1941 Gutaka [ urdu ed ] : another mistake [?]

[Guest guest]

Respected members,

Context : Mangal aur Shani mushtarqa

 

While reading through the Gutka, we came across

this mistake [?]. The combination under discussion

is mangal + shani, and all of a sudden the words

mangal and budh appear. The entire passage is

in no way related to mercury. This becomes evident

if one reads the same context in the 1952 edition

where the explanation is extended a bit more.

 

We therefore believe the word ‘budh’ has been

inadvertently printed in place of ‘shani’ and

the mistake [?] gets carried through to the urdu

editions of 1942 and 1952 also. Since the

transliterations seem to have been done

mechanically, the mistake [?] gets carried

into the transliterated editions also.

 

 

1941 urdu ed ; page 294 ; lines 14-15 ;

page 295 lines 1-3

 

Dono no 10 aur papi achhe gharon ke

ya jab papi raddi na hon }

 

maldar, ayyaldar, pote parpote wala lekin

jab papi raddi hon, mangal aur budh dono

grah kundali mein Rahu ki umra ke

bad (42 sal ke bad) nek asar denge.

 

The mistake [?] gets carried on in all the three

transliterations available of the 1941 Gutka.

 

[ 1 ] Pt. Yoraj Prabhakar’s page 294-295 ;

[ 2 ] Arun Sanhita’s page 154 and

[ 3 ] Pt. LK Vashishtha’s page 142 last line.

 

1942 urdu ed ; page 302 ; lines 21 â€" 23

 

Dono mushtarka Khana no 10 -11 )

maldar, ayyaldar, pote parpote wala agar

kundali mein papi grah achhe gharon ke

hon aur raddi na ho gaye hon ; lekin agar raddi

gharon mein hon to mangal budh ka nek

asar rahu ki tamam umra [ 42 sal umra ] ke

bad paida hoga

 

Mistake [?] gets carried to the 1942 transliterations :

 

[ 1 ] Arun sanhita 1942 page 335

 

[ 2 ] Typed version 1942 page 354

 

 

1952 urdu ed ; page 881

 

Aisa shaksh maldar bal-bachche wala, balki

pote parpote wala hoga agar rahu ketu achhe

ghar mein hon aur nikamme barbad na ho

rahe hon . lekin agar rahu ketu mande

ya barbad hon to mangal aur budh ka

nek asar rahu ki tamam umra [ 42 sal ] ke bad

paida hoga.

 

Jab tak koi aur grah khana 3,4 mein na ho aur

na hi khana 1,8 mein mangal ke dushman grah ho.

Agar 3,4 ya 1,8 mein mangal shani ka dushman

grah ho to aisa dushman grah khud hi mara

jayega aur barbad hoga. Mangal shani ki taqat

kam na hogi.

 

As usual the mistake [?] gets carried to all

the transliterations of 1952 edition

available in the market:

 

[ 1 ] Keshavanand Bharti vol II, page 198

[ 2 ] Arun Sanhita page 310

[ 3 ] Pt. Kishan Lal’s page 671

[ 4 ] Vashishtha & Goswami page 715

[ 5 ] Typed version page 803

 

Therefore we request other scholars also

to verify whether this is a mistake or not

before finally taking a decision.

 

Regards,

 

Varun Tridedi

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

gurudev,

 

 

i tried my best to try to find a justification for budh by

applying masnui combinations but reached a dead end. i personally

agree that budh here is a misprint. correct word should be shani.

 

 

regards

 

kulbirbance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " varun_trvd "

<varun_trvd wrote:

>

>

> Respected members,

>

> Context : Mangal aur Shani mushtarqa

>

>

>

> While reading through the Gutka, we came across

>

> this mistake [?]. The combination under discussion

>

> is mangal + shani, and all of a sudden the words

>

> mangal and budh appear. The entire passage is

>

> in no way related to mercury. This becomes evident

>

> if one reads the same context in the 1952 edition

>

> where the explanation is extended a bit more.

>

>

>

> We therefore believe the word ‘budh’ has been

>

> inadvertently printed in place of ‘shani’ and

>

> the mistake [?] gets carried through to the urdu

>

> editions of 1942 and 1952 also. Since the

>

> transliterations seem to have been done

>

> mechanically, the mistake [?] gets carried

>

> into the transliterated editions also.

