Varge as Plural - Shloka number and Link-Lagna Shadvargake

July 25, 2007

Dear Sri Pradeep,

As you always suggest, you are free (and welcome) to have your own

opinion on what sages could have meant to convey us. I have nothing

else to say.

Regards,

Satya S Kolachina

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> 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

> > > >

> > >

July 25, 2007

Dear Sri Prafulla ji,

Rightly said. Why forceful conversion? This forum should be for

knowledge sharing between different astrologers and see how they

form opinions based on their experiences.

The real key in astrology is the interpretation. For example, if we

take the professions described in the classics VERBATIM, we can not

predict on any of the professions today. One has to apply their

interpretation skills on what sages have pointed out (or indicated)

then we come out with stunning predictions. In this case do you say

that the astrologer is drifting away from basics, and we have to go

back to basics? THis is ridiculous. The astrologer is applying the

principles in the current context and is able to give prdictions.

Everytime I hear the word 'go back to basics' from Sri Pradeep, I

felt really very bad. I saw his tone changed over past few days, and

now he insists that only he talks basics and others are talking

without basics in astrology. That is why I clearly said this debate

is POINTLESS and MEANINGLESS since Sri Pradeep is close-minded.

Every time he asks people to think open-minded. In fact he is rather

close-minded. If Pradeep wants to really have a healthy debate, he

should use the words " In my understanding of what sages could have

meant to say ... " on something on similar lines. Instead, he

says " Sages have said like this. and I am talking basics; people

should go back to basics " . This is not a healthy approach.

This was very provocatory from him. That is the reason I strongly

raised my concern, though I want to be away in this debate.

Even Sri KN Rao says to use classical principles with research and

hence with confidence. According to his books, I never read him

saying to use classics verbatim.

Regards,

Satya S Kolachina

, " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish

wrote:

>

> 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

> >

>

July 25, 2007

Dear Satish,

Why not take some value for the X,Y and Zs and find out if all the six

Vargas that the graha occupies can fall in one rasi and be aspected by

the same graha in one rasi, if the argument that aspects should not be

seen in Vargas is to be accepted. I have not done that exercise myself

as I would like to see those desirous of knowing what sages meant to

find out for themselves.

Chandrashekhar.

SPK 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

> <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>>

> 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>

> > > <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>

> >

> > > <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>>

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> > <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>

> > > > > > <%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

> <http://smallbusiness./webhosting>

>

> ------

>

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

1:50 PM

>

July 25, 2007

Dear Satya,

Thank you for your kind words.

Chandrashekhar.

Satya Sai Kolachina 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

>

> <%40>, 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>>

> > > > > <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>

> > > > > <%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/>

> > > <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

> > >

> >

July 25, 2007

Chadrashekharji,

Why the lagna shadavarga has to fall in one rashi ?

Say that the graha that is going to aspect the

shadvargas is outer planet, it can occupy one rashi

and aspect three others so that covers 4 rashis in the

rashi chart. So if the lagna shadvarga are contained

in those 4 rashis the same planet can aspect all the

shadavargas in rashi chart alone.( many times navansha

and dashamsha lagnas are same rashi). So if the

shadavargas of lagna are only 4 rashis( quite

possible) then a planet aspecting the 4 rashis in

rashi chart is quite possible.

Thanks

Satish

--- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46

wrote:

> Dear Satish,

>

> Why not take some value for the X,Y and Zs and find

> out if all the six

> Vargas that the graha occupies can fall in one rasi

> and be aspected by

> the same graha in one rasi, if the argument that

> aspects should not be

> seen in Vargas is to be accepted. I have not done

> that exercise myself

> as I would like to see those desirous of knowing

> what sages meant to

> find out for themselves.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> SPK 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

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

> > 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>

> > > > <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>

> > >

> > > > <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

>

=== message truncated ===

______________________________\

____

oneSearch: Finally, mobile search

that gives answers, not web links.

http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

July 25, 2007

Dear Satish,

As the shadvargas are to fall in only one rasi, as being propounded,

then the shadvargas of Lagna should all be in Lagna is it not so? And

there is no mention of only the outer planets being qualified to aspect

in the shloka. Or is there any such mention that I have missed?

Chandrashekhar.

SPK wrote:

>

> Chadrashekharji,

>

> Why the lagna shadavarga has to fall in one rashi ?

> Say that the graha that is going to aspect the

> shadvargas is outer planet, it can occupy one rashi

> and aspect three others so that covers 4 rashis in the

> rashi chart. So if the lagna shadvarga are contained

> in those 4 rashis the same planet can aspect all the

> shadavargas in rashi chart alone.( many times navansha

> and dashamsha lagnas are same rashi). So if the

> shadavargas of lagna are only 4 rashis( quite

> possible) then a planet aspecting the 4 rashis in

> rashi chart is quite possible.

>

> Thanks

>

> Satish

> --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46

> <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>>

> wrote:

>

> > Dear Satish,

> >

> > Why not take some value for the X,Y and Zs and find

> > out if all the six

> > Vargas that the graha occupies can fall in one rasi

> > and be aspected by

> > the same graha in one rasi, if the argument that

> > aspects should not be

> > seen in Vargas is to be accepted. I have not done

> > that exercise myself

> > as I would like to see those desirous of knowing

> > what sages meant to

> > find out for themselves.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > SPK 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

> <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>

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

> > > 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>

> > <krishna_1998%40>

> > > > > <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>

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

> > > >

> > > > > <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

> >

> === message truncated ===

>

> ________

> oneSearch: Finally, mobile search

> that gives answers, not web links.

> http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>

>

> ------

>

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

1:50 PM

>

July 25, 2007

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

It seems you have not understood the concept.Lagnas shadvargas need

not fall in lagna or should they be in a single rashi.

Some of them can be in one rashi and others in different.The

aspecting planet should be the same.

If it is still not clear,i will give you example.

But the question is if an example is given ,will you accepet the

point.

Respect

Pradeep

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Satish,

>

> As the shadvargas are to fall in only one rasi, as being

propounded,

> then the shadvargas of Lagna should all be in Lagna is it not so?

And

> there is no mention of only the outer planets being qualified to

aspect

> in the shloka. Or is there any such mention that I have missed?

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> SPK wrote:

> >

> > Chadrashekharji,

> >

> > Why the lagna shadavarga has to fall in one rashi ?

> > Say that the graha that is going to aspect the

> > shadvargas is outer planet, it can occupy one rashi

> > and aspect three others so that covers 4 rashis in the

> > rashi chart. So if the lagna shadvarga are contained

> > in those 4 rashis the same planet can aspect all the

> > shadavargas in rashi chart alone.( many times navansha

> > and dashamsha lagnas are same rashi). So if the

> > shadavargas of lagna are only 4 rashis( quite

> > possible) then a planet aspecting the 4 rashis in

> > rashi chart is quite possible.

> >

> > Thanks

> >

> > Satish

> > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46

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

> > wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Satish,

> > >

> > > Why not take some value for the X,Y and Zs and find

> > > out if all the six

> > > Vargas that the graha occupies can fall in one rasi

> > > and be aspected by

> > > the same graha in one rasi, if the argument that

> > > aspects should not be

> > > seen in Vargas is to be accepted. I have not done

> > > that exercise myself

> > > as I would like to see those desirous of knowing

> > > what sages meant to

> > > find out for themselves.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > SPK 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

> > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>

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

> > > > 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>

> > > <krishna_1998%40>

> > > > > > <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>

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

> > > > >

> > > > > > <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

> > >

> > === message truncated ===

> >

> > ________

> > oneSearch: Finally, mobile search

> > that gives answers, not web links.

> > http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>

> >

------

> >

> > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.17/915 - Release Date:

7/24/2007 1:50 PM

> >

>

July 25, 2007

Chandrashekharji,

Am I misreading the translation ?

This the translation you have provided

----------------------------

" 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. "

---------------------

Now where does it indicate that all shadvargas of

lagna have to be the same rashi ? It can be any rashi.

All I am suggesting is that shadvargas of lagna can be

in 3 rashis or 4 rashis or 5 rashis or 6 rashis.Then

in D-1 chart if these 4 rashis are aspected by say

guru or mangal or shani the condition is satisfied.

The reason I said outer planets is because they can

affect 4 rashis. No planet can affect more than 4 with

full aspect. Inner planets can affect( reside and

aspect) only two rashis. So outer planets have a

better chance of satisfying this condition in rashi

chart.

I am not sure whether I am conveying what I mean

clearly.

Thanks

Satish

--- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46

wrote:

> Dear Satish,

>

> As the shadvargas are to fall in only one rasi, as

> being propounded,

> then the shadvargas of Lagna should all be in Lagna

> is it not so? And

> there is no mention of only the outer planets being

> qualified to aspect

> in the shloka. Or is there any such mention that I

> have missed?

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> SPK wrote:

> >

> > Chadrashekharji,

> >

> > Why the lagna shadavarga has to fall in one rashi

> ?

