Guest guest Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 Hello Lalit, Kya Baat hai Bhaisahab.Aap kafi Naraaz lag rahe hain ?? Bhavat Bhavam is a very important concept in Jyotish .It should be applied after understanding it fully (very few people do understand this in entirety) If applied without proper understanding,it becomes a farce !! Regards, aavesh litsol <litsol wrote: I have seen, those who never checks astrology against reality rely heavily on Bhavat Bhavam to justify their stand.. applying stupid logic to reveal stupid answers as there are only 12 houses in a chart, so, every house has 12 bhavat bhavam combinations at least, therefore they are free to find any stupidity.When we will begin making concepts on the basis of hard core facts. If younger siblings are 3'rd then 3rd, spouse is 7'th, then 7'th, father is 9'th then 9'th, if 10'th, then 10'th, let's check at least 100 horoscopes to ascertain which house is a karaka for what.regards,Lalit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 Aaveshji, Bhavat Bhavam works in many cases: Especially when house lord is in 11H (gain) or in 12 H (loss). But what if 2HLord is in 3H, 4H,5h (Wealth from mother/kids), 6h (wealth from enemies), 7H (wealth from spouse/business partners), 8th house (wealth from longevity), 9H....etc Some combinations don't make sense Vedic Astrologyandhealing , aavesh t <aavesh_s wrote: > > Hello Lalit, > > Kya Baat hai Bhaisahab.Aap kafi Naraaz lag rahe hain ?? > > Bhavat Bhavam is a very important concept in Jyotish .It should be applied after understanding it fully (very few people do understand this in entirety) > > If applied without proper understanding,it becomes a farce !! > > Regards, > > aavesh > > > litsol <litsol wrote: > I have seen, those who never checks astrology against reality rely > heavily on Bhavat Bhavam to justify their stand.. applying stupid logic > to reveal stupid answers as there are only 12 houses in a chart, so, > every house has 12 bhavat bhavam combinations at least, therefore they > are free to find any stupidity. > > When we will begin making concepts on the basis of hard core facts. If > younger siblings are 3'rd then 3rd, spouse is 7'th, then 7'th, father > is 9'th then 9'th, if 10'th, then 10'th, let's check at least 100 > horoscopes to ascertain which house is a karaka for what. > > regards, > Lalit. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2007 Report Share Posted December 6, 2007 You are right, Lalit. They strangulate themsleves in the skein. I have seen some. But they survive the stupidity. There should be two provisos here. The reduplication bhava should not be in conflict with the primary bhava, one. Two, the weight should shift to the bhavat bhava only upon certain conditions. We have to dig that out. So far I have not seen any in the course of my reading. (It may not be a valid testing just by taking a good number of horoscopes; a rigorous methodology of testing is important, because false ratification is also possible just as many articles in magazines end up doing while proving an axiom or floating a new one.) I go back to point one. Take 4th and 7th. Mother (from 4th) conflicts with spouse (7th). So does home (4th) with road or maarga (7th). Those who are more discerning say bhavata bhavam is for 'bhava anuchinta'. 'Bhava chinta' as a term and concept in astrology is a very delicate thing. Few can handle it. Bhava chinta requires being well-versed in 'lakshaNa shastra'. And laskhaNa shastra vast and indeterminate. It requires one to be steeped in humanities studies, stuying life itself, studentship of life. Astrology is a poet's prerogative. I have bhava anuchinta in mind. I must make this point at a time when software competence is thought to be enough for a qualification to read man's world, nay Life. Horoscope generation by computer is fine. The rest need not be. No aspersion here for any profession. Just the fact of the matter as I understand. RK On 05/12/2007, litsol <litsol wrote: I have seen, those who never checks astrology against reality rely heavily on Bhavat Bhavam to justify their stand.. applying stupid logic to reveal stupid answers as there are only 12 houses in a chart, so, every house has 12 bhavat bhavam combinations at least, therefore they are free to find any stupidity.When we will begin making concepts on the basis of hard core facts. If younger siblings are 3'rd then 3rd, spouse is 7'th, then 7'th, father is 9'th then 9'th, if 