>

>

>

>

>

> 1941 urdu ed ; page 294 ; lines 14-15 ;

>

> page 295 lines 1-3

>

>

>

> Dono no 10 aur papi achhe gharon ke

>

> ya jab papi raddi na hon }

>

>

>

> maldar, ayyaldar, pote parpote wala lekin

>

> jab papi raddi hon, mangal aur budh dono

>

> grah kundali mein Rahu ki umra ke

>

> bad (42 sal ke bad) nek asar denge.

>

>

>

> The mistake [?] gets carried on in all the three

>

> transliterations available of the 1941 Gutka.

>

>

>

> [ 1 ] Pt. Yoraj Prabhakar’s page 294-295 ;

>

> [ 2 ] Arun Sanhita’s page 154 and

>

> [ 3 ] Pt. LK Vashishtha’s page 142 last line.

>

>

>

>

>

> 1942 urdu ed ; page 302 ; lines 21 …quot; 23

>

>

>

> Dono mushtarka Khana no 10 -11 )

>

>

>

> maldar, ayyaldar, pote parpote wala agar

>

> kundali mein papi grah achhe gharon ke

>

> hon aur raddi na ho gaye hon ; lekin agar raddi

>

> gharon mein hon to mangal budh ka nek

>

> asar rahu ki tamam umra [ 42 sal umra ] ke

>

> bad paida hoga

>

>

>

> Mistake [?] gets carried to the 1942 transliterations :

>

>

>

> [ 1 ] Arun sanhita 1942 page 335

>

>

>

> [ 2 ] Typed version 1942 page 354

>

1952 urdu ed ; page 881

>

>

>

> Aisa shaksh maldar bal-bachche wala, balki

>

> pote parpote wala hoga agar rahu ketu achhe

>

> ghar mein hon aur nikamme barbad na ho

>

> rahe hon . lekin agar rahu ketu mande

>

> ya barbad hon to mangal aur budh ka

>

> nek asar rahu ki tamam umra [ 42 sal ] ke bad

>

> paida hoga.

>

>

>

> Jab tak koi aur grah khana 3,4 mein na ho aur

>

> na hi khana 1,8 mein mangal ke dushman grah ho.

>

> Agar 3,4 ya 1,8 mein mangal shani ka dushman

>

> grah ho to aisa dushman grah khud hi mara

>

> jayega aur barbad hoga. Mangal shani ki taqat

>

> kam na hogi.

>

>

>

> As usual the mistake [?] gets carried to all

>

> the transliterations of 1952 edition

>

> available in the market:

>

>

>

> [ 1 ] Keshavanand Bharti vol II, page 198

>

> [ 2 ] Arun Sanhita page 310

>

> [ 3 ] Pt. Kishan Lal’s page 671

>

> [ 4 ] Vashishtha & Goswami page 715

>

> [ 5 ] Typed version page 803

>

>

>

> Therefore we request other scholars also

>

> to verify whether this is a mistake or not

>

> before finally taking a decision.

>

>

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

> Varun Tridedi

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Kulbir bhai,

 

In the 1952 book, extending the context Pandit ji says

 

" Agar 3,4 ya 1,8 mein mangal shani ka dushman

 

grah ho to aisa dushman grah khud hi mara

 

jayega aur barbad hoga. Mangal shani ki taqat

 

kam na hogi. "

 

It goes to prove that he is talking about 'mangal+shani' and not

about mangal+budh.

 

Regards,

 

Varun

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " kulbirbance "

<kulbirbance wrote:

>

> gurudev,

>

>

> i tried my best to try to find a justification for budh by

> applying masnui combinations but reached a dead end. i personally

> agree that budh here is a misprint. correct word should be shani.

>

>

> regards

>

> kulbirbance.

>

>

>

>

>

, " varun_trvd "

> <varun_trvd@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Respected members,

> >

> > Context : Mangal aur Shani mushtarqa

> >

> >

> >

> > While reading through the Gutka, we came across

> >

> > this mistake [?]. The combination under discussion

> >

> > is mangal + shani, and all of a sudden the words

> >

> > mangal and budh appear. The entire passage is

> >

> > in no way related to mercury. This becomes evident

> >

> > if one reads the same context in the 1952 edition

> >

> > where the explanation is extended a bit more.

