Closure please, Vasudev

[Guest guest]

Mr. V. Vasudev,

 

Again you're putting words in my mouth as I have never shown any

disrespect (intended or unintended) towards the great sage Maharishi

Parashara. People who know me know how ludicrous that accusation is.

 

I simply questioned the authenticity of that sloka and expressed my

doubt that it was (in fact) one of Parashara's actual slokas. We

KNOW without a doubt that the books bearing the name of Pt. G.K.

Ojha were actually written by him. We don't however have the same

assurance with the slokas attributed to Parashara...this is what I

questioned, not the sage himself.

 

The below (extract) of a post submitted recently by a renowned

astrologer verifies my point in no uncertain terms:

 

"I have visited so many museums in India where so many

manuscripts are available most of them unlisted even in

fifty years after independence. I saw some of them which

were copied down and even wrongly. Half-literate pandits

copying it down may have committed these mistakes. It will

also explain why Parashara text has so many variations...."

 

I do agree with you that this should be the last word on the subject

as it's really leading us nowhere.

 

Best Wishes,

Mrs. Wendy

http://JyotishVidya.com

______________________________

 

Hi!

Mrs. Wendy,

Greetings! Once again.

 

Where did I show disrespect to Pt. G.K.Ojha,it is only that I don't

to his views,and this in my opinion is not the disrespect.

I never said a bad word abour the eminent scholar.

 

Why are you diverting the topic from Pt. G.K.Ojha to

Parashara.Infact it was you who questioned the authenticity of said

shloka.Did I accuse you for showing the disrespect to sage

Parashara.? I didn't.

You have every right either to agree or disagree with the sage and I

respect your right to do the same.

 

In you last post you said that you were leaving the topic

there.Please let ne allow to the same,because we are streching it

too far,I think.

 

I widh to devote my time to learn something else from this group.

 

Thank you very much.

 

Acharya Vasudev

http://www.acharyavasudev.com

acharya.vasudev

[Guest guest]

to wendy and vasudeva

 

that particular slok with aspects of rahu is in my bhrighu samhita

 

that sloks belongs to bhrighu

 

with this explanation

 

now I am not supporting wendy or vasudeva just a view that is in bhrighu

samhita

 

I am mentioning here

 

explanation

 

word grah is derived from gruvutvakarshan ( gravity)

 

any celestial body that has gravity is called a grah

 

so sun being a star is called a grah moon being a satelite is called a grah

 

any object that displays gravity is a grah

 

and anything that is a grah has aspect

 

nodes are grah as the command strong gravity pull so they have aspect

 

me personally don't agree with this aspect of somebody that does not exsist in

physical form

but only experience can better shape the views

 

and further down it is also mentioned that all the planets have nodes and can

be calculated in similar fashion

 

as lunar node ra and ke

 

kind regs

-

Wendy Vasicek<wenvas

jyotish-vidya<jyotish-vidya>

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 3:35 AM

Closure please, Vasudev

 

 

Mr. V. Vasudev,

 

Again you're putting words in my mouth as I have never shown any

disrespect (intended or unintended) towards the great sage Maharishi

Parashara. People who know me know how ludicrous that accusation is.

 

I simply questioned the authenticity of that sloka and expressed my

doubt that it was (in fact) one of Parashara's actual slokas. We

KNOW without a doubt that the books bearing the name of Pt. G.K.

Ojha were actually written by him. We don't however have the same

assurance with the slokas attributed to Parashara...this is what I

questioned, not the sage himself.

 

The below (extract) of a post submitted recently by a renowned

astrologer verifies my point in no uncertain terms:

 

"I have visited so many museums in India where so many

manuscripts are available most of them unlisted even in

fifty years after independence. I saw some of them which

were copied down and even wrongly. Half-literate pandits

copying it down may have committed these mistakes. It will

also explain why Parashara text has so many variations...."

 

I do agree with you that this should be the last word on the subject

as it's really leading us nowhere.

 

Best Wishes,

Mrs. Wendy

http://JyotishVidya.com<http://jyotishvidya.com/>

______________________________

 

Hi!

Mrs. Wendy,

Greetings! Once again.

 

Where did I show disrespect to Pt. G.K.Ojha,it is only that I don't

to his views,and this in my opinion is not the disrespect.

I never said a bad word abour the eminent scholar.

 

Why are you diverting the topic from Pt. G.K.Ojha to

Parashara.Infact it was you who questioned the authenticity of said

shloka.Did I accuse you for showing the disrespect to sage

Parashara.? I didn't.

You have every right either to agree or disagree with the sage and I

respect your right to do the same.

 

In you last post you said that you were leaving the topic

there.Please let ne allow to the same,because we are streching it

too far,I think.

 

I widh to devote my time to learn something else from this group.

 

Thank you very much.

 

Acharya Vasudev

http://www.acharyavasudev.com<http://www.acharyavasudev.com/>

acharya.vasudev

 

 

 

 

 

Links

 

jyotish-vidya/<jyoti\

sh-vidya/>

 

b..

jyotish-vidya<jyotish-vidya-@\

groups.com?subject=Un>

 

c.. Terms of

Service<>.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Jiger,

 

Thank you for that information I'll have to do a search and see if I

can find that reference on the net as I don't have it on my

bookshelf.

 

Regarding your reference to graha and gravity; this is certainly

true! Gravity, as we know, depends on mass and all physical grahas

(including our own star, Sun) have mass. However, although the nodes

are referred to as grahas in jyotish, this is not true in a real

sense.

 

Your statement that 'any object that displays gravity is a grah and

anything that is a grah has aspect' would, contrary to your

objective, seem to confirm the fact that the non-physical nodes

(devoid of mass) do not come under the realm of aspects as do the

other grahas...wouldn't you agree?

 

No physical body = No mass = No gravity = No aspect.

 

It's something worth thinking long and hard about....I truly believe

that if we contemplate these matters deeply and sincerely our own

logic (intellect) will lead to the right conclusion. What most of us

seem to do is rely solely on books, memorising as many slokas as we

can, which we then start arguing about amongst

ourselves...endlessly! The sages did it differently, by going deep

within and trusting their own intellect/intuition to reveal the

truth...

 

The unfortunate thing today is that (often) what is presented to us

as pure (correctly interpreted) text, attributed to a particular

sage, often is not without error, sometimes grave errors. This I

think we all agree upon...

 

Best Wishes,

Mrs. Wendy

http://JyotishVidya.com

______________________________

 

to wendy and vasudeva

 

that particular slok with aspects of rahu is in my bhrighu samhita

 

that sloks belongs to bhrighu

 

with this explanation

 

now I am not supporting wendy or vasudeva just a view that is in

bhrighu samhita

 

I am mentioning here

 

explanation

 

word grah is derived from gruvutvakarshan ( gravity)

 

any celestial body that has gravity is called a grah

 

so sun being a star is called a grah moon being a satelite is

called a grah

 

any object that displays gravity is a grah

 

and anything that is a grah has aspect

 

nodes are grah as the command strong gravity pull so they have

aspect

 

me personally don't agree with this aspect of somebody that does not

exsist in physical form

but only experience can better shape the views

 

and further down it is also mentioned that all the planets have

nodes and can be calculated in similar fashion

 

as lunar node ra and ke

 

kind regs