Guest guest Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 Respected Tyagi Ji,First of all Please oblige me by telling whether you are studying from original urdu books or Hindi Transliterations. Your logics are giving sense that you are referring hindi books. Another point is that please tell me whether the term 'Pitri Hrin' you are referring is for General hrin ot 'Specific Pitri Hrin' (Brihaspati related) in my opinion the term Pitri Rin is used as a general term many times not a specific related to Brihaspati. The important factor is " the Enmity " . Rahu, Budh are enemies of Jupiter while saturn is musavi (neutral) to Brihaspati. How Saturn only can cause Pitri Hrin. Now Second Important factor is Jad. Whose Jad is the house where the enemy is posited. Whose Jad is House No 11. and Whose enemy is Rahu. So no where the conditions of Pitri Hrin Fulfiled . You may be right that rahu is not causing the Pitri Hrin. But Here comes the dictum of LalKitab of Rahu No.11Brihaspati nashta. Now if Rahu No 11 is in 'A " Son's Kundli Then A's Father is Gone.If the trend continues in grand son's kundli (A goes) and so on. So it is worse than the Hrina. What is the Remedy of it. The medicine of this chronic disease is to be taken through out the life. (Always Brihaspati Kayam Rakhna, through out the life). What one can term it. Is it not a repayment of Hrin. Now coming to the other pointsthere are not three conditions for Pitri HrinThere are only two conditions. (That is why i have asked about the books your referring)Thirdly, 'Pitri Rin' is a very rare occurrence ' You may be right. When we study the book we generally left few paras in hurry or oversight. Respected Lalkitabi Ji may have said by reading the book or by his experience, but the way pitri hrin presense is being denied without solid logics shows that either you are referring Dalda Books or left few some parts in hurry during reading.Why you are saying it as the rare occurrence ?It is because of that important paras we left during study. Please read line by line up to the end of the topic.and if the Lalkitab's Kripa is there, you will find why it is seeming very rare in occurence. My humble request to all of us is to read the book slowly as slower you can. Try to Learn Urdu read the original text as I personally have the experience of reading Dalda & Original Urdu Books and know the difference. If you read the original urdu books, Please quote the page and line number of the topic for easy reference. I have written above few line i understood from the topic so far. RegardsNirmal Kumar Bhardwaj Kindly make the correction, my name is Nirmal not Nirbhar. On 14 Mar 2007 02:30:06 -0700, Chandra Prakash Tyagi <cp_tyagi2006 wrote: Respected Nirbhar ji, I still maintain that the example given, starting with the word 'maslan' has nothing to do with Pitri Rin combinations or placements. To prove my point let me take the example of Rahu in the 11th house. Let us see whether Rahu in the 11th house can cause Pitri Rin after assessing it across the three conditions laid down for Pitri Rin. Lal Kitab prescribes three conditions of 'Pitri Rin'. Remember all the three conditions have to be fulfilled before a Pitri Rin is declared. Condition # 1 : { ghar nauve ho grah koi baitha budh baitha jar sathi ho} Any planet placed in the 9th house and if mercury is placed in the 'jar' of that planet, it would indicate Pitri Rin provided two other conditions are also fulfilled. Rahu in the 11th house does not qualify as a 'Pitri Rin' giving planet under this condition. Condition # 2 : { saathi grah jab jar koi kaate, drishti magar woh chhupata ho} For Rahu the book gives " rahu khana 6 se baahar aur khana 12 surya, shukra,mangal } Now if Rahu is in the 11th house and at the same time if either of surya, shukra or mangal are the 12th house, it will indicate a 'Pitri Rin'. Yes, in the above case placement of Rahu in the 11th house will indicate 'Pitri Rin' with the condition that one of the three planets should be in the 12 th house and at the same time the other two conditions are also fulfilled. Since Rahu in the 11th house has not qualified the condition # 1 , and qualifying condition # 2 is again based on further conditions, therefore Rahu in the 11th house per se doesn't qualify under this condition. Condition # 3 { 5,12,2,9 koi manda rin pitra ban jata ho} In the pakka houses of Jupiter if there is an enemy planets of Jupiter { merc, venus, rahu } then it will indicate a 'pitri rin' provided other two conditions are also fulfilled. Rahu placed in the 11th house does not qualify under this condition. Therefore it is proved beyond doubt that Rahu in the 11 th house per se can not cause 'Pitri Rin' unless all the three conditions are fulfilled. The same exercise can be done for other planetary placements mentioned in the sentence beginning with 'maslan'… and you will know that the placements given do not fulfill the conditions of 'Pitri Rin' Therefore my difference with Respected Prabhakar ji and you stands. Here once again I differ from Respected Prabhakar ji's contention that "Pitri Rin" is a very important factor to be noted. I agree with Lalkitabee ji who said that 'Pitri Rin' is a very rare occurrence . Even Pt. Roopchandji { peace be upon him} has said: " uljhan ke grah … jin ki yada kada hi aavashyakta paregi ya aisi grah chal jiske dekhe bagair hi kaam chal sakega" Had 'Pitri Rin' been so common and important pt. Roopchand ji { peace be upon him} would not have said " jis ke dekhe bagair hi kaam chal sakega" With regards and naman, Chandra Prakash The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Search Marketing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 Respected Nirmal ji, I am using original 1952 urdu edition. I do not believe in Dalda books either although I have some 30 of them too. When we talk of 'Pitri Rin' in the context of the Lal Kitab we always mean the concept explained under the section 'uljhan ke grah'. I will never use the word 'Pitri Rin' in any other context. Therefore the term 'Pitri Rin' I have used is as established in the section " uljhan ke grah " . The example of father and son you have used could be for malefic Rahu and its effects but can not be used as an example of 'Pitri Rin'. Once again the word 'Pitri Rin' has to be used in the context of 'uljhan ke grah' Pitri Rin is a very specific planetary placement which has to qualify under THREE conditions and should not be confused with malefic placement of planets. Yes. I still believe that there are THREE conditions and not two as you have claimed. I have mentioned the three conditions along with the lines from the book { 1952 urdu ed } in my earlier message. Which one of those would you drop so that only two conditions remain. As for reading the book, I must have read the 1952 urdu ed. from cover to cover for over a dozen times. Even otherwise every day I go through certain parts of the book as a daily ritual, and if that too is to be counted then I must have read Lal Kitab so many times over that I have lost count. In future, if ever I enter into a discussion I will quote the page numbers from the 1952 urdu edition along with page numbers from half a dozen other books { dalda books } so that those who do not have the original 1952 urdu edition are not at a disadvantage. Once again I reiterate what ever I had said in my earlier message and I stand by every word of it. With regards and naman, Chandra Prakash , NKB <nirbhar wrote: > > Respected Tyagi Ji, > First of all Please oblige me by telling whether you are studying from > original urdu books or Hindi Transliterations. Your logics are giving sense > that you are referring hindi books. > Another point is that please tell me whether the term 'Pitri Hrin' you are > referring is for General hrin ot 'Specific Pitri Hrin' (Brihaspati related) > in my opinion the term Pitri Rin is used as a general term many times not a > specific related to Brihaspati. > The important factor is " the Enmity " . Rahu, Budh are enemies of Jupiter > while saturn is musavi (neutral) to Brihaspati. How Saturn only can cause > Pitri Hrin. Now Second Important factor is Jad. Whose Jad is the house where > the enemy is posited. > > Whose Jad is House No 11. and Whose enemy is Rahu. > So no where the conditions of Pitri Hrin Fulfiled . You may be right that > rahu is not causing the Pitri Hrin. > But Here comes the dictum of LalKitab of Rahu No.11 > Brihaspati nashta. Now if Rahu No 11 is in 'A " Son's Kundli Then A's Father > is Gone.If the trend continues in grand son's kundli (A goes) and so on. So > it is worse than the Hrina. What is the Remedy of it. The medicine of this > chronic disease is to be taken through out the life. (Always Brihaspati > Kayam Rakhna, through out the life). What one can term it. Is it not a > repayment of Hrin. > Now coming to the other points > there are not three conditions for Pitri Hrin > There are only two conditions. (That is why i have asked about the books > your referring) > Thirdly, > *'Pitri Rin' is a very rare occurrence ' > You may be right. When we study the book we generally left few paras in > hurry or oversight. Respected Lalkitabi Ji may have said by reading the book > or by his experience, but the way pitri hrin presense is being denied > without solid logics shows that either you are referring Dalda Books or left > few some parts in hurry during reading. > Why you are saying it as the rare occurrence ? > It is because of that important paras we left during study. Please read line > by line up to the end of the topic.and if the Lalkitab's Kripa is there, you > will find why it is seeming very rare in occurence. > My humble request to all of us is to read the book slowly as slower you can. > Try to Learn Urdu read the original text as I personally have the experience > of reading Dalda & Original Urdu Books and know the difference. > If you read the original urdu books, Please quote the page and line number > of the topic for easy reference. > I have written above few line i understood from the topic so far. > Regards > Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj > *Kindly make the correction, my name is Nirmal not Nirbhar. > > > On 14 Mar 2007 02:30:06 -0700, Chandra Prakash Tyagi <cp_tyagi2006 > wrote: > > > > Respected Nirbhar ji, > > > > I still maintain that the example given, starting with the word 'maslan' > > has nothing to do with Pitri Rin combinations or placements. > > > > To prove my point let me take the example of Rahu in the 11th house. > > > > Let us see whether Rahu in the 11th house can cause Pitri Rin after > > assessing it across the three conditions laid down for Pitri Rin. > > > > Lal Kitab prescribes three conditions of 'Pitri Rin'. Remember all the > > three conditions have to be fulfilled before a Pitri Rin is declared. > > > > *Condition # 1* : { ghar nauve ho grah koi baitha budh baitha jar sathi > > ho} > > > > Any planet placed in the 9th house and if mercury is placed in the 'jar' > > of that planet, it would indicate Pitri Rin provided two other conditions > > are also fulfilled. > > > > Rahu in the 11th house does not qualify as a 'Pitri Rin' giving planet > > under this condition.** > > > > *Condition # 2* : { saathi grah jab jar koi kaate, drishti magar woh > > chhupata ho} > > > > For Rahu the book gives " rahu khana 6 se baahar aur khana 12 surya, > > shukra,mangal } > > > > Now if Rahu is in the 11th house and at the same time if either of surya, > > shukra or mangal are the 12th house, it will indicate a 'Pitri Rin'. > > > > Yes, in the above case placement of Rahu in the 11th house will indicate > > 'Pitri Rin' with the condition that one of the three planets should be in > > the 12th house and at the same time the other two conditions are also > > fulfilled. > > > > Since Rahu in the 11th house has not qualified the condition # 1 , and > > qualifying condition # 2 is again based on further conditions, therefore > > Rahu in the 11th house per se doesn't qualify under this condition. > > > > *Condition # 3* { 5,12,2,9 koi manda rin pitra ban jata ho} > > > > In the pakka houses of Jupiter if there is an enemy planets of Jupiter { > > merc, venus, rahu } then it will indicate a 'pitri rin' provided other two > > conditions are also fulfilled. > > > > Rahu placed in the 11th house does not qualify under this condition. > > > > *Therefore it is proved beyond doubt that Rahu in the 11th house per se > > can not cause 'Pitri Rin' unless all the three conditions are fulfilled.