> >

> >

> >

> > We therefore believe the word ‘budh’ has been

> >

> > inadvertently printed in place of ‘shani’ and

> >

> > the mistake [?] gets carried through to the urdu

> >

> > editions of 1942 and 1952 also. Since the

> >

> > transliterations seem to have been done

> >

> > mechanically, the mistake [?] gets carried

> >

> > into the transliterated editions also.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > 1941 urdu ed ; page 294 ; lines 14-15 ;

> >

> > page 295 lines 1-3

> >

> >

> >

> > Dono no 10 aur papi achhe gharon ke

> >

> > ya jab papi raddi na hon }

> >

> >

> >

> > maldar, ayyaldar, pote parpote wala lekin

> >

> > jab papi raddi hon, mangal aur budh dono

> >

> > grah kundali mein Rahu ki umra ke

> >

> > bad (42 sal ke bad) nek asar denge.

> >

> >

> >

> > The mistake [?] gets carried on in all the three

> >

> > transliterations available of the 1941 Gutka.

> >

> >

> >

> > [ 1 ] Pt. Yoraj Prabhakar’s page 294-295 ;

> >

> > [ 2 ] Arun Sanhita’s page 154 and

> >

> > [ 3 ] Pt. LK Vashishtha’s page 142 last line.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > 1942 urdu ed ; page 302 ; lines 21 …quot; 23

> >

> >

> >

> > Dono mushtarka Khana no 10 -11 )

> >

> >

> >

> > maldar, ayyaldar, pote parpote wala agar

> >

> > kundali mein papi grah achhe gharon ke

> >

> > hon aur raddi na ho gaye hon ; lekin agar raddi

> >

> > gharon mein hon to mangal budh ka nek

> >

> > asar rahu ki tamam umra [ 42 sal umra ] ke

> >

> > bad paida hoga

> >

> >

> >

> > Mistake [?] gets carried to the 1942 transliterations :

> >

> >

> >

> > [ 1 ] Arun sanhita 1942 page 335

> >

> >

> >

> > [ 2 ] Typed version 1942 page 354

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > 1952 urdu ed ; page 881

> >

> >

> >

> > Aisa shaksh maldar bal-bachche wala, balki

> >

> > pote parpote wala hoga agar rahu ketu achhe

> >

> > ghar mein hon aur nikamme barbad na ho

> >

> > rahe hon . lekin agar rahu ketu mande

> >

> > ya barbad hon to mangal aur budh ka

> >

> > nek asar rahu ki tamam umra [ 42 sal ] ke bad

> >

> > paida hoga.

> >

> >

> >

> > Jab tak koi aur grah khana 3,4 mein na ho aur

> >

> > na hi khana 1,8 mein mangal ke dushman grah ho.

> >

> > Agar 3,4 ya 1,8 mein mangal shani ka dushman

> >

> > grah ho to aisa dushman grah khud hi mara

> >

> > jayega aur barbad hoga. Mangal shani ki taqat

> >

> > kam na hogi.

> >

> >

> >

> > As usual the mistake [?] gets carried to all

> >

> > the transliterations of 1952 edition

> >

> > available in the market:

> >

> >

> >

> > [ 1 ] Keshavanand Bharti vol II, page 198

> >

> > [ 2 ] Arun Sanhita page 310

> >

> > [ 3 ] Pt. Kishan Lal’s page 671

> >

> > [ 4 ] Vashishtha & Goswami page 715

> >

> > [ 5 ] Typed version page 803

> >

> >

> >

> > Therefore we request other scholars also

> >

> > to verify whether this is a mistake or not

> >

> > before finally taking a decision.

> >

> >

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> >

> >

> > Varun Tridedi

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Respected Varun ji,

 

Sir, I had wanted to ask this for a long time. But I have been

thinking should I or not.Isn't it surprising that such mistakes are

being noticed now? What could be the reasons for it?

 

respectfully,

 

Girish Raheja

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " varun_trvd "

<varun_trvd wrote:

>

> Dear Kulbir bhai,

>

> In the 1952 book, extending the context Pandit ji says

>

> " Agar 3,4 ya 1,8 mein mangal shani ka dushman

>

> grah ho to aisa dushman grah khud hi mara

>

> jayega aur barbad hoga. Mangal shani ki taqat

>

> kam na hogi. "

>

> It goes to prove that he is talking about 'mangal+shani' and not

> about mangal+budh.

>

> Regards,

>

> Varun

>

>

>

, " kulbirbance "

> <kulbirbance@> wrote:

> >

> > gurudev,

> >

> >

> > i tried my best to try to find a justification for budh by

> > applying masnui combinations but reached a dead end. i personally

> > agree that budh here is a misprint. correct word should be shani.

> >

> >

> > regards

> >

> > kulbirbance.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , " varun_trvd "

> > <varun_trvd@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > Respected members,

> > >

> > > Context : Mangal aur Shani mushtarqa

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > While reading through the Gutka, we came across

> > >

> > > this mistake [?]. The combination under discussion

> > >

> > > is mangal + shani, and all of a sudden the words

> > >

> > > mangal and budh appear. The entire passage is

> > >

> > > in no way related to mercury. This becomes evident

> > >

> > > if one reads the same context in the 1952 edition

> > >

> > > where the explanation is extended a bit more.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > We therefore believe the word ‘budh’ has been

> > >

> > > inadvertently printed in place of ‘shani’ and

> > >

> > > the mistake [?] gets carried through to the urdu

> > >

> > > editions of 1942 and 1952 also. Since the

> > >

> > > transliterations seem to have been done

> > >

> > > mechanically, the mistake [?] gets carried

> > >

> > > into the transliterated editions also.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 1941 urdu ed ; page 294 ; lines 14-15 ;

> > >

> > > page 295 lines 1-3

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dono no 10 aur papi achhe gharon ke

> > >

> > > ya jab papi raddi na hon }

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > maldar, ayyaldar, pote parpote wala lekin

> > >

> > > jab papi raddi hon, mangal aur budh dono

> > >

> > > grah kundali mein Rahu ki umra ke

> > >

> > > bad (42 sal ke bad) nek asar denge.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > The mistake [?] gets carried on in all the three

> > >

> > > transliterations available of the 1941 Gutka.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > [ 1 ] Pt. Yoraj Prabhakar’s page 294-295 ;

> > >

> > > [ 2 ] Arun Sanhita’s page 154 and

> > >

> > > [ 3 ] Pt. LK Vashishtha’s page 142 last line.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 1942 urdu ed ; page 302 ; lines 21 …quot; 23

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dono mushtarka Khana no 10 -11 )

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > maldar, ayyaldar, pote parpote wala agar

> > >

> > > kundali mein papi grah achhe gharon ke

> > >

> > > hon aur raddi na ho gaye hon ; lekin agar raddi

> > >

> > > gharon mein hon to mangal budh ka nek

> > >

> > > asar rahu ki tamam umra [ 42 sal umra ] ke

> > >

> > > bad paida hoga

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Mistake [?] gets carried to the 1942 transliterations :

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > [ 1 ] Arun sanhita 1942 page 335

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > [ 2 ] Typed version 1942 page 354

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 1952 urdu ed ; page 881

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Aisa shaksh maldar bal-bachche wala, balki

> > >

> > > pote parpote wala hoga agar rahu ketu achhe

> > >

> > > ghar mein hon aur nikamme barbad na ho

> > >

> > > rahe hon . lekin agar rahu ketu mande

> > >

> > > ya barbad hon to mangal aur budh ka

> > >

> > > nek asar rahu ki tamam umra [ 42 sal ] ke bad

> > >

> > > paida hoga.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Jab tak koi aur grah khana 3,4 mein na ho aur

> > >

> > > na hi khana 1,8 mein mangal ke dushman grah ho.

> > >

> > > Agar 3,4 ya 1,8 mein mangal shani ka dushman

> > >

> > > grah ho to aisa dushman grah khud hi mara

> > >

> > > jayega aur barbad hoga. Mangal shani ki taqat

> > >

> > > kam na hogi.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > As usual the mistake [?] gets carried to all

> > >

> > > the transliterations of 1952 edition

> > >

> > > available in the market:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > [ 1 ] Keshavanand Bharti vol II, page 198

> > >

> > > [ 2 ] Arun Sanhita page 310

> > >

> > > [ 3 ] Pt. Kishan Lal’s page 671

> > >

> > > [ 4 ] Vashishtha & Goswami page 715

> > >

> > > [ 5 ] Typed version page 803

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Therefore we request other scholars also

> > >

> > > to verify whether this is a mistake or not

> > >

> > > before finally taking a decision.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Varun Tridedi

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Respected Raheja ji,

 

 

It is not just surprising, it is painfully tragic. The Lal Kitab

books have been around for about 70 years now. The tragedy has been

that these books were adored rather than studied. At the most some

people culled out the upaya and used them without really studying

the text. Some people are known to have these books in their

possession for decades and still none the wiser. Once Pt. Lalkitabee

ji rightly said “gadhe ke sar par zindgi bhar Quran rakhi rahe phir

bhi gadha maulana nahi ban jayega; maulana to parh kar samajhne se

hi banegaâ€.

