Guest guest Posted July 25, 2007 Report Share Posted July 25, 2007 Dear Chandrahekhar ji In one ofyour mails to shri Parthasarathy you have talked about 5th from Swamsha to be seen in Natal horoscope.This is the same approach as K.N.Raoji. But today you have a different view.Have i understood you or am i wrong.Pls confirm. Respect Pradeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 Dear Pradeep, Yes, that is right. I do not deny what I wrote. But the discussion is on other shloka, is that not so? By the way, the reason I said that had to do with different interpretation of Swamsha in different context and has nothing to do with KNR's approach. It is incidental that both approach converge in some cases. This also does not mean I have any less respect for KNR who is a giant amongst astrologers of the day. Only that I have my own way of looking at aspects in specific circumstances in certain D-Charts. If I were to explain why I consider rasi drishti in higher harmonic D-Charts, it will take a lot of space and give rise to another bout of lengthy mails that lead nowhere, minds have already been made up one way or other. I have a different approach to jyotish. I do not see as rules set, by even the sages, being inviolate if the final results do not bear them out or when they can not be applied literally. That is one of the reason Jyotish is called a pratyaksha shastra. Kamalakar Bhatt says: " suyu´a n muNyu´rPyÇ zaôe Évet! kayRvyRSy ya Ô & iGvéÏa suyuktä na munyuktarapyatra çästre bhavet käryavaryasya yä drågviruddhä " I hope, these frank comments, of mine, do not bring another wave of mails accusing me of changing my stand. Chandrashekhar. vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Chandrahekhar ji > > In one ofyour mails to shri Parthasarathy you have talked about 5th > from Swamsha to be seen in Natal horoscope.This is the same approach as > K.N.Raoji. > > But today you have a different view.Have i understood you or am i > wrong.Pls confirm. > > Respect > Pradeep > > > ------ > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.17/915 - Release 7/24/2007 1:50 PM > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 Dear Chandrashekhar ji Yes discussion is on another shloka.But there is a connection. If you think in whichever context,karakamsha or Lagnamsha can be transferred back to rashi and the 5th therefrom can be seen in natal chart,where is our problem. You need not call it K.N.Raojis approach.But why do you see the 5th in natal chart.Any reason. Respect Pradeep , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > Dear Pradeep, > > Yes, that is right. I do not deny what I wrote. But the discussion is on > other shloka, is that not so? By the way, the reason I said that had to > do with different interpretation of Swamsha in different context and has > nothing to do with KNR's approach. It is incidental that both approach > converge in some cases. This also does not mean I have any less respect > for KNR who is a giant amongst astrologers of the day. Only that I have > my own way of looking at aspects in specific circumstances in certain > D-Charts. > > If I were to explain why I consider rasi drishti in higher harmonic > D-Charts, it will take a lot of space and give rise to another bout of > lengthy mails that lead nowhere, minds have already been made up one way > or other. I have a different approach to jyotish. I do not see as rules > set, by even the sages, being inviolate if the final results do not bear > them out or when they can not be applied literally. That is one of the > reason Jyotish is called a pratyaksha shastra. > > Kamalakar Bhatt says: > " suyu´a n muNyu´rPyÇ zaôe Évet! kayRvyRSy ya Ô & iGvéÏa > suyuktä na munyuktarapyatra çästre bhavet käryavaryasya yä drågviruddhä " > > I hope, these frank comments, of mine, do not bring another wave of > mails accusing me of changing my stand. > > Chandrashekhar. > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrahekhar ji > > > > In one ofyour mails to shri Parthasarathy you have talked about 5th > > from Swamsha to be seen in Natal horoscope.This is the same approach as > > K.N.Raoji. > > > > But today you have a different view.Have i understood you or am i > > wrong.Pls confirm. > > > > Respect > > Pradeep > > > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.17/915 - Release Date: 7/24/2007 1:50 PM > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Dear Pradeep, It is better to remember that the discussion that began was on not what I thought but what is allowed and not allowed in Vedic Jyotish or better what is the meaning of shlokas in one text or other. When we talk about two different shlokas their context being different it is quite possible that they are pointing to different things. I called it as K. N. Rao's approach as you called it so. After the way the discussion is jumping from one topic to another, I do not think it will serve any purpose in explaining what I understand being Swamsha in different contexts. Chandrashekhar. vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > Yes discussion is on another shloka.But there is a connection. > If you think in whichever context,karakamsha or Lagnamsha can be > transferred back to rashi and the 5th therefrom can be seen in natal > chart,where is our problem. > > You need not call it K.N.Raojis approach.But why do you see the 5th > in natal chart.Any reason. > > Respect > Pradeep > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > Yes, that is right. I do not deny what I wrote. But the discussion > is on > > other shloka, is that not so? By the way, the reason I said that > had to > > do with different interpretation of Swamsha in different context > and has > > nothing to do with KNR's approach. It is incidental that both > approach > > converge in some cases. This also does not mean I have any less > respect > > for KNR who is a giant amongst astrologers of the day. Only that I > have > > my own way of looking at aspects in specific circumstances in > certain > > D-Charts. > > > > If I were to explain why I consider rasi drishti in higher harmonic > > D-Charts, it will take a lot of space and give rise to another bout > of > > lengthy mails that lead nowhere, minds have already been made up > one way > > or other. I have a different approach to jyotish. I do not see as > rules > > set, by even the sages, being inviolate if the final results do not > bear > > them out or when they can not be applied literally. That is one of > the > > reason Jyotish is called a pratyaksha shastra. > > > > Kamalakar Bhatt says: > > " suyu´a n muNyu´rPyÇ zaôe Évet! kayRvyRSy ya Ô & iGvéÏa > > suyuktä na munyuktarapyatra çästre bhavet käryavaryasya yä > drågviruddhä " > > > > I hope, these frank comments, of mine, do not bring another wave of > > mails accusing me of changing my stand. > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrahekhar ji > > > > > > In one ofyour mails to shri Parthasarathy you have talked about > 5th > > > from Swamsha to be seen in Natal horoscope.This is the same > approach as > > > K.N.Raoji. > > > > > > But today you have a different view.Have i understood you or am i > > > wrong.Pls confirm. > > > > > > Respect > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > ------------------------- > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.17/915 - Release Date: > 7/24/2007 1:50 PM > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.