Vargas are NOT to be read as Rashi

[anuradha]

e: Vargas are NOT to be read as Rashi
Report this post Quote
Post by rathore » 04 Sep 2017, 09:29

Haha you mind or you don't mind, you are the laughing stock

Good you are writing to PVR. Please tell him to come to this thread and defend his response. I will put him in his place as well, for that non-sensical response.

Lol where do these make believe concepts of 3 degrees 20 minutes mapped to 30 degrees come from?
I guess that means every Varga is running a different Panchang. The same planet can be direct in D1 but retro in D9. Trimsama "chart" never gets to Eclipse as the nodes are together. Apply some elementary thought dude

Please make some credibility to oppose PVR and others . Who cares for your views . When discussion is specific to D-9 how the other divisional chart comes here

[tylorechandra]

Thanks for the feedback but I am not a person who changes my views because some one else is uncomfortable with such views. To each his own!!. Prediction is not anyone's individual property and all practitioners can follow principles which give good results in analysis, specially those which are based on logical analysis. I do not agree, for e.g that placements in varga charts relate to whole planets. They relate only to the concerned amsas and, as such, can't be used like planets.

There are many deviations from the original texts (or those not mentioned therein) which are used in day to day predictions to good effect. It is not possible to substantiate all principles using the original texts, but results are seen to be good.

TKC

[rathore]

Anuradha ji,

Sure, why don't you read about D9 and its formation in BPHS?

Each navamsa is 3 deg 20 mins is a full Nakshatra pada. Basic, yeah?
Each 30 degree sign is divided into 9 navamsas of 3 deg 20 mins each. Basic, yeah?

So how does 30 degrees / 9 = 3 deg 20 mins magically become 30 degrees again?

You don't need to care for any views. Just explain the above calculation. If you run away from it its alright too.

[anuradha]

e: Vargas are NOT to be read as RashiQuote tylorechandra
by tylorechandra » 04 Sep 2017, 09:52

Thanks for the feedback but I am not a person who changes my views because some one else is uncomfortable with such views. To each his own!!. Prediction is not anyone's individual property and all practitioners can follow principles which give good results in analysis, specially those which are based on logical analysis. I do not agree, for e.g that placements in varga charts relate to whole planets. They relate only to the concerned amsas and, as such, can't be used like planets.

There are many deviations from the original texts (or those not mentioned therein) which are used in day to day predictions to good effect. It is not possible to substantiate all principles using the original texts, but results are seen to be good.

TKC

Thanks a lot . I agree.

[tylorechandra]

One (final ?) comment regarding the arithmetical query of Shri Rathore as to how 3 deg 20 min becomes 30 degrees. Pl read my earlier post dated 3rd Sept on the subject on page 8 of this forum.

TKC

[rathore]

Tylore ji, please do a proper write up with numbers and we can take it from there. Keep it arithmetical and give examples of such aspects.

Any deviation from the very foundation of spatial longitudes, laws of motion, numbers etc. will be called out in public. Please be logical and careful in the discussion.

[Lex]

Let's not get into who respects who because we all know how respectful you are. So let's not get into upbringing.

Keep doing your tukkabaazi with explaining away wrong events on correct charts. That is just plain awesome. And keep making unwarranted remarks about me. Love that you made a mockery out of yourself in public. Sorry it happened through my hands.

Not with Sachin but Diana chart and many other details been fudged to circumvent to the whims and fancies in Journal. When confronted by Knowledgeable analysts, the person with folded handed hands admitted the mistakes in fudging celebrity charts.
Varga charts includes Navamsa, writings of aspects in varga is a colossal crime and error in cascading down to ignorant folks.
Who was that person recently imprisoned recently in Haryana, with a fraud spiritualistic self styled Godman, after CBI court JUdge sentenced him for rigorous imprisonment.
So when Fudging details etc, one has to look at the intent part of intention of such willful crime, and what for need to be assessed

Anyways, don't be surprised, you may see Hora chart, folk will start saying aspect part in varga, where only 2 signs are involved only.

[anuradha]

At least you should not say this who, himself is doing a copy paste business here . Proof was given by the moderator . Kindly produced the proof that it was fudged. Today is Monday and Moon is in Dhanistha

[Lex]

Yes Today Monday
Chandra in Dhanista
What so great about?

