How to look at chart - Let's burn the concepts of benific/malific !!

December 14, 2007

Dear Lalit,

I do not think it is right to say that Kalyanverman, Mantreshwar or

Vaidyanath were not predictive astrologers. These are respected

astrologers of repute beyond doubt. Is there any basis for your saying

that they were known not to do significant predictions? Same for K. N.

Rao and B. V. Raman. I do not know whether you are aware that B. V.

Raman was called modern day Varaha Mihira. I may also put it on record

that I doubt whether there is any living astrologer today who can

either cast a chart from the answers to questions asked by the nadi

astrologers or give names of the jataka and his immediate family on

looking at the chart given to him. As a matter of fact when some of my

shishyas get a swollen head due to one or two predictions having come

true, I ask them to go to a nadi reader and see whether they can

accomplish what he does for the state of the jataka on the date of

visit and then only criticize some one for a failed prediction and feel

elated about one's correct prediction.

Chandrashekhar.

litsol wrote:

Dear Kiran,

SJC and particularly Sanjay Rath though took astrology to a new

plateform has done considerable harm to astrology by bringing in so

much D1, D2, D3, D5 .. D100 etc.., secondary is secondary ..., still,

i accept him like newton, but i will ensure a shift in astrology from

newton's era to einsteen's era.

Compartment approach block's astrologers vision that's why we have

not seen any performing noteworthy astrologer after varahmihira.

kalyan verma, mantreswra or vaidyanaath are not known for doing

significant predictions, same is true for so called nadi astrologers,

u read books written by KN Rao and BV Raman, u wont open them second

time.

i m asking same what u have said, a holistic approach and that will

come by burning benefic/malific like immature concepts, a graha has

it's own properties, own karakatwa, it does what it has to do, where

a generalization like malific or benefic comes in picture.

life has a flow and in the incessant flow where compartments/houses

comes, there are waves ... the wavefront's should be identified by

houses and should be understood.

What i m saying is very core forgotten basic...

regards,

Lalit.

Vedic Astrologyandhealing ,

"kiran.rama"

<kiran.rama wrote:

>

> Dear Lalitji,

>

> Please be patient before casting aspersions on historical

approaches.

>

> Astrology is a holistic science.

>

> First step is to understand how to analyze D-1 and basic Vimsottari

> dasa - only then talk about other concepts.

>

> I am also a learner and will try to help whereever I am clear in

concepts

>

> Regards

> kiran

>

> Vedic Astrologyandhealing ,

"litsol" <litsol@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Elders and Group,

> >

> > The more i do read charts and astrology classics, The more I

get

> > confused ........

> >

> > I get the idea that in the last 1000 - 1200 years, we have

missed

the

> > way to look at a chart...., is the house specific approach or

the

planet

> > specific approach, i mean benific planet / susthana or

malific/dusthana

> > is the right way to study one's life through the chart...

> >

> > I think we will have to burn the immature concepts of

> > benific/malific.... etc.. a chart should be treated as a

living

> > individual. when we had a review of definitions given like

trika,

> > dustha, koopa etc... from the perspective of continuity of

life.

> >

> > Like development in physics, astrology must have new approach

to

look at

> > life through the chart if it wants to have it's relevance.

> >

> > regards,

> > Lalit.

> >

>

December 17, 2007

Namaskar Arkayji, Brilliantly put !! You have hit the nail on the head in the last sentence of your mail. The problem with learning Jyotish through the internet is this:Everybody wants quick solutions. 'My Guru is exalted in the 10th house, so why am I still struggling in my career etc etc I have cried myself hoarse (to anybody who is willing to listen)that this is not the way

to learn Jyotish.You will only end up with pie on your face).Hardly anybody listens though and they end up making total fools of themselves and then start the potshots at the Vidya and it's originators !! How I wish we were back to the times of the Gurukul system when Jyotish was taught in the way it was meant to be taught (with lot of emphasis on the Shlokas and genuflecting on them over a long period) Anyway,given the present times the internet way seems to be the ONLY way and we have to play along !! Cheers, aavesh rk dash <arkaydash wrote: Universe made sense even under Newtonian physics, and it ticked fine, the clockwork Dear Lalit, I think you'll have to live longer with your confusion. But who's not? Just that modern-time scholars are just so much less confused. Difference in degree. D. in d. adds up to diff. in kind. Thus, the confused and the clear-headed. We have just popped out our head from our little hole. The firmament of Indian astrolgers

is a luminous one. Our running them down would be vain and in vain. Ramanujacharya, for example, presupposes in his reader a very good grounding. For that matter, much of Phaladeepika. But even Mantreswara here and there refers reader back to Varaha's works. What does that mean? V. is the benchmark and before him Parasara --- who are invoked by later scholars. Mantreswara 'Kshetrsphuta and Bijasphuta method for studying progeny' remains a bold initiative. Many such innovations have piled on over centuries. Whether we can make use of them or not is our persistence. It just doesn't help to speak impatiently of the hoary greats. We are just peeing out of our holes. Mr Aveesh is right. It is no two-month task. A quantum jump is unlikely to happen. Your Newton and Einstein analogy. Who are your quantum astrologists? It takes good many years before you get a

feel of a planet: how, say, a thougthless Mars is different from a brooding Saturn. We have to observe people dominated by a particular planetary trait or going thru the Dasa of a particular planet. You have to see how effortlessly a planet executes its portfolio when in 11th hse in its period, no matter even in enemy quarter. Just being in enemy's quarter is no terrible weakness for a planet. Say, Ven in Cancer as 11th hse. It is in Moon's sign, most benefic sign in the zodia. Ven is the most benefic planet, according to one school, more than Jup. Now using even the Newtonian model (without going into the Shadabala, D-n, Astakavarga etc), a Ven of this kind will fulfil its promise of being in 11th. It did in a chart. From an actual chart You can't break the paradigms

even before beginning to understand them! Have patience, read, think, look around, go back to adages, RK On 13/12/2007, litsol <litsol wrote: Dear Elders and Group,The more i do read charts and astrology

classics, The more I getconfused ........I get the idea that in the last 1000 - 1200 years, we have missed theway to look at a chart...., is the house specific approach or the planet specific approach, i mean benific planet / susthana or malific/dusthanais the right way to study one's life through the chart...I think we will have to burn the immature concepts ofbenific/malific.... etc.. a chart should be treated as a living individual. when we had a review of definitions given like trika,dustha, koopa etc... from the perspective of continuity of life.Like development in physics, astrology must have new approach to look atlife through the chart if it wants to have it's relevance.regards,Lalit. With Best Wishes, aavesh

Now you can chat without downloading messenger. Click here to know how.