Varge as Plural - Shloka number and Link-Lagna Shadvargake

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

The shloka numbers as requested are -

 

Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 & 14.I am also providing

the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read them without any fonts.

 

http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

 

 

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is obvious

that

> only selective position is given.

>

> I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the point as you

are

> bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving them off

when

> evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to the

list. You

> began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and then

went on

> to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in D-Charts.

Then

> you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts. Then

followed

> the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in D-Charts.

> Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you changed the

> subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your translation

of

> shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has prohibited

use of

> any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the authority of

> Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for Bhava,

Ghatika,

> Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of the

> discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes. Even the

Amsha

> and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

confusion

> than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is Amsha

though

> Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference between

their

> meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on Vargas.

>

> This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains to

write down

> the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you said that

> dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why give

one

> liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what is?

>

> Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of Sanskrit to

suit

> what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects are not

> possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying that no

other

> charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk of other

charts

> is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in matters

astrological.

>

> If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free to

think

> that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra and rashi

> chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like that as

you

> claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what is now

being

> discussed and you will find it if you sift through the voluminous

> exchange of mail on this subject.

>

> I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart with a

point

> other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that, it is

not

> possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi chart can

be

> drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you references

from

> Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be drawn

that

> have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava, but am

sure you

> will then jump t o some other subject.

>

> If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be found

in Hora

> chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being one of

the

> shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain how

Lagna

> Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give the entire

> shloka with adhyaaya and shloka number).

>

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Difficulty to type in long interpretations is not to be

explained.I

> > do not know how it will become selective.

> >

> > I am bit concerned to see yourself drifting away from the main

> > point,in your recent posts.

> >

> > For eg - I am still awaiting your view on how to interpret Lagna

> > shadvargake,when aspects in vargas are not possible as per rules

set

> > by sages.BPHS and Late Santhanam.

> >

> > Inspite of this impossibility ,i don't know how we can think of

> > aspects in the first place.

> >

> > 1)Driksamstha was mentioned by you as example for ''Trimshamsha

> > chakra''.We have seen that it is not Trimshamsha chakra but rashi

> > chakra and navamsha combination.In Saravali too this is

> > mentioned.Dashadhayayi kara too has given the same meaning plus

> > Saravali as supportive.

> >

> > You were not agreeing.

> >

> > Now today i have seen from internet(www.brihaspati.net),English

> > translation of Saravali,where the shloka is interpreted exactly

the

> > same way as Dashadhyayi kara has done 800 years back.I request

> > members to go and read that.

> >

> > 2)Chapter 21 ,shloka 8 was mentioned by you as example for

amshas in

> > isolation.We have seen that it contains both rashi and amsha for

> > shoshee and together in karka or simha for another disease.

> >

> > 3)Today you are mentioning shloka 9.Which again is a combination

of

> > amshas and rashi combined with drishti in rashi.We have umpteen

> > shlokas in Saravali pointing to such drishtis.

> >

> > Thus i request you to kindly explain how Lagna shadvargake

shloka can

> > be explained.Thanks for clarifying that,Trimshamsha chakra was

your

> > personal view.

> >

> > As i have said nobody is opposing the drawing of amshas within

rashi

> > skeleton.Thus as you say drawing chart is pratyaksha.

> >

> > But Paramana was only seeked for shlokas talking about bhavas and

> > aspects.Riksha/Bhava/Rashi as synonyms makes the defintion

clear.Shri

> > PVR who himself is a Sanskrit scholar could only give one

shloka -

> > Lagnashadvargake.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > Had I had access to Dashaadhyaayi, I would not have troubled

you

> > with

> > > all these queries. If you say that you did not reproduce the

> > comments

> > > given by Dashaadhyaayikar and only the gist of what he says,

does

> > it

> > > mean you have given the comments selectively?

> > >

> > > Did I say in any of my mails that Bhattotpala said anything

about

> > > Trimshamsha Chakra? And does Dashaadhyaayikar, specifically,

says

> > that

> > > no other chart than rasi chart exists in astrology as you are

> > implying?

> > > I would doubt he could say so. If you read 9th shloka of 21st

> > adhyaaya

> > > of Brihat jataka your doubt about navamsha drishti would

perhaps be

> > > clarified, should you accept it to mean what it does.

> > >

> > > As I said that you having made up your mind as to drawing any

other

> > > chart other than a rasi chart as wrong, nothing will come out

of

> > this

> > > discussion. I really find it strange that even when almost all

> > > astrologers in India draw Navamasha chart as a matter of

course,

> > you

> > > deny that such a chart can exist. This is the first time that

I am

> > > seeing that Pramana is demanded for what is Pratyaksha.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > You may check with some of your friends on the detailed

level of

> > > > explanation in Dashadhyayi.As you might have noted with

> > bHATTOTPALA,

> > > > it will be difficult for me to quote explantions spanning

pages.

> > > >

> > > > Now i would love to know if Bhattotpala has mentioned any

> > Trimshamsha

> > > > chakra.Or was that your view.Bhattotpala can never say so.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > When you do not accept the Sanskrit shlokas from Brihat

jataka,

> > > > which

> > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar comments upon, let apart BPHS, what

purpose

> > can be

> > > > > served by giving the voluminous comments of Bhattotpala in

> > > > Sanskrit?

> > > > > Unlike Dashaadhyaayi (if you really gave the entire

shlokas)

> > > > Bhattotpala

> > > > > goes into explanation of each word in the shloka and then

gives

> > his

> > > > > opinion of what he understands Varaha Mihira to have meant

by

> > that

> > > > > shloka. I had already given the English translation of

what both

> > > > > Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha said in earlier mails. If you

go

> > > > through our

> > > > > voluminous correspondence, you will certainly get the same.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For the same reason i had provided the very Sanskrit

shloka

> > from

> > > > > > Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly if you

can

> > give

> > > > > > sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from Sitaram

> > jha ,issue

> > > > is

> > > > > > closed.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Okay, let me put it in your words. As you

said " Bhattotpala

> > might

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can

be your

> > > > view

> > > > > > about

> > > > > > > those translations. " Why should not Dashaadhyaayikar

not

> > have

> > > > been

> > > > > > > misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be your

> > views

> > > > about

> > > > > > > those translations? Any reason for the immunity? We

have

> > already

> > > > > > sen

> > > > > > > misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one scholar

on

> > this

> > > > very

> > > > > > list,

> > > > > > > not so long ago.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot be

wrong is

> > my

> > > > strong

> > > > > > > > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > -- In

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong then

so can

> > be

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that he

can

> > not be

> > > > if

> > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view was it

is

> > more

> > > > than

> > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > mere

> > > > > > > > > > commentary as it has clear explanations,while

thinking

> > > > from a

> > > > > > > > > > students perspective.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > As you know,inspite of having all those

> > commentaries,you

> > > > were

> > > > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a concern

for

> > > > > > me.Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > there were couple of other shlokas that you have

> > quoted as

> > > > > > > > examples.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been

misunderstood

> > > > > > > > (inadvertently)

> > > > > > > > > > by some or it can be your view about those

> > > > > > translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > > > > > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were

quoted by

> > > > me,for

> > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains

leaving no

> > > > > > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > > > > > cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi etc

will

> > > > make the

> > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > mistake.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit explanations

and not

> > > > > > > > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation is

pretty

> > > > straight

> > > > > > > > > > forward due to many similarities.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > --------------------

-----

> > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

I do not know what you are trying to prove here. However, the

translation is pretty straight forward and is:

 

" O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of the ascendant are occupied

or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is formed, without doubt. If

the aspect is full the results are full, if half, so are the results

half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th strength. "

 

This indicates that Parashara is talking about graha drishti here. No

doubt about that. rasi drishti are full drishtis. This is apparently so

as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha drishti can be seen. This

also means that Parashara is not himself accepting the 2 rasi hora

(Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by Varaha Mihira. So if you

accept the shloka as it is then you have to forget the Hora

interpretation of Brihat jataka and Dashaadhyaayi. Is that acceptable to

you?

 

 

If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact that aspects in divisional

charts are given in that shloka, is accepted by him, though he expresses

that he is unable to fully conceive the logic of these aspects.

 

So do I, now, presume that you are accepting aspects in D-Charts, now

that you have quoted the shloka and the supremacy of BPHS over

Dashaadhyaayi?

 

Let me make it clear that I personally do not treat one classic superior

or inferior to other, but this is what appears to be Pradeep's view as

he is quoting the shloka in support of his argument.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

 

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> The shloka numbers as requested are -

>

> Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 & 14.I am also providing

> the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read them without any fonts.

>

> http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is obvious

> that

> > only selective position is given.

> >

> > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the point as you

> are

> > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving them off

> when

> > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to the

> list. You

> > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and then

> went on

> > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in D-Charts.

> Then

> > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts. Then

> followed

> > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in D-Charts.

> > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you changed the

> > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your translation

> of

> > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has prohibited

> use of

> > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the authority of

> > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for Bhava,

> Ghatika,

> > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of the

> > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes. Even the

> Amsha

> > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

> confusion

> > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is Amsha

> though

> > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference between

> their

> > meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on Vargas.

> >

> > This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains to

> write down

> > the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you said that

> > dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why give

> one

> > liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what is?

> >

> > Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of Sanskrit to

> suit

> > what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects are not

> > possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying that no

> other

> > charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk of other

> charts

> > is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in matters

> astrological.

> >

> > If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free to

> think

> > that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra and rashi

> > chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like that as

> you

> > claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what is now

> being

> > discussed and you will find it if you sift through the voluminous

> > exchange of mail on this subject.

> >

> > I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart with a

> point

> > other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that, it is

> not

> > possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi chart can

> be

> > drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you references

> from

> > Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be drawn

> that

> > have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava, but am

> sure you

> > will then jump t o some other subject.

> >

> > If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be found

> in Hora

> > chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being one of

> the

> > shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain how

> Lagna

> > Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give the entire

> > shloka with adhyaaya and shloka number).

> >

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Difficulty to type in long interpretations is not to be

> explained.I

> > > do not know how it will become selective.

> > >

> > > I am bit concerned to see yourself drifting away from the main

> > > point,in your recent posts.

> > >

> > > For eg - I am still awaiting your view on how to interpret Lagna

> > > shadvargake,when aspects in vargas are not possible as per rules

> set

> > > by sages.BPHS and Late Santhanam.

> > >

> > > Inspite of this impossibility ,i don't know how we can think of

> > > aspects in the first place.

> > >

> > > 1)Driksamstha was mentioned by you as example for ''Trimshamsha

> > > chakra''.We have seen that it is not Trimshamsha chakra but rashi

> > > chakra and navamsha combination.In Saravali too this is

> > > mentioned.Dashadhayayi kara too has given the same meaning plus

> > > Saravali as supportive.

> > >

> > > You were not agreeing.

> > >

> > > Now today i have seen from internet(www.brihaspati.net),English

> > > translation of Saravali,where the shloka is interpreted exactly

> the

> > > same way as Dashadhyayi kara has done 800 years back.I request

> > > members to go and read that.

> > >

> > > 2)Chapter 21 ,shloka 8 was mentioned by you as example for

> amshas in

> > > isolation.We have seen that it contains both rashi and amsha for

> > > shoshee and together in karka or simha for another disease.

> > >

> > > 3)Today you are mentioning shloka 9.Which again is a combination

> of

> > > amshas and rashi combined with drishti in rashi.We have umpteen

> > > shlokas in Saravali pointing to such drishtis.

> > >

> > > Thus i request you to kindly explain how Lagna shadvargake

> shloka can

> > > be explained.Thanks for clarifying that,Trimshamsha chakra was

> your

> > > personal view.

> > >

> > > As i have said nobody is opposing the drawing of amshas within

> rashi

> > > skeleton.Thus as you say drawing chart is pratyaksha.

> > >

> > > But Paramana was only seeked for shlokas talking about bhavas and

> > > aspects.Riksha/Bhava/Rashi as synonyms makes the defintion

> clear.Shri

> > > PVR who himself is a Sanskrit scholar could only give one

> shloka -

> > > Lagnashadvargake.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > Had I had access to Dashaadhyaayi, I would not have troubled

> you

> > > with

> > > > all these queries. If you say that you did not reproduce the

> > > comments

> > > > given by Dashaadhyaayikar and only the gist of what he says,

> does

> > > it

> > > > mean you have given the comments selectively?

> > > >

> > > > Did I say in any of my mails that Bhattotpala said anything

> about

> > > > Trimshamsha Chakra? And does Dashaadhyaayikar, specifically,

> says

> > > that

> > > > no other chart than rasi chart exists in astrology as you are

> > > implying?

> > > > I would doubt he could say so. If you read 9th shloka of 21st

> > > adhyaaya

> > > > of Brihat jataka your doubt about navamsha drishti would

> perhaps be

> > > > clarified, should you accept it to mean what it does.

> > > >

> > > > As I said that you having made up your mind as to drawing any

> other

> > > > chart other than a rasi chart as wrong, nothing will come out

> of

> > > this

> > > > discussion. I really find it strange that even when almost all

> > > > astrologers in India draw Navamasha chart as a matter of

> course,

> > > you

> > > > deny that such a chart can exist. This is the first time that

> I am

> > > > seeing that Pramana is demanded for what is Pratyaksha.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > You may check with some of your friends on the detailed

> level of

> > > > > explanation in Dashadhyayi.As you might have noted with

> > > bHATTOTPALA,

> > > > > it will be difficult for me to quote explantions spanning

> pages.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now i would love to know if Bhattotpala has mentioned any

> > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > chakra.Or was that your view.Bhattotpala can never say so.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > When you do not accept the Sanskrit shlokas from Brihat

> jataka,

> > > > > which

> > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar comments upon, let apart BPHS, what

> purpose

> > > can be

> > > > > > served by giving the voluminous comments of Bhattotpala in

> > > > > Sanskrit?

> > > > > > Unlike Dashaadhyaayi (if you really gave the entire

> shlokas)

> > > > > Bhattotpala

> > > > > > goes into explanation of each word in the shloka and then

> gives

> > > his

> > > > > > opinion of what he understands Varaha Mihira to have meant

> by

> > > that

> > > > > > shloka. I had already given the English translation of

> what both

> > > > > > Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha said in earlier mails. If you

> go

> > > > > through our

> > > > > > voluminous correspondence, you will certainly get the same.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > For the same reason i had provided the very Sanskrit

> shloka

> > > from

> > > > > > > Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly if you

> can

> > > give

> > > > > > > sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from Sitaram

> > > jha ,issue

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > closed.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Okay, let me put it in your words. As you

> said " Bhattotpala

> > > might

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can

> be your

> > > > > view

> > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > those translations. " Why should not Dashaadhyaayikar

> not

> > > have

> > > > > been

> > > > > > > > misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be your

> > > views

> > > > > about

> > > > > > > > those translations? Any reason for the immunity? We

> have

> > > already

> > > > > > > sen

> > > > > > > > misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one scholar

> on

> > > this

> > > > > very

> > > > > > > list,

> > > > > > > > not so long ago.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot be

> wrong is

> > > my

> > > > > strong

> > > > > > > > > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -- In

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

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

> Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong then

> so can

> > > be

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that he

> can

> > > not be

> > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view was it

> is

> > > more

> > > > > than

> > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > mere

> > > > > > > > > > > commentary as it has clear explanations,while

> thinking

> > > > > from a

> > > > > > > > > > > students perspective.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > As you know,inspite of having all those

> > > commentaries,you

> > > > > were

> > > > > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a concern

> for

> > > > > > > me.Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > > there were couple of other shlokas that you have

> > > quoted as

> > > > > > > > > examples.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been

> misunderstood

> > > > > > > > > (inadvertently)

> > > > > > > > > > > by some or it can be your view about those

> > > > > > > translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > > > > > > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were

> quoted by

> > > > > me,for

> > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains

> leaving no

> > > > > > > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > > > > > > cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi etc

> will

> > > > > make the

> > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > mistake.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit explanations

> and not

> > > > > > > > > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation is

> pretty

> > > > > straight

> > > > > > > > > > > forward due to many similarities.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > --------------------

> -----

> > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

 

Thanks for this mail and the translation of the Shloka in BPHS.

I guess it has been conclusively proven that the aspects are

allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not sure if everyone

gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure. And, I am happy

that I am in the right path.

 

However, the question remains that what is the principle behind

allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even if they are a

restricted set.

 

I guess the ancient authors have not explained the principle

behind the same. However, I would be very glad if you could

share your thoughts on this.

 

Regards,

Krishna

 

--- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

 

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I do not know what you are trying to prove here. However, the

> translation is pretty straight forward and is:

>

> " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of the ascendant are

> occupied

> or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is formed, without

> doubt. If

> the aspect is full the results are full, if half, so are the

> results

> half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th strength. "

>

> This indicates that Parashara is talking about graha drishti

> here. No

> doubt about that. rasi drishti are full drishtis. This is

> apparently so

> as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha drishti can be

> seen. This

> also means that Parashara is not himself accepting the 2 rasi

> hora

> (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by Varaha Mihira.

> So if you

> accept the shloka as it is then you have to forget the Hora

> interpretation of Brihat jataka and Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

> acceptable to

> you?

>

>

> If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact that aspects in

> divisional

> charts are given in that shloka, is accepted by him, though he

> expresses

> that he is unable to fully conceive the logic of these

> aspects.

>

> So do I, now, presume that you are accepting aspects in

> D-Charts, now

> that you have quoted the shloka and the supremacy of BPHS over

>

> Dashaadhyaayi?

>

> Let me make it clear that I personally do not treat one

> classic superior

> or inferior to other, but this is what appears to be Pradeep's

> view as

> he is quoting the shloka in support of his argument.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> >

> > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 & 14.I am also

> providing

> > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read them without any

> fonts.

> >

> > http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is

> obvious

> > that

> > > only selective position is given.

> > >

> > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the

> point as you

> > are

> > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving

> them off

> > when

> > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to

> the

> > list. You

> > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and

> then

> > went on

> > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in

> D-Charts.

> > Then

> > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts.

> Then

> > followed

> > > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in

> D-Charts.

> > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you

> changed the

> > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your

> translation

> > of

> > > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has

> prohibited

> > use of

> > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the

> authority of

> > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for

> Bhava,

> > Ghatika,

> > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of

> the

> > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes.

> Even the

> > Amsha

> > > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

> > confusion

> > > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is

> Amsha

> > though

> > > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference

> between

> > their

> > > meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on

> Vargas.

> > >

> > > This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains

> to

> > write down

> > > the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you

> said that

> > > dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why

> give

> > one

> > > liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what

> is?

> > >

> > > Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of

> Sanskrit to

> > suit

> > > what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects

> are not

> > > possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying

> that no

> > other

> > > charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk

> of other

> > charts

> > > is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in

> matters

> > astrological.