 

Had these books been studied, like they are being done now by some

of us, the mistakes could have been pointed out much earlier. Just

take the example of the mistake pointed out by us regarding

Saturn+Venus combination.

 

[a] Dono ko sooraj dekhe : sanichar ka purjor bura asar, maut

purdard hogi

 

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.

These two statements occur on the same page and still the

contradiction was not detected. How could some one miss such a

blatant contradiction, and that too on the same page, is beyond our

imagination. It simply indicates that people had hardly read these

books. Claims that they have read all the five books many times over

are invariably unreliable.

Another tragedy with the books has been the general impression that

the book should be read like a novel, apparently taking it to mean

that the book be read as an entertaining story. People little

understood what Pandit Roopchand ji meant when he said that the book

should be read over and over again like a novel.

Reading like a novel means to get involved in, to feel it from

within, to be one with the events and the characters, to share their

trials and tribulations and share their joys and sorrows, what we

call in Hindi ‘ Atma saath karna’. But people chose to read the

book, if at all, like an entertaining story instead of doing an

intensive critical study.

The third tragedy with the book had been to think that it is simple;

and merely by reading it one would understand it. Some go to the

extent of saying that it is as simple as a primary class ‘qayada’[ a

term used for urdu primer] . The fact is just the opposite of it. We

have studied [not just read] these books over and over again with

all concentration and in spite of that we have not been able to

understand more than 30% of its grammar portion. And we are no dull

heads. We find Lal Kitab as one of the most difficult books ever

written on Vedic astrology.

The fourth tragedy with the book has been regarding the attitude

towards the book. So long as people will continue to project the

books as the God’s gospel, some thing sacrosanct and not subject to

critical scrutiny, such howlers will go unnoticed. People have been

intentionally spreading myths about these books in order to gain

respectability; little realizing that it is the effectiveness of the

system which will earn respectability to the system and not these

false myths and legends woven around the book.

In our efforts to analyze the Lal Kitab, the contribution of Pt.

Yograj Prabhakar ji has been immense. He has done a great service by

providing us all the original Urdu versions of the book. We know it

took him years of search to collect all the five books. Had he not

provided these Urdu books, we wouldn’t have had any thing for

reference. But then it has to be a collective effort, and so it is.

Every body is contributing his two cents.

The results of this collective effort are for all to see in this

group.

Regards,

Varun Trivedi

, " girish_raheja "

<girish_raheja wrote:

>

> Respected Varun ji,

>

> Sir, I had wanted to ask this for a long time. But I have been

> thinking should I or not.Isn't it surprising that such mistakes

are

> being noticed now? What could be the reasons for it?

>

> respectfully,

>

> Girish Raheja

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

, " varun_trvd "

> <varun_trvd@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Kulbir bhai,

> >

> > In the 1952 book, extending the context Pandit ji says

> >

> > " Agar 3,4 ya 1,8 mein mangal shani ka dushman

> >

> > grah ho to aisa dushman grah khud hi mara

> >

> > jayega aur barbad hoga. Mangal shani ki taqat

> >

> > kam na hogi. "

> >

> > It goes to prove that he is talking about 'mangal+shani' and not

> > about mangal+budh.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Varun

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , " kulbirbance "

> > <kulbirbance@> wrote:

> > >

> > > gurudev,

> > >

> > >

> > > i tried my best to try to find a justification for budh by

> > > applying masnui combinations but reached a dead end. i

personally

> > > agree that budh here is a misprint. correct word should be

shani.

