Guest guest Posted July 25, 2007 Report Share Posted July 25, 2007 Dear Prafulla ji I feel you have not understood the purpose of debate. No forceful conversion.If you think it gives results pls use it.I have no problems.But if you say it is as per vedic astrology fundamentals,we will debate. Personal views are fine. Regds Pradeep , " 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 > > > 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.