> > >

> > > If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free

> to

> > think

> > > that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra

> and rashi

> > > chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like

> that as

> > you

> > > claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what

> is now

> > being

> > > discussed and you will find it if you sift through the

> voluminous

> > > exchange of mail on this subject.

> > >

> > > I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart

> with a

> > point

> > > other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that,

> it is

> > not

> > > possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi

> chart can

> > be

> > > drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you

> references

> > from

> > > Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be

> drawn

> > that

> > > have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava,

> but am

> > sure you

> > > will then jump t o some other subject.

> > >

> > > If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be

> found

> > in Hora

> > > chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being

> one of

> > the

> > > shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain

> how

> > Lagna

> > > Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give

> the entire

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the

Auto Green Center.

http://autos./green_center/

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

Thanks Chandrashekharji for the traslation of the

shloka.

 

Again I am not sure how can one conclusively say sage

is sactioning aspects in divisions ? This has been the

debate for years. Six divisions of lagna. Can the

divisions of lagna exist in rashi chart ? Ofcourse

they can. Is there anything in the shloka that

suggests that the aspect has to be seen in divisions.

Can the same graha aspect or occupy the six divisions

of lagna in the rashi chart ?

 

Thanks

 

Satish

--- Krishnamurthy Seetharama <krishna_1998

wrote:

 

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

>

> Thanks for this mail and the translation of the

> Shloka in BPHS.

> I guess it has been conclusively proven that the

> aspects are

> allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not sure

> if everyone

> gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure. And,

> I am happy

> that I am in the right path.

>

> However, the question remains that what is the

> principle behind

> allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even if

> they are a

> restricted set.

>

> I guess the ancient authors have not explained the

> principle

> behind the same. However, I would be very glad if

> you could

> share your thoughts on this.

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

> --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46

> wrote:

>

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I do not know what you are trying to prove here.

> However, the

> > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> >

> > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of the

> ascendant are

> > occupied

> > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is

> formed, without

> > doubt. If

> > the aspect is full the results are full, if half,

> so are the

> > results

> > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th

> strength. "

> >

> > This indicates that Parashara is talking about

> graha drishti

> > here. No

> > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full drishtis.

> This is

> > apparently so

> > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha

> drishti can be

> > seen. This

> > also means that Parashara is not himself accepting

> the 2 rasi

> > hora

> > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by

> Varaha Mihira.

> > So if you

> > accept the shloka as it is then you have to forget

> the Hora

> > interpretation of Brihat jataka and Dashaadhyaayi.

> Is that

> > acceptable to

> > you?

> >

> >

> > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact that

> aspects in

> > divisional

> > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted by

> him, though he

> > expresses

> > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic of

> these

> > aspects.

> >

> > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting

> aspects in

> > D-Charts, now

> > that you have quoted the shloka and the supremacy

> of BPHS over

> >

> > Dashaadhyaayi?

> >

> > Let me make it clear that I personally do not

> treat one

> > classic superior

> > or inferior to other, but this is what appears to

> be Pradeep's

> > view as

> > he is quoting the shloka in support of his

> argument.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> > >

> > > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 &

> 14.I am also

> > providing

> > > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read them

> without any

> > fonts.

> > >

> > > http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

>

> > >

> <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given

> then it is

> > obvious

> > > that

> > > > only selective position is given.

> > > >

> > > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away

> from the

> > point as you

> > > are

> > > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and

> leaving

> > them off

> > > when

> > > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of

> the members to

> > the

> > > list. You

> > > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming

> from BPHS and

> > then

> > > went on

> > > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not

> possible in

> > D-Charts.

> > > Then

> > > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in

> D-Charts.

> > Then

> > > followed

> > > > the argument that Santanam does not consider

> aspects in

> > D-Charts.

> > > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the

> contrary you

> > changed the

> > > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens

> with your

> > translation

> > > of

> > > > shlokas and also trying to project that some

> sage has

> > prohibited

> > > use of

> > > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted

> on the

> > authority of

> > > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw

> charts for

> > Bhava,

> > > Ghatika,

> > > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the

> direction of

> > the

> > > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting

> the quotes.

> > Even the

> > > Amsha

> > > > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in

> is more for

> > > confusion

> > > > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude

> and so is

> > Amsha

> > > though

> > > > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The

> difference

> > between

> > > their

> > > > meaning is negligible with reference to the

> discussion on

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Building a website is a piece of cake. Small Business gives you all the

tools to get online.

http://smallbusiness./webhosting

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

Thanks a lot for the reply.I will explain as you are not sure on

what i am trying to prove.

 

Your translation is perfect.But that is not the point of debate.

Will such an aspect confirm to rules set by sage.As per BPHS No.As

per Late Santhanam No. This has been the debate for all these

years ,not about the translation.

Then where are these aspects?We will come to this later.But we have

a very very important point to address before that.

 

All these years until yesterday,you were of the opinion,that you do

not accept aspects in divisonal charts as a rule.You have added

that,you will use aspects when sage mentions so, in a few cases.

 

Now today,if you understand,the shloka as mentioning to aspects in

varga chakras - you are accepting grahadrishti as a RULE in ''varga

chakras''.This is so because,any planet can be placed anywhere in 6

varga-chakras and aspect Lagna.So you are accepting graha drishtis

in Varga chakra as a rule.It is fine with me.It is your personal

view.

 

Now could you please tell me the reason for this change in

opinion.Also could you tell me why all these years,you were of the

opinion that Graha drishti as a rule is not possible in Varga

chakras.Myself and the astrological community would really be

interested in knowing the reason.

 

After that ,i will say why graha drishtis are not possible w.r to

BPHS with pramanas.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I do not know what you are trying to prove here. However, the

> translation is pretty straight forward and is:

>

> " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of the ascendant are

occupied

> or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is formed, without

doubt. If

> the aspect is full the results are full, if half, so are the

results

> half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th strength. "

>

> This indicates that Parashara is talking about graha drishti here.

No

> doubt about that. rasi drishti are full drishtis. This is

apparently so

> as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha drishti can be

seen. This

> also means that Parashara is not himself accepting the 2 rasi hora

> (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by Varaha Mihira. So

if you

> accept the shloka as it is then you have to forget the Hora

> interpretation of Brihat jataka and Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

acceptable to

> you?

>

>

> If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact that aspects in

divisional

> charts are given in that shloka, is accepted by him, though he

expresses

> that he is unable to fully conceive the logic of these aspects.

>

> So do I, now, presume that you are accepting aspects in D-Charts,

now

> that you have quoted the shloka and the supremacy of BPHS over

> Dashaadhyaayi?

>

> Let me make it clear that I personally do not treat one classic

superior

> or inferior to other, but this is what appears to be Pradeep's

view as

> he is quoting the shloka in support of his argument.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> >

> > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 & 14.I am also

providing

> > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read them without any

fonts.

> >

> > http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is

obvious

> > that

> > > only selective position is given.

> > >

> > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the point as

you

> > are

> > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving them off

> > when

> > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to the

> > list. You

> > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and then

> > went on

> > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in D-

Charts.

> > Then

> > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts. Then

> > followed

> > > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in D-

Charts.

> > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you changed

the

> > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your

translation

> > of

> > > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has

prohibited

> > use of

> > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the authority

of

> > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for Bhava,

> > Ghatika,

> > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of the

> > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes. Even

the

> > Amsha

> > > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

> > confusion

> > > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is Amsha

> > though

> > > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference between

> > their

> > > meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on

Vargas.

> > >

> > > This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains to

> > write down

> > > the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you said

that

> > > dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why give

> > one

> > > liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what is?

> > >

> > > Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of Sanskrit to

> > suit

> > > what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects are

not

> > > possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying

that no

> > other

> > > charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk of

other

> > charts

> > > is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in matters

> > astrological.

> > >

> > > If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free to

> > think

> > > that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra and

rashi

> > > chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like that as

> > you

> > > claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what is

now

> > being

> > > discussed and you will find it if you sift through the

voluminous

> > > exchange of mail on this subject.

> > >

> > > I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart with a

> > point

> > > other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that, it is

> > not

> > > possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi chart

can

> > be

> > > drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you references

> > from

> > > Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be drawn

> > that

> > > have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava, but am

> > sure you

> > > will then jump t o some other subject.

> > >

> > > If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be

found

> > in Hora

> > > chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being one of

> > the

> > > shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain how

> > Lagna

> > > Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give the

entire

> > > shloka with adhyaaya and shloka number).

> > >

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Difficulty to type in long interpretations is not to be

> > explained.I

> > > > do not know how it will become selective.

> > > >

> > > > I am bit concerned to see yourself drifting away from the

main

> > > > point,in your recent posts.

> > > >

> > > > For eg - I am still awaiting your view on how to interpret

Lagna

> > > > shadvargake,when aspects in vargas are not possible as per

rules

> > set

> > > > by sages.BPHS and Late Santhanam.

> > > >

> > > > Inspite of this impossibility ,i don't know how we can think

of

> > > > aspects in the first place.

> > > >

> > > > 1)Driksamstha was mentioned by you as example

for ''Trimshamsha

> > > > chakra''.We have seen that it is not Trimshamsha chakra but

rashi

> > > > chakra and navamsha combination.In Saravali too this is

> > > > mentioned.Dashadhayayi kara too has given the same meaning

plus

> > > > Saravali as supportive.

> > > >

> > > > You were not agreeing.

> > > >

> > > > Now today i have seen from internet

(www.brihaspati.net),English

> > > > translation of Saravali,where the shloka is interpreted

exactly

> > the

> > > > same way as Dashadhyayi kara has done 800 years back.I

request

> > > > members to go and read that.

> > > >

> > > > 2)Chapter 21 ,shloka 8 was mentioned by you as example for

> > amshas in

> > > > isolation.We have seen that it contains both rashi and amsha

for

> > > > shoshee and together in karka or simha for another disease.

> > > >

> > > > 3)Today you are mentioning shloka 9.Which again is a

combination

> > of

> > > > amshas and rashi combined with drishti in rashi.We have

umpteen

> > > > shlokas in Saravali pointing to such drishtis.

> > > >

> > > > Thus i request you to kindly explain how Lagna shadvargake

> > shloka can

> > > > be explained.Thanks for clarifying that,Trimshamsha chakra

was

> > your

> > > > personal view.

> > > >

> > > > As i have said nobody is opposing the drawing of amshas

within

> > rashi

> > > > skeleton.Thus as you say drawing chart is pratyaksha.

> > > >

> > > > But Paramana was only seeked for shlokas talking about

bhavas and

> > > > aspects.Riksha/Bhava/Rashi as synonyms makes the defintion

> > clear.Shri

> > > > PVR who himself is a Sanskrit scholar could only give one

> > shloka -

> > > > Lagnashadvargake.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > Had I had access to Dashaadhyaayi, I would not have

troubled

> > you

> > > > with

> > > > > all these queries. If you say that you did not reproduce

the

> > > > comments

> > > > > given by Dashaadhyaayikar and only the gist of what he

says,

> > does

> > > > it

> > > > > mean you have given the comments selectively?

> > > > >

> > > > > Did I say in any of my mails that Bhattotpala said anything

> > about

> > > > > Trimshamsha Chakra? And does Dashaadhyaayikar,

specifically,

> > says

> > > > that

> > > > > no other chart than rasi chart exists in astrology as you

are

> > > > implying?

> > > > > I would doubt he could say so. If you read 9th shloka of

21st

> > > > adhyaaya

> > > > > of Brihat jataka your doubt about navamsha drishti would

> > perhaps be

> > > > > clarified, should you accept it to mean what it does.

> > > > >

> > > > > As I said that you having made up your mind as to drawing

any

> > other

> > > > > chart other than a rasi chart as wrong, nothing will come

out

> > of

> > > > this

> > > > > discussion. I really find it strange that even when almost

all

> > > > > astrologers in India draw Navamasha chart as a matter of

> > course,

> > > > you

> > > > > deny that such a chart can exist. This is the first time

that

> > I am

> > > > > seeing that Pramana is demanded for what is Pratyaksha.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You may check with some of your friends on the detailed

> > level of

> > > > > > explanation in Dashadhyayi.As you might have noted with

> > > > bHATTOTPALA,

> > > > > > it will be difficult for me to quote explantions spanning

> > pages.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now i would love to know if Bhattotpala has mentioned any

> > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > chakra.Or was that your view.Bhattotpala can never say

so.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > When you do not accept the Sanskrit shlokas from Brihat

> > jataka,

> > > > > > which

> > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar comments upon, let apart BPHS, what

> > purpose

> > > > can be

> > > > > > > served by giving the voluminous comments of

Bhattotpala in

> > > > > > Sanskrit?

> > > > > > > Unlike Dashaadhyaayi (if you really gave the entire

> > shlokas)

> > > > > > Bhattotpala

> > > > > > > goes into explanation of each word in the shloka and

then

> > gives

> > > > his

> > > > > > > opinion of what he understands Varaha Mihira to have

meant

> > by

> > > > that

> > > > > > > shloka. I had already given the English translation of

> > what both

> > > > > > > Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha said in earlier mails. If

you

> > go

> > > > > > through our

> > > > > > > voluminous correspondence, you will certainly get the

same.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > For the same reason i had provided the very Sanskrit

> > shloka

> > > > from

> > > > > > > > Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly if

you

> > can

> > > > give

> > > > > > > > sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from

Sitaram

> > > > jha ,issue

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > closed.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Okay, let me put it in your words. As you

> > said " Bhattotpala

> > > > might

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it

can

> > be your

> > > > > > view

> > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > those translations. " Why should not

Dashaadhyaayikar

> > not

> > > > have

> > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be

your

> > > > views

> > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > those translations? Any reason for the immunity? We

> > have

> > > > already

> > > > > > > > sen

> > > > > > > > > misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one

scholar

> > on

> > > > this

> > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > list,

> > > > > > > > > not so long ago.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot be

> > wrong is

> > > > my

> > > > > > strong

> > > > > > > > > > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -- In

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

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

> > Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong

then

> > so can

> > > > be

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that

he

> > can

> > > > not be

> > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view

was it

> > is

> > > > more

> > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > mere

> > > > > > > > > > > > commentary as it has clear explanations,while

> > thinking

> > > > > > from a

> > > > > > > > > > > > students perspective.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > As you know,inspite of having all those

> > > > commentaries,you

> > > > > > were

> > > > > > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > > > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a

concern

> > for

> > > > > > > > me.Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > > > there were couple of other shlokas that you

have

> > > > quoted as

> > > > > > > > > > examples.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been

> > misunderstood

> > > > > > > > > > (inadvertently)

> > > > > > > > > > > > by some or it can be your view about those

> > > > > > > > translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > > > > > > > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were

> > quoted by

> > > > > > me,for

> > > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains

> > leaving no

> > > > > > > > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi

etc

> > will

> > > > > > make the

> > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > mistake.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit

explanations

> > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation

is

> > pretty

> > > > > > straight

> > > > > > > > > > > > forward due to many similarities.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > ----------------

----

> > -----

> > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > --------------------

----

> > -

> > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishna ji

 

I would request you to give me a chance and an open view until the

discussions are over.

 

If we accept Chandrashekhar jis view,then graha drishti as a rule

has to be accepted.It is in violation to rules set by Parashara.This

will be explained later.

 

It is at your discretion to ask doubts to chandrashekhar ji and it

is my kind request to hold on before you conclude.

 

Hope i am not asking too much.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

, Krishnamurthy Seetharama

<krishna_1998 wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

>

> Thanks for this mail and the translation of the Shloka in BPHS.

> I guess it has been conclusively proven that the aspects are

> allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not sure if everyone

> gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure. And, I am happy

> that I am in the right path.

>

> However, the question remains that what is the principle behind

> allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even if they are a

> restricted set.

>

> I guess the ancient authors have not explained the principle

> behind the same. However, I would be very glad if you could

> share your thoughts on this.

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

> --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I do not know what you are trying to prove here. However, the

> > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> >

> > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of the ascendant are

> > occupied

> > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is formed, without

> > doubt. If

> > the aspect is full the results are full, if half, so are the

> > results

> > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th strength. "

> >

> > This indicates that Parashara is talking about graha drishti

> > here. No

> > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full drishtis. This is

> > apparently so

> > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha drishti can be

> > seen. This

> > also means that Parashara is not himself accepting the 2 rasi

> > hora

> > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by Varaha Mihira.

> > So if you

> > accept the shloka as it is then you have to forget the Hora

> > interpretation of Brihat jataka and Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

> > acceptable to

> > you?

> >

> >

> > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact that aspects in

> > divisional

> > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted by him, though he

> > expresses

> > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic of these

> > aspects.

> >

> > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting aspects in

> > D-Charts, now

> > that you have quoted the shloka and the supremacy of BPHS over

> >

> > Dashaadhyaayi?

> >

> > Let me make it clear that I personally do not treat one

> > classic superior

> > or inferior to other, but this is what appears to be Pradeep's

> > view as

> > he is quoting the shloka in support of his argument.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> > >

> > > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 & 14.I am also

> > providing

> > > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read them without any

> > fonts.

> > >

> > > http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is

> > obvious

> > > that

> > > > only selective position is given.

> > > >

> > > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the

> > point as you

> > > are

> > > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving

> > them off

> > > when

> > > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to

> > the

> > > list. You

> > > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and

> > then

> > > went on

> > > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in

> > D-Charts.

> > > Then

> > > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts.

> > Then

> > > followed

> > > > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in

> > D-Charts.

> > > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you

> > changed the

> > > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your

> > translation

> > > of

> > > > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has

> > prohibited

> > > use of

> > > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the

> > authority of

> > > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for

> > Bhava,

> > > Ghatika,

> > > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of

> > the

> > > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes.

> > Even the

> > > Amsha

> > > > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

> > > confusion

> > > > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is

> > Amsha

> > > though

> > > > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference

> > between

> > > their

> > > > meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on

> > Vargas.

> > > >

> > > > This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains

> > to

> > > write down

> > > > the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you

> > said that

> > > > dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why

> > give

> > > one

> > > > liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what

> > is?

> > > >

> > > > Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of

> > Sanskrit to

> > > suit

> > > > what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects

> > are not

> > > > possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying

> > that no

> > > other

> > > > charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk

> > of other

> > > charts

> > > > is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in

> > matters

> > > astrological.

> > > >

> > > > If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free

> > to

> > > think

> > > > that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra

> > and rashi

> > > > chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like

> > that as

> > > you

> > > > claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what

> > is now

> > > being

> > > > discussed and you will find it if you sift through the

> > voluminous

> > > > exchange of mail on this subject.

> > > >

> > > > I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart

> > with a

> > > point

> > > > other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that,

> > it is

> > > not

> > > > possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi

> > chart can

> > > be

> > > > drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you

> > references

> > > from

> > > > Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be

> > drawn

> > > that

> > > > have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava,

> > but am

> > > sure you

> > > > will then jump t o some other subject.

