To all those who want Astronomical explanation of Aspects in Amsa charts

[Guest guest]

As I am fedup with the hypocricy of those who look for 100%

paralance of astronomical evidence for aspects in Amsa charts, I am

putting these questions straight to those people. Since you have

scientific bent of mind, I appreciate it, and I, as a simple

astrologer, am looking for answers for these very simple questions

that bother me.

This mail is not for those who have the habit of skipping

inconvenient questions, or diverting the attention of the public.

 

What is the astronomical basis of calling Jupiter as the Vaamana

incarnation of Lord Vishnu?

What is the astronomical basis of calling Angaaraka (Mangal) calling

as Nrisimha incarnation of Lord Vishnu?

(same question repeated for all the incarnations of Lord Vishnu.

Similarly what is astronomical basis of assigning castes to these

planets?

Rahu and Kethu are NOT PLANETS according to ASTRONOMY; I am not sure

they are planets according to VEDIC ASTROLOGY.

There are many other questions. At least these questions are from

the first couple of chapters of BPHS. I am not even going into

depths of BPHS, as it is not required for these simple questions.

These form part of the basis for our predictions.

 

I do not need answers with respect to BPHS or any of our classics,

since they already support these concepts.

 

Regards,

Satya S Kolachina

, " Satya Sai Kolachina "

<skolachi wrote:

>

> Astronomically Rahu and Kethu are only Nodes of moon; but they

have

> been given the status of plaents by our Maha munis. What I was

> saying is do not bring 100% astronomical paralance into vedic

> astrology, as it fails in several areas.

>

> I hope you can understand English and hence understand what I am

> saying here.

> Satya

>

> , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Satya ji

> >

> > You are talking in the language of Yukthi Vaadis,who does not

know

> > astrology but keep on critizing it.But you are not like that.You

> are

> > well aversed in astrology.You may not talk in that fashion.

> >

> > 1)Rahu & Ketu are astronomical points -Nodes of Moon -

> > Philosophically they are the intersection of Atma-Mana padha.

> >

> > 2)Sun and Moon -They are considered as ''Grahas'' by

> > Mahamunis.Planet is an English term.

> >

> > Gola ,Ganita,Hora - Mahamunis did not devise anything for

> fun.There

> > is a strong basis.

> >

> > Similarly the rules for aspect and their evaluations can be

> > objectively measured in a mathematical fashion.

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > , " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> > <skolachi@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sri Kursija,

> > >

> > > Astronomy doesn't define 9 planets as incarnations of Lord

> Vishnu.

> > > Astronomy doesn't define Rahu and Kethu as planets. Even Sun

and

> > Moon

> > > are not planets astronomically.

> > > Astronomy doesn't define planets into different castes like

> > Brahmin,

> > > Khathriya, Vaishya and Sudra etc. THere are many things you

> cannot

> > > get from astronomy. Our seers gave Vedic astrology thousands

of

> > years

> > > ago, whereas the science of astronomy developed much later.

> > >

> > > If you start talking in strict astronomical sense, Vedic/Hindu

> > > astrology doesn't fit in there. The closest approximation to

> > > astronomy is only the Western astrology; which some people

> follow.

> > > Let us not be hypocritical. If we follow Vedic astrology, let

us

> > not

> > > feel bad to take the vedic astrology concepts as they are.

> > >

> > > Vedic astrology is more than science; it is divine science.

You

> do

> > > not have to accept what I say. For that matter no one has to

> > accept

> > > what I say. But, when you try to equate something, do not do

it

> > > selectively.

> > >

> > > There is a concept of divinity superimposed over the

> astronomical

> > > facts; some concepts seem to be apparently known to us; there

> are

> > > many concepts not known or lost in the past centuries.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > >

> > > Satya S Kolachina

> > >

> > >

> > > , " S.C. Kursija "

<sckursija@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Respected members of the forum,

> > > > I tried my best to keep away from this endless

> > > > discussion but not with out poin. It has got its own

> > > > merits. But the discussion is turning into criticism

> > > > and trying to prove that other is worng. This is not a

> > > > healthy way of discussion.