10'th, then 10'th, let's check at least 100 horoscopes to ascertain which house is a karaka for what.regards,Lalit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2007 Report Share Posted December 6, 2007 Dear Lalit, There is no doubt that sages were human beings. At the same time we must not forget that they devised the science. So claiming that we understood something in that science which the sages who devised it did not understand, is a bit too far fetched. Again it may not be out of place to say that knowledge is like the proverbial elephant and the seekers are like the seven blind men who see the elephant in different shapes. All the shapes are parts of the elephant but only together they make the entire elephant. Till such time that all that is collated everybody tries to find his own truth and thinks that others have not understood the truth. I do not understand the reference to Shukracharya favoring Daityas. A guru has to teach to the seeker and that was the duty of Shukracharya, as teaching the Devas was the duty of Brihaspati. I would see growth in the 8th, 10th, 12th and 4th house, respectively, in that case. Chandrashekhar. litsol wrote: Dear Sir, Sages are after all human being only, they may also miss things otherise how differences and exceptions are found in various classics, this is how i think. Sukracharya favored daityas all life. Pls. guide us in our discussion on wealth prospects, what u saw if Jupitor/venus is debilitated in 2nd / 4'th / 6'th / 10'th house. regards, Lalit. regards, Lalit. Vedic Astrologyandhealing , Chandrashekhar <sharma.chandrashekhar wrote: > > Dear Lalit, > > Astrology is a predictive science and in predictive sciences there is > bound to be difference of opinion. I doubt whether astrology was not > clear to Parashara of Varaha Mihira as is being claimed by you. May I > ask what led you to this conclusion? > > If something is not clear to some people does it mean that it is not > clear to the entire nation? If that is the premise, then none of the > shastras across the world are worth study as they may not be clear to > some of the people from the nations in which they originated. > > Chandrashekhar. > > litsol wrote: > > > > Dear Sir, > > > > Thousands and thousands years of astrology have been passed, and even > > elementary things are not fixed, if i look at the volume of ego > > stored within icons, i m not able even to laugh at their greatness. > > > > In astrology every second person is a mahaguru,an avtaar of either > > venus or jupitor... but if u ask, a simple thing other than putting > > references from various books, u wont get anything. > > > > What is learnt in these thousands years....? > > > > What was not clear to Parashara or Varahmihira .. is not clear even > > today. this is the progress that astrology has done, This shows > > indian's attitude. > > > > regards, > > Lalit. > > > > Vedic Astrologyandhealing > > <Vedic Astrologyandhealing%40>, aavesh t > > <aavesh_s@> wrote: > > > > > > Hello Lalit, > > > > > > Kya Baat hai Bhaisahab.Aap kafi Naraaz lag rahe hain ?? > > > > > > Bhavat Bhavam is a very important concept in Jyotish .It should > > be applied after understanding it fully (very few people do > > understand this in entirety) > > > > > > If applied without proper understanding,it becomes a farce !! > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > aavesh > > > > > > > > > litsol <litsol@> wrote: > > > I have seen, those who never checks astrology against reality > > rely > > > heavily on Bhavat Bhavam to justify their stand.. applying stupid > > logic > > > to reveal stupid answers as there are only 12 houses in a chart, > > so, > > > every house has 12 bhavat bhavam combinations at least, therefore > > they > > > are free to find any stupidity. > > > > > > When we will begin making concepts on the basis of hard core facts. > > If > > > younger siblings are 3'rd then 3rd, spouse is 7'th, then 7'th, > > father > > > is 9'th then 9'th, if 10'th, then 10'th, let's check at least 100 > > > horoscopes to ascertain which house is a karaka for what. > > > > > > regards, > > > Lalit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2007 Report Share Posted December 6, 2007 Dear Lalit/ RK, If I may intervene. How does each bhava has 12 bhavat bhava positions? Could someone explain this new mathematics to me? Chandrashekhar. rk dash wrote: You are right, Lalit. They strangulate themsleves in the skein. I have seen some. But they