> > > >

> > > > If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be

> > found

> > > in Hora

> > > > chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being

> > one of

> > > the

> > > > shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain

> > how

> > > Lagna

> > > > Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give

> > the entire

> >

> === message truncated ===

>

>

>

>

___________________

_______________

> Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative

vehicles. Visit the Auto Green Center.

> http://autos./green_center/

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishna,

 

The reason for aspects being allowed within D-charts may have to do with

the " Grahasphutadrishtikathanaadhyaaya " where evaluation of different

aspects of grahas are given and they range from 30 degrees onwards in

increments of 0.30 degrees each till 299.30 as per table given by Late

R. Santanam. There is no repetition of amshas attributed to one rasi

within a rasi in the first harmonic chart class and therefore these

drishtis become applicable. In higher harmonics these may not be

applicable as rasi equivalent Varga will repeat, within 30 degrees and

that is why I personally would look at rasi drishti there.

 

Of course the above is my personal opinion on the logic behind the

aspects, within D-Charts, and the way they may be considered and it is

up to the learned to decide whether this view is right or not.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

 

Krishnamurthy Seetharama wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

>

> Thanks for this mail and the translation of the Shloka in BPHS.

> I guess it has been conclusively proven that the aspects are

> allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not sure if everyone

> gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure. And, I am happy

> that I am in the right path.

>

> However, the question remains that what is the principle behind

> allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even if they are a

> restricted set.

>

> I guess the ancient authors have not explained the principle

> behind the same. However, I would be very glad if you could

> share your thoughts on this.

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

> --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46

> <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>> wrote:

>

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I do not know what you are trying to prove here. However, the

> > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> >

> > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of the ascendant are

> > occupied

> > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is formed, without

> > doubt. If

> > the aspect is full the results are full, if half, so are the

> > results

> > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th strength. "

> >

> > This indicates that Parashara is talking about graha drishti

> > here. No

> > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full drishtis. This is

> > apparently so

> > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha drishti can be

> > seen. This

> > also means that Parashara is not himself accepting the 2 rasi

> > hora

> > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by Varaha Mihira.

> > So if you

> > accept the shloka as it is then you have to forget the Hora

> > interpretation of Brihat jataka and Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

> > acceptable to

> > you?

> >

> >

> > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact that aspects in

> > divisional

> > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted by him, though he

> > expresses

> > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic of these

> > aspects.

> >

> > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting aspects in

> > D-Charts, now

> > that you have quoted the shloka and the supremacy of BPHS over

> >

> > Dashaadhyaayi?

> >

> > Let me make it clear that I personally do not treat one

> > classic superior

> > or inferior to other, but this is what appears to be Pradeep's

> > view as

> > he is quoting the shloka in support of his argument.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> > >

> > > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 & 14.I am also

> > providing

> > > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read them without any

> > fonts.

> > >

> > > http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>>

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is

> > obvious

> > > that

> > > > only selective position is given.

> > > >

> > > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the

> > point as you

> > > are

> > > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving

> > them off

> > > when

> > > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to

> > the

> > > list. You

> > > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and

> > then

> > > went on

> > > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in

> > D-Charts.

> > > Then

> > > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts.

> > Then

> > > followed

> > > > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in

> > D-Charts.

> > > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you

> > changed the

> > > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your

> > translation

> > > of

> > > > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has

> > prohibited

> > > use of

> > > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the

> > authority of

> > > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for

> > Bhava,

> > > Ghatika,

> > > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of

> > the

> > > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes.

> > Even the

> > > Amsha

> > > > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

> > > confusion

> > > > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is

> > Amsha

> > > though

> > > > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference

> > between

> > > their

> > > > meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on

> > Vargas.

> > > >

> > > > This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains

> > to

> > > write down

> > > > the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you

> > said that

> > > > dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why

> > give

> > > one

> > > > liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what

> > is?

> > > >

> > > > Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of

> > Sanskrit to

> > > suit

> > > > what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects

> > are not

> > > > possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying

> > that no

> > > other

> > > > charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk

> > of other

> > > charts

> > > > is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in

> > matters

> > > astrological.

> > > >

> > > > If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free

> > to

> > > think

> > > > that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra

> > and rashi

> > > > chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like

> > that as

> > > you

> > > > claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what

> > is now

> > > being

> > > > discussed and you will find it if you sift through the

> > voluminous

> > > > exchange of mail on this subject.

> > > >

> > > > I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart

> > with a

> > > point

> > > > other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that,

> > it is

> > > not

> > > > possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi

> > chart can

> > > be

> > > > drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you

> > references

> > > from

> > > > Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be

> > drawn

> > > that

> > > > have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava,

> > but am

> > > sure you

> > > > will then jump t o some other subject.

> > > >

> > > > If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be

> > found

> > > in Hora

> > > > chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being

> > one of

> > > the

> > > > shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain

> > how

> > > Lagna

> > > > Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give

> > the entire

> >

> === message truncated ===

>

> ________

> Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.

> Visit the Auto Green Center.

> http://autos./green_center/

> <http://autos./green_center/>

>

>

> ------

>

>

>

> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.17/915 - Release 7/24/2007

1:50 PM

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Satish,

 

I have given the translation of the shloka. It is up to the learned to

find out whether it is indeed possible for a graha to occupy a

particular amsha and occupy all the six Vargas equivalent to the rashi

occupied, in one and the same rashi and that too for all rasis. Only

then can one say that the reference is not to drishti within a D-Chart.

I doubt that can be the case. However as I said it is for the learned

for put in a bit of effort and find out for themselves.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

SPK wrote:

>

> Hi,

>

> Thanks Chandrashekharji for the traslation of the

> shloka.

>

> Again I am not sure how can one conclusively say sage

> is sactioning aspects in divisions ? This has been the

> debate for years. Six divisions of lagna. Can the

> divisions of lagna exist in rashi chart ? Ofcourse

> they can. Is there anything in the shloka that

> suggests that the aspect has to be seen in divisions.

> Can the same graha aspect or occupy the six divisions

> of lagna in the rashi chart ?

>

> Thanks

>

> Satish

> --- Krishnamurthy Seetharama <krishna_1998

> <krishna_1998%40>>

> wrote:

>

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> >

> > Thanks for this mail and the translation of the

> > Shloka in BPHS.

> > I guess it has been conclusively proven that the

> > aspects are

> > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not sure

> > if everyone

> > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure. And,

> > I am happy

> > that I am in the right path.

> >

> > However, the question remains that what is the

> > principle behind

> > allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even if

> > they are a

> > restricted set.

> >

> > I guess the ancient authors have not explained the

> > principle

> > behind the same. However, I would be very glad if

> > you could

> > share your thoughts on this.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Krishna

> >

> > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46

> <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>>

> > wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I do not know what you are trying to prove here.

> > However, the

> > > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> > >

> > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of the

> > ascendant are

> > > occupied

> > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is

> > formed, without

> > > doubt. If

> > > the aspect is full the results are full, if half,

> > so are the

> > > results

> > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th

> > strength. "

> > >

> > > This indicates that Parashara is talking about

> > graha drishti

> > > here. No

> > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full drishtis.

> > This is

> > > apparently so

> > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha

> > drishti can be

> > > seen. This

> > > also means that Parashara is not himself accepting

> > the 2 rasi

> > > hora

> > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by

> > Varaha Mihira.

> > > So if you

> > > accept the shloka as it is then you have to forget

> > the Hora

> > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and Dashaadhyaayi.

> > Is that

> > > acceptable to

> > > you?

> > >

> > >

> > > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact that

> > aspects in

> > > divisional

> > > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted by

> > him, though he

> > > expresses

> > > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic of

> > these

> > > aspects.

> > >

> > > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting

> > aspects in

> > > D-Charts, now

> > > that you have quoted the shloka and the supremacy

> > of BPHS over

> > >

> > > Dashaadhyaayi?

> > >

> > > Let me make it clear that I personally do not

> > treat one

> > > classic superior

> > > or inferior to other, but this is what appears to

> > be Pradeep's

> > > view as

> > > he is quoting the shloka in support of his

> > argument.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> > > >

> > > > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 &

> > 14.I am also

> > > providing

> > > > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read them

> > without any

> > > fonts.

> > > >

> > > > http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> >

> > > >

> > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>>

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> <%40>

> > > > <%40>,

> > Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given

> > then it is

> > > obvious

> > > > that

> > > > > only selective position is given.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away

> > from the

> > > point as you

> > > > are

> > > > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and

> > leaving

> > > them off

> > > > when

> > > > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of

> > the members to

> > > the

> > > > list. You

> > > > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming

> > from BPHS and

> > > then

> > > > went on

> > > > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not

> > possible in

> > > D-Charts.

> > > > Then

> > > > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in

> > D-Charts.

> > > Then

> > > > followed

> > > > > the argument that Santanam does not consider

> > aspects in

> > > D-Charts.

> > > > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the

> > contrary you

> > > changed the

> > > > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens

> > with your

> > > translation

> > > > of

> > > > > shlokas and also trying to project that some

> > sage has

> > > prohibited

> > > > use of

> > > > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted

> > on the

> > > authority of

> > > > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw

> > charts for

> > > Bhava,

> > > > Ghatika,

> > > > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the

> > direction of

> > > the

> > > > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting

> > the quotes.

> > > Even the

> > > > Amsha

> > > > > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in

> > is more for

> > > > confusion

> > > > > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude

> > and so is

> > > Amsha

> > > > though

> > > > > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The

> > difference

> > > between

> > > > their

> > > > > meaning is negligible with reference to the

> > discussion on

> >

> === message truncated ===

>

> ________

> Building a website is a piece of cake. Small Business gives you

> all the tools to get online.

> http://smallbusiness./webhosting

> <http://smallbusiness./webhosting>

>

>

> ------

>

>

>

> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.17/915 - Release 7/24/2007

1:50 PM

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

Can you point to the rules set forth by Santanam and BPHS that you refer

to?

 

I have not changed my opinion on whether to see aspects in D-charts or

not and also when to see them and when to see Graha drishti and when to

see rashi drishti, if you see my earlier mails. I do not think I have

accepted that graha drishti should be accepted across all the divisional

charts on the basis of this shloka. Or did I?

 

Actually the whole debate began when I said that when specifically

mentioned by sages one should see the aspects, in answer to which you

said that no sage had given any such rules. If I remember right you went

on to ask me to show where any sage has talked about aspects in

D-Charts. I, only, am giving instances where sages and ancient texts do

talk about aspects in the D-charts.

 

Again merely because I look at the thing differently does not mean that

I must claim that no other text has said that. Many other texts have

talked about aspects in D-chart, or the shlokas therein imply that if

not outright say the same. At my age it is difficult to sift through

more than about 100 or texts that I have ( some of them so brittle, I do

not risk turning the pages for fear of breaking them these days) and

quote all the shlokas. Even the " Bhavarthabodhini " commentary on

" Phaldeepika " , by Gopeshkumar Ojha, talks about Dreshkana kundali and

navamsha Kundali, though you hold that such charts can not be and should

not be drawn.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> Thanks a lot for the reply.I will explain as you are not sure on

> what i am trying to prove.

>

> Your translation is perfect.But that is not the point of debate.

> Will such an aspect confirm to rules set by sage.As per BPHS No.As

> per Late Santhanam No. This has been the debate for all these

> years ,not about the translation.

> Then where are these aspects?We will come to this later.But we have

> a very very important point to address before that.

>

> All these years until yesterday,you were of the opinion,that you do

> not accept aspects in divisonal charts as a rule.You have added

> that,you will use aspects when sage mentions so, in a few cases.

>

> Now today,if you understand,the shloka as mentioning to aspects in

> varga chakras - you are accepting grahadrishti as a RULE in ''varga

> chakras''.This is so because,any planet can be placed anywhere in 6

> varga-chakras and aspect Lagna.So you are accepting graha drishtis

> in Varga chakra as a rule.It is fine with me.It is your personal

> view.

>

> Now could you please tell me the reason for this change in

> opinion.Also could you tell me why all these years,you were of the

> opinion that Graha drishti as a rule is not possible in Varga

> chakras.Myself and the astrological community would really be

> interested in knowing the reason.

>

> After that ,i will say why graha drishtis are not possible w.r to

> BPHS with pramanas.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I do not know what you are trying to prove here. However, the

> > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> >

> > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of the ascendant are

> occupied

> > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is formed, without

> doubt. If

> > the aspect is full the results are full, if half, so are the

> results

> > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th strength. "

> >

> > This indicates that Parashara is talking about graha drishti here.

> No

> > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full drishtis. This is

> apparently so

> > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha drishti can be

> seen. This

> > also means that Parashara is not himself accepting the 2 rasi hora

> > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by Varaha Mihira. So

> if you

> > accept the shloka as it is then you have to forget the Hora

> > interpretation of Brihat jataka and Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

> acceptable to

> > you?

> >

> >

> > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact that aspects in

> divisional

> > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted by him, though he

> expresses

> > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic of these aspects.

> >

> > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting aspects in D-Charts,

> now

> > that you have quoted the shloka and the supremacy of BPHS over

> > Dashaadhyaayi?

> >

> > Let me make it clear that I personally do not treat one classic

> superior

> > or inferior to other, but this is what appears to be Pradeep's

> view as

> > he is quoting the shloka in support of his argument.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> > >

> > > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 & 14.I am also

> providing

> > > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read them without any

> fonts.

> > >

> > > http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>>

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is

> obvious

> > > that

> > > > only selective position is given.

> > > >

> > > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the point as

> you

> > > are

> > > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving them off

> > > when

> > > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to the

> > > list. You

> > > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and then

> > > went on

> > > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in D-

> Charts.

> > > Then

> > > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts. Then

> > > followed

> > > > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in D-

> Charts.

> > > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you changed

> the

> > > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your

> translation

> > > of

> > > > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has

> prohibited

> > > use of

> > > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the authority

> of

> > > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for Bhava,

> > > Ghatika,

> > > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of the

> > > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes. Even

> the

> > > Amsha

> > > > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

> > > confusion

> > > > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is Amsha

> > > though

> > > > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference between

> > > their

> > > > meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on

> Vargas.

> > > >

> > > > This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains to

> > > write down

> > > > the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you said

> that

> > > > dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why give

> > > one

> > > > liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what is?

> > > >

> > > > Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of Sanskrit to

> > > suit

> > > > what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects are

> not

> > > > possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying

> that no

> > > other

> > > > charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk of

> other

> > > charts

> > > > is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in matters

> > > astrological.

> > > >

> > > > If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free to

> > > think

> > > > that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra and

> rashi

> > > > chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like that as

> > > you

> > > > claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what is

> now

> > > being

> > > > discussed and you will find it if you sift through the

> voluminous

> > > > exchange of mail on this subject.

> > > >

> > > > I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart with a

> > > point

> > > > other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that, it is

> > > not

> > > > possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi chart

> can

> > > be

> > > > drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you references

> > > from

> > > > Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be drawn

> > > that

> > > > have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava, but am

> > > sure you

> > > > will then jump t o some other subject.

> > > >

> > > > If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be

> found

> > > in Hora

> > > > chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being one of

> > > the

> > > > shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain how

> > > Lagna

> > > > Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give the

> entire

> > > > shloka with adhyaaya and shloka number).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Difficulty to type in long interpretations is not to be

> > > explained.I

> > > > > do not know how it will become selective.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am bit concerned to see yourself drifting away from the

> main

> > > > > point,in your recent posts.

> > > > >

> > > > > For eg - I am still awaiting your view on how to interpret

> Lagna

> > > > > shadvargake,when aspects in vargas are not possible as per

> rules

> > > set

> > > > > by sages.BPHS and Late Santhanam.

> > > > >

> > > > > Inspite of this impossibility ,i don't know how we can think

> of

> > > > > aspects in the first place.

> > > > >

> > > > > 1)Driksamstha was mentioned by you as example

> for ''Trimshamsha

> > > > > chakra''.We have seen that it is not Trimshamsha chakra but

> rashi

> > > > > chakra and navamsha combination.In Saravali too this is

> > > > > mentioned.Dashadhayayi kara too has given the same meaning

> plus

> > > > > Saravali as supportive.

> > > > >

> > > > > You were not agreeing.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now today i have seen from internet

> (www.brihaspati.net),English

> > > > > translation of Saravali,where the shloka is interpreted

> exactly

> > > the

> > > > > same way as Dashadhyayi kara has done 800 years back.I

> request

> > > > > members to go and read that.

> > > > >

> > > > > 2)Chapter 21 ,shloka 8 was mentioned by you as example for

> > > amshas in

> > > > > isolation.We have seen that it contains both rashi and amsha

> for

> > > > > shoshee and together in karka or simha for another disease.

> > > > >

> > > > > 3)Today you are mentioning shloka 9.Which again is a

> combination

> > > of

> > > > > amshas and rashi combined with drishti in rashi.We have

> umpteen

> > > > > shlokas in Saravali pointing to such drishtis.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus i request you to kindly explain how Lagna shadvargake

> > > shloka can

> > > > > be explained.Thanks for clarifying that,Trimshamsha chakra

> was

> > > your

> > > > > personal view.

> > > > >

> > > > > As i have said nobody is opposing the drawing of amshas

> within

> > > rashi

> > > > > skeleton.Thus as you say drawing chart is pratyaksha.

> > > > >

> > > > > But Paramana was only seeked for shlokas talking about

> bhavas and

> > > > > aspects.Riksha/Bhava/Rashi as synonyms makes the defintion

> > > clear.Shri

> > > > > PVR who himself is a Sanskrit scholar could only give one

> > > shloka -

> > > > > Lagnashadvargake.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Had I had access to Dashaadhyaayi, I would not have

> troubled

> > > you

> > > > > with

> > > > > > all these queries. If you say that you did not reproduce

> the

> > > > > comments

> > > > > > given by Dashaadhyaayikar and only the gist of what he

> says,

> > > does

> > > > > it

> > > > > > mean you have given the comments selectively?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Did I say in any of my mails that Bhattotpala said anything

> > > about

> > > > > > Trimshamsha Chakra? And does Dashaadhyaayikar,

> specifically,

> > > says

> > > > > that

> > > > > > no other chart than rasi chart exists in astrology as you

> are

> > > > > implying?