> > > > Up till now I have not seen any member Who discuss

> > > > the aspect. Why we have taken aspect in astrology? The

> > > > aspect refers to an angular distance

> > > > between two celestial bodies measured along the

> > > > ecliptic. So all terms used in astrology are based on

> > > > astronomy. If we take into consideration the

> > > > definition of aspect in astronomy, there will not be

> > > > any confusion whether we should use aspect in varga or

> > > > not. The varga are not configuration of the planets on

> > > > the bases of astronomy. We have created varga to look

> > > > deep into the different aspects of life. The rashi

> > > > chart is the map of the planets at the time of birth.

> > > > It the nature position of the planets. The varga are

> > > > the creation of astrologers not the nature or the

> > > > Universe.Though Astrology is based on astronomy and

> > > > mathematic, but not whimsical. It is a science.So

> > > > aspect should not be seen in vargas.If any how we find

> > > > out that one or two shlokas in one classic in favor of

> > > > use of aspects in varga, it does not prove that aspect

> > > > should be used in vergas.Why other classics are

> > > > silent. Does astronomy allows it? If astronomy does

> > > > not allows the same, we should reject the same

> > > > immediately. The astrology is based on astronomy. The

> > > > astronomy is not based on astrology. We have converted

> > > > astronomy into the astrology for the benefit of human

> > > > kind and universe to understand the future. Respect

> > > > the astronomy not any person who ever he may be.The

> > > > astrologers have developed the habit of giving

> > > > explanation when event has taken place and try to fit

> > > > the event in astrology, but does not improve himself

> > > > and astrology. I have repeatedly requested the indian

> > > > astronomers and mathematicians to modify and rectify

> > > > the data of the astrology according to the present

> > > > position of the planets and point of equinox so that

> > > > we may be able to predict earth quake,pattern of rain

> > > > and seasons, say mundane events.

> > > > I do not want to criticise any one. If my words have

> > > > hurt any body, I feel sorry for the same.

> > > > --- vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > > >

> > > > > This is really painful.You are really testing

> > > > > patience.How many times

> > > > > i have to tell you this.Should i bring the mail in

> > > > > which i have

> > > > > answered the same question to you.

> > > > >

> > > > > I clealry said,since he considered Varga charts -he

> > > > > could notexplain

> > > > > Lagna shadvargake shloka.

> > > > >

> > > > > Do you think others in this goup are fools.Do you

> > > > > think this tactic

> > > > > will work.It is there in the archives ,about what i

> > > > > have said.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regds

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > > In , " Prafulla Gang "

> > > > > <jyotish@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do you agree with Shri Santhanam's conviction of

> > > > > varga charts? I am

> > > > > > repeatedly questioning your misquote, as he even

> > > > > used aspects. You

> > > > > > should not refer himn selectively. You do agree

> > > > > with his 10th line

> > > > > of

> > > > > > the poem (i.e. aspects) , So I presume - you agree

> > > > > with first 9

> > > > > lines

> > > > > > also (i.e. varga chakra, the yogas there, houses

> > > > > there and so son).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > regards / Prafulla

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ,

> > > > > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Respected members

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Grahasphuta Drishti Kadhanadhyaya in BPHS talks

> > > > > about the drishti

> > > > > > > other than Rashi drishti mentioned in earlier

> > > > > chapter.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Here sage says,apart from the common or

> > > > > ordinary(Samanya) way of

> > > > > > > seeing raha drshti we can evaluate graha drishti

> > > > > based on

> > > > > longitude.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Then sage describes how the strength of Graha

> > > > > drishtis can be

> > > > > > > evaluated.As Jupiter ,Mars and Saturn has

> > > > > special aspects there

> > > > > are

> > > > > > > special rules mentioned to evaluate their

> > > > > strength as well.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So being the case,Shri Santhanam or any other

> > > > > astrologer ,translator

> > > > > > > cannot have a different view.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now as varga placements are purely based on

> > > > > varga lordship within

> > > > > a

> > > > > > > Rashi,the longitudinal identity and Rasmi has no

> > > > > role to play.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This is enough for any studen to understand what

> > > > > is what.Moreover

> > > > > > > shri Santhanam has categorically stated (for

> > > > > those who are still

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > clear) that graha drishti is beyond my

> > > > > understanding in Varga

> > > > > Chakras.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thus i will not comment any more on Late

> > > > > Santhanams comment.There

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > nothing more to add.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

[Guest guest]

Small correction.

 

Please read as : I am sure that Rahu and Kethu are planets according

to Vedic astrology.

 

I typed a 'not' as a typographical error.

