Suggestions for JHora, Kalachakra Observations, Trimsamsa, Ayanamsa

[Guest guest]

Om Datta Guru

 

Dear Pascal,

Short mail, if i am not wrong Maitreya Software gives Kalachakra Dasa by

Santhanam, in case you already have not tested that software out.

 

Maybe it might help, sometime back on the Jyotish Group i had asked for

the KCD by Santhanam if any software gives that and that is what was

told to me, i tested it a bit but due to lack of time could not go

further.

 

 

 

Regards

Sunil John

Mumbai.

 

 

vedic astrology , " pascalthomas_va "

<pthomas69 wrote:

>

> Dear Mr. Narasimha Rao, respected group members,

>

> many greetings from Germany, and thank you very much for your great

> software! In my view it is really the best vedic astrology software

> available.

>

> I'm already studying BPHS and preparing a multi-lingual website

> introducing Parashara/Vedic Astrology to more people, with comments on

> BPHS, which really is like a " bible " in VA.

>

> Please allow me honestly some wishes for a next version:

>

> 1. Would it be possible to include the Parashara Chakra Dasa,

> described in BPHS §46, Sl. 50-51?

>

> 2. Would it be possible - for study purpose - to make so-called

> " sub-vargas " possible?

> For example: D-81 is the Navamsa of Navamsa, the D-9 within the D-9. I

> - and perhaps other people - would like to make something like the

> " D-60 within the D-9 " , or the " D-60 within D-16 " , or the " D-12 within

> the D-4 " . Perhaps this would lead to some deeper knowledge.

>

> 3. Would it be possible to include some Ashtottari and Conditional

> Nakshatra Dasas strictly based on BPHS, without the teachings of

> Antardasas of respected Guru Sanjay Rath?

>

> 4. Would it be possible to include Santhanam/Raman Kalachakra Dasa

> with correct BPHS teachings (see below for details?)

>

> * * *

>

> Another question to the members of this group:

> We all know that odd signs in vargas are to counted in normal order

> and reverse signs are counted in backwards order.

>

> But: Why only apply this rule to vargas? Why do we not use this rule

> for rasi chakra?

> This would mean that for example for Scorpio Lagna 10th Bhava would be

> Aquarius, not Leo.

> Jaimini seems to insist on this view!

>

> Or does this " onwards/backwards " rule only apply to Dasas? Don't know.

>

> * * *

>

> Some observations on Kalachakra Dasa, which may be true:

>

> Parashara gives a clear sequence of antardasas. Quoting BPHS:

>

> " In Kumbh in the Dasha of Vrishabh A & #324; & #347; there will be

financial gains,

> … Mesh diseases of the eyes, … Meen journeys to distant

places, …

> Kumbh increase in wealth, … Makar success in all kinds of

ventures, …

> Dhanu more enemies, … Mesh loss of happiness and enjoyment, …

Vrishabh

> death, … Mithun well being.

>

> Dasha of Kumbh A & #324; & #347;. … & #346;ukr - many kinds of

educational attainments,

> gains of property, happiness from wife and children, sound health and

> increase in wealth. Mangal - fevers, danger from fire and from

> enemies, distress from enemies and mental agony. & #346;ani - danger of

> troubles from wind, bile and phlegm, quarrels, foreign journey, danger

> of suffering from tuberculosis. Guru - freedom from ill health,

> happiness, honours from the king and joy. Budh - happiness from wife,

> children and wealth, joy, increase in good fortune. "

>

> So - example is Kumbha Mahadasha - the sequence must be:

> Vrishabha - Mesha - Meena - Kumbha - Makara - Dhanu - Mesha -

> Vrishabha - Mithuna

>

> My observation is - it may be wrong - that this Parashara-given

> sequence is only given in Kalachakra Ranghacharya Method! All other

> methods give different antardasas than Parashara's!

>

> * * *

>

> Another question on Trimsamsa (D-30): Are the given explanations in

> section " Female Horoscopy " regarding a woman's character and moral

> applicable for men, too, or are they really just meant for women?

>

> * * *

>

> Last question on Ayanamsa: I've studied various ayanamsas. Two

> ayanamsas are respectable, according with vedic astrology history:

> Lahiri, based on Spica, and Usha-Shashi, based on Revati.

>

> Few people have been noticed that Usha-Shashi Ayanamsa is not only

> based on Revati: It puts the Galactic Center in middle of Moola

> Nakshatra! In my view Usha-Shashi Ayanamsa is equal in importance with

> Lahiri/Spica Ayanamsa, it gives excellent results. Am I so wrong? Does

> anyone else have experiences with Usha-Shashi Ayanamsa?

>

> Interesting question: With which ayanamsa Parashara, Jaimini and

> others have been working?

>

> Hope my english is not too bad, will improve it.

>

> Jupiter's blessing to all members of this group!