> > > > > > I would doubt he could say so. If you read 9th shloka of

> 21st

> > > > > adhyaaya

> > > > > > of Brihat jataka your doubt about navamsha drishti would

> > > perhaps be

> > > > > > clarified, should you accept it to mean what it does.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As I said that you having made up your mind as to drawing

> any

> > > other

> > > > > > chart other than a rasi chart as wrong, nothing will come

> out

> > > of

> > > > > this

> > > > > > discussion. I really find it strange that even when almost

> all

> > > > > > astrologers in India draw Navamasha chart as a matter of

> > > course,

> > > > > you

> > > > > > deny that such a chart can exist. This is the first time

> that

> > > I am

> > > > > > seeing that Pramana is demanded for what is Pratyaksha.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You may check with some of your friends on the detailed

> > > level of

> > > > > > > explanation in Dashadhyayi.As you might have noted with

> > > > > bHATTOTPALA,

> > > > > > > it will be difficult for me to quote explantions spanning

> > > pages.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now i would love to know if Bhattotpala has mentioned any

> > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > chakra.Or was that your view.Bhattotpala can never say

> so.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > When you do not accept the Sanskrit shlokas from Brihat

> > > jataka,

> > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar comments upon, let apart BPHS, what

> > > purpose

> > > > > can be

> > > > > > > > served by giving the voluminous comments of

> Bhattotpala in

> > > > > > > Sanskrit?

> > > > > > > > Unlike Dashaadhyaayi (if you really gave the entire

> > > shlokas)

> > > > > > > Bhattotpala

> > > > > > > > goes into explanation of each word in the shloka and

> then

> > > gives

> > > > > his

> > > > > > > > opinion of what he understands Varaha Mihira to have

> meant

> > > by

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > shloka. I had already given the English translation of

> > > what both

> > > > > > > > Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha said in earlier mails. If

> you

> > > go

> > > > > > > through our

> > > > > > > > voluminous correspondence, you will certainly get the

> same.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > For the same reason i had provided the very Sanskrit

> > > shloka

> > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly if

> you

> > > can

> > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from

> Sitaram

> > > > > jha ,issue

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > closed.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

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

> Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Okay, let me put it in your words. As you

> > > said " Bhattotpala

> > > > > might

> > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it

> can

> > > be your

> > > > > > > view

> > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > those translations. " Why should not

> Dashaadhyaayikar

> > > not

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be

> your

> > > > > views

> > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > those translations? Any reason for the immunity? We

> > > have

> > > > > already

> > > > > > > > > sen

> > > > > > > > > > misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one

> scholar

> > > on

> > > > > this

> > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > list,

> > > > > > > > > > not so long ago.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot be

> > > wrong is

> > > > > my

> > > > > > > strong

> > > > > > > > > > > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > -- In

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

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

> > > Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong

> then

> > > so can

> > > > > be

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that

> he

> > > can

> > > > > not be

> > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view

> was it

> > > is

> > > > > more

> > > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > mere

> > > > > > > > > > > > > commentary as it has clear explanations,while

> > > thinking

> > > > > > > from a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > students perspective.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > As you know,inspite of having all those

> > > > > commentaries,you

> > > > > > > were

> > > > > > > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > > > > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a

> concern

> > > for

> > > > > > > > > me.Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > there were couple of other shlokas that you

> have

> > > > > quoted as

> > > > > > > > > > > examples.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been

> > > misunderstood

> > > > > > > > > > > (inadvertently)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > by some or it can be your view about those

> > > > > > > > > translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > > > > > > > > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were

> > > quoted by

> > > > > > > me,for

> > > > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains

> > > leaving no

> > > > > > > > > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi

> etc

> > > will

> > > > > > > make the

> > > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mistake.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit

> explanations

> > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation

> is

> > > pretty

> > > > > > > straight

> > > > > > > > > > > > > forward due to many similarities.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > ----------------

> ----

> > > -----

> > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > --------------------

> ----

> > > -

> > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Chadrashekharji,

 

The way this can be interpreted as follows.

 

Take any rashi chart and D-1 lagna

 

Say navansha lagna is X,

dwadashamsha lagna rashi Y

Dreshkona lagna rashi Z, etc, etc.

 

Now lets say a planet posited in the rashi chart(D-1)

resides in or aspects rashi X, rashi Y, rashi Z, etc,

etc. then that will fulfill the condition of the

shloka in rashi chart with aspects taken in rashi

chart. Why is that not possible ?

 

Thanks

 

Satish

--- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46

wrote:

 

> Dear Satish,

>

> I have given the translation of the shloka. It is up

> to the learned to

> find out whether it is indeed possible for a graha

> to occupy a

> particular amsha and occupy all the six Vargas

> equivalent to the rashi

> occupied, in one and the same rashi and that too for

> all rasis. Only

> then can one say that the reference is not to

> drishti within a D-Chart.

> I doubt that can be the case. However as I said it

> is for the learned

> for put in a bit of effort and find out for

> themselves.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> SPK wrote:

> >

> > Hi,

> >

> > Thanks Chandrashekharji for the traslation of the

> > shloka.

> >

> > Again I am not sure how can one conclusively say

> sage

> > is sactioning aspects in divisions ? This has been

> the

> > debate for years. Six divisions of lagna. Can the

> > divisions of lagna exist in rashi chart ? Ofcourse

> > they can. Is there anything in the shloka that

> > suggests that the aspect has to be seen in

> divisions.

> > Can the same graha aspect or occupy the six

> divisions

> > of lagna in the rashi chart ?

> >

> > Thanks

> >

> > Satish

> > --- Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> <krishna_1998

> > <krishna_1998%40>>

> > wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > >

> > > Thanks for this mail and the translation of the

> > > Shloka in BPHS.

> > > I guess it has been conclusively proven that the

> > > aspects are

> > > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not

> sure

> > > if everyone

> > > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure.

> And,

> > > I am happy

> > > that I am in the right path.

> > >

> > > However, the question remains that what is the

> > > principle behind

> > > allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even

> if

> > > they are a

> > > restricted set.

> > >

> > > I guess the ancient authors have not explained

> the

> > > principle

> > > behind the same. However, I would be very glad

> if

> > > you could

> > > share your thoughts on this.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Krishna

> > >

> > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46

>

> > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>>

> > > wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I do not know what you are trying to prove

> here.

> > > However, the

> > > > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> > > >

> > > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of

> the

> > > ascendant are

> > > > occupied

> > > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is

> > > formed, without

> > > > doubt. If

> > > > the aspect is full the results are full, if

> half,

> > > so are the

> > > > results

> > > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th

> > > strength. "

> > > >

> > > > This indicates that Parashara is talking about

> > > graha drishti

> > > > here. No

> > > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full

> drishtis.

> > > This is

> > > > apparently so

> > > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha

> > > drishti can be

> > > > seen. This

> > > > also means that Parashara is not himself

> accepting

> > > the 2 rasi

> > > > hora

> > > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by

> > > Varaha Mihira.

> > > > So if you

> > > > accept the shloka as it is then you have to

> forget

> > > the Hora

> > > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and

> Dashaadhyaayi.

> > > Is that

> > > > acceptable to

> > > > you?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact

> that

> > > aspects in

> > > > divisional

> > > > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted

> by

> > > him, though he

> > > > expresses

> > > > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic

> of

> > > these

> > > > aspects.

> > > >

> > > > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting

> > > aspects in

> > > > D-Charts, now

> > > > that you have quoted the shloka and the

> supremacy

> > > of BPHS over

> > > >

> > > > Dashaadhyaayi?

> > > >

> > > > Let me make it clear that I personally do not

> > > treat one

> > > > classic superior

> > > > or inferior to other, but this is what appears

> to

> > > be Pradeep's

> > > > view as

> > > > he is quoting the shloka in support of his

> > > argument.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> > > > >

> > > > > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 &

> > > 14.I am also

> > > > providing

> > > > > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read

> them

> > > without any

> > > > fonts.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> >

> <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>>

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>,

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> > > > > >

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Building a website is a piece of cake. Small Business gives you all the

tools to get online.

http://smallbusiness./webhosting

[Guest guest]

Dear Satish ji

 

You have explained it in the simplest of ways.Any student who wants

to learn basic principles can spend some time on this simple

explanation.

 

This is the way amshas have to be seen.We should think why amshas and

Rashis are owned by the same graha.It is the relationship of

rashitattwa/rashi amsha w.r to lords that is seen from amshas.They

all relate to 12 rashis within the same rashi chakra.One human

body.Just one human body but many subtle functions.

 

Amsha placements are not longitudianlly related to graha's original

position.They relate through varga sambandha.Aspects are based on

grahas and their mutual longitudinal dispositions.

 

This will be explained in detail,within own limitations.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

, SPK <aquaris_rising wrote:

>

> Chadrashekharji,

>

> The way this can be interpreted as follows.

>

> Take any rashi chart and D-1 lagna

>

> Say navansha lagna is X,

> dwadashamsha lagna rashi Y

> Dreshkona lagna rashi Z, etc, etc.

>

> Now lets say a planet posited in the rashi chart(D-1)

> resides in or aspects rashi X, rashi Y, rashi Z, etc,

> etc. then that will fulfill the condition of the

> shloka in rashi chart with aspects taken in rashi

> chart. Why is that not possible ?

>

> Thanks

>

> Satish

> --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46

> wrote:

>

> > Dear Satish,

> >

> > I have given the translation of the shloka. It is up

> > to the learned to

> > find out whether it is indeed possible for a graha

> > to occupy a

> > particular amsha and occupy all the six Vargas

> > equivalent to the rashi

> > occupied, in one and the same rashi and that too for

> > all rasis. Only

> > then can one say that the reference is not to

> > drishti within a D-Chart.

> > I doubt that can be the case. However as I said it

> > is for the learned

> > for put in a bit of effort and find out for

> > themselves.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > SPK wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi,

> > >

> > > Thanks Chandrashekharji for the traslation of the

> > > shloka.

> > >

> > > Again I am not sure how can one conclusively say

> > sage

> > > is sactioning aspects in divisions ? This has been

> > the

> > > debate for years. Six divisions of lagna. Can the

> > > divisions of lagna exist in rashi chart ? Ofcourse

> > > they can. Is there anything in the shloka that

> > > suggests that the aspect has to be seen in

> > divisions.

> > > Can the same graha aspect or occupy the six

> > divisions

> > > of lagna in the rashi chart ?

> > >

> > > Thanks

> > >

> > > Satish

> > > --- Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> > <krishna_1998

> > > <krishna_1998%40>>

> > > wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > >

> > > > Thanks for this mail and the translation of the

> > > > Shloka in BPHS.

> > > > I guess it has been conclusively proven that the

> > > > aspects are

> > > > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not

> > sure

> > > > if everyone

> > > > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure.

> > And,

> > > > I am happy

> > > > that I am in the right path.

> > > >

> > > > However, the question remains that what is the

> > > > principle behind

> > > > allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even

> > if

> > > > they are a

> > > > restricted set.

> > > >

> > > > I guess the ancient authors have not explained

> > the

> > > > principle

> > > > behind the same. However, I would be very glad

> > if

> > > > you could

> > > > share your thoughts on this.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Krishna

> > > >

> > > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46

> >

> > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>>

> > > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > I do not know what you are trying to prove

> > here.

> > > > However, the

> > > > > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> > > > >

> > > > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of

> > the

> > > > ascendant are

> > > > > occupied

> > > > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is

> > > > formed, without

> > > > > doubt. If

> > > > > the aspect is full the results are full, if

> > half,

> > > > so are the

> > > > > results

> > > > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th

> > > > strength. "

> > > > >

> > > > > This indicates that Parashara is talking about

> > > > graha drishti

> > > > > here. No

> > > > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full

> > drishtis.

> > > > This is

> > > > > apparently so

> > > > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha

> > > > drishti can be

> > > > > seen. This

> > > > > also means that Parashara is not himself

> > accepting

> > > > the 2 rasi

> > > > > hora

> > > > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by

> > > > Varaha Mihira.

> > > > > So if you

> > > > > accept the shloka as it is then you have to

> > forget

> > > > the Hora

> > > > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and

> > Dashaadhyaayi.

> > > > Is that

> > > > > acceptable to

> > > > > you?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact

> > that

> > > > aspects in

> > > > > divisional

> > > > > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted

> > by

> > > > him, though he

> > > > > expresses

> > > > > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic

> > of

> > > > these

> > > > > aspects.

> > > > >

> > > > > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting

> > > > aspects in

> > > > > D-Charts, now

> > > > > that you have quoted the shloka and the

> > supremacy

> > > > of BPHS over

> > > > >

> > > > > Dashaadhyaayi?

> > > > >

> > > > > Let me make it clear that I personally do not

> > > > treat one

> > > > > classic superior

> > > > > or inferior to other, but this is what appears

> > to

> > > > be Pradeep's

> > > > > view as

> > > > > he is quoting the shloka in support of his

> > > > argument.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 &

> > > > 14.I am also

> > > > > providing

> > > > > > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read

> > them

> > > > without any

> > > > > fonts.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > >

> > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > >

> >

> === message truncated ===

>

>

>

>

>

____________________

______________

> Building a website is a piece of cake. Small Business gives

you all the tools to get online.

> http://smallbusiness./webhosting

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekar ji,

 

Thanks for sharing your views.

 

Let me ask a related question for better understanding of what

you have said. Let us assume that the grahadrishties of planets

in Rasi are looked at using Grahasphutadrishti, then can we say

that we would have covered all the graha drishties in the first

harmonic varga charts? Have you tried out exercise? If so,

please share your experience.

 

Regards,

Krishna

 

--- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

 

> Dear Krishna,

>

> The reason for aspects being allowed within D-charts may have

> to do with

> the " Grahasphutadrishtikathanaadhyaaya " where evaluation of

> different

> aspects of grahas are given and they range from 30 degrees

> onwards in

> increments of 0.30 degrees each till 299.30 as per table given

> by Late

> R. Santanam. There is no repetition of amshas attributed to

> one rasi

> within a rasi in the first harmonic chart class and therefore

> these

> drishtis become applicable. In higher harmonics these may not

> be

> applicable as rasi equivalent Varga will repeat, within 30

> degrees and

> that is why I personally would look at rasi drishti there.

>

> Of course the above is my personal opinion on the logic behind

> the

> aspects, within D-Charts, and the way they may be considered

> and it is

> up to the learned to decide whether this view is right or not.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

> Krishnamurthy Seetharama wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> >

> > Thanks for this mail and the translation of the Shloka in

> BPHS.

> > I guess it has been conclusively proven that the aspects are

> > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not sure if

> everyone

> > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure. And, I am

> happy

> > that I am in the right path.

> >

> > However, the question remains that what is the principle

> behind

> > allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even if they are

> a

> > restricted set.

> >

> > I guess the ancient authors have not explained the principle

> > behind the same. However, I would be very glad if you could

> > share your thoughts on this.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Krishna

> >

> > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46

> > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>> wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I do not know what you are trying to prove here. However,

> the

> > > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> > >

> > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of the ascendant

> are

> > > occupied

> > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is formed,

> without

> > > doubt. If

> > > the aspect is full the results are full, if half, so are

> the

> > > results

> > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th strength. "

> > >

> > > This indicates that Parashara is talking about graha

> drishti

> > > here. No

> > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full drishtis. This is

> > > apparently so

> > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha drishti can

> be

> > > seen. This

> > > also means that Parashara is not himself accepting the 2

> rasi

> > > hora

> > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by Varaha

> Mihira.

> > > So if you

> > > accept the shloka as it is then you have to forget the

> Hora

> > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

> > > acceptable to

> > > you?

> > >

> > >

> > > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact that aspects

> in

> > > divisional

> > > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted by him,

> though he

> > > expresses

> > > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic of these

> > > aspects.

> > >

> > > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting aspects in

> > > D-Charts, now

> > > that you have quoted the shloka and the supremacy of BPHS

> over

> > >

> > > Dashaadhyaayi?

> > >

> > > Let me make it clear that I personally do not treat one

> > > classic superior

> > > or inferior to other, but this is what appears to be

> Pradeep's

> > > view as

> > > he is quoting the shloka in support of his argument.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> > > >

> > > > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 & 14.I am

> also

> > > providing

> > > > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read them without

> any

> > > fonts.

> > > >

> > > > http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> > > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>>

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it

> is

> > > obvious

> > > > that

> > > > > only selective position is given.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the

> > > point as you

> > > > are

> > > > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving

> > > them off

> > > > when

> > > > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the

> members to

> > > the

> > > > list. You

> > > > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS

> and

> > > then

> > > > went on

> > > > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in

> > > D-Charts.

> > > > Then

> > > > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in

> D-Charts.

> > > Then

> > > > followed

> > > > > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects

> in

> > > D-Charts.

> > > > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you

> > > changed the

> > > > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your

> > > translation

> > > > of

> > > > > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has

> > > prohibited

> > > > use of

> > > > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the

> > > authority of

> > > > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts

> for

> > > Bhava,

> > > > Ghatika,

> > > > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the

> direction of

> > > the

> > > > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the

> quotes.

> > > Even the

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.

Answers - Check it out.

http://answers./dir/?link=list & sid=396545469

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep ji,

 

I do believe in open discussion and logical learning. But, in

this case, I see that same and repititive arguments since quite

some time and don't see that the arguments ending in the near

future. Hence, I decided to learn from the experiences of

Chandrashekhar ji. Hope there is nothing wrong with this.

 

If you feel that my questions pose obstacles in the way of your

discussions, I don't mind keeping quiet for some more time.

 

But, can you indicate a timeframe for this debate to conclude?

It will give an idea to me to know how long I should keep quiet.

 

Regards,

Krishna

 

--- vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

 

> Dear Krishna ji

>

> I would request you to give me a chance and an open view until

> the

> discussions are over.

>

> If we accept Chandrashekhar jis view,then graha drishti as a

> rule

> has to be accepted.It is in violation to rules set by

> Parashara.This

> will be explained later.

>

> It is at your discretion to ask doubts to chandrashekhar ji

> and it

> is my kind request to hold on before you conclude.

>

> Hope i am not asking too much.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

> , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> <krishna_1998 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> >

> > Thanks for this mail and the translation of the Shloka in

> BPHS.

> > I guess it has been conclusively proven that the aspects are

> > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not sure if

> everyone

> > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure. And, I am

> happy

> > that I am in the right path.

> >

> > However, the question remains that what is the principle

> behind

> > allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even if they are

> a

> > restricted set.

> >

> > I guess the ancient authors have not explained the principle

> > behind the same. However, I would be very glad if you could

> > share your thoughts on this.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Krishna

> >

> > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I do not know what you are trying to prove here. However,

> the

> > > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> > >

> > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of the ascendant

> are

> > > occupied

> > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is formed,

> without

> > > doubt. If

> > > the aspect is full the results are full, if half, so are

> the

> > > results

> > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th strength. "

> > >

> > > This indicates that Parashara is talking about graha

> drishti

> > > here. No

> > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full drishtis. This is

> > > apparently so

> > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha drishti can

> be

> > > seen. This

> > > also means that Parashara is not himself accepting the 2

> rasi

> > > hora

> > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by Varaha

> Mihira.

> > > So if you

> > > accept the shloka as it is then you have to forget the

> Hora

> > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

> > > acceptable to

> > > you?

> > >

> > >

> > > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact that aspects

> in

> > > divisional

> > > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted by him,

> though he

> > > expresses

> > > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic of these

> > > aspects.