* > > > > The same exercise can be done for other planetary placements mentioned in > > the sentence beginning with 'maslan'Â… and you will know that the placements > > given do not fulfill the conditions of 'Pitri Rin' > > > > Therefore my difference with Respected Prabhakar ji and you stands. > > > > Here once again I differ from Respected Prabhakar ji's contention that > > " Pitri Rin " is a very important factor to be noted. > > > > *I agree with Lalkitabee ji who said that 'Pitri Rin' is a very rare > > occurrence . * > > > > Even Pt. Roopchandji { peace be upon him} has said: > > > > " uljhan ke grah Â… jin ki yada kada hi aavashyakta paregi ya aisi grah > > chal jiske dekhe bagair hi kaam chal sakega " > > > > Had 'Pitri Rin' been so common and important pt. Roopchand ji { peace be > > upon him} would not have said " jis ke dekhe bagair hi kaam chal sakega " > > > > > > With regards and naman, > > > > Chandra Prakash > > > > ------------------------------ > > The fish are biting. > > Get more visitors<http://us.rd./evt=49679/*http://searchmarketing.yah oo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php? o=US2140 & cmp= & ctv=Q107Tagline & s=Y & s2=EM & b=50>on your site using > > Search Marketing. > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 Respected Tyagi Ji, It is nice to find a person studying original text. Worthy Prabhakar Ji provided us these sacred original books and before that I also used to read and acumulate the Dalda Books. I disposed off most of these books to persons who don't know urdu. Now coming to the discussion I agree that the pitri Hrin topic comes under the Heading Uljhan Ke grah, which mainly consists of Pitri Rin and mahan Dasha Ke Grah. Regarding Conditions of Pitri Rin Please read the Chhandda line No. 1 & 2 of Page 122 corelating topic " Pitri Hrin Ki Pehli haalat " on page 128 the Chhandda line No. 3 & 4 of Page 122 corelating topic " Pitri Hrin Ki doosri haalat " on page 128 These are the illustration of Chhanda Line No. 1,2,3,4 Regarding Rahu read line No 1,2,3 of page 124 where Pandit ji has given the Upaya of brihaspati rahu in 11 for pitri hrin. The most important point of present debate " why it is termed by the many astrologer for not being common or necessary: --- Take Clue from line no 6,5,4 of page 123 and above all most important lines no 10,11,12,13 of page no 129. I wish the doubts will be removed by reading these lines. Regards Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj , " cp_tyagi2006 " <cp_tyagi2006 wrote: > > Respected Nirmal ji, > > I am using original 1952 urdu edition. I do not believe in Dalda > books either although I have some 30 of them too. > > When we talk of 'Pitri Rin' in the context of the Lal Kitab we > always mean the concept explained under the section 'uljhan ke > grah'. I will never use the word 'Pitri Rin' in any other context. > Therefore the term 'Pitri Rin' I have used is as established in the > section " uljhan ke grah " . > > The example of father and son you have used could be for malefic > Rahu and its effects but can not be used as an example of 'Pitri > Rin'. Once again the word 'Pitri Rin' has to be used in the context > of 'uljhan ke grah' > > Pitri Rin is a very specific planetary placement which has to > qualify under THREE conditions and should not be confused with > malefic placement of planets. > > Yes. I still believe that there are THREE conditions and not two as > you have claimed. I have mentioned the three conditions along with > the lines from the book { 1952 urdu ed } in my earlier message. > Which one of those would you drop so that only two conditions remain. > > As for reading the book, I must have read the 1952 urdu ed. from > cover to cover for over a dozen times. Even otherwise every day I go > through certain parts of the book as a daily ritual, and if that too > is to be counted then I must have read Lal Kitab so many times over > that I have lost count. > > In future, if ever I enter into a discussion I will quote the page > numbers from the 1952 urdu edition along with page numbers from half > a dozen other books { dalda books } so that those who do not have > the original 1952 urdu edition are not at a disadvantage. > > Once again I reiterate what ever I had said in my earlier message > and I stand by every word of it. > > With regards and naman, > > Chandra Prakash > > > > > > , NKB <nirbhar@> wrote: > > > > Respected Tyagi Ji, > > First of all Please oblige me by telling whether you are studying > from > > original urdu books or Hindi Transliterations. Your logics are > giving sense > > that you are referring hindi books. > > Another point is that please tell me whether the term 'Pitri Hrin' > you are > > referring is for General hrin ot 'Specific Pitri Hrin' (Brihaspati > related) > > in my opinion the term Pitri Rin is used as a general term many > times not a > > specific related to Brihaspati. > > The important factor is " the Enmity " . Rahu, Budh are enemies of > Jupiter > > while saturn is musavi (neutral) to Brihaspati. How Saturn only > can cause > > Pitri Hrin. Now Second Important factor is Jad. Whose Jad is the > house where > > the enemy is posited. > > > > Whose Jad is House No 11. and Whose enemy is Rahu. > > So no where the conditions of Pitri Hrin Fulfiled . You may be > right that > > rahu is not causing the Pitri Hrin. > > But Here comes the dictum of LalKitab of Rahu No.11 > > Brihaspati nashta. Now if Rahu No 11 is in 'A " Son's Kundli Then > A's Father > > is Gone.If the trend continues in grand son's kundli (A goes) and > so on. So > > it is worse than the Hrina. What is the Remedy of it. The medicine > of this > > chronic disease is to be taken through out the life. (Always > Brihaspati > > Kayam Rakhna, through out the life). What one can term it. Is it > not a > > repayment of Hrin. > > Now coming to the other points > > there are not three conditions for Pitri Hrin > > There are only two conditions. (That is why i have asked about the > books > > your referring) > > Thirdly, > > *'Pitri Rin' is a very rare occurrence ' > > You may be right. When we study the book we generally left few > paras in > > hurry or oversight. Respected Lalkitabi Ji may have said by > reading the book > > or by his experience, but the way pitri hrin presense is being > denied > > without solid logics shows that either you are referring Dalda > Books or left > > few some parts in hurry during reading. > > Why you are saying it as the rare occurrence ? > > It is because of that important paras we left during study. Please > read line > > by line up to the end of the topic.and if the Lalkitab's Kripa is > there, you > > will find why it is seeming very rare in occurence. > > My humble request to all of us is to read the book slowly as > slower you can. > > Try to Learn Urdu read the original text as I personally have the > experience > > of reading Dalda & Original Urdu Books and know the difference. > > If you read the original urdu books, Please quote the page and > line number > > of the topic for easy reference. > > I have written above few line i understood from the topic so far. > > Regards > > Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj > > *Kindly make the correction, my name is Nirmal not Nirbhar. > > > > > > On 14 Mar 2007 02:30:06 -0700, Chandra Prakash Tyagi > <cp_tyagi2006@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Respected Nirbhar ji, > > > > > > I still maintain that the example given, starting with the > word 'maslan' > > > has nothing to do with Pitri Rin combinations or placements. > > > > > > To prove my point let me take the example of Rahu in the 11th > house. > > > > > > Let us see whether Rahu in the 11th house can cause Pitri Rin > after > > > assessing it across the three conditions laid down for Pitri Rin. > > > > > > Lal Kitab prescribes three conditions of 'Pitri Rin'. Remember > all the > > > three conditions have to be fulfilled before a Pitri Rin is > declared. > > > > > > *Condition # 1* : { ghar nauve ho grah koi baitha budh baitha > jar sathi > > > ho} > > > > > > Any planet placed in the 9th house and if mercury is placed in > the 'jar' > > > of that planet, it would indicate Pitri Rin provided two other > conditions > > > are also fulfilled. > > > > > > Rahu in the 11th house does not qualify as a 'Pitri Rin' giving > planet > > > under this condition.** > > > > > > *Condition # 2* : { saathi grah jab jar koi kaate, drishti > magar woh > > > chhupata ho} > > > > > > For Rahu the book gives " rahu khana 6 se baahar aur khana 12 > surya, > > > shukra,mangal } > > > > > > Now if Rahu is in the 11th house and at the same time if either > of surya, > > > shukra or mangal are the 12th house, it will indicate a 'Pitri > Rin'. > > > > > > Yes, in the above case placement of Rahu in the 11th house will > indicate > > > 'Pitri Rin' with the condition that one of the three planets > should be in > > > the 12th house and at the same time the other two conditions are > also > > > fulfilled. > > > > > > Since Rahu in the 11th house has not qualified the condition # > 1 , and > > > qualifying condition # 2 is again based on further conditions, > therefore > > > Rahu in the 11th house per se doesn't qualify under this > condition. > > > > > > *Condition # 3* { 5,12,2,9 koi manda rin pitra ban jata ho} > > > > > > In the pakka houses of Jupiter if there is an enemy planets of > Jupiter { > > > merc, venus, rahu } then it will indicate a 'pitri rin' provided > other two > > > conditions are also fulfilled. > > > > > > Rahu placed in the 11th house does not qualify under this > condition. > > > > > > *Therefore it is proved beyond doubt that Rahu in the 11th house > per se > > > can not cause 'Pitri Rin' unless all the three conditions are > fulfilled.* > > > > > > The same exercise can be done for other planetary placements > mentioned in > > > the sentence beginning with 'maslan'Â… and you will know that the > placements > > > given do not fulfill the conditions of 'Pitri Rin' > > > > > > Therefore my difference with Respected Prabhakar ji and you > stands. > > > > > > Here once again I differ from Respected Prabhakar ji's > contention that > > > " Pitri Rin " is a very important factor to be noted. > > > > > > *I agree with Lalkitabee ji who said that 'Pitri Rin' is a very > rare > > > occurrence . * > > > > > > Even Pt. Roopchandji { peace be upon him} has said: > > > > > > " uljhan ke grah Â… jin ki yada kada hi aavashyakta paregi ya > aisi grah > > > chal jiske dekhe bagair hi kaam chal sakega " > > > > > > Had 'Pitri Rin' been so common and important pt. Roopchand ji { > peace be > > > upon him} would not have said " jis ke dekhe bagair hi kaam chal > sakega " > > > > > > > > > With regards and naman, > > > > > > Chandra Prakash > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > The fish are biting. > > > Get more > visitors<http://us.rd./evt=49679/*http:// searchmarketing.yah > oo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php? > o=US2140 & cmp= & ctv=Q107Tagline & s=Y & s2=EM & b=50>on your site using > > > > Search Marketing. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 Respected Tyagi Jee,Please keep slow. In a hurry you often left few words of the your text. " Khana no 2,5,9,12 ki mandi haalat bhi zaroor sath ho to rin pitra hoga, varna koi ya kisi bhi kism ka rin pitri ya matri ya koi aur rin na hoga. Khyal rahe ki rin pitri hamesha janma kundali mein dekha jayega"I feel, something is left by you in the above text. Each and every word of the book has definite and very important meaning. If you left any word during study, the meaning of the lines change in total.The book simply says that the upaya has to be done of two planets, one that has become " nikamma" and the other for the planet who has made it "nikamma" by virtue of being in its "jar" The example he gives is that if the Jupiter is in the 9th house and if at the same time the rahu is in the 2 or 11 { ? } the upaya has to be done for both ; for Jupiter in the 9th and rahu in the 2nd or the 11th.Again you missed some text after these lines i.e. How much period the upaya is to be done. From period of the upaya you will judge that of which subject Pandit Ji is mentioning. In your words the examples in this lesson has nothing to do with the subject. It also means that the few example kundlis discusses in the last of book have nothing to do with the ideaology of the book as these are only examples. Trivedi Jee "Example de de kar hee ham jaise naasamajh bachon ko samjhaya ja sakta hai, "I had put a question mark against 11 above. Some of us believe that it is a printing mistake and it should read 12 instead. Because then only it will get qualified under the 3rd condition of " 5,12.2,9 koi manda". There is no reference of 11 here. But printing mistakes in Lal Kitab could be a matter of seperate investigation. Our small Lal Kitab group has already detected quite a few printing mistakes in the original 1952 urdu edition.One such finding was posted here by my gurubhai Varun Trivedi quite some time back.Respected Tyagi Ji, it is very good to scrutinize each and every word of the subject. But before pointing out any error in the book, please for God sake, we should always keep in mind that three fingers are pointing towards ourselves. We with very meager knowledge never boost ourselves as Master of the subject and creates doubt in other minds. You must clear your stand with logics of the book itself. Now please give your logic why Rahu should be in 12 not in 11th as written in the book (to whom you considered as printing error. )Beware we are just kids as far as this book is concerned. Ask Your Guru Bhai as well as your Respected Guru Ji to come forward with the logics of these books, which prove that this is a mistake. Please excuse me for this outburst. RegardsNirmal Kumar Bhardwaj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 Respected Nirmal ji, Regarding first two paragraphs I have nothing to say. This is how I interpret and understand the book. You might have a different understanding. We both can co-exist with our different views. Couldn’t we? However I would like to respond to the third paragraph about possibility of a misprint. Since the Lal Kitab is a printed book there could always be a possibility of a few misprints like in any other printed book. No sacrilege intended. Secondly, it is believed that an erratum was also issued after the 1952 ed of the book. Since I have never seen such errata, it is just an assumption. Nevertheless, a presumed existence of any such document adds to the possibility of printing mistakes in the Lal Kitab { 1952 ed } I hope you also would agree to a possibility of misprints in any printed book. Having established the possibility of printing mistakes, I move on to the main issue. Now coming to ‘rahu in 2nd and 11th’ controversy. The matter to be investigated is whether it should be ‘rahu in 11th’ or should it read ‘rahu in 12th’. Context : In the first place, these lines occur under the heading of ‘uljhan ke grah’ which primarily deals with ‘pitri rin’. Therefore whether the rahu should be in the 11th or the 12th the matter will have to be examined within the parameters of pitri rin definition and not under the definition of malefic { manda } grah. Secondly , the reference to rahu in 2nd and 11th house occurs as an example to the dictum that the upaya has to be done for two planets; one that is afflicted and the other which is a cause of this affliction. This system of doing upaya for two planets in tandem is characteristic of ‘Pitri Rin’ upaya. This again reaffirms that rahu in 11th or in 12th issue has to be dealt with within the ‘pitri rin’ definition and not within the general purview of manda or malefic planet. Therefore the ground rule for the test is set. The rule applicable will have to be ‘pitri rin’ rules only and no other rules. Now we have to test whether rahu in the 11th house qualifies under Pitri Rin conditions or is it Rahu in the 12th that qualifies. Rahu in the 11th tested against the three conditions. Result : negative Rahu in the 11th does not find a mention in any of the three Pitri rin conditions. Nirmal ji, if it does, please let us know. Rahu in the 12th tested against the three conditions. Result : Positive It finds mention in the two conditions. { a } doosari haalat : brahaspati 2, 3 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 12 se baahar kahi ho aur no 2 shani dushta grah, 5 mein shukra, 9 mein budh, ya 12 mein rahu, ya 3,6 budh,shukra ya shani bahaisiyat papi grah { b } Rahu in 12th again qualifies the 3rd condition under the clause “ 5,12,2,9 koi mande†… if mercury, venus or rahu placed in the pakka house of Jupiter. Since rahu in the 11th has not found any mention in the above two definitions therefore it is logically deduced that rahu in 11th is a misprint and it should read rahu in the 12th. Since the first Pitri Rin condition can exist independent of the other two, therefore Rahu in the 12th house can be one of the Pitri Rin causing planets. Where as Rahu in the 11th can not, under any circumstances, be a Pitri Rin causing planet under the Pitri Rin conditions. Therefore while talking about Pitri Rin, under the section dealing with it, the mention of rahu in the 11th is neither relevant nor logical ; where as mention of rahu in the 12th is not only logical it is relevant too. Therefore the hypothesis that line should read rahu in 12th instead of rahu in the 11th holds good. With regards and naman, Chandra Prakash , " Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj " <nirbhar wrote: > > Respected Tyagi Jee, > Please keep slow. In a hurry you often left few words of the your text. > > " Khana no 2,5,9,12 ki mandi haalat bhi zaroor sath ho to rin pitra > hoga, varna koi ya kisi bhi kism ka rin pitri ya matri ya koi aur rin na > hoga. Khyal rahe ki rin pitri hamesha janma kundali mein dekha > jayega " > > I feel, something is left by you in the above text. Each and every word > of the book has definite and very important meaning. If you left any > word during study, the meaning of the lines change in total. > > The book simply says that the upaya has to be done of two planets, one > that has become " nikamma " and the other for the planet who has > made it " nikamma " by virtue of being in its " jar " > The example he gives is that if the Jupiter is in the 9th house and if > at the same time the rahu is in the 2 or 11 { ? } the upaya has to be > done for both ; for Jupiter in the 9th and rahu in the 2nd or the 11th. > > Again you missed some text after these lines i.e. How much period the > upaya is to be done. From period of the upaya you will judge that of > which subject Pandit Ji is mentioning. In your words the examples in > this lesson has nothing to do with the subject. It also means that the > few example kundlis discusses in the last of book have nothing to do > with the ideaology of the book as these are only examples. > Trivedi Jee " Example de de kar hee ham jaise naasamajh bachon ko > samjhaya ja sakta hai, " > > I had put a question mark against 11 above. Some of us believe that it > is a printing mistake and it should read 12 instead. Because then only > it will get qualified under the 3rd condition of " 5,12.2,9 koi > manda " . There is no reference of 11 here. > But printing mistakes in Lal Kitab could be a matter of seperate > investigation. Our small Lal Kitab group has already detected quite a > few printing mistakes in the original 1952 urdu edition. > One such finding was posted here by my gurubhai Varun Trivedi quite some > time back. > > Respected Tyagi Ji, it is very good to scrutinize each and every word of > the subject. But before pointing out any error in the book, please for > God sake, we should always keep in mind that three fingers are pointing > towards ourselves. We with very meager knowledge never boost ourselves > as Master of the subject and creates doubt in other minds. > You must clear your stand with logics of the book itself. > Now please give your logic why Rahu should be in 12 not in 11th as > written in the book (to whom you considered as printing error. ) > Beware we are just kids as far as this book is concerned. Ask Your Guru > Bhai as well as your Respected Guru Ji to come forward with the > logics of these books, which prove that this is a mistake. > Please excuse me for this outburst. > Regards > Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Shri Chandra Prakash Tyagi ji, Ever since I received your response regarding the example quoted by me from page no. 123 of Lal Kitab 1952 where you mentioned the word “JAISE”, I searched the word “JAISE” on that very page again and again but unable to find it, will you be kind enough to let me know in which line the word “JAISE” is written? You claimed in one of your post that you use only Urdu edition of Lal Kitab 1952, but this mysterious word “JAISE” is nowhere written on the page in question in Urdu edition. Kindly enlighten me whether there are different versions of this edition or you are referring this from some other book? As far as you perception regarding misprinting is concerned I would like to inform you that Pt. Ji always took this matter very seriously and never ignored this aspect, that is why he incorporated an appropriate Correction-Slip (Known as Darustee-Namaa) for Lal Kitab Ke Farmaan-1939 in the Lal Kitab Ke Armaan-1940. This Darustee-Namaa was also printed separately. As far as 1952 edition is concerned, it also includes a Darustee-Naama in it. You must have gone through this if you have the original text. I would like to respond to your precious posts and the worthy discussion on Pitri-Rin (between you and Shri Nirmal Bhardwaj ji) only after getting answer from you regarding the whereabouts of the word “JAISE”. Yograj Prabhakar.cp_tyagi2006 <cp_tyagi2006 wrote: Respected Nirmal ji,Regarding first two paragraphs I have nothing to say. This is how I interpret and understand the book. You might have a different understanding. We both can co-exist with our different views. Couldn’t we?However I would like to respond to the third paragraph about possibility of a misprint. Since the Lal Kitab is a printed book there could always be a possibility of a few misprints like in any other printed book. No sacrilege intended.Secondly, it is believed that an erratum was also issued after the 1952 ed of the book. Since I have never seen such errata, it is just an assumption. Nevertheless, a presumed existence of any such document adds to the possibility of printing mistakes in the Lal Kitab { 1952 ed } I hope you also would agree to a possibility of misprints in any printed book.Having established the possibility of printing mistakes, I move on to the main issue.Now coming to ‘rahu in 2nd and 11th’ controversy. The matter to be investigated is whether it should be ‘rahu in 11th’ or should it read ‘rahu in 12th’. Context : In the first place, these lines occur under the heading of ‘uljhan ke grah’ which primarily deals with ‘pitri rin’. Therefore whether the rahu should be in the 11th or the 12th the matter will have to be examined within the parameters of pitri rin definition and not under the definition of malefic { manda } grah.Secondly , the reference to rahu in 2nd and 11th house occurs as an example to the dictum that the upaya has to be done for two planets; one that is afflicted and the other which is a cause of this affliction. This system of doing upaya for two planets in tandem is characteristic of ‘Pitri Rin’ upaya. This again reaffirms that rahu in 11th or in 12th issue has to be dealt with within the ‘pitri rin’ definition and not within the general purview of manda or malefic planet.Therefore the ground rule for the test is set. The rule applicable will have to be ‘pitri rin’ rules only and no other rules. Now we have to test whether rahu in the 11th house qualifies under Pitri Rin conditions or is it Rahu in the 12th that qualifies.Rahu in the 11th tested against the three conditions.Result : negative Rahu in the 11th does not find a mention in any of the three Pitri rin conditions. Nirmal ji, if it does, please let us know.Rahu in the 12th tested against the three conditions.Result : PositiveIt finds mention in the two conditions.{ a } doosari haalat : brahaspati 2, 3 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 12 se baahar kahi ho aur no 2 shani dushta grah, 5 mein shukra, 9 mein budh, ya 12 mein rahu, ya 3,6 budh,shukra ya shani bahaisiyat papi grah{ b } Rahu in 12th again qualifies the 3rd condition under the clause “ 5,12,2,9 koi mande†… if mercury, venus or rahu placed in the pakka house of Jupiter.Since rahu in the 11th has not found any mention in the above two definitions therefore it is logically deduced that rahu in 11th is a misprint and it should read rahu in the 12th. Since the first Pitri Rin condition can exist independent of the other two, therefore Rahu in the 12th house can be one of the Pitri Rin causing planets.Where as Rahu in the 11th can not, under any circumstances, be a Pitri Rin causing planet under the Pitri Rin conditions.Therefore while talking about Pitri Rin, under the section dealing with it, the mention of rahu in the 11th is neither relevant nor logical ; where as mention of rahu in the 12th is not only logical it is relevant too.Therefore the hypothesis that line should read rahu in 12th instead of rahu in the 11th holds good.With regards and naman,Chandra Prakash , "Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj" <nirbhar wrote:>> Respected Tyagi Jee,> Please keep slow. In a hurry you often left few words of the your text.> > " Khana no 2,5,9,12 ki mandi haalat bhi zaroor sath ho to rin pitra> hoga, varna koi ya kisi bhi kism ka rin pitri ya matri ya koi aur rin na> hoga. Khyal rahe ki rin pitri hamesha janma kundali mein dekha> jayega"> > I feel, something is left by you in the above text. Each and every word> of the book has definite and very important meaning. If you left any> word during study, the meaning of the lines change in total.> > The book simply says that the upaya has to be done of two planets, one> that has become " nikamma" and the other for the planet who has> made it "nikamma" by virtue of being in its "jar"> The example he gives is that if the Jupiter is in the 9th house and if > at the same time the rahu is in the 2 or 11 { ? } the upaya has to be> done for both ; for Jupiter in the 9th and rahu in the 2nd or the 11th.> > Again you missed some text after these lines i.e. How much period the> upaya is to be done. From period of the upaya you will judge that of> which subject Pandit Ji is mentioning. In your words the examples in> this lesson has nothing to do with the subject. It also means that the> few example kundlis discusses in the last of book have nothing to do> with the ideaology of the book as these are only examples.> Trivedi Jee "Example de de kar hee ham jaise naasamajh bachon ko> samjhaya ja sakta hai, "> > I had put a question mark against 11 above. Some of us believe that it> is a printing mistake and it should read 12 instead. Because then only> it will get qualified under the 3rd condition of " 5,12.2,9 koi> manda". There is no reference of 11 here.> But printing mistakes in Lal Kitab could be a matter of seperate> investigation. Our small Lal Kitab group has already detected quite a> few printing mistakes in the original 1952 urdu edition.> One such finding was posted here by my gurubhai Varun Trivedi quite some> time back.> > Respected Tyagi Ji, it is very good to scrutinize each and every word of> the subject. But before pointing out any error in the book, please for> God sake, we should always keep in mind that three fingers are pointing> towards ourselves. We with very meager knowledge never boost ourselves> as Master of the subject and creates doubt in other minds.> You must clear your stand with logics of the book itself.> Now please give your logic why Rahu should be in 12 not in 11th as> written in the book (to whom you considered as printing error. )> Beware we are just kids as far as this book is concerned. Ask Your Guru> Bhai as well as your Respected Guru Ji to come forward with the> logics of these books, which prove that this is a mistake.> Please excuse me for this outburst.> Regards> Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj> Finding fabulous fares is fun.Let FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Respected Prabhakar ji, 'Jaise' is a translation of the urdu word 'maslan'. It doesn't make any difference whether one uses the word 'jaise' or 'maslan' so long as the message is conveyed correctly and precisely. I am not a fan of Urdu book and I do not believe that Lal Kitab can be learnt through urdu book alone, or only those people can learn Lal Kitab system who know urdu. I do not to this exclusive club theory. This theory has done more harm to the Lal Kitab than any thing else. I know quite a few very able Lal Kitab scholars who do not know urdu. Therefore knowing urdu, or possessing urdu book is no indication what so ever that the person is a scholar of Lal Kitab. So long as the knowledge contained in the Lal Kitab is conveyed, in which ever language, it is just fine for me. Therefore I read Hindi and English books primarily. Go to the urdu edition only if I suspect that some thing is missing. I use the urdu edition only as a reference book. Therefore let us not bring in the controversy of urdu vs hindi or english into our discussions. With regards and naman, Chandra Prakash , Yograj Prabhakar <yr_prabhakar wrote: > > Shri Chandra Prakash Tyagi ji, > > Ever since I received your response regarding the example quoted by me from page no. 123 of Lal Kitab 1952 where you mentioned the word  " JAISE " , I searched the word  " JAISE " on that very page again and again but unable to find it, will you be kind enough to let me know in which line the word  " JAISE " is written? > > You claimed in one of your post that you use only Urdu edition of Lal Kitab 1952, but this mysterious word  " JAISE " is nowhere written on the page in question in Urdu edition. Kindly enlighten me whether there are different versions of this edition or you are referring this from some other book? > > As far as you perception regarding misprinting is concerned I would like to inform you that Pt. Ji always took this matter very seriously and never ignored this aspect, that is why he incorporated an appropriate Correction-Slip (Known as Darustee-Namaa) for Lal Kitab Ke Farmaan-1939 in the Lal Kitab Ke Armaan-1940. This Darustee- Namaa was also printed separately. As far as 1952 edition is concerned, it also includes a Darustee-Naama in it. You must have gone through this if you have the original text. > > I would like to respond to your precious posts and the worthy discussion on Pitri-Rin (between you and Shri Nirmal Bhardwaj ji) only after getting answer from you regarding the whereabouts of the word  " JAISE " . > > > Yograj Prabhakar. > > > cp_tyagi2006 <cp_tyagi2006 wrote: Respected Nirmal ji, > > Regarding first two paragraphs I have nothing to say. This is how I > interpret and understand the book. You might have a different > understanding. > > We both can co-exist with our different views. Couldn’t we? > > However I would like to respond to the third paragraph about > possibility of a misprint. > > Since the Lal Kitab is a printed book there could always be a > possibility of a few misprints like in any other printed book. No > sacrilege intended. > > Secondly, it is believed that an erratum was also issued after the > 1952 ed of the book. Since I have never seen such errata, it is just > an assumption. Nevertheless, a presumed existence of any such > document adds to the possibility of printing mistakes in the Lal > Kitab { 1952 ed } > > I hope you also would agree to a possibility of misprints in any > printed book. > > Having established the possibility of printing mistakes, I move on > to the main issue. > > Now coming to ‘rahu in 2nd and 11th’ controversy. > > The matter to be investigated is whether it should be ‘rahu in > 11th’ or should it read ‘rahu in 12th’. > > Context : > > In the first place, these lines occur under the heading of ‘uljhan > ke grah’ which primarily deals with ‘pitri rin’. Therefore whether > the rahu should be in the 11th or the 12th the matter will have to > be examined within the parameters of pitri rin definition and not > under the definition of malefic { manda } grah. > > Secondly , the reference to rahu in 2nd and 11th house occurs as an > example to the dictum that the upaya has to be done for two > planets; one that is afflicted and the other which is a cause of > this affliction. This system of doing upaya for two planets in > tandem is characteristic of ‘Pitri Rin’ upaya. This again reaffirms > that rahu in 11th or in 12th issue has to be dealt with within > the ‘pitri rin’ definition and not within the general purview of > manda or malefic planet. > > Therefore the ground rule for the test is set. The rule applicable > will have to be ‘pitri rin’ rules only and no other rules. > > Now we have to test whether rahu in the 11th house qualifies under > Pitri Rin conditions or is it Rahu in the 12th that qualifies. > > Rahu in the 11th tested against the three conditions. > > Result : negative > > Rahu in the 11th does not find a mention in any of the three Pitri > rin conditions. > > Nirmal ji, if it does, please let us know. > > Rahu in the 12th tested against the three conditions. > > Result : Positive > > It finds mention in the two conditions. > > { a } doosari haalat : brahaspati 2, 3 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 12 se baahar > kahi ho > > aur > > no 2 shani dushta grah, 5 mein shukra, 9 mein budh, ya 12 mein rahu, > ya 3,6 budh,shukra ya shani bahaisiyat papi grah > > { b } Rahu in 12th again qualifies the 3rd condition under the > clause “ 5,12,2,9 koi mande†… if mercury, venus or rahu placed in > the pakka house of Jupiter. > > Since rahu in the 11th has not found any mention in the above two > definitions therefore it is logically deduced that rahu in 11th is a > misprint and it should read rahu in the 12th. > > Since the first Pitri Rin condition can exist independent of the > other two, therefore Rahu in the 12th house can be one of the Pitri > Rin causing planets. > > Where as Rahu in the 11th can not, under any circumstances, be a > Pitri Rin causing planet under the Pitri Rin conditions. > > Therefore while talking about Pitri Rin, under the section dealing > with it, the mention of rahu in the 11th is neither relevant nor > logical ; where as mention of rahu in the 12th is not only logical > it is relevant too. > > Therefore the hypothesis that line should read rahu in 12th instead > of rahu in the 11th holds good. > > With regards and naman, > > Chandra Prakash > > , " Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj " > <nirbhar@> wrote: > > > > Respected Tyagi Jee, > > Please keep slow. In a hurry you often left few words of the your > text. > > > > " Khana no 2,5,9,12 ki mandi haalat bhi zaroor sath ho to rin pitra > > hoga, varna koi ya kisi bhi kism ka rin pitri ya matri ya koi aur > rin na > > hoga. Khyal rahe ki rin pitri hamesha janma kundali mein dekha > > jayega " > > > > I feel, something is left by you in the above text. Each and every > word > > of the book has definite and very important meaning. If you left > any > > word during study, the meaning of the lines change in total. > > > > The book simply says that the upaya has to be done of two planets, > one > > that has become " nikamma " and the other for the planet who has > > made it " nikamma " by virtue of being in its " jar " > > The example he gives is that if the Jupiter is in the 9th house > and if > > at the same time the rahu is in the 2 or 11 { ? } the upaya has to > be > > done for both ; for Jupiter in the 9th and rahu in the 2nd or the > 11th. > > > > Again you missed some text after these lines i.e. How much period > the > > upaya is to be done. From period of the upaya you will judge that > of > > which subject Pandit Ji is mentioning. In your words the examples > in > > this lesson has nothing to do with the subject. It also means that > the > > few example kundlis discusses in the last of book have nothing to > do > > with the ideaology of the book as these are only examples. > > Trivedi Jee " Example de de kar hee ham jaise naasamajh bachon ko > > samjhaya ja sakta hai, " > > > > I had put a question mark against 11 above. Some of us believe > that it > > is a printing mistake and it should read 12 instead. Because then > only > > it will get qualified under the 3rd condition of " 5,12.2,9 koi > > manda " . There is no reference of 11 here. > > But printing mistakes in Lal Kitab could be a matter of seperate > > investigation. Our small Lal Kitab group has already detected > quite a > > few printing mistakes in the original 1952 urdu edition. > > One such finding was posted here by my gurubhai Varun Trivedi > quite some > > time back. > > > > Respected Tyagi Ji, it is very good to scrutinize each and every > word of > > the subject. But before pointing out any error in the book, please > for > > God sake, we should always keep in mind that three fingers are > pointing > > towards ourselves. We with very meager knowledge never boost > ourselves > > as Master of the subject and creates doubt in other minds. > > You must clear your stand with logics of the book itself. > > Now please give your logic why Rahu should be in 12 not in 11th as > > written in the book (to whom you considered as printing error. ) > > Beware we are just kids as far as this book is concerned. Ask Your > Guru > > Bhai as well as your Respected Guru Ji to come forward with the > > logics of these books, which prove that this is a mistake. > > Please excuse me for this outburst. > > Regards > > Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj > > > Finding fabulous fares is fun. > Let FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Respectable Bhardwaj ji हिनà¥à¤¦à¥€ में लिखने की यह सà¥à¤µà¤¿à¤§à¤¾ आप से सीख लेने के बाद मैं आपका तह ठदिल से शà¥à¤•à¥à¤°à¤—à¥à¥›à¤¾à¤° होते हà¥à¤ इस पितृ ऋण के खà¥à¤²à¤¾à¤¸à¥‡ के दौरान कहना चाहूà¤à¤—ा कि आप à¤à¤• ही बात पर डटे हà¥à¤ हैं कि पितृऋण के लिये केवल दो ही अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤Žà¤‚ लालकिताब में लिखी गयी हैं लेकिन इस ज़िरह में आप शायद यह à¤à¥‚ल गये हैं कि काफ़ी समय पहले मैनें Remedy Failure विषय में पनà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ जी के दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ दी गयी चनà¥à¤¦ मददगार मिसालों में से à¤à¤• टेवा लिया था à¤"र पà¥à¤°à¤¶à¥à¤¨ à¤à¥€ किया था , आपने à¤à¤• चिटà¥à¤ ी में लिखा है कि Lalkitabi Ji may have said by reading the book or by his experience. चलो खैर शायद मैने वैसे ही बिना सोचे समà¤à¥‡ लिख डाला होगा , लेकिन à¤à¤• बात तो आपको माननी ही पड़ेगी कि पितृ ऋण की जो दो अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ आप सà¥à¤µà¥€à¤•à¤¾à¤° कर रहे हैं मैने उस टेवे में वह दोनों अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ सà¥à¤ªà¤·à¥à¤Ÿ करते हà¥à¤ बाकायदा लिखा था कि पितृ ऋण की पà¥à¤°à¤¥à¤® à¤"र दà¥à¤µà¤¿à¤¤à¥€à¤¯ अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾ उस टेवे में है लेकिन पणà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ जी ने तो उस टेवे की बाबत पितृ ऋण का जिकà¥à¤° तक नहीं किया {यहाठपर जो बात मैने लिखी थी उसका मतलब यही था कि या तो उस टेवे में पितृ ऋण है ही नहीं या पणà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ जी इसकी इतनी अहमियत नही समà¤à¤¤à¥‡ थे, फ़ैसला होना अà¤à¥€ बाकी था ,उससे पहले ही मेरी बात को नासमà¤à¥‹à¤‚ की तरह बहà¥à¤¤ तोड़ा मरोड़ा गया था}जबकि सवाल तो था कि हम इस तरह के टेवों में पितृ ऋण की हाजिरी मानें या ना मानें ? अब तो आप खà¥à¤²à¥‡ तौर पर बोल रहे हैं कि पितृ ऋण की दो ही अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ हैं à¤"र इन दोनो के होने पर पितृ ऋण होगा। जो सवाल मैने किया था वही waxpol @ ने à¤à¥€ किया था।निरà¥à¤®à¤² जी लालकिताब को पà¥à¤¤à¥‡ हà¥à¤ अगर पितृ ऋण की दो अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ सà¥à¤µà¥€à¤•à¤¾à¤° करते हà¥à¤ आपके दिलो दिमाग में शक की कोई गà¥à¤¨à¥à¤œà¤¾à¤ˆà¤¶ नहीं है तो उस टेवे में à¤à¥€ आपको पितृ ऋण मनà¥à¤œà¥‚र करना ही होगा, à¤"र अगर उस टेवे में पितृ ऋण मान लिया गया तो फ़िर से सवाल है कि पितृ ऋण की इतनी अहमियत होते हà¥à¤ à¤à¥€ पनà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ जी हम जैसे बचà¥à¤šà¥‹à¤‚ को मिसाल समà¤à¤¾à¤¤à¥‡ हà¥à¤ लिखना कैसे à¤à¥‚ल सकते थे। à¤"र उनà¥à¤¹à¥‹à¤¨à¥‡ उस मिसाल में पितृ ऋण का कोई उपाय कà¥à¤¯à¥‹à¤‚ नहीं दरà¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¯à¤¾ ? waxpol ने शायद इस बात को समà¤à¤¾ à¤"र फ़िर से गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª में यह विषय तरो-ताज़ा हो गया।निरà¥à¤®à¤² जी मेरी बात का बà¥à¤°à¤¾ मत मानना मैं आपकी à¤"र इस गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª की कोशिशों की बहà¥à¤¤ कदà¥à¤° करता हूठवरना जिस तरीके से बेकार में मेरी बात को बिना सोचे समà¤à¥‡ जो लोग इस गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª में गनà¥à¤¦à¤—ी फ़ैलाना चाहते थे उनकी जबान मे ही उसी दिन मैं जवाब दे सकता था। आप तो जानते ही हैं ,Even u have written a massage there to expose ur devotion to lalkitab.तब तक आपका गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª moderated नहीं था। लेकिन मेरा à¤à¤¸à¤¾ करना लालकिताब à¤"र इस गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª की सà¥à¤¨à¥à¤¦à¤°à¤¤à¤¾ à¤"र मरà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¦à¤¾ को à¤à¤‚ग कर देता। हम सà¤à¥€ विषय से हट जाते à¤"र बेकार बातों को dose या à¤à¤Ÿà¤•à¥‡ देने में ही समय बरà¥à¤¬à¤¾à¤¦ कर रहे होते शायद यही उन लोगों की मनà¥à¤¶à¤¾ थी जो पूरी न हो सकी। खैर मैं विषय पर आता हूठ- अगर आपकी बात को ही ऊपर रखा जाये à¤"र दो ही अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ मानी जाà¤à¤ तो तीन सवाल खड़े हो जाते हैं- १. उस टेवे में पितृ ऋण है à¤"र अगर है तो पूजà¥à¤¯ पनà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ जी ने मिसाल में (जो कि हम जैसे नासमà¤à¥‹à¤‚ के लिये अहमियत रकà¥à¤–ती है )उसमें कà¥à¤¯à¥‹à¤‚ नहीं जाहिर किया?२. कà¥à¤¯à¤¾ पूजà¥à¤¯ पनà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ जी की नज़र में पितृ ऋण की इतनी अहमियत नहीं थी कि उसका उपाय करने का जिकà¥à¤° करना à¤à¥€ मà¥à¤¨à¤¾à¤¸à¤¿à¤¬ नहीं समà¤à¤¾ उनà¥à¤¹à¥‹à¤‚ने?( à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¦à¥à¤µà¤¾à¤œ जी यह बात तो आप ही कà¥à¤¯à¤¾ इस गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª का कोई à¤à¥€ मैमà¥à¤¬à¤° कà¤à¥€ à¤à¥€ किसी à¤à¥€ हालत मे नहीं मान सकता)३.à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¦à¥à¤µà¤¾à¤œ जी कहीं आपकी दो अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ मनà¥à¤œà¥‚र करना गलत तो नहीं हैं ? à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¦à¥à¤µà¤¾à¤œ जी आप गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª के moderator हैं कà¥à¤¯à¥‹à¤‚कि मैं पनà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ जी को तो गलत मान नहीं सकता à¤"र आपकी कोशिशों à¤"र लगन की कदà¥à¤° करता हूठआपका जज़à¥à¤¬à¤¾ काबिले तारीफ़ है,इसीलिये फ़ैसला आप पर ही छोड़ता हूà¤à¥¤à¤®à¥‡à¤°à¥€ नज़र में तो तीन ही अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ हैं लेकिन २,५,९,१२ वाली तीसरी शरà¥à¤¤ पर मैं तà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤—ी जी से असहमत तो नही हूठलेकिन मेरे अधà¥à¤¯à¤¯à¤¨ के मà¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤¬à¤¿à¤• ये सिरà¥à¥ž दà¥à¤¶à¥à¤®à¤¨ या साथी गà¥à¤°à¤¹à¥‹à¤‚ की उपसà¥à¤¥à¤¿à¤¤à¤¿ तक ही सीमित नही है।इस बात को मैं फ़िर कà¤à¥€ आगे बढाउंगा।आपका शà¥à¤•à¥à¤°à¤—à¥à¤œà¤¾à¤°à¤²à¤¾à¤²à¤•à¤¿à¤¤à¤¾à¤¬à¥€ वी.के. शà¥à¤•à¥à¤²à¤¾ , "Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj" <nirbhar wrote:>> Respected Tyagi Jee,> Please keep slow. In a hurry you often left few words of the your text.> > " Khana no 2,5,9,12 ki mandi haalat bhi zaroor sath ho to rin pitra> hoga, varna koi ya kisi bhi kism ka rin pitri ya matri ya koi aur rin na> hoga. Khyal rahe ki rin pitri hamesha janma kundali mein dekha> jayega"> > I feel, something is left by you in the above text. Each and every word> of the book has definite and very important meaning. If you left any> word during study, the meaning of the lines change in total.> > The book simply says that the upaya has to be done of two planets, one> that has become " nikamma" and the other for the planet who has> made it "nikamma" by virtue of being in its "jar"> The example he gives is that if the Jupiter is in the 9th house and if > at the same time the rahu is in the 2 or 11 { ? } the upaya has to be> done for both ; for Jupiter in the 9th and rahu in the 2nd or the 11th.> > Again you missed some text after these lines i.e. How much period the> upaya is to be done. From period of the upaya you will judge that of> which subject Pandit Ji is mentioning. In your words the examples in> this lesson has nothing to do with the subject. It also means that the> few example kundlis discusses in the last of book have nothing to do> with the ideaology of the book as these are only examples.> Trivedi Jee "Example de de kar hee ham jaise naasamajh bachon ko> samjhaya ja sakta hai, "> > I had put a question mark against 11 above. Some of us believe that it> is a printing mistake and it should read 12 instead. Because then only> it will get qualified under the 3rd condition of " 5,12.2,9 koi> manda". There is no reference of 11 here.> But printing mistakes in Lal Kitab could be a matter of seperate> investigation. Our small Lal Kitab group has already detected quite a> few printing mistakes in the original 1952 urdu edition.> One such finding was posted here by my gurubhai Varun Trivedi quite some> time back.> > Respected Tyagi Ji, it is very good to scrutinize each and every word of> the subject. But before pointing out any error in the book, please for> God sake, we should always keep in mind that three fingers are pointing> towards ourselves. We with very meager knowledge never boost ourselves> as Master of the subject and creates doubt in other minds.> You must clear your stand with logics of the book itself.> Now please give your logic why Rahu should be in 12 not in 11th as> written in the book (to whom you considered as printing error. )> Beware we are just kids as far as this book is concerned. Ask Your Guru> Bhai as well as your Respected Guru Ji to come forward with the> logics of these books, which prove that this is a mistake.> Please excuse me for this outburst.> Regards> Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Respectable Bhardwaj ji हिनà¥à¤¦à¥€ में लिखने की यह सà¥à¤µà¤¿à¤§à¤¾ आप से सीख लेने के बाद मैं आपका तह ठदिल से शà¥à¤•à¥à¤°à¤—à¥à¥›à¤¾à¤° होते हà¥à¤ इस पितृ ऋण के खà¥à¤²à¤¾à¤¸à¥‡ के दौरान कहना चाहूà¤à¤—ा कि आप à¤à¤• ही बात पर डटे हà¥à¤ हैं कि पितृऋण के लिये केवल दो ही अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤Žà¤‚ लालकिताब में लिखी गयी हैं लेकिन इस ज़िरह में आप शायद यह à¤à¥‚ल गये हैं कि काफ़ी समय पहले मैनें Remedy Failure विषय में पनà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ जी के दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ दी गयी चनà¥à¤¦ मददगार मिसालों में से à¤à¤• टेवा लिया था à¤"र पà¥à¤°à¤¶à¥à¤¨ à¤à¥€ किया था , आपने à¤à¤• चिटà¥à¤ ी में लिखा है कि Lalkitabi Ji may have said by reading the book or by his experience. चलो खैर शायद मैने वैसे ही बिना सोचे समà¤à¥‡ लिख डाला होगा , लेकिन à¤à¤• बात तो आपको माननी ही पड़ेगी कि पितृ ऋण की जो दो अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ आप सà¥à¤µà¥€à¤•à¤¾à¤° कर रहे हैं मैने उस टेवे में वह दोनों अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ सà¥à¤ªà¤·à¥à¤Ÿ करते हà¥à¤ बाकायदा लिखा था कि पितृ ऋण की पà¥à¤°à¤¥à¤® à¤"र दà¥à¤µà¤¿à¤¤à¥€à¤¯ अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾ उस टेवे में है लेकिन पणà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ जी ने तो उस टेवे की बाबत पितृ ऋण का जिकà¥à¤° तक नहीं किया {यहाठपर जो बात मैने लिखी थी उसका मतलब यही था कि या तो उस टेवे में पितृ ऋण है ही नहीं या पणà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ जी इसकी इतनी अहमियत नही समà¤à¤¤à¥‡ थे, फ़ैसला होना अà¤à¥€ बाकी था ,उससे पहले ही मेरी बात को नासमà¤à¥‹à¤‚ की तरह बहà¥à¤¤ तोड़ा मरोड़ा गया था} जबकि सवाल तो था कि हम इस तरह के टेवों में पितृ ऋण की हाजिरी मानें या ना मानें ? अब तो आप खà¥à¤²à¥‡ तौर पर बोल रहे हैं कि पितृ ऋण की दो ही अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ हैं à¤"र इन दोनो के होने पर पितृ ऋण होगा। जो सवाल मैने किया था वही waxpol @ ने à¤à¥€ किया था।निरà¥à¤®à¤² जी लालकिताब को पà¥à¤¤à¥‡ हà¥à¤ अगर पितृ ऋण की दो अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ सà¥à¤µà¥€à¤•à¤¾à¤° करते हà¥à¤ आपके दिलो दिमाग में शक की कोई गà¥à¤¨à¥à¤œà¤¾à¤ˆà¤¶ नहीं है तो उस टेवे में à¤à¥€ आपको पितृ ऋण मनà¥à¤œà¥‚र करना ही होगा, à¤"र अगर उस टेवे में पितृ ऋण मान लिया गया तो फ़िर से सवाल है कि पितृ ऋण की इतनी अहमियत होते हà¥à¤ à¤à¥€ पनà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ जी हम जैसे बचà¥à¤šà¥‹à¤‚ को मिसाल समà¤à¤¾à¤¤à¥‡ हà¥à¤ लिखना कैसे à¤à¥‚ल सकते थे। à¤"र उनà¥à¤¹à¥‹à¤¨à¥‡ उस मिसाल में पितृ ऋण का कोई उपाय कà¥à¤¯à¥‹à¤‚ नहीं दरà¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¯à¤¾ ? waxpol ने शायद इस बात को समà¤à¤¾ à¤"र फ़िर से गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª में यह विषय तरो-ताज़ा हो गया।निरà¥à¤®à¤² जी मेरी बात का बà¥à¤°à¤¾ मत मानना मैं आपकी à¤"र इस गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª की कोशिशों की बहà¥à¤¤ कदà¥à¤° करता हूठवरना जिस तरीके से बेकार में मेरी बात को बिना सोचे समà¤à¥‡ जो लोग इस गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª में गनà¥à¤¦à¤—ी फ़ैलाना चाहते थे उनकी जबान मे ही उसी दिन मैं जवाब दे सकता था। आप तो जानते ही हैं ,Even u have written a massage there to expose ur devotion to lalkitab.तब तक आपका गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª moderated नहीं था। लेकिन मेरा à¤à¤¸à¤¾ करना लालकिताब à¤"र इस गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª की सà¥à¤¨à¥à¤¦à¤°à¤¤à¤¾ à¤"र मरà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¦à¤¾ को à¤à¤‚ग कर देता। हम सà¤à¥€ विषय से हट जाते à¤"र बेकार बातों को dose या à¤à¤Ÿà¤•à¥‡ देने में ही समय बरà¥à¤¬à¤¾à¤¦ कर रहे होते शायद यही उन लोगों की मनà¥à¤¶à¤¾ थी जो पूरी न हो सकी। खैर मैं विषय पर आता हूठ- अगर आपकी बात को ही ऊपर रखा जाये à¤"र दो ही अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ मानी जाà¤à¤ तो तीन सवाल खड़े हो जाते हैं- १. उस टेवे में पितृ ऋण है à¤"र अगर है तो पूजà¥à¤¯ पनà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ जी ने मिसाल में (जो कि हम जैसे नासमà¤à¥‹à¤‚ के लिये अहमियत रखती है )उसमें कà¥à¤¯à¥‹à¤‚ नहीं जाहिर किया?