Guest guest Posted July 17, 2001 Report Share Posted July 17, 2001 Dear Gurus & friends 1. RY Emanation: In my BPHS translation copy (& Mr N Rao's VAIP), ONE of the emanations of Raj Yogs is lords.1& 5, and Charkarakas 1 & 5 (ie 5th= PuK= PutraKaraka). The example provided in my BPHS copy also gives an example of Jp as natural sig for ChK 5 (PuK). So it is unambiguous, ie it is not a printing mistake. In JUPS on the other hand, it is CharKarak 6 (ie PiK= Pitrakarak) instead of PuK. Again, the example & explanation in later verses also clearly says father later on, so again there is no printing mistake. Am I missing something or is it again one of those unresolved discrepancies between 2 titans that we have to live with? 2. Spl Ld.8: Also, I did ask earlier about the EXACT role of Special lord.8, ie where used vs not used in Ayur stanzas of JUPS. I hope somebody cd answer, as Mr Rath has used sometimes 8, sometime spl 8 in the examples, & I am confused. 3. Bramha dasa: In the exceptional circumstance that Bramha is in an even sign,& so the dasa starts from 7 to it, the subsequent progression is anti-zodiacal acc to JUPS. However, acc to the archives of this List & the examples discussed, in either case (ie whether odd or even) it is zodiacal. Pl note that this is a different question from the counting of signs from sign to lord, etc for dasa-period years, where there is no discrepancy in terms of direction of counting for L6, etc. Incidentally, I normally do not thank people for answering my queries, even by personal reply e-mails, as I do not want to clog their mail-boxes as MY List-ethic. I do hope my gratitude is taken for granted. Regards Nandan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2001 Report Share Posted July 17, 2001 Namaste Nandan, I can answer one of your questions, i.e., the inclusion of PiK in the Raja Yoga. Just as PuK could indicate followers, PiK could indicate Father or Father Figures who could guide one in the proper direction. I think that could be safely extended to Matri Karaka too. This is *my* opinion. One chart you could check is that of President George W. Bush. His father was a former President and the current preseident influenced him a lot, and was *may be* one of the factors in his victory. The same thing could be said about the former Prime Minister of India Mr. Rajiv Gandhi....only tthis time its the role played by his Mother. Regards Narayan vedic astrology, Nandan.Chakraborty@i... wrote: > Dear Gurus & friends > > 1. RY Emanation: In my BPHS translation copy (& Mr N Rao's VAIP), ONE of > the emanations of Raj Yogs is lords.1& 5, and Charkarakas 1 & 5 (ie 5th= > PuK= PutraKaraka). The example provided in my BPHS copy also gives an > example of Jp as natural sig for ChK 5 (PuK). So it is unambiguous, ie it > is not a printing mistake. > > In JUPS on the other hand, it is CharKarak 6 (ie PiK= Pitrakarak) instead > of PuK. Again, the example & explanation in later verses also clearly says > father later on, so again there is no printing mistake. > > Am I missing something or is it again one of those unresolved discrepancies > between 2 titans that we have to live with? > > 2. Spl Ld.8: Also, I did ask earlier about the EXACT role of Special > lord.8, ie where used vs not used in Ayur stanzas of JUPS. I hope somebody > cd answer, as Mr Rath has used sometimes 8, sometime spl 8 in the examples, > & I am confused. > > 3. Bramha dasa: In the exceptional circumstance that Bramha is in an even > sign,& so the dasa starts from 7 to it, the subsequent progression is > anti-zodiacal acc to JUPS. However, acc to the archives of this List & the > examples discussed, in either case (ie whether odd or even) it is zodiacal. > Pl note that this is a different question from the counting of signs from > sign to lord, etc for dasa-period years, where there is no discrepancy in > terms of direction of counting for L6, etc. > > Incidentally, I normally do not thank people for answering my queries, even > by personal reply e-mails, as I do not want to clog their mail-boxes as MY > List-ethic. > > I do hope my gratitude is taken for granted. > > Regards > > Nandan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2001 Report Share Posted July 17, 2001 Dear Nandan, Sorry. I meant: His father was a former President and the current president WAS influenced BY him, and COULD HAVE BEEN one of the factors in his victory. Regards Narayan vedic astrology, "Narayan Iyer" <narayaniyer@v...> wrote: > Namaste Nandan, > > I can answer one of your questions, i.e., the inclusion of PiK in the Raja Yoga. > > Just as PuK could indicate followers, PiK could indicate Father or Father Figures who could guide one in the proper direction. I think that could be safely extended to Matri Karaka too. This is *my* opinion. One chart you could check is that of President George W. Bush. His father was a former President and the current preseident influenced him a lot, and was *may be* one of the factors in his victory. > > The same thing could be said about the former Prime Minister of India Mr. Rajiv Gandhi....only tthis time its the role played by his Mother. > > Regards > Narayan > > > > vedic astrology, Nandan.Chakraborty@i... wrote: > > Dear Gurus & friends > > > > 1. RY Emanation: In my BPHS translation copy (& Mr N Rao's VAIP), ONE of > > the emanations of Raj Yogs is lords.1& 5, and Charkarakas 1 & 5 (ie 5th= > > PuK= PutraKaraka). The example provided in my BPHS copy also gives an > > example of Jp as natural sig for ChK 5 (PuK). So it is unambiguous, ie it > > is not a printing mistake. > > > > In JUPS on the other hand, it is CharKarak 6 (ie PiK= Pitrakarak) instead > > of PuK. Again, the example & explanation in later verses also clearly says > > father later on, so again there is no printing mistake. > > > > Am I missing something or is it again one of those unresolved discrepancies > > between 2 titans that we have to live with? > > > > 2. Spl Ld.8: Also, I did ask earlier about the EXACT role of Special > > lord.8, ie where used vs not used in Ayur stanzas of JUPS. I hope somebody > > cd answer, as Mr Rath has used sometimes 8, sometime spl 8 in the examples, > > & I am confused. > > > > 3. Bramha dasa: In the exceptional circumstance that Bramha is in an even > > sign,& so the dasa starts from 7 to it, the subsequent progression is > > anti-zodiacal acc to JUPS. However, acc to the archives of this List & the > > examples discussed, in either case (ie whether odd or even) it is zodiacal. > > Pl note that this is a different question from the counting of signs from > > sign to lord, etc for dasa-period years, where there is no discrepancy in > > terms of direction of counting for L6, etc. > > > > Incidentally, I normally do not thank people for answering my queries, even > > by personal reply e-mails, as I do not want to clog their mail-boxes as MY > > List-ethic. > > > > I do hope my gratitude is taken for granted. > > > > Regards > > > > Nandan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2001 Report Share Posted July 17, 2001 Dear Nandan, I did talk to Pt. Sanjay Rath before writing that in my book. I followed Parasara and Jaimini strictly. In 3.1.1 of Jaimini Sutras, the word "janita" was interpreted by Pt. Rath as "father". I respectfully disagree. The root "jan" means "to be born". The suffix "ka" means doer/maker and "janaka" means "one who makes [one] born", i.e. father. The suffix "ita" is used in gerund forms and is like a past participle. Janita strictly means "the born one". It should be translated as "son" rather than "father". As we are talking about 1st and 5th lords, I guess Pt. Rath wanted to take the 1st and 5th chara karakas to be consistent. However, taking AK and PK is also consistent as they are the karakas related to 1st and 5th. In any case, I see no justification for translating Jaimini's "janita" as father. It is son. Moreover, Parasara is even more explicit and says "atma, putra karakas" clearly. When I talked to Sanjay on phone and mentioned the stand I was going to take in my book, he said that it made sense. He said that both were correct. He said PK represents followers (son-like figures influencing one's sustenance) and PiK represents authorities (father- like figures influencing one's sustenance), as chara karakas ruled by Vishnu show people influencing one's sustenance. He said that the conjunction of AK and PK in 1st/5th brings power through the efforts followers who work in unison with the native and the conjunction of AK and PiK in 1st/5th brings power via authorities who work in unison with the native. I think I gave a couple of examples for this in the past. While people like me with limited intelligence take words literally and understand sages word by word, Pt. Sanjay Rath is a rare Jyotishi who understands the purport of each rule given by Sages and he is in the best position to adopt them. So I will not question him, but I chose to faithfully reproduce what Parasara and Jaimini taught. More later... May Jupiter's light shine on us, Narasimha > 1. RY Emanation: In my BPHS translation copy (& Mr N Rao's VAIP), ONE of > the emanations of Raj Yogs is lords.1& 5, and Charkarakas 1 & 5 (ie 5th= > PuK= PutraKaraka). The example provided in my BPHS copy also gives an > example of Jp as natural sig for ChK 5 (PuK). So it is unambiguous, ie it > is not a printing mistake. > > In JUPS on the other hand, it is CharKarak 6 (ie PiK= Pitrakarak) instead > of PuK. Again, the example & explanation in later verses also clearly says > father later on, so again there is no printing mistake. > > Am I missing something or is it again one of those unresolved discrepancies > between 2 titans that we have to live with? 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.