> > >

> > > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting aspects in

> > > D-Charts, now

> > > that you have quoted the shloka and the supremacy of BPHS

> over

> > >

> > > Dashaadhyaayi?

> > >

> > > Let me make it clear that I personally do not treat one

> > > classic superior

> > > or inferior to other, but this is what appears to be

> Pradeep's

> > > view as

> > > he is quoting the shloka in support of his argument.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> > > >

> > > > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 & 14.I am

> also

> > > providing

> > > > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read them without

> any

> > > fonts.

> > > >

> > > > http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it

> is

> > > obvious

> > > > that

> > > > > only selective position is given.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the

> > > point as you

> > > > are

> > > > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving

> > > them off

> > > > when

> > > > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the

> members to

> > > the

> > > > list. You

> > > > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS

> and

> > > then

> > > > went on

> > > > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in

> > > D-Charts.

> > > > Then

> > > > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in

> D-Charts.

> > > Then

> > > > followed

> > > > > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects

> in

> > > D-Charts.

> > > > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you

> > > changed the

> > > > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your

> > > translation

> > > > of

> > > > > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has

> > > prohibited

> > > > use of

> > > > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the

> > > authority of

> > > > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts

> for

> > > Bhava,

> > > > Ghatika,

> > > > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the

> direction of

> > > the

> > > > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the

> quotes.

> > > Even the

> > > > Amsha

> > > > > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more

> for

> > > > confusion

> > > > > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so

> is

> > > Amsha

> > > > though

> > > > > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference

> > > between

> > > > their

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for

today's economy) at Games.

http://get.games./proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishna ji

 

Thanks for your kind reply.Considering your age and experience you

ned not address me with any ji.

 

What i had requested was not any silence from you.It was only about

conclusions.Give me a chance before you conclude.I have no right to

ask you to be silent.From your mail it appeared to me that you have

reached some conclusions after a mail from Chandrashekhar ji.Thus it

means you were giving an open mind until the concerned mail,and i am

thankful.Irrespective of who is right and wrong,giving everyone a

chance was what that was requested.

 

Chandrashekhar ji is a learned scholar and i am learning from

him.Regarding certain basic points we have difference in opinion.

 

Regarding repetitive statements and arguments -It is needed and is a

must as the concept of Varga Charts have become

institutionalised.Any new student who is browsing internet will

call ''some of us'' as new proposers.So is the proliferation.On the

other hand one who would like to travel a few years back,and

prepared to take a relook at ''basics'' in Hrishi Horas may give a

patient ear.

 

Thanks for your kind understanding.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

, Krishnamurthy Seetharama

<krishna_1998 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep ji,

>

> I do believe in open discussion and logical learning. But, in

> this case, I see that same and repititive arguments since quite

> some time and don't see that the arguments ending in the near

> future. Hence, I decided to learn from the experiences of

> Chandrashekhar ji. Hope there is nothing wrong with this.

>

> If you feel that my questions pose obstacles in the way of your

> discussions, I don't mind keeping quiet for some more time.

>

> But, can you indicate a timeframe for this debate to conclude?

> It will give an idea to me to know how long I should keep quiet.

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

> --- vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> > Dear Krishna ji

> >

> > I would request you to give me a chance and an open view until

> > the

> > discussions are over.

> >

> > If we accept Chandrashekhar jis view,then graha drishti as a

> > rule

> > has to be accepted.It is in violation to rules set by

> > Parashara.This

> > will be explained later.

> >

> > It is at your discretion to ask doubts to chandrashekhar ji

> > and it

> > is my kind request to hold on before you conclude.

> >

> > Hope i am not asking too much.

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> > , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> > <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > >

> > > Thanks for this mail and the translation of the Shloka in

> > BPHS.

> > > I guess it has been conclusively proven that the aspects are

> > > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not sure if

> > everyone

> > > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure. And, I am

> > happy

> > > that I am in the right path.

> > >

> > > However, the question remains that what is the principle

> > behind

> > > allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even if they are

> > a

> > > restricted set.

> > >

> > > I guess the ancient authors have not explained the principle

> > > behind the same. However, I would be very glad if you could

> > > share your thoughts on this.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Krishna

> > >

> > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I do not know what you are trying to prove here. However,

> > the

> > > > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> > > >

> > > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of the ascendant

> > are

> > > > occupied

> > > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is formed,

> > without

> > > > doubt. If

> > > > the aspect is full the results are full, if half, so are

> > the

> > > > results

> > > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th strength. "

> > > >

> > > > This indicates that Parashara is talking about graha

> > drishti

> > > > here. No

> > > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full drishtis. This is

> > > > apparently so

> > > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha drishti can

> > be

> > > > seen. This

> > > > also means that Parashara is not himself accepting the 2

> > rasi

> > > > hora

> > > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by Varaha

> > Mihira.

> > > > So if you

> > > > accept the shloka as it is then you have to forget the

> > Hora

> > > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

> > > > acceptable to

> > > > you?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact that aspects

> > in

> > > > divisional

> > > > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted by him,

> > though he

> > > > expresses

> > > > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic of these

> > > > aspects.

> > > >

> > > > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting aspects in

> > > > D-Charts, now

> > > > that you have quoted the shloka and the supremacy of BPHS

> > over

> > > >

> > > > Dashaadhyaayi?

> > > >

> > > > Let me make it clear that I personally do not treat one

> > > > classic superior

> > > > or inferior to other, but this is what appears to be

> > Pradeep's

> > > > view as

> > > > he is quoting the shloka in support of his argument.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> > > > >

> > > > > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 & 14.I am

> > also

> > > > providing

> > > > > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read them without

> > any

> > > > fonts.

> > > > >

> > > > > http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > > > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it

> > is

> > > > obvious

> > > > > that

> > > > > > only selective position is given.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the

> > > > point as you

> > > > > are

> > > > > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving

> > > > them off

> > > > > when

> > > > > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the

> > members to

> > > > the

> > > > > list. You

> > > > > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS

> > and

> > > > then

> > > > > went on

> > > > > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in

> > > > D-Charts.

> > > > > Then

> > > > > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in

> > D-Charts.

> > > > Then

> > > > > followed

> > > > > > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects

> > in

> > > > D-Charts.

> > > > > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you

> > > > changed the

> > > > > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your

> > > > translation

> > > > > of

> > > > > > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has

> > > > prohibited

> > > > > use of

> > > > > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the

> > > > authority of

> > > > > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts

> > for

> > > > Bhava,

> > > > > Ghatika,

> > > > > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the

> > direction of

> > > > the

> > > > > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the

> > quotes.

> > > > Even the

> > > > > Amsha

> > > > > > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more

> > for

> > > > > confusion

> > > > > > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so

> > is

> > > > Amsha

> > > > > though

> > > > > > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference

> > > > between

> > > > > their

> >

> === message truncated ===

>

>

>

>

>

___________________

_______________

> Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's

updated for today's economy) at Games.

> http://get.games./proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

Please stop playing with words. It will not help your cause.

 

I am referring to your following statement:

 

" From your mail it appeared to me that you have reached some

conclusions after a mail from Chandrashekhar ji.Thus it means

you were giving an open mind until the concerned mail,and i am

thankful. "

 

Please don't try to to put words into my mouth. Probably, you

might have forgotten/overlooked my earlier mails where I have

clearly expressed my views on this subject.

 

I sincerely offered to wait for a finite amount of time before

asking for clarifications on the subject based on your request.

But, you don't seem to understand what I offered. I can't keep

my questions to myself forever and not raise them to appropriate

knowledgebale people in the list.

 

Hope you understand.

 

Regards,

Krishna

 

 

--- vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

 

> Dear Krishna ji

>

> Thanks for your kind reply.Considering your age and experience

> you

> ned not address me with any ji.

>

> What i had requested was not any silence from you.It was only

> about

> conclusions.Give me a chance before you conclude.I have no

> right to

> ask you to be silent.From your mail it appeared to me that you

> have

> reached some conclusions after a mail from Chandrashekhar

> ji.Thus it

> means you were giving an open mind until the concerned

> mail,and i am

> thankful.Irrespective of who is right and wrong,giving

> everyone a

> chance was what that was requested.

>

> Chandrashekhar ji is a learned scholar and i am learning from

> him.Regarding certain basic points we have difference in

> opinion.

>

> Regarding repetitive statements and arguments -It is needed

> and is a

> must as the concept of Varga Charts have become

> institutionalised.Any new student who is browsing internet

> will

> call ''some of us'' as new proposers.So is the

> proliferation.On the

> other hand one who would like to travel a few years back,and

> prepared to take a relook at ''basics'' in Hrishi Horas may

> give a

> patient ear.

>

> Thanks for your kind understanding.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

> , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> <krishna_1998 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep ji,

> >

> > I do believe in open discussion and logical learning. But,

> in

> > this case, I see that same and repititive arguments since

> quite

> > some time and don't see that the arguments ending in the

> near

> > future. Hence, I decided to learn from the experiences of

> > Chandrashekhar ji. Hope there is nothing wrong with this.

> >

> > If you feel that my questions pose obstacles in the way of

> your

> > discussions, I don't mind keeping quiet for some more time.

> >

> > But, can you indicate a timeframe for this debate to

> conclude?

> > It will give an idea to me to know how long I should keep

> quiet.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Krishna

> >

> > --- vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Krishna ji

> > >

> > > I would request you to give me a chance and an open view

> until

> > > the

> > > discussions are over.

> > >

> > > If we accept Chandrashekhar jis view,then graha drishti as

> a

> > > rule

> > > has to be accepted.It is in violation to rules set by

> > > Parashara.This

> > > will be explained later.

> > >

> > > It is at your discretion to ask doubts to chandrashekhar

> ji

> > > and it

> > > is my kind request to hold on before you conclude.

> > >

> > > Hope i am not asking too much.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > > , Krishnamurthy

> Seetharama

> > > <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > >

> > > > Thanks for this mail and the translation of the Shloka

> in

> > > BPHS.

> > > > I guess it has been conclusively proven that the aspects

> are

> > > > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not sure if

> > > everyone

> > > > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure. And, I am

> > > happy

> > > > that I am in the right path.

> > > >

> > > > However, the question remains that what is the principle

> > > behind

> > > > allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even if they

> are

> > > a

> > > > restricted set.

> > > >

> > > > I guess the ancient authors have not explained the

> principle

> > > > behind the same. However, I would be very glad if you

> could

> > > > share your thoughts on this.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Krishna

> > > >

> > > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > I do not know what you are trying to prove here.

> However,

> > > the

> > > > > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> > > > >

> > > > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of the

> ascendant

> > > are

> > > > > occupied

> > > > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is formed,

> > > without

> > > > > doubt. If

> > > > > the aspect is full the results are full, if half, so

> are

> > > the

> > > > > results

> > > > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th

> strength. "

> > > > >

> > > > > This indicates that Parashara is talking about graha

> > > drishti

> > > > > here. No

> > > > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full drishtis. This

> is

> > > > > apparently so

> > > > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha drishti

> can

> > > be

> > > > > seen. This

> > > > > also means that Parashara is not himself accepting the

> 2

> > > rasi

> > > > > hora

> > > > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by Varaha

> > > Mihira.

> > > > > So if you

> > > > > accept the shloka as it is then you have to forget the

> > > Hora

> > > > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and Dashaadhyaayi. Is

> that

> > > > > acceptable to

> > > > > you?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact that

> aspects

> > > in

> > > > > divisional

> > > > > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted by him,

> > > though he

> > > > > expresses

> > > > > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic of these

> > > > > aspects.

> > > > >

> > > > > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting aspects

> in

> > > > > D-Charts, now

> > > > > that you have quoted the shloka and the supremacy of

> BPHS

> > > over

> > > > >

> > > > > Dashaadhyaayi?

> > > > >

> > > > > Let me make it clear that I personally do not treat

> one

> > > > > classic superior

> > > > > or inferior to other, but this is what appears to be

> > > Pradeep's

> > > > > view as

> > > > > he is quoting the shloka in support of his argument.

> > > > >

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the

Auto Green Center.

http://autos./green_center/

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishna ji

 

Sorry for the inconvenience,because of my misunderstanding.

As there are classical and astrological points,i too do not

need ''playing with words'' to drive the point home.

 

Thanks for the advise.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

, Krishnamurthy Seetharama

<krishna_1998 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> Please stop playing with words. It will not help your cause.

>

> I am referring to your following statement:

>

> " From your mail it appeared to me that you have reached some

> conclusions after a mail from Chandrashekhar ji.Thus it means

> you were giving an open mind until the concerned mail,and i am

> thankful. "

>

> Please don't try to to put words into my mouth. Probably, you

> might have forgotten/overlooked my earlier mails where I have

> clearly expressed my views on this subject.

>

> I sincerely offered to wait for a finite amount of time before

> asking for clarifications on the subject based on your request.

> But, you don't seem to understand what I offered. I can't keep

> my questions to myself forever and not raise them to appropriate

> knowledgebale people in the list.

>

> Hope you understand.

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

>

> --- vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> > Dear Krishna ji

> >

> > Thanks for your kind reply.Considering your age and experience

> > you

> > ned not address me with any ji.

> >

> > What i had requested was not any silence from you.It was only

> > about

> > conclusions.Give me a chance before you conclude.I have no

> > right to

> > ask you to be silent.From your mail it appeared to me that you

> > have

> > reached some conclusions after a mail from Chandrashekhar

> > ji.Thus it

> > means you were giving an open mind until the concerned

> > mail,and i am

> > thankful.Irrespective of who is right and wrong,giving

> > everyone a

> > chance was what that was requested.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar ji is a learned scholar and i am learning from

> > him.Regarding certain basic points we have difference in

> > opinion.

> >

> > Regarding repetitive statements and arguments -It is needed

> > and is a

> > must as the concept of Varga Charts have become

> > institutionalised.Any new student who is browsing internet

> > will

> > call ''some of us'' as new proposers.So is the

> > proliferation.On the

> > other hand one who would like to travel a few years back,and

> > prepared to take a relook at ''basics'' in Hrishi Horas may

> > give a

> > patient ear.

> >

> > Thanks for your kind understanding.

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> > , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> > <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep ji,

> > >

> > > I do believe in open discussion and logical learning. But,

> > in

> > > this case, I see that same and repititive arguments since

> > quite

> > > some time and don't see that the arguments ending in the

> > near

> > > future. Hence, I decided to learn from the experiences of

> > > Chandrashekhar ji. Hope there is nothing wrong with this.

> > >

> > > If you feel that my questions pose obstacles in the way of

> > your

> > > discussions, I don't mind keeping quiet for some more time.

> > >

> > > But, can you indicate a timeframe for this debate to

> > conclude?

> > > It will give an idea to me to know how long I should keep

> > quiet.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Krishna

> > >

> > > --- vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear Krishna ji

> > > >

> > > > I would request you to give me a chance and an open view

> > until

> > > > the

> > > > discussions are over.

> > > >

> > > > If we accept Chandrashekhar jis view,then graha drishti as

> > a

> > > > rule

> > > > has to be accepted.It is in violation to rules set by

> > > > Parashara.This

> > > > will be explained later.

> > > >

> > > > It is at your discretion to ask doubts to chandrashekhar

> > ji

> > > > and it

> > > > is my kind request to hold on before you conclude.

> > > >

> > > > Hope i am not asking too much.

> > > >

> > > > Regds

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > > , Krishnamurthy

> > Seetharama

> > > > <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks for this mail and the translation of the Shloka

> > in

> > > > BPHS.

> > > > > I guess it has been conclusively proven that the aspects

> > are

> > > > > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not sure if

> > > > everyone

> > > > > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure. And, I am

> > > > happy

> > > > > that I am in the right path.

> > > > >

> > > > > However, the question remains that what is the principle

> > > > behind

> > > > > allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even if they

> > are

> > > > a

> > > > > restricted set.

> > > > >

> > > > > I guess the ancient authors have not explained the

> > principle

> > > > > behind the same. However, I would be very glad if you

> > could

> > > > > share your thoughts on this.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > > Krishna

> > > > >

> > > > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I do not know what you are trying to prove here.

> > However,

> > > > the

> > > > > > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of the

> > ascendant

> > > > are

> > > > > > occupied

> > > > > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is formed,

> > > > without

> > > > > > doubt. If

> > > > > > the aspect is full the results are full, if half, so

> > are

> > > > the

> > > > > > results

> > > > > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th

> > strength. "

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This indicates that Parashara is talking about graha

> > > > drishti

> > > > > > here. No

> > > > > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full drishtis. This

> > is

> > > > > > apparently so

> > > > > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha drishti

> > can

> > > > be

> > > > > > seen. This

> > > > > > also means that Parashara is not himself accepting the

> > 2

> > > > rasi

> > > > > > hora

> > > > > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by Varaha

> > > > Mihira.

> > > > > > So if you

> > > > > > accept the shloka as it is then you have to forget the

> > > > Hora

> > > > > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and Dashaadhyaayi. Is

> > that

> > > > > > acceptable to

> > > > > > you?

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact that

> > aspects

> > > > in

> > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted by him,

> > > > though he

> > > > > > expresses

> > > > > > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic of these

> > > > > > aspects.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting aspects

> > in

> > > > > > D-Charts, now

> > > > > > that you have quoted the shloka and the supremacy of

> > BPHS

> > > > over

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Let me make it clear that I personally do not treat

> > one

> > > > > > classic superior

> > > > > > or inferior to other, but this is what appears to be

> > > > Pradeep's

> > > > > > view as

> > > > > > he is quoting the shloka in support of his argument.

> > > > > >

> >

> === message truncated ===

>

>

>

>

___________________

_______________

> Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative

vehicles. Visit the Auto Green Center.

> http://autos./green_center/

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Chandrasekhar ji,

 

I am trying to keep myself from this endless and pointless debate

for a long time; but I could not resist myself from appreciating you

bringing out this most valuable shloka and interpretation on this

subject.

 

This is the ultimate answer to those who do not consider aspects in

Varga charts or D-Charts. Clearly Sage Parasara indicates here, his

support on aspects in varga charts and in fact, all your & our

earlier arguments in this debate get strengthened by this single

shloka you provided.

 

Of course; those who have a fixed mindset (even though they keep

saying open mind, in fact, they have fixed mindset) can always twist

the interpretation to their convenience and try to MAKE a FIT of the

shloka for their views. Such interpretation, however will not stand

your opinion posted in this mail.

 

This in fact brings out your experience and understanding level of

the subject.

 

Best regards,

Satya S Kolachina

 

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Krishna,

>

> The reason for aspects being allowed within D-charts may have to

do with

> the " Grahasphutadrishtikathanaadhyaaya " where evaluation of

different

> aspects of grahas are given and they range from 30 degrees onwards

in

> increments of 0.30 degrees each till 299.30 as per table given by

Late

> R. Santanam. There is no repetition of amshas attributed to one

rasi

> within a rasi in the first harmonic chart class and therefore

these

> drishtis become applicable. In higher harmonics these may not be

> applicable as rasi equivalent Varga will repeat, within 30 degrees

and

> that is why I personally would look at rasi drishti there.

>

> Of course the above is my personal opinion on the logic behind the

> aspects, within D-Charts, and the way they may be considered and

it is

> up to the learned to decide whether this view is right or not.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

> Krishnamurthy Seetharama wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> >

> > Thanks for this mail and the translation of the Shloka in BPHS.

> > I guess it has been conclusively proven that the aspects are

> > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not sure if everyone

> > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure. And, I am happy

> > that I am in the right path.

> >

> > However, the question remains that what is the principle behind

> > allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even if they are a

> > restricted set.

> >

> > I guess the ancient authors have not explained the principle

> > behind the same. However, I would be very glad if you could

> > share your thoughts on this.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Krishna

> >

> > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46

> > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>> wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I do not know what you are trying to prove here. However, the

> > > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> > >

> > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of the ascendant are

> > > occupied

> > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is formed, without

> > > doubt. If

> > > the aspect is full the results are full, if half, so are the

> > > results

> > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th strength. "

> > >

> > > This indicates that Parashara is talking about graha drishti

> > > here. No

> > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full drishtis. This is

> > > apparently so

> > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha drishti can be

> > > seen. This

> > > also means that Parashara is not himself accepting the 2 rasi

> > > hora

> > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by Varaha Mihira.

> > > So if you

> > > accept the shloka as it is then you have to forget the Hora

> > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

> > > acceptable to

> > > you?

> > >

> > >

> > > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact that aspects in

> > > divisional

> > > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted by him, though he

> > > expresses

> > > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic of these

> > > aspects.

> > >

> > > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting aspects in

> > > D-Charts, now

> > > that you have quoted the shloka and the supremacy of BPHS over

> > >

> > > Dashaadhyaayi?

> > >

> > > Let me make it clear that I personally do not treat one

> > > classic superior

> > > or inferior to other, but this is what appears to be Pradeep's

> > > view as

> > > he is quoting the shloka in support of his argument.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> > > >

> > > > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 & 14.I am also

> > > providing

> > > > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read them without any

> > > fonts.

> > > >

> > > > http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> > > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>>

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is

> > > obvious

> > > > that

> > > > > only selective position is given.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the

> > > point as you

> > > > are

> > > > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving

> > > them off

> > > > when

> > > > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to

> > > the

> > > > list. You

> > > > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and

> > > then

> > > > went on

> > > > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in

> > > D-Charts.

> > > > Then

> > > > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts.

> > > Then

> > > > followed

> > > > > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in

> > > D-Charts.

> > > > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you

> > > changed the

> > > > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your

> > > translation

> > > > of

> > > > > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has

> > > prohibited

> > > > use of

> > > > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the

> > > authority of

> > > > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for

> > > Bhava,

> > > > Ghatika,

> > > > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of

> > > the

> > > > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes.

> > > Even the

> > > > Amsha

> > > > > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

> > > > confusion

> > > > > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is

> > > Amsha

> > > > though

> > > > > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference

> > > between

> > > > their

> > > > > meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on

> > > Vargas.

> > > > >

> > > > > This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains

> > > to

> > > > write down

> > > > > the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you

> > > said that

> > > > > dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why

> > > give

> > > > one

> > > > > liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what

> > > is?

> > > > >

> > > > > Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of

> > > Sanskrit to

> > > > suit

> > > > > what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects

> > > are not

> > > > > possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying

> > > that no

> > > > other

> > > > > charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk

> > > of other

> > > > charts

> > > > > is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in

> > > matters

> > > > astrological.

> > > > >

> > > > > If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free

> > > to

> > > > think

> > > > > that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra

> > > and rashi

> > > > > chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like

> > > that as

> > > > you

> > > > > claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what

> > > is now

> > > > being

> > > > > discussed and you will find it if you sift through the

> > > voluminous

> > > > > exchange of mail on this subject.

> > > > >

> > > > > I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart

> > > with a

> > > > point

> > > > > other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that,

> > > it is

> > > > not

> > > > > possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi

> > > chart can

> > > > be

> > > > > drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you

> > > references

> > > > from

> > > > > Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be

> > > drawn

> > > > that

> > > > > have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava,

> > > but am

> > > > sure you

> > > > > will then jump t o some other subject.

> > > > >

> > > > > If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be

> > > found

> > > > in Hora

> > > > > chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being

> > > one of

> > > > the

> > > > > shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain

> > > how

> > > > Lagna

> > > > > Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give

> > > the entire

> > >

> > === message truncated ===

> >

> > ________

> > Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative

vehicles.

> > Visit the Auto Green Center.

> > http://autos./green_center/

> > <http://autos./green_center/>

> >

> >

> > --------------------------------

-------

> >

> >

> >

> > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.17/915 - Release Date:

7/24/2007 1:50 PM

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Satya ji

 

Yes - Very true.

 

Shri Chandrasekhar ji has explained it thoroughly from classic

perspective. Understandably all other great astrologers explaining

varga charts have not disputed its existence, bhavas and combinations

etc. I presume those astrologers must also be learned to have

thoroughly investigated the relevance of varga charts.

 

I am observing Late Santhanam being selectively quoted for aspects -

as if his other explanations are accepted verbatim !! Even when he is

seen using aspects in D charts in case studies, he is still misquoted.

 

Well - this thread seems closed for me, and I am very clear in terms

of existence and application of varga chakras. let the forum time and

space is not wasted from repetition. Let the whitepap-er be produced

in due course and published in astrological magazines; and each one of

us will take our review - but this may not need any forceful argument

for conversion.

 

regards / Prafulla

, " Satya Sai Kolachina "

<skolachi wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Chandrasekhar ji,

>

> I am trying to keep myself from this endless and pointless debate

> for a long time; but I could not resist myself from appreciating you

> bringing out this most valuable shloka and interpretation on this

> subject.

>

> This is the ultimate answer to those who do not consider aspects in

> Varga charts or D-Charts. Clearly Sage Parasara indicates here, his

> support on aspects in varga charts and in fact, all your & our

> earlier arguments in this debate get strengthened by this single

> shloka you provided.

>

> Of course; those who have a fixed mindset (even though they keep

> saying open mind, in fact, they have fixed mindset) can always twist

> the interpretation to their convenience and try to MAKE a FIT of the

> shloka for their views. Such interpretation, however will not stand

> your opinion posted in this mail.

>

> This in fact brings out your experience and understanding level of

> the subject.

>

> Best regards,

> Satya S Kolachina

>

>

> , Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Krishna,

> >

> > The reason for aspects being allowed within D-charts may have to

> do with

> > the " Grahasphutadrishtikathanaadhyaaya " where evaluation of

> different

> > aspects of grahas are given and they range from 30 degrees onwards

> in

> > increments of 0.30 degrees each till 299.30 as per table given by

> Late

> > R. Santanam. There is no repetition of amshas attributed to one

> rasi

> > within a rasi in the first harmonic chart class and therefore

> these

> > drishtis become applicable. In higher harmonics these may not be

> > applicable as rasi equivalent Varga will repeat, within 30 degrees

> and

> > that is why I personally would look at rasi drishti there.

> >

> > Of course the above is my personal opinion on the logic behind the

> > aspects, within D-Charts, and the way they may be considered and

> it is

> > up to the learned to decide whether this view is right or not.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> > Krishnamurthy Seetharama wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > >

> > > Thanks for this mail and the translation of the Shloka in BPHS.

> > > I guess it has been conclusively proven that the aspects are

> > > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not sure if everyone

> > > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure. And, I am happy

> > > that I am in the right path.

> > >

> > > However, the question remains that what is the principle behind

> > > allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even if they are a

> > > restricted set.

> > >

> > > I guess the ancient authors have not explained the principle

> > > behind the same. However, I would be very glad if you could

> > > share your thoughts on this.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Krishna

> > >

> > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@

> > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>> wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I do not know what you are trying to prove here. However, the

> > > > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> > > >

> > > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of the ascendant are

> > > > occupied

> > > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is formed, without

> > > > doubt. If

> > > > the aspect is full the results are full, if half, so are the

> > > > results

> > > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th strength. "

> > > >

> > > > This indicates that Parashara is talking about graha drishti

> > > > here. No

> > > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full drishtis. This is

> > > > apparently so

> > > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha drishti can be

> > > > seen. This

> > > > also means that Parashara is not himself accepting the 2 rasi

> > > > hora

> > > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by Varaha Mihira.

> > > > So if you

> > > > accept the shloka as it is then you have to forget the Hora

> > > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

> > > > acceptable to

> > > > you?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact that aspects in

> > > > divisional

> > > > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted by him, though he

> > > > expresses

> > > > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic of these

> > > > aspects.

> > > >

> > > > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting aspects in

> > > > D-Charts, now

> > > > that you have quoted the shloka and the supremacy of BPHS over

> > > >

> > > > Dashaadhyaayi?

> > > >

> > > > Let me make it clear that I personally do not treat one

> > > > classic superior

> > > > or inferior to other, but this is what appears to be Pradeep's

> > > > view as

> > > > he is quoting the shloka in support of his argument.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> > > > >

> > > > > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 & 14.I am also

> > > > providing

> > > > > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read them without any

> > > > fonts.

> > > > >

> > > > > http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> > > > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>>

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is

> > > > obvious

> > > > > that

> > > > > > only selective position is given.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the

> > > > point as you

> > > > > are

> > > > > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving

> > > > them off

> > > > > when

> > > > > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to

> > > > the

> > > > > list. You

> > > > > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and

> > > > then

> > > > > went on

> > > > > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in

> > > > D-Charts.

> > > > > Then

> > > > > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts.

> > > > Then

> > > > > followed

> > > > > > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in

> > > > D-Charts.

> > > > > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you

> > > > changed the

> > > > > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your

> > > > translation

> > > > > of

> > > > > > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has

> > > > prohibited

> > > > > use of

> > > > > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the

> > > > authority of

> > > > > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for

> > > > Bhava,

> > > > > Ghatika,

> > > > > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of

> > > > the

> > > > > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes.

> > > > Even the

> > > > > Amsha

> > > > > > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

> > > > > confusion

> > > > > > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is

> > > > Amsha

> > > > > though

> > > > > > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference

> > > > between

> > > > > their

> > > > > > meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on

> > > > Vargas.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains

> > > > to

> > > > > write down

> > > > > > the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you

> > > > said that

> > > > > > dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why

> > > > give

> > > > > one

> > > > > > liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what

> > > > is?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of

> > > > Sanskrit to

> > > > > suit

> > > > > > what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects

> > > > are not

> > > > > > possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying

> > > > that no

> > > > > other

> > > > > > charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk

> > > > of other

> > > > > charts

> > > > > > is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in

> > > > matters

> > > > > astrological.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free

> > > > to

> > > > > think

> > > > > > that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra

> > > > and rashi

> > > > > > chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like

> > > > that as

> > > > > you

> > > > > > claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what

> > > > is now

> > > > > being

> > > > > > discussed and you will find it if you sift through the

> > > > voluminous

> > > > > > exchange of mail on this subject.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart

> > > > with a

> > > > > point

> > > > > > other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that,

> > > > it is

> > > > > not

> > > > > > possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi

> > > > chart can

> > > > > be

> > > > > > drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you

> > > > references

> > > > > from

> > > > > > Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be

> > > > drawn

> > > > > that

> > > > > > have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava,

> > > > but am

> > > > > sure you

> > > > > > will then jump t o some other subject.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be

> > > > found

> > > > > in Hora

> > > > > > chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being

> > > > one of

> > > > > the

> > > > > > shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain

> > > > how

> > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give

> > > > the entire

> > > >

> > > === message truncated ===

> > >

> > > ________

> > > Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative

> vehicles.

> > > Visit the Auto Green Center.

> > > http://autos./green_center/

> > > <http://autos./green_center/>

> > >

> > >

> > > --------------------------------

> -------

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.17/915 - Release Date:

> 7/24/2007 1:50 PM

> > >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear Satya ji,

 

yes you are very right that experience speaks.

 

and actually i was thinking that, in astrology as Experience speaks

and so normal or less experienced astrologers should not be replied

in such cases.

it is like wasting our time....and a common mumbai word

" " Bheja Fry " "

 

one has to answer the client abt his questions, and for the

preciseness one has to go in more depth.

 

and those who donot know sanskrit, ....should they be answered with

shloka ?? i dont think so.

 

Chandrashekhar ji tried to gave Shri Pradeep numerous examples but

pradeep ji always skiped questions by him.

 

I hope astrology donot lose its right way in future.

 

Regards,

 

Tarun

, " Satya Sai Kolachina "

<skolachi wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Chandrasekhar ji,

>

> I am trying to keep myself from this endless and pointless debate

> for a long time; but I could not resist myself from appreciating

you

> bringing out this most valuable shloka and interpretation on this

> subject.

>

> This is the ultimate answer to those who do not consider aspects in

> Varga charts or D-Charts. Clearly Sage Parasara indicates here, his

> support on aspects in varga charts and in fact, all your & our

> earlier arguments in this debate get strengthened by this single

> shloka you provided.

>

> Of course; those who have a fixed mindset (even though they keep

> saying open mind, in fact, they have fixed mindset) can always

twist

> the interpretation to their convenience and try to MAKE a FIT of

the

> shloka for their views. Such interpretation, however will not stand

> your opinion posted in this mail.

>

> This in fact brings out your experience and understanding level of

> the subject.

>

> Best regards,

> Satya S Kolachina

>

>

> , Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Krishna,

> >

> > The reason for aspects being allowed within D-charts may have to

> do with

> > the " Grahasphutadrishtikathanaadhyaaya " where evaluation of

> different

> > aspects of grahas are given and they range from 30 degrees

onwards

> in

> > increments of 0.30 degrees each till 299.30 as per table given by

> Late

> > R. Santanam. There is no repetition of amshas attributed to one

> rasi

> > within a rasi in the first harmonic chart class and therefore

> these

> > drishtis become applicable. In higher harmonics these may not be

> > applicable as rasi equivalent Varga will repeat, within 30

degrees

> and

> > that is why I personally would look at rasi drishti there.

> >

> > Of course the above is my personal opinion on the logic behind

the

> > aspects, within D-Charts, and the way they may be considered and

> it is

> > up to the learned to decide whether this view is right or not.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> > Krishnamurthy Seetharama wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > >

> > > Thanks for this mail and the translation of the Shloka in BPHS.

> > > I guess it has been conclusively proven that the aspects are

> > > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not sure if everyone

> > > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure. And, I am happy

> > > that I am in the right path.

> > >

> > > However, the question remains that what is the principle behind

> > > allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even if they are a

> > > restricted set.

> > >

> > > I guess the ancient authors have not explained the principle

> > > behind the same. However, I would be very glad if you could

> > > share your thoughts on this.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Krishna

> > >

> > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@

> > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>> wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I do not know what you are trying to prove here. However, the

> > > > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> > > >

> > > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of the ascendant are

> > > > occupied

> > > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is formed, without

> > > > doubt. If

> > > > the aspect is full the results are full, if half, so are the

> > > > results

> > > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th strength. "

> > > >

> > > > This indicates that Parashara is talking about graha drishti

> > > > here. No

> > > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full drishtis. This is

> > > > apparently so

> > > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha drishti can be

> > > > seen. This

> > > > also means that Parashara is not himself accepting the 2 rasi

> > > > hora

> > > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by Varaha Mihira.

> > > > So if you

> > > > accept the shloka as it is then you have to forget the Hora

> > > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

> > > > acceptable to

> > > > you?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact that aspects in

> > > > divisional

> > > > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted by him, though he

> > > > expresses

> > > > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic of these

> > > > aspects.

> > > >

> > > > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting aspects in

> > > > D-Charts, now

> > > > that you have quoted the shloka and the supremacy of BPHS over

> > > >

> > > > Dashaadhyaayi?

> > > >

> > > > Let me make it clear that I personally do not treat one

> > > > classic superior

> > > > or inferior to other, but this is what appears to be Pradeep's

> > > > view as

> > > > he is quoting the shloka in support of his argument.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> > > > >

> > > > > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 & 14.I am also

> > > > providing

> > > > > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read them without any

> > > > fonts.

> > > > >

> > > > > http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> > > > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>>

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is

> > > > obvious

> > > > > that

> > > > > > only selective position is given.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the

> > > > point as you

> > > > > are

> > > > > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving

> > > > them off

> > > > > when

> > > > > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to

> > > > the

> > > > > list. You

> > > > > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and

> > > > then

> > > > > went on

> > > > > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in

> > > > D-Charts.

> > > > > Then

> > > > > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts.

> > > > Then

> > > > > followed

> > > > > > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in

> > > > D-Charts.

> > > > > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you

> > > > changed the

> > > > > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your

> > > > translation

> > > > > of

> > > > > > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has

> > > > prohibited

> > > > > use of

> > > > > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the

> > > > authority of

> > > > > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for

> > > > Bhava,

> > > > > Ghatika,

> > > > > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of

> > > > the

> > > > > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes.

> > > > Even the

> > > > > Amsha

> > > > > > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

> > > > > confusion

> > > > > > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is

> > > > Amsha

> > > > > though

> > > > > > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference

> > > > between

> > > > > their

> > > > > > meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on

> > > > Vargas.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains

> > > > to

> > > > > write down

> > > > > > the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you

> > > > said that

> > > > > > dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why

> > > > give

> > > > > one

> > > > > > liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what

> > > > is?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of

> > > > Sanskrit to

> > > > > suit

> > > > > > what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects

> > > > are not

> > > > > > possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying

> > > > that no

> > > > > other

> > > > > > charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk

> > > > of other

> > > > > charts

> > > > > > is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in

> > > > matters

> > > > > astrological.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free

> > > > to

> > > > > think

> > > > > > that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra

> > > > and rashi

> > > > > > chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like

> > > > that as

> > > > > you

> > > > > > claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what

> > > > is now

> > > > > being

> > > > > > discussed and you will find it if you sift through the

> > > > voluminous

> > > > > > exchange of mail on this subject.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart

> > > > with a

> > > > > point

> > > > > > other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that,

> > > > it is

> > > > > not

> > > > > > possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi

> > > > chart can

> > > > > be

> > > > > > drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you

> > > > references

> > > > > from

> > > > > > Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be

> > > > drawn

> > > > > that

> > > > > > have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava,

> > > > but am

> > > > > sure you

> > > > > > will then jump t o some other subject.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be

> > > > found

> > > > > in Hora

> > > > > > chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being

> > > > one of

> > > > > the

> > > > > > shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain

> > > > how

> > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give

> > > > the entire

> > > >

> > > === message truncated ===

> > >

> > > ________

> > > Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative

> vehicles.

