Parashari-Jaimini !

[Guest guest]

||Om Brihaspataye Namah||

 

Dear Vijay Kumar,

 

> In case, if my views (so far given) as reply to various posts are

>not admissible to this elite group, I would not mind withdrawing

>myself, thus avoiding hurt to anybody. Your feedback is solicited.

 

Not at all. I am not hurt by your viewpoint. Your emails are quite

balanced and scholarly. I had asked you the question about Parashari

vs Jamini angles because I to an integrated approach.

 

You are most welcome on this list and I look forward to your

scholarly contributions. Only thing is I am surprised that when

someone asks you questions, you presume that the questioner does not

know anything about the topic and you try to close the topic from

your side! This attitude is most surprising given the sober tone of

your emails. Constructive criticism and balanced debates always help

in the pursuit of knowledge.

 

regards

Hari

[Guest guest]

question about Parashari vs Jamini angles because I to an integrated approach.

Dear Hari,

I also to an integrative approach- but in my view it doesn't mean "one and the same"-

and I really don't understand the reson why insisting on that- why making dogma

of what's meant to be an open-minded, truly integrative approach. In fact, that

reminds me of the very same critic I've heard here recently, addressed

/rightfully/to those doing so- poor role model, I'd say, if that's in stake.

I've never heard Sanjay being that exclusive, either.

Best regards,

Anna

 

 

New Photos - easier uploading and sharing

[Guest guest]

Dear Anna,

 

> Dear Hari,> > I also to an integrative approach- but in my view it

doesn't mean "one and the same"-> > and I really don't understand the reson why

insisting on that- why making dogma of what's meant to be an open-minded, truly

integrative approach. In fact, that reminds me of the very same critic I've

heard here recently, addressed /rightfully/to those doing so- poor role model,

I'd say, if that's in stake. I've never heard Sanjay being that exclusive,

either.> > Best regards,> > Anna

It is not a question of "dogmatism". When one makes a statement like "only

Jaimini astrology gives aspects of signs", for example, it is a factually

incorrect statement. Pointing it out is not dogmatism.

 

Insisting that all the major principles of the so-called "Jaimini system" were

clearly established by Parasara also is not dogmatism. It is the recognition of

a simple and undeniable fact.

If one says one specializes in the teachings of Jaimini, I will not criticize.

For God's sake, I too studied Jaimini Sutras and am grateful to the Sage. But

if one says that a particular concept (e.g. sign aspects) is used only in

"Jaimini astrology" and not used in "Parasari astrology", I have to correct the

error.

 

I now and then hear people talking about how Parasari and Jaimini systems should

not be "mixed up". The artificial "Parasara-Jaimini" division has the danger of

encouraging such unfortunate misconceptions. Rooting out such unwarranted

misconceptions is no dogmatism. This is very important for the renaissance of

Vedic astrology. I am with Hari.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your explanation- honestly, you sounded differently /more exclusive/

in the initial mail. If we are talking about 'integrative approach' it goes

without saying that both can go together. Yes, I am aware of one school of

thoughts which is decisive that P-J are 'impossible' mix. It's obvious

'fundamentalism' that doesn't hurt, IMO.

Parashara and Jaimini may have the same roots, but are still not the same,

otherwise we won't have integrative approach.

 

Major issue as it appears now is the manner of discussion, not the point..and I

don't feel forcefulness you applied in proving your points, no matter how right

you are, was justified.

Best regards,

Anna

"Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" <pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net> wrote:

Dear Anna,

 

> Dear Hari,> > I also to an integrative approach- but in my view it

doesn't mean "one and the same"-> > and I really don't understand the reson why

insisting on that- why making dogma of what's meant to be an open-minded, truly

integrative approach. In fact, that reminds me of the very same critic I've

heard here recently, addressed /rightfully/to those doing so- poor role model,

I'd say, if that's in stake. I've never heard Sanjay being that exclusive,

either.> > Best regards,> > Anna

It is not a question of "dogmatism". When one makes a statement like "only

Jaimini astrology gives aspects of signs", for example, it is a factually

incorrect statement. Pointing it out is not dogmatism.

 

Insisting that all the major principles of the so-called "Jaimini system" were

clearly established by Parasara also is not dogmatism. It is the recognition of

a simple and undeniable fact.

If one says one specializes in the teachings of Jaimini, I will not criticize.

For God's sake, I too studied Jaimini Sutras and am grateful to the Sage. But

if one says that a particular concept (e.g. sign aspects) is used only in

"Jaimini astrology" and not used in "Parasari astrology", I have to correct the

error.

