My simple query is that do we have any contextual reference to the use of divisional charts as separate charts. There is lot of confusion over this topic. Some astrologers don't consider the houses as separate in Navamsha, neither any conjustion nor any aspect. Also, as per them, the position of any planet in Navamsha or divisional chart has to be considered from the ascendant from the birth chart because there exists no divisional chart so no lagna of Navamsa or any other divisional chart.
Please try to corroborate with textual reference and explanations
Query about Navamsha
Forum rules
READ Forum-Wide Rules and Guidelines NOTICE: OFFENSIVE POSTS WILL BE DELETED, AND OFFENDERS WILL HAVE ALL POSTS MODERATED.
READ Forum-Wide Rules and Guidelines NOTICE: OFFENSIVE POSTS WILL BE DELETED, AND OFFENDERS WILL HAVE ALL POSTS MODERATED.
Without being rude and arrogant I would like to make a point here.
If anyone doesn't have any contextual reference to the question then all those who make predictions using navamsha are just beating the bush...Its all a game of hit and trial..If the prediction falls to be true..everyone claims to be logical..but if it fails..then they take an excuse saying we need to do research on it....
I personally believe that research in astrology can only be done on the changes which has taken with the change of time. For example, if the ancient text mentions that a particular combination of planets can result in disease relating to blood...then research can be done to find in which particular combination can it result in a simple disease and where can it be dangerous like Blood Cancer...but we can't over ride the ancient text..
It is the same thing we all are doing with the use of Divisional Charts. Just because some astrologer claims them to be read as separate charts, we can't follow them blindfoldedly....irrespective of whether they are right or wrong..because by the probability theory the chances of ANYTHING you say or predict are 50:50...and in the hindsight anything can be corroborated by own logics and experiences..also if you will go to a person with the horoscope of Bill Gates..he can corroborate it with your events...that's not a very big deal..and that's what astrologers do....and no one can provide reference to there predictions...because no one relies upon ancient text..
You can't use your experience with few charts as an evidence for your predictions...It can be additional evidence but there should always be contextual reference to it.
I am not denying the possibility of existence of an evidence to use the divisional charts as separate ones with planets having their aspects, conjuctions and also the chart having an ascendant..But I haven't found any text in accordance with it...And I wrote this here, because without any reference from texts we are just blotting the culture of astrology...
If anyone doesn't have any contextual reference to the question then all those who make predictions using navamsha are just beating the bush...Its all a game of hit and trial..If the prediction falls to be true..everyone claims to be logical..but if it fails..then they take an excuse saying we need to do research on it....
I personally believe that research in astrology can only be done on the changes which has taken with the change of time. For example, if the ancient text mentions that a particular combination of planets can result in disease relating to blood...then research can be done to find in which particular combination can it result in a simple disease and where can it be dangerous like Blood Cancer...but we can't over ride the ancient text..
It is the same thing we all are doing with the use of Divisional Charts. Just because some astrologer claims them to be read as separate charts, we can't follow them blindfoldedly....irrespective of whether they are right or wrong..because by the probability theory the chances of ANYTHING you say or predict are 50:50...and in the hindsight anything can be corroborated by own logics and experiences..also if you will go to a person with the horoscope of Bill Gates..he can corroborate it with your events...that's not a very big deal..and that's what astrologers do....and no one can provide reference to there predictions...because no one relies upon ancient text..
You can't use your experience with few charts as an evidence for your predictions...It can be additional evidence but there should always be contextual reference to it.
I am not denying the possibility of existence of an evidence to use the divisional charts as separate ones with planets having their aspects, conjuctions and also the chart having an ascendant..But I haven't found any text in accordance with it...And I wrote this here, because without any reference from texts we are just blotting the culture of astrology...
The biggest problem astrology is facing in today's scenario is the confusion created by various texts and astrologers. As I mentioned in the above posts, if you will provide anyone with the horoscope of the biggest of celebrity (for ex Mr Bachchan) along with your events, he will corroborate it with his OWN logics. And with so many divisional charts (which they call it), they will prove it either way. If you will ask them for any reference, they call it the part of research...Sorry to say, but just a trend which can be seen in 10-20 horoscope never means that it is a validated research and can be applied everywhere. We are not investing in stock markets, so as to check trends.
For every prediction, there MUST be some reference from ancient texts, and further the research can be added to it in context of the changing scenario as I have mentioned above...And when I say ancient text, it means...the ACTUAL ANCIENT one..not just the edited versions..with different commentaries...There can be arguments and doubts in relation to few of the interpretation of those texts...but the issue is no one actually starts up with those text...They start reading the edited versions...and when they have all corrupt concepts with them...they argue and use those concepts in the argument..Some of them can prove to be true..because its a probability game of 50:50..but are we such big time idiots to believe on someone's theory blind foldedly, ignoring all the references given by ancient sages who possessed divine powers..?
The question need to be addressed..and I believe..it needs to be addressed even before any other discussion take place on this forum...I repeat it again, if we can't provide contextual reference to MOST of our logics, we are simply blotting the culture of astrology..!!!
For every prediction, there MUST be some reference from ancient texts, and further the research can be added to it in context of the changing scenario as I have mentioned above...And when I say ancient text, it means...the ACTUAL ANCIENT one..not just the edited versions..with different commentaries...There can be arguments and doubts in relation to few of the interpretation of those texts...but the issue is no one actually starts up with those text...They start reading the edited versions...and when they have all corrupt concepts with them...they argue and use those concepts in the argument..Some of them can prove to be true..because its a probability game of 50:50..but are we such big time idiots to believe on someone's theory blind foldedly, ignoring all the references given by ancient sages who possessed divine powers..?
The question need to be addressed..and I believe..it needs to be addressed even before any other discussion take place on this forum...I repeat it again, if we can't provide contextual reference to MOST of our logics, we are simply blotting the culture of astrology..!!!
