about upaya and their logic

[Guest guest]

Sir,

 

You people seem to be very particular about the logic behind an upaya.

Is it really necessary to look for a logic behind these upaya? Don’t

you think looking for logic in the upaya suggested by the Lal Kitab

amounts to irreverence to the book? Can’t we accept the upaya as such

without having to look for its logical validity?

Just curious to know your thoughts.

 

Khurana

[Guest guest]

Respected Khurana ji,

 

An interesting query, I must say.

 

An upaya without a plausible astrological logic is called a Totkaa.

Not that we have any thing against the Totkaas, they have been a part

of Indian culture for centuries; but a Totkaa can not be accepted in

the same sense as an upaya or parihar is accepted in astrology. A

Totkaa can be suggested without having to look at the horoscope.

Totkaa is more a belief, a faith, a ritual and there is no doubt that

the Totkaas are also very effective in mitigating the malady.

 

An upaya or parihaar has a very valid astrological reasoning behind

it. An upaya can be suggested only after having a look at a horoscope,

an upaya is horoscope specific. That being so, we should know the

logic and reasoning which makes it an upaya, thus differentiating it

from Totkaa. Therefore it becomes essential to know whether it is an

upaya or a Totkaa. That can be done only after analyzing the upaya and

the process through which the upaya has been devised in the first

place.

 

Finding logic behind an upaya suggested by the Lal Kitab is not so

much to verify its authenticity as it is to learn the process of how

the upaya had been devised; what astrological factors had gone into

before the upaya was given the shape. Analyzing for the process of

learning can never be construed as irreverence.

 

Even otherwise there is nothing divine or sacrosanct about the Lal

Kitab, it is like any other classic book on traditional Indian

astrology. Critical evaluation is a normal academic process of

learning; more so with those who have a critical and free open mind.

Therefore we do not consider it a sacrilege or irreverence to

critically analyze every thing which has been said in the Lal Kitab.

 

We should not accept an upaya unless valid astrological coordinates

have been established, because an upaya has to be done according to

certain rules. If it has no astrological validity then it is a Totkaa

and can be done without having to follow the rules of doing remedies.

That is another reason we insist on understanding the logic of the

upaya.

 

Regards,

 

Varun Trivedi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " khurana_satpal "

<khurana_satpal wrote:

>

> Sir,

>

> You people seem to be very particular about the logic behind an

upaya.

> Is it really necessary to look for a logic behind these upaya? Don’t

> you think looking for logic in the upaya suggested by the Lal Kitab

> amounts to irreverence to the book? Can’t we accept the upaya as

such

> without having to look for its logical validity?

> Just curious to know your thoughts.

>

> Khurana

>

[Guest guest]

Sir,

 

Thank you for such detailed answer. I am convinced that seeking a

logic behind an upaya is a good learning process. Thank you once

again.

 

Sincerely,

 

Khurana

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " varun_trvd "

<varun_trvd wrote:

>

> Respected Khurana ji,

>

> An interesting query, I must say.

>

> An upaya without a plausible astrological logic is called a

Totkaa.

> Not that we have any thing against the Totkaas, they have been a

part

> of Indian culture for centuries; but a Totkaa can not be accepted

in

> the same sense as an upaya or parihar is accepted in astrology. A

> Totkaa can be suggested without having to look at the horoscope.

> Totkaa is more a belief, a faith, a ritual and there is no doubt

that

> the Totkaas are also very effective in mitigating the malady.

>

> An upaya or parihaar has a very valid astrological reasoning

behind

> it. An upaya can be suggested only after having a look at a

horoscope,

> an upaya is horoscope specific. That being so, we should know the

> logic and reasoning which makes it an upaya, thus differentiating

it

> from Totkaa. Therefore it becomes essential to know whether it is

an

> upaya or a Totkaa. That can be done only after analyzing the upaya

and

> the process through which the upaya has been devised in the first

> place.

>

> Finding logic behind an upaya suggested by the Lal Kitab is not

so

> much to verify its authenticity as it is to learn the process of

how

> the upaya had been devised; what astrological factors had gone

into

> before the upaya was given the shape. Analyzing for the process of

> learning can never be construed as irreverence.

>

> Even otherwise there is nothing divine or sacrosanct about the

Lal

> Kitab, it is like any other classic book on traditional Indian

> astrology. Critical evaluation is a normal academic process of

> learning; more so with those who have a critical and free open

mind.

> Therefore we do not consider it a sacrilege or irreverence to

> critically analyze every thing which has been said in the Lal

Kitab.

>

> We should not accept an upaya unless valid astrological

coordinates

> have been established, because an upaya has to be done according

to

> certain rules. If it has no astrological validity then it is a

Totkaa

> and can be done without having to follow the rules of doing

remedies.

> That is another reason we insist on understanding the logic of the

> upaya.

>

> Regards,

>

> Varun Trivedi

>

>

>

>

>

>

, " khurana_satpal "

> <khurana_satpal@> wrote:

> >

> > Sir,

> >

> > You people seem to be very particular about the logic behind an

> upaya.

> > Is it really necessary to look for a logic behind these upaya?

Don’t

> > you think looking for logic in the upaya suggested by the Lal

Kitab

> > amounts to irreverence to the book? Can’t we accept the upaya as

> such

> > without having to look for its logical validity?

> > Just curious to know your thoughts.

> >

> > Khurana

> >

>