KSY Shani SS and BVB (KNRao) position!...... and arising from it

[Rohiniranjan]

My comments inserted in red-font.

...

Dada,

What I meant by human factor has been explained well by votive at the below quoted post. I am sorry I could not explain it (thanks votive!!) better....communication skills after all.

Regarding single factor both of us understand it quite well, I am sure.
Difference lies in our way of explaining the single factor ,and perceiving its importance.

Being resonably mature astrologers both of us know how to deal with it.

Rishi

*Maturity* could be a human self-perceived illusion, Rishi! Why bring those into this discussion! We don't want the dozing 'coffee-paav bhaji' brigade waking up and demanding more coffee, etc., do we! <LOL>

But seriously, what Votive was referring to has been responded to by me in my response to him. You probably will get to read that, when you have time.

If I may...

As I understand Rishiji is trying to communicate that individual jyotish readings is a rather intimate act between the Jyotishi and the reader. Many of the institutions which are collating and applying data analysis to charts is on the basis of publicly known events about the nativity (I will not even term them as facts).
To illustrate, a person may have had enormous success in career or reputation or finances but his/her relationships may have been at a nadir in the same period, so if the jyotishi knows that person and his life very well, he/she will have a different take than if he/she is watching from a distance and another take if he/she does not even personally know the native. That I think is the 'human' factor in interpreting.

Votive

[Rohiniranjan]

Fact of the matter is that we all (okay, most of us!) have an inherent tendency to oversimplify things. A good strategy to aid our learning and so classify, categorize, pigeon hole things. We astrologers (young or old, newbie or seasoned) often try to do that to intangibles. Perception is a nice word which we all immediately feel we know, which is a great illusion! Maybe some do, but we are rather immature souls at this time, hence we experience negative emotions, express negativity, the world looks like a hell-hole one day and bright and cheery the other day. We perceive whatever we perceive, and emotions get stirred up and so on.

I do not fully understand the ins and outs of this thing called 'perception', so instinctively accepting something like perception as being tied to a planet or house, original or derived (BBhavam, pada) as the KEY has been something that instinctively feels not complete. The same thing about other single isolated factors used or at least taught in modern astrology.

Hence, my personal discomfort which I express as questions. Not to make anyone uncomfortable, or to insult or offend their teacher or other senior folks in the field. I want everyone to understand that!

The entire framework of Jyotish seems to reflect or corroborate that my instincts are right! We see the same thing (even tangibles) from many houses, many vargas, many karakas, and so on and so forth. The composite, I believe, represents our perception and other intangibles too. However, even then the picture we acquire is neither complete or even comprehensive!

Essential for learning, of course, but at some point we must really resist this tendency to embrace and getting enamoured by this tendency to oversimplify, categorically classify things.

That is all.

Love and Light in ALL SERIOUSNESS

Rohiniranjan

[RishiRahul]

Sorry to intrude. BPHS is very clear about the function of Arudha. There is no classical support in any ancient text about Arudha being related to perceptions.  "Arudha is about perceptions"  is a modern invention. Maayaa versus Satya is also a modern invention, and this line of thinking is diametrically opposite to Vedic-Puranic philosophy which regards both This Worls as well as the Perceptions about This World as Maayaa, Satya is the pure Atman.
Rishi= Well, I do not remember what bphs mentioned about Arudhas exactly, but certainly I do find the Arudha Lagna brightening a certain perception of people.... through practical application.
I wonder if it is a 'modern invention' or 'modern derivation'?
Whatever one may choose to call it, do you think its nonsense/not true in application
Books like bphs spoke in riddles many times. Some others made their own efforts to interpret.
World is not maya but driven by Maya is my view; but this is not the point/context of this thread.
Did bphs mention that Al is the paka lagna of paka lagna, and what this can mean. Everything may not be limited to bphs.
Modernists can give a lot of different views/explanations,; many of which may be marketing, sometimes true sometimes not.
There can be many aspects to a truth.



According to BPHS, Arudha has two functions : its main role is about the MEANS through which the Bhaava gives its fruits, and its secondary role is that it helps or retards the magnitude of the fruit of its Bhaava depending on the conditions of the Arudha. For instance, if 11H in the Arudha of Lagna is malefic , then the source of income will be unethical : this is the CHIEF  function of Arudha. But if the 11H of Arudha Lagna is strong, then the fruit of 11H of Lagna chart will be further strengthened in magnitude of income too.
"Pada" in Sanskrit means "means" to attain some goal. That is why it denotes FOOT also, because foot or step is needed to reach somewhere. There, Pada in astrology means the characteristics of MEANS  through which results of a bhaava are attained. This view is based on BPHS.
Rishi= These mentioned are very much true, and is this out of tune with Al being related to perceptions?

VJ

Rishi

This thread was about KSY and Sadhe Saati, but I am forced to post the following reply against my wishes (because I am being asked to) :

> "I do not remember what bphs mentioned about Arudhas"

It is not possible to remember everything in BPHS or in other texts. But it is easy to consult BPHS before answering, more so because its English commentary and Sanskrit text is freely available online. Unwillingness to consult BPHS before answering means BPHS is not valued as a basic text by you. This conclusion is supported by your next statement :
Rishi=I know it is easy to consult bphs as its on line & in my library too. I am not much of a reader nowadays ; of course bphs was my base, but not my bible at present as you also mentioned that its not an encyclopaedia. Though even now one cannot deny that it is the base base in Vedic astrology. Thus everything/aspect may not be mentioned there.
My view is not refuted by bphs.

> "Did bphs mention that Al is the paka lagna of paka lagna, and what this can mean. Everything may not be limited to bphs."

BPHS is not the encyclopaedia of everything. But unwilling to consult the view of BPHS before arguing on fundamentals of Vedic Jyotisha is not good. I did not expect such a view from you, because I found you to be democratic, open-minded and scientifically tempered. BPHS and many other ancient texts contain interpolations, and nothing in ancient texts should be accepted without careful examination. But if some theory is expounded against the classics, we must be similarly careful.
Rishi=No did not feel the need to then. Not unwillingness exactly. I guess I should have ideally, but with you around who regularly consults bphs I did not. Maybe felt that bphs not being an encyclopedia may not have that included.
Certain understanding comes through experience/understanding.

As regards the details in Jaimini Sutras, some moderners have propagated that Jaimini advocated a different system than BPHS. Jaimini was the chief disciple of Parashara' Ji's son, and Jaimini Sutra detailed those aspects which were summarily dealt in BPHS. There were far more exhaustive texts which have not survived, and some of them are kept in private collections by selfish astrologers who neither understand them nor want others to read those works of sages.
Rishi=Which is why, after reading it a few times earlier, I probably did not feel the need to consult.

Thirdly, Two thirds of BPHS have been lost.
Rishi=lost in history. And so many quarrel about facts as if nothing is lost... unfortunate.


> "do you think its nonsense/not true in application"

Yes, mental perceptions are linked with not Lagna's pada charts but with Chandra Kundali and its pada charts. Lagna is not Mind but Physical existence. Moreover, perception is an ever-changing , subjective and vague term. When astrologers are fighting over basic OBJECTIVE facts, it is useless to argue about SUBJECTIVE perceptions.
Rishi=Chandra kundali gives a different perception. Any way, you dont believe it. Which is okay as beliefs are based on experience. Nor should we impose beliefs on each other.

Leave aside arguments and references, my experience does not permit me to accept the perception hypothesis.
Rishi= Arguments & references are important. Experience through practical research creates beliefs. This is justifiable.

> "Books like bphs spoke in riddles many times. Some others made their own efforts to interpret."

BPHS has few riddles, Jaimini has more, due to the sutra (=formula) style of Jaimini.  Every astrologer has a right to interpret, but with proper references, case studies, and logic. Proponents of Perception Theory are prejudiced, because they deliberately neglect the traditional theory and put forth their own hypothesis only. It is good marketing (of ideas), but bad astrology.
Rishi=Marketing of ideas are important in this age. Ideas need to be marketed to be publicised, shared, brought to the open for sighting. We open our websites right.
When parts of bphs has been lost, it is expected to talk incomplete. Incompleteness and or not regular form of writing can seem like riddles.

> "World is not maya but driven by Maya is my view; but this is not the point/context of this thread."