survive the stupidity. There should be two provisos here. The reduplication bhava should not be in conflict with the primary bhava, one. Two, the weight should shift to the bhavat bhava only upon certain conditions. We have to dig that out. So far I have not seen any in the course of my reading. (It may not be a valid testing just by taking a good number of horoscopes; a rigorous methodology of testing is important, because false ratification is also possible just as many articles in magazines end up doing while proving an axiom or floating a new one.) I go back to point one. Take 4th and 7th. Mother (from 4th) conflicts with spouse (7th). So does home (4th) with road or maarga (7th). Those who are more discerning say bhavata bhavam is for 'bhava anuchinta'. 'Bhava chinta' as a term and concept in astrology is a very delicate thing. Few can handle it. Bhava chinta requires being well-versed in 'lakshaNa shastra'. And laskhaNa shastra vast and indeterminate. It requires one to be steeped in humanities studies, stuying life itself, studentship of life. Astrology is a poet's prerogative. I have bhava anuchinta in mind. I must make this point at a time when software competence is thought to be enough for a qualification to read man's world, nay Life. Horoscope generation by computer is fine. The rest need not be. No aspersion here for any profession. Just the fact of the matter as I understand. RK On 05/12/2007, litsol <litsol > wrote: I have seen, those who never checks astrology against reality rely heavily on Bhavat Bhavam to justify their stand.. applying stupid logic to reveal stupid answers as there are only 12 houses in a chart, so, every house has 12 bhavat bhavam combinations at least, therefore they are free to find any stupidity. When we will begin making concepts on the basis of hard core facts. If younger siblings are 3'rd then 3rd, spouse is 7'th, then 7'th, father is 9'th then 9'th, if 10'th, then 10'th, let's check at least 100 horoscopes to ascertain which house is a karaka for what. regards, Lalit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2007 Report Share Posted December 6, 2007 Namaste Chandrashekhar ji & Lalit, I very much liked this analogy of elephant and blind men... I read this: jyotishamaagama shastram vipratipattou na yogyamasamaakam svayameva vikalpayitum kinthu bahuunaam matam vakshey the correct meaning yourself can explain As i understood it roughly means, jyotisha formed with contributions from many people, different opinions are said, and you select yourself. (hope this is correct) And as time progress everything should modify...What if we predict owning horce or elephant as written in shastras? We have to modify it to two wheeler and four wheeler or like... Chandrashekhar ji, my BPHS reached here...I would like to learn Kalachakra dasa and you promised to teach me this... I would learn and apply this dasa and share it in this group... Best regards, Saaji Bhaskaran Vedic Astrologyandhealing , Chandrashekhar <sharma.chandrashekhar wrote: > > Dear Lalit, > > There is no doubt that sages were human beings. At the same time we must > not forget that they devised the science. So claiming that we understood > something in that science which the sages who devised it did not > understand, is a bit too far fetched. > > Again it may not be out of place to say that knowledge is like the > proverbial elephant and the seekers are like the seven blind men who see > the elephant in different shapes. All the shapes are parts of the > elephant but only together they make the entire elephant. Till such time > that all that is collated everybody tries to find his own truth and > thinks that others have not understood the truth. > > I do not understand the reference to Shukracharya favoring Daityas. A > guru has to teach to the seeker and that was the duty of Shukracharya, > as teaching the Devas was the duty of Brihaspati. > > I would see growth in the 8th, 10th, 12th and 4th house, respectively, > in that case. > > Chandrashekhar. > > litsol wrote: > > > > Dear Sir, > > > > Sages are after all human being only, they may also miss things > > otherise how differences and exceptions are found in various > > classics, this is how i think. Sukracharya favored daityas all life. > > > > Pls. guide us in our discussion on wealth prospects, what u saw if > > Jupitor/venus is debilitated in 2nd / 4'th / 6'th / 10'th house. > > > > regards, > > Lalit. > > > > regards, > > Lalit. > > > > Vedic