > > fraternity much. Do post the principles given. I am also curious

> > > to know

> > > > as to how the Dashaaadhyaayikar explains, Kalyanvarma not

> > > mentioning

> > > > anything about Rahu and Ketu in " Saravali " , since according to

> one

> > > of

> > > > your posts, if I have understood it right, he gives references

> > > from

> > > > Saravali during his interpretation of Brihat Jataka. It would

> > > really be

> > > > interesting to know what his principles say about Brihat jataka

> > > giving

> > > > yogas emanating from relative position of rahu and Ketu vis-a-

> vis

> > > > Saravali not even mentioning those shadow planets.

> > > >

> > > > I look forward to the opinion of Dashaadhyaayikar on this

> > > difference

> > > > between Brihat jataka and Saravali. I am sure the readers will

> > > learn

> > > > much from the comments.

> > > >

> > > > Take care,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > You had brought in shubha grahas placed and aspecting

> karakamsha

> > > and

> > > > > lagnamsha.Lagnamsha is one among the six vargas of lagna and

> > > hence

> > > > > the relevance.

> > > > >

> > > > > If aspects in general is not possible in varga charts(as

> > > drishties

> > > > > emanate by longitudinal distances),then how will one interpret

> > > this

> > > > > is the doubt.

> > > > >

> > > > > When one follows the principls in dashdhyayi,when one follows

> the

> > > > > principle in nadi transits,when one follows navamsha tulya -

> rashi

> > > > > tulya -this shloka is not at all difficult to interpret.

> > > > >

> > > > > Kindly see that Shukra and Saturn exchanging amshas and amsha

> of

> > > > > birth Lagna(not shukra) in ghata rashi is mentioned.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I can not understand the relevance of the shloka to the

> topic

> > > under

> > > > > > discussion. The shloka does talk about graha drishti but

> then

> > > there

> > > > > is

> > > > > > more to the sphuta drishti than what the shloka conveys. But

> > > the

> > > > > shloka

> > > > > > does not certainly have t do anything with bhavas from

> > > karakamshas

> > > > > > having to be sen in rasi chart, by itself.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The shloka itself is clear enough to say that these are two

> > > > > different

> > > > > > yogas. Shukra and Shani can not simultaneously occupy each

> > > other's

> > > > > > navamsha and also occupy the navamshas of Shani. However

> > > everyone

> > > > > is

> > > > > > free to his own interpretation.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

If i find one,i will share with you all.

 

Respect

Pradeep

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> Saravali does not mention rahu and Ketu at all. I am sure

> Dashaadhyaayikar, not being mere commentator, as you have said,

must

> have given some opinion on this when he gives reference from

Saravali to

> support his translation/commentary/ original work on Brihat Jataka.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > If you give the relevant shloka or chapter/number ,i can see what

is

> > his opinion.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I think you did not read what I said properly. I was asking

about

> > > Dashaadhyaayikar's comment on Saravali not considering Rahu

Ketu at

> > all,

> > > since he does quote Saravali as an authoritative text as

indicated

> > by

> > > you in one of the mails. Varaha Mihira does talk of results of

rahu

> > and

> > > Ketu. So I would be interested on the opinion of

Dashaaadhyaayikar

> > on

> > > this apparent anomaly, if any.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > I am not trying to undervalue anybody's view.Explanations are

> > > > present in Dashadhyayi helping me to get an authentic

confirmation

> > > > for my own understanding.

> > > >

> > > > Now regarding Rahu-Ketu,i could find only couple of

> > references.This

> > > > is from chapter two.As Varahamihiracharya did not comment

much on

> > > > Rahu ketu,Dashadhyayi kara too did the same.

> > > >

> > > > 1)Shloka 2 or 3 from chapter 2 ,pointing to synonyms of

> > > > grahas.Dashadhyayi says -The last two are Tamograhas(Rahu

> > Ketu),after

> > > > Parakasha,Tara.It talks about Jupiter and Venus as

shubha,Saturn

> > and

> > > > Mars as ashubha etc , and then says Rahu and Ketu are ashubha

as

> > > > they DO NOT have any own,exaltation rashis etc.But

> > > > Varahamihiracharya advises us to use infos from places

regarding

> > > > planets apart from those mentioned in this text.

> > > >

> > > > Thus one thing is pretty clear -Even for Varahamihiracharya

> > > > Own/exalation etc of Rahu/Ketu was unknown.I assume that was

the

> > > > case with Kalyan Varma too.