There are countless persons who regard this world as Truth. But this view is not VEDIC. Vedic Astrology must not oppose the Vedic view. The last verse of Yajurveda is the foundation of Vedaanta (anta of Veda) ; it explicitly states :
'This golden (=attractive) world of senses is the lid which hides Truth, and Truth is the Purusha which is same in me as in the Sun-God.'
Rishi= Though I mentioned about Maya, as you did a first; I also mentioned that this is not the context of what spoken.
Such philosophical views can be easily disturbed.

You or me deserve the right to propound our views, but not in the name of some ancient philosophy. Vedic Astrology cannot go against Vedic Thought.
Rishi= I do not understand this; so not qualified to comment. My inferences are from the charts. I wouldnt go deeper into philosophy to understand charts. And also my understanding of charts are not limited to vedic but what works.

> "These mentioned are very much true, and is this out of tune with Al being related to perceptions?"

Yes. Perception is reflection of Reality in the mind. The reflection may be correct or distorted, sometimes even merely a hallucination. Creating an astrological theory about mental perceptions by those who are debating for decades on ayanamshas and other basics is nothing but wastage of time.
Rishi=At the end we find astute astrologers of older than now following different ayanamsas as we are also.
Maybe everyone of us following certain ayanamsas are also hallucinations of the mind,.. but a perception that works.

Mind must be studied through Moon and its charts. This view is not my invention, but age old ASTROLOGICAL  wisdom.  
Rishi= Did I mention it was your invention?

Today I am starting a new article about Upapada at my site. I had worked on it years ago, but did not write on it because astrologers are happy with misinterpretations (about things which they do not even test)  and do not feel the need to test alternative ideas. How many astrologers use Pada and Upapada in actual chart readings ? If someone does not use these things, how he/she can gain any experience ? I am posting my report with many case studies, in summarised form.
Rishi=That would be a lovely read..! Waiting....yes.

Your present views are welcome, but you must comment on BPHS or on other texts after consulting. Whenever my memory fails, I consult the relevant books before writing.
Rishi=Thanks! I should read more and be less impatient.

I have tested BPHS theory about padas for many years, hence I know this traditional theory is correct. As for perception hypothesis, I can only say that a vague and subjective term like perception should not be used to counter age-old theories of classics. Most of your clients cannot properly recall their real perceptions at the time of events in their lives, because perception is an ephemeral airy thing changing its nature before we catch it. We ought to deal with perception cautiously.
Rishi=Traditional theories of bphs should be correct/are correct.
By the way, I am not countering the traditional theory at all.
Even if we deal with perception cautiously... yes we should... but cannot deny that it exists whether we like it or not.

VJ

Appended above,

Rishi

[RishiRahul]

Dada,

I ammended, rather modified the header of this thread, as I could not find any 'cut off ' post point.

Rishi

[Rohiniranjan]

Dada,

I ammended, rather modified the header of this thread, as I could not find any 'cut off ' post point.

Rishi

An old agreement of mine with myself. Once I share a thought, viewpoint publicly or during a meeting (when I worked), the cat is out of the sack and the thought, idea etc then becomes shared and public property. Whether people read it, like it, hate it, believe what I said, disbelieve what I said, preserve it, destroy it, distort it, change it, I do not worry about that (general statement, am not particularly worried about that ever happening on this forum but lately many mirror sites have been popping up which somehow (robots, crawlers, key-grabbers, spiders and all those creations of naughty programming geniuses!) swipe stuff off yahoo groups etc and create mirror sites. If they can do that, they can change the presentation, thoughts and ideas too!). This has kept me sane and calm  :smt020

Though my interpretations may be somewhat different from others, of classics or whatever, I am not creating a parallel system or paddhati or ever was interested in. The sages have given us so much, that despite its possible partial mutilation (quite plausible over the millennia), so much has remained that can keep the astro-community searching and researching and learning for a few lifetimes for sure.

I do not want to be a renegade (not enough renegade yogas in my chart!) and so what I cannot change realistically, like human attitudes and natural calamities, or control over -- I do not worry or lose sleep over those!  :smt020

Love and Light and Shanti!

Rohiniranjan