> > Say that the graha that is going to aspect the

> > shadvargas is outer planet, it can occupy one

> rashi

> > and aspect three others so that covers 4 rashis in

> the

> > rashi chart. So if the lagna shadvarga are

> contained

> > in those 4 rashis the same planet can aspect all

> the

> > shadavargas in rashi chart alone.( many times

> navansha

> > and dashamsha lagnas are same rashi). So if the

> > shadavargas of lagna are only 4 rashis( quite

> > possible) then a planet aspecting the 4 rashis in

> > rashi chart is quite possible.

> >

> > Thanks

> >

> > Satish

> > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46

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

> > wrote:

>

______________________________\

____

Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.

http://searchmarketing./

July 25, 2007

Dear Satish ji

I feel Chandrashekhar ji is having some misunderstanding.I feel this

example will make him understand the point.

If not i can give example w.r to planets.

Regds

Pradeep

, SPK <aquaris_rising wrote:

>

> Chandrashekharji,

>

> Am I misreading the translation ?

>

> This the translation you have provided

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

> " 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. "

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

>

> Now where does it indicate that all shadvargas of

> lagna have to be the same rashi ? It can be any rashi.

> All I am suggesting is that shadvargas of lagna can be

> in 3 rashis or 4 rashis or 5 rashis or 6 rashis.Then

> in D-1 chart if these 4 rashis are aspected by say

> guru or mangal or shani the condition is satisfied.

> The reason I said outer planets is because they can

> affect 4 rashis. No planet can affect more than 4 with

> full aspect. Inner planets can affect( reside and

> aspect) only two rashis. So outer planets have a

> better chance of satisfying this condition in rashi

> chart.

>

> I am not sure whether I am conveying what I mean

> clearly.

>

> Thanks

>

> Satish

>

> --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46

> wrote:

>

> > Dear Satish,

> >

> > As the shadvargas are to fall in only one rasi, as

> > being propounded,

> > then the shadvargas of Lagna should all be in Lagna

> > is it not so? And

> > there is no mention of only the outer planets being

> > qualified to aspect

> > in the shloka. Or is there any such mention that I

> > have missed?

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > SPK wrote:

> > >

> > > Chadrashekharji,

> > >

> > > Why the lagna shadavarga has to fall in one rashi

> > ?

> > > Say that the graha that is going to aspect the

> > > shadvargas is outer planet, it can occupy one

> > rashi

> > > and aspect three others so that covers 4 rashis in

> > the

> > > rashi chart. So if the lagna shadvarga are

> > contained

> > > in those 4 rashis the same planet can aspect all

> > the

> > > shadavargas in rashi chart alone.( many times

> > navansha

> > > and dashamsha lagnas are same rashi). So if the

> > > shadavargas of lagna are only 4 rashis( quite

> > > possible) then a planet aspecting the 4 rashis in

> > > rashi chart is quite possible.

> > >

> > > Thanks

> > >

> > > Satish

> > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46

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

> > > wrote:

> >

>

____________________

______________

> Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.

> http://searchmarketing./

>

July 25, 2007

Dear Satya ji

As i have mentioned,it is upto you as long as it is your personal

opinion.Then i will never debate as it is pointless and endless as

you have rightly mentioned.Perhaps thats why you have felt so.

But if you want to follow classical shlokas ,then this is meaningful

and will have an end.Lagna shadvargake shloka has that

magic.Chandfrashakhar ji and myslef will have one opinion and then we

will see how aspects are not possible.

Thus as per rule set by sages are concerned ,i am closed minded.You

are right.

Regds

Pradeep

I , " Satya Sai Kolachina "

<skolachi wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Prafulla ji,

>

> Rightly said. Why forceful conversion? This forum should be for

> knowledge sharing between different astrologers and see how they

> form opinions based on their experiences.

>

> The real key in astrology is the interpretation. For example, if we

> take the professions described in the classics VERBATIM, we can not

> predict on any of the professions today. One has to apply their

> interpretation skills on what sages have pointed out (or indicated)

> then we come out with stunning predictions. In this case do you say

> that the astrologer is drifting away from basics, and we have to go

> back to basics? THis is ridiculous. The astrologer is applying the

> principles in the current context and is able to give prdictions.

>

> Everytime I hear the word 'go back to basics' from Sri Pradeep, I

> felt really very bad. I saw his tone changed over past few days,

and

> now he insists that only he talks basics and others are talking

> without basics in astrology. That is why I clearly said this debate

> is POINTLESS and MEANINGLESS since Sri Pradeep is close-minded.

> Every time he asks people to think open-minded. In fact he is

rather

> close-minded. If Pradeep wants to really have a healthy debate, he

> should use the words " In my understanding of what sages could have

> meant to say ... " on something on similar lines. Instead, he

> says " Sages have said like this. and I am talking basics; people

> should go back to basics " . This is not a healthy approach.

>

> This was very provocatory from him. That is the reason I strongly

> raised my concern, though I want to be away in this debate.

>

> Even Sri KN Rao says to use classical principles with research and

> hence with confidence. According to his books, I never read him

> saying to use classics verbatim.

>

> Regards,

> Satya S Kolachina

>

> , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish@>

> wrote:

> >

> > 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

> > >

> >

>

July 26, 2007

" 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. "

> > > >

The shaloka put forward in favor of Drishti does not claim /direct to see

the aspects in Divisions ,if one goes to calculate strength in Division

chart ,you don't find any direction to calculate aspect strength in

Divisionn chart. So if you are mind accepts the Drishti in Varga , you will

trace the meaning in Varga. For me the Rishi is saying about the 6 Lagnas of

Divisions which some time may fall in the one or limited to two signs , like

in Vargotam and a single planet can aspect such sign in Rashi chart. Or if

the Divisions lagna points are contributed by two or three signs still those

points can be aspected by the same planet in Rashi Chakra.

This also favor Rashi Tuliya Navmasha, means that Divisions can be related

to full signs.

With Best wishes,

Inder Jit Sahni

July 26, 2007

Dear Inderjit ji

Thanks a lot for giving your valaubale inputs.It is always good to

have opinion from experienced astrologers.

Apart from what you have said,a graha can be placed in lagna,some of

the vargas of lagna can fall in lagna itself and some others in the

7th etc.In this case one graha is joining or aspecting six divisions

of the ascendant.(Yutekshithe).Similarly when one graha is placed in

lagna and lagna is in the initial degrees of a sign,then numerous

vargas will fall in Lagna itself.

But most importantly the strength of the chart as a whole,the

strength of the aspecting graha and the strength of the aspect(Rishi

made this clear poorna drishti - poorna phalam) is important in

judging the effect.

If see the Danish queen example -Chart is strong.Aspecting planet

Guru is strong.The strength of aspect is strong -Poorna

Drishti.Result - Queen.

Moreover ,if one uses 7th amsha ,10th amsha etc of our lagna(which

are respectively 7th sign and 10th sign in Varga Charts in ways

advised by sages,and in combination with Rahi chakra, we can even

compromise with the necessity of Bhava chalit.

Thanks again

Respect

Pradeep

, " Inder Jit Sahni "

<inder_jit_sahni wrote:

>

> " 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. "

> > > > >

>

> The shaloka put forward in favor of Drishti does not claim /direct

to see

> the aspects in Divisions ,if one goes to calculate strength in

Division

> chart ,you don't find any direction to calculate aspect strength in

> Divisionn chart. So if you are mind accepts the Drishti in Varga ,

you will

> trace the meaning in Varga. For me the Rishi is saying about the 6

Lagnas of

> Divisions which some time may fall in the one or limited to two

signs , like

> in Vargotam and a single planet can aspect such sign in Rashi

chart. Or if

> the Divisions lagna points are contributed by two or three signs

still those

> points can be aspected by the same planet in Rashi Chakra.

>

> This also favor Rashi Tuliya Navmasha, means that Divisions can be

>

> With Best wishes,

>

> Inder Jit Sahni

>

July 26, 2007

Namaskaar Sri Satish

If something is your question, you should ask the concerned astrologer. If

Sri K N Rao takes Karakamsha too the Rashi and if you do not accept it, it

is for you to ask. You cannot ask members here to become your personal

" messengers " .

When Karakamsha is taken in Navamsha, is it not taken as a separate chart?

If it is, then, the argument that no other chart other than Rashi exists, is

totally false. If not, then Sri K N Rao is right in taking Karakamsha in

Rashi.

However, are you sure of all books that there are in Jyotish are available

with you? Are you sure they are undiluted texts from when they were written?

Are you sure that you know Sanskrit to the level of Sri Adi Sankara to be

able to confirm that one translation is right and not the other. Coupled

with misrepresentation of facts and misquotes galore by a member just amazes

me.

Almost 20 days back, a member was asked to discuss charts. He has the time

to write close to 200 emails, but not the time to read ONE single chart. Yes

it amazes me how with 99% of ignorance one can pretend to be 100%

knowledgeable.