> > > >

> > > > 2)In Shloka 5,Rahu is is assigned with directions.I feel

there are

> > > > two opinions.a)Rahu rules the corresponding 4th direction

after

> > > > Sun,Venus and Mars.b)Rahu rules the Ishana Kon.Combining this

with

> > > > info from Krishneeyam,i feel Rahu related points are basically

> > used

> > > > in nashta prashnas etc,to find the direction of theft etc.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > I have not understood why only principles of Dashaadhyaayi

are

> > to

> > > > be

> > > > > followed and also whether the Dashaadhyaayikar has given any

> > > > principles,

> > > > > or if the text is a commentary on Brihat jataka. Do you mean

> > that

> > > > the

> > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar has given certain principles from which the

> > yogas

> > > > given

> > > > > in Brihat Jataka emanate? If this is so, it may help the

> > > > astrological

> > > > > fraternity much. Do post the principles given. I am also

curious

> > > > to know

> > > > > as to how the Dashaaadhyaayikar explains, Kalyanvarma not

> > > > mentioning

> > > > > anything about Rahu and Ketu in " Saravali " , since according

to

> > one

> > > > of

> > > > > your posts, if I have understood it right, he gives

references

> > > > from

> > > > > Saravali during his interpretation of Brihat Jataka. It

would

> > > > really be

> > > > > interesting to know what his principles say about Brihat

jataka

> > > > giving

> > > > > yogas emanating from relative position of rahu and Ketu vis-

a-

> > vis

> > > > > Saravali not even mentioning those shadow planets.

> > > > >

> > > > > I look forward to the opinion of Dashaadhyaayikar on this

> > > > difference

> > > > > between Brihat jataka and Saravali. I am sure the readers

will

> > > > learn

> > > > > much from the comments.

> > > > >

> > > > > Take care,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You had brought in shubha grahas placed and aspecting

> > karakamsha

> > > > and

> > > > > > lagnamsha.Lagnamsha is one among the six vargas of lagna

and

> > > > hence

> > > > > > the relevance.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If aspects in general is not possible in varga charts(as

> > > > drishties

> > > > > > emanate by longitudinal distances),then how will one

interpret

> > > > this

> > > > > > is the doubt.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > When one follows the principls in dashdhyayi,when one

follows

> > the

> > > > > > principle in nadi transits,when one follows navamsha

tulya -

> > rashi

> > > > > > tulya -this shloka is not at all difficult to interpret.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Kindly see that Shukra and Saturn exchanging amshas and

amsha

> > of

> > > > > > birth Lagna(not shukra) in ghata rashi is mentioned.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I can not understand the relevance of the shloka to the

> > topic

> > > > under

> > > > > > > discussion. The shloka does talk about graha drishti but

> > then

> > > > there

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > more to the sphuta drishti than what the shloka

conveys. But

> > > > the

> > > > > > shloka

> > > > > > > does not certainly have t do anything with bhavas from

> > > > karakamshas

> > > > > > > having to be sen in rasi chart, by itself.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The shloka itself is clear enough to say that these are

two

> > > > > > different

> > > > > > > yogas. Shukra and Shani can not simultaneously occupy

each

> > > > other's

> > > > > > > navamsha and also occupy the navamshas of Shani. However

> > > > everyone

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > free to his own interpretation.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

Please do.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> If i find one,i will share with you all.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > Saravali does not mention rahu and Ketu at all. I am sure

> > Dashaadhyaayikar, not being mere commentator, as you have said,

> must

> > have given some opinion on this when he gives reference from

> Saravali to

> > support his translation/commentary/ original work on Brihat Jataka.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > If you give the relevant shloka or chapter/number ,i can see what

> is

> > > his opinion.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I think you did not read what I said properly. I was asking

> about

> > > > Dashaadhyaayikar's comment on Saravali not considering Rahu

> Ketu at

> > > all,

> > > > since he does quote Saravali as an authoritative text as

> indicated

> > > by

> > > > you in one of the mails. Varaha Mihira does talk of results of

> rahu

> > > and

> > > > Ketu. So I would be interested on the opinion of

> Dashaaadhyaayikar

> > > on

> > > > this apparent anomaly, if any.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > I am not trying to undervalue anybody's view.Explanations are

> > > > > present in Dashadhyayi helping me to get an authentic

> confirmation

> > > > > for my own understanding.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now regarding Rahu-Ketu,i could find only couple of

> > > references.This

> > > > > is from chapter two.As Varahamihiracharya did not comment

> much on

> > > > > Rahu ketu,Dashadhyayi kara too did the same.