Astrologyandhealing > > <Vedic Astrologyandhealing%40>, Chandrashekhar > > <sharma.chandrashekhar@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Lalit, > > > > > > Astrology is a predictive science and in predictive sciences there > > is > > > bound to be difference of opinion. I doubt whether astrology was > > not > > > clear to Parashara of Varaha Mihira as is being claimed by you. May > > I > > > ask what led you to this conclusion? > > > > > > If something is not clear to some people does it mean that it is > > not > > > clear to the entire nation? If that is the premise, then none of > > the > > > shastras across the world are worth study as they may not be clear > > to > > > some of the people from the nations in which they originated. > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > litsol wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Sir, > > > > > > > > Thousands and thousands years of astrology have been passed, and > > even > > > > elementary things are not fixed, if i look at the volume of ego > > > > stored within icons, i m not able even to laugh at their > > greatness. > > > > > > > > In astrology every second person is a mahaguru,an avtaar of either > > > > venus or jupitor... but if u ask, a simple thing other than > > putting > > > > references from various books, u wont get anything. > > > > > > > > What is learnt in these thousands years....? > > > > > > > > What was not clear to Parashara or Varahmihira .. is not clear > > even > > > > today. this is the progress that astrology has done, This shows > > > > indian's attitude. > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > Lalit. > > > > > > > > Vedic Astrologyandhealing > > <Vedic Astrologyandhealing%40> > > > > <Vedic Astrologyandhealing%40>, aavesh t > > > > <aavesh_s@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hello Lalit, > > > > > > > > > > Kya Baat hai Bhaisahab.Aap kafi Naraaz lag rahe hain ?? > > > > > > > > > > Bhavat Bhavam is a very important concept in Jyotish .It should > > > > be applied after understanding it fully (very few people do > > > > understand this in entirety) > > > > > > > > > > If applied without proper understanding,it becomes a farce !! > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > aavesh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > litsol <litsol@> wrote: > > > > > I have seen, those who never checks astrology against reality > > > > rely > > > > > heavily on Bhavat Bhavam to justify their stand.. applying > > stupid > > > > logic > > > > > to reveal stupid answers as there are only 12 houses in a chart, > > > > so, > > > > > every house has 12 bhavat bhavam combinations at least, > > therefore > > > > they > > > > > are free to find any stupidity. > > > > > > > > > > When we will begin making concepts on the basis of hard core > > facts. > > > > If > > > > > younger siblings are 3'rd then 3rd, spouse is 7'th, then 7'th, > > > > father > > > > > is 9'th then 9'th, if 10'th, then 10'th, let's check at least > > 100 > > > > > horoscopes to ascertain which house is a karaka for what. > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > Lalit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Saaji Bhaskaran, First of all you must understand that only Parashara contributed to Jyotish. Others' contributed only like modern writers. Suppose you take Jaimini Rishi. It is called " Jaimini Updesh " . A updesh is never said to be the contribution of that writer. Updesh means secondary or supplementry to and secondary to whom ? off course to Parshara. If you study complete BPHS in detail, you will find that ninety percent of writers have requoted Parashara in simple language. There is no new principle involved. I have seen a major problem in astro groups i.e. people present here want to learn only prediction or predictive astrology and that too without learning basic concepts of vedic astrology. All the tall buildings have a very strong foundation so if you want to be a good astrologer, you must create a concrete foundation otherwise your building of knowledge will collapse very soon. Consequently another critic of Bhartiya jyoiths is born on earth. So commenting of ability of Parashara shows such a critic is already born of set to take birth. VK Vedic Astrologyandhealing , " Saaji Bhaskaran " <saajik wrote: > > Namaste Chandrashekhar ji & Lalit, > > I very much liked this analogy of elephant and blind men... > > I read this: > > jyotishamaagama