And who gives the right to one person to decide that Sri Iyer's method were

non-vedic?

Thanks and Regards

Bharat

On 7/25/07, 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 <skolachi%40hotmail.com>>

> 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

> >

> > <%40>,

> 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

>

July 26, 2007

Dear Satish ji

The important point is rules for aspects are well defined.Aspectual

strength is a an objective function defined in mathematical terms by

Mahamunis.

The advantage here (fortunately for us) is even if one wants to

mistranslate it is not possible.

One can interpret the way one wants,but basics rules are not to be

violated.

One can draw hunderds of charts,south indian style,north

indian,bengali,bhavat bhavam,ghatika lagnam,Hora Lagnama,and

also ''Vargamshas within the skeleton of Rashi chakra'' - the main

point is how we interpret the entities within.Fundamental simple

rules -No violation.

Late Santhanam - ''Mahamuni has mentioned rules for aspect''

Regds

Pradeep

, " Bharat - Hindu Astrology "

<astrologyhindu wrote:

>

> Namaskaar Sri Satish

>

> If something is your question, you should ask the concerned

astrologer. If

> Sri K N Rao takes Karakamsha too the Rashi and if you do not

accept it, it

> is for you to ask. You cannot ask members here to become your

personal

> " messengers " .

>

> When Karakamsha is taken in Navamsha, is it not taken as a

separate chart?

> If it is, then, the argument that no other chart other than Rashi

exists, is

> totally false. If not, then Sri K N Rao is right in taking

Karakamsha in

> Rashi.

>

> However, are you sure of all books that there are in Jyotish are

available

> with you? Are you sure they are undiluted texts from when they

were written?

> Are you sure that you know Sanskrit to the level of Sri Adi

Sankara to be

> able to confirm that one translation is right and not the other.

Coupled

> with misrepresentation of facts and misquotes galore by a member

just amazes

> me.

>

> Almost 20 days back, a member was asked to discuss charts. He has

the time

> to write close to 200 emails, but not the time to read ONE single

chart. Yes

> it amazes me how with 99% of ignorance one can pretend to be 100%

> knowledgeable.

>

> And who gives the right to one person to decide that Sri Iyer's

method were

> non-vedic?

>

> Thanks and Regards

> Bharat

>

> On 7/25/07, 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 <skolachi%40hotmail.com>>

> > 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

> > >

> > > <%

40>,

> > 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

> >

>

July 26, 2007

Sri Bharat,

I do not have personal contact with Sri KN Rao. So the

request to members who may have the personal contact

with him. If you have contact with KN Rao and do not

want to be a " messenger " as you put it, you do not

have to be. I do not think you should decide what

requests are put up on the list or what requests

should be honored on the list.

Karakamsha is nav amsha position of Ak planet. I

beleive Kn Rao takes it back to rashi chart. So I do

not understand your staement " When karakamsha is taken

in navansha... "

Anyway you have your ways of interpreting and all the

power to you. If someone says shani has 8th dristi

because I have seen it work on 1000 horoscopes, fine

with me, I will say it does not have classical

sanction.

If backward dristi works for you use it, if ardha

navamsha works for you, use it. Unfortunately in

jyotish " Anything Goes " is the rule. Thats why jyotish

is what it is today. Most rational people think of it

as a joke and absolutely free for all methods and

freelance appraoches have done nothing to improve that

image.Streamlining the knowledge and consistent

verifiable approach is needed. If you are interested

in such an effort all the power to you.

Satish

--- Bharat - Hindu Astrology

<astrologyhindu wrote:

> Namaskaar Sri Satish

>

> If something is your question, you should ask the

> concerned astrologer. If

> Sri K N Rao takes Karakamsha too the Rashi and if

> you do not accept it, it

> is for you to ask. You cannot ask members here to

> become your personal

> " messengers " .

>

> When Karakamsha is taken in Navamsha, is it not

> taken as a separate chart?

> If it is, then, the argument that no other chart

> other than Rashi exists, is

> totally false. If not, then Sri K N Rao is right in

> taking Karakamsha in

> Rashi.

>

> However, are you sure of all books that there are in

> Jyotish are available

> with you? Are you sure they are undiluted texts from

> when they were written?

> Are you sure that you know Sanskrit to the level of

> Sri Adi Sankara to be

> able to confirm that one translation is right and

> not the other. Coupled

> with misrepresentation of facts and misquotes galore

> by a member just amazes

> me.

>

> Almost 20 days back, a member was asked to discuss

> charts. He has the time

> to write close to 200 emails, but not the time to

> read ONE single chart. Yes

> it amazes me how with 99% of ignorance one can

> pretend to be 100%

> knowledgeable.

>

> And who gives the right to one person to decide that

> Sri Iyer's method were

> non-vedic?

>

> Thanks and Regards

> Bharat

>

> On 7/25/07, 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

> <skolachi%40hotmail.com>>

> > 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

> > >

> <%40>,

> > 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.

> > > > >

>

=== message truncated ===

______________________________\

____

Luggage? GPS? Comic books?

Check out fitting gifts for grads at Search

http://search./search?fr=oni_on_mail & p=graduation+gifts & cs=bz

July 26, 2007

Dear Satish ji

Well said.We are not against anyone who wants to experiment

something which falls outside the realm of vedic jyotish.For

eg.Pluto etc.

I feel the purpose of this debate is clear to members now.We are

studying the fundamentals of vedic jyotish in connection with

divisions of a Rashi.

Regds

Pradeep

, SPK <aquaris_rising wrote:

>

> Sri Bharat,

>

> I do not have personal contact with Sri KN Rao. So the

> request to members who may have the personal contact

> with him. If you have contact with KN Rao and do not

> want to be a " messenger " as you put it, you do not

> have to be. I do not think you should decide what

> requests are put up on the list or what requests

> should be honored on the list.

>

> Karakamsha is nav amsha position of Ak planet. I

> beleive Kn Rao takes it back to rashi chart. So I do

> not understand your staement " When karakamsha is taken

> in navansha... "

>

> Anyway you have your ways of interpreting and all the

> power to you. If someone says shani has 8th dristi

> because I have seen it work on 1000 horoscopes, fine

> with me, I will say it does not have classical

> sanction.

>

> If backward dristi works for you use it, if ardha

> navamsha works for you, use it. Unfortunately in

> jyotish " Anything Goes " is the rule. Thats why jyotish

> is what it is today. Most rational people think of it

> as a joke and absolutely free for all methods and

> freelance appraoches have done nothing to improve that

> image.Streamlining the knowledge and consistent

> verifiable approach is needed. If you are interested

> in such an effort all the power to you.

>

> Satish

> --- Bharat - Hindu Astrology

> <astrologyhindu wrote:

>

> > Namaskaar Sri Satish

> >

> > If something is your question, you should ask the

> > concerned astrologer. If

> > Sri K N Rao takes Karakamsha too the Rashi and if

> > you do not accept it, it

> > is for you to ask. You cannot ask members here to

> > become your personal

> > " messengers " .

> >

> > When Karakamsha is taken in Navamsha, is it not

> > taken as a separate chart?

> > If it is, then, the argument that no other chart

> > other than Rashi exists, is

> > totally false. If not, then Sri K N Rao is right in

> > taking Karakamsha in

> > Rashi.

> >

> > However, are you sure of all books that there are in

> > Jyotish are available

> > with you? Are you sure they are undiluted texts from

> > when they were written?

> > Are you sure that you know Sanskrit to the level of

> > Sri Adi Sankara to be

> > able to confirm that one translation is right and

> > not the other. Coupled

> > with misrepresentation of facts and misquotes galore

> > by a member just amazes

> > me.

> >

> > Almost 20 days back, a member was asked to discuss

> > charts. He has the time

> > to write close to 200 emails, but not the time to

> > read ONE single chart. Yes

> > it amazes me how with 99% of ignorance one can

> > pretend to be 100%

> > knowledgeable.

> >

> > And who gives the right to one person to decide that

> > Sri Iyer's method were

> > non-vedic?

> >

> > Thanks and Regards

> > Bharat

> >

> > On 7/25/07, 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

> > <skolachi%40hotmail.com>>

> > > 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

> > > >

> > <%40>,

> > > 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.

> > > > > >

> >

> === message truncated ===

>

___________________

_______________

> Luggage? GPS? Comic books?

> Check out fitting gifts for grads at Search

> http://search./search?

fr=oni_on_mail & p=graduation+gifts & cs=bz

>

July 26, 2007

Dear Sri Bharat,

I appreciate your asking openly about the level of Sanskrit knowledge

of these Internet astrologers. THis question prompted me many times

and just to play low, I did not bring this point.

In one of his messages to Sri Tarun, Sri Pradeep says that he is not

enough knowledged in Sanskrit, and on the other hand he is 100% sure

of his translation of Sanskrit language. Sanskrit is a cryptic

language where a suthra can reveal secrets the more and more you try

to understand.