 

Satya

 

, " Satya Sai Kolachina "

<skolachi wrote:

>

> As I am fedup with the hypocricy of those who look for 100%

> paralance of astronomical evidence for aspects in Amsa charts, I

am

> putting these questions straight to those people. Since you have

> scientific bent of mind, I appreciate it, and I, as a simple

> astrologer, am looking for answers for these very simple questions

> that bother me.

> This mail is not for those who have the habit of skipping

> inconvenient questions, or diverting the attention of the public.

>

> What is the astronomical basis of calling Jupiter as the Vaamana

> incarnation of Lord Vishnu?

> What is the astronomical basis of calling Angaaraka (Mangal)

calling

> as Nrisimha incarnation of Lord Vishnu?

> (same question repeated for all the incarnations of Lord Vishnu.

> Similarly what is astronomical basis of assigning castes to these

> planets?

> Rahu and Kethu are NOT PLANETS according to ASTRONOMY; I am not

sure

> they are planets according to VEDIC ASTROLOGY.

> There are many other questions. At least these questions are from

> the first couple of chapters of BPHS. I am not even going into

> depths of BPHS, as it is not required for these simple questions.

> These form part of the basis for our predictions.

>

> I do not need answers with respect to BPHS or any of our classics,

> since they already support these concepts.

>

> Regards,

> Satya S Kolachina

> , " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> <skolachi@> wrote:

> >

> > Astronomically Rahu and Kethu are only Nodes of moon; but they

> have

> > been given the status of plaents by our Maha munis. What I was

> > saying is do not bring 100% astronomical paralance into vedic

> > astrology, as it fails in several areas.

> >

> > I hope you can understand English and hence understand what I am

> > saying here.

> > Satya

> >

> > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Satya ji

> > >

> > > You are talking in the language of Yukthi Vaadis,who does not

> know

> > > astrology but keep on critizing it.But you are not like

that.You

> > are

> > > well aversed in astrology.You may not talk in that fashion.

> > >

> > > 1)Rahu & Ketu are astronomical points -Nodes of Moon -

> > > Philosophically they are the intersection of Atma-Mana padha.

> > >

> > > 2)Sun and Moon -They are considered as ''Grahas'' by

> > > Mahamunis.Planet is an English term.

> > >

> > > Gola ,Ganita,Hora - Mahamunis did not devise anything for

> > fun.There

> > > is a strong basis.

> > >

> > > Similarly the rules for aspect and their evaluations can be

> > > objectively measured in a mathematical fashion.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> > > , " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> > > <skolachi@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sri Kursija,

> > > >

> > > > Astronomy doesn't define 9 planets as incarnations of Lord

> > Vishnu.

> > > > Astronomy doesn't define Rahu and Kethu as planets. Even Sun

> and

> > > Moon

> > > > are not planets astronomically.

> > > > Astronomy doesn't define planets into different castes like

> > > Brahmin,

> > > > Khathriya, Vaishya and Sudra etc. THere are many things you

> > cannot

> > > > get from astronomy. Our seers gave Vedic astrology thousands

> of

> > > years

> > > > ago, whereas the science of astronomy developed much later.

> > > >

> > > > If you start talking in strict astronomical sense,

Vedic/Hindu

> > > > astrology doesn't fit in there. The closest approximation to

> > > > astronomy is only the Western astrology; which some people

> > follow.

> > > > Let us not be hypocritical. If we follow Vedic astrology,

let

> us

> > > not

> > > > feel bad to take the vedic astrology concepts as they are.

> > > >

> > > > Vedic astrology is more than science; it is divine science.

> You

> > do

> > > > not have to accept what I say. For that matter no one has to

> > > accept

> > > > what I say. But, when you try to equate something, do not do

> it

> > > > selectively.

> > > >

> > > > There is a concept of divinity superimposed over the

> > astronomical

> > > > facts; some concepts seem to be apparently known to us;

there

> > are

> > > > many concepts not known or lost in the past centuries.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > >

> > > > Satya S Kolachina

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > , " S.C. Kursija "

> <sckursija@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Respected members of the forum,

> > > > > I tried my best to keep away from this endless

> > > > > discussion but not with out poin. It has got its own

> > > > > merits. But the discussion is turning into criticism

> > > > > and trying to prove that other is worng. This is not a

> > > > > healthy way of discussion.