> > > Visit the Auto Green Center.

> > > http://autos./green_center/

> > > <http://autos./green_center/>

> > >

> > >

> > > -------------------------------

-

> -------

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.17/915 - Release

Date:

> 7/24/2007 1:50 PM

> > >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

The debate may be endless but certainly not pointless.

Atleast not for me. Please read how the same shloka

can be interpreted with taking aspects in rashi chart.

People have interpreted it to suit their own already

formed ideas. I had raisded questions about why KNRao

transfers karakamsha to rashi chart ? Has anyone asked

him why ? The answer could be he has researched 1000

horoscopes. But has anyone asked if there is any

classical reference to why karakamsha has to be taken

to rashi ? Has anyone asked him that question ? I ask

the guys who have contact with him to ask this

question.

 

Satish

--- Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi wrote:

 

> Dear Sri Chandrasekhar ji,

>

> I am trying to keep myself from this endless and

> pointless debate

> for a long time; but I could not resist myself from

> appreciating you

> bringing out this most valuable shloka and

> interpretation on this

> subject.

>

> This is the ultimate answer to those who do not

> consider aspects in

> Varga charts or D-Charts. Clearly Sage Parasara

> indicates here, his

> support on aspects in varga charts and in fact, all

> your & our

> earlier arguments in this debate get strengthened by

> this single

> shloka you provided.

>

> Of course; those who have a fixed mindset (even

> though they keep

> saying open mind, in fact, they have fixed mindset)

> can always twist

> the interpretation to their convenience and try to

> MAKE a FIT of the

> shloka for their views. Such interpretation, however

> will not stand

> your opinion posted in this mail.

>

> This in fact brings out your experience and

> understanding level of

> the subject.

>

> Best regards,

> Satya S Kolachina

>

>

> , Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Krishna,

> >

> > The reason for aspects being allowed within

> D-charts may have to

> do with

> > the " Grahasphutadrishtikathanaadhyaaya " where

> evaluation of

> different

> > aspects of grahas are given and they range from 30

> degrees onwards

> in

> > increments of 0.30 degrees each till 299.30 as per

> table given by

> Late

> > R. Santanam. There is no repetition of amshas

> attributed to one

> rasi

> > within a rasi in the first harmonic chart class

> and therefore

> these

> > drishtis become applicable. In higher harmonics

> these may not be

> > applicable as rasi equivalent Varga will repeat,

> within 30 degrees

> and

> > that is why I personally would look at rasi

> drishti there.

> >

> > Of course the above is my personal opinion on the

> logic behind the

> > aspects, within D-Charts, and the way they may be

> considered and

> it is

> > up to the learned to decide whether this view is

> right or not.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> > Krishnamurthy Seetharama wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > >

> > > Thanks for this mail and the translation of the

> Shloka in BPHS.

> > > I guess it has been conclusively proven that the

> aspects are

> > > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not

> sure if everyone

> > > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure.

> And, I am happy

> > > that I am in the right path.

> > >

> > > However, the question remains that what is the

> principle behind

> > > allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even

> if they are a

> > > restricted set.

> > >

> > > I guess the ancient authors have not explained

> the principle

> > > behind the same. However, I would be very glad

> if you could

> > > share your thoughts on this.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Krishna

> > >

> > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46

> > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>> wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I do not know what you are trying to prove

> here. However, the

> > > > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> > > >

> > > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of

> the ascendant are

> > > > occupied

> > > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is

> formed, without

> > > > doubt. If

> > > > the aspect is full the results are full, if

> half, so are the

> > > > results

> > > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th

> strength. "

> > > >

> > > > This indicates that Parashara is talking about

> graha drishti

> > > > here. No

> > > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full

> drishtis. This is

> > > > apparently so

> > > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha

> drishti can be

> > > > seen. This

> > > > also means that Parashara is not himself

> accepting the 2 rasi

> > > > hora

> > > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by

> Varaha Mihira.

> > > > So if you

> > > > accept the shloka as it is then you have to

> forget the Hora

> > > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and

> Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

> > > > acceptable to

> > > > you?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact

> that aspects in

> > > > divisional

> > > > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted

> by him, though he

> > > > expresses

> > > > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic

> of these

> > > > aspects.

> > > >

> > > > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting

> aspects in

> > > > D-Charts, now

> > > > that you have quoted the shloka and the

> supremacy of BPHS over

> > > >

> > > > Dashaadhyaayi?

> > > >

> > > > Let me make it clear that I personally do not

> treat one

> > > > classic superior

> > > > or inferior to other, but this is what appears

> to be Pradeep's

> > > > view as

> > > > he is quoting the shloka in support of his

> argument.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> > > > >

> > > > > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 &

> 14.I am also

> > > > providing

> > > > > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read

> them without any

> > > > fonts.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > >

> <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join 's user panel and

lay it on us. http://surveylink./gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?a=7

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

Please ask chadrashekahrji, why he does not use

aspects in navansha, unless a particular sholoka ( e.g

trinsamsha shloka..).

 

As sage has not explitcitly said anything on aspects

in vargas all these are extrapolations. Please read my

post and think about why the shloka can not be taken

for aspects in rashi. All the shadavargas of lagna are

in rashi and a planet can reside or aspect those

shadavargas in rashi.

 

Ofcourse one can use whatever they want to use. To

suggest that the sholka that chadrashekharji traslated

explicitly suggests aspects in varga is an

extrapolation. Please read the writeup of Mr. Bose.

these questions have been raised before.

 

Satish

--- Prafulla Gang <jyotish wrote:

 

> Dear Satya ji

>

> Yes - Very true.

>

> Shri Chandrasekhar ji has explained it thoroughly

> from classic

> perspective. Understandably all other great

> astrologers explaining

> varga charts have not disputed its existence, bhavas

> and combinations

> etc. I presume those astrologers must also be

> learned to have

> thoroughly investigated the relevance of varga

> charts.

>

> I am observing Late Santhanam being selectively

> quoted for aspects -

> as if his other explanations are accepted verbatim

> !! Even when he is

> seen using aspects in D charts in case studies, he

> is still misquoted.

>

> Well - this thread seems closed for me, and I am

> very clear in terms

> of existence and application of varga chakras. let

> the forum time and

> space is not wasted from repetition. Let the

> whitepap-er be produced

> in due course and published in astrological

> magazines; and each one of

> us will take our review - but this may not need any

> forceful argument

> for conversion.

>

> regards / Prafulla

> , " Satya Sai

> Kolachina "

> <skolachi wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sri Chandrasekhar ji,

> >

> > I am trying to keep myself from this endless and

> pointless debate

> > for a long time; but I could not resist myself

> from appreciating you

> > bringing out this most valuable shloka and

> interpretation on this

> > subject.

> >

> > This is the ultimate answer to those who do not

> consider aspects in

> > Varga charts or D-Charts. Clearly Sage Parasara

> indicates here, his

> > support on aspects in varga charts and in fact,

> all your & our

> > earlier arguments in this debate get strengthened

> by this single

> > shloka you provided.

> >

> > Of course; those who have a fixed mindset (even

> though they keep

> > saying open mind, in fact, they have fixed

> mindset) can always twist

> > the interpretation to their convenience and try to

> MAKE a FIT of the

> > shloka for their views. Such interpretation,

> however will not stand

> > your opinion posted in this mail.

> >

> > This in fact brings out your experience and

> understanding level of

> > the subject.

> >

> > Best regards,

> > Satya S Kolachina

> >

> >

> > ,

> Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Krishna,

> > >

> > > The reason for aspects being allowed within

> D-charts may have to

> > do with

> > > the " Grahasphutadrishtikathanaadhyaaya " where

> evaluation of

> > different

> > > aspects of grahas are given and they range from

> 30 degrees onwards

> > in

> > > increments of 0.30 degrees each till 299.30 as

> per table given by

> > Late

> > > R. Santanam. There is no repetition of amshas

> attributed to one

> > rasi

> > > within a rasi in the first harmonic chart class

> and therefore

> > these

> > > drishtis become applicable. In higher harmonics

> these may not be

> > > applicable as rasi equivalent Varga will repeat,

> within 30 degrees

> > and

> > > that is why I personally would look at rasi

> drishti there.

> > >

> > > Of course the above is my personal opinion on

> the logic behind the

> > > aspects, within D-Charts, and the way they may

> be considered and

> > it is

> > > up to the learned to decide whether this view is

> right or not.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > > Krishnamurthy Seetharama wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > >

> > > > Thanks for this mail and the translation of

> the Shloka in BPHS.

> > > > I guess it has been conclusively proven that

> the aspects are

> > > > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not

> sure if everyone

> > > > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure.

> And, I am happy

> > > > that I am in the right path.

> > > >

> > > > However, the question remains that what is the

> principle behind

> > > > allowing aspects in the divisional charts,

> even if they are a

> > > > restricted set.

> > > >

> > > > I guess the ancient authors have not explained

> the principle

> > > > behind the same. However, I would be very glad

> if you could

> > > > share your thoughts on this.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Krishna

> > > >

> > > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@

> > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>>

> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > I do not know what you are trying to prove

> here. However, the

> > > > > translation is pretty straight forward and

> is:

> > > > >

> > > > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of

> the ascendant are

> > > > > occupied

> > > > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is

> formed, without

> > > > > doubt. If

> > > > > the aspect is full the results are full, if

> half, so are the

> > > > > results

> > > > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at

> 1/4th strength. "

> > > > >

> > > > > This indicates that Parashara is talking

> about graha drishti

> > > > > here. No

> > > > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full

> drishtis. This is

> > > > > apparently so

> > > > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where

> graha drishti can be

> > > > > seen. This

> > > > > also means that Parashara is not himself

> accepting the 2 rasi

> > > > > hora

> > > > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed

> by Varaha Mihira.

> > > > > So if you

> > > > > accept the shloka as it is then you have to

> forget the Hora

> > > > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and

> Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

> > > > > acceptable to

> > > > > you?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > If you read Santanam's comment on it the

> fact that aspects in

> > > > > divisional

> > > > > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted

> by him, though he

> > > > > expresses

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Shape in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!

http://surveylink./gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?a=7

[Guest guest]

Dear Satya ji Prafulla ji and all

 

Chandrashekhar ji's interpretation is nothing new in astrological

wolrd except for his sincerity to translate it as divisions instead

of divisional chart.

 

Even though you are unable to see this aspect,Chandrashekhar ji

knows for certain that ,his interpretation is nothing new.For the

same reason he rightly asked -I do not know what you are trying to

prove.

 

Thus Chandrashekhar ji did not interpret anything new as you are

observing.If you have any doubts ask Chandrashekhar ji.

 

On the other hand regarding Graha Drishti ,after Chandrashekhar ji's

reply we will kindly come to the relevant chapter in BPHS.Then you

may understand why Late Santhanam said aspects are not possible.

 

Thus let us wait for Chandrashekhar jis reply.I can understand your

eagerness in closing this thread and i respect your views.

 

Regds

Pradeep

, " Satya Sai Kolachina "

<skolachi wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Chandrasekhar ji,

>

> I am trying to keep myself from this endless and pointless debate

> for a long time; but I could not resist myself from appreciating

you

> bringing out this most valuable shloka and interpretation on this

> subject.

>

> This is the ultimate answer to those who do not consider aspects

in

> Varga charts or D-Charts. Clearly Sage Parasara indicates here,

his

> support on aspects in varga charts and in fact, all your & our

> earlier arguments in this debate get strengthened by this single

> shloka you provided.

>

> Of course; those who have a fixed mindset (even though they keep

> saying open mind, in fact, they have fixed mindset) can always

twist

> the interpretation to their convenience and try to MAKE a FIT of

the

> shloka for their views. Such interpretation, however will not

stand

> your opinion posted in this mail.

>

> This in fact brings out your experience and understanding level of

> the subject.

>

> Best regards,

> Satya S Kolachina

>

>

> , Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Krishna,

> >

> > The reason for aspects being allowed within D-charts may have to

> do with

> > the " Grahasphutadrishtikathanaadhyaaya " where evaluation of

> different

> > aspects of grahas are given and they range from 30 degrees

onwards

> in

> > increments of 0.30 degrees each till 299.30 as per table given

by

> Late

> > R. Santanam. There is no repetition of amshas attributed to one

> rasi

> > within a rasi in the first harmonic chart class and therefore

> these

> > drishtis become applicable. In higher harmonics these may not be

> > applicable as rasi equivalent Varga will repeat, within 30

degrees

> and

> > that is why I personally would look at rasi drishti there.

> >

> > Of course the above is my personal opinion on the logic behind

the

> > aspects, within D-Charts, and the way they may be considered and

> it is

> > up to the learned to decide whether this view is right or not.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> > Krishnamurthy Seetharama wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > >

> > > Thanks for this mail and the translation of the Shloka in BPHS.

> > > I guess it has been conclusively proven that the aspects are

> > > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not sure if everyone

> > > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure. And, I am happy

> > > that I am in the right path.

> > >

> > > However, the question remains that what is the principle behind

> > > allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even if they are a

> > > restricted set.

> > >

> > > I guess the ancient authors have not explained the principle

> > > behind the same. However, I would be very glad if you could

> > > share your thoughts on this.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Krishna

> > >

> > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@

> > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>> wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I do not know what you are trying to prove here. However, the

> > > > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> > > >

> > > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of the ascendant

are

> > > > occupied

> > > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is formed, without

> > > > doubt. If

> > > > the aspect is full the results are full, if half, so are the

> > > > results

> > > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th strength. "

> > > >

> > > > This indicates that Parashara is talking about graha drishti

> > > > here. No

> > > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full drishtis. This is

> > > > apparently so

> > > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha drishti can be

> > > > seen. This

> > > > also means that Parashara is not himself accepting the 2 rasi

> > > > hora

> > > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by Varaha Mihira.

> > > > So if you

> > > > accept the shloka as it is then you have to forget the Hora

> > > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

> > > > acceptable to

> > > > you?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact that aspects in

> > > > divisional

> > > > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted by him, though

he

> > > > expresses

> > > > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic of these

> > > > aspects.

> > > >

> > > > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting aspects in

> > > > D-Charts, now

> > > > that you have quoted the shloka and the supremacy of BPHS

over

> > > >

> > > > Dashaadhyaayi?

> > > >

> > > > Let me make it clear that I personally do not treat one

> > > > classic superior

> > > > or inferior to other, but this is what appears to be

Pradeep's

> > > > view as

> > > > he is quoting the shloka in support of his argument.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> > > > >

> > > > > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 & 14.I am also

> > > > providing

> > > > > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read them without

any

> > > > fonts.

> > > > >

> > > > > http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> > > > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>>

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is

> > > > obvious

> > > > > that

> > > > > > only selective position is given.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the

> > > > point as you

> > > > > are

> > > > > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving

> > > > them off

> > > > > when

> > > > > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members

to

> > > > the

> > > > > list. You

> > > > > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS

and

> > > > then

> > > > > went on

> > > > > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in

> > > > D-Charts.

> > > > > Then

> > > > > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts.

> > > > Then

> > > > > followed

> > > > > > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in

> > > > D-Charts.

> > > > > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you

> > > > changed the

> > > > > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your

> > > > translation

> > > > > of

> > > > > > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has

> > > > prohibited

> > > > > use of

> > > > > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the

> > > > authority of

> > > > > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for

> > > > Bhava,

> > > > > Ghatika,

> > > > > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction

of

> > > > the

> > > > > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes.

> > > > Even the

> > > > > Amsha

> > > > > > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more

for

> > > > > confusion

> > > > > > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is

> > > > Amsha

> > > > > though

> > > > > > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference

> > > > between

> > > > > their

> > > > > > meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on

> > > > Vargas.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is why I had said that I would not like to take

pains

> > > > to

> > > > > write down

> > > > > > the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you

> > > > said that

> > > > > > dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so

why

> > > > give

> > > > > one

> > > > > > liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray

what

> > > > is?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of

> > > > Sanskrit to

> > > > > suit

> > > > > > what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that

aspects

> > > > are not

> > > > > > possible without giving quotes from authorities and

saying

> > > > that no

> > > > > other

> > > > > > charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk

> > > > of other

> > > > > charts

> > > > > > is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in

> > > > matters

> > > > > astrological.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are

free

> > > > to

> > > > > think

> > > > > > that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra

> > > > and rashi

> > > > > > chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like

> > > > that as

> > > > > you

> > > > > > claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from

what

> > > > is now

> > > > > being

> > > > > > discussed and you will find it if you sift through the

> > > > voluminous

> > > > > > exchange of mail on this subject.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart

> > > > with a

> > > > > point

> > > > > > other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that,

> > > > it is

> > > > > not

> > > > > > possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi

> > > > chart can

> > > > > be

> > > > > > drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you

> > > > references

> > > > > from

> > > > > > Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be

> > > > drawn

> > > > > that

> > > > > > have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava,

> > > > but am

> > > > > sure you

> > > > > > will then jump t o some other subject.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can

be

> > > > found

> > > > > in Hora

> > > > > > chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being

> > > > one of

> > > > > the

> > > > > > shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain

> > > > how

> > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give

> > > > the entire

> > > >

> > > === message truncated ===

> > >

> > > ________

> > > Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative

> vehicles.

> > > Visit the Auto Green Center.

> > > http://autos./green_center/

> > > <http://autos./green_center/>

> > >

> > >

> > > ------------------------------

--

> -------

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.17/915 - Release

Date:

> 7/24/2007 1:50 PM

> > >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Hi

 

Well, I have expressed my views explicitly. See in KAS also - Navamsa

chart exists and is used - not the way, you are suggesting.

 

BTW he article referred - that does not reject on existence of D

charts, bhava or yoga there. Why selective reference on his views on

aspects as argument for non existence of D chakra.

 

Also - the people who have read Shesdri Iyyer or people following KAS

- will subscibe to existence and use of D chakra - quite contrary to

your view.

 

I reject the non existence of D charts - their bhava/yoga/aspects -

from my 20 years of jyotish exploration. and I am convinced about it.

You are free to use, what enriches your jyotish pursuits better.

 

Let each one of us do what they want to...Why forceful conversion?

 

regards / Prafulla

 

, SPK <aquaris_rising wrote:

>

> Hi,

>

> Please ask chadrashekahrji, why he does not use

> aspects in navansha, unless a particular sholoka ( e.g

> trinsamsha shloka..).

>

> As sage has not explitcitly said anything on aspects

> in vargas all these are extrapolations. Please read my

> post and think about why the shloka can not be taken

> for aspects in rashi. All the shadavargas of lagna are

> in rashi and a planet can reside or aspect those

> shadavargas in rashi.

>

> Ofcourse one can use whatever they want to use. To

> suggest that the sholka that chadrashekharji traslated

> explicitly suggests aspects in varga is an

> extrapolation. Please read the writeup of Mr. Bose.