२. कà¥à¤¯à¤¾ पूजà¥à¤¯ पनà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ जी की नज़र में पितृ ऋण की इतनी अहमियत नहीं थी कि उसका उपाय करने का जिकà¥à¤° करना à¤à¥€ मà¥à¤¨à¤¾à¤¸à¤¿à¤¬ नहीं समà¤à¤¾ उनà¥à¤¹à¥‹à¤‚ने?( à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¦à¥à¤µà¤¾à¤œ जी यह बात तो आप ही कà¥à¤¯à¤¾ इस गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª का कोई à¤à¥€ मैमà¥à¤¬à¤° कà¤à¥€ à¤à¥€ किसी à¤à¥€ हालत मे नहीं मान सकता)३.à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¦à¥à¤µà¤¾à¤œ जी कहीं आपकी दो अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ मनà¥à¤œà¥‚र करना गलत तो नहीं हैं ? à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¦à¥à¤µà¤¾à¤œ जी आप गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª के moderator हैं कà¥à¤¯à¥‹à¤‚कि मैं पनà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ जी को तो गलत मान नहीं सकता à¤"र आपकी कोशिशों à¤"र लगन की कदà¥à¤° करता हूठआपका जज़à¥à¤¬à¤¾ काबिले तारीफ़ है,इसीलिये फ़ैसला आप पर ही छोड़ता हूà¤à¥¤à¤®à¥‡à¤°à¥€ नज़र में तो तीन ही अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ हैं लेकिन २,५,९,१२ वाली तीसरी शरà¥à¤¤ पर मैं तà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤—ी जी से असहमत तो नही हूठलेकिन मेरे अधà¥à¤¯à¤¯à¤¨ के मà¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤¬à¤¿à¤• ये सिरà¥à¥ž दà¥à¤¶à¥à¤®à¤¨ या साथी गà¥à¤°à¤¹à¥‹à¤‚ की उपसà¥à¤¥à¤¿à¤¤à¤¿ तक ही सीमित नही है।इस बात को मैं फ़िर कà¤à¥€ आगे बढाउंगा।आपका शà¥à¤•à¥à¤°à¤—à¥à¤œà¤¾à¤°à¤²à¤¾à¤²à¤•à¤¿à¤¤à¤¾à¤¬à¥€ वी.के. शà¥à¤•à¥à¤²à¤¾ , "cp_tyagi2006" <cp_tyagi2006 wrote:>> Respected Nirmal ji,> > Regarding first two paragraphs I have nothing to say. This is how I > interpret and understand the book. You might have a different > understanding. > > We both can co-exist with our different views. Couldn’t we?> > However I would like to respond to the third paragraph about > possibility of a misprint. > > Since the Lal Kitab is a printed book there could always be a > possibility of a few misprints like in any other printed book. No > sacrilege intended.> > Secondly, it is believed that an erratum was also issued after the > 1952 ed of the book. Since I have never seen such errata, it is just > an assumption. Nevertheless, a presumed existence of any such > document adds to the possibility of printing mistakes in the Lal > Kitab { 1952 ed } > > I hope you also would agree to a possibility of misprints in any > printed book.> > Having established the possibility of printing mistakes, I move on > to the main issue.> > Now coming to ‘rahu in 2nd and 11th’ controversy. > > The matter to be investigated is whether it should be ‘rahu in > 11th’ or should it read ‘rahu in 12th’. > > Context : > > In the first place, these lines occur under the heading of ‘uljhan > ke grah’ which primarily deals with ‘pitri rin’. Therefore whether > the rahu should be in the 11th or the 12th the matter will have to > be examined within the parameters of pitri rin definition and not > under the definition of malefic { manda } grah.> > Secondly , the reference to rahu in 2nd and 11th house occurs as an > example to the dictum that the upaya has to be done for two > planets; one that is afflicted and the other which is a cause of > this affliction. This system of doing upaya for two planets in > tandem is characteristic of ‘Pitri Rin’ upaya. This again reaffirms > that rahu in 11th or in 12th issue has to be dealt with within > the ‘pitri rin’ definition and not within the general purview of > manda or malefic planet.> > Therefore the ground rule for the test is set. The rule applicable > will have to be ‘pitri rin’ rules only and no other rules. > > Now we have to test whether rahu in the 11th house qualifies under > Pitri Rin conditions or is it Rahu in the 12th that qualifies.> > Rahu in the 11th tested against the three conditions.> > Result : negative > > Rahu in the 11th does not find a mention in any of the three Pitri > rin conditions. > > Nirmal ji, if it does, please let us know.> > Rahu in the 12th tested against the three conditions.> > Result : Positive> > It finds mention in the two conditions.> > { a } doosari haalat : brahaspati 2, 3 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 12 se baahar > kahi ho > > aur > > no 2 shani dushta grah, 5 mein shukra, 9 mein budh, ya 12 mein rahu, > ya 3,6 budh,shukra ya shani bahaisiyat papi grah> > { b } Rahu in 12th again qualifies the 3rd condition under the > clause “ 5,12,2,9 koi mande†… if mercury, venus or rahu placed in > the pakka house of Jupiter.> > Since rahu in the 11th has not found any mention in the above two > definitions therefore it is logically deduced that rahu in 11th is a > misprint and it should read rahu in the 12th. > > Since the first Pitri Rin condition can exist independent of the > other two, therefore Rahu in the 12th house can be one of the Pitri > Rin causing planets.> > Where as Rahu in the 11th can not, under any circumstances, be a > Pitri Rin causing planet under the Pitri Rin conditions.> > Therefore while talking about Pitri Rin, under the section dealing > with it, the mention of rahu in the 11th is neither relevant nor > logical ; where as mention of rahu in the 12th is not only logical > it is relevant too.> > Therefore the hypothesis that line should read rahu in 12th instead > of rahu in the 11th holds good.> > With regards and naman,> > Chandra Prakash> > > > > > > > > > > > > , "Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj" > nirbhar@ wrote:> >> > Respected Tyagi Jee,> > Please keep slow. In a hurry you often left few words of the your > text.> > > > " Khana no 2,5,9,12 ki mandi haalat bhi zaroor sath ho to rin pitra> > hoga, varna koi ya kisi bhi kism ka rin pitri ya matri ya koi aur > rin na> > hoga. Khyal rahe ki rin pitri hamesha janma kundali mein dekha> > jayega"> > > > I feel, something is left by you in the above text. Each and every > word> > of the book has definite and very important meaning. If you left > any> > word during study, the meaning of the lines change in total.> > > > The book simply says that the upaya has to be done of two planets, > one> > that has become " nikamma" and the other for the planet who has> > made it "nikamma" by virtue of being in its "jar"> > The example he gives is that if the Jupiter is in the 9th house > and if > > at the same time the rahu is in the 2 or 11 { ? } the upaya has to > be> > done for both ; for Jupiter in the 9th and rahu in the 2nd or the > 11th.> > > > Again you missed some text after these lines i.e. How much period > the> > upaya is to be done. From period of the upaya you will judge that > of> > which subject Pandit Ji is mentioning. In your words the examples > in> > this lesson has nothing to do with the subject. It also means that > the> > few example kundlis discusses in the last of book have nothing to > do> > with the ideaology of the book as these are only examples.> > Trivedi Jee "Example de de kar hee ham jaise naasamajh bachon ko> > samjhaya ja sakta hai, "> > > > I had put a question mark against 11 above. Some of us believe > that it> > is a printing mistake and it should read 12 instead. Because then > only> > it will get qualified under the 3rd condition of " 5,12.2,9 koi> > manda". There is no reference of 11 here.> > But printing mistakes in Lal Kitab could be a matter of seperate> > investigation. Our small Lal Kitab group has already detected > quite a> > few printing mistakes in the original 1952 urdu edition.> > One such finding was posted here by my gurubhai Varun Trivedi > quite some> > time back.> > > > Respected Tyagi Ji, it is very good to scrutinize each and every > word of> > the subject. But before pointing out any error in the book, please > for> > God sake, we should always keep in mind that three fingers are > pointing> > towards ourselves. We with very meager knowledge never boost > ourselves> > as Master of the subject and creates doubt in other minds.> > You must clear your stand with logics of the book itself.> > Now please give your logic why Rahu should be in 12 not in 11th as> > written in the book (to whom you considered as printing error. )> > Beware we are just kids as far as this book is concerned. Ask Your > Guru> > Bhai as well as your Respected Guru Ji to come forward with the> > logics of these books, which prove that this is a mistake.> > Please excuse me for this outburst.> > Regards> > Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Respected lalkitabee ji, Beautifully written. The Hindi mixed with urdu words sounds very much in the Lal Kitab tradition. While learning Lal Kitab you seem to have picked up its diction as well. Wish I could write so well. I too have studied that particular kundali. On the face of it the kundali qualifies through all the three conditions. It will be interesting to find out why pt. Roopchand ji { peace be upon him} did not mention the Pitri Rin upaya. I agree with you that it can not be an oversight. With regards and naman, Chandra Prakash , " lalkitabee " <lalkitabee wrote: > > > Respectable Bhardwaj ji > हिनà¥à¤¦à¥€ में लिखने की > यह सà¥à¤µà¤¿à¤§à¤¾ आप से सीख > लेने के बाद मैं > आपका तह ठदिल से > शà¥à¤•à¥à¤°à¤—à¥à¥›à¤¾à¤° होते हà¥à¤ > इस पितृ ऋण के > खà¥à¤²à¤¾à¤¸à¥‡ के दौरान > कहना चाहूà¤à¤—ा कि आप > à¤à¤• ही बात पर डटे > हà¥à¤ हैं कि पितृऋण > के लिये केवल दो ही > अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤Žà¤‚ लालकिताब > में लिखी गयी हैं > लेकिन इस ज़िरह में > आप शायद यह à¤à¥‚ल गये > हैं कि काफ़ी समय > पहले मैनें Remedy Failure विषय > में पनà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ जी के > दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ दी गयी चनà¥à¤¦ > मददगार मिसालों में > से à¤à¤• टेवा लिया था > दquot;र पà¥à¤°à¤¶à¥à¤¨ à¤à¥€ किया था > , आपने à¤à¤• चिटà¥à¤ ी में > लिखा है कि Lalkitabi Ji may have said by > reading the book or by his experience. चलो खैर > शायद मैने वैसे ही > बिना सोचे समà¤à¥‡ लिख > डाला होगा , लेकिन à¤à¤• > बात तो आपको माननी > ही पड़ेगी कि पितृ ऋण > की जो दो अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ > आप सà¥à¤µà¥€à¤•à¤¾à¤° कर रहे > हैं मैने उस टेवे > में वह दोनों > अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ सà¥à¤ªà¤·à¥à¤Ÿ > करते हà¥à¤ बाकायदा > लिखा था कि पितृ ऋण > की पà¥à¤°à¤¥à¤® दquot;र दà¥à¤µà¤¿à¤¤à¥€à¤¯ > अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾ उस टेवे में > है लेकिन पणà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ जी > ने तो उस टेवे की > बाबत पितृ ऋण का > जिकà¥à¤° तक नहीं किया > {यहाठपर जो बात मैने > लिखी थी उसका मतलब > यही था कि या तो उस > टेवे में पितृ ऋण है > ही नहीं या पणà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ > जी इसकी इतनी अहमियत > नही समà¤à¤¤à¥‡ थे, फ़ैसला > होना अà¤à¥€ बाकी था > ,उससे पहले ही मेरी > बात को नासमà¤à¥‹à¤‚ की > तरह बहà¥à¤¤ तोड़ा मरोड़ा > गया था} जबकि सवाल तो > था कि हम इस तरह के > टेवों में पितृ ऋण > की हाजिरी मानें या > ना मानें ? अब तो आप > खà¥à¤²à¥‡ तौर पर बोल रहे > हैं कि पितृ ऋण की > दो ही अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ हैं > दquot;र इन दोनो के होने > पर पितृ ऋण होगा। जो > सवाल मैने किया था > वही waxpol @ ने à¤à¥€ किया > था।निरà¥à¤®à¤² जी लालकिताब > को पà¥à¤¤à¥‡ हà¥à¤ अगर > पितृ ऋण की दो > अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ सà¥à¤µà¥€à¤•à¤¾à¤° > करते हà¥à¤ आपके दिलो > दिमाग में शक की > कोई गà¥à¤¨à¥à¤œà¤¾à¤ˆà¤¶ नहीं > है तो उस टेवे में > à¤à¥€ आपको पितृ ऋण > मनà¥à¤œà¥‚र करना ही होगा, > दquot;र अगर उस टेवे में > पितृ ऋण मान लिया गया > तो फ़िर से सवाल है > कि पितृ ऋण की इतनी > अहमियत होते हà¥à¤ à¤à¥€ > पनà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ जी हम जैसे > बचà¥à¤šà¥‹à¤‚ को मिसाल > समà¤à¤¾à¤¤à¥‡ हà¥à¤ लिखना > कैसे à¤à¥‚ल सकते थे। > दquot;र उनà¥à¤¹à¥‹à¤¨à¥‡ उस मिसाल > में पितृ ऋण का कोई > उपाय कà¥à¤¯à¥‹à¤‚ नहीं > दरà¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¯à¤¾ ? waxpol ने शायद इस > बात को समà¤à¤¾ दquot;र फ़िर > से गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª में यह > विषय तरो-ताज़ा हो > गया।निरà¥à¤®à¤² जी मेरी > बात का बà¥à¤°à¤¾ मत मानना > मैं आपकी दquot;र इस > गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª की कोशिशों > की बहà¥à¤¤ कदà¥à¤° करता > हूठवरना जिस तरीके > से बेकार में मेरी > बात को बिना सोचे > समà¤à¥‡ जो लोग इस > गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª में गनà¥à¤¦à¤—ी > फ़ैलाना चाहते थे > उनकी जबान मे ही उसी > दिन मैं जवाब दे सकता > था। आप तो जानते ही > हैं ,Even u have written a massage there to expose ur > devotion to lalkitab.