Varge as Plural - Shloka number and Link-A small correction

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

A small correction -

 

I had said there was no disagreement regarding translation.

It means i have no disagreement with your translation.I am thankful

that you have translated it properly.

 

But i do have disagreement with those who have translated it

as ''ascendant in six divisional charts''.

 

Lagna shadvargake - as you have said means ''Shadvargas(six

divisions of Lagna''.

 

I am making things straight to legal perfection as there are a few

(unfortunately) who are unable to appreciate the intention and merit

of these discussions and tries to capaitalize on any inadvertent

errors.

 

Respect

Pradeep

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

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

> what i am trying to prove.

>

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

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

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

> years ,not about the translation.

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

have

> a very very important point to address before that.

>

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

do

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

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

>

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

> varga chakras - you are accepting grahadrishti as a RULE

in ''varga

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

6

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

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

> view.

>

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

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

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

> chakras.Myself and the astrological community would really be

> interested in knowing the reason.

>

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

> BPHS with pramanas.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

> , Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

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

> > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> >

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

> occupied

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

> doubt. If

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

> results

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

> >

> > This indicates that Parashara is talking about graha drishti

here.

> No

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

> apparently so

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

> seen. This

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

hora

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

> if you

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

> > interpretation of Brihat jataka and Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

> acceptable to

> > you?

> >

> >

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

> divisional

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

> expresses

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

> >

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

Charts,

> now

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

> > Dashaadhyaayi?

> >

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

> superior

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

> view as

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

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> > >

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

> providing

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

> fonts.

> > >

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

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

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

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

> obvious

> > > that

> > > > only selective position is given.

> > > >

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

as

> you

> > > are

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

off

> > > when

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

the

> > > list. You

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

then

> > > went on

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

> Charts.

> > > Then

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

> > > followed

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

> Charts.

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

changed

> the

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

> translation

> > > of

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

> prohibited

> > > use of

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

authority

> of

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

Bhava,

> > > Ghatika,

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

the

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

Even

> the

> > > Amsha

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

> > > confusion

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

Amsha

> > > though

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

between

> > > their

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

> Vargas.

> > > >

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

> > > write down

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

said

> that

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

give

> > > one

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

is?

> > > >

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

to

> > > suit

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

are

> not

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

> that no

> > > other

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

> other

> > > charts

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

matters

> > > astrological.

> > > >

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

> > > think

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

> rashi

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

as

> > > you

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

is

> now

> > > being

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

> voluminous

> > > > exchange of mail on this subject.

> > > >

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

a

> > > point

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

is

> > > not

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

> can

> > > be

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

references

> > > from

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

drawn

> > > that

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

am

> > > sure you

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

> > > >

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

> found

> > > in Hora

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

of

> > > the

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

> > > Lagna

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

> entire

> > > > shloka with adhyaaya and shloka number).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

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

> > > explained.I

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

> > > > >

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

> main

> > > > > point,in your recent posts.

> > > > >

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

> Lagna

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

> rules

> > > set

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

> > > > >

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

think

> of

> > > > > aspects in the first place.

> > > > >

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

> for ''Trimshamsha

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

but

> rashi

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

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

> plus

> > > > > Saravali as supportive.

> > > > >

> > > > > You were not agreeing.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now today i have seen from internet

> (www.brihaspati.net),English

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

> exactly

> > > the

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

> request

> > > > > members to go and read that.

> > > > >

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

> > > amshas in

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

amsha

> for

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

> > > > >

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

> combination

> > > of

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

> umpteen

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

> > > > >

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

> > > shloka can

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

> was

> > > your

> > > > > personal view.

> > > > >

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

> within

> > > rashi

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

> > > > >

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

> bhavas and

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

> > > clear.Shri

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

> > > shloka -

> > > > > Lagnashadvargake.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

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

> troubled

> > > you

> > > > > with

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

> the

> > > > > comments

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

> says,

> > > does

> > > > > it

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

> > > > > >

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

anything

> > > about

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

> specifically,

> > > says

> > > > > that

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

you

> are

> > > > > implying?

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

> 21st

> > > > > adhyaaya

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

> > > perhaps be

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

> > > > > >

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

drawing

> any

> > > other

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

come

> out

> > > of

> > > > > this

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

almost

> all

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

> > > course,

> > > > > you

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

> that

> > > I am

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

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

> > > level of

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

> > > > > bHATTOTPALA,

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

spanning

> > > pages.

> > > > > > >

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

any

> > > > > Trimshamsha

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

> so.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

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

Brihat

> > > jataka,

> > > > > > > which

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

> > > purpose

> > > > > can be

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

> Bhattotpala in

> > > > > > > Sanskrit?