> > > > >

> > > > > 1)Shloka 2 or 3 from chapter 2 ,pointing to synonyms of

> > > > > grahas.Dashadhyayi says -The last two are Tamograhas(Rahu

> > > Ketu),after

> > > > > Parakasha,Tara.It talks about Jupiter and Venus as

> shubha,Saturn

> > > and

> > > > > Mars as ashubha etc , and then says Rahu and Ketu are ashubha

> as

> > > > > they DO NOT have any own,exaltation rashis etc.But

> > > > > Varahamihiracharya advises us to use infos from places

> regarding

> > > > > planets apart from those mentioned in this text.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus one thing is pretty clear -Even for Varahamihiracharya

> > > > > Own/exalation etc of Rahu/Ketu was unknown.I assume that was

> the

> > > > > case with Kalyan Varma too.

> > > > >

> > > > > 2)In Shloka 5,Rahu is is assigned with directions.I feel

> there are

> > > > > two opinions.a)Rahu rules the corresponding 4th direction

> after

> > > > > Sun,Venus and Mars.b)Rahu rules the Ishana Kon.Combining this

> with

> > > > > info from Krishneeyam,i feel Rahu related points are basically

> > > used

> > > > > in nashta prashnas etc,to find the direction of theft etc.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have not understood why only principles of Dashaadhyaayi

> are

> > > to

> > > > > be

> > > > > > followed and also whether the Dashaadhyaayikar has given any

> > > > > principles,

> > > > > > or if the text is a commentary on Brihat jataka. Do you mean

> > > that

> > > > > the

> > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar has given certain principles from which the

> > > yogas

> > > > > given

> > > > > > in Brihat Jataka emanate? If this is so, it may help the

> > > > > astrological

> > > > > > fraternity much. Do post the principles given. I am also

> curious

> > > > > to know

> > > > > > as to how the Dashaaadhyaayikar explains, Kalyanvarma not

> > > > > mentioning

> > > > > > anything about Rahu and Ketu in " Saravali " , since according

> to

> > > one

> > > > > of

> > > > > > your posts, if I have understood it right, he gives

> references

> > > > > from

> > > > > > Saravali during his interpretation of Brihat Jataka. It

> would

> > > > > really be

> > > > > > interesting to know what his principles say about Brihat

> jataka

> > > > > giving

> > > > > > yogas emanating from relative position of rahu and Ketu vis-

> a-

> > > vis

> > > > > > Saravali not even mentioning those shadow planets.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I look forward to the opinion of Dashaadhyaayikar on this

> > > > > difference

> > > > > > between Brihat jataka and Saravali. I am sure the readers

> will

> > > > > learn

> > > > > > much from the comments.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You had brought in shubha grahas placed and aspecting

> > > karakamsha

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > lagnamsha.Lagnamsha is one among the six vargas of lagna

> and

> > > > > hence

> > > > > > > the relevance.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If aspects in general is not possible in varga charts(as

> > > > > drishties

> > > > > > > emanate by longitudinal distances),then how will one

> interpret

> > > > > this

> > > > > > > is the doubt.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > When one follows the principls in dashdhyayi,when one

> follows

> > > the

> > > > > > > principle in nadi transits,when one follows navamsha

> tulya -

> > > rashi

> > > > > > > tulya -this shloka is not at all difficult to interpret.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Kindly see that Shukra and Saturn exchanging amshas and

> amsha

> > > of

> > > > > > > birth Lagna(not shukra) in ghata rashi is mentioned.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I can not understand the relevance of the shloka to the

> > > topic

> > > > > under

> > > > > > > > discussion. The shloka does talk about graha drishti but

> > > then

> > > > > there

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > more to the sphuta drishti than what the shloka

> conveys. But

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > shloka

> > > > > > > > does not certainly have t do anything with bhavas from

> > > > > karakamshas

> > > > > > > > having to be sen in rasi chart, by itself.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The shloka itself is clear enough to say that these are

> two

> > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > yogas. Shukra and Shani can not simultaneously occupy

> each

> > > > > other's

> > > > > > > > navamsha and also occupy the navamshas of Shani. However

> > > > > everyone

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > free to his own interpretation.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >