Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Houses in Divisional Charts/Shri Narasimha: To PVR

Expand Messages
  • Narasimha P.V.R. Rao
    Namaste Sundeep, Let me throw back the question to you: Did Parasara explicitly teach that houses should NOT be taken in navamsa? I never volunteered to offer
    Message 1 of 8 , Apr 27, 2005
      Namaste Sundeep,

      Let me throw back the question to you: Did Parasara explicitly teach that houses should NOT be taken in navamsa?

      I never volunteered to offer a proof that houses can be taken in navamsa.

      Given that a significant percentage of elders take houses in navamsa and Pradeep's position of NOT taking houses in navamsa is an extreme one, I'd place the burden of proof on him. He would need a strong reason to reject houses in navamsa. I have not seen any strong reasons presented. All I have seen is accusations of "deformed basics" of others and some incomprehensible points like "tampering" with planetary positions.

      If Saturn is in Libra in rasi chart, Saturn is exalted in rasi chart. If Saturn is in at 11 deg in Cancer, he is not in his exaltation sign. But we take Saturn to be exalted in navamsa (including Pradeep). That is because Saturn would be in Libra in navamsa and Libra is his exaltation sign.

      But if lagna is in Virgo in navamsa in this case and I say that Saturn is in the 2nd house from lagna in navamsa, he would object and say that these are not the same Virgo and Libra and I cannot tamper with them. He says that Saturn is actually in 10:00-13:20 in Cancer and not in Libra. But then, why can we take Saturn to be in Libra in navamsa for the purpose of checking exaltation in navamsa? If it is not the the same Libra, why take Saturn to be exalted there? Why is it "not the same Libra" for counting signs and "the same old Libra" for checking exaltation? I see totally inconsistent thinking and in fact don't get Pradeep's objections. With that kind of thinking, I am shocked that he has the guts to accuse others of "deformed basics".

      If Pradeep's point is that he will not take houses in navamsa because Parasara did not explicitly grant it, I can respect that view and move on. But he is making a lot of points to show why he is right and others have "deformed basics" and I am afraid I do not understand his points.

      BTW, if you want to stop taking exaltation signs etc in navamsa and other divisions, you will be in clear contradiction of Parasara, as he clearly mentioned exaltation in divisions. So that is not an option!

      I do not see any logical and consistent points in Pradeep's objection and hence cannot engage in a discussion with him. I have spent a lot of time on him this time and during previous times. In my judgment, it is a waste of my time to engage any further with him. If you understand his arguments, you please engage him.

      When I first made the point about twins, Pradeep said that lagna in divisions could be used to differentiate twins. When houses were not taken from lagna in divisions, I could not understand what he was saying. I was hoping he would explain how he would use lagna in divisions to distinguish between twins in the example I gave, but he has evaded it.

      You are welcome to draw your conclusions and use the approach that your intellect finds acceptable. But I argue that there is no way to distinguish between twins and closely born people without considering houses in navamsa and other divisions. I will not say that this is "proof" of my approach. But, to me, this is a motivation to stick to the approach taught bny tradition.

      Parasara did mention houses from the amsa of atma karaka and the amsa of lagna. It strongly suggests to me that houses can be taken in amsas. But, again, I want to clarify that I never offered a "proof".

      May Jupiter's light shine on us,
      Narasimha
      ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net
      Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org
      SJC website: http://www.SriJagannath.org
      ----------------------------------------------------------------

      > Dear PVR,
      > I would love to see this issue clarified. I think Vijayadas has
      > perhaps not clearly conveyed to you what he wants to say. He wants the
      > exact and unambiguous proof that Parashar instructs us to construct D-
      > n CHARTS. If Parasara says "see parents in Dwadasamsa", why is the
      > only logical possibility that you have to construct a new D-12 chart
      > in which you nominate the house 1 of the chart as the zodiacal sign
      > associated with the Dwadasamsa occupied by the Lagna in D-1 and use
      > that NEW chart's 4th and 9th houses? Why not simply consider strengths
      > and weaknesses of the D-1 chart's 4th and 9th house lords' Dwadasamsas?
      > All this confusion could be easily removed if you would show one place
      > in classical texts where it says effectively (for example) "construct
      > a Navamsha CHART by taking the zodiacal sign associated with the
      > Navamsha position of Lagna in Rasi chart and make that sign the first
      > house in the Navamsha CHART"... or some such thing. Otherwise, he (VP)
      > is correct (IMHO), it is not logically obvious from the 2 statements
      > you cite.
      >
      > Sundeep
      >
      > > Cancer is the 3rd sign from Taurus and hence the 3rd house. Whether
      > we are talking about rasi chart or navamsa chart, they are made up of
      > the same 12 signs and Cancer is the 3rd from Taurus in all. This is a
      > very simple and basic fact for me. If Parasara taught us to see
      > marriage in navamsa, education in D-24 etc, I cannot imagine how I can
      > see them without using houses. In fact, if I combine the two teachings
      > of Parasara that D-12 shows parents and the 4th and 9th houses show
      > mother and father, it implies to me that the 4th and 9th houses in the
      > chart showing parents (D-12) show mother and father and hence houses
      > in divisional charts are sanctioned.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • vijayadas_pradeep
      Dear Shri Sundeep Shri Narasimha is a Sanskrit scholar, but he cannot understand the meaning of amsha (a portion). He still opines, navamsha is same as rashi.
      Message 2 of 8 , Apr 28, 2005
        Dear Shri Sundeep
        Shri Narasimha is a Sanskrit scholar, but he cannot understand the
        meaning of amsha (a portion). He still opines, navamsha is same as
        rashi. Sage has clearly said - ''Now I will explain the various
        divisions of a rashi'' - Navamsha being the 1/9th part of a rashi. A
        planet can be in the amsha of its exaltation sign or in the amsha of
        a sign lorded by it or in the amsha of a sign which is in a quadrant
        from AL etc. As any sign, say Aries, can be further divided to have
        amshas lorded by various planets this is possible.What is the
        difficulty in understanding all these.Still i knew that shri
        Narasimha will not agree
        - thus I had quoted an elder called Kalyan varma. He clearly
        explains how a cancer within Aries can give results different from a
        cancer within Taurus for physique. As lagna is having a sphuta and
        navamsha is an arc of 3 degree 20 minutes, no one can physically
        relocate the lagna or navamsha. But still shri Narasimha cannot
        understand me.

        Bhava analysis is the very purpose of Jyotish. I have asked simple
        and elementary questions regarding bhavas. No answer. I expected
        Intellectual honesty. A party giving subjective interpretations has
        the morality and obligation to answer basic questions. The answer
        cannot be '' I never volunteered to offer a proof that houses can be
        taken in navamsa''.'' I'd place the burden of proof on Pradeep''.
        I have not proposed anything different from Parashara and hence no
        obligation/burden for me. But those who have proposed bhavas should
        also tell where to see the basic statements from Parashara.

        Out of all the questions shri Narasimha could see and understand
        only two words ''deform basics'' ''tampering''. Is this fair? I
        would request for the last time - to kindly address my questions, if
        he consider appropriate.
        Shri Narasimha wants concrete proof - All my questions are self
        explanatory and if he attempts them the proof will unfold. What
        other concrete proof he needs - he has to make it clear, so that I
        can try.

        Else I can only conclude the following ''Not understanding ''
        and ''Do not wanting to understand'' are two different things.

        Thanks
        Pradeep

        --- In JyotishGroup@yahoogroups.com, "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao"
        <pvr@c...> wrote:
        > Namaste Sundeep,
        >
        > Let me throw back the question to you: Did Parasara explicitly
        teach that houses should NOT be taken in navamsa?
        >
        > I never volunteered to offer a proof that houses can be taken in
        navamsa.
        >
        > Given that a significant percentage of elders take houses in
        navamsa and Pradeep's position of NOT taking houses in navamsa is an
        extreme one, I'd place the burden of proof on him. He would need a
        strong reason to reject houses in navamsa. I have not seen any
        strong reasons presented. All I have seen is accusations
        of "deformed basics" of others and some incomprehensible points
        like "tampering" with planetary positions.
        >
        > If Saturn is in Libra in rasi chart, Saturn is exalted in rasi
        chart. If Saturn is in at 11 deg in Cancer, he is not in his
        exaltation sign. But we take Saturn to be exalted in navamsa
        (including Pradeep). That is because Saturn would be in Libra in
        navamsa and Libra is his exaltation sign.
        >
        > But if lagna is in Virgo in navamsa in this case and I say that
        Saturn is in the 2nd house from lagna in navamsa, he would object
        and say that these are not the same Virgo and Libra and I cannot
        tamper with them. He says that Saturn is actually in 10:00-13:20 in
        Cancer and not in Libra. But then, why can we take Saturn to be in
        Libra in navamsa for the purpose of checking exaltation in navamsa?
        If it is not the the same Libra, why take Saturn to be exalted
        there? Why is it "not the same Libra" for counting signs and "the
        same old Libra" for checking exaltation? I see totally inconsistent
        thinking and in fact don't get Pradeep's objections. With that kind
        of thinking, I am shocked that he has the guts to accuse others
        of "deformed basics".
        >
        > If Pradeep's point is that he will not take houses in navamsa
        because Parasara did not explicitly grant it, I can respect that
        view and move on. But he is making a lot of points to show why he is
        right and others have "deformed basics" and I am afraid I do not
        understand his points.
        >
        > BTW, if you want to stop taking exaltation signs etc in navamsa
        and other divisions, you will be in clear contradiction of Parasara,
        as he clearly mentioned exaltation in divisions. So that is not an
        option!
        >
        > I do not see any logical and consistent points in Pradeep's
        objection and hence cannot engage in a discussion with him. I have
        spent a lot of time on him this time and during previous times. In
        my judgment, it is a waste of my time to engage any further with
        him. If you understand his arguments, you please engage him.
        >
        > When I first made the point about twins, Pradeep said that lagna
        in divisions could be used to differentiate twins. When houses were
        not taken from lagna in divisions, I could not understand what he
        was saying. I was hoping he would explain how he would use lagna in
        divisions to distinguish between twins in the example I gave, but he
        has evaded it.
        >
        > You are welcome to draw your conclusions and use the approach that
        your intellect finds acceptable. But I argue that there is no way to
        distinguish between twins and closely born people without
        considering houses in navamsa and other divisions. I will not say
        that this is "proof" of my approach. But, to me, this is a
        motivation to stick to the approach taught bny tradition.
        >
        > Parasara did mention houses from the amsa of atma karaka and the
        amsa of lagna. It strongly suggests to me that houses can be taken
        in amsas. But, again, I want to clarify that I never offered
        a "proof".
        >
        > May Jupiter's light shine on us,
        > Narasimha
        > ----------------------------------------------------------------
        > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net
        > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org
        > SJC website: http://www.SriJagannath.org
        > ----------------------------------------------------------------
        >
        > > Dear PVR,
        > > I would love to see this issue clarified. I think Vijayadas has
        > > perhaps not clearly conveyed to you what he wants to say. He
        wants the
        > > exact and unambiguous proof that Parashar instructs us to
        construct D-
        > > n CHARTS. If Parasara says "see parents in Dwadasamsa", why is
        the
        > > only logical possibility that you have to construct a new D-12
        chart
        > > in which you nominate the house 1 of the chart as the zodiacal
        sign
        > > associated with the Dwadasamsa occupied by the Lagna in D-1 and
        use
        > > that NEW chart's 4th and 9th houses? Why not simply consider
        strengths
        > > and weaknesses of the D-1 chart's 4th and 9th house lords'
        Dwadasamsas?
        > > All this confusion could be easily removed if you would show one
        place
        > > in classical texts where it says effectively (for
        example) "construct
        > > a Navamsha CHART by taking the zodiacal sign associated with the
        > > Navamsha position of Lagna in Rasi chart and make that sign the
        first
        > > house in the Navamsha CHART"... or some such thing. Otherwise,
        he (VP)
        > > is correct (IMHO), it is not logically obvious from the 2
        statements
        > > you cite.
        > >
        > > Sundeep
        > >
        > > > Cancer is the 3rd sign from Taurus and hence the 3rd house.
        Whether
        > > we are talking about rasi chart or navamsa chart, they are made
        up of
        > > the same 12 signs and Cancer is the 3rd from Taurus in all. This
        is a
        > > very simple and basic fact for me. If Parasara taught us to see
        > > marriage in navamsa, education in D-24 etc, I cannot imagine how
        I can
        > > see them without using houses. In fact, if I combine the two
        teachings
        > > of Parasara that D-12 shows parents and the 4th and 9th houses
        show
        > > mother and father, it implies to me that the 4th and 9th houses
        in the
        > > chart showing parents (D-12) show mother and father and hence
        houses
        > > in divisional charts are sanctioned.
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.