Guest guest Posted April 24, 2001 Report Share Posted April 24, 2001 Namaste Wendy, You wrote: >The posts listing all those who have Rahu as AtmaKaraka is again extremely >misleading as it (once again) pre-supposes that this is correct. > >Regards >Wendy The exact scriptural quote is as follows: "O Best of the Brahmanas, the planet after the Atmakaraka is called the Amatya karaka. That next to the Amatya karaka is the Bhratri karaka. That next to the Bhratri karaka is the Matri karaka. That next to the Matri karaka is the Pitri karaka, and then there is the Putra karaka. After that there is the Jnati karaka, and then, without doubt we have the Dara karaka." (BPHS 32:13-14) Now, in this verse Parasara spells out the karakas in order, and there are 8 in all. Since there are seven planets, what would become the 8th karaka if you did not use Rahu? So we are not presupposing that Rahu *could* become the Atmakaraka, we are accepting this as true based upon the statements of Parasara himself. If you do not accept this particular translation of BPHS as correct (Sharma translation), then which one do you consider to be a better translation? I ask this, because you requested Pursottam to give scriptural quotes to back up what he was saying, which is what he did. Best wishes, Robert ===================================== Robert A. Koch, Vedic Astrologer 760 NW Broken Arrow Rd. Bend, OR. 97701-9037 Phone: 541-318-0248 visit <http://www.robertkoch.com> or e-mail rk. rk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2001 Report Share Posted April 24, 2001 Thank you for that Robert, However quoting directly from BPHS: "The sage (Parashara) also suggests a school of thought which considers only seven significators, treating MatruKaraka and PutraKaraka as identical. This section thus counts only 7 Karakas....... I reiterate Robert, it's open to interpretation...I trust we can agree to disagree amicably. Best Regards Wendy You wrote: ========== Namaste Wendy, The exact scriptural quote is as follows: "O Best of the Brahmanas, the planet after the Atmakaraka is called the Amatya karaka. That next to the Amatya karaka is the Bhratri karaka. That next to the Bhratri karaka is the Matri karaka. That next to the Matri karaka is the Pitri karaka, and then there is the Putra karaka. After that there is the Jnati karaka, and then, without doubt we have the Dara karaka." (BPHS 32:13-14) Now, in this verse Parasara spells out the karakas in order, and there are 8 in all. Since there are seven planets, what would become the 8th karaka if you did not use Rahu? So we are not presupposing that Rahu *could* become the Atmakaraka, we are accepting this as true based upon the statements of Parasara himself. If you do not accept this particular translation of BPHS as correct (Sharma translation), then which one do you consider to be a better translation? I ask this, because you requested Pursottam to give scriptural quotes to back up what he was saying, which is what he did. Best wishes, Robert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2001 Report Share Posted April 25, 2001 Dear Wendy, I for one also conform to the seven Karaka scheme and if we work upto seconds, there wont even be a confusion when two planets assume exactly the same longitude. So I take only Seven Karakas and they work well for me. regards, Manoj _______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2001 Report Share Posted April 25, 2001 Om Krishnaaya Namah Hi Wendy, Thanks for your mails. While I accept that a lot of issues in the scriptures are open to interpretation, in this matter, I think Parashara and Jaimini both make themselves very clear. Firstly... > However quoting directly from BPHS: "The sage (Parashara) also suggests a > school of thought which considers only seven significators, treating > MatruKaraka and PutraKaraka as identical. This section thus counts only 7 > Karakas....... > Rather than "The Sage (Parashara)...", which essentially sounds like a commentary, Sharma has the translation down as "Some other astrologers...". This seems logical considering two factors. Firstly, Parashara has already given the order in detail. But more importantly, in the Raja Yoga chapter, Parashara clearly refers to the Putra karaka. The actual compounded words he uses are "aatmakaarakaputraabhyaam..." (BPHS 39:4). There is no room for ambiguity here, as He clearly names the karaka, rather than giving it's number in the scheme or whatever. So whilst he acknowledges that some consider the seven karaka scheme, he very clearly also offers his own opinion, which is that the eight karaka scheme including Rahu should be used. Also, even among those who use the seven karaka scheme, it is the Pitri karaka which is omitted, rather than the Putra karaka. So really, there is no (shastric) justification for the seven karaka scheme as is usually practised today. Secondly, while it is a well-known fact that the Jaimini Sutra's are probably one of the most difficult texts to understand in the vast array of Jyotish-Shastras due to the fact that they are written in condensed sutras, they are also extremely clear when it comes to the karaka's issue. Jaimini says "tasya maataa" (JS 1:1:14), "tasya pitaa" (JS 1:1:15) "tasya putrah" (JS 1:1:16). Then the mother. Then the father. Then the son. There is no scope for ambiguity whatsoever. So, of the eighteen ancient authorities on Jyotish, the two foremost, Parashara and Jaimini, both are extremely clear in their opinion that the eight karaka scheme is valid. So in this case, the opinion of the two Sages is not open to interpretation. Thanks, Pursottam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2001 Report Share Posted April 25, 2001 Hello Pursottam, Just very briefly here Pursottam as this debate is threatening to turn into an argument, and I think we've already had enough of those... In my version of BPHS translation and commentary by R. SANTHANAM, Chapter 32: verses 13-17 (Volume 1: page 319), the commentary clearly states: The SAGE also suggests...... Regards Wendy Om Krishnaaya Namah Hi Wendy, Thanks for your mails. While I accept that a lot of issues in the scriptures are open to interpretation, in this matter, I think Parashara and Jaimini both make themselves very clear. Firstly... > However quoting directly from BPHS: "The sage (Parashara) also suggests a > school of thought which considers only seven significators, treating > MatruKaraka and PutraKaraka as identical. This section thus counts only 7 > Karakas....... > Rather than "The Sage (Parashara)...", which essentially sounds like a commentary, Sharma has the translation down as "Some other astrologers...". This seems logical considering two factors. Firstly, Parashara has already given the order in detail. But more importantly, in the Raja Yoga chapter, Parashara clearly refers to the Putra karaka. The actual compounded words he uses are "aatmakaarakaputraabhyaam..." (BPHS 39:4). There is no room for ambiguity here, as He clearly names the karaka, rather than giving it's number in the scheme or whatever. So whilst he acknowledges that some consider the seven karaka scheme, he very clearly also offers his own opinion, which is that the eight karaka scheme including Rahu should be used. Also, even among those who use the seven karaka scheme, it is the Pitri karaka which is omitted, rather than the Putra karaka. So really, there is no (shastric) justification for the seven karaka scheme as is usually practised today. Secondly, while it is a well-known fact that the Jaimini Sutra's are probably one of the most difficult texts to understand in the vast array of Jyotish-Shastras due to the fact that they are written in condensed sutras, they are also extremely clear when it comes to the karaka's issue. Jaimini says "tasya maataa" (JS 1:1:14), "tasya pitaa" (JS 1:1:15) "tasya putrah" (JS 1:1:16). Then the mother. Then the father. Then the son. There is no scope for ambiguity whatsoever. So, of the eighteen ancient authorities on Jyotish, the two foremost, Parashara and Jaimini, both are extremely clear in their opinion that the eight karaka scheme is valid. So in this case, the opinion of the two Sages is not open to interpretation. Thanks, Pursottam gjlist- Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2001 Report Share Posted April 26, 2001 Good Manoj! You (we) are in good company as many accomplished jyotishis conform to this system...of course others are free to follow the 8 karaka scheme, and shouldn't be condemned for doing so. I raise my objections when I see them attempting to flaunt the superiority of their interpretation. We're all jyotishis and we all read from the same books...there should be no superiority, no self-made gurus proclaiming they have superior knowledge. Regards Wendy You wrote: ========== Dear Wendy, I for one also conform to the seven Karaka scheme and if we work upto seconds, there wont even be a confusion when two planets assume exactly the same longitude. So I take only Seven Karakas and they work well for me. regards, Manoj _______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. gjlist- Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.