shastram vipratipattou na yogyamasamaakam > svayameva vikalpayitum kinthu bahuunaam matam vakshey > > the correct meaning yourself can explain As i understood it roughly > means, jyotisha formed with contributions from many people, different > opinions are said, and you select yourself. (hope this is correct) > > And as time progress everything should modify...What if we predict > owning horce or elephant as written in shastras? We have to modify it > to two wheeler and four wheeler or like... > > Chandrashekhar ji, my BPHS reached here...I would like to learn > Kalachakra dasa and you promised to teach me this... I would learn > and apply this dasa and share it in this group... > > Best regards, > > Saaji Bhaskaran > > > Vedic Astrologyandhealing , Chandrashekhar > <sharma.chandrashekhar@> wrote: > > > > Dear Lalit, > > > > There is no doubt that sages were human beings. At the same time we > must > > not forget that they devised the science. So claiming that we > understood > > something in that science which the sages who devised it did not > > understand, is a bit too far fetched. > > > > Again it may not be out of place to say that knowledge is like the > > proverbial elephant and the seekers are like the seven blind men > who see > > the elephant in different shapes. All the shapes are parts of the > > elephant but only together they make the entire elephant. Till such > time > > that all that is collated everybody tries to find his own truth and > > thinks that others have not understood the truth. > > > > I do not understand the reference to Shukracharya favoring Daityas. > A > > guru has to teach to the seeker and that was the duty of > Shukracharya, > > as teaching the Devas was the duty of Brihaspati. > > > > I would see growth in the 8th, 10th, 12th and 4th house, > respectively, > > in that case. > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > litsol wrote: > > > > > > Dear Sir, > > > > > > Sages are after all human being only, they may also miss things > > > otherise how differences and exceptions are found in various > > > classics, this is how i think. Sukracharya favored daityas all > life. > > > > > > Pls. guide us in our discussion on wealth prospects, what u saw if > > > Jupitor/venus is debilitated in 2nd / 4'th / 6'th / 10'th house. > > > > > > regards, > > > Lalit. > > > > > > regards, > > > Lalit. > > > > > > Vedic Astrologyandhealing > > > <Vedic Astrologyandhealing%40>, > Chandrashekhar > > > <sharma.chandrashekhar@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Lalit, > > > > > > > > Astrology is a predictive science and in predictive sciences > there > > > is > > > > bound to be difference of opinion. I doubt whether astrology was > > > not > > > > clear to Parashara of Varaha Mihira as is being claimed by you. > May > > > I > > > > ask what led you to this conclusion? > > > > > > > > If something is not clear to some people does it mean that it is > > > not > > > > clear to the entire nation? If that is the premise, then none of > > > the > > > > shastras across the world are worth study as they may not be > clear > > > to > > > > some of the people from the nations in which they originated. > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > litsol wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sir, > > > > > > > > > > Thousands and thousands years of astrology have been passed, > and > > > even > > > > > elementary things are not fixed, if i look at the volume of > ego > > > > > stored within icons, i m not able even to laugh at their > > > greatness. > > > > > > > > > > In astrology every second person is a mahaguru,an avtaar of > either > > > > > venus or jupitor... but if u ask, a simple thing other than > > > putting > > > > > references from various books, u wont get anything. > > > > > > > > > > What is learnt in these thousands years....? > > > > > > > > > > What was not clear to Parashara or Varahmihira .. is not clear > > > even > > > > > today. this is the progress that astrology has done, This > shows > > > > > indian's attitude. > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > Lalit. > > > > > > > > > > Vedic Astrologyandhealing > > > <Vedic Astrologyandhealing%40> > > > > > <Vedic Astrologyandhealing%40>, aavesh t > > > > > <aavesh_s@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Lalit, > > > > > > > > > > > > Kya Baat hai Bhaisahab.Aap kafi Naraaz lag rahe hain ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhavat Bhavam is a very important concept in Jyotish .It > should > > > > > be applied after understanding it fully (very few people do > > > > > understand this in entirety) > > > > > > > > > > > > If applied without proper understanding,it becomes a > farce !! > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > aavesh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > litsol <litsol@> wrote: > > > > > > I have seen, those who never checks astrology against > reality > > > > > rely > > > > > > heavily on Bhavat Bhavam to justify their stand.. applying > > > stupid > > > > > logic > > > > > > to reveal stupid answers as there are only 12 houses in a > chart, > > > > > so, > > > > > > every house has 12 bhavat bhavam combinations at least, > > > therefore > > > > > they > > > > > > are free to find any stupidity. > > > > > > > > > > > > When we will begin making concepts on the basis of hard core > > > facts. > > > > > If > > > > > > younger siblings are 3'rd then 3rd, spouse is 7'th, then > 7'th, > > > > > father > > > > > > is 9'th then 9'th, if 10'th, then 10'th, let's check at > least > > > 100 > > > > > > horoscopes to ascertain which house is a karaka for what. > > > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > Lalit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Dear VK, I dont believe only Parasara contributed to astrology. Since childhood I was taught brihat jaataka, so I have a leaning to Varahamihira. He says in his brihat samhita that jyotisha is an ocean and except rishis no one can * even think of * crossing this ocean. Parashara is only one of the 18 aachaaryaas of jyotisha. Its true that Parashara is the acharya of Jyotisha in Kali yuga. Varahamihira says in brihat jataka 7th chapter 1st shloka, in krita yuga - maya, treta - yavana, dvaapara - maNintha and in kali its parashara who has importance. As I wrote, jyotisha was formed with contributions of a lot of acharyas and its not parashara himself who brought it. The astrologers in Kerala do not learn BPHS, they consider brihat jataka and prashna marga as the basic texts. I agree with you about people in groups do not try to polish basics. I always try to, infact the book which I cherish most, a translation of brihat jataka has very extensively gone in basics. They are the foundations so I try to read them if I have time. Some of my recent posts you can read here: /message/19352 /message/19351 /message/19399 /message/19574 Personally, I dont think these famous people who write in groups that if you do not learn BPHS you cannot predict. And I also do not believe that Parashara only brought Jyotisha or all are quoting Parashara only. From Varhamihira's Brihat Jataka I couldn't find that he read BPHS. Anyways I am always open, if I am wrong I change my views but that only if concrete evidence is given. I do not change / make views just because some body says so. Best regards, Saaji Bhaskaran --- In Vedic Astrologyandhealing , " vedic_astrology_learner " <vedic_astrology_learner wrote: > > > Saaji Bhaskaran, > > First of all you must understand that only Parashara contributed to > Jyotish. Others' contributed only like modern writers. Suppose you > take Jaimini Rishi. It is called " Jaimini Updesh " . A updesh is never > said to be the contribution of that writer. Updesh means secondary or > supplementry to and secondary to whom ? off course to Parshara. If you > study complete BPHS in detail, you will find that ninety percent of > writers have requoted Parashara in simple language. There is no new > principle involved. > > I have seen a major problem in astro groups i.e. people present here > want to learn only prediction or predictive astrology and that too > without learning basic concepts of vedic astrology. > > All the tall buildings have a very strong foundation so if you want to > be a good astrologer, you must create a concrete foundation otherwise > your building of knowledge will collapse very soon. Consequently > another critic of Bhartiya jyoiths is born on earth. > > So commenting of ability of Parashara shows such a critic is already > born of set to take birth. > > VK > > > > > Vedic Astrologyandhealing , " Saaji Bhaskaran " > <saajik@> wrote: > > > > Namaste Chandrashekhar ji & Lalit, > > > > I very much liked this analogy of elephant and blind men... > > > > I read this: > > > > jyotishamaagama shastram vipratipattou na yogyamasamaakam > > svayameva vikalpayitum kinthu bahuunaam matam vakshey > > > > the correct