Interpretation and Application

[Guest guest]

Wendy wrote,

 

At 10:53 AM 5/2/01 +0800, you wrote:

>Dear Robert,

>

>Perhaps the problem is not with Jaimini, but with those interpreting Jaimini

>:-)

>

>Best Regards

>Wendy

 

No, this is incorrect. It is not a matter of interpretation, it is a

matter of *application* of the classical principles that need to be

researched. The sutras themselves are clear - with a little knowledge of

Sanskrit, you can understand them. In addition, we have the commentaries

by contemporary scholars such as Sharma, Raman, Shastri, Rath, and others

who put the principles in clear language. The job of the astrologer, is to

research the classical dicta, and not just reject them because they may not

work in only one chart. Your approach, is to try something new on your

chart, and if it doesn't seem to work, then to reject the principle. This

does not honor the sages or classical tradition, and furthermore

discourages a positive investigation into a the broad range of techniques

in Jyotish.

 

Further, Jyotish, and astrology in general, is a probabilistic science, not

a deterministic one. That means that you will not get 100% accurate

results, no matter what principles you apply, or not matter who the

astrologer is. As Manoj very correctly stated, if you were to get 100%

correct results all the time, there would be no need for astrology, because

you have suddenly become God. So what I encourage astrologers to do, is to

take *a minimum* of 10 charts, and research the applicability or otherwise

of a particular interpretive system. Then we can see if it is worth

implementing or not. But to reject something, and consider its use

"misleading" just because you found it inapplicable in only one chart, is a

gross oversight and is in itself truly misleading. So no, it isn't

interpretation we are after - that has already been done by the leading

scholars of our time. *Your* job is to demonstrate a fair and unbiased

research with any and all areas of Jyotish, in due deference to the sages

and guru lineage from which they originate.

 

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

[Guest guest]

Robert A. Koch wrote:

 

> The sutras themselves are clear - with a little knowledge of

> Sanskrit, you can understand them. In addition, we have the commentaries

> by contemporary scholars such as Sharma, Raman, Shastri, Rath, and others

> who put the principles in clear language.

 

 

Dear Robert,

 

I am sceptical about this. At school I had to learn sanskrit, but it was weird.

In those days, except in very special "sanskrit schools" the language was hardly

taught, only dealt with! It was never taught as a language one could use to

communicate. We learned a set of root words, memorized declensions and

conjugations. We had to translate some very simple passages and sentences.

 

The main teaching lay in the study of a chapter or so from some Kalidasa, Bhasa

etc. with the commentaries of Mallinatha etc. The very fact that even in those

days, when classical sanskrit was still in vogue as the literary language of

scholars and the elite (common people seem to have spoken prakrit!), one needed

lengthy commentaries for literature meant for public "entertainment", shows how

difficult interpretation was. Even in a living language like English,

Shakespeare, after 400 years, cannot be understood fully without commentaries.

But these commentaries, written later, only give the commentator´s

interpretation: Shakespeare has not confirmed that they truly reflect his

thoughts!

 

We are now reading books written thousands of years ago. The syntax of sanskrit

is by no means certain, the punctuation even less. Pithy aphorisms and couplets

are made up, juggling the words to suit syllabic rhyme and metre, not always

following the thought process. Often the verb is implied. When various

conditions for a yoga are given, one is not always sure of the grouping: if a

series of "or" factors are followed by an "and" one cannot say if the "and"

applies only to the last or to all. Also situations like "The Greeks the Romans

conquer!" can easily arise!

 

The modern translators and commentators differ in their interpretations. So the

language is not all that clear.

 

One must remember that the vedic/sanskrit tradition was killed about 1200 years

ago and replaced by an islamic Arabic/turkmenish culture, followed by

christian/British period. The religious scriptures and literature were kept

alive to some extent, but the sastras - the scientific books - were rarely used.

Both astrology and ayurveda were practised by only a few. Even my mother used to

go to a moslem hakim, not to a vaidya, though we were brahmins! (I had sit for

hours covered all over with strange-smelling pastes of herbs etc. Not nice for a

young boy!)

 

Those who liked literature learned the language through their own effort, to

enjoy Kalidasa. But the religious-minded hardly ever tried to understand what

was written. Like catholics repeating the rosary in Latin, without understanding

one word of it, they learned the script and metre, could often recite from

memory. Reading the gita in 3 days, or cantos of the epics in 10 days etc. were

rituals to get moksha, recovering lost valuables and so on. Sometimes they did

it at home, or a group would organize it: a pundit would read aloud, the rest

repeat. Mosrly the pundit translated each verse, but the audience/participators

wouldn´t recognize the meaning if they read the same verses again!

 

Some of the best "scholars" in Sanskrit - perhaps most of the best - are

Scandinavians!!! They can discourse, converse, write letters, give lectures in

sanskrit, which very few in India can.

 

The reason I am writing at this length is this: I have often pleaded for

research. Many have thought I was challenging the great teachers. I was not! I

was only saying, "Have you really understood them?" Ramanuja lived about a 100

years ago, went to a well-known guru. The guru translated "pundarikaksha" as

referring to God having eyes red as the buttocks of a female monkey! Ramanuja

rightly left him, and told him it meant "eyes as lovely as a lotus".

 

Years ago there was a controversy in a magazine for ancient matters regarding a

tradition about how some "pre-historic" king got his gold: "digger-ants"

brought it for him..... Stupid, of course. But then someone found a palm leaf

dictionary which gave the right meaning: it was slang for miners, for they

worked like ants, standing in a row, each handing over a basket of ore to the

next till it came out of the mine and was collected in a heap. A practical way

to get the ore out with least effort!

 

Your words "with a little knowledge" make me feel a bit uncomfortable!

Alexander Pope once coined a proverb, "little knowledge is a dangerous thing!"

and it is very true. With much knowledge one realizes that one does not know

everything. But with "little" knowledge, one believes that one knows everything,

or at least "enough". The former situation tells you to be careful, the latter

lets you fall into one pit after the other!

 

 

The rest of your mail underlines what I say too! But this means: don´t rely too

much on the available translations. Try to learn more sanskrit and read the

original text yourself, see if it has ambiguities and uncertain meanings, try to

solve these by DISCUSSION with sanskrit scholars, not by prejudice or first

impression!... And please don´t take things too literally - the old mnemonics

and myths were symbolical only. Surya did not have oral sex with a mare, but the

vulgar story has a big scientific truth behind it.

 

Regards

Mani

[Guest guest]

Dear Mani,

 

Namaste -

 

You wrote:

 

>Your words "with a little knowledge" make me feel a bit uncomfortable!

>Alexander Pope once coined a proverb, "little knowledge is a dangerous

>thing!"

>and it is very true. With much knowledge one realizes that one does not know

>everything. But with "little" knowledge, one believes that one knows

>everything,

>or at least "enough". The former situation tells you to be careful, the

>latter

>lets you fall into one pit after the other!

 

I agree with your point of view, and have read everything your wrote

carefully. I think what you are confusing here is the English terminology

of "a little knowledge". This does not mean that one necessarily has

*little* knowledge, but that it is necessary to have knowledge on subject

in order to go deeper into it. There are subtleties in the English

vernacular, that foreign persons, even having learned English, do not

understand.

 

Anyway, granted, my knowledge of Sanskrit is not that extensive, yet

whenever I quote it, I am certain of the meaning. Many of the sutras in

Jaimini are very clear, whereas others are not so clear. For example, on

the subject of 7 or 8 karakas, when Jaimini grants a possible alternative

to the 8 karaka scheme which he favors (and he echoes what Parasara wrote

also), he gives 7 karakas. Now, by doing this, there has to be a merging

of two of the karakas into one. So the sage says "saha mata-putram eke",

meaning obviously that Matri and Putra karakas are made one, not Pitri and

Bhratri, which is the practise of some astrologers. Also, in Jataka

Parijata, with reference to aspects of Rahu, there is the statement, "Ravi

Rahu-drishti, or Rahu aspects the Sun in some situations, and "Kuja-rahu

drishti", both of which indications are clear. So if I quote something, I

am certain of what it means, otherwise I do not quote it.

 

Anyway, the whole point of what I wrote, was that the classical

methodologies need to be researched. This, I believe, is what you are

needing too - to see evidence of something being taught, illustrated in

actual charts. I, for example, demonstrated to Manoj, how the 4th house

ruled a particular kind of education in my case, and not the 5th

house. That was just one example, but to be clear, we need

more. Hopefully God will grant time and energy to complete this research,

but in any case, this is indeed my orientation.

 

Coming back to Sanskrit: Truly, the Vedic way of understanding is as per

the Bhagavad-gita: "Evam parampara praptam", Bg. 4.2, meaning that in order

to enter into the meaning of the shastras and sutras, one should hear such

knowledge through guru lineage. I rely on my Jyotish guru, Pt. Sanjay

Rath, for my understanding of Jyotish, whenever there is something I do not

understand. But it is not blind faith either - once the principles are

explained by the guru, then the student applies them in actual

practice. One should not whimsically accept a guru either. The disciple

should scrutinize the former first, and they ask for confirmation from

within the heart from the Chetah guru (indwelling God) if this person is

fit to be the guru. Without accepting knowledge as instructed by an actual

guru coming in the guru varga, and without applying the teachings in

practice, one will be lost in trying to understanding the meaning of the

Sanskrit sutras. It is said that trying to cross the ocean of nescience,

or darkness, without knowledge received from a proper guru, is like trying

to swim across the ocean by holding onto to the tail of a dog. It can't

be done. So far as scholars are concerned, well, their knowledge such as

the Scandinavians you talk about is impressive, but can they cross beyond

the veil of Maya (illusion) with such knowledge? This marks the line in

the sand between who simply has memorized the language, and who has

received specific empowerment in his understanding through the guru

parampara.

 

>The rest of your mail underlines what I say too! But this means: don´t

>rely too

>much on the available translations. Try to learn more sanskrit and read the

>original text yourself, see if it has ambiguities and uncertain meanings,

>try to

>solve these by DISCUSSION with sanskrit scholars, not by prejudice or first

>impression!... And please don´t take things too literally - the old mnemonics

>and myths were symbolical only. Surya did not have oral sex with a mare,

>but the

>vulgar story has a big scientific truth behind it.

 

I appreciate your views. Again, however, my belief is that due respect to

the guru parampara needs to be paid, however, in the transmission of

knowledge. It is not a matter of prejudice, it is a matter of Sravanam, or

hearing, and respect for those for whom one has deemed as having higher

knowledge. Higher dimensional truths cannot be speculated upon - they have

to be illuminated. This is the key, according to Sri Krsna who also says

this: "Tad viddhi pranipatena, pariprashnena sevaya....Jnaninas tattva

darshinah". The guru, who is illuminated, can impart the truth to the

disciple who inquires submissively. Trying to get the nectar, or essence

of truth by speculation, is like trying to get milk from the nipples of a

goat. The goat's nipples may resemble the real thing, but they fool you in

the long run.

 

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

[Guest guest]

Dear Robert,

 

I will have to agree with the things Mani said in his note and add some of

my views too. These thoughts may not necessarily be right from your

perspective, as are all "conflicting" perceptions of reality that are

incomplete or not "Poorna".

 

Sanskrit is a language of great flexibility and the ancient seers have used

it to their greatest advantage. I have been a student of the language since

my childhood, not to say that the number of years of study gives me any

superiority over anyone else, but to point out my familiarity with the

language. The more I study this language, the humbler I have become with the

recognition of my past ignorance. Anyone professing to be certain of the

meanings embodied by a sanskrit verse, in my mind has not really begun to

see the immense knowledge packed in those words, just like a huge Aswatta

tree being contained in a small seed. The meanings grow as the "listener"

grows. The meanings stop growing as soon as complacency sets in.

 

For example, even the words "parampara" can be interpreted as "Supreme of

the supreme" (in other words the Supreme Lord) and may not necessarily mean

a succession of gurus. You may note that in the same verse Krishna says that

Knowledge of yogas were lost. ("sa kaleneha mahataa yogo nashta:

paramtapa"). If one were to depend on a succession of gurus and Knowledge

has a propensity to be lost in such lineages as time goes on, the only

redemption for the world is to go back to the Supreme Source.

 

As far as Sutras go...attempts in writing translations and commentaries only

limit the meaning embodied by them. The layers of meaning, similar to the

layers of an onion, are almost infinite, understandable only thorough

perseverant search. And, at times, the meanings gleaned may even seem

apparently contradictory and cause arguments and fights. ...similar to the

"blind men's visit to see an elephant", who could feel only one part of the

elephants body and argue among themselves. Didn't all conflicting schools of

Indian philosophical thought originate from the same Upanishads.

 

In sanskrit there is a saying, "vidhyaa dhadhathi vinayam". The only measure

of scholarship is humility.

 

May the Divine Light "Jyotisha" illuminate everyone everywhere,

 

Love,

Arun

[Guest guest]

Dear Arun,

 

Namaskara -

 

Thank you for your views. I agree that the understanding of Sanskrit is

limitless, and as you say, the layers of the onion reveal various depths of

meaning. I guess my basic point is this: my gurus will guide me to the

correct understanding, as by applying that understanding, results are to be

found. I am not interested in becoming a Sanskrit scholar. I am

interested in applying the teachings as understood, in a practical way, so

as to further empower my use of Jyotish to guide others. I have no ego in

the matter of scholarship, which you seem to have misunderstood in

me. Students and friends who know me, also recognize me as such. What I

am really after, is the true understanding, the application of which bears

fruits. If the correct understanding of some dasa or interpretive system,

for example, enables me to guide someone who asks for it, then that is the

benefit of having knowledge, in my opinion. Mani suggests that I learn

more Sanskrit, and apply my own understanding of the sutras. While I

respect his opinion, this is not the guru lineage system, and further I

don't want to waste endless time in speculation. If my gurus can guide me

to the correct methods and understanding, and can show it in practice, then

I can get right to the business of "para upakara", or rendering the service

of uplifting others. Without doing that, then learning Sanskrit is no more

dharmic than studying physics or economics.

 

>For example, even the words "parampara" can be interpreted as "Supreme of

>the supreme" (in other words the Supreme Lord) and may not necessarily mean

>a succession of gurus. You may note that in the same verse Krishna says that

>Knowledge of yogas were lost. ("sa kaleneha mahataa yogo nashta:

>paramtapa"). If one were to depend on a succession of gurus and Knowledge

>has a propensity to be lost in such lineages as time goes on, the only

>redemption for the world is to go back to the Supreme Source.

 

With due respect, you have missed the point of that verse from

Bhagavad-gita. Why was Krsna saying "yogo nashta parantapa" to Arjuna,

meaning that in time the guru varga is lost? It was to re-enforce that

indeed in time, due to the influences of Kali-yuga, the disciplic

succession gets broken, but that Krsna wanted to re-institute the guru

varga by teaching Arjuna. "Yada yada hi dharmasya, glanir bhavati

bharata". This means that in order to do so, whenever there is a decline

in dharma (which includes the system of receiving knowledge through higher

authority), Krsna Himself appears to re-establish dharma. So what

occurred before, will re-occur again. Isn't this what you really mean by

"going back to the Supreme Source"? If Truth is to be spoken, God Himself

or His representative appears to re-establish the disciplic

succession. Thus the disciplic success occurs by Divine will, and is not

a by-product of human imperfections. My param guru, Sri Srimad A.C.

Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, correctly underscored the above principle,

saying that without approaching the bona fide guru in disciplic succession,

all one's scholarship becomes meaningless. Further, without the right

heart and disposition toward knowledge, one becomes self-serving, rather

than using knowledge as a tool with which to help others. This brings one

to align his/her efforts with Divine Will, rather than propping oneself up

as a scholar to receive the adulation of others. When the former attitude

is adopted, then the meanings of the shastras becomes clear and easy, as

the meanings are revealed internally by Krsna, and confirmed externally by

one's Siksha guru. Otherwise, we swim in endless confusion, and all the

meanings become lost in time.

 

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

[Guest guest]

> Robert A. Koch wrote:

>

> > The sutras themselves are clear - with a little knowledge of

> > Sanskrit, you can understand them. In addition, we have the commentaries

> > by contemporary scholars such as Sharma, Raman, Shastri, Rath, and others

> > who put the principles in clear language.

>

 

I am sorry but it is only the little knowledge of Sanskrit, which in fact is

spoiling and distorting astrology today.

 

Sitaram Jha a noted Sanskrit scholar did translation of B.P.H.S. in hindi. He

was not doubt a great scholar of Sanskrit but very poor predictor (astrology)

and hence many discrepancies got into BPHS. The same has happened to the

translations by Santhanam and G.C. Sharma.

 

Lovely

 

 

____

123India.com - India's Premier Portal

Get your Free Email Account at http://www.123india.com

[Guest guest]

Robert A. Koch :

> Dear Mani,

> I agree with your point of view, and have read everything your wrote

> carefully. I think what you are confusing here is the English terminology

> of "a little knowledge". This does not mean that one necessarily has

> *little* knowledge, but that it is necessary to have knowledge on subject

> in order to go deeper into it. There are subtleties in the English

> vernacular, that foreign persons, even having learned English, do not

> understand.

 

 

Dear Robert,

 

Since English is my mother tongue and I have spoken it all my life from the age

of 5, and most of the conversation at home was in English, plus that my teachers

were mostly Brits, and later many colleagues too, I think my knowledge of the

subtleties is okay, though I am not too sure about American usage.

 

I quoted the proverb because it has the same words as you used. Although

addressed to you, everything I said was more for general consumption. To start

with, I did NOT say or imply that your knowledge of sanskrit is poor - how do I

know how much you know? Nor did I tell YOU to learn more sanskrit! None of the

remarks was a personal note to you, but a discussion of a situation. Sometimes

my concise style might suggest a personal "attack", but I never intend it. The

letter was more in the sense of "smaaraye thvaam, na sikshaye!"

 

I was only objecting to the manner in whivh you wrote, as if TELLING other

beginners that they can get to the bottom of the sutras after getting a basic

knowledge of sanskrit. Often that is enough to understand a hymn, but not for

any deep study. This was the "little knowledge" I meant.

 

In the broader sense, my opinion remains that after so many thousands of years

the present day knowledge of the language is "little". My most precious book is

Monier-Williams´sanskrit dictionary. Every time I look up a word I am amazed by

the variety of meanings which it has. Even by context one may get the wrong

idea: killed by an elephant could be killed by a serpent!

 

>

> Anyway, granted, my knowledge of Sanskrit is not that extensive, yet

> whenever I quote it, I am certain of the meaning.

 

Sure. But is anybody certain that he has the right meaning? Each translator

wrote what he thought was correct. Nobody wanted to mislead! Yet the savants

differ.

 

> Anyway, the whole point of what I wrote, was that the classical

> methodologies need to be researched. This, I believe, is what you are

> needing too - to see evidence of something being taught, illustrated in

> actual charts. I, for example, demonstrated to Manoj, how the 4th house

> ruled a particular kind of education in my case, and not the 5th

> house. That was just one example, but to be clear, we need

> more. Hopefully God will grant time and energy to complete this research,

> but in any case, this is indeed my orientation.

 

I don´t want to start an argument on this subject. But for the fun of it I did

your chart and find that lord of the 5th in D24 is in 6th, not 12th, as you

said. Have I got it wrong?

 

 

> Coming back to Sanskrit: Truly, the Vedic way of understanding is as per

> the Bhagavad-gita: "Evam parampara praptam", Bg. 4.2, meaning that in order

> to enter into the meaning of the shastras and sutras, one should hear such

> knowledge through guru lineage. I rely on my Jyotish guru, Pt. Sanjay

> Rath, for my understanding of Jyotish, whenever there is something I do not

> understand.

 

This was my point: that the tradition was broken for centuries. Many Indians can

theoretically trace back their lineage over thousands of years by gothra, but

that does not mean that any knowledge was handed down unbroken. Sanjay might

have had this fortune, but not many jyothishis can claim this. about 3

generations is the best most can show. There was also a large-scale brain drain.

The state language became Urdu and later English. Brahmins were employed in

state services and the best heads stopped teaching to become secretaries of

state etc.

 

> So far as scholars are concerned, well, their knowledge such as

> the Scandinavians you talk about is impressive, but can they cross beyond

> the veil of Maya (illusion) with such knowledge? This marks the line in

> the sand between who simply has memorized the language, and who has

> received specific empowerment in his understanding through the guru

> parampara.

 

We cannot mix up religion with the scientific sastras. The sastras do not deal

with God, but his works. To understand the "mechanics" of his constructions one

need not have a guru, though having one helps. Even if one misunderstands, it

does not matter spiritually. I don´t think any soul will be denied entry to

vaikunta for having believed the earth was flat or that the moon was a slice of

cheese. even misundersting the BPHS is no sin. Just as earth-bound has learned

to fly and even get to the moon, one day souls ill incarnate, act and leave at

will, unbound by the grahas! Nor does a correct understanding of the BPHS lead

to God: its "inexorable" causality can equally well support the atheism of

Charvaka.

 

Since God is the ultimate guru and the Self is part of God, the question of

overcoming maya is left to the efforts of the individual. The best teacher

cannot change a dumb student, only God can do that! I know enough people who

have or had gurus, but are absolutely incapable of getting out of materialism.

Other simple and untaught souls have deep wisdom. Even in ancient times there

were gurus who taught atheistic philosophies. Many roads lead to Rome; ALL roads

that lead away from Rome, if followed to the end, will ultimately lead one back

to Rome. But there are many roads that simply lead past Rome at a certain

distance, one never arrives there!

>

> I appreciate your views. Again, however, my belief is that due respect to

> the guru parampara needs to be paid, however, in the transmission of

> knowledge.

 

Certainly. Whatever I said was more for those who are not fortunate enough to

have a good guru. And another thing: of the thousands of things that one learns

from a guru, if 10 of his statements are found to be wrong or inapplicable to

our times, does it mean he was useless? As you yourself said, only God is 100%

right. Also: if it does not work out for your chart, put it on the minus list!

If we could meet Parasara he might be able to give a good explanation! That is

why I say, if a teaching does not appeal to you, just leave it out, don´t fight

about it! In the lectures that Sai Baba gives, I once found what I think is

a contradiction. In the context each statement was okay, but contrasted, they do

not tally. If I met him I´d ask him about this, but if I don´t, I take the

statement I like and forget the one I don´t. The stated matter is very

important, but I cannot say he preaches untruth because I don´t accept one

statement!

 

> Trying to get the nectar, or essence

> of truth by speculation, is like trying to get milk from the nipples of a

> goat. The goat's nipples may resemble the real thing, but they fool you in

> the long run.

 

This depends on how one speculates: to find or to refute! Spinoza was

"God-drunk" and that was through speculation. So was Gandhi and he loved goat´s

milk - and peanuts. From what I have heard from people who worked with

Einstein, he had a profound faith in God. in fact I have a collection of

statements made by the great scientists and all of them seem to have had this

faith. A mind that truly thinks and synthesizes the information it gets

ultimately gets lead to God. Sat-Chit-Ananda!

 

regards

Mani

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/4/2001 6:58:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

rkoch writes:

 

<< The sutras themselves are clear - with a little knowledge of

Sanskrit, you can understand them. In addition, we have the commentaries

by contemporary scholars such as Sharma, Raman, Shastri, Rath, and others

who put the principles in clear language. >>

 

If the sutras are clear, no need for studying Sanskrit in order to interpret

these clear verses. If they are clear, no need for commentaries by more than

4 students of the verses, to make them clear. It is well known that

difficulties abound since the material handed down to us is ancient and has

been re-translated over and over, with some clerics misunderstanding

aphorisms as well as mistranslating words themselves. So while the original

sutras are clear and last forever, what we have today in our precious texts

does require synthesis and understanding in many cases, before its underlying

truth and beauty unfolds.

 

Cheers,

Carol

[Guest guest]

Dear Carol,

 

At 12:48 PM 5/4/01 -0400, you wrote:

 

>It is well known that

>difficulties abound since the material handed down to us is ancient and has

>been re-translated over and over, with some clerics misunderstanding

>aphorisms as well as mistranslating words themselves. So while the original

>sutras are clear and last forever, what we have today in our precious texts

>does require synthesis and understanding in many cases, before its underlying

>truth and beauty unfolds.

 

Thank you for your views, and I agree with you. The whole discussion got

started over the attempt of someone to dismiss a principle, only because it

did not apply in one chart. My passion and orientation toward this

knowledge, is to get a good idea from those who are recognized astrological

scholars, what the meanings of these sutras are. Not all will agree on a

single principle, yet if many or some agree, then we can use it. But we do

not use it blindly - we do the research, which is the hard work that is

before all of us astrologers. If we just forget about the classics, and

slip into the malaise of non-proactive practice, then so, so much will be

lost. So the first thing, is to see on which principles a *majority* of

scholars agree on; and second, lets do the homework. Otherwise, the jewels

we seek could be right before our eyes, yet we will not have developed the

vision to see them.

 

 

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