> > >

> > >

> > > regards

> > >

> > > kulbirbance.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , " varun_trvd "

> > > <varun_trvd@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Respected members,

> > > >

> > > > Context : Mangal aur Shani mushtarqa

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > While reading through the Gutka, we came across

> > > >

> > > > this mistake [?]. The combination under discussion

> > > >

> > > > is mangal + shani, and all of a sudden the words

> > > >

> > > > mangal and budh appear. The entire passage is

> > > >

> > > > in no way related to mercury. This becomes evident

> > > >

> > > > if one reads the same context in the 1952 edition

> > > >

> > > > where the explanation is extended a bit more.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > We therefore believe the word ‘budh’ has been

> > > >

> > > > inadvertently printed in place of ‘shani’ and

> > > >

> > > > the mistake [?] gets carried through to the urdu

> > > >

> > > > editions of 1942 and 1952 also. Since the

> > > >

> > > > transliterations seem to have been done

> > > >

> > > > mechanically, the mistake [?] gets carried

> > > >

> > > > into the transliterated editions also.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 1941 urdu ed ; page 294 ; lines 14-15 ;

> > > >

> > > > page 295 lines 1-3

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dono no 10 aur papi achhe gharon ke

> > > >

> > > > ya jab papi raddi na hon }

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > maldar, ayyaldar, pote parpote wala lekin

> > > >

> > > > jab papi raddi hon, mangal aur budh dono

> > > >

> > > > grah kundali mein Rahu ki umra ke

> > > >

> > > > bad (42 sal ke bad) nek asar denge.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > The mistake [?] gets carried on in all the three

> > > >

> > > > transliterations available of the 1941 Gutka.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > [ 1 ] Pt. Yoraj Prabhakar’s page 294-295 ;

> > > >

> > > > [ 2 ] Arun Sanhita’s page 154 and

> > > >

> > > > [ 3 ] Pt. LK Vashishtha’s page 142 last line.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 1942 urdu ed ; page 302 ; lines 21 …quot; 23

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dono mushtarka Khana no 10 -11 )

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > maldar, ayyaldar, pote parpote wala agar

> > > >

> > > > kundali mein papi grah achhe gharon ke

> > > >

> > > > hon aur raddi na ho gaye hon ; lekin agar raddi

> > > >

> > > > gharon mein hon to mangal budh ka nek

> > > >

> > > > asar rahu ki tamam umra [ 42 sal umra ] ke

> > > >

> > > > bad paida hoga

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Mistake [?] gets carried to the 1942 transliterations :

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > [ 1 ] Arun sanhita 1942 page 335

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > [ 2 ] Typed version 1942 page 354

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 1952 urdu ed ; page 881

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Aisa shaksh maldar bal-bachche wala, balki

> > > >

> > > > pote parpote wala hoga agar rahu ketu achhe

> > > >

> > > > ghar mein hon aur nikamme barbad na ho

> > > >

> > > > rahe hon . lekin agar rahu ketu mande

> > > >

> > > > ya barbad hon to mangal aur budh ka

> > > >

> > > > nek asar rahu ki tamam umra [ 42 sal ] ke bad

> > > >

> > > > paida hoga.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Jab tak koi aur grah khana 3,4 mein na ho aur

> > > >

> > > > na hi khana 1,8 mein mangal ke dushman grah ho.

> > > >

> > > > Agar 3,4 ya 1,8 mein mangal shani ka dushman

> > > >

> > > > grah ho to aisa dushman grah khud hi mara

> > > >

> > > > jayega aur barbad hoga. Mangal shani ki taqat

> > > >

> > > > kam na hogi.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > As usual the mistake [?] gets carried to all

> > > >

> > > > the transliterations of 1952 edition

> > > >

> > > > available in the market:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > [ 1 ] Keshavanand Bharti vol II, page 198

> > > >

> > > > [ 2 ] Arun Sanhita page 310

> > > >

> > > > [ 3 ] Pt. Kishan Lal’s page 671

> > > >

> > > > [ 4 ] Vashishtha & Goswami page 715

> > > >

> > > > [ 5 ] Typed version page 803

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Therefore we request other scholars also

> > > >

> > > > to verify whether this is a mistake or not

> > > >

> > > > before finally taking a decision.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Varun Tridedi

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Respected Varun ji,

 

Thank you for your very candid reply. Wish you all the best for your

efforts.

 

Respectfully,

 

Girish Raheja

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " varun_trvd "

<varun_trvd wrote:

>

>

> Respected Raheja ji,

>

>

> It is not just surprising, it is painfully tragic. The Lal Kitab

> books have been around for about 70 years now. The tragedy has

been

> that these books were adored rather than studied. At the most some

> people culled out the upaya and used them without really studying

> the text. Some people are known to have these books in their

> possession for decades and still none the wiser. Once Pt.

