> 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.
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,