FIND THE ISHTA-DEVATA? HOW DO YOU FIND IT IN THE NATIVITY?BY WHICH SYSTEM?

[Guest guest]

02/20/71

05:30AM

ROSE HALL VILLAGE,

GUYANA.

SOUTH AMERICA.

 

FIND THE ISHTA DEVATA AND ALL OTHER DEVATAS?

 

Syama

 

--- On Sun, 3/7/10, Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr wrote:

 

 

Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr

[vedic astrology] On Sanjay ji's teachings and on houses (Re: bhava

chalit)

vedic astrology , ,

JyotishWritings

Cc: astrologyandremedies , vedic astrology ,

" BHUSAN k " <naxatra,

- , " Chandrashekhar "

<sharma.chandrashekhar, " neelam gupta " <neelamgupta07,

" Phyllis Chubb " <phyllischubb, " sohamsa " <sohamsa >,

" prince " <A_Foresight_Prince_of_India_Available >,

astro-health-remedies

Sunday, March 7, 2010, 11:45 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

Namaste friends,

 

> He is free to peruse his own independent path with out

> abusing or blaming his guru , and earning and accumulating

> bad Karma for himself.)

 

If what I wrote is false, then it counts as an " abuse " . But, if what I wrote is

true, it is a serious and relevant issue to the Jyotish world. Whistleblowing

and abuse are different.

 

Let me illustrate my point using the example of so-called " Nadi navamsa " . A few

months back, Pt Rath taught " Nadi Navamsa " and shared a multimedia presentation.

He tried to differentiate it from regular navamsa saying one is for " internal "

matters and the other for " external " matters. He said, " until now, you were

seeing everything in one chart and did not have clarity. That is because you did

not have a tool. Now I am giving you a tool. " He even made very serious claims

(e.g. when this chart shows death, it overrides other charts and one has to be

very careful).

 

I wrote a detailed critique showing how there was no consistent methodology of

what is internal and what is external. I showed how he mixed up everything and

how his teachings were all over the place and filled with contradictions and

confusions. Above all, I showed that the chart he defined itself was an

*illogical* chart and suggested a more logical alternative definition, which

renders his teachings on this meaningless. Mr Goel, the person who wrote the

mail below, said about my definition: " I am convinced that you are right " !

 

* * *

 

Sanjay ji's response to my detailed critique was short in a mail addressed to Mr

Goel:

 

" It is not the critique that I question, it is the intention. As I told

Narasimha earlier - it is bhakti that is under doubt and question, and that is

the heart. He has no bhakti for Jagannath and there is no truth in his heart.

 

Note that he did not have any response to the technical points in my critique!

When it comes to my " bhakti " , it is a matter between me, my spiritual master and

my Mother.

 

* * *

 

Bottomline: Sanjay ji taught an illogical chart and what seems on a superficial

observation like a sophisticated and nuanced methodology around it but which is

in fact a facade. Unfortunately, he did it so many times in so many matters,

after his ran out of his true parampara secrets such as Narayana dasa and TP in

the early years.

 

After my critique, this Nadi navamsa thing fizzled out. Otherwise, it would've

become part of standard terminology on lists. People would wonder " why are you

using regular navamsa? Shouldn't we use nadi navamsa in this case because of so

and so reason? " Like this, so much fake knowledge got into public discourse and

corrupted it in the last several years. This is very bad for the growth of

correct Jyotish knowledge.

 

When his ill-researched " hunches " are shared with pomp, fanfare and an air of

great importance, people take it to be either a parampara secret or an important

research that is inspired by the wisdom of parampara. But, as I said, Sanjay ji

is a very bad researcher (his USP is parampara secrets. He is good at coming up

with ideas in a hunch, but terrible at researching them) and jumps to

conclusions at the drop of a hat. So much fake knowledge enetered public

discourse like this and corrupted the field.