Lalkitabee

> ji rightly said “gadhe ke sar par zindgi bhar Quran rakhi rahe

phir

> bhi gadha maulana nahi ban jayega; maulana to parh kar samajhne se

> hi banegaâ€.

>

> Had these books been studied, like they are being done now by some

> of us, the mistakes could have been pointed out much earlier. Just

> take the example of the mistake pointed out by us regarding

> Saturn+Venus combination.

>

> [a] Dono ko sooraj dekhe : sanichar ka purjor bura asar, maut

> purdard hogi

>

> 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.

>

>

> These two statements occur on the same page and still the

> contradiction was not detected. How could some one miss such a

> blatant contradiction, and that too on the same page, is beyond

our

> imagination. It simply indicates that people had hardly read these

> books. Claims that they have read all the five books many times

over

> are invariably unreliable.

>

> Another tragedy with the books has been the general impression

that

> the book should be read like a novel, apparently taking it to mean

> that the book be read as an entertaining story. People little

> understood what Pandit Roopchand ji meant when he said that the

book

> should be read over and over again like a novel.

> Reading like a novel means to get involved in, to feel it from

> within, to be one with the events and the characters, to share

their

> trials and tribulations and share their joys and sorrows, what we

> call in Hindi ‘ Atma saath karna’. But people chose to read the

> book, if at all, like an entertaining story instead of doing an

> intensive critical study.

>

> The third tragedy with the book had been to think that it is

simple;

> and merely by reading it one would understand it. Some go to the

> extent of saying that it is as simple as a primary class ‘qayada’[

a

> term used for urdu primer] . The fact is just the opposite of it.

We

> have studied [not just read] these books over and over again with

> all concentration and in spite of that we have not been able to

> understand more than 30% of its grammar portion. And we are no

dull

> heads. We find Lal Kitab as one of the most difficult books ever

> written on Vedic astrology.

>

> The fourth tragedy with the book has been regarding the attitude

> towards the book. So long as people will continue to project the

> books as the God’s gospel, some thing sacrosanct and not subject

to

> critical scrutiny, such howlers will go unnoticed. People have

been

> intentionally spreading myths about these books in order to gain

> respectability; little realizing that it is the effectiveness of

the

> system which will earn respectability to the system and not these

> false myths and legends woven around the book.

>

> In our efforts to analyze the Lal Kitab, the contribution of Pt.

> Yograj Prabhakar ji has been immense. He has done a great service

by

> providing us all the original Urdu versions of the book. We know

it

> took him years of search to collect all the five books. Had he

not

> provided these Urdu books, we wouldn’t have had any thing for

> reference. But then it has to be a collective effort, and so it

is.

> Every body is contributing his two cents.

>

> The results of this collective effort are for all to see in this

> group.

>

> Regards,

>

> Varun Trivedi

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

, " girish_raheja "

> <girish_raheja@> wrote:

> >

> > Respected Varun ji,

> >

> > Sir, I had wanted to ask this for a long time. But I have been

> > thinking should I or not.Isn't it surprising that such mistakes

> are

> > being noticed now? What could be the reasons for it?

> >

> > respectfully,

> >

> > Girish Raheja

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , " varun_trvd "

> > <varun_trvd@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Kulbir bhai,

> > >

> > > In the 1952 book, extending the context Pandit ji says

> > >

> > > " Agar 3,4 ya 1,8 mein mangal shani ka dushman

> > >

> > > grah ho to aisa dushman grah khud hi mara

> > >

> > > jayega aur barbad hoga. Mangal shani ki taqat

> > >

> > > kam na hogi. "

> > >

> > > It goes to prove that he is talking about 'mangal+shani' and

not

> > > about mangal+budh.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > >

> > > Varun

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , " kulbirbance "

> > > <kulbirbance@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > gurudev,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > i tried my best to try to find a justification for budh by

> > > > applying masnui combinations but reached a dead end. i

> personally

> > > > agree that budh here is a misprint. correct word should be

> shani.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > regards

> > > >

> > > > kulbirbance.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > , " varun_trvd "

> > > > <varun_trvd@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Respected members,