> these questions have been raised before.

>

> Satish

> --- Prafulla Gang <jyotish wrote:

>

> > Dear Satya ji

> >

> > Yes - Very true.

> >

> > Shri Chandrasekhar ji has explained it thoroughly

> > from classic

> > perspective. Understandably all other great

> > astrologers explaining

> > varga charts have not disputed its existence, bhavas

> > and combinations

> > etc. I presume those astrologers must also be

> > learned to have

> > thoroughly investigated the relevance of varga

> > charts.

> >

> > I am observing Late Santhanam being selectively

> > quoted for aspects -

> > as if his other explanations are accepted verbatim

> > !! Even when he is

> > seen using aspects in D charts in case studies, he

> > is still misquoted.

> >

> > Well - this thread seems closed for me, and I am

> > very clear in terms

> > of existence and application of varga chakras. let

> > the forum time and

> > space is not wasted from repetition. Let the

> > whitepap-er be produced

> > in due course and published in astrological

> > magazines; and each one of

> > us will take our review - but this may not need any

> > forceful argument

> > for conversion.

> >

> > regards / Prafulla

> > , " Satya Sai

> > Kolachina "

> > <skolachi@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sri Chandrasekhar ji,

> > >

> > > I am trying to keep myself from this endless and

> > pointless debate

> > > for a long time; but I could not resist myself

> > from appreciating you

> > > bringing out this most valuable shloka and

> > interpretation on this

> > > subject.

> > >

> > > This is the ultimate answer to those who do not

> > consider aspects in

> > > Varga charts or D-Charts. Clearly Sage Parasara

> > indicates here, his

> > > support on aspects in varga charts and in fact,

> > all your & our

> > > earlier arguments in this debate get strengthened

> > by this single

> > > shloka you provided.

> > >

> > > Of course; those who have a fixed mindset (even

> > though they keep

> > > saying open mind, in fact, they have fixed

> > mindset) can always twist

> > > the interpretation to their convenience and try to

> > MAKE a FIT of the

> > > shloka for their views. Such interpretation,

> > however will not stand

> > > your opinion posted in this mail.

> > >

> > > This in fact brings out your experience and

> > understanding level of

> > > the subject.

> > >

> > > Best regards,

> > > Satya S Kolachina

> > >

> > >

> > > ,

> > Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Krishna,

> > > >

> > > > The reason for aspects being allowed within

> > D-charts may have to

> > > do with

> > > > the " Grahasphutadrishtikathanaadhyaaya " where

> > evaluation of

> > > different

> > > > aspects of grahas are given and they range from

> > 30 degrees onwards

> > > in

> > > > increments of 0.30 degrees each till 299.30 as

> > per table given by

> > > Late

> > > > R. Santanam. There is no repetition of amshas

> > attributed to one

> > > rasi

> > > > within a rasi in the first harmonic chart class

> > and therefore

> > > these

> > > > drishtis become applicable. In higher harmonics

> > these may not be

> > > > applicable as rasi equivalent Varga will repeat,

> > within 30 degrees

> > > and

> > > > that is why I personally would look at rasi

> > drishti there.

> > > >

> > > > Of course the above is my personal opinion on

> > the logic behind the

> > > > aspects, within D-Charts, and the way they may

> > be considered and

> > > it is

> > > > up to the learned to decide whether this view is

> > right or not.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Krishnamurthy Seetharama wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks for this mail and the translation of

> > the Shloka in BPHS.

> > > > > I guess it has been conclusively proven that

> > the aspects are

> > > > > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not

> > sure if everyone

> > > > > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure.

> > And, I am happy

> > > > > that I am in the right path.

> > > > >

> > > > > However, the question remains that what is the

> > principle behind

> > > > > allowing aspects in the divisional charts,

> > even if they are a

> > > > > restricted set.

> > > > >

> > > > > I guess the ancient authors have not explained

> > the principle

> > > > > behind the same. However, I would be very glad

> > if you could

> > > > > share your thoughts on this.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > > Krishna

> > > > >

> > > > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>>

> > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I do not know what you are trying to prove

> > here. However, the

> > > > > > translation is pretty straight forward and

> > is:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of

> > the ascendant are

> > > > > > occupied

> > > > > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is

> > formed, without

> > > > > > doubt. If

> > > > > > the aspect is full the results are full, if

> > half, so are the

> > > > > > results

> > > > > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at

> > 1/4th strength. "

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This indicates that Parashara is talking

> > about graha drishti

> > > > > > here. No

> > > > > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full

> > drishtis. This is

> > > > > > apparently so

> > > > > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where

> > graha drishti can be

> > > > > > seen. This

> > > > > > also means that Parashara is not himself

> > accepting the 2 rasi

> > > > > > hora

> > > > > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed

> > by Varaha Mihira.

> > > > > > So if you

> > > > > > accept the shloka as it is then you have to

> > forget the Hora

> > > > > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and

> > Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

> > > > > > acceptable to

> > > > > > you?

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you read Santanam's comment on it the

> > fact that aspects in

> > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted

> > by him, though he

> > > > > > expresses

> >

> === message truncated ===

>

>

>

>

______________________________\

____

> Shape in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel

today! http://surveylink./gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?a=7

>

[Guest guest]

Hi

 

Well, Shri pradeep is - perhaps, the best person to answer - as to

Shri KN Rao's views, as he quotes him quite often. That is why, I

asked him fiurst question - about Shri Shri KN rao's personal opinion.

We can not use selective reference (as one rejection or application to

prove a reasoning) ..had that been case, Shri KN Rao would not have

used D charts at all the way D1 chart is used. You mean to say - he

misled the house?

 

regards / Prafulla

 

, SPK <aquaris_rising wrote:

>

> Hi,

>

> The debate may be endless but certainly not pointless.

> Atleast not for me. Please read how the same shloka

> can be interpreted with taking aspects in rashi chart.

> People have interpreted it to suit their own already

> formed ideas. I had raisded questions about why KNRao

> transfers karakamsha to rashi chart ? Has anyone asked

> him why ? The answer could be he has researched 1000

> horoscopes. But has anyone asked if there is any

> classical reference to why karakamsha has to be taken

> to rashi ? Has anyone asked him that question ? I ask

> the guys who have contact with him to ask this

> question.

>

> Satish

> --- Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi wrote:

>

> > Dear Sri Chandrasekhar ji,

> >

> > I am trying to keep myself from this endless and

> > pointless debate

> > for a long time; but I could not resist myself from

> > appreciating you

> > bringing out this most valuable shloka and

> > interpretation on this

> > subject.

> >

> > This is the ultimate answer to those who do not

> > consider aspects in

> > Varga charts or D-Charts. Clearly Sage Parasara

> > indicates here, his

> > support on aspects in varga charts and in fact, all

> > your & our

> > earlier arguments in this debate get strengthened by

> > this single

> > shloka you provided.

> >

> > Of course; those who have a fixed mindset (even

> > though they keep

> > saying open mind, in fact, they have fixed mindset)

> > can always twist

> > the interpretation to their convenience and try to

> > MAKE a FIT of the

> > shloka for their views. Such interpretation, however

> > will not stand

> > your opinion posted in this mail.

> >

> > This in fact brings out your experience and

> > understanding level of

> > the subject.

> >

> > Best regards,

> > Satya S Kolachina

> >

> >

> > , Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Krishna,

> > >

> > > The reason for aspects being allowed within

> > D-charts may have to

> > do with

> > > the " Grahasphutadrishtikathanaadhyaaya " where

> > evaluation of

> > different

> > > aspects of grahas are given and they range from 30

> > degrees onwards

> > in

> > > increments of 0.30 degrees each till 299.30 as per

> > table given by

> > Late

> > > R. Santanam. There is no repetition of amshas

> > attributed to one

> > rasi

> > > within a rasi in the first harmonic chart class

> > and therefore

> > these

> > > drishtis become applicable. In higher harmonics

> > these may not be

> > > applicable as rasi equivalent Varga will repeat,

> > within 30 degrees

> > and

> > > that is why I personally would look at rasi

> > drishti there.

> > >

> > > Of course the above is my personal opinion on the

> > logic behind the

> > > aspects, within D-Charts, and the way they may be

> > considered and

> > it is

> > > up to the learned to decide whether this view is

> > right or not.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > > Krishnamurthy Seetharama wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > >

> > > > Thanks for this mail and the translation of the

> > Shloka in BPHS.

> > > > I guess it has been conclusively proven that the

> > aspects are

> > > > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not

> > sure if everyone

> > > > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure.

> > And, I am happy

> > > > that I am in the right path.

> > > >

> > > > However, the question remains that what is the

> > principle behind

> > > > allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even

> > if they are a

> > > > restricted set.

> > > >

> > > > I guess the ancient authors have not explained

> > the principle

> > > > behind the same. However, I would be very glad

> > if you could

> > > > share your thoughts on this.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Krishna

> > > >

> > > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@

> > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > I do not know what you are trying to prove

> > here. However, the

> > > > > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> > > > >

> > > > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of

> > the ascendant are

> > > > > occupied

> > > > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is

> > formed, without

> > > > > doubt. If

> > > > > the aspect is full the results are full, if

> > half, so are the

> > > > > results

> > > > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th

> > strength. "

> > > > >

> > > > > This indicates that Parashara is talking about

> > graha drishti

> > > > > here. No

> > > > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full

> > drishtis. This is

> > > > > apparently so

> > > > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha

> > drishti can be

> > > > > seen. This

> > > > > also means that Parashara is not himself

> > accepting the 2 rasi

> > > > > hora

> > > > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by

> > Varaha Mihira.

> > > > > So if you

> > > > > accept the shloka as it is then you have to

> > forget the Hora

> > > > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and

> > Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

> > > > > acceptable to

> > > > > you?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact

> > that aspects in

> > > > > divisional

> > > > > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted

> > by him, though he

> > > > > expresses

> > > > > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic

> > of these

> > > > > aspects.

> > > > >

> > > > > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting

> > aspects in

> > > > > D-Charts, now

> > > > > that you have quoted the shloka and the

> > supremacy of BPHS over

> > > > >

> > > > > Dashaadhyaayi?

> > > > >

> > > > > Let me make it clear that I personally do not

> > treat one

> > > > > classic superior

> > > > > or inferior to other, but this is what appears

> > to be Pradeep's

> > > > > view as

> > > > > he is quoting the shloka in support of his

> > argument.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 &

> > 14.I am also

> > > > > providing

> > > > > > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read

> > them without any

> > > > > fonts.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > > >

> > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> >

> === message truncated ===

>

>

>

>

______________________________\

____

> Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join 's

user panel and lay it on us.

http://surveylink./gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?a=7

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Prafulla ji,

 

Well said. THose who are open-minded can really understand why so

many experienced astrologers used (in the past) and are still using

(in the present) aspects in varga charts. The point that 'Same

planet to accept aspecting .... in shadvargas or different

vargas ... means obvious that aspects are granted in D-charts.' In

fact I saw such horoscopes fulfilling this condition (in a single

case where nearly 4 out of 6 varga charts fulfilling that Saturn was

aspecting the lagna in the respective varga chart) and the

proportion of Raja yoga is close to 70% in function. THisis a very

powerful raja yoga. As I always I depend on experience; more so on

the experiences of earlier generation astrologers.

 

Best regards,

Satya S Kolachina

 

, " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish

wrote:

>

> Dear Satya ji

>

> Yes - Very true.

>

> Shri Chandrasekhar ji has explained it thoroughly from classic

> perspective. Understandably all other great astrologers explaining

> varga charts have not disputed its existence, bhavas and

combinations

> etc. I presume those astrologers must also be learned to have

> thoroughly investigated the relevance of varga charts.

>

> I am observing Late Santhanam being selectively quoted for

aspects -

> as if his other explanations are accepted verbatim !! Even when he

is

> seen using aspects in D charts in case studies, he is still

misquoted.

>

> Well - this thread seems closed for me, and I am very clear in

terms

> of existence and application of varga chakras. let the forum time

and

> space is not wasted from repetition. Let the whitepap-er be

produced

> in due course and published in astrological magazines; and each

one of

> us will take our review - but this may not need any forceful

argument

> for conversion.

>

> regards / Prafulla

> , " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> <skolachi@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sri Chandrasekhar ji,

> >

> > I am trying to keep myself from this endless and pointless

debate

> > for a long time; but I could not resist myself from appreciating

you

> > bringing out this most valuable shloka and interpretation on

this

> > subject.

> >

> > This is the ultimate answer to those who do not consider aspects

in

> > Varga charts or D-Charts. Clearly Sage Parasara indicates here,

his

> > support on aspects in varga charts and in fact, all your & our

> > earlier arguments in this debate get strengthened by this single

> > shloka you provided.

> >

> > Of course; those who have a fixed mindset (even though they keep

> > saying open mind, in fact, they have fixed mindset) can always

twist

> > the interpretation to their convenience and try to MAKE a FIT of

the

> > shloka for their views. Such interpretation, however will not

stand

> > your opinion posted in this mail.

> >

> > This in fact brings out your experience and understanding level

of

> > the subject.

> >

> > Best regards,

> > Satya S Kolachina

> >

> >

> > , Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Krishna,

> > >

> > > The reason for aspects being allowed within D-charts may have

to

> > do with

> > > the " Grahasphutadrishtikathanaadhyaaya " where evaluation of

> > different

> > > aspects of grahas are given and they range from 30 degrees

onwards

> > in

> > > increments of 0.30 degrees each till 299.30 as per table given

by

> > Late

> > > R. Santanam. There is no repetition of amshas attributed to

one

> > rasi

> > > within a rasi in the first harmonic chart class and therefore

> > these

> > > drishtis become applicable. In higher harmonics these may not

be

> > > applicable as rasi equivalent Varga will repeat, within 30

degrees

> > and

> > > that is why I personally would look at rasi drishti there.

> > >

> > > Of course the above is my personal opinion on the logic behind

the

> > > aspects, within D-Charts, and the way they may be considered

and

> > it is

> > > up to the learned to decide whether this view is right or not.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > > Krishnamurthy Seetharama wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > >

> > > > Thanks for this mail and the translation of the Shloka in

BPHS.

> > > > I guess it has been conclusively proven that the aspects are

> > > > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not sure if

everyone

> > > > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure. And, I am

happy

> > > > that I am in the right path.

> > > >

> > > > However, the question remains that what is the principle

behind

> > > > allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even if they are a

> > > > restricted set.

> > > >

> > > > I guess the ancient authors have not explained the principle

> > > > behind the same. However, I would be very glad if you could

> > > > share your thoughts on this.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Krishna

> > > >

> > > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@

> > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > I do not know what you are trying to prove here. However,

the

> > > > > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> > > > >

> > > > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of the ascendant

are

> > > > > occupied

> > > > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is formed,

without

> > > > > doubt. If

> > > > > the aspect is full the results are full, if half, so are

the

> > > > > results

> > > > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th strength. "

> > > > >

> > > > > This indicates that Parashara is talking about graha

drishti

> > > > > here. No

> > > > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full drishtis. This is

> > > > > apparently so

> > > > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha drishti can

be

> > > > > seen. This

> > > > > also means that Parashara is not himself accepting the 2

rasi

> > > > > hora

> > > > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by Varaha

Mihira.

> > > > > So if you

> > > > > accept the shloka as it is then you have to forget the Hora

> > > > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

> > > > > acceptable to

> > > > > you?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact that aspects

in

> > > > > divisional

> > > > > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted by him,

though he

> > > > > expresses

> > > > > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic of these

> > > > > aspects.

> > > > >

> > > > > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting aspects in

> > > > > D-Charts, now

> > > > > that you have quoted the shloka and the supremacy of BPHS

over

> > > > >

> > > > > Dashaadhyaayi?

> > > > >

> > > > > Let me make it clear that I personally do not treat one

> > > > > classic superior

> > > > > or inferior to other, but this is what appears to be

Pradeep's

> > > > > view as

> > > > > he is quoting the shloka in support of his argument.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 & 14.I am also

> > > > > providing

> > > > > > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read them without

any

> > > > > fonts.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> > > > > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it

is

> > > > > obvious

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > only selective position is given.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the

> > > > > point as you

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving

> > > > > them off

> > > > > > when

> > > > > > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the

members to

> > > > > the

> > > > > > list. You

> > > > > > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS

and

> > > > > then

> > > > > > went on

> > > > > > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in

> > > > > D-Charts.

> > > > > > Then

> > > > > > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-

Charts.

> > > > > Then

> > > > > > followed

> > > > > > > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in

> > > > > D-Charts.

> > > > > > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you

> > > > > changed the

> > > > > > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your

> > > > > translation

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has

> > > > > prohibited

> > > > > > use of

> > > > > > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the

> > > > > authority of

> > > > > > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for

> > > > > Bhava,

> > > > > > Ghatika,

> > > > > > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the

direction of

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the

quotes.

> > > > > Even the

> > > > > > Amsha

> > > > > > > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more

for

> > > > > > confusion

> > > > > > > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so

is

> > > > > Amsha

> > > > > > though

> > > > > > > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference

> > > > > between

> > > > > > their

> > > > > > > meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion

on

> > > > > Vargas.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This is why I had said that I would not like to take

pains

> > > > > to

> > > > > > write down

> > > > > > > the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when

you

> > > > > said that

> > > > > > > dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so

why

> > > > > give

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray

what

> > > > > is?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of

> > > > > Sanskrit to

> > > > > > suit

> > > > > > > what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that

aspects

> > > > > are not

> > > > > > > possible without giving quotes from authorities and

saying

> > > > > that no

> > > > > > other

> > > > > > > charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did

talk

> > > > > of other

> > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in

> > > > > matters

> > > > > > astrological.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are

free

> > > > > to

> > > > > > think

> > > > > > > that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of

chakra

> > > > > and rashi

> > > > > > > chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like

> > > > > that as

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from

what

> > > > > is now

> > > > > > being

> > > > > > > discussed and you will find it if you sift through the

> > > > > voluminous

> > > > > > > exchange of mail on this subject.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart

> > > > > with a

> > > > > > point

> > > > > > > other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of

that,

> > > > > it is

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi

> > > > > chart can

> > > > > > be

> > > > > > > drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you

> > > > > references

> > > > > > from

> > > > > > > Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can

be

> > > > > drawn

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava,

> > > > > but am

> > > > > > sure you

> > > > > > > will then jump t o some other subject.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars

can be

> > > > > found

> > > > > > in Hora

> > > > > > > chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora

being

> > > > > one of

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would

explain

> > > > > how

> > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give

> > > > > the entire

> > > > >

> > > > === message truncated ===

> > > >

> > > > ________

> > > > Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative

> > vehicles.

> > > > Visit the Auto Green Center.

> > > > http://autos./green_center/

> > > > <http://autos./green_center/>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ----------------------------

----

> > -------

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.17/915 - Release

Date:

> > 7/24/2007 1:50 PM

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >