RE: Special nakshatras for 27 or 28 stars (Ramakrishna, Shiva...)

[Guest guest]

oṠgurave namaḥ

Dear Narasiá¹ha

Again wrong learning ... no one can be born in Abhijit naká¹£atra.

Please show me one horoscope where a pandit has written that the native is born

in abhijit naká¹£atra. You are unable to differentiate between the physical

27 and spiritual 28. I have explained this in some detail in the book bá¹›hat

naká¹£atra. Please go through that again

I am a mirror, I only reflect what shines on me. Read your mails

for the last 2 years or so, ever since I started the Jaimini Scholar program.

Best Wishes

Sanjay Rath

WebPages: http://srath.com

Jaimini Scholar: http://sohamsa.com

SJC: http://.org

Jyotish Digest, Books: http://sagittariuspublications.com

 

 

 

 

sohamsa

[sohamsa ] On Behalf Of pvr108

16 September 2009 01:03

sohamsa

Special nakshatras for 27 or 28 stars (Re:

Ramakrishna, Shiva...)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Namaste,

 

> Secondly, the abhiśeka nakṣatra is the last nakṣatra,

> be it the 27 or 28 naká¹£atra scheme that we use. You are

> again wrong here

 

To say that one can find special nakshatras using *either* 27-star scheme *or*

28-star scheme is not logical.

 

Suppose one is born in Abhijit as per 28 star scheme and Uttarashadha as per 27

star scheme. You are saying that one can take *either* Uttarashadha *or*

Poorvashadha as the abhisheka nakshatra. That is illogical. There should be

*one* clearly defined abhisheka nakshatra. The fact that 28th star from the

birth star was specifically mentioned as abhisheka nakshatra in classics means

that 28-star scheme should be used and not 27-star scheme.

 

> Thirdly, like the ÄÂrÅ«á¸Âha, it will take a little time

> for people to digest, so take your time.

 

It is a fundamental principle of debate that a condescending and confident tone

does not make up for a lack of substance in one's argument.

 

> There is no clear formula in jyotish