No one can fudge this details in any Journal. Right?
There will be another concept will be floated to ignorant folks, Chandra aspects Nakshatra in varga / Navamsa

[anuradha]

Re: Vargas are NOT to be read as Rashi
Report this post Quote
Share this topic on
Post by ChandraLagna » 03 Sep 2017, 22:14

Anuradha -

As an admin, I have deleted personalized references made by both you, and another poster, right in this thread. However, as any other student of astrology, I have my views, which I have expressed earlier in this thread and elsewhere.

As a student of astrology, I have one question to ask, and this for the third time, so hopefully you have an answer. This is in the spirit of discussing astrology, not as a moderator compromising neutrality.

Assume Jupiter at Aries 29 deg and Moon at 11 Deg taurus, i.e. they are 12 deg away. Hence moon and Jupiter form Shakata yoga.

Now in Navamsa Jupiter gets placed in Sagittarius navamsa and Moon in Aries navamsa, so now in Navamsa "chart", Jupiter aspects Moon via 5th drishti.

But in reality, there is one jupiter, one moon and now you are claiming that jupiter is casting aspect 12 deg away.

If this aspect of 12 deg in zodiac, or rasi cannot happen, then Jupiter cannot aspect Moon in Navamsa "chart". Simple. Please find any flaw in this simple math and dont quote any texts or University professors.

In reality Moon is not a planet , its only the satellite of earth . Please tell what is the mathematical logic that we take Moon as planet Only astrological classics says so. In reality planets are moving around the sun not earth[ What is the mathematical logic. Why Jupiter has the 5th,7th and 9th aspect please give the pure mathematical logic. Why planets are retrograde though in reality it never happen[ Please let me know the mathematical reason] Its all in the astrology classics and we accept them . Here as a biased moderator you jumped in to defend your own concept. I do not want to learn anything from you. I hope you understand .You do not want to see any reference because it says otherwise. I just cannot believe that so many great scholars of Sanskrit can make a mistake in translting the same Shloka.regards

[GNE]

The astrological texts don't even originally refer to moon as a "planet", but a Graha, no?
I thought everything was just "graha" : heavenly body. And it's due to english translation the word "planet" became the norm for everything?

Anyway, I still wonder why don't followers of PVR use Pushya Paksha ayanamsa primarily?
He seemed to give really passionate reasoning for it's correctness on his website + in a somewhat recent saptarishi youtube video....

As for varga aspects,
I think those of us who are against them would just love to see where in the classics like BPHS it states to do so?
(Note: NOT counting sloka's that don't say that, but instead the reader has twisted the information into what they "think" it says. ...ex: that "infamous one" where a yog talks of Mercury aspecting Venus = it could be that parashara meant through Rasi dhristi ? since afterall, rasi dhristi is a chapter that comes even prior to planetary aspect? Or as one astrologer told me a long time ago (off the forum) they said it is talking about when mercury or venus in transit make an aspect to the persons natal mercury or venus. > now I'm not saying that is correct (I honestly didn't believe it) but it just shows there are other ways to interpret.... we need someone who can read the original sanskrit sloka properly )

[anuradha]

The astrological texts don't even originally refer to moon as a "planet", but a Graha, no?
I thought everything was just "graha" : heavenly body. And it's due to english translation the word "planet" became the norm for everything?

As for varga aspects,
I think those of us who are against them would just love to see where in the classics like BPHS it states to do so?

Have you seen the reference given by me ?

Moon is not a graha as per the scientific fraternity, its a satellite of earth, then why we consider it like a planet ?

[rathore]

Anuradha, Planet is just the nearest term available in English for 'Graha' but Planet is NOT Graha. You should have known this very basic by now.

But pretty sure you don't even know the meaning of Graha, hence the ignorance. But thanks for showing it publicly.

[ChandraLagna]

In reality Moon is not a planet , its only the satellite of earth . Please tell what is the mathematical logic that we take Moon as planet Only astrological classics says so. In reality planets are moving around the sun not earth[ What is the mathematical logic. Why Jupiter has the 5th,7th and 9th aspect please give the pure mathematical logic. Why planets are retrograde though in reality it never happen[ Please let me know the mathematical reason] Its all in the astrology classics and we accept them . Here as a biased moderator you jumped in to defend your own concept. I do not want to learn anything from you. I hope you understand .You do not want to see any reference because it says otherwise. I just cannot believe that so many great scholars of Sanskrit can make a mistake in translting the same Shloka.regards

Firstly, please stop using adjectives like "biased" because I can use certain adjectives too, but being more civil-mannered and also an admin, I will restrain from use of any personalized adjective. That does not however entitle you the laxity with words that you have enjoyed thus far. I shall delete any such use from you henceforth.