> > > > >

> > > > > Context : Mangal aur Shani mushtarqa

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > While reading through the Gutka, we came across

> > > > >

> > > > > this mistake [?]. The combination under discussion

> > > > >

> > > > > is mangal + shani, and all of a sudden the words

> > > > >

> > > > > mangal and budh appear. The entire passage is

> > > > >

> > > > > in no way related to mercury. This becomes evident

> > > > >

> > > > > if one reads the same context in the 1952 edition

> > > > >

> > > > > where the explanation is extended a bit more.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > We therefore believe the word ‘budh’ has been

> > > > >

> > > > > inadvertently printed in place of ‘shani’ and

> > > > >

> > > > > the mistake [?] gets carried through to the urdu

> > > > >

> > > > > editions of 1942 and 1952 also. Since the

> > > > >

> > > > > transliterations seem to have been done

> > > > >

> > > > > mechanically, the mistake [?] gets carried

> > > > >

> > > > > into the transliterated editions also.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > 1941 urdu ed ; page 294 ; lines 14-15 ;

> > > > >

> > > > > page 295 lines 1-3

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Dono no 10 aur papi achhe gharon ke

> > > > >

> > > > > ya jab papi raddi na hon }

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > maldar, ayyaldar, pote parpote wala lekin

> > > > >

> > > > > jab papi raddi hon, mangal aur budh dono

> > > > >

> > > > > grah kundali mein Rahu ki umra ke

> > > > >

> > > > > bad (42 sal ke bad) nek asar denge.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > The mistake [?] gets carried on in all the three

> > > > >

> > > > > transliterations available of the 1941 Gutka.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > [ 1 ] Pt. Yoraj Prabhakar’s page 294-295 ;

> > > > >

> > > > > [ 2 ] Arun Sanhita’s page 154 and

> > > > >

> > > > > [ 3 ] Pt. LK Vashishtha’s page 142 last line.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > 1942 urdu ed ; page 302 ; lines 21 …quot; 23

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Dono mushtarka Khana no 10 -11 )

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > maldar, ayyaldar, pote parpote wala agar

> > > > >

> > > > > kundali mein papi grah achhe gharon ke

> > > > >

> > > > > hon aur raddi na ho gaye hon ; lekin agar raddi

> > > > >

> > > > > gharon mein hon to mangal budh ka nek

> > > > >

> > > > > asar rahu ki tamam umra [ 42 sal umra ] ke

> > > > >

> > > > > bad paida hoga

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Mistake [?] gets carried to the 1942 transliterations :

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > [ 1 ] Arun sanhita 1942 page 335

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > [ 2 ] Typed version 1942 page 354

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > 1952 urdu ed ; page 881

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Aisa shaksh maldar bal-bachche wala, balki

> > > > >

> > > > > pote parpote wala hoga agar rahu ketu achhe

> > > > >

> > > > > ghar mein hon aur nikamme barbad na ho

> > > > >

> > > > > rahe hon . lekin agar rahu ketu mande

> > > > >

> > > > > ya barbad hon to mangal aur budh ka

> > > > >

> > > > > nek asar rahu ki tamam umra [ 42 sal ] ke bad

> > > > >

> > > > > paida hoga.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Jab tak koi aur grah khana 3,4 mein na ho aur

> > > > >

> > > > > na hi khana 1,8 mein mangal ke dushman grah ho.

> > > > >

> > > > > Agar 3,4 ya 1,8 mein mangal shani ka dushman

> > > > >

> > > > > grah ho to aisa dushman grah khud hi mara

> > > > >

> > > > > jayega aur barbad hoga. Mangal shani ki taqat

> > > > >

> > > > > kam na hogi.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > As usual the mistake [?] gets carried to all

> > > > >

> > > > > the transliterations of 1952 edition

> > > > >

> > > > > available in the market:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > [ 1 ] Keshavanand Bharti vol II, page 198

> > > > >

> > > > > [ 2 ] Arun Sanhita page 310

> > > > >

> > > > > [ 3 ] Pt. Kishan Lal’s page 671

> > > > >

> > > > > [ 4 ] Vashishtha & Goswami page 715

> > > > >

> > > > > [ 5 ] Typed version page 803

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Therefore we request other scholars also

> > > > >

> > > > > to verify whether this is a mistake or not

> > > > >

> > > > > before finally taking a decision.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Varun Tridedi

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>