In several occassions sri KN Rao mentioned the same thing in his

articles; A sutra is something like the more and more you unwind it,

the more and more it reveals about its inner meanings. One has to

have real OPEN mind to do that unwinding, and of course a very good

level of sanskrit knowledge one needs.

It is highly inappropriate on the part of these Internet astrologers

to blame those other astrologers not discussing in favor of their

theory, as not following basics in astrology. First of all they

should have strong (not basic) knowledge of Sanskrit.

What authority they have in their name to talk about astrologers of

the prior generations, who have completely sacrificed their lives to

the cause of astrology? Almost every astrologer in the prior

generations used aspects and bhavas in Varga charts.

I do not question this way if these Internet astrologers say that " IT

is their interpretation of the shlokas " . No. They are not saying

that. They are talking authoritatively that it is the right way of

interpretation. The clear contradiction is seen here. Once they say

they are not competent enough in Sanskrit (when questioned by Sri

Tarun) and on the other side, they say that their interpretatino is

final and authoritative.

When we question like this, they selectively answer our questions,

and where they have no answers they skip and change the topic.

It is highly inappropriate on the part of these Internet astrologers

to enforce their opinions on the astrologer community, and those who

do not accept their theory - telling them to go back to basics.

As you rightly said, instead of typing nearly 200 emails to say the

same thing (which is nothing but enforcing their opinion on the

public forums) again and again, they can very well assist the people

with their own theory and if there is value in the theory, it

automatically comes and gets accepted. No need of so much repetition.

Best regards,

Satya Sai Kolachina

, " Bharat - Hindu Astrology "

<astrologyhindu wrote:

>

> Namaskaar Sri Satish

>

> If something is your question, you should ask the concerned

astrologer. If

> Sri K N Rao takes Karakamsha too the Rashi and if you do not accept

it, it

> is for you to ask. You cannot ask members here to become your

personal

> " messengers " .

>

> When Karakamsha is taken in Navamsha, is it not taken as a separate

chart?

> If it is, then, the argument that no other chart other than Rashi

exists, is

> totally false. If not, then Sri K N Rao is right in taking

Karakamsha in

> Rashi.

>

> However, are you sure of all books that there are in Jyotish are

available

> with you? Are you sure they are undiluted texts from when they were

written?

> Are you sure that you know Sanskrit to the level of Sri Adi Sankara

to be

> able to confirm that one translation is right and not the other.

Coupled

> with misrepresentation of facts and misquotes galore by a member

just amazes

> me.

>

> Almost 20 days back, a member was asked to discuss charts. He has

the time

> to write close to 200 emails, but not the time to read ONE single

chart. Yes

> it amazes me how with 99% of ignorance one can pretend to be 100%

> knowledgeable.

>

> And who gives the right to one person to decide that Sri Iyer's

method were

> non-vedic?

>

> Thanks and Regards

> Bharat

>

> On 7/25/07, 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 <skolachi%40hotmail.com>>

> > 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

> > >

> > > <%

40>,

> > 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

> >

>

July 26, 2007

Dear Satya ji

I totally agree with your view.Information technology and internet

Jyotishis have made new rules and laws.For the same reason i went

back ,800 years to quote Dashadhyayi etc.

Hope all members would go back to classics as you have rightly

mentioned.

Regds

Pradeep

, " Satya Sai Kolachina "

<skolachi wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Bharat,

>

> I appreciate your asking openly about the level of Sanskrit

knowledge

> of these Internet astrologers. THis question prompted me many

times

> and just to play low, I did not bring this point.

>

> In one of his messages to Sri Tarun, Sri Pradeep says that he is

not

> enough knowledged in Sanskrit, and on the other hand he is 100%

sure

> of his translation of Sanskrit language. Sanskrit is a cryptic

> language where a suthra can reveal secrets the more and more you

try

> to understand.

>

> In several occassions sri KN Rao mentioned the same thing in his

> articles; A sutra is something like the more and more you unwind

it,

> the more and more it reveals about its inner meanings. One has to

> have real OPEN mind to do that unwinding, and of course a very

good

> level of sanskrit knowledge one needs.

>

> It is highly inappropriate on the part of these Internet

astrologers

> to blame those other astrologers not discussing in favor of their

> theory, as not following basics in astrology. First of all they

> should have strong (not basic) knowledge of Sanskrit.

>

> What authority they have in their name to talk about astrologers

of

> the prior generations, who have completely sacrificed their lives

to

> the cause of astrology? Almost every astrologer in the prior

> generations used aspects and bhavas in Varga charts.

>

> I do not question this way if these Internet astrologers say

that " IT

> is their interpretation of the shlokas " . No. They are not saying

> that. They are talking authoritatively that it is the right way of

> interpretation. The clear contradiction is seen here. Once they

say

> they are not competent enough in Sanskrit (when questioned by Sri

> Tarun) and on the other side, they say that their interpretatino

is

> final and authoritative.

>

> When we question like this, they selectively answer our questions,

> and where they have no answers they skip and change the topic.

>

> It is highly inappropriate on the part of these Internet

astrologers

> to enforce their opinions on the astrologer community, and those

who

> do not accept their theory - telling them to go back to basics.

>

> As you rightly said, instead of typing nearly 200 emails to say

the

> same thing (which is nothing but enforcing their opinion on the

> public forums) again and again, they can very well assist the

people

> with their own theory and if there is value in the theory, it

> automatically comes and gets accepted. No need of so much

repetition.

>

> Best regards,

> Satya Sai Kolachina

>

> , " Bharat - Hindu Astrology "

> <astrologyhindu@> wrote:

> >

> > Namaskaar Sri Satish

> >

> > If something is your question, you should ask the concerned

> astrologer. If

> > Sri K N Rao takes Karakamsha too the Rashi and if you do not

accept

> it, it

> > is for you to ask. You cannot ask members here to become your

> personal

> > " messengers " .

> >

> > When Karakamsha is taken in Navamsha, is it not taken as a

separate

> chart?

> > If it is, then, the argument that no other chart other than

Rashi

> exists, is

> > totally false. If not, then Sri K N Rao is right in taking

> Karakamsha in

> > Rashi.

> >

> > However, are you sure of all books that there are in Jyotish are

> available

> > with you? Are you sure they are undiluted texts from when they

were

> written?

> > Are you sure that you know Sanskrit to the level of Sri Adi

Sankara

> to be

> > able to confirm that one translation is right and not the other.

> Coupled

> > with misrepresentation of facts and misquotes galore by a member

> just amazes

> > me.

> >

> > Almost 20 days back, a member was asked to discuss charts. He

has

> the time

> > to write close to 200 emails, but not the time to read ONE

single

> chart. Yes

> > it amazes me how with 99% of ignorance one can pretend to be 100%

> > knowledgeable.

> >

> > And who gives the right to one person to decide that Sri Iyer's

> method were

> > non-vedic?

> >

> > Thanks and Regards

> > Bharat

> >

> > On 7/25/07, 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@ <skolachi%40hotmail.com>>

> > > 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

> > > >

> > > > <%

> 40>,

> > > 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

> > >

> >

July 26, 2007

Dear Sri Pradeep,

I raise a strong objection here: You twisted the statement avoided

every other point I discussed here. This is not appropriate.

Those astrologers of prior geneations, who used bhavas, drishtis and

amshas are not Internet astrolgoers. They never used computers. In

fact, Sri K N Rao terms those astrologers who depend 100% on

computers as compudiots, in one of his articles. Internet did not

even exist in those days.

PLEASE DO NOT TALK ABOUT BASICS ON INTERNET. THIS IS MY EARNEST AND

HUMBLE WAY OF REQUESTING YOU TO HONOR OTHER ASTROLOGERS AND THEIR

APPROACH TO ASTROLOGY.

TIME AN AGAIN YOU ARE DOING THIS. EVERY ASTROLOGER HAS BASIC

KNOWLEDGE HERE. IT IS THE WAY THE BASICS ARE INTEREPRETED TO THE

SITUATION AND MAKING BRILLIANT PREDICTIONS.

TO PROPAGATE YOUR THEORY, PUBLISH BOOKS AND SEE HOW IT GETS TO THE

PUBLIC.

WHEN YOU HAVE OPEN SAID TO SRI TARUN THAT YOU ARE NOT COMPETENT

ENOUGH IN SANSKRIT, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CLAIM THAT YOUR

INTERPRETATION IS THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION.

First read all the artiles that Sri KN Rao published and come back to

me whether he used aspects in D charts or not. He is not a person to

say something to the public and do something else in his real

practice. His artilces speak for him.

He used mixed concetps to arrive at conclusions. Whatever concept

works in reality that is what he picked.

Regards,

Satya S Kolachina

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Satya ji

>

> I totally agree with your view.Information technology and internet

> Jyotishis have made new rules and laws.For the same reason i went

> back ,800 years to quote Dashadhyayi etc.

