Question still unanswered/ ACHARYA UMESH JI

[Guest guest]

Respected Delhi NareshMarvelous Job.Heartiest Congrats from me.This one is the spirit of a true scholar. aapne ek bojh halkaa kar diya varnaa log yah hee kehtey ki Pt.Lalkitabee aur varun to bekaar main josh dikhaa rahey hain aur ab lalkitab ko hee galat bol rahey hain. Aapki khoj ne saabit kar diyaa ki aap sahi maayno main lalkitab ka kayee baar addhyayan kar chuke hain. aapki maansiktaa sankuchit nahi hai. Aur shayad yah bhi saabit ho gayaa ki lalkitab main bhi galatiyaan hain aur unhain jaise ka taisaa manjoori de denaa dishaa-bhraamak hee hogaa.Mujhe aur Varun ji ko Yahi to afsos hai ki jo baar baar kitaab padhne ka aur samajhne ka dum bhartey hain unmain se koyee bhi is vishay par nahi bolaa, dosri taraf is bhed ya galati ko uthaane wala aur solve karne wala dono hee professional astrologers hain. Jinki baat ko hazam karnaa hameshaa hee ek mudaa rahaa hai. Khair -- ek baar fir se aapko badhaayee aur salaam. Main ab isi discussion ko aage le jaatey huve yah vichaar karne ko boltaa hoon ki -- AB KIS DEFINATION KO AUTHENTIC MAANAA JAAYE , PAGE NO. 206 YA PAGE NO. 1130, kyonki dono hee to orioginal hain aur dono hee ek saath theek nahi ho saktey.koyee ek defination hee theek ho sakti hai. Jabki abhi tak pehley wali defination par hee vichaar hotaa rahaa hai. Ab to faisla ek tarfaa lenaa hee hogaa.

Meri iltazaa hai ki kam se kam ab to ve log mitthyaa bhram ya abhimaan chhodkar aage aa jaayain aur vastvik taur se addhyayn kartey huve participate karain , aur apne vichaar rakhain. Varnaa bekaar main gaal bajaane se kyaa faayada. Yahaan na to koyee mahaagyaani hai na hee mahaamoorkh hai,hum sabhi researchers hain.ANAND -PIDIT kar diyaa aapne AACHARYA UMESH JI.With RegardsPt.LalkitabeeV.Shukla , "Umesh Sharma" <mudit982001 wrote:>> Res. Varun ji,> Sir, See page no 1130 of 1952 Edition> " Teve baithey Ek taa Nauvain, daayain dakhila boltey hain,> chaltey chaltey 12 se ghar nau aavain, asar baayain par dete hain"> 1. Janamkundli ke anusaar jo grahghar no.1 se nau tak baithey hon > vah apna apna parbhav ghar main parvesh hote hue daayain hath ki aur > parkat kiya kartey hain tatha ghar no.12 se 10 tak bethey hue > makaanm ke baayaintaraf apna parbhav dikhatain hey.> Regards> Umesh Sharma > > , "varun_trvd" > varun_trvd@ wrote:> >> > Dear Kulbir bhai,> > > > All Lal kitab readers know that this is how pandit ji wrote. Had > > this not been his style of writing then most of the concepts under > > the grammar portion would have been understood by most of us. > Giving > > my own example, I do not understand even 20% of what is written in > > the grammar portion. Now that can not be because I haven't got the > > brains, it is primarily because the style of writing. At times it > > appears that Pandit ji was writing in a state of trance and even > he > > didn't know what he was writing.> > > > Taking the statement as it appears, we have to decide whether the > > word should be daayen or baayen.> > > > I think that there is a printing mistake and the word should be > > baayen.> > > > Have a nice day,> > > > Varun> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "kulbirbance" > > <kulbirbance@> wrote:> > >> > > Varun ji;> > > > > > the natural question that is acting like a block is that pt> > > ji could have simply said; when u enter the house these items > will > > be> > > on the right side and these would be on the left side. why did he> > > explains the items once again while entering and again when on > > exit.> > > why did he made it complex.? what was the need for this approach.> > > don't you think it could have been explained very simple taking > > only> > > one position into account. i.e either take exit route or take the> > > entry route.> > > > > > sincerely> > > > > > kulbirbance.> > > > > > > > > , "varun_trvd"> > > <varun_trvd@> wrote:> > > >> > > > Respected members, The question remains unanswered. "Isi > tarah> > > barah> > > > number khane se apane aap ko khana 9 ki taraf aate huye gine > ya > > makan> > > > mein bahar se aakar dakhil hone lagen to khana # 12 se 12, 11, > > 10 ke> > > > gharon ke grah daayeen taraf makan ke saboot denge." In the > > above> > > > passage how can the planets "daayeen taraf makan ke saboot> > > denge." ? I> > > > believe daayeen taraf is a mistake. It should have > been 'Baayeen> > > taraf'> > > > Need your views on this. With regards, Varun Trivedi> > > >> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,Lalkitabi Ji has raised a crucial query. which statments we shall treat as correct. He further emphasized that this is a true outcome of efforts by professionals. Now here becomes two platforms amateurs like me, varun trivedi, Tyagi Ji, Miglani ji, Nirmal ji and

proffessionals like Lalkitabi ji, Bhooshan priya Ji, Umesh Ji,Yograj Ji, Thakur Ji & Kulbir Ji. while reading lalkitab I found important dictum that verification must be applied before interpreting the horoscope.