>

> Pascal Thomas

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunil John,

 

yes, I know, Maitreya and JHora give KCD, but Maitreya with erroneous

antardasas (beginning antardasa with mahadasa navamsa, which is

obviously not BPHS teaching). The sequence I gave is directly taken

from BPHS, so this must be the correct antardasa sequence. Only

Rangacharya, beginning with Moon's navamsa as Mahadasa, gives in JHORA

the correct antardasas. Thanks to Mr. Narasimha P.V.R. Rao for this

great work, once again. This method of KCD works very well.

 

Correct calculation of dasas is of utmost importance. Santhanam/Raman

teachings are not in accordance with BPHS/Parashara.

 

Many Greetings

Pascal

[Guest guest]

Om Datta Guru

Dear Pascal Thomas,

 

I thought u were asking for this as written in ur previous post

 

 

4. Would it be possible to include Santhanam/Raman Kalachakra Dasa

with correct BPHS teachings (see below for details?)

 

So I posted that mail that maybe Maitreya gives the Santhanam version

which u were asking for.

 

Scholars in traditional india do not necessarily follow BPHS version of

Kalachakra dasa, Santhanam had his own version which he had researched

over decades and formed his opinion. Ofcourse in practice it served him

very well for accurate predictions is what people very close to him talk

about.

 

In 1967 Dewan Ramchandra Kapoor wrote his own interpretation of KCD, he

had his own parampara which he revealed but I have not been able to

understand it so far. Many Benaras scholars follow that though.

 

Martin Gansten from Denmark also did some original writing on it which i

have been trying to trace but not succeeded so far.

 

For those who are interested they may pursue

 

Kind regards

Sunil John

Mumbai

 

 

vedic astrology , " pascalthomas_va "

<pthomas69 wrote:

>

> Dear Sunil John,

>

> yes, I know, Maitreya and JHora give KCD, but Maitreya with erroneous

> antardasas (beginning antardasa with mahadasa navamsa, which is

> obviously not BPHS teaching). The sequence I gave is directly taken

> from BPHS, so this must be the correct antardasa sequence. Only

> Rangacharya, beginning with Moon's navamsa as Mahadasa, gives in JHORA

> the correct antardasas. Thanks to Mr. Narasimha P.V.R. Rao for this

> great work, once again. This method of KCD works very well.

>

> Correct calculation of dasas is of utmost importance. Santhanam/Raman

> teachings are not in accordance with BPHS/Parashara.

>

> Many Greetings

> Pascal

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunil,

 

thank you for your reply. Exactly this seems to me THE big problem. It

is like in Western Astrology: Every astrologer has his own system,

swearing on this: " Only this is correct. I've proven it. " For this

reason, astrology - until now - is not a real science like chemistry,

biology, physics or other branches.

 

In my view, we have basically to stick to the roots and THEN expand

these roots with new rules (e.g. progressions, new dasa systems or

vargas etc.). And we have to prove the applicability for these old

teachings. We do not need to have fear: In my experience until today

there is great evidence that most of this old knowledge is really TRUE!

 

Furthermore I think:

1. There can only be ONE correct Kalachakra Dasa.

2. There can only be ONE correct Ayanamsa.

3. There can only be ONE correct Chara Dasa (why not Parashara's?)

And so on.

 

But too much investigation work for ONE single astrologer, for this I

have the strong wish to open a new for research purpose.

 

Before developing new dasas or other stuff (which may be correct or

not) we have to have a sound understanding of the basics, this is my

fundamental belief. Unfortunately you - in India - have the same

problems as we have here in Europe. Of course, progress in methodology

knowledge is possible and necessary - AFTER understanding the basic

principles.

 

Mr. Narasimha P.V.R. Rao once stated: " You can differ from BPHS - at

your own risk. " (not only from BPHS, from other classic texts as well,

of course). I strongly agree with him. We do not know what was the

reason for Santhanam (or Raman) to differ with old teachings. This is

the " Crux of Vedic Astrology " (to quote Mr. Sanjay Rath) from my point

of view. Sames mistakes in India as here in Europe or America.

 

Once again, thank you very much for your help!

Yours sincerely

Pascal

[Guest guest]

Om Datta Guru

Dear Pascal,

 

I agree with everyone wants to prove his system better. I think enough

has been written whether BPHS that we possess is what Parasara wrote or

if it was compiled at a later stage so no use visiting that.

PVRs statement

Mr. Narasimha P.V.R. Rao once stated: " You can differ from BPHS - at

> your own risk. "

This has some guidance but all of astrology is not in BPHS, at the same

time if you discuss with the best predictors in current india one would

realise how much BPHS they follow. Which does not mean one should

discard BPHS, even 6th century Varahamihira differed from Parasara in

his views.

 

Even various ancient commentaries of Jaimini give different

interpretations (Neelakanta - Somanatha) to how arudha needs to be

calculated. One needs to be flexible, experiment and then find what

works for him instead of condemning what others should do is what is

desirable ideally in astrology.