>

> Hope all members would go back to classics as you have rightly

> mentioned.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

> , " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> <skolachi@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sri Bharat,

> >

> > I appreciate your asking openly about the level of Sanskrit

> knowledge

> > of these Internet astrologers. THis question prompted me many

> times

> > and just to play low, I did not bring this point.

> >

> > In one of his messages to Sri Tarun, Sri Pradeep says that he is

> not

> > enough knowledged in Sanskrit, and on the other hand he is 100%

> sure

> > of his translation of Sanskrit language. Sanskrit is a cryptic

> > language where a suthra can reveal secrets the more and more you

> try

> > to understand.

> >

> > In several occassions sri KN Rao mentioned the same thing in his

> > articles; A sutra is something like the more and more you unwind

> it,

> > the more and more it reveals about its inner meanings. One has to

> > have real OPEN mind to do that unwinding, and of course a very

> good

> > level of sanskrit knowledge one needs.

> >

> > It is highly inappropriate on the part of these Internet

> astrologers

> > to blame those other astrologers not discussing in favor of their

> > theory, as not following basics in astrology. First of all they

> > should have strong (not basic) knowledge of Sanskrit.

> >

> > What authority they have in their name to talk about astrologers

> of

> > the prior generations, who have completely sacrificed their lives

> to

> > the cause of astrology? Almost every astrologer in the prior

> > generations used aspects and bhavas in Varga charts.

> >

> > I do not question this way if these Internet astrologers say

> that " IT

> > is their interpretation of the shlokas " . No. They are not saying

> > that. They are talking authoritatively that it is the right way

of

> > interpretation. The clear contradiction is seen here. Once they

> say

> > they are not competent enough in Sanskrit (when questioned by Sri

> > Tarun) and on the other side, they say that their interpretatino

> is

> > final and authoritative.

> >

> > When we question like this, they selectively answer our

questions,

> > and where they have no answers they skip and change the topic.

> >

> > It is highly inappropriate on the part of these Internet

> astrologers

> > to enforce their opinions on the astrologer community, and those

> who

> > do not accept their theory - telling them to go back to basics.

> >

> > As you rightly said, instead of typing nearly 200 emails to say

> the

> > same thing (which is nothing but enforcing their opinion on the

> > public forums) again and again, they can very well assist the

> people

> > with their own theory and if there is value in the theory, it

> > automatically comes and gets accepted. No need of so much

> repetition.

> >

> > Best regards,

> > Satya Sai Kolachina

> >

> > , " Bharat - Hindu Astrology "

> > <astrologyhindu@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Namaskaar Sri Satish

> > >

> > > If something is your question, you should ask the concerned

> > astrologer. If

> > > Sri K N Rao takes Karakamsha too the Rashi and if you do not

> accept

> > it, it

> > > is for you to ask. You cannot ask members here to become your

> > personal

> > > " messengers " .

> > >

> > > When Karakamsha is taken in Navamsha, is it not taken as a

> separate

> > chart?

> > > If it is, then, the argument that no other chart other than

> Rashi

> > exists, is

> > > totally false. If not, then Sri K N Rao is right in taking

> > Karakamsha in

> > > Rashi.

> > >

> > > However, are you sure of all books that there are in Jyotish

are

> > available

> > > with you? Are you sure they are undiluted texts from when they

> were

> > written?

> > > Are you sure that you know Sanskrit to the level of Sri Adi

> Sankara

> > to be

> > > able to confirm that one translation is right and not the

other.

> > Coupled

> > > with misrepresentation of facts and misquotes galore by a

member

> > just amazes

> > > me.

> > >

> > > Almost 20 days back, a member was asked to discuss charts. He

> has

> > the time

> > > to write close to 200 emails, but not the time to read ONE

> single

> > chart. Yes

> > > it amazes me how with 99% of ignorance one can pretend to be

100%

> > > knowledgeable.

> > >

> > > And who gives the right to one person to decide that Sri Iyer's

> > method were

> > > non-vedic?

> > >

> > > Thanks and Regards

> > > Bharat

> > >

> > > On 7/25/07, 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@ <skolachi%40hotmail.com>>

> > > > 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

> > > > >

> > > > > <%

> > 40>,

> > > > 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

> > > >

> > >

July 26, 2007

Namaste Sri Satish

Karakamsha as rendered, if I may use the word, in Navamsha is a separate

chart. If this is so, aren't we using Navamsha as a separate chart. Sri K N

Rao is clear in his book in finding the usage of Karakamsha in Rashi chart.

Maybe in Shloka language it is called something else. The point is he found

something for other astrologers and shared it. How can anyone be sure that

it is not part of a hidden Shastra or of a Family Shastra which is not yet

revealed to all of us?

The point is not who is right or who is wrong. The point is also not what is

given in shastra or not... because

1. We do not have all the Shastras.

2. It is known many of the Shastras are incompelete or changed or

destroyed. Can you give me a guarantee that BPHS as we see it today is the

same which Sri Parashara wrote and that this Sri Parashara was the father of

Sri Veda Vyasa.

3. Sanskrit is very very deep language. It requires Sri Veda Vyasa to comile

a Veda and Sri Adi Sankara to decipher it.

Given our ignorance and the lost texts, if we " fellow " astrologers argue on

some point which may not be so, is a futile exercise. All I am asking for is

an open mind.

My personal views are that Astrology should be kept simple. I haven't even

graduated from Rashi chart, leave alone amshas. Minute difference in the

time of birth spoil the reading through them. Then we justify the past

events through 10,000 combinations showing ourselves as great astrologers.

What is the use? Whom are we fooling?

If consistent approach is needed, will we get it by writing 400 emails

without a single reference to any chart. No analysis at all?

You all can continue for all I care, but aren't most of us contradicting

ourselves here?

Thanks and Regards

Bharat

On 7/26/07, SPK <aquaris_rising wrote:

>

> Sri Bharat,

>

> I do not have personal contact with Sri KN Rao. So the

> request to members who may have the personal contact

> with him. If you have contact with KN Rao and do not

> want to be a " messenger " as you put it, you do not

> have to be. I do not think you should decide what

> requests are put up on the list or what requests

> should be honored on the list.

>

> Karakamsha is nav amsha position of Ak planet. I

> beleive Kn Rao takes it back to rashi chart. So I do

> not understand your staement " When karakamsha is taken

> in navansha... "

>

> Anyway you have your ways of interpreting and all the

> power to you. If someone says shani has 8th dristi

> because I have seen it work on 1000 horoscopes, fine

> with me, I will say it does not have classical

> sanction.

>

> If backward dristi works for you use it, if ardha

> navamsha works for you, use it. Unfortunately in

> jyotish " Anything Goes " is the rule. Thats why jyotish

> is what it is today. Most rational people think of it

> as a joke and absolutely free for all methods and

> freelance appraoches have done nothing to improve that

> image.Streamlining the knowledge and consistent

> verifiable approach is needed. If you are interested

> in such an effort all the power to you.

>

> Satish

> --- Bharat - Hindu Astrology

> <astrologyhindu <astrologyhindu%40gmail.com>> wrote:

>

> > Namaskaar Sri Satish

> >

> > If something is your question, you should ask the

> > concerned astrologer. If

> > Sri K N Rao takes Karakamsha too the Rashi and if

> > you do not accept it, it

> > is for you to ask. You cannot ask members here to

> > become your personal

> > " messengers " .

> >

> > When Karakamsha is taken in Navamsha, is it not

> > taken as a separate chart?

> > If it is, then, the argument that no other chart

> > other than Rashi exists, is

> > totally false. If not, then Sri K N Rao is right in

> > taking Karakamsha in

> > Rashi.

> >

> > However, are you sure of all books that there are in

> > Jyotish are available

> > with you? Are you sure they are undiluted texts from

> > when they were written?

> > Are you sure that you know Sanskrit to the level of

> > Sri Adi Sankara to be

> > able to confirm that one translation is right and

> > not the other. Coupled

> > with misrepresentation of facts and misquotes galore

> > by a member just amazes

> > me.

> >

> > Almost 20 days back, a member was asked to discuss

> > charts. He has the time

> > to write close to 200 emails, but not the time to

> > read ONE single chart. Yes

> > it amazes me how with 99% of ignorance one can

> > pretend to be 100%

> > knowledgeable.

> >

> > And who gives the right to one person to decide that

> > Sri Iyer's method were

> > non-vedic?

> >

> > Thanks and Regards

> > Bharat

> >

> > On 7/25/07, SPK <aquaris_rising <aquaris_rising%40>>

> 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 <skolachi%40hotmail.com>

> > <skolachi%40hotmail.com>>

> > > 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

> > > >

> > > > <%40>

> > <%40>,

> > > 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.

> > > > > >

> >

> === message truncated ===

>

> ________

> Luggage? GPS? Comic books?