 

I now and then hear people talking about how Parasari and Jaimini systems should

not be "mixed up". The artificial "Parasara-Jaimini" division has the danger of

encouraging such unfortunate misconceptions. Rooting out such unwarranted

misconceptions is no dogmatism. This is very important for the renaissance of

Vedic astrology. I am with Hari.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,Narasimha

Archives: vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us ....... To visit your group on the web, go

to:vedic astrology/ To from this

group, send an email to:vedic astrology Your use

of is subject to the

 

 

New Photos - easier uploading and sharing

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr. Hari,

 

Thanks for the suggestions.

 

Regards,

 

Vijay Kumar

-

onlyhari

vedic astrology

Friday, December 19, 2003 7:57 AM

[vedic astrology] Re: Parashari-Jaimini !

||Om Brihaspataye Namah||Dear Vijay Kumar,> In case, if my views (so far given)

as reply to various posts are >not admissible to this elite group, I would not

mind withdrawing >myself, thus avoiding hurt to anybody. Your feedback is

solicited.Not at all. I am not hurt by your viewpoint. Your emails are quite

balanced and scholarly. I had asked you the question about Parashari vs Jamini

angles because I to an integrated approach. You are most welcome on

this list and I look forward to your scholarly contributions. Only thing is I

am surprised that when someone asks you questions, you presume that the

questioner does not know anything about the topic and you try to close the

topic from your side! This attitude is most surprising given the sober tone of

your emails. Constructive criticism and balanced debates always help in the

pursuit of knowledge.regardsHariArchives:

vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us ....... To visit your group on the web, go

to:vedic astrology/ To from this

group, send an email to:vedic astrology Your use

of is subject to the

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr. Narsimha,

 

I am surprised where your or other's fuss lies and why are you getting hurt on

Parashari or Jaimini angle ?

 

When the subject becomes voluminous, it has to be divided and whosoever develops

it further, gets the credit of owning it in long run, there is nothing wrong. As

an example, Ashtakavarga is taken a seperate discipline and no body questions on

it, although owned by Parashara, even though it has been deferred on some points

and improved.

 

The classics after Parashara did stick to the conventional planetary aspects,

fixed karakas, Vim dasha etc and did not venture on the other side so it became

evitable to the general mass of people that Parashari astrology is limited to

it. Can you modify those hundereds of classical texts after Parashara and

include chapters of Jaimini styled delineations because Parashara did in BPHS

or you like to see them the way you want ? You can't and you have to accept it.

If there is any demarcation taken place between so called Parashari and Jaimini

system, it has to humbly accepted instead of showing your knowledge base of

knowing both the systems, you need to know it, there is no choice.

 

It is not astrology alone, everywhere, the demarcation sets with the time and

has to be accepted, religion and language is an online example. If the

demarcation does not set in a subject limiting the boundaries of the subject,

the subject can't grow.

 

Indicating that you (and other's) follow Integrated system also points to the

fact that you have internally accepted the identity of these 2 systems

existing.

 

The views of Ms. Anna are acceptable.

 

I have already said that some of the principles of Parashara have been adopted

by Jaimini and further improved them. I hope, there is no confusion on this

point and no further comments are really warranted unless they have some other

angle to it.

 

Regards,

 

Vijay Kumar

 

-

Narasimha P.V.R. Rao

vedic astrology

Friday, December 19, 2003 9:01 AM

[vedic astrology] Re: Parashari-Jaimini !

Dear Anna,

 

> Dear Hari,> > I also to an integrative approach- but in my view it

doesn't mean "one and the same"-> > and I really don't understand the reson why

insisting on that- why making dogma of what's meant to be an open-minded, truly

integrative approach. In fact, that reminds me of the very same critic I've

heard here recently, addressed /rightfully/to those doing so- poor role model,

I'd say, if that's in stake. I've never heard Sanjay being that exclusive,

either.> > Best regards,> > Anna

It is not a question of "dogmatism". When one makes a statement like "only

Jaimini astrology gives aspects of signs", for example, it is a factually

incorrect statement. Pointing it out is not dogmatism.

 

Insisting that all the major principles of the so-called "Jaimini system" were

clearly established by Parasara also is not dogmatism. It is the recognition of

a simple and undeniable fact.

If one says one specializes in the teachings of Jaimini, I will not criticize.

For God's sake, I too studied Jaimini Sutras and am grateful to the Sage. But

if one says that a particular concept (e.g. sign aspects) is used only in

"Jaimini astrology" and not used in "Parasari astrology", I have to correct the

error.