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

> > > shlokas)

> > > > > > > Bhattotpala

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

> then

> > > gives

> > > > > his

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

> meant

> > > by

> > > > > that

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

of

> > > what both

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

If

> you

> > > go

> > > > > > > through our

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

the

> same.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

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

Sanskrit

> > > shloka

> > > > > from

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

if

> you

> > > can

> > > > > give

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

> Sitaram

> > > > > jha ,issue

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > closed.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

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

> Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > said " Bhattotpala

> > > > > might

> > > > > > > > > have

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

> can

> > > be your

> > > > > > > view

> > > > > > > > > about

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

> Dashaadhyaayikar

> > > not

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > been

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

be

> your

> > > > > views

> > > > > > > about

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

We

> > > have

> > > > > already

> > > > > > > > > sen

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

> scholar

> > > on

> > > > > this

> > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > list,

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > wrong is

> > > > > my

> > > > > > > strong

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > Chandrashekhar

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

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

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

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

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

> then

> > > so can

> > > > > be

> > > > > > > the

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

that

> he

> > > can

> > > > > not be

> > > > > > > if

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> was it

> > > is

> > > > > more

> > > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > mere

> > > > > > > > > > > > > commentary as it has clear

explanations,while

> > > thinking

> > > > > > > from a

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

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

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

> > > > > commentaries,you

> > > > > > > were

> > > > > > > > > > > having

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

> concern

> > > for

> > > > > > > > > me.Similarly

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

you

> have

> > > > > quoted as

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

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

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

> > > misunderstood

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

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

> > > > > > > > > translations.Bhatotpala

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

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

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

> > > quoted by

> > > > > > > me,for

> > > > > > > > > > > example

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

> > > leaving no

> > > > > > > > > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > cannot think

jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi

> etc

> > > will

> > > > > > > make the

> > > > > > > > > > > same

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

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

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

> explanations

> > > and not

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

translation

> is

> > > pretty

> > > > > > > straight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> > > removed]

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

--

> ----

> > > -----

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database:

269.10.4/898 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

--

> ----

> > > -

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

> Release

> > > > > Date:

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

I think it is time that this discussion is stopped for having taken too

much space of the learned on the group who must have made up their mind

as to what they should follow.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> A small correction -

>

> I had said there was no disagreement regarding translation.

> It means i have no disagreement with your translation.I am thankful

> that you have translated it properly.

>

> But i do have disagreement with those who have translated it

> as ''ascendant in six divisional charts''.

>

> Lagna shadvargake - as you have said means ''Shadvargas(six

> divisions of Lagna''.

>

> I am making things straight to legal perfection as there are a few

> (unfortunately) who are unable to appreciate the intention and merit

> of these discussions and tries to capaitalize on any inadvertent

> errors.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

> <%40>, " vijayadas_pradeep "

> <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

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

> > what i am trying to prove.

> >

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

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

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

> > years ,not about the translation.

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

> have

> > a very very important point to address before that.

> >

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

> do

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

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

> >

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

> > varga chakras - you are accepting grahadrishti as a RULE

> in ''varga

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

> 6

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

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

> > view.

> >

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

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

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

> > chakras.Myself and the astrological community would really be

> > interested in knowing the reason.

> >

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

> > BPHS with pramanas.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

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

> > > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> > >

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

> > occupied

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

> > doubt. If

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

> > results

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

> > >

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

> here.

> > No

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

> > apparently so

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

> > seen. This

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

> hora

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

> > if you

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

> > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

> > acceptable to

> > > you?

> > >

> > >

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

> > divisional

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

> > expresses

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

> > >

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

> Charts,

> > now

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

> > > Dashaadhyaayi?

> > >

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

> > superior

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

> > view as

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

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> > > >

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

> > providing

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

> > fonts.

> > > >

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

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

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

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

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

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

> > obvious

> > > > that

> > > > > only selective position is given.

> > > > >

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

> as

> > you

> > > > are

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

> off

> > > > when

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

> the

> > > > list. You

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

> then

> > > > went on

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

> > Charts.

> > > > Then

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

> > > > followed

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

> > Charts.

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

> changed

> > the

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

> > translation

> > > > of

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

> > prohibited

> > > > use of

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

> authority

> > of

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

> Bhava,

> > > > Ghatika,

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

> the

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

> Even

> > the

> > > > Amsha

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

> > > > confusion

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

> Amsha

> > > > though

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

> between

> > > > their

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

> > Vargas.

> > > > >

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

> > > > write down

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

> said

> > that

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

> give

> > > > one

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

> is?

> > > > >

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

> to

> > > > suit

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

> are

> > not

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

> > that no

> > > > other

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

> > other

> > > > charts

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

> matters

> > > > astrological.