> Check out fitting gifts for grads at Search

> http://search./search?fr=oni_on_mail & p=graduation+gifts & cs=bz

>

July 26, 2007

Namaste Sri Satya

I have been time and again saying that this one person is misquoting others.

He changes the meaning of their statements and uses it incorrectly to show

as if we said a different thing. This itself is unethical and that is why I

stopped discussing on any matters with him.

Thanks and Regards

Bharat

On 7/26/07, Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Pradeep,

>

> I raise a strong objection here: You twisted the statement avoided

> every other point I discussed here. This is not appropriate.

>

> Those astrologers of prior geneations, who used bhavas, drishtis and

> amshas are not Internet astrolgoers. They never used computers. In

> fact, Sri K N Rao terms those astrologers who depend 100% on

> computers as compudiots, in one of his articles. Internet did not

> even exist in those days.

>

> PLEASE DO NOT TALK ABOUT BASICS ON INTERNET. THIS IS MY EARNEST AND

> HUMBLE WAY OF REQUESTING YOU TO HONOR OTHER ASTROLOGERS AND THEIR

> APPROACH TO ASTROLOGY.

>

> TIME AN AGAIN YOU ARE DOING THIS. EVERY ASTROLOGER HAS BASIC

> KNOWLEDGE HERE. IT IS THE WAY THE BASICS ARE INTEREPRETED TO THE

> SITUATION AND MAKING BRILLIANT PREDICTIONS.

> TO PROPAGATE YOUR THEORY, PUBLISH BOOKS AND SEE HOW IT GETS TO THE

> PUBLIC.

>

> WHEN YOU HAVE OPEN SAID TO SRI TARUN THAT YOU ARE NOT COMPETENT

> ENOUGH IN SANSKRIT, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CLAIM THAT YOUR

> INTERPRETATION IS THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION.

>

> First read all the artiles that Sri KN Rao published and come back to

> me whether he used aspects in D charts or not. He is not a person to

> say something to the public and do something else in his real

> practice. His artilces speak for him.

>

> He used mixed concetps to arrive at conclusions. Whatever concept

> works in reality that is what he picked.

>

> Regards,

> Satya S Kolachina

>

> <%40>,

> " vijayadas_pradeep "

> <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Satya ji

> >

> > I totally agree with your view.Information technology and internet

> > Jyotishis have made new rules and laws.For the same reason i went

> > back ,800 years to quote Dashadhyayi etc.

> >

> > Hope all members would go back to classics as you have rightly

> > mentioned.

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> > <%40>,

> " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> > <skolachi@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sri Bharat,

> > >

> > > I appreciate your asking openly about the level of Sanskrit

> > knowledge

> > > of these Internet astrologers. THis question prompted me many

> > times

> > > and just to play low, I did not bring this point.

> > >

> > > In one of his messages to Sri Tarun, Sri Pradeep says that he is

> > not

> > > enough knowledged in Sanskrit, and on the other hand he is 100%

> > sure

> > > of his translation of Sanskrit language. Sanskrit is a cryptic

> > > language where a suthra can reveal secrets the more and more you

> > try

> > > to understand.

> > >

> > > In several occassions sri KN Rao mentioned the same thing in his

> > > articles; A sutra is something like the more and more you unwind

> > it,

> > > the more and more it reveals about its inner meanings. One has to

> > > have real OPEN mind to do that unwinding, and of course a very

> > good

> > > level of sanskrit knowledge one needs.

> > >

> > > It is highly inappropriate on the part of these Internet

> > astrologers

> > > to blame those other astrologers not discussing in favor of their

> > > theory, as not following basics in astrology. First of all they

> > > should have strong (not basic) knowledge of Sanskrit.

> > >

> > > What authority they have in their name to talk about astrologers

> > of

> > > the prior generations, who have completely sacrificed their lives

> > to

> > > the cause of astrology? Almost every astrologer in the prior

> > > generations used aspects and bhavas in Varga charts.

> > >

> > > I do not question this way if these Internet astrologers say

> > that " IT

> > > is their interpretation of the shlokas " . No. They are not saying

> > > that. They are talking authoritatively that it is the right way

> of

> > > interpretation. The clear contradiction is seen here. Once they

> > say

> > > they are not competent enough in Sanskrit (when questioned by Sri

> > > Tarun) and on the other side, they say that their interpretatino

> > is

> > > final and authoritative.

> > >

> > > When we question like this, they selectively answer our

> questions,

> > > and where they have no answers they skip and change the topic.

> > >

> > > It is highly inappropriate on the part of these Internet

> > astrologers

> > > to enforce their opinions on the astrologer community, and those

> > who

> > > do not accept their theory - telling them to go back to basics.

> > >

> > > As you rightly said, instead of typing nearly 200 emails to say

> > the

> > > same thing (which is nothing but enforcing their opinion on the

> > > public forums) again and again, they can very well assist the

> > people

> > > with their own theory and if there is value in the theory, it

> > > automatically comes and gets accepted. No need of so much

> > repetition.

> > >

> > > Best regards,

> > > Satya Sai Kolachina

> > >

> > > <%40>,

> " Bharat - Hindu Astrology "

> > > <astrologyhindu@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Namaskaar Sri Satish

> > > >

> > > > If something is your question, you should ask the concerned

> > > astrologer. If

> > > > Sri K N Rao takes Karakamsha too the Rashi and if you do not

> > accept

> > > it, it

> > > > is for you to ask. You cannot ask members here to become your

> > > personal

> > > > " messengers " .

> > > >

> > > > When Karakamsha is taken in Navamsha, is it not taken as a

> > separate

> > > chart?

> > > > If it is, then, the argument that no other chart other than

> > Rashi

> > > exists, is

> > > > totally false. If not, then Sri K N Rao is right in taking

> > > Karakamsha in

> > > > Rashi.

> > > >

> > > > However, are you sure of all books that there are in Jyotish

> are

> > > available

> > > > with you? Are you sure they are undiluted texts from when they

> > were

> > > written?

> > > > Are you sure that you know Sanskrit to the level of Sri Adi

> > Sankara

> > > to be

> > > > able to confirm that one translation is right and not the

> other.

> > > Coupled

> > > > with misrepresentation of facts and misquotes galore by a

> member

> > > just amazes

> > > > me.

> > > >

> > > > Almost 20 days back, a member was asked to discuss charts. He

> > has

> > > the time

> > > > to write close to 200 emails, but not the time to read ONE

> > single

> > > chart. Yes

> > > > it amazes me how with 99% of ignorance one can pretend to be

> 100%

> > > > knowledgeable.

> > > >

> > > > And who gives the right to one person to decide that Sri Iyer's

> > > method were

> > > > non-vedic?

> > > >

> > > > Thanks and Regards

> > > > Bharat

> > > >

> > > > On 7/25/07, 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@ <skolachi%40hotmail.com>>

> > > > > 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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --- In

<%40><%

> > > 40>,

> > > > > 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

> > > > >

> > > >

July 26, 2007

Dear Sri Bharat,

You have provided a lot of valuable input and question in one of your

earlier mails. There are many unknowns in this great science and

people like Sri KN Rao who spent their whole life to asgtrology have

provided theri exprience.

THis single person, not competent enough in Sanskrit (since he

expressed it earlier to Tarun), does his own way of propagation of

thieor - which is OK as far he attributes it to his own

interpretation. Now it has become intolerable and he says everyone

else who does not support his methodology has to go back to basics.

He has no right to talk about others' basic knowledge.

This is fundamental principle for any human being; let alone

astrology. Except for a Guru to tell about his sishya (even in this

situation this Sishya should have invited him as Guru), no one else

can use that word at others. Once he uses it, then it shows his level

of EGO; and whatever knowledge he acquires, is of no use.

We have no baisc knowledge of our own selves; how can we talk about

basic knowledge of others?

Kind regards,

Satya Sai Kolachina

, " Bharat - Hindu Astrology "

<astrologyhindu wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Satya

>

> I have been time and again saying that this one person is

misquoting others.

> He changes the meaning of their statements and uses it incorrectly

to show

> as if we said a different thing. This itself is unethical and that

is why I

> stopped discussing on any matters with him.

>

> Thanks and Regards

> Bharat

>

> On 7/26/07, Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sri Pradeep,

> >

> > I raise a strong objection here: You twisted the statement avoided

> > every other point I discussed here. This is not appropriate.

> >

> > Those astrologers of prior geneations, who used bhavas, drishtis

and

> > amshas are not Internet astrolgoers. They never used computers. In

> > fact, Sri K N Rao terms those astrologers who depend 100% on

> > computers as compudiots, in one of his articles. Internet did not

> > even exist in those days.

> >

> > PLEASE DO NOT TALK ABOUT BASICS ON INTERNET. THIS IS MY EARNEST

AND

> > HUMBLE WAY OF REQUESTING YOU TO HONOR OTHER ASTROLOGERS AND THEIR

> > APPROACH TO ASTROLOGY.