 

* * *

 

Regarding bhavas, two simple points:

 

(1) The 7th-12th houses are called " visible " and 1st-6th houses are called

" invisible " . Physically, 180 deg behind lagna is visible and 180 deg after lagna

is invisible. What does this mean? Shouldn't 30 deg after lagna be the first

house (invisible) and 30 deg behind lagna be the 12th house (visible)? How can

lagna be in the middle of the first house if lagna is on the border of visible

and insible halves? How can any solution other than lagna being at the beginning

of first house fit with the physical truth?

 

(2) Parasara gave clear rules for evaluating the strengths of house-based

planetary aspects using longitudes. Based on Parasara's clear rules, Mars and

Jupiter both have 58.33% aspect on 80 deg point from their longitudes, including

Mars. Mars does not have any higher aspect than Jupiter, on the 80 deg point

from him. On the 90 deg point from him, Mars has 100% aspect while Jupiter only

has 75% aspect. On the 110 deg point from him, Jupiter has only 58.33% aspect

but Mars has 83.33% aspect. Basically, in the 90-120 deg portion from him, Mars

has 25% more aspect than Jupiter (or other planets).

 

Doesn't it make it amply clear that 90-120 deg from a planet is the 4th house

from it? Isn't it possible only if lagna is the beginning of the first house?

Simialrly, Parasara's clear rules for aspect evaluation show that 120-150 deg

from Jupiter is the 5th house from him, 60-90 deg from Saturn is the 3rd house

from him and so on.

 

The above formulas for quantifying planetary aspects are clearly given in BPHS

and used by everybody to find drishti bala, which is a part of shadbala. It is

quite unambiguous. Still, people have not applied that understanding elsewhere!

 

* * *

 

> Your comment that you may be getting better results by

> using a particular method

> even without spelling out as to which method of house

> division you are using.

> Is your statement not very specious ?

 

You probably read my writings selectively and missed the original definition. I

clearly spelled out my method of house division. A portion of 30 deg starting

from a reference is the first house from it. The portion 30-60 deg from a

reference is the second house from it. And so on. This is derived based on

Parasara's clear formulas for evaluating the strength of house-based of aspects

by planets, as discussed above.

 

Best regards,

Narasimha

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Free Jyotish Software, Free Jyotish Lessons, Jyotish Writings,

" Do It Yourself " ritual manuals for short Homam and Pitri Tarpana:

http://www.VedicAst rologer.org

Films that make a difference: http://SaraswatiFil ms.org

Spirituality: http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdom

Jyotish writings: http://groups. / group/JyotishWri tings

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

 

--- On Sat, 3/6/10, Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937 (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote:

 

> Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937 (AT) (DOT) co.in>

> Re: bhava chalit

> " Raju Gupta " <gupta.raaju@ >

> Cc: astrologyandremedie s , vedic astrology,

" BHUSAN k " <naxatra (AT) hotmail (DOT) com>, vedic_astrology_ classes-subscrib

e , " Chandrashekhar " <sharma.chandrashekh ar (AT) gmail (DOT) com>,

" neelam gupta " <neelamgupta07@ gmail.com>, " Phyllis Chubb " <phyllischubb@

shaw.ca>, " sohamsa " <sohamsa@ .com>, " prince " <A_Foresight_

Prince_of_ India_Available>, astro-health- remedies@ .co.

in

> Saturday, March 6, 2010, 8:13 PM

> Dear Gupta ji,

> There are about !2 methods of house division.

> Which one are you following? All methods have there own

> merits.

> These house divisions , in my opinion can not be used

> universally. If we use a particular method

> it may give better result to suit to that

> system , for which it had been devised.

>

> In Parasara and Jaimini system on Vedic astrology , Bphs

> had clearly specified the method of house division which is

> as under:

>

> QUOTE( this is quoted from

> my another article)

>

> Parasara has given

> the concept of Bhavas (houses)

> along with 12 signs in the

> above narration. This is called the compartmental system of

> houses. In this,

> system the whole sign in

> which the degree of rising ascendant falls is considered

> the first house and

> subsequent sign as 2nd house and so on. The

> longitude of the

> ascending point becomes the most sensitive points of the

> ascendant i.e.1st

> house, and the sensitive points of

> other house will be 30°

> apart. The sensitive

> point of 10th house will fall

> in 10th sign from ascending sign and will have

> the same longitude as that of the ascending

> point in

> Lagan. In this system M.C. is not

> considered as the Mid-point or cusp of 10th

> house. M.C. is however

> given prime-importance due to it and is widely used for

> many other important

> purposes.