 

The issue is most people who have real knowledge have no wish to come

out in the open with their real manuscripts/teachings as they feel the

moment they try to help us with the correct interpretations of the

shlokas talibanists of astrology will pounce on them so why even bother

to bring it out, if people do not want knowledge in the first place why

bother to bring it out, why waste money time energy as most people are

grandfathers of Parasara these days. So this is the difficulty as u

would understand in modern india, also 95% (i guess honestly it is 99%)

of us do not know sanskrit.

 

I always felt why Santhanam who was a hardliner in sticking to BPHS

would want to advocate a new system, the advantage some of us have is

being close to Santhanam who had studied various ancient works on KCD

and ofcourse Santhanams predictions using KCD were observed for more

than 2 decades only then one will be convinced that maybe he was nearby

in the true KCD calculations. (I am not advocating Santhanams

methodology here, for each one must find his path)

 

Without observing authors predictions for decades or oneself

experimenting the methodology over a long period it is most futile to

discard or accept any methodology. This is one advice every good old

astrologer will give us.

 

> 3. There can only be ONE correct Chara Dasa (why not Parashara's?)

 

Elders say chara dasha as per Jaimini (some commentaries, i think it is

Jyotisha Phala Ratna Mala) comments on chara dasha being different for

Male and female

 

When we dig deeper we find there are certain lagnas applicable for only

Raja Yogas, when we dig more deeper we find shlokas which give different

results for same combination for different varnas (classification system

in india)

 

Sorry for long mail, it consumes time so lets end this thread as it is

non technical from my end.

 

Regards

Sunil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vedic astrology , " pascalthomas_va "

<pthomas69 wrote:

>

> Dear Sunil,

>

> thank you for your reply. Exactly this seems to me THE big problem. It

> is like in Western Astrology: Every astrologer has his own system,

> swearing on this: " Only this is correct. I've proven it. " For this

> reason, astrology - until now - is not a real science like chemistry,

> biology, physics or other branches.

>

> In my view, we have basically to stick to the roots and THEN expand

> these roots with new rules (e.g. progressions, new dasa systems or

> vargas etc.). And we have to prove the applicability for these old

> teachings. We do not need to have fear: In my experience until today

> there is great evidence that most of this old knowledge is really

TRUE!

>

> Furthermore I think:

> 1. There can only be ONE correct Kalachakra Dasa.

> 2. There can only be ONE correct Ayanamsa.

> 3. There can only be ONE correct Chara Dasa (why not Parashara's?)

> And so on.

>

> But too much investigation work for ONE single astrologer, for this I

> have the strong wish to open a new for research purpose.

>

> Before developing new dasas or other stuff (which may be correct or

> not) we have to have a sound understanding of the basics, this is my

> fundamental belief. Unfortunately you - in India - have the same

> problems as we have here in Europe. Of course, progress in methodology

> knowledge is possible and necessary - AFTER understanding the basic

> principles.

>

> Mr. Narasimha P.V.R. Rao once stated: " You can differ from BPHS - at

> your own risk. " (not only from BPHS, from other classic texts as well,

> of course). I strongly agree with him. We do not know what was the

> reason for Santhanam (or Raman) to differ with old teachings. This is

> the " Crux of Vedic Astrology " (to quote Mr. Sanjay Rath) from my point

> of view. Sames mistakes in India as here in Europe or America.

>

> Once again, thank you very much for your help!

> Yours sincerely

> Pascal

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunil,

 

thank you for your long and interesting comment.

 

I truly hope I am not a " shloka talibanist " when I refer to BPHS (or

other scriptures), quoting it (but I really like this expression, very

creative wording!). At least I am not a terrorist... (perhaps

something like a " spiritual terrorist " like Osho...)

 

I agree with you in many points, and as you stated, many points

regarding certain techniques/methods or interpretation rules are still

subject to further discussion. I think this is a good group to do so,

and I have been learning a lot in this group.

 

> " I agree with everyone wants to prove his system better. "

Exactly my point. But this evidence has to be made and verified by a

lot of astrologers, not only by one or two or three, this is my

viewpoint. This takes a lot of time, and surely we can expect progress

within the following decades.

 

What I want to say is: If we astrologers want to get more respected in

public and by scientifics, we have to do more research, we have to

make agreements on certain important issues (dasa calculations,

ayanamsa and so on). Astrology is of great importance, our modern

times really need this knowledge, it is not good at all if every

astrologer follows only his own path. There have to be some mutual

agreements as well, and this is until now not really the case. I hope

this will change in future. We astrologers have to master our ego and

to make more co-work. Mutual respect is necessary, and - perhaps this

is my wrong perception - very often jyotish gurus do not respect each

other.

 

Thank you for your interesting background information, Sunil!

 

Sincerely

Pascal