> >

> > TIME AN AGAIN YOU ARE DOING THIS. EVERY ASTROLOGER HAS BASIC

> > KNOWLEDGE HERE. IT IS THE WAY THE BASICS ARE INTEREPRETED TO THE

> > SITUATION AND MAKING BRILLIANT PREDICTIONS.

> > TO PROPAGATE YOUR THEORY, PUBLISH BOOKS AND SEE HOW IT GETS TO THE

> > PUBLIC.

> >

> > WHEN YOU HAVE OPEN SAID TO SRI TARUN THAT YOU ARE NOT COMPETENT

> > ENOUGH IN SANSKRIT, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CLAIM THAT YOUR

> > INTERPRETATION IS THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION.

> >

> > First read all the artiles that Sri KN Rao published and come

back to

> > me whether he used aspects in D charts or not. He is not a person

to

> > say something to the public and do something else in his real

> > practice. His artilces speak for him.

> >

> > He used mixed concetps to arrive at conclusions. Whatever concept

> > works in reality that is what he picked.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Satya S Kolachina

> >

> > <%

40>,

> > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Satya ji

> > >

> > > I totally agree with your view.Information technology and

internet

> > > Jyotishis have made new rules and laws.For the same reason i

went

> > > back ,800 years to quote Dashadhyayi etc.

> > >

> > > Hope all members would go back to classics as you have rightly

> > > mentioned.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > > <%

40>,

> > " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> > > <skolachi@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sri Bharat,

> > > >

> > > > I appreciate your asking openly about the level of Sanskrit

> > > knowledge

> > > > of these Internet astrologers. THis question prompted me many

> > > times

> > > > and just to play low, I did not bring this point.

> > > >

> > > > In one of his messages to Sri Tarun, Sri Pradeep says that he

is

> > > not

> > > > enough knowledged in Sanskrit, and on the other hand he is

100%

> > > sure

> > > > of his translation of Sanskrit language. Sanskrit is a cryptic

> > > > language where a suthra can reveal secrets the more and more

you

> > > try

> > > > to understand.

> > > >

> > > > In several occassions sri KN Rao mentioned the same thing in

his

> > > > articles; A sutra is something like the more and more you

unwind

> > > it,

> > > > the more and more it reveals about its inner meanings. One

has to

> > > > have real OPEN mind to do that unwinding, and of course a very

> > > good

> > > > level of sanskrit knowledge one needs.

> > > >

> > > > It is highly inappropriate on the part of these Internet

> > > astrologers

> > > > to blame those other astrologers not discussing in favor of

their

> > > > theory, as not following basics in astrology. First of all

they

> > > > should have strong (not basic) knowledge of Sanskrit.

> > > >

> > > > What authority they have in their name to talk about

astrologers

> > > of

> > > > the prior generations, who have completely sacrificed their

lives

> > > to

> > > > the cause of astrology? Almost every astrologer in the prior

> > > > generations used aspects and bhavas in Varga charts.

> > > >

> > > > I do not question this way if these Internet astrologers say

> > > that " IT

> > > > is their interpretation of the shlokas " . No. They are not

saying

> > > > that. They are talking authoritatively that it is the right

way

> > of

> > > > interpretation. The clear contradiction is seen here. Once

they

> > > say

> > > > they are not competent enough in Sanskrit (when questioned by

Sri

> > > > Tarun) and on the other side, they say that their

interpretatino

> > > is

> > > > final and authoritative.

> > > >

> > > > When we question like this, they selectively answer our

> > questions,

> > > > and where they have no answers they skip and change the topic.

> > > >

> > > > It is highly inappropriate on the part of these Internet

> > > astrologers

> > > > to enforce their opinions on the astrologer community, and

those

> > > who

> > > > do not accept their theory - telling them to go back to

basics.

> > > >

> > > > As you rightly said, instead of typing nearly 200 emails to

say

> > > the

> > > > same thing (which is nothing but enforcing their opinion on

the

> > > > public forums) again and again, they can very well assist the

> > > people

> > > > with their own theory and if there is value in the theory, it

> > > > automatically comes and gets accepted. No need of so much

> > > repetition.

> > > >

> > > > Best regards,

> > > > Satya Sai Kolachina

> > > >

> > > > <%

40>,

> > " Bharat - Hindu Astrology "

> > > > <astrologyhindu@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Namaskaar Sri Satish

> > > > >

> > > > > If something is your question, you should ask the concerned

> > > > astrologer. If

> > > > > Sri K N Rao takes Karakamsha too the Rashi and if you do not

> > > accept

> > > > it, it

> > > > > is for you to ask. You cannot ask members here to become

your

> > > > personal

> > > > > " messengers " .

> > > > >

> > > > > When Karakamsha is taken in Navamsha, is it not taken as a

> > > separate

> > > > chart?

> > > > > If it is, then, the argument that no other chart other than

> > > Rashi

> > > > exists, is

> > > > > totally false. If not, then Sri K N Rao is right in taking

> > > > Karakamsha in

> > > > > Rashi.

> > > > >

> > > > > However, are you sure of all books that there are in Jyotish

> > are

> > > > available

> > > > > with you? Are you sure they are undiluted texts from when

they

> > > were

> > > > written?

> > > > > Are you sure that you know Sanskrit to the level of Sri Adi

> > > Sankara

> > > > to be

> > > > > able to confirm that one translation is right and not the

> > other.

> > > > Coupled

> > > > > with misrepresentation of facts and misquotes galore by a

> > member

> > > > just amazes

> > > > > me.

> > > > >

> > > > > Almost 20 days back, a member was asked to discuss charts.

He

> > > has

> > > > the time

> > > > > to write close to 200 emails, but not the time to read ONE

> > > single

> > > > chart. Yes

> > > > > it amazes me how with 99% of ignorance one can pretend to be

> > 100%

> > > > > knowledgeable.

> > > > >

> > > > > And who gives the right to one person to decide that Sri

Iyer's

> > > > method were

> > > > > non-vedic?

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks and Regards

> > > > > Bharat

> > > > >

> > > > > On 7/25/07, 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@ <skolachi%

40hotmail.com>>

> > > > > > 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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > <%

40><%

> > > > 40>,

> > > > > > 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

> > > > > >

> > > > >

July 26, 2007

Sir,

Have you read the example put up by Vijaydas ? The

interpretation of the shloka as provided by

Chadrashekharji is shown to work in rashi chart with

aspects in rashi chart alone on the lagna amshas.

People clamoring for examples have their wish and

Vijaydas has put up two examples so far plus a thought

provoking article by Mr. Bose. Whether vijaydas knows

sanskrit or not is a MOOT point as he has given

example based on the english translation. I am sure

you will agree that Vijasdas knows english.

Satish

--- Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi wrote:

> Dear Sri Bharat,

>

> You have provided a lot of valuable input and

> question in one of your

> earlier mails. There are many unknowns in this great

> science and

> people like Sri KN Rao who spent their whole life to

> asgtrology have

> provided theri exprience.

>

> THis single person, not competent enough in Sanskrit

> (since he

> expressed it earlier to Tarun), does his own way of

> propagation of

> thieor - which is OK as far he attributes it to his

> own

> interpretation. Now it has become intolerable and he

> says everyone

> else who does not support his methodology has to go

> back to basics.

> He has no right to talk about others' basic

> knowledge.

>

> This is fundamental principle for any human being;

> let alone

> astrology. Except for a Guru to tell about his

> sishya (even in this

> situation this Sishya should have invited him as

> Guru), no one else

> can use that word at others. Once he uses it, then

> it shows his level

> of EGO; and whatever knowledge he acquires, is of no

> use.

>

> We have no baisc knowledge of our own selves; how

> can we talk about

> basic knowledge of others?

>

> Kind regards,

> Satya Sai Kolachina

>

______________________________\

____

Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play

Sims Stories at Games.

http://sims./

July 26, 2007

Dear Satya ji

I have also mentioned numerous times that,if Raoji feels it is

giving him results ,i cannot object.Even if Raoji does not use these

extra info he would get the results is my PERSONAL opinion.

Now the question is about fundamentals.Whether Raoji has understood

or not is beyond my abilities.

I go by Tarka and Pramana.If anybody wants to clarify they can take

the relevant shloka.If any body can translate the shloka for aspects

in a different way let them do it.Pls do not say the shloka that

defines aspect is not clear.

If you have different translation pls provide.I am not prepared to

debate on your personal views or ''it works for me /him ''etc.Tarka

and Pramana like the way -Chandrashekar ji does -i am there.Else why

do we debate?

Let us be cool.The debate is only for those want to take a relook at

basics.I cannot understand the insecure feeling.Why are we shaky

here.

Regds

Pradeep

, " Satya Sai Kolachina "

<skolachi wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Pradeep,

>

> I raise a strong objection here: You twisted the statement avoided

> every other point I discussed here. This is not appropriate.