तब तक आपका > गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª moderated नहीं था। > लेकिन मेरा à¤à¤¸à¤¾ करना > लालकिताब दquot;र इस गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª > की सà¥à¤¨à¥à¤¦à¤°à¤¤à¤¾ दquot;र > मरà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¦à¤¾ को à¤à¤‚ग कर > देता। हम सà¤à¥€ विषय से > हट जाते दquot;र बेकार > बातों को dose या à¤à¤Ÿà¤•à¥‡ > देने में ही समय > बरà¥à¤¬à¤¾à¤¦ कर रहे होते > शायद यही उन लोगों > की मनà¥à¤¶à¤¾ थी जो पूरी > न हो सकी। > खैर मैं विषय पर आता > हूठ- अगर आपकी बात > को ही ऊपर रखा जाये > दquot;र दो ही अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ > मानी जाà¤à¤ तो तीन > सवाल खड़े हो जाते > हैं- १. उस टेवे में > पितृ ऋण है दquot;र अगर > है तो पूजà¥à¤¯ पनà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ > जी ने मिसाल में (जो > कि हम जैसे नासमà¤à¥‹à¤‚ > के लिये अहमियत रखती > है )उसमें कà¥à¤¯à¥‹à¤‚ > नहीं जाहिर किया? > २. कà¥à¤¯à¤¾ पूजà¥à¤¯ पनà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ > जी की नज़र में पितृ > ऋण की इतनी अहमियत > नहीं थी कि उसका > उपाय करने का जिकà¥à¤° > करना à¤à¥€ मà¥à¤¨à¤¾à¤¸à¤¿à¤¬ नहीं > समà¤à¤¾ उनà¥à¤¹à¥‹à¤‚ने?( > à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¦à¥à¤µà¤¾à¤œ जी यह बात > तो आप ही कà¥à¤¯à¤¾ इस > गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª का कोई à¤à¥€ > मैमà¥à¤¬à¤° कà¤à¥€ à¤à¥€ किसी > à¤à¥€ हालत मे नहीं मान > सकता) > ३.à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¦à¥à¤µà¤¾à¤œ जी कहीं > आपकी दो अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ > मनà¥à¤œà¥‚र करना गलत तो > नहीं हैं ? > à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¦à¥à¤µà¤¾à¤œ जी आप > गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª के moderator हैं > कà¥à¤¯à¥‹à¤‚कि मैं पनà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ > जी को तो गलत मान > नहीं सकता दquot;र आपकी > कोशिशों दquot;र लगन की > कदà¥à¤° करता हूठआपका > जज़à¥à¤¬à¤¾ काबिले तारीफ़ > है,इसीलिये फ़ैसला आप > पर ही छोड़ता > हूà¤à¥¤à¤®à¥‡à¤°à¥€ नज़र में तो > तीन ही अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ हैं > लेकिन २,५,९,१२ वाली > तीसरी शरà¥à¤¤ पर मैं > तà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤—ी जी से असहमत > तो नही हूठलेकिन > मेरे अधà¥à¤¯à¤¯à¤¨ के > मà¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤¬à¤¿à¤• ये सिरà¥à¥ž > दà¥à¤¶à¥à¤®à¤¨ या साथी > गà¥à¤°à¤¹à¥‹à¤‚ की उपसà¥à¤¥à¤¿à¤¤à¤¿ > तक ही सीमित नही है। > इस बात को मैं फ़िर > कà¤à¥€ आगे बढाउंगा। > आपका शà¥à¤•à¥à¤°à¤—à¥à¤œà¤¾à¤° > लालकिताबी वी.के. > शà¥à¤•à¥à¤²à¤¾ > , " cp_tyagi2006 " <cp_tyagi2006@> > wrote: > > > > Respected Nirmal ji, > > > > Regarding first two paragraphs I have nothing to say. This is how I > > interpret and understand the book. You might have a different > > understanding. > > > > We both can co-exist with our different views. Couldn’t we? > > > > However I would like to respond to the third paragraph about > > possibility of a misprint. > > > > Since the Lal Kitab is a printed book there could always be a > > possibility of a few misprints like in any other printed book. No > > sacrilege intended. > > > > Secondly, it is believed that an erratum was also issued after the > > 1952 ed of the book. Since I have never seen such errata, it is just > > an assumption. Nevertheless, a presumed existence of any such > > document adds to the possibility of printing mistakes in the Lal > > Kitab { 1952 ed } > > > > I hope you also would agree to a possibility of misprints in any > > printed book. > > > > Having established the possibility of printing mistakes, I move on > > to the main issue. > > > > Now coming to ‘rahu in 2nd and 11th’ controversy. > > > > The matter to be investigated is whether it should be ‘rahu in > > 11th’ or should it read ‘rahu in 12th’. > > > > Context : > > > > In the first place, these lines occur under the heading of > ‘uljhan > > ke grah’ which primarily deals with ‘pitri rin’. > Therefore whether > > the rahu should be in the 11th or the 12th the matter will have to > > be examined within the parameters of pitri rin definition and not > > under the definition of malefic { manda } grah. > > > > Secondly , the reference to rahu in 2nd and 11th house occurs as an > > example to the dictum that the upaya has to be done for two > > planets; one that is afflicted and the other which is a cause of > > this affliction. This system of doing upaya for two planets in > > tandem is characteristic of ‘Pitri Rin’ upaya. This > again reaffirms > > that rahu in 11th or in 12th issue has to be dealt with within > > the ‘pitri rin’ definition and not within the general > purview of > > manda or malefic planet. > > > > Therefore the ground rule for the test is set. The rule applicable > > will have to be ‘pitri rin’ rules only and no other > rules. > > > > Now we have to test whether rahu in the 11th house qualifies under > > Pitri Rin conditions or is it Rahu in the 12th that qualifies. > > > > Rahu in the 11th tested against the three conditions. > > > > Result : negative > > > > Rahu in the 11th does not find a mention in any of the three Pitri > > rin conditions. > > > > Nirmal ji, if it does, please let us know. > > > > Rahu in the 12th tested against the three conditions. > > > > Result : Positive > > > > It finds mention in the two conditions. > > > > { a } doosari haalat : brahaspati 2, 3 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 12 se baahar > > kahi ho > > > > aur > > > > no 2 shani dushta grah, 5 mein shukra, 9 mein budh, ya 12 mein rahu, > > ya 3,6 budh,shukra ya shani bahaisiyat papi grah > > > > { b } Rahu in 12th again qualifies the 3rd condition under the > > clause “ 5,12,2,9 koi mande†… if mercury, venus > or rahu placed in > > the pakka house of Jupiter. > > > > Since rahu in the 11th has not found any mention in the above two > > definitions therefore it is logically deduced that rahu in 11th is a > > misprint and it should read rahu in the 12th. > > > > Since the first Pitri Rin condition can exist independent of the > > other two, therefore Rahu in the 12th house can be one of the Pitri > > Rin causing planets. > > > > Where as Rahu in the 11th can not, under any circumstances, be a > > Pitri Rin causing planet under the Pitri Rin conditions. > > > > Therefore while talking about Pitri Rin, under the section dealing > > with it, the mention of rahu in the 11th is neither relevant nor > > logical ; where as mention of rahu in the 12th is not only logical > > it is relevant too. > > > > Therefore the hypothesis that line should read rahu in 12th instead > > of rahu in the 11th holds good. > > > > With regards and naman, > > > > Chandra Prakash > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj " > > nirbhar@ wrote: > > > > > > Respected Tyagi Jee, > > > Please keep slow. In a hurry you often left few words of the your > > text. > > > > > > " Khana no 2,5,9,12 ki mandi haalat bhi zaroor sath ho to rin pitra > > > hoga, varna koi ya kisi bhi kism ka rin pitri ya matri ya koi aur > > rin na > > > hoga. Khyal rahe ki rin pitri hamesha janma kundali mein dekha > > > jayega " > > > > > > I feel, something is left by you in the above text. Each and every > > word > > > of the book has definite and very important meaning. If you left > > any > > > word during study, the meaning of the lines change in total. > > > > > > The book simply says that the upaya has to be done of two planets, > > one > > > that has become " nikamma " and the other for the planet who has > > > made it " nikamma " by virtue of being in its " jar " > > > The example he gives is that if the Jupiter is in the 9th house > > and if > > > at the same time the rahu is in the 2 or 11 { ? } the upaya has to > > be > > > done for both ; for Jupiter in the 9th and rahu in the 2nd or the > > 11th. > > > > > > Again you missed some text after these lines i.e. How much period > > the > > > upaya is to be done. From period of the upaya you will judge that > > of > > > which subject Pandit Ji is mentioning. In your words the examples > > in > > > this lesson has nothing to do with the subject. It also means that > > the > > > few example kundlis discusses in the last of book have nothing to > > do > > > with the ideaology of the book as these are only examples. > > > Trivedi Jee " Example de de kar hee ham jaise naasamajh bachon ko > > > samjhaya ja sakta hai, " > > > > > > I had put a question mark against 11 above. Some of us believe > > that it > > > is a printing mistake and it should read 12 instead. Because then > > only > > > it will get qualified under the 3rd condition of " 5,12.2,9 koi > > > manda " . There is no reference of 11 here. > > > But printing mistakes in Lal Kitab could be a matter of seperate > > > investigation. Our small Lal Kitab group has already detected > > quite a > > > few printing mistakes in the original 1952 urdu edition. > > > One such finding was posted here by my gurubhai Varun Trivedi > > quite some > > > time back. > > > > > > Respected Tyagi Ji, it is very good to scrutinize each and every > > word of > > > the subject. But before pointing out any error in the book, please > > for > > > God sake, we should always keep in mind that three fingers are > > pointing > > > towards ourselves. We with very meager knowledge never boost > > ourselves > > > as Master of the subject and creates doubt in other minds. > > > You must clear your stand with logics of the book itself. > > > Now please give your logic why Rahu should be in 12 not in 11th as > > > written in the book (to whom you considered as printing error. ) > > > Beware we are just kids as far as this book is concerned. Ask Your > > Guru > > > Bhai as well as your Respected Guru Ji to come forward with the > > > logics of these books, which prove that this is a mistake. > > > Please excuse me for this outburst. > > > Regards > > > Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Respected members In my massage in hindi the word is appearing " DHAR " .asal main yeh AUR hai.i have its saved copy in which it is accurate but at board it changed itself. In fact it is AUR .in english it is " AND " lalkitabee , " lalkitabee " <lalkitabee wrote: > > > Respectable Bhardwaj ji > हिनà¥à¤¦à¥€ में लिखने की > यह सà¥à¤µà¤¿à¤§à¤¾ आप से सीख > लेने के बाद मैं > आपका तह ठदिल से > शà¥à¤•à¥à¤°à¤—à¥à¥›à¤¾à¤° होते हà¥à¤ > इस पितृ ऋण के > खà¥à¤²à¤¾à¤¸à¥‡ के दौरान > कहना चाहूà¤à¤—ा कि आप > à¤à¤• ही बात पर डटे > हà¥à¤ हैं कि पितृऋण > के लिये केवल दो ही > अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤Žà¤‚ लालकिताब > में लिखी गयी हैं > लेकिन इस ज़िरह में > आप शायद यह à¤à¥‚ल गये > हैं कि काफ़ी समय > पहले मैनें Remedy Failure विषय > में पनà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ जी के > दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ दी गयी चनà¥à¤¦ > मददगार मिसालों में > से à¤à¤• टेवा लिया था > ठ" र पà¥à¤°à¤¶à¥à¤¨ à¤à¥€ किया था > , आपने à¤à¤• चिटà¥à¤ ी में > लिखा है कि Lalkitabi Ji may have said by > reading the book or by his experience. चलो खैर > शायद मैने वैसे ही > बिना सोचे समà¤à¥‡ लिख > डाला होगा , लेकिन à¤à¤• > बात तो आपको माननी > ही पड़ेगी कि पितृ ऋण > की जो दो अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ > आप सà¥à¤µà¥€à¤•à¤¾à¤° कर रहे > हैं मैने उस टेवे > में वह दोनों > अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ सà¥à¤ªà¤·à¥à¤Ÿ > करते हà¥à¤ बाकायदा > लिखा था कि पितृ ऋण > की पà¥à¤°à¤¥à¤® ठ" र दà¥à¤µà¤¿à¤¤à¥€à¤¯ > अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾ उस टेवे में > है लेकिन पणà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ जी > ने तो उस टेवे की > बाबत पितृ ऋण का > जिकà¥à¤° तक नहीं किया > {यहाठपर जो बात मैने > लिखी थी उसका मतलब > यही था कि या तो उस > टेवे में पितृ ऋण है > ही नहीं या पणà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ > जी इसकी इतनी अहमियत > नही समà¤à¤¤à¥‡ थे, फ़ैसला > होना अà¤à¥€ बाकी था > ,उससे पहले ही मेरी > बात को नासमà¤à¥‹à¤‚ की > तरह बहà¥à¤¤ तोड़ा मरोड़ा > गया था} जबकि सवाल तो > था कि हम इस तरह के > टेवों में पितृ ऋण > की हाजिरी मानें या > ना मानें ? अब तो आप > खà¥à¤²à¥‡ तौर पर बोल रहे > हैं कि पितृ ऋण की > दो ही अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ हैं > ठ" र इन दोनो के होने > पर पितृ ऋण होगा। जो > सवाल मैने किया था > वही waxpol @ ने à¤à¥€ किया > था।