Now coming to the topic at hand, I am glad to finally see you say something that I was waiting for 3 years. Correct, moon is not a planet, and why does Jupiter has 5,7,9 aspect and not 2,4,6,8 are both valid points. Why just that, let us take step back and ask, how can a fiery ball of thermonuclear energy be the representative of an imaginary "soul" or how a satellite with 1/6th earth's gravity first stepped on by Neil Armstrong be the representative of mind. How can a distant cold planet with 3 rings be the arbitrator of justice, or determinant of Longevity? These are the fundamentals of astrology. These are called Postulates, or tenets, which are the starting points, which do not have an origin that we know of. Similarly, Jupiter having 5th or 9th aspect is a tenet or postulate, which every one of the 50 ancient or medieval texts speak of. Does even one of them speak of 2,4,6th aspect of Jupiter? No.

Now, once we accept that Jupiter has an aspect on 5th house ( when each house is 30 deg) and once we understand that each rasi or sign has 9 divisions, called amsas, then we are now bound by rules of mathematics, logic & common sense.

[anuradha]

Firstly, please stop using adjectives like "biased" because I can use certain adjectives too, but being more civil-mannered and also an admin, I will restrain from use of any personalized adjective. That does not however entitle you the laxity with words that you have enjoyed thus far. I shall delete any such use from you henceforth.

Now coming to the topic at hand, I am glad to finally see you say something that I was waiting for 3 years. Correct, moon is not a planet, and why does Jupiter has 5,7,9 aspect and not 2,4,6,8 are both valid points. Why just that, let us take step back and ask, how can a fiery ball of thermonuclear energy be the representative of an imaginary "soul" or how a satellite with 1/6th earth's gravity first stepped on by Neil Armstrong be the representative of mind. How can a distant cold planet with 3 rings be the arbitrator of justice, or determinant of Longevity? These are the fundamentals of astrology. These are called Postulates, or tenets, which are the starting points, which do not have an origin that we know of. Similarly, Jupiter having 5th or 9th aspect is a tenet or postulate, which every one of the 50 ancient or medieval texts speak of. Does even one of them speak of 2,4,6th aspect of Jupiter? No.

Now, once we accept that Jupiter has an aspect on 5th house ( when each house is 30 deg) and once we understand that each rasi or sign has 9 divisions, called amsas, then we are now bound by rules of mathematics, logic & common sense.

I was waiting to see a logical [ mathematical ] reply . But now you are taking about fundamentals of astrology. I quoted from the classical texts which you say is a wrong translation which I do not trust . If it is wrong to use the aspect in divisional chart why it is used in the articles of this site. You keep your view but please do not force your concept on me by giving the name of'' Logic'' or ''mathematics''. regards

[anuradha]

Re: Vargas are NOT to be read as Rashi
Report this post Quote
Post by rathore » 04 Sep 2017, 19:44

Anuradha, Planet is just the nearest term available in English for 'Graha' but Planet is NOT Graha. You should have known this very basic by now.

But pretty sure you don't even know the meaning of Graha, hence the ignorance. But thanks for showing it publicly. Go play with Khoo

Please do not make the mockery of yourself.
ग्रह m. graha planet

http://spokensanskrit.org/index.php?mod ... &direct=se
ग्रह m. graha planet

[rathore]

[quote=anuradha]
Please do not make the mockery of yourself.
ग्रह m. graha planet
http://spokensanskrit.org/index.php?mod ... &direct=se
ग्रह m. graha planet
[/quote]

Anuradha ji,


Here is a screenshot from BPHS about what is considered a Graha:

[IMG]http://i65.tinypic.com/14bhrf8.png[/IMG]

Basically anything that moves through the Nakshatras (Sun, Moon, whatever) is a Graha. Please apply some thought before quoting in a hurry.

[Lex]

Rathore

You are right. Graha in Sanskrit doesn't portray to modern English term Planet.
Poster got confused cannot understand the Sanskrit term Hora. So confused. For Vedic astrology, one has to undergo Sanskrit sikshan or classes to understand and speak in Sanskrit language.
You will find poster will link spoken Sanskrit etc.