>

> Parasara

> narrates the description of the planets, signs, various

> Kinds of

> ascendants, up-Grahas and also importance of

> Deeptamsa of 15° on

> either side of sensitive-point of ascendant and other

> houses etc. (Deeptamsa

> means an effective Zone of 15° on either side of the

> sensitive-point of ascendant,

> or sensitive points of other houses). [The

> importance of various ascendants and

> upgrahas will be narrated in subsequent articles

> ].PADAS OF EACH

> HOUSE WILL HAVE THE SAME LONGITUDE IN A SIGN AS

> RISINGASCENDING

> DEGREE.The same rule will

> also be applicable when longitudes are calculated in

> divisional carts

> as per Saravali.

> JH HORA provides it.

> UNQUOTE

>

> BPHS and JAIMINI system uses many other tools for

> predictive purposes , which are

> interdependent on each other ,Thus the system of house

> division taught by BPHS

> is applicable universally to this system of astrology.

> Unfortunately , Pt Devendra Jha and G.C.Sharma had

> introduced Sripat method of house divisions in their

> versions of BPHS.This , in my opinion is dis-sevice to

> ancient astrology.

> Sripati calculates the Ascendant and MC in correct manner

> according to spherical

> trignametry and then drvide houses in between by method of

> simple division

> arithmetically . Which is not consistent.

> Kp system of house division is based on correct method as

> advocated by' Rafel'

>

> Mr. P.V.R.Narshima Rao has now suggested to adopt equal

> house division and imposed it

> on caspal method of house division.

> At present he is wasting his time and energy in

> fighting with Pt Sanjay Rath ( once he was his Guru -

> now he wish show to himself as independent thinker.

> There is nothing wrong in doing so . He may do any effort

> but this fact can not be denied that Sanjay had properly

> intiated him in astrology and induced him to

> develop

> such a nice software and made available free to every body

> . this was his good Karma

> which is

> helping him to get new light, I do not know why he is

> adopting wrong attitude by

> openly fighting which once he was his guru and earning bad

> Karma . He is free to peruse

>

> his own independent path with out

> abusing or blaming his guru , and earning and accumulating

> bad Karma for himself.)

> Now following five Main methods of house division are

> available to us:

> !. Compartmental method ( where a house is within the

> boundary of a zodiac sign) with 15 degree

> deeptansa on either side.

> 2 Equal house division where Ascending point is the

> mid-point

> 3. Equal House Division , but ascending point is Caspal

> Point i.e from were house

> commences

> 4. Siripat method of house division

> 5 KP METHOD ( IN FACT RAFEL METHOD OR ' PLACIDUAS '

> OR SEMI-ARC SYSTEM)

>

> ALL THE ABOVE SYSTEMS DO HAVE THEIR OWN MERITS AND

> LIMITATIONS .KINDLY

> USE EITHER OF THEM CAREFULLY.

> You may kindly study Lahiri's of Table of Ascendans. It

> is very informative book.

>

> Your comment that you may be getting better results by

> using a particular method

> even without spelling out as to which method of house

> division you are using.

> Is your statement not very specious ?

> With best regards,

>

> G.K.GOEL

 

--- Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> Four points:

>

> (1) I gave my observations honestly. But, for all you know, my views may or

may not be perfect. Other people who also have a lot of experience with him may,

for all you know, disagree with me.

>

> (2) It will be very crude and unethical to use our limited knowledge of

astrology to justify our views in matters like this. If history makes a judgment

on this in future and/or creates a distance between us and these happenings,

THEN it may be acceptable to analyze them astrologically.

>

> (3) Sanjay ji is a man with some good knowledge. If he is honest about what is

from parampara and what are his ideas and enables intelligent youngsters to do

unbiased research (instead of jumping to hasty conclusions, teaching that as

parampara knowledge and making it into a cult), he may still make a positive

difference. In the beginning, he had honesty and spirit of truth. He was quite

honest with me about many things he was unsure of and asked me to investigate

(e.g. solar vs soli-lunar months in TP). He changed. But he is basically a good

man and wants the knowledge of rishis to triumph in the world, just as I do. I

do not like to write anyone off in my book. Everyone has many choices in front

of one at all times, whether one sees them or not. I do not control the choices

others make and also I do not like to prejudge the choices they may make in

future.

>

> (4) I haven't " dissociated " with Sanjay ji. How can one dissociate with

someone who gave one some useful knowledge and who inspired one to do an

important good karma (giving JHora to the world)? I have merely stated what I

honestly believe to be the truth, for the benefit of other students and

community. Simply a new event occurred in our " association " .

>

> Arjuna may have fired arrows at Drona or even killed him. But would he say " I

dissociated with Drona " ? The association/ relationship of a teacher-student is

permanent.

>

> * * *

>

> JHora uses yyyy-mm-dd format to stay neutral to Indo-European (dd-mm-yyyy) and

American (mm-dd-yyyy) styles and also to be logical (Y > M > D). I will consider

adding an option in a future release. But this request is too late for the 7.4

release which is going to happen very soon. The beta version is under testing in

the jhora and the official release is only days away.

>

> Best regards,

> Narasimha

>

> , Vinay Kumar <vinay69@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Narasimha,

> >

> > I think you are true to your heart and mind in whatever you say and

> > practice. I have been following your writings closely and must say you have

> > contributed some genuine original stuff that is a result of your laborious

> > research. Please continue and I see you right there it to the top rung of

> > astrologers in the next decade.

> >

> > Thinking of your dissociation with Sri Sanjay-ji, in your opinion, what

> > astrological factors in his horoscope do you think makes him propound

> > jyotish knowledge that you think is incorrect or corrupted knowledge? I mean

> > when we disucss jyotish, this has to show in the dashas and bukthis or

> > other factors in his horoscope.

> >

> > I have another question regarding JHora. In the Dasas Tab for starting and

> > ending dates is is possible to get dd-mm-yyyy rather than yyyy-mm-dd format?

> > I tried the preferences tab (related to display) but could not find the

> > option to change this. If this is not available I suggest you include it in

> > your next release, I really prefer to see the Indian date format which I

> > have always been used to.

> >

> > Warm regards,

> > Vinay

> >

> > On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr@> wrote:

> >

> > > Namaste Manoj ji,

> > >

> > > > Sanjay did not seem to have any knowledge of Parampara.

> > >

> > > There is some genuine uncommon knowledge taught by Sanjay ji. For example,

> > > Tithi Pravesha works very well. Of course, it may be imperfect (e.g. solar

> > > vs soli-lunar issue I mentioned before), but it works quite well. As it is

> > > not found in any books or classics and as there weren't too many people

who

> > > used it before he popularized it, it is reasonable to assume that Sanjay

ji

> > > did know some secrets. But the quality of his teachings is quite erratic

and

> > > non-uniform. I disagree with you regarding Parampara and stand by my

reading

> > > of the situation as described in the mail below.

> > >

> > > Namaste Neelam ji,

> > >

> > > > I remember Sh K N Rao's words today. Last year he said on one occasion

> > > that

> > > > Narsimha is in wrong hands, but he will come out of this soon! Astrology

> > > > makes much sense, isn't it?

> > >

> > > It is interesting that Sri K.N. Rao should be interested in my horoscope.

> > > Please convey my regards to him.