निरà¥à¤®à¤² जी लालकिताब > को पà¥à¤¤à¥‡ हà¥à¤ अगर > पितृ ऋण की दो > अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ सà¥à¤µà¥€à¤•à¤¾à¤° > करते हà¥à¤ आपके दिलो > दिमाग में शक की > कोई गà¥à¤¨à¥à¤œà¤¾à¤ˆà¤¶ नहीं > है तो उस टेवे में > à¤à¥€ आपको पितृ ऋण > मनà¥à¤œà¥‚र करना ही होगा, > ठ" र अगर उस टेवे में > पितृ ऋण मान लिया गया > तो फ़िर से सवाल है > कि पितृ ऋण की इतनी > अहमियत होते हà¥à¤ à¤à¥€ > पनà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ जी हम जैसे > बचà¥à¤šà¥‹à¤‚ को मिसाल > समà¤à¤¾à¤¤à¥‡ हà¥à¤ लिखना > कैसे à¤à¥‚ल सकते थे। > ठ" र उनà¥à¤¹à¥‹à¤¨à¥‡ उस मिसाल > में पितृ ऋण का कोई > उपाय कà¥à¤¯à¥‹à¤‚ नहीं > दरà¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¯à¤¾ ? waxpol ने शायद इस > बात को समà¤à¤¾ ठ" र फ़िर > से गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª में यह > विषय तरो-ताज़ा हो > गया।निरà¥à¤®à¤² जी मेरी > बात का बà¥à¤°à¤¾ मत मानना > मैं आपकी ठ" र इस > गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª की कोशिशों > की बहà¥à¤¤ कदà¥à¤° करता > हूठवरना जिस तरीके > से बेकार में मेरी > बात को बिना सोचे > समà¤à¥‡ जो लोग इस > गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª में गनà¥à¤¦à¤—ी > फ़ैलाना चाहते थे > उनकी जबान मे ही उसी > दिन मैं जवाब दे सकता > था। आप तो जानते ही > हैं ,Even u have written a massage there to expose ur > devotion to lalkitab.तब तक आपका > गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª moderated नहीं था। > लेकिन मेरा à¤à¤¸à¤¾ करना > लालकिताब ठ" र इस गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª > की सà¥à¤¨à¥à¤¦à¤°à¤¤à¤¾ ठ" र > मरà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¦à¤¾ को à¤à¤‚ग कर > देता। हम सà¤à¥€ विषय से > हट जाते ठ" र बेकार > बातों को dose या à¤à¤Ÿà¤•à¥‡ > देने में ही समय > बरà¥à¤¬à¤¾à¤¦ कर रहे होते > शायद यही उन लोगों > की मनà¥à¤¶à¤¾ थी जो पूरी > न हो सकी। > खैर मैं विषय पर आता > हूठ- अगर आपकी बात > को ही ऊपर रखा जाये > ठ" र दो ही अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ > मानी जाà¤à¤ तो तीन > सवाल खड़े हो जाते > हैं- १. उस टेवे में > पितृ ऋण है ठ" र अगर > है तो पूजà¥à¤¯ पनà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ > जी ने मिसाल में (जो > कि हम जैसे नासमà¤à¥‹à¤‚ > के लिये अहमियत रखती > है )उसमें कà¥à¤¯à¥‹à¤‚ > नहीं जाहिर किया? > २. कà¥à¤¯à¤¾ पूजà¥à¤¯ पनà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ > जी की नज़र में पितृ > ऋण की इतनी अहमियत > नहीं थी कि उसका > उपाय करने का जिकà¥à¤° > करना à¤à¥€ मà¥à¤¨à¤¾à¤¸à¤¿à¤¬ नहीं > समà¤à¤¾ उनà¥à¤¹à¥‹à¤‚ने?( > à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¦à¥à¤µà¤¾à¤œ जी यह बात > तो आप ही कà¥à¤¯à¤¾ इस > गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª का कोई à¤à¥€ > मैमà¥à¤¬à¤° कà¤à¥€ à¤à¥€ किसी > à¤à¥€ हालत मे नहीं मान > सकता) > ३.à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¦à¥à¤µà¤¾à¤œ जी कहीं > आपकी दो अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ > मनà¥à¤œà¥‚र करना गलत तो > नहीं हैं ? > à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¦à¥à¤µà¤¾à¤œ जी आप > गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª के moderator हैं > कà¥à¤¯à¥‹à¤‚कि मैं पनà¥à¤¡à¤¿à¤¤ > जी को तो गलत मान > नहीं सकता ठ" र आपकी > कोशिशों ठ" र लगन की > कदà¥à¤° करता हूठआपका > जज़à¥à¤¬à¤¾ काबिले तारीफ़ > है,इसीलिये फ़ैसला आप > पर ही छोड़ता > हूà¤à¥¤à¤®à¥‡à¤°à¥€ नज़र में तो > तीन ही अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤à¤ हैं > लेकिन २,५,९,१२ वाली > तीसरी शरà¥à¤¤ पर मैं > तà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤—ी जी से असहमत > तो नही हूठलेकिन > मेरे अधà¥à¤¯à¤¯à¤¨ के > मà¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤¬à¤¿à¤• ये सिरà¥à¥ž > दà¥à¤¶à¥à¤®à¤¨ या साथी > गà¥à¤°à¤¹à¥‹à¤‚ की उपसà¥à¤¥à¤¿à¤¤à¤¿ > तक ही सीमित नही है। > इस बात को मैं फ़िर > कà¤à¥€ आगे बढाउंगा। > आपका शà¥à¤•à¥à¤°à¤—à¥à¤œà¤¾à¤° > लालकिताबी वी.के. > शà¥à¤•à¥à¤²à¤¾ > , " cp_tyagi2006 " <cp_tyagi2006@> > wrote: > > > > Respected Nirmal ji, > > > > Regarding first two paragraphs I have nothing to say. This is how I > > interpret and understand the book. You might have a different > > understanding. > > > > We both can co-exist with our different views. Couldn’t we? > > > > However I would like to respond to the third paragraph about > > possibility of a misprint. > > > > Since the Lal Kitab is a printed book there could always be a > > possibility of a few misprints like in any other printed book. No > > sacrilege intended. > > > > Secondly, it is believed that an erratum was also issued after the > > 1952 ed of the book. Since I have never seen such errata, it is just > > an assumption. Nevertheless, a presumed existence of any such > > document adds to the possibility of printing mistakes in the Lal > > Kitab { 1952 ed } > > > > I hope you also would agree to a possibility of misprints in any > > printed book. > > > > Having established the possibility of printing mistakes, I move on > > to the main issue. > > > > Now coming to ‘rahu in 2nd and 11th’ controversy. > > > > The matter to be investigated is whether it should be ‘rahu in > > 11th’ or should it read ‘rahu in 12th’. > > > > Context : > > > > In the first place, these lines occur under the heading of > ‘uljhan > > ke grah’ which primarily deals with ‘pitri rin’. > Therefore whether > > the rahu should be in the 11th or the 12th the matter will have to > > be examined within the parameters of pitri rin definition and not > > under the definition of malefic { manda } grah. > > > > Secondly , the reference to rahu in 2nd and 11th house occurs as an > > example to the dictum that the upaya has to be done for two > > planets; one that is afflicted and the other which is a cause of > > this affliction. This system of doing upaya for two planets in > > tandem is characteristic of ‘Pitri Rin’ upaya. This > again reaffirms > > that rahu in 11th or in 12th issue has to be dealt with within > > the ‘pitri rin’ definition and not within the general > purview of > > manda or malefic planet. > > > > Therefore the ground rule for the test is set. The rule applicable > > will have to be ‘pitri rin’ rules only and no other > rules. > > > > Now we have to test whether rahu in the 11th house qualifies under > > Pitri Rin conditions or is it Rahu in the 12th that qualifies. > > > > Rahu in the 11th tested against the three conditions. > > > > Result : negative > > > > Rahu in the 11th does not find a mention in any of the three Pitri > > rin conditions. > > > > Nirmal ji, if it does, please let us know. > > > > Rahu in the 12th tested against the three conditions. > > > > Result : Positive > > > > It finds mention in the two conditions. > > > > { a } doosari haalat : brahaspati 2, 3 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 12 se baahar > > kahi ho > > > > aur > > > > no 2 shani dushta grah, 5 mein shukra, 9 mein budh, ya 12 mein rahu, > > ya 3,6 budh,shukra ya shani bahaisiyat papi grah > > > > { b } Rahu in 12th again qualifies the 3rd condition under the > > clause “ 5,12,2,9 koi mande†… if mercury, venus > or rahu placed in > > the pakka house of Jupiter. > > > > Since rahu in the 11th has not found any mention in the above two > > definitions therefore it is logically deduced that rahu in 11th is a > > misprint and it should read rahu in the 12th. > > > > Since the first Pitri Rin condition can exist independent of the > > other two, therefore Rahu in the 12th house can be one of the Pitri > > Rin causing planets. > > > > Where as Rahu in the 11th can not, under any circumstances, be a > > Pitri Rin causing planet under the Pitri Rin conditions. > > > > Therefore while talking about Pitri Rin, under the section dealing > > with it, the mention of rahu in the 11th is neither relevant nor > > logical ; where as mention of rahu in the 12th is not only logical > > it is relevant too. > > > > Therefore the hypothesis that line should read rahu in 12th instead > > of rahu in the 11th holds good. > > > > With regards and naman, > > > > Chandra Prakash > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj " > > nirbhar@ wrote: > > > > > > Respected Tyagi Jee, > > > Please keep slow. In a hurry you often left few words of the your > > text. > > > > > > " Khana no 2,5,9,12 ki mandi haalat bhi zaroor sath ho to rin pitra > > > hoga, varna koi ya kisi bhi kism ka rin pitri ya matri ya koi aur > > rin na > > > hoga. Khyal rahe ki rin pitri hamesha janma kundali mein dekha > > > jayega " > > > > > > I feel, something is left by you in the above text. Each and every > > word > > > of the book has definite and very important meaning. If you left > > any > > > word during study, the meaning of the lines change in total. > > > > > > The book simply says that the upaya has to be done of two planets, > > one > > > that has become " nikamma " and the other for the planet who has > > > made it " nikamma " by virtue of being in its " jar " > > > The example he gives is that if the Jupiter is in the 9th house > > and if > > > at the same time the rahu is in the 2 or 11 { ? } the upaya has to > > be > > > done for both ; for Jupiter in the 9th and rahu in the 2nd or the > > 11th. > > > > > > Again you missed some text after these lines i.e. How much period > > the > > > upaya is to be done. From period of the upaya you will judge that > > of > > > which subject Pandit Ji is mentioning. In your words the examples > > in > > > this lesson has nothing to do with the subject. It also means that > > the > > > few example kundlis discusses in the last of book have nothing to > > do > > > with the ideaology of the book as these are only examples. > > > Trivedi Jee " Example de de kar hee ham jaise naasamajh bachon ko > > > samjhaya ja sakta hai, " > > > > > > I had put a question mark against 11 above. Some of us believe > > that it > > > is a printing mistake and it should read 12 instead. Because then > > only > > > it will get qualified under the 3rd condition of " 5,12.2,9 koi > > > manda " . There is no reference of 11 here. > > > But printing mistakes in Lal Kitab could be a matter of seperate > > > investigation. Our small Lal Kitab group has already detected > > quite a > > > few printing mistakes in the original 1952 urdu edition. > > > One such finding was posted here by my gurubhai Varun Trivedi > > quite some > > > time back. > > > > > > Respected Tyagi Ji, it is very good to scrutinize each and every > > word of > > > the subject. But before pointing out any error in the book, please > > for > > > God sake, we should always keep in mind that three fingers are > > pointing > > > towards ourselves. We with very meager knowledge never boost > > ourselves > > > as Master of the subject and creates doubt in other minds. > > > You must clear your stand with logics of the book itself. > > > Now please give your logic why Rahu should be in 12 not in 11th as > > > written in the book (to whom you considered as printing error. ) > > > Beware we are just kids as far as this book is concerned. Ask Your > > Guru > > > Bhai as well as your Respected Guru Ji to come forward with the > > > logics of these books, which prove that this is a mistake. > > > Please excuse me for this outburst. > > > Regards > > > Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 This has reference to an article available with the same topic in the files section of the group. Could you kindly clarify whether the following horoscope has Pitri rin ? Lagna - Capricorn 2nd house - Aquarius - Moon 3rd house - Pisces - Rahu 7th house - Cancer - Mars 8th house - Leo - Satrun 9th house - Virgo - Sun, Mercury & Ketu 11th house - Scorpio - Venus 12th house - Sahittairus - Jupiter 1st rule given is: If there is a planet in the 9th house and Mercury occupies the rashi { sign } of that planet then it will be a pitr-rin kundali. In the above Mercury is in own house in 9th. Sun & Ketu are the other planets. Hence this condition is satisfied 2nd rule is: When the enemy planets occupy a rashi and is not aspected by the rashi lord , the kundali will be of pitr-rin. Only Saturn is the planet sitting in enemy's house in the above horoscope and he is not aspected by rasi lord - sun. Hence this condition is also satisfied. 3rd rule is: if there is an enemy planet of Jupiter like venus or mercury in the 5th , 12th , 9th and 2nd then also it will be a pitr-rin kundali . Enemy Mercury is in 9th; However Venus is not in any of the houses mentioned (As he is in 11th) Hence this condition is also satisfied. Now beyond this point I am not able to go further. My questions are: 1. Wherein Brihat Parashara has given the 14 doshas - Which chapter it is mentioned ? 2. Is it possible to find out the exact nature of mis-deed done by one's father in whose horoscope Pitru rin is present like the one above ? 3. What is the remedy for such horoscopes ? yenbeeyes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.