>

> Those astrologers of prior geneations, who used bhavas, drishtis

and

> amshas are not Internet astrolgoers. They never used computers. In

> fact, Sri K N Rao terms those astrologers who depend 100% on

> computers as compudiots, in one of his articles. Internet did not

> even exist in those days.

>

> PLEASE DO NOT TALK ABOUT BASICS ON INTERNET. THIS IS MY EARNEST

AND

> HUMBLE WAY OF REQUESTING YOU TO HONOR OTHER ASTROLOGERS AND THEIR

> APPROACH TO ASTROLOGY.

>

> TIME AN AGAIN YOU ARE DOING THIS. EVERY ASTROLOGER HAS BASIC

> KNOWLEDGE HERE. IT IS THE WAY THE BASICS ARE INTEREPRETED TO THE

> SITUATION AND MAKING BRILLIANT PREDICTIONS.

> TO PROPAGATE YOUR THEORY, PUBLISH BOOKS AND SEE HOW IT GETS TO THE

> PUBLIC.

>

> WHEN YOU HAVE OPEN SAID TO SRI TARUN THAT YOU ARE NOT COMPETENT

> ENOUGH IN SANSKRIT, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CLAIM THAT YOUR

> INTERPRETATION IS THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION.

>

> First read all the artiles that Sri KN Rao published and come back

to

> me whether he used aspects in D charts or not. He is not a person

to

> say something to the public and do something else in his real

> practice. His artilces speak for him.

>

> He used mixed concetps to arrive at conclusions. Whatever concept

> works in reality that is what he picked.

>

> Regards,

> Satya S Kolachina

>

> , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Satya ji

> >

> > I totally agree with your view.Information technology and

internet

> > Jyotishis have made new rules and laws.For the same reason i

went

> > back ,800 years to quote Dashadhyayi etc.

> >

> > Hope all members would go back to classics as you have rightly

> > mentioned.

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> > , " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> > <skolachi@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sri Bharat,

> > >

> > > I appreciate your asking openly about the level of Sanskrit

> > knowledge

> > > of these Internet astrologers. THis question prompted me many

> > times

> > > and just to play low, I did not bring this point.

> > >

> > > In one of his messages to Sri Tarun, Sri Pradeep says that he

is

> > not

> > > enough knowledged in Sanskrit, and on the other hand he is

100%

> > sure

> > > of his translation of Sanskrit language. Sanskrit is a cryptic

> > > language where a suthra can reveal secrets the more and more

you

> > try

> > > to understand.

> > >

> > > In several occassions sri KN Rao mentioned the same thing in

his

> > > articles; A sutra is something like the more and more you

unwind

> > it,

> > > the more and more it reveals about its inner meanings. One has

to

> > > have real OPEN mind to do that unwinding, and of course a very

> > good

> > > level of sanskrit knowledge one needs.

> > >

> > > It is highly inappropriate on the part of these Internet

> > astrologers

> > > to blame those other astrologers not discussing in favor of

their

> > > theory, as not following basics in astrology. First of all

they

> > > should have strong (not basic) knowledge of Sanskrit.

> > >

> > > What authority they have in their name to talk about

astrologers

> > of

> > > the prior generations, who have completely sacrificed their

lives

> > to

> > > the cause of astrology? Almost every astrologer in the prior

> > > generations used aspects and bhavas in Varga charts.

> > >

> > > I do not question this way if these Internet astrologers say

> > that " IT

> > > is their interpretation of the shlokas " . No. They are not

saying

> > > that. They are talking authoritatively that it is the right

way

> of

> > > interpretation. The clear contradiction is seen here. Once

they

> > say

> > > they are not competent enough in Sanskrit (when questioned by

Sri

> > > Tarun) and on the other side, they say that their

interpretatino

> > is

> > > final and authoritative.

> > >

> > > When we question like this, they selectively answer our

> questions,

> > > and where they have no answers they skip and change the topic.

> > >

> > > It is highly inappropriate on the part of these Internet

> > astrologers

> > > to enforce their opinions on the astrologer community, and

those

> > who

> > > do not accept their theory - telling them to go back to basics.

> > >

> > > As you rightly said, instead of typing nearly 200 emails to

say

> > the

> > > same thing (which is nothing but enforcing their opinion on

the

> > > public forums) again and again, they can very well assist the

> > people

> > > with their own theory and if there is value in the theory, it

> > > automatically comes and gets accepted. No need of so much

> > repetition.

> > >

> > > Best regards,

> > > Satya Sai Kolachina

> > >

> > > , " Bharat - Hindu

Astrology "

> > > <astrologyhindu@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Namaskaar Sri Satish

> > > >

> > > > If something is your question, you should ask the concerned

> > > astrologer. If

> > > > Sri K N Rao takes Karakamsha too the Rashi and if you do not

> > accept

> > > it, it

> > > > is for you to ask. You cannot ask members here to become

your

> > > personal

> > > > " messengers " .

> > > >

> > > > When Karakamsha is taken in Navamsha, is it not taken as a

> > separate

> > > chart?

> > > > If it is, then, the argument that no other chart other than

> > Rashi

> > > exists, is

> > > > totally false. If not, then Sri K N Rao is right in taking

> > > Karakamsha in

> > > > Rashi.

> > > >

> > > > However, are you sure of all books that there are in Jyotish

> are

> > > available

> > > > with you? Are you sure they are undiluted texts from when

they

> > were

> > > written?

> > > > Are you sure that you know Sanskrit to the level of Sri Adi

> > Sankara

> > > to be

> > > > able to confirm that one translation is right and not the

> other.

> > > Coupled

> > > > with misrepresentation of facts and misquotes galore by a

> member

> > > just amazes

> > > > me.

> > > >

> > > > Almost 20 days back, a member was asked to discuss charts.

He

> > has

> > > the time

> > > > to write close to 200 emails, but not the time to read ONE

> > single

> > > chart. Yes

> > > > it amazes me how with 99% of ignorance one can pretend to be

> 100%

> > > > knowledgeable.

> > > >

> > > > And who gives the right to one person to decide that Sri

Iyer's

> > > method were

> > > > non-vedic?

> > > >

> > > > Thanks and Regards

> > > > Bharat

> > > >

> > > > On 7/25/07, 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@ <skolachi%

40hotmail.com>>

> > > > > 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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > <%

> > > 40>,

> > > > > 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

> > > > >

> > > >

July 26, 2007

Dear Satish ji

As i have expected we have to face stiff opposition.This is just a

beggining.What more can we provide.

I would not be surprised if some one says,i cannot read/write

english.

When we are debating within the rules -what is the opposition camp

doing -

This person misquotes

He has been given shastric quotes

He is like this

He has closed mind

He provides no charts

It works for me

I lovee the joke

For making these comments do we have to know astrology?

Are we serious.If yes,tell us what point regarding Graha drishti is

not clear.Which has been misinterpreted.Do you have any other

translation from anyone else regarding drishti or drik bala?

If not you may kindly listen and see how Chandrashekhar ji is

debating.

Any one can raise allegations.

Kindly understand

Regds

Pradeep

There , SPK <aquaris_rising

wrote:

>

> Sir,

>

> Have you read the example put up by Vijaydas ? The

> interpretation of the shloka as provided by

> Chadrashekharji is shown to work in rashi chart with

> aspects in rashi chart alone on the lagna amshas.

>

> People clamoring for examples have their wish and

> Vijaydas has put up two examples so far plus a thought

> provoking article by Mr. Bose. Whether vijaydas knows

> sanskrit or not is a MOOT point as he has given

> example based on the english translation. I am sure

> you will agree that Vijasdas knows english.

>

> Satish

> --- Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi wrote:

>

> > Dear Sri Bharat,

> >

> > You have provided a lot of valuable input and

> > question in one of your

> > earlier mails. There are many unknowns in this great

> > science and

> > people like Sri KN Rao who spent their whole life to

> > asgtrology have

> > provided theri exprience.

> >

> > THis single person, not competent enough in Sanskrit

> > (since he

> > expressed it earlier to Tarun), does his own way of

> > propagation of

> > thieor - which is OK as far he attributes it to his

> > own

> > interpretation. Now it has become intolerable and he

> > says everyone

> > else who does not support his methodology has to go

> > back to basics.

> > He has no right to talk about others' basic

> > knowledge.

> >

> > This is fundamental principle for any human being;

> > let alone

> > astrology. Except for a Guru to tell about his

> > sishya (even in this

> > situation this Sishya should have invited him as

> > Guru), no one else

> > can use that word at others. Once he uses it, then

> > it shows his level

> > of EGO; and whatever knowledge he acquires, is of no

> > use.

> >

> > We have no baisc knowledge of our own selves; how

> > can we talk about

> > basic knowledge of others?

> >

> > Kind regards,

> > Satya Sai Kolachina

> >

>

___________________

_______________

> Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your

story. Play Sims Stories at Games.

> http://sims./

>

Varge as Plural - Shloka number and Link-Lagna Shadvargake

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation