Misrepresentation and Vemuri-Rao (Complexity, Confusion, and Personal attacks)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Robert,

 

I caught this in an SJVC mail from Sanjay:

 

> have used Sri K.N. Rao's system of Chara dasa since he first instructed it

> in America, in 1994. I have always received good results using it as so

> taught by him. Recently, I also had an argument with Narasimha Rao, who

> is a student of Sanjay Rath's, about the "0" years dasa idea, if the lord

> of Sagittarius dasa is debilitated. Like you, this does not make sense to

> me, even though a "logical" argument is supposedly put forth that if a

> dasa does not run in one's life, it will run in the "next cycle". Your

> point is good: even if a dasa does not run in a person's life, THE YEARS

> OF THE DASA REMAIN FIXED.

 

Please let me refer to the words in quotes after a reference to me.

 

I never said I had a "logical argument" in favor of (12-n) years in 2nd cycle if

n years come in first. It was just MY *opinion* based on, I think, the teachings

of a tradition to which my guru belongs. So the above might be a

misrepresentation.

 

I was merely saying that Rao's argument - that zero year dasa is illogical - was

also an opnion, though it had the potential for being seen as a "logic" by some

people and misleading them into believing in it.

 

I request you to kindly re-read what I wrote earlier carefully:

 

<<<<[NR] Robert, I have two different points and let me state them here so that

people understand me clearly.

 

(1) Even if you take a second cycle that is identical to the first, still I

don't have any hiccups about "a dasa not coming in one's life". Why should

everyone experience every sign's dasa in life? After all, even in Vimsottari or

Kalachakra dasa, one typically does not experience all 9 or 12 dasas in life.

 

This is just a matter of preference and opinion and there is no LOGIC here.

That's all I said.

 

(2) However, I take a second cycle that gives (12-n) years of a sign's dasa in

the second cycle if it has n years in the first cycle. So, with my approach, Sg

dasa will be nonzero in second cycle even if it is zero in first.>>>>

 

* * *

 

Om Sree Gurave namaha

 

Dear Gary,

 

You opined:

 

> Also,

> in fairness to Mr. Rao, he credits Vermuri as his teacher in many of his

> texts. It would be unseemly, in my opinion, to criticize anyone for

> following his teacher.

 

There is a difference here. Giving credit to one's guru is different from taking

shelter from criticism for one's mistake under the umbrella of reputation of

one's guru or using the name of one's guru. Let me give an example.

 

With Sri Rao's definition of padas, a sutra of Jaimini giving the result for

arudha lagna and darapada being in mutual 6-8 positions becomes a sutra about a

condition that can never occur. He himself acknowledged it. But this condition

can occur when one considers the exceptions given by Parasara and Jaimini

(Sanjay considers these exceptions and Sri Rao tells us to ignore them).

 

The sutra in question is relatively straight-forward. Assuming that Jaimini

wouldn't waste a sutra on a condition that would never be satisfied - this is a

very reasonable assumption - Sri Rao's definition is very likely to be wrong.

When I pointed it out to him, he asked for an example of the condition's

occurrence with Sanjay's definition. I promptly did it. He still thought his

definition was correct and even told me: "I wish you had seen some of Vemuri's

predictions".

 

This is what I mean by taking shelter from criticism under the umbrella of

reputation of one's guru or using the name of one's guru.

 

If Sanjay teaches me something wrong and someone proves me wrong later, then I

will not mention a word about the fact that Sanjay taught it to me. I'll take

the blame when I know I am losing. Giving credit is different from mentioning

guru when something is not right and one is about to lose an argument. One

should "protect" one's guru - not "use" him. In some situations, there is a thin

line between giving credit and using.

 

Moreover, in Sri Rao's case, he said he had never met Vemuri and had access only

to a few papers of readings from him, from which he figured out Vemuri's stand

on all these issues! As long as he doesn't make those papers public, I humbly

think he should refrain from his common refrain - "Good ol' Vemuri said so".

Mentioning Vemuri in controversial things - especially when Sri Rao is about to

lose an argument (like arudha padas or Mandooka dasa argument with Sanjay) is

unfair to great Vemuri - he deserves our benefit of doubt! THIS does not count

as "giving credit" - this is "using a name".

 

If I have seen something incorrectly or said something unfair, I pray to Jupiter

to correct me. Om Sree Gurave namaha.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

 

PS: I have utmost respect for Vemuri or any scholar for that matter. In fact,

inspired by Sri Rao's accounts, I was meditating on Late Vemuri Ramamurthy

Shastri and praying to him now and then to give me a good direction in

understanding Jaimini, just when I met my guru Sanjay! I strongly believe that I

met Sanjay due to the blessings of Vemuri.

 

 

 

------

 

eGroups.com home: sjvc

- Simplifying group communications