Now ball is in the court of professionals. You must be applying these rules before interpreting the horoscopes. Therefore there will not be any person more suitable to answer these queries.RegardsOn 4/3/08, lalkitabee <lalkitabee wrote:

 

Respected Delhi NareshMarvelous Job.Heartiest Congrats from me.This one is the spirit of a true scholar. aapne ek bojh halkaa kar diya varnaa log yah hee kehtey ki Pt.Lalkitabee aur varun to bekaar main josh dikhaa rahey hain aur ab lalkitab ko hee galat bol rahey hain. Aapki khoj ne saabit kar diyaa ki aap sahi maayno main lalkitab ka kayee baar addhyayan kar chuke hain. aapki maansiktaa sankuchit nahi hai. Aur shayad yah bhi saabit ho gayaa ki lalkitab main bhi galatiyaan hain aur unhain jaise ka taisaa manjoori de denaa dishaa-bhraamak hee hogaa.Mujhe aur Varun ji ko Yahi to afsos hai ki jo baar baar kitaab padhne ka aur samajhne ka dum bhartey hain unmain se koyee bhi is vishay par nahi bolaa, dosri taraf is bhed ya galati ko uthaane wala aur solve karne wala dono hee professional astrologers hain. Jinki baat ko hazam karnaa hameshaa hee ek mudaa rahaa hai. Khair -- ek baar fir se aapko badhaayee aur salaam.

Main ab isi discussion ko aage le jaatey huve yah vichaar karne ko boltaa hoon ki -- AB KIS DEFINATION KO AUTHENTIC MAANAA JAAYE , PAGE NO. 206 YA PAGE NO. 1130, kyonki dono hee to orioginal hain aur dono hee ek saath theek nahi ho saktey.koyee ek defination hee theek ho sakti hai. Jabki abhi tak pehley wali defination par hee vichaar hotaa rahaa hai. Ab to faisla ek tarfaa lenaa hee hogaa.

Meri iltazaa hai ki kam se kam ab to ve log mitthyaa bhram ya abhimaan chhodkar aage aa jaayain aur vastvik taur se addhyayn kartey huve participate karain , aur apne vichaar rakhain. Varnaa bekaar main gaal bajaane se kyaa faayada. Yahaan na to koyee mahaagyaani hai na hee mahaamoorkh hai,hum sabhi researchers hain.

ANAND -PIDIT kar diyaa aapne AACHARYA UMESH JI.With RegardsPt.LalkitabeeV.Shukla , " Umesh Sharma " <mudit982001 wrote:

>> Res. Varun ji,> Sir, See page no 1130 of 1952 Edition> " Teve baithey Ek taa Nauvain, daayain dakhila boltey hain,> chaltey chaltey 12 se ghar nau aavain, asar baayain par dete hain "

> 1. Janamkundli ke anusaar jo grahghar no.1 se nau tak baithey hon > vah apna apna parbhav ghar main parvesh hote hue daayain hath ki aur > parkat kiya kartey hain tatha ghar no.12 se 10 tak bethey hue

> makaanm ke baayaintaraf apna parbhav dikhatain hey.> Regards> Umesh Sharma > > , " varun_trvd "

> varun_trvd@ wrote:> >> > Dear Kulbir bhai,> > > > All Lal kitab readers know that this is how pandit ji wrote. Had > > this not been his style of writing then most of the concepts under

> > the grammar portion would have been understood by most of us. > Giving > > my own example, I do not understand even 20% of what is written in > > the grammar portion. Now that can not be because I haven't got the

> > brains, it is primarily because the style of writing. At times it > > appears that Pandit ji was writing in a state of trance and even > he > > didn't know what he was writing.

> > > > Taking the statement as it appears, we have to decide whether the > > word should be daayen or baayen.> > > > I think that there is a printing mistake and the word should be

> > baayen.> > > > Have a nice day,> > > > Varun> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " kulbirbance "

> > <kulbirbance@> wrote:> > >> > > Varun ji;> > > > > > the natural question that is acting like a block is that pt> > > ji could have simply said; when u enter the house these items

> will > > be> > > on the right side and these would be on the left side. why did he> > > explains the items once again while entering and again when on > > exit.> > > why did he made it complex.? what was the need for this approach.

> > > don't you think it could have been explained very simple taking > > only> > > one position into account. i.e either take exit route or take the> > > entry route.> > >

> > > sincerely> > > > > > kulbirbance.> > > > > > > > > , " varun_trvd "

> > > <varun_trvd@> wrote:> > > >> > > > Respected members, The question remains unanswered. " Isi > tarah> > > barah> > > > number khane se apane aap ko khana 9 ki taraf aate huye gine

> ya > > makan> > > > mein bahar se aakar dakhil hone lagen to khana # 12 se 12, 11, > > 10 ke> > > > gharon ke grah daayeen taraf makan ke saboot denge. " In the

> > above> > > > passage how can the planets " daayeen taraf makan ke saboot> > > denge. " ? I> > > > believe daayeen taraf is a mistake. It should have > been 'Baayeen

> > > taraf'> > > > Need your views on this. With regards, Varun Trivedi> > > >> > >> >>

-- Dr. Shiv Dev Kalsi,Jyotish Rishi (AIFAS)Consultant (Vedic Astrology)