> > >

> > > However, it is not factually correct to say that I " came out " NOW. I first

> > > communicated with Sanjay ji in late 1997 and became his student in spring

> > > 1998. I learnt some good knowledge in the next few years. As Sanjay ji

> > > maintains an air of " there is more to this, but I will teach it later " ,

you

> > > keep giving him the benefit of doubt. I started noticing inconsistencies

in

> > > his knowledge and started questioning him, as soon as 2001-2002. I

> > > maintained intellectual independence in all public exchanges. From 2004, I

> > > gave up on Sanjay ji. I convinced myself that I am dealing with highly

> > > corrupted knowledge that also contains some gems and started independent

> > > research to sort things. My intention was to clean up the mess while

> > > remaining within his organization. During 2005-2006, I nearly gave up

> > > astrology as my mind was drawn towards god. After the seed for the " do

homam

> > > yourself " movement was sown in 2006, I was back to astrology seriously. I

> > > vigorously pursued independent astrology research in 2006-2009, without

any

> > > expectations and with a much calmer frame of mind. Some of the findings

are

> > > shared, some are in the pipeline and some need to be perfected still.

> > >

> > > However, I still did not come clean with my honest opinions on Sanjay ji

to

> > > caution other students. My spiritual master asked me to stand for truth

> > > without fear and not tolerate dishonesty. He wisely wondered if fear of

> > > offending teacher and creating confusion in people's mind by rocking the

> > > applecart were the only considerations in my mind or if I was also

> > > sub-consciously concerned about losing something by being truthful and

going

> > > against them. He reminded me that we come with nothing and go with nothing

> > > and why should we fear anything or seek anything. He told me to be

truthful

> > > and honest and do my dharma sincerely. It slowly sunk in. From 2007-2008,

I

> > > started hinting at Sanjay ji's dishonesty and misrepresentations publicly.

> > >

> > > Thus, my " coming out " started long back and has been unfolding slowly. As

> > > far as Jyotish knowledge is concerned, I've been on my own for several

years

> > > now.

> > >

> > > Best regards,

> > > Narasimha

> > >

> > > <% 40. com>,

> > > neelam gupta <neelamgupta07@ > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Manoj ji,

> > > >

> > > > I remember Sh K N Rao's words today. Last year he said on one occasion

> > > that

> > > > Narsimha is in wrong hands, but he will come out of this soon! Astrology

> > > > makes much sense, isn't it?

> > > >

> > > > A journey of 17 years through the long-winded tunnel! But the

intelligent

> > > > enigma has dug really deep and collected much wealth to start afresh! I

> > > > appreciate his knowledge and scientific probes which he shares freely,

> > > not

> > > > to mention the great service done through JHora.

> > > >

> > > > Best wishes to Narsimha ji.

> > > >

> > > > Regards

> > > > Neelam

> > > >

> > > > On 4 March 2010 10:33, Manoj Kumar <mouji99@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Narasimha ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > As far as my knowledge goes and my acquaintance with Sanjay is

> > > concerned

> > > > > (when he was working in Delhi at Krishi Bhawan), Sanjay did not seem

to

> > > have

> > > > > any knowledge of Parampara. His uncles (both paternal and maternal)

did

> > > not

> > > > > even consult him astrologically then.

> > > > >

> > > > > regards,

> > > > >

> > > > > Manoj

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Partha,

> > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Narasimha

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The contradictions seem to be too many. First it was sudasa,

> > > > > > now it is kalachakra dasa. It is far too confusing. Just like

> > > > > > you added options for Chara dasa( K N Rao, Rangacharya method)

> > > > > > etc, i guess you can make it KCD Rath, and KCD Narasimha etc.

> > > > >

> > > > > In the case of Sudasa, Sanjay ji kept changing the definition

everytime

> > > we

> > > > > met for a conference. First, I assumed he was testing us and wanted us

> > > to

> > > > > figure out what is correct. Later, I concluded that he himself is not

> > > sure.

> > > > > However, my belief is that he received some knowledge in the parampara

> > > > > regarding Sudasa, which did not stick with him perfectly and hence the

> > > > > confusion.

> > > > >

> > > > > In the case of KCD, I am quite sure Sanjay ji does not have any

secrets

> > > > > from parampara. He told me several times that he relied on *me* to

> > > crack the

> > > > > KCD and ashtakavarga puzzles. He was very excited when I revealed the

> > > basic

> > > > > KCD idea to him. I am afraid he simply hijacked what I shared with him

> > > and

> > > > > what I later wrote as a paper in our joint names and running with it

> > > now.