> > > > > Up till now I have not seen any member Who discuss

> > > > > the aspect. Why we have taken aspect in astrology? The

> > > > > aspect refers to an angular distance

> > > > > between two celestial bodies measured along the

> > > > > ecliptic. So all terms used in astrology are based on

> > > > > astronomy. If we take into consideration the

> > > > > definition of aspect in astronomy, there will not be

> > > > > any confusion whether we should use aspect in varga or

> > > > > not. The varga are not configuration of the planets on

> > > > > the bases of astronomy. We have created varga to look

> > > > > deep into the different aspects of life. The rashi

> > > > > chart is the map of the planets at the time of birth.

> > > > > It the nature position of the planets. The varga are

> > > > > the creation of astrologers not the nature or the

> > > > > Universe.Though Astrology is based on astronomy and

> > > > > mathematic, but not whimsical. It is a science.So

> > > > > aspect should not be seen in vargas.If any how we find

> > > > > out that one or two shlokas in one classic in favor of

> > > > > use of aspects in varga, it does not prove that aspect

> > > > > should be used in vergas.Why other classics are

> > > > > silent. Does astronomy allows it? If astronomy does

> > > > > not allows the same, we should reject the same

> > > > > immediately. The astrology is based on astronomy. The

> > > > > astronomy is not based on astrology. We have converted

> > > > > astronomy into the astrology for the benefit of human

> > > > > kind and universe to understand the future. Respect

> > > > > the astronomy not any person who ever he may be.The

> > > > > astrologers have developed the habit of giving

> > > > > explanation when event has taken place and try to fit

> > > > > the event in astrology, but does not improve himself

> > > > > and astrology. I have repeatedly requested the indian

> > > > > astronomers and mathematicians to modify and rectify

> > > > > the data of the astrology according to the present

> > > > > position of the planets and point of equinox so that

> > > > > we may be able to predict earth quake,pattern of rain

> > > > > and seasons, say mundane events.

> > > > > I do not want to criticise any one. If my words have

> > > > > hurt any body, I feel sorry for the same.

> > > > > --- vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is really painful.You are really testing

> > > > > > patience.How many times

> > > > > > i have to tell you this.Should i bring the mail in

> > > > > > which i have

> > > > > > answered the same question to you.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I clealry said,since he considered Varga charts -he

> > > > > > could notexplain

> > > > > > Lagna shadvargake shloka.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do you think others in this goup are fools.Do you

> > > > > > think this tactic

> > > > > > will work.It is there in the archives ,about what i

> > > > > > have said.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In , " Prafulla Gang "

> > > > > > <jyotish@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Do you agree with Shri Santhanam's conviction of

> > > > > > varga charts? I am

> > > > > > > repeatedly questioning your misquote, as he even

> > > > > > used aspects. You

> > > > > > > should not refer himn selectively. You do agree

> > > > > > with his 10th line

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > the poem (i.e. aspects) , So I presume - you agree

> > > > > > with first 9

> > > > > > lines

> > > > > > > also (i.e. varga chakra, the yogas there, houses

> > > > > > there and so son).

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > regards / Prafulla

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ,

> > > > > > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Respected members

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Grahasphuta Drishti Kadhanadhyaya in BPHS talks

> > > > > > about the drishti

> > > > > > > > other than Rashi drishti mentioned in earlier

> > > > > > chapter.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Here sage says,apart from the common or

> > > > > > ordinary(Samanya) way of

> > > > > > > > seeing raha drshti we can evaluate graha drishti

> > > > > > based on

> > > > > > longitude.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Then sage describes how the strength of Graha

> > > > > > drishtis can be

> > > > > > > > evaluated.As Jupiter ,Mars and Saturn has

> > > > > > special aspects there

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > special rules mentioned to evaluate their

> > > > > > strength as well.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > So being the case,Shri Santhanam or any other

> > > > > > astrologer ,translator

> > > > > > > > cannot have a different view.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now as varga placements are purely based on

> > > > > > varga lordship within

> > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > Rashi,the longitudinal identity and Rasmi has no

> > > > > > role to play.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This is enough for any studen to understand what

> > > > > > is what.Moreover

> > > > > > > > shri Santhanam has categorically stated (for

> > > > > > those who are still

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > clear) that graha drishti is beyond my

> > > > > > understanding in Varga

> > > > > > Chakras.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thus i will not comment any more on Late

> > > > > > Santhanams comment.There

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > nothing more to add.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >