1941 Gutka contradiction : Tentative solution

[Guest guest]

Dear Kulbir bhai,

 

A rebuttal alone would not have been sufficient.It would have to be

a logically argued out alternative.

 

Regards,

 

Varun

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " kulbir bance "

<kulbirbance wrote:

>

> how mich unwillingly there is no choice to accept this *Tentative

suggestion

> / solution.* since no rebutal has come it is very much true that

original

> manuscript too has mistakes/misprints.

> it's a human error; pt ji nor his associates or katib shri atama

ram sharama

> or publisher shri girdhari lal- none of them claimed to be

demigods. with

> our mythology where even our devtas committed errors. what's the

harm to

> accept it.

> it is not blasphemy but true service. the powers associated with

this book

> will bless you.

> you may call it my superstition but i congratulate you that they

chose you

> to bring this revelations.

> even otherwise fact is a fact. didn't the church accept that the

earth is

> not flat nor pivotal point of universe.

> are we more rigid then them.

> it is duty of every sincer student of lalkitab to comment upon

such a big

> issue; if not accepting at least they should say that they shall

research

> and then send in their conclusion. but to remain silent is a crime.

> thakur ji has read all 5 volumes and found answers to all the

questions. at

> least i am awaiting his response.

> varun ji one of my teachers told me that if by remaining silent,

others will

> think you are a fool, it is better not to prove them right by

opening your

> tounge. bolan nalo chup changeri chup de naalon parda. How's that?

agree or

> not?

> sincerely

> kulbirbance

>

>

> On 3/29/08, varun_trvd <varun_trvd wrote:

> >

> > Respected members,

> >

> >

> >

> > I had pointed out a contradiction in the original Urdu edition

of 1941

> > gutka. The matter had been on the board for a couple of days.

Kulbir bhai

> > and Girish Raheja ji had made a few suggestions. We at Aligarh

too had given

> > a very serious thought to this contradiction.

> >

> >

> >

> > *Summarizing the situation:*

> >

> > * *

> >

> > [ 1 ] Saturn + Venus combination any where in a Janma Kundali

can not be

> > aspected by the Sun. It is not astronomically possible.

*Therefore this

> > situation can never arise in a Janma Kundali.*

> >

> >

> >

> > [ 2 ] This is possible only in a Varsh Phal kundali. Since the

results

> > enumerated for the above mentioned planetary placement are life

time

> > results, they can not be delineated from a Varsh Phal kundali.

*Therefore

> > the planetary placement is meant for a Janma Kundali and not for

one year

> > duration Varsh Phal kundali.*

> >

> >

> >

> > [ 3 ] This planetary placement can also occur in a Janma Kundali

cast on

> > the basis of the palm prints. What if the analysis based on the

kundali

> > through the palm prints doesn’t agree with the Janma Kundali

cast through

> > the birth data ? In that case our view is that the credence be

given to the

> > analysis based on the Janma kundali cast through the birth data.

*Thus a

> > kundali cast through the palm prints becomes a secondary source

more in the

> > nature of a verification tool instead of being the primary tool.*

> >

> >

> >

> > The contradiction is not confined to the 1941 gutka alone. The

> > contradiction is further carried forward into the 1942 edition

and the 1952

> > edition also.

> >

> >

> >

> > Here are the details of this contradiction carried through the

Lal Kitab :

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > *1941 Gutka :*

> >

> >

> >

> > Page 283 lines 1-2

> >

> >

> >

> > *Dono ko sooraj dekhe* : sanichar ka purjor bura asar, maut

purdard hogi

> >

> >

> >

> > Page 283/4 lines 13-15+

> >

> >

> >

> > Khana 4 :

> >

> >

> >

> > *Dono # 4 aur suraj #10* : nihayat purdard maut hove, nihayat

kareebi

> > ristedar karobar mein shamil hokar ya vaise hi uska dhan kha pee

jayenge.

> >

> >

> >

> > Page 284 lines 9-12

> >

> >

> >

> > *Dono # 10 aur sooraj # 4* : sanichar ka bura asar na hoga balki

jaydad

> > banegi . maut bhi purdard na hogi, balki lambi umra hogi, naqad

rupia paisa

> > beshak kam hi hove.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > *1942 edition :*

> >

> >

> >

> > Page 295 lines 19-20

> >

> >

> >

> > *Dono mushtarqa ko sooraj dekhe* : shanishchar ka bura asar

nihayat zor

> > se hoga, maut purdard hogi.

> >

> >

> >

> > 295/6

> >

> > Line 26

> >

> >

> >

> > *Khana # 4 *

> >

> > *dono 4 suraj 10 }* nihayat purdard aur sakht maut hogi

> >

> >

> >

> > Page 296 : lines 14-15

> >

> >

> >

> > *Dono # 10 sooraj 4 }* : Shanishchar ka bura asar na hoga,

balki jaydad

> > banegi, maut bhi purdard na hogi , balki lambi umra hogi, naqad

rupia beshak

> > kam hi hove.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > *1952 edition :*

> >

> >

> >

> > Page 865 : lines 11 …quot; 13

> >

> >

> >

> > *Khana # 10*

> >

> >

> >

> > Umra lambi hogi, jaydad banegi, aur maut bhi koi dukhiya halat

mein na

> > hogi, naqad rupia beshak itana jyada na ho --- suraj khana # 4

> >

> >

> >

> > Page 866 line # 8-10

> >

> >

> >

> > Mandi halat :

> >

> >

> >

> > Shanishchar ka bura asar bahut zor se hoga, maut purdard hogi. --

- } dono

> > ko suraj dekhe

> >

> >

> >

> > *Tentative suggestion from the Aligarh group: *

> >

> >

> >

> > This is just a suggestion and not a verdict and that too is

tentative

> > which will hold good till some other Lal Kitab scholar comes up

with a

> > better alternative. The two step solution is :

> >

> >

> >

> > [ A ] The blanket statement contained in line 1 & 2 on page 283

of 1941

> > Gutka :[ *Dono ko sooraj dekhe : sanichar ka pujor bura asar,

maut purdard

> > hogi.]** * be dropped or deleted altogether not only from the

1941 gutka

> > but from the subsequent editions also.

> >

> >

> >

> > [ B ] Since this planetary placement is not possible in a Janma

kundali

> > unless the Sun is removed from the combination.

> >

> >

> >

> > Therefore the Sun and the Mercury can not be a part of this

combination.

> > Mercury, for astronomical reasons, also can not be in a position

to aspect

> > or be aspected by Venus + Saturn combination. Therefore both the

Sun and the

> > Mercury get eliminated.

> >

> >

> >

> > Of the remaining three planets viz. Moon, Mars and Jupiter, to

our mind

> > Moon could best fit into the combination.

> >

> >

> >

> > After the blanket statement of line 1 & 2 page 283 of 1941 gutka

is

> > dropped, and if the Moon is substituted for the Sun, the

equation would

> > then read :

> >

> >

> >

> > *Dono # 4 aur chander #10* : nihayat purdard maut hove, nihayat

kareebi

> > ristedar karobar mein shamil hokar ya vaise hi uska dhan kha pee

jayenge.

> >

> >

> >

> > This is possible because Saturn and Venus placed in the 4th

house will be

> > on a hostile territory and the Moon in the 10 will not only be

on a hostile

> > territory but it will also be under the aspect of two hostile

planets.

> >

> >

> >

> > *Dono # 10 aur Chander # 4* : sanichar ka bura asar na hoga

balki jaydad

> > banegi . maut bhi purdard na hogi, balki lambi umra hogi, naqad

rupia paisa

> > beshak kam hi hove.

> >

> >

> >

> > In this case the Venus and the Saturn will be on their home

ground and so

> > will be the Moon. The aspect of the moon on the Venus and the

Saturn could

> > not be cruel such that it could cause purdard maut.

> >

> >

> >

> > *Other scholars are welcome to suggest better fully justified

alternative:

> > *

> >

> >

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> >

> >

> > Varun Trivedi

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>