CL ji
Chandra is a graha, is a Heavenly body or it is been seized or it has power of holding. You will find Lord Siva, Goddess Lakshmi or Lord Ganesha will have Chandra in Head, as a part of holding.
The question, enquired with you by an ignorant who bolster a through Vedic astrology learnt, infact knowledge is bereft on traditional astrology. Planet is modern English term, whereas our Sages referred Chandra as a Graha, even Lord Siva educating Mataji Parvati on Jyotisham says Chandra is a graha and so also Ravi or Sun

We should ask the member, if Chandra a planet, then why Sun is considered as planet, even though reality wise Sun is a baby Star.

[anuradha]

Re: Vargas are NOT to be read as Rashi
Report this post Quote
Post by rathore » 04 Sep 2017, 19:44

Anuradha, Planet is just the nearest term available in English for 'Graha' but Planet is NOT Graha. You should have known this very basic by now.

But pretty sure you don't even know the meaning of Graha, hence the ignorance. But thanks for showing it publicly.

As per the Sanskrit dictionary planet means Graha.

Please do not make the mockery of yourself.
ग्रह m. graha planet

http://spokensanskrit.org/index.php?mod ... &direct=se
ग्रह m. graha planet

Since you have not read my post seriously where I clearly said that scientifically Moon is not a planet [ Graha] but satellite . Since you are in a mood to make your post to ridicule me, its ok but it is not making any sense.

[ChandraLagna]

Dear members -
While engaging in discussions, please do not mock a person, anyone, be it a member or someone not on this forum - it is fine to disagree with what one says, but please remain within bounds of decency.

[rathore]

Anuradha ji

http://sanskritdictionary.com/graha/75831/1

There are N number of meanings given for the word Graha on your link (few below).

So yes one meaning is 'planet' but in an Astrological context Graha is something that 'seizes' or 'holds'. And as BPHS states, Graha moves about through the asterisms. That is the context we are in. Please don't jump contexts! Therefore don't confuse Moon being a Satellite (context: Cosmology) or Sun being a Star (context: Cosmology) with 'Graha' (context: Astrology). If you do then you are tinkering with the very fiber (postulations) of Astrology.

ChandraLagna talked about postulations, it seems you didn't bother. So Jupiter having an effect on 5, 7, 9 places from itself is a postulation (context: Astrology). One cannot tinker with it (though one can try to find a reason). It is a GIVEN, the DEFAULT, the very BASIS. Everything else in Astrology is built upon this VERY BASIS (postulations). Once we accept these postulations (of course Science rejects it) then we are in the context of Astrology. And ONLY after we have accepted this VERY BASIS is when we can start applying Mathematics (for e.g. Applying Maths to Jupiter's aspects or maybe even to the point that Jupiter is the Minister?).

By the way Mathematics does not leave any ambiguity. Is that why you are shying away from ChandraLagna's simple question?

ग्रह m. graha eclipse
ग्रह m. graha rAhu or the dragon's head
ग्रह m. graha place of a planet in the fixed zodiac
ग्रह adj. graha seizing
ग्रह adj. graha holding


As an analogy so you can understand better... in real Science it is considered that 'Big Bang' is when the universe was Planck length in size. The subject 'Physics' as we know it collapses (does NOT apply) at Planck scale. So if we consider Big Bang as the VERY BASIS then 'Physics' can only be applied AFTER the Big Bang. Similarly Mathematics can only be applied AFTER we accept Jupiter's aspects (which are postulations). And NOT before.

I hope this makes sense. Ask questions if this doesn't. Because only after this primary understanding can a real discussion proceed.

[Gautam_59]

I have a exact way to clear the confusion in air. I think that all of you might have heard of Vimposaka Bala. So just download astrology & horoscope from Google Play, enter your birth details, after entering it scroll down to "Planetary positions in detail" and you can spot "Nav" (Just third From Last or Third to Status), note down that "Nav" sign of a particular planet and compare with D9 "Chart" and then refer to Vimposaka Bala and then see the Planet is in which Navamsa (In Vimposaka Bala) and you will get to know the truth, about Planet's actual Navamsa and you will also get to know that it's nothing related to so called Planetary position in Navamsa "Chart". ThankYou.

[Khoo Hock Leong]

Gautam

Software is designed by a mortal. So whatever his views or concepts would be designed into the software, some of which the conepts may not follow classical text dicta.