> > > > > The only thing I do not know is by how much exactly he changed what he

> > > > > hijacked and how badly it deviates from Parasara in areas where

> > > Parasara is

> > > > > clear.

> > > > >

> > > > > * * *

> > > > >

> > > > > Sanjay ji has some good knowledge from parampara, but, having seen him

> > > > > closely, I am afraid he got addicted to the adulation he received from

> > > the

> > > > > community for those secrets. After he ran out of genuine parampara

> > > secrets,

> > > > > I am afraid he started *manufacturing* " parampara secrets "

> > > irresponsibly. If

> > > > > a good researcher disguised his researches as parampara secrets, it

> > > would've

> > > > > been less disastrous. But, unfortunately, Sanjay ji is the worst

> > > researcher

> > > > > I have seen. He has a highly intuitive mind that can think of so many

> > > things

> > > > > and connect them in all kinds of ways. Unfortunately, he jumps to

> > > serious

> > > > > conclusions at the drop of a hat, without any logic or practical

> > > testing.

> > > > > Even in practical testing, he uses such highly flexible and vague

logic

> > > that

> > > > > he can justify any result with any astrological factor.

> > > > >

> > > > > Somebody who would be really really good at coming up with *ideas* for

> > > > > research is unfortunately presenting those raw ideas by sometimes

> > > explicitly

> > > > > and sometimes implicitly representing them as the wisdom of a glorious

> > > > > parampara. I've seen this closely for a long time. Sanjay ji

> > > revolutionized

> > > > > Jyotish when he came, but he has been corrupting the subject badly for

> > > > > several years now.

> > > > >

> > > > > I meant to say the above in such blunt words for a long time now, but

I

> > > > > could not and I kept beating around the bush. Until the day I could

not

> > > say

> > > > > it without even a little anger or frustration in my heart, I did not

> > > want to

> > > > > use such blunt language. Thanks to the grace of my spiritual master, I

> > > am

> > > > > today able to say the above without a trace of frustration or anger in

> > > my

> > > > > heart and in the same way I may state routine observations.

> > > > >

> > > > > * * *

> > > > >

> > > > > > Even in other options, maybe they need to be separated clearly so as

> > > to

> > > > > avoid confusions for novices like me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > regards

> > > > > > Partha

> > > > >

> > > > > JHora has hundreds of options because we are unsure of so many things.

> > > We

> > > > > are groping in the dark. Of course, some people may be glorifying and

> > > even

> > > > > *selling* that darkness, but that means nothing to me. As a reasonably

> > > > > intelligent and conscientious pursuer of Truth, I do know the

> > > difference

> > > > > between light and darkness. I do know the light we have in the room is

> > > > > slowly growing, but I also know that it is still relatively dark.

> > > > >

> > > > > Astrologers are used to seeing any shapes they want in clouds. What we

> > > need

> > > > > is quantifiable, measurable and objective rules and methods and

> > > impassioned

> > > > > search for truth by people who do not have a conflict of interest. My

> > > > > personal belief is that we will make great progress over the next

> > > decade and

> > > > > there will be more light in the field of Jyotish.

> > > > >

> > > > > The seed was sown by Dr B.V. Raman, who wrote many books on astrology

> > > in

> > > > > English and brought the subject to mainstream intelligentsia. Sri K.N.

> > > Rao

> > > > > did yeoman service by taking a stand on ayanamsa and bringing the

focus

> > > to

> > > > > divisional charts etc and the seed became a plant. Pt Sanjay Rath took

> > > the

> > > > > focus back to the works of maharshis like Parasara and Jaimini and

> > > brought

> > > > > several restricted parameters into the mainstream. However, as the

> > > plant

> > > > > grew big, a lot of large weeds came up around the plant.

> > > > >

> > > > > The hundreds of options in JHora are partly reflective of the weeds we

> > > > > have. We need to remove weeds and let the plant grow nicely into a

> > > tree.

> > > > > However, it has to be done carefully. It will be a shame if the actual

> > > plant

> > > > > is hurt instead of the weeds. JHora and our understanding of the

> > > knowledge

> > > > > of rishis will continue to evolve for some more years.