Contradiction in Lal Kitab ? / Varun ji

[Guest guest]

Respected Varun ji,

 

Thanks for the explanation. What you have said could be the meaning.

 

Thank you once again.

 

Sincerely,

 

KP Miglani

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- In , " varun_trvd "

<varun_trvd wrote:

>

> Respected Miglani ji,

>

> [ a ] The information given in the Arun Sanhita on page 344 is

> absolutely correct. The same information occurs in the 1952 Urdu

> edition on page 962 line 14th.

>

> [ b ] Yes, at the first glance it does appear as contradictory. Any

> body would be puzzled to read that Pandit ji advises the lady to

stop

> eating Gur [ jaggery ] because it is a karak of the Sun; and at the

> same time advises her to start taking namak �� " salt which again

is a

> karak of the Sun.

>

> [ c ] I do not believe that it was a slip on the part of pandit ji,

> and that the slip went unnoticed. The analysis of the same

horoscope

> is given in the 1942 book also, there too the same advice is given.

> Therefore it is difficult to believe that the same slip went

> unnoticed in two books, written ten years apart.

>

> I had noticed this long back and this is how I had reconciled the

> statement for myself. Others might have a different opinion.

>

> Gur [ jaggery ] has been mentioned as a karak of the sun many a

times

> in the Lal Kitab so has the safed namak [ white table salt ] been

> mentioned as the karak of the Sun. All subsequent scholars of the

Lal

> Kitab have also maintained the same karakattva. Therefore it is

> certain that the gur and the safed namak [common table salt] both

are

> the karak object of the Sun.

>

> It means that one of these two items: Gur and namak have to be

> different from what we normally take them to be. Remember that in

> common parlance the word namak is used for three varieties of namak

> commonly used, and they are the safed namak [ common table salt] ,

> kala namak [ black salt] and sendha namak, the salt which is

> considered very pious and can be used even during the fast. Sendha

> namak is slightly pink in colour and is mined from the mountains.

>

> Another important thing to keep in mind is that the advice comes

for

> a combination of Sun+Venus+Saturn.

>

> In the above planetary combination it is believed that the Sun will

> harm the Venus and therefore if the role of the Sun is diminished

by

> not eating gur , it will be beneficial to the native.

>

> While suggesting that the native should start the intake of namak,

> what could have been the purpose of Pundit ji except that he had

> wanted to strengthen Venus and Saturn. If that being the case then

> the namak mentioned here would have mean sendha namak which is a

> karak of Venus+Saturn [ pink + mountain]. This would strengthen the

> venus+Saturn in the combination.

>

> Therefore I take the statement to mean that the lady should avoid

> eating Gur, and should start the intake of sendha namak.

>

> With great regards,

>

> Varun Trivedi

>

>

>

>

>

> , " kpmiglani "

> <kpmiglani@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sir,

> >

> > While reading 1952 Lal Kitab [ Arun Sanhita ] I came across a

> > contradictory recommendation made by Pt. Roop Chandra Joshi ji.

> > In his analysis of a horoscope Pandit ji has said :

> >

> > jis wakta usko meetha gur [ suraj] milega dukhiya hi hogi, agar

> namak

> > khayegi to theek rahegi. [ Page 344 Arun Sanhita]

> >

> > A little later he once again reiterates this by saying :

> >

> > vah meetha khana jhor de khaskar gur ko.

> >

> > [ a ] Is the information given in the Arun Sanhita correct?

> >

> > [ b ] If so, is it not a contradiction? On one hand Pandit ji

> advises

> > her to give up eating Gur and the very next moment advises her to

> eat

> > namak [ salt], both karak vastu of the Sun.

> >

> > [ c ] In case this is not a contradiction, then how can this

> > statement be reconciled?

> >

> > Sincerely,

> >

> > KP Miglani

> >

>