meaning yourself can explain As i understood it roughly > > means, jyotisha formed with contributions from many people, different > > opinions are said, and you select yourself. (hope this is correct) > > > > And as time progress everything should modify...What if we predict > > owning horce or elephant as written in shastras? We have to modify it > > to two wheeler and four wheeler or like... > > > > Chandrashekhar ji, my BPHS reached here...I would like to learn > > Kalachakra dasa and you promised to teach me this... I would learn > > and apply this dasa and share it in this group... > > > > Best regards, > > > > Saaji Bhaskaran > > > > > > Vedic Astrologyandhealing , Chandrashekhar > > <sharma.chandrashekhar@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Lalit, > > > > > > There is no doubt that sages were human beings. At the same time we > > must > > > not forget that they devised the science. So claiming that we > > understood > > > something in that science which the sages who devised it did not > > > understand, is a bit too far fetched. > > > > > > Again it may not be out of place to say that knowledge is like the > > > proverbial elephant and the seekers are like the seven blind men > > who see > > > the elephant in different shapes. All the shapes are parts of the > > > elephant but only together they make the entire elephant. Till such > > time > > > that all that is collated everybody tries to find his own truth and > > > thinks that others have not understood the truth. > > > > > > I do not understand the reference to Shukracharya favoring Daityas. > > A > > > guru has to teach to the seeker and that was the duty of > > Shukracharya, > > > as teaching the Devas was the duty of Brihaspati. > > > > > > I would see growth in the 8th, 10th, 12th and 4th house, > > respectively, > > > in that case. > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > litsol wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Sir, > > > > > > > > Sages are after all human being only, they may also miss things > > > > otherise how differences and exceptions are found in various > > > > classics, this is how i think. Sukracharya favored daityas all > > life. > > > > > > > > Pls. guide us in our discussion on wealth prospects, what u saw if > > > > Jupitor/venus is debilitated in 2nd / 4'th / 6'th / 10'th house. > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > Lalit. > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > Lalit. > > > > > > > > Vedic Astrologyandhealing > > > > <Vedic Astrologyandhealing%40>, > > Chandrashekhar > > > > <sharma.chandrashekhar@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Lalit, > > > > > > > > > > Astrology is a predictive science and in predictive sciences > > there > > > > is > > > > > bound to be difference of opinion. I doubt whether astrology was > > > > not > > > > > clear to Parashara of Varaha Mihira as is being claimed by you. > > May > > > > I > > > > > ask what led you to this conclusion? > > > > > > > > > > If something is not clear to some people does it mean that it is > > > > not > > > > > clear to the entire nation? If that is the premise, then none of > > > > the > > > > > shastras across the world are worth study as they may not be > > clear > > > > to > > > > > some of the people from the nations in which they originated. > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > litsol wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sir, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thousands and thousands years of astrology have been passed, > > and > > > > even > > > > > > elementary things are not fixed, if i look at the volume of > > ego > > > > > > stored within icons, i m not able even to laugh at their > > > > greatness. > > > > > > > > > > > > In astrology every second person is a mahaguru,an avtaar of > > either > > > > > > venus or jupitor... but if u ask, a simple thing other than > > > > putting > > > > > > references from various books, u wont get anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > What is learnt in these thousands years....? > > > > > > > > > > > > What was not clear to Parashara or Varahmihira .. is not clear > > > > even > > > > > > today. this is the progress that astrology has done, This > > shows > > > > > > indian's attitude. > > > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > Lalit. > > > > > > > > > > > > Vedic Astrologyandhealing > > > > <Vedic Astrologyandhealing%40> > > > > > > <Vedic Astrologyandhealing%40>, aavesh t > > > > > > <aavesh_s@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Lalit, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kya Baat hai Bhaisahab.Aap kafi Naraaz lag rahe hain ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhavat Bhavam is a very important concept in Jyotish .It > > should > > > > > > be applied after understanding it fully (very few people do > > > > > > understand this in entirety) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If applied without proper understanding,it becomes a > > farce !! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aavesh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > litsol <litsol@> wrote: > > > > > > > I have seen, those who never checks astrology against > > reality > > > > > > rely > > > > > > > heavily on Bhavat Bhavam to justify their stand.. applying > > > > stupid > > > > > > logic > > > > > > > to reveal stupid answers as there are only 12 houses in a > > chart, > > > > > > so, > > > > > > > every house has 12 bhavat bhavam combinations at least, > > > > therefore > > > > > > they > > > > > > > are free to find any stupidity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When we will begin making concepts on the basis of hard core > > > > facts. > > > > > > If > > > > > > > younger siblings are 3'rd then 3rd, spouse is 7'th, then > > 7'th, > > > > > > father > > > > > > > is 9'th then 9'th, if 10'th, then 10'th, let's check at > > least > > > > 100 > > > > > > > horoscopes to ascertain which house is a karaka for what. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > > Lalit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Dear Sir, That was said in hurry, there should be 11 bhavt bhavam relations for each house. regards, Lalit. Vedic Astrologyandhealing , Chandrashekhar <sharma.chandrashekhar wrote: > > Dear Lalit/ RK, > > If I may intervene. How does each bhava has 12 bhavat bhava positions? > Could someone explain this new mathematics to me? > > Chandrashekhar. > > rk dash wrote: > > You are right, Lalit. They strangulate themsleves in the skein. I have > > seen some. But they survive the stupidity. > > > > There should be two provisos here. The reduplication bhava should not > > be in conflict with the primary bhava, one. Two, the weight should > > shift to the bhavat bhava only upon certain conditions. We have to dig > > that out. So far I have not seen any in the course of my reading. (It > > may not be a valid testing just by taking a good number of horoscopes; > > a rigorous methodology of testing is important, because false > > ratification is also possible just as many articles in magazines end > > up doing while proving an axiom or floating a new one.) > > > > I go back to point one. Take 4th and 7th. Mother (from 4th) conflicts > > with spouse (7th). So does home (4th) with road or maarga (7th). Those > > who are more discerning say bhavata bhavam is for 'bhava anuchinta'. > > 'Bhava chinta' as a term and concept in astrology is a very delicate > > thing. Few can handle it. Bhava chinta requires being well-versed in > > 'lakshaNa shastra'. And laskhaNa shastra vast and indeterminate. It > > requires one to be steeped in humanities studies, stuying life itself, > > studentship of life. Astrology is a poet's prerogative. I have bhava > > anuchinta in mind. > > > > I must make this point at a time when software competence is thought > > to be enough for a qualification to read man's world, nay Life. > > Horoscope generation by computer is fine. The rest need not be. No > > aspersion here for any profession. Just the fact of the matter as I > > understand. > > > > RK > > > > > > On 05/12/2007, *litsol* <litsol <litsol> > > wrote: > > > > I have seen, those who never checks astrology against reality rely > > heavily on Bhavat Bhavam to justify their stand.. applying stupid > > logic > > to reveal stupid answers as there are only 12 houses in a chart, so, > > every house has 12 bhavat bhavam combinations at least, therefore > > they > > are free to find any stupidity. > > > > When we will begin making concepts on the basis of hard core > > facts. If > > younger siblings are 3'rd then 3rd, spouse is 7'th, then 7'th, father > > is 9'th then 9'th, if 10'th, then 10'th, let's check at least 100 > > horoscopes to ascertain which house is a karaka for what. > > > > regards, > > Lalit. > > > > > > > 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.