 

I now and then hear people talking about how Parasari and Jaimini systems should

not be "mixed up". The artificial "Parasara-Jaimini" division has the danger of

encouraging such unfortunate misconceptions. Rooting out such unwarranted

misconceptions is no dogmatism. This is very important for the renaissance of

Vedic astrology. I am with Hari.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,Narasimha

Archives: vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us ....... To visit your group on the web, go

to:vedic astrology/ To from this

group, send an email to:vedic astrology Your use

of is subject to the

[Guest guest]

Dear and respected members

 

Combination of two systems should be used only if the user can

filter out the cumulative effects.Else the combination will give an

extrapolated image which is an exaggeration of the reality.Even if

we think Jaimini munis work is an extension or finer analysis of

Parasharas principles,one should be totally thorough with the

contextual link of that principle or the base work of parashara from

which this principle was selected.Thus intelligently one can

eliminate the duplication.

 

Otherwise integrating incomplete theories will have the deficiency

of assimilation and the error of overlapping and sometimes that of

nullification.I remember the views from learned members that the

works of Muni Jaimini being lost and thus incomplete.

 

Astrology is not a quantitative field rather qualitative.If we are

doing scientific research employing techniques of differentiation

and integration will help in achieving accurate and microscopic

results.In astrology finer techniques should be used only to

understand the basics,which is any way well defined by the sages.

(namely the strenghts like shadbala,ashtakavarga or astronomical

calculations).Incorporating newer techniques or heterogenous mixing

will corrupt the great works by the Munis.

 

One should never forget that Shruthis and Smrithis are

different.Ceratain things are divine and we shouldn't modify it.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

vedic astrology, "vijay kumar"

<v_kumar@c...> wrote:

> Dear Mr. Narsimha,

>

> I am surprised where your or other's fuss lies and why are you

getting hurt on Parashari or Jaimini angle ?

>

> When the subject becomes voluminous, it has to be divided and

whosoever develops it further, gets the credit of owning it in long

run, there is nothing wrong. As an example, Ashtakavarga is taken a

seperate discipline and no body questions on it, although owned by

Parashara, even though it has been deferred on some points and

improved.

>

> The classics after Parashara did stick to the conventional

planetary aspects, fixed karakas, Vim dasha etc and did not venture

on the other side so it became evitable to the general mass of

people that Parashari astrology is limited to it. Can you modify

those hundereds of classical texts after Parashara and include

chapters of Jaimini styled delineations because Parashara did in

BPHS or you like to see them the way you want ? You can't and you

have to accept it. If there is any demarcation taken place between

so called Parashari and Jaimini system, it has to humbly accepted

instead of showing your knowledge base of knowing both the systems,

you need to know it, there is no choice.

>

> It is not astrology alone, everywhere, the demarcation sets with

the time and has to be accepted, religion and language is an online

example. If the demarcation does not set in a subject limiting the

boundaries of the subject, the subject can't grow.

>

> Indicating that you (and other's) follow Integrated system also

points to the fact that you have internally accepted the identity of

these 2 systems existing.

>

> The views of Ms. Anna are acceptable.

>

> I have already said that some of the principles of Parashara have

been adopted by Jaimini and further improved them. I hope, there is

no confusion on this point and no further comments are really

warranted unless they have some other angle to it.

>

> Regards,

>

> Vijay Kumar

>

> -

> Narasimha P.V.R. Rao

> vedic astrology

> Friday, December 19, 2003 9:01 AM

> [vedic astrology] Re: Parashari-Jaimini !

>

>

> Dear Anna,

>

> > Dear Hari,

> >

> > I also to an integrative approach- but in my view it

doesn't mean "one and the same"-

> >

> > and I really don't understand the reson why insisting on that-

why making dogma of what's meant to be an open-minded, truly

integrative approach. In fact, that reminds me of the very same

critic I've heard here recently, addressed /rightfully/to those

doing so- poor role model, I'd say, if that's in stake. I've never

heard Sanjay being that exclusive, either.

> >

> > Best regards,

> >

> > Anna

>

> It is not a question of "dogmatism". When one makes a statement

like "only Jaimini astrology gives aspects of signs", for example,

it is a factually incorrect statement. Pointing it out is not

dogmatism.

>

> Insisting that all the major principles of the so-

called "Jaimini system" were clearly established by Parasara also is

not dogmatism. It is the recognition of a simple and undeniable fact.

>

> If one says one specializes in the teachings of Jaimini, I will

not criticize. For God's sake, I too studied Jaimini Sutras and am

grateful to the Sage. But if one says that a particular concept

(e.g. sign aspects) is used only in "Jaimini astrology" and not used

in "Parasari astrology", I have to correct the error.

>

> I now and then hear people talking about how Parasari and

Jaimini systems should not be "mixed up". The artificial "Parasara-

Jaimini" division has the danger of encouraging such unfortunate

misconceptions. Rooting out such unwarranted misconceptions is no

dogmatism. This is very important for the renaissance of Vedic

astrology. I am with Hari.

>

> May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> Narasimha

>

>

>

>

>

> Group info: vedic-

astrology/info.html

>

> To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-

 

>

> ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

>

>

>

>

>

> -

-----------

> Links

>

>

> vedic astrology/

>

> b..

> vedic astrology

>

> c.. Terms

of Service.

[Guest guest]

To all the ardent seekers of Vedic Knowledge,

 

Vedic knowledge (Shruthi) has always been handed down by word of

mouth. Also, no single Rishi ever claimed to be the originator of the

Vedic concepts. Some of them have attmpted to to collect prevalent

knowledge and codify them. Even these great Rishis have shown great

humility and have always presented conflicting ideas without

prejudice, leaving the ardent students to make their own choices.

 

That is the real path of the Vedas, where completely opposite views

of every subject including theories of God-head and creation existed.

I personlly feel that what is available in the versions of BPHS

today, cannot be considered comprehensive of all what Parashara would

have considered valid astrological principles. Also, all the portions

of the current versions may not be from the original work. Most Vedic

texts bear evidence of additions along the guru-shishya lineage.

 

Vedic thought has been and is always growing based on the

contributions of genuine students. It is a Living Entity,

continuously renewed and rejuvenated by the Divine. The ardent

seekers will be guided by the Divine to choose what is appropriate

for each one.

 

 

Loving Regards,

Arun

 

vedic astrology, "vijayadas_pradeep"

<vijayadas_pradeep> wrote:

> Dear and respected members

>

> Combination of two systems should be used only if the user can

> filter out the cumulative effects.Else the combination will give an

> extrapolated image which is an exaggeration of the reality.Even if

> we think Jaimini munis work is an extension or finer analysis of

> Parasharas principles,one should be totally thorough with the

> contextual link of that principle or the base work of parashara

from

> which this principle was selected.Thus intelligently one can

> eliminate the duplication.

>

> Otherwise integrating incomplete theories will have the deficiency

> of assimilation and the error of overlapping and sometimes that of

> nullification.I remember the views from learned members that the

> works of Muni Jaimini being lost and thus incomplete.

>

> Astrology is not a quantitative field rather qualitative.If we are

> doing scientific research employing techniques of differentiation

> and integration will help in achieving accurate and microscopic

> results.In astrology finer techniques should be used only to

> understand the basics,which is any way well defined by the sages.

> (namely the strenghts like shadbala,ashtakavarga or astronomical

> calculations).Incorporating newer techniques or heterogenous mixing

> will corrupt the great works by the Munis.

>

> One should never forget that Shruthis and Smrithis are

> different.Ceratain things are divine and we shouldn't modify it.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

[Guest guest]

Namaste all,

 

> Dear and respected members

>

> Combination of two systems should be used only if the user can

> filter out the cumulative effects.Else the combination will give an

> extrapolated image which is an exaggeration of the reality.

 

See, this is what I was afraid of.

 

With all this talk of "two systems", this kind of misconceptions crop

up.

 

There are no two systems. There is only one "Jyotisha", which is a

Vedanga. Period.

 

Parasara's own teachings make this amply clear.

 

This two system business is a fairly new view. It was not prevalent

at the time of Parasara and Jaimini.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Dear Narasimha Ji

 

Thanks for preventing me from developing false basics.

I have raised some concerns about extension of Rashi principles in

divisional charts addressed to Chandrashekhar ji.

 

Thanks

Pradeep

 

vedic astrology, "pvr108" <pvr@c...> wrote:

> Namaste all,

>

> > Dear and respected members

> >

> > Combination of two systems should be used only if the user can

> > filter out the cumulative effects.Else the combination will give

an

> > extrapolated image which is an exaggeration of the reality.

>

> See, this is what I was afraid of.

>

> With all this talk of "two systems", this kind of misconceptions

crop

> up.

>

> There are no two systems. There is only one "Jyotisha", which is a

> Vedanga. Period.

>

> Parasara's own teachings make this amply clear.

>

> This two system business is a fairly new view. It was not

prevalent

> at the time of Parasara and Jaimini.

>

> May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> Narasimha