If you go by JHora, for example, each divisional chart is culled from the Rasi Chart, and after which the user is free to analyse and explore each divisional chart independently on his own. The designer of the software is smart enough to go by the claasical texts dicta in the way he designed the software.

[anuradha]

2. There are no Bhavas and Drishti in Vargas and the above translation is corrupt (as it mentions Bhavas) as well as incomplete. This is probably Dr. Suresh's own modified version. I am posting the screenshot of the actual Sloka translation below from BPHS Santhanam edition:

3. Saravali is a compilation of various Rishi horas . Now we all know the great Rishi Viswamitra. Here is story of such Astronomically impossible aspects (in the present era) which Dr. Suresh has not considered or isn't aware of.

e: Vargas are NOT to be read as Rashi
Report this post Quote
Unread post by rathore » 04 Sep 2017, 23:23

Anuradha ji

http://sanskritdictionary.com/graha/75831/1

There are N number of meanings given for the word Graha on your link (few below).

So yes one meaning is 'planet' but in an Astrological context Graha is something that 'seizes' or 'holds'. And as BPHS states, Graha moves about through the asterisms. That is the context we are in. Please don't jump contexts! Therefore don't confuse Moon being a Satellite (context: Cosmology) or Sun being a Star (context: Cosmology) with 'Graha' (context: Astrology). If you do then you are tinkering with the very fiber (postulations) of Astrology.

ChandraLagna talked about postulations, it seems you didn't bother. So Jupiter having an effect on 5, 7, 9 places from itself is a postulation (context: Astrology). One cannot tinker with it (though one can try to find a reason). It is a GIVEN, the DEFAULT, the very BASIS. Everything else in Astrology is built upon this VERY BASIS (postulations). Once we accept these postulations (of course Science rejects it) then we are in the context of Astrology. And ONLY after we have accepted this VERY BASIS is when we can start applying Mathematics (for e.g. Applying Maths to Jupiter's aspects or maybe even to the point that Jupiter is the Minister?).

By the way Mathematics does not leave any ambiguity. Is that why you are shying away from ChandraLagna's simple question?

ग्रह m. graha eclipse
ग्रह m. graha rAhu or the dragon's head
ग्रह m. graha place of a planet in the fixed zodiac
ग्रह adj. graha seizing
ग्रह adj. graha holding


As an analogy so you can understand better... in real Science it is considered that 'Big Bang' is when the universe was Planck length in size. The subject 'Physics' as we know it collapses (does NOT apply) at Planck scale. So if we consider Big Bang as the VERY BASIS then 'Physics' can only be applied AFTER the Big Bang. Similarly Mathematics can only be applied AFTER we accept Jupiter's aspects (which are postulations). And NOT before.

I hope this makes sense. Ask questions if this doesn't. Because only after this primary understanding can a real discussion proceed.

You have a special art of making simple thing complex. The meaning of Graha is planet given in dictionary . First you were making mockery of me and now you are taking the side of B.P.H.S. Had I quoted the B.P.H.S you would simple said with your great knowledge its a wrong translation by putting some imaginary words. Your have already said that Dr Suresh Chandra Mishra, Dr Ramchandra Pandey and Dr Madhukant Jha is wrong in transling a shloka. You did not bother that it was under the chapter of Navmansha in Mansagri . When something is given in classic then you either say its a wrong translation or you try to mislead with logic. ONLY YOU ARE CORRECT . Please stick to your own post . For rest they will comment being a administrator . I am not interested to learn from you . I hope you understand.

[rathore]

Hi Khoo,

Today I learned from your 'Dhanishta' post that 'Logic and mathematics have no place in Shiva's dharmic creation.'
Curious to know if ill-logic has a place? Also is JHORA the ultimate simulation of the Solar system? The author uses Pushya Paksha Ayanamsa, have you switched to it?


Hi Anuradha,

Sorry I tried to explain in length just for you to understand. But in short "Graha" is something that moves about through Nakshatras (from the perspective of us on Earth).
Its that simple. Hope you can understand this very basic of the basics in an Astrological context.

Refrain from going in circles and get your translation checked. And if you can then just answer the simple mathematical question by ChandraLagna.
But since you keep dodging both these things then every reader can gather what you are upto.

Please stop wasting everyone's time if you are just going to go in circles. Mods pease take note.