> > > > >

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

> > > > think

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

> > rashi

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

> as

> > > > you

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

> is

> > now

> > > > being

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

> > voluminous

> > > > > exchange of mail on this subject.

> > > > >

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

> a

> > > > point

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

> is

> > > > not

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

> > can

> > > > be

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

> references

> > > > from

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

> drawn

> > > > that

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

> am

> > > > sure you

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

> > > > >

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

> > found

> > > > in Hora

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

> of

> > > > the

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

> > > > Lagna

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

> > entire

> > > > > shloka with adhyaaya and shloka number).

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

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

> > > > explained.I

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

> > > > > >

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

> > main

> > > > > > point,in your recent posts.

> > > > > >

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

> > Lagna

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

> > rules

> > > > set

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

> > > > > >

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

> think

> > of

> > > > > > aspects in the first place.

> > > > > >

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

> > for ''Trimshamsha

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

> but

> > rashi

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

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

> > plus

> > > > > > Saravali as supportive.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You were not agreeing.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now today i have seen from internet

> > (www.brihaspati.net),English

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

> > exactly

> > > > the

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

> > request

> > > > > > members to go and read that.

> > > > > >

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

> > > > amshas in

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

> amsha

> > for

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

> > > > > >

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

> > combination

> > > > of

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

> > umpteen

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

> > > > > >

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

> > > > shloka can

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

> > was

> > > > your

> > > > > > personal view.

> > > > > >

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

> > within

> > > > rashi

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

> > > > > >

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

> > bhavas and

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

> > > > clear.Shri

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

> > > > shloka -

> > > > > > Lagnashadvargake.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

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

> > troubled

> > > > you

> > > > > > with

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

> > the

> > > > > > comments

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

> > says,

> > > > does

> > > > > > it

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

> > > > > > >

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

> anything

> > > > about

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

> > specifically,

> > > > says

> > > > > > that

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

> you

> > are

> > > > > > implying?

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

> > 21st

> > > > > > adhyaaya

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

> > > > perhaps be

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

> > > > > > >

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

> drawing

> > any

> > > > other

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

> come

> > out

> > > > of

> > > > > > this

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

> almost

> > all

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

> > > > course,

> > > > > > you

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

> > that

> > > > I am

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

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

> > > > level of

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

> > > > > > bHATTOTPALA,

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

> spanning

> > > > pages.

> > > > > > > >

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

> any

> > > > > > Trimshamsha

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

> > so.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

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

> Brihat

> > > > jataka,

> > > > > > > > which

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

> > > > purpose

> > > > > > can be

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

> > Bhattotpala in

> > > > > > > > Sanskrit?

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

> > > > shlokas)

> > > > > > > > Bhattotpala

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

> > then

> > > > gives

> > > > > > his

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

> > meant

> > > > by

> > > > > > that

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

> of

> > > > what both

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

> If

> > you

> > > > go

> > > > > > > > through our

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

> the

> > same.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> Sanskrit

> > > > shloka

> > > > > > from

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

> if

> > you

> > > > can

> > > > > > give

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

> > Sitaram

> > > > > > jha ,issue

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > closed.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > said " Bhattotpala

> > > > > > might

> > > > > > > > > > have

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

> > can

> > > > be your

> > > > > > > > view

> > > > > > > > > > about

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

> > Dashaadhyaayikar

> > > > not

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > been

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

> be

> > your

> > > > > > views

> > > > > > > > about

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

> We

> > > > have

> > > > > > already

> > > > > > > > > > sen

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

> > scholar

> > > > on

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > list,

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

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

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

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

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

> > > > wrong is

> > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > strong

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

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

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

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

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

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

> <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

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

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

> > > > Chandrashekhar

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

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

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

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

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

> > then

> > > > so can

> > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > the

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

> that

> > he

> > > > can

> > > > > > not be

> > > > > > > > if

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> > was it

> > > > is

> > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > mere

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > commentary as it has clear

> explanations,while

> > > > thinking

> > > > > > > > from a

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

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

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

> > > > > > commentaries,you

> > > > > > > > were

> > > > > > > > > > > > having

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

> > concern

> > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > me.Similarly

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

> you

> > have

> > > > > > quoted as

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

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

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

> > > > misunderstood

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > translations.Bhatotpala

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

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

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

> > > > quoted by

> > > > > > > > me,for

> > > > > > > > > > > > example

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

> > > > leaving no

> > > > > > > > > > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cannot think

> jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi

> > etc

> > > > will

> > > > > > > > make the

> > > > > > > > > > > > same

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

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

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

> > explanations

> > > > and not

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

> translation

> > is

> > > > pretty

> > > > > > > > straight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> > > > removed]

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

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

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

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

> --

> > ----

> > > > -----

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database:

> 269.10.4/898 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > > Date:

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> --

> > ----

> > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >