Varge as Plural - Similar Example - Chandrashekhar ji

[Guest guest]

Dear ChandraShekhar ji,

 

I really appreciate you for your way of SANSKRIT interpretation of

Shlokas, and as you understand SANSKRIT you have very deep knowledge

of them too.

 

I am really glad that a great scholar like you is between us.

 

and i am sure none of the members would disagree with me.

 

Warm Regards,

 

Tarun

 

 

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I have neither the inclination nor the time in this old age to sift

> through the mails. I am sure there are many who will be willing to

do

> that. I think about Varanasi hora, I wrote about that. I am asking

you

> how you see the Vargas with the Hora used by Brihat Jataka and

> Dashaadhyaayi that you are extensively quoting. Better talk about

that.

>

> I have never deviated from Jyotish. If you remember your last mail

was

> imputing motives to me of " attributing translations to your head "

and so

> on.

>

> Quote the entire Lagna shadvargake shloka with chapter number,

shloka

> number and the text, and I shall interpret for the jyotishis. But

do not

> expect me to restrict to the Hora of Brihat jataka and

Dashaadhyaayi.

> That can never explain the shloka, properly. By the way I do not

think

> it will imply that aspects are not to be seen in D-Charts as is

being

> implied by you.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > If anybody in this list can show a single reference about myslef

> > stating K.N.Raoji not using aspects or D-Charts,i will stop this

> > discussion right now.Late Santhanam did raise concern about

aspects

> > and did quote him.Shri Prafullas first question was the

observations

> > from my discussions with Raoji.I did mention that he uses it.

> >

> > Hora - If you follow Varanasi version,Mars can Venus can have

Hora in

> > the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> >

> > Now i feel you may explain Lagna shadvargake

shloka.Chandrashekhar ji

> > if you try to understand this shloka and explain this thread will

end

> > here.It is very important.

> >

> > I will be happy if a learned scholar like you are sticking to

jyotish

> > as compared to many people who resort to baseless allegations as

they

> > don' t have any answer.

> >

> > Objection is only w.r to varga sambandhas.Just because we draw as

a

> > chart we cannot violate basic rules.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is

obvious

> > that

> > > only selective position is given.

> > >

> > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the point as

you

> > are

> > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving them off

> > when

> > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to the

> > list. You

> > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and then

> > went on

> > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in D-Charts.

> > Then

> > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts. Then

> > followed

> > > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in D-

Charts.

> > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you changed

the

> > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your

translation

> > of

> > > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has prohibited

> > use of

> > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the authority

of

> > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for Bhava,

> > Ghatika,

> > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of the

> > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes. Even

the

> > Amsha

> > > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

> > confusion

> > > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is Amsha

> > though

> > > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference between

> > their

> > > meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on

Vargas.

> > >

> > > This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains to

write

> > down

> > > the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you said

that

> > > dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why give

one

> > > liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what is?

> > >

> > > Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of Sanskrit to

> > suit

> > > what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects are

not

> > > possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying that

no

> > other

> > > charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk of

other

> > charts

> > > is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in matters

> > astrological.

> > >

> > > If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free to

think

> > > that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra and

rashi

> > > chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like that as

you

> > > claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what is

now

> > being

> > > discussed and you will find it if you sift through the

voluminous

> > > exchange of mail on this subject.

> > >

> > > I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart with a

> > point

> > > other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that, it is

not

> > > possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi chart

can be

> > > drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you references

from

> > > Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be drawn

> > that

> > > have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava, but am

sure

> > you

> > > will then jump t o some other subject.

> > >

> > > If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be

found in

> > Hora

> > > chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being one of

the

> > > shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain how

Lagna

> > > Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give the

entire

> > > shloka with adhyaaya and shloka number).

> > >

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Difficulty to type in long interpretations is not to be

> > explained.I

> > > > do not know how it will become selective.

> > > >

> > > > I am bit concerned to see yourself drifting away from the main

> > > > point,in your recent posts.

> > > >

> > > > For eg - I am still awaiting your view on how to interpret

Lagna

> > > > shadvargake,when aspects in vargas are not possible as per

rules

> > set

> > > > by sages.BPHS and Late Santhanam.

> > > >

> > > > Inspite of this impossibility ,i don't know how we can think

of

> > > > aspects in the first place.

> > > >

> > > > 1)Driksamstha was mentioned by you as example

for ''Trimshamsha

> > > > chakra''.We have seen that it is not Trimshamsha chakra but

rashi

> > > > chakra and navamsha combination.In Saravali too this is

> > > > mentioned.Dashadhayayi kara too has given the same meaning

plus

> > > > Saravali as supportive.

> > > >

> > > > You were not agreeing.

> > > >

> > > > Now today i have seen from internet

(www.brihaspati.net),English

> > > > translation of Saravali,where the shloka is interpreted

exactly

> > the

> > > > same way as Dashadhyayi kara has done 800 years back.I request

> > > > members to go and read that.

> > > >

> > > > 2)Chapter 21 ,shloka 8 was mentioned by you as example for

amshas

> > in

> > > > isolation.We have seen that it contains both rashi and amsha

for

> > > > shoshee and together in karka or simha for another disease.

> > > >

> > > > 3)Today you are mentioning shloka 9.Which again is a

combination

> > of

> > > > amshas and rashi combined with drishti in rashi.We have

umpteen

> > > > shlokas in Saravali pointing to such drishtis.

> > > >

> > > > Thus i request you to kindly explain how Lagna shadvargake

shloka

> > can

> > > > be explained.Thanks for clarifying that,Trimshamsha chakra was

> > your

> > > > personal view.

> > > >

> > > > As i have said nobody is opposing the drawing of amshas within

> > rashi

> > > > skeleton.Thus as you say drawing chart is pratyaksha.

> > > >

> > > > But Paramana was only seeked for shlokas talking about bhavas

and

> > > > aspects.Riksha/Bhava/Rashi as synonyms makes the defintion

> > clear.Shri

> > > > PVR who himself is a Sanskrit scholar could only give one

shloka -

> > > > Lagnashadvargake.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > Had I had access to Dashaadhyaayi, I would not have

troubled you

> > > > with

> > > > > all these queries. If you say that you did not reproduce the

> > > > comments

> > > > > given by Dashaadhyaayikar and only the gist of what he says,

> > does

> > > > it

> > > > > mean you have given the comments selectively?

> > > > >

> > > > > Did I say in any of my mails that Bhattotpala said anything

> > about

> > > > > Trimshamsha Chakra? And does Dashaadhyaayikar, specifically,

> > says

> > > > that

> > > > > no other chart than rasi chart exists in astrology as you

are

> > > > implying?

> > > > > I would doubt he could say so. If you read 9th shloka of

21st

> > > > adhyaaya

> > > > > of Brihat jataka your doubt about navamsha drishti would

> > perhaps be

> > > > > clarified, should you accept it to mean what it does.

> > > > >

> > > > > As I said that you having made up your mind as to drawing

any

> > other

> > > > > chart other than a rasi chart as wrong, nothing will come

out of

> > > > this

> > > > > discussion. I really find it strange that even when almost

all

> > > > > astrologers in India draw Navamasha chart as a matter of

course,

> > > > you

> > > > > deny that such a chart can exist. This is the first time

that I

> > am

> > > > > seeing that Pramana is demanded for what is Pratyaksha.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You may check with some of your friends on the detailed

level

> > of

> > > > > > explanation in Dashadhyayi.As you might have noted with

> > > > bHATTOTPALA,

> > > > > > it will be difficult for me to quote explantions spanning

> > pages.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now i would love to know if Bhattotpala has mentioned any

> > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > chakra.Or was that your view.Bhattotpala can never say so.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > When you do not accept the Sanskrit shlokas from Brihat

> > jataka,

> > > > > > which

> > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar comments upon, let apart BPHS, what

purpose

> > > > can be

> > > > > > > served by giving the voluminous comments of Bhattotpala

in

> > > > > > Sanskrit?

> > > > > > > Unlike Dashaadhyaayi (if you really gave the entire

shlokas)

> > > > > > Bhattotpala

> > > > > > > goes into explanation of each word in the shloka and

then

> > gives

> > > > his

> > > > > > > opinion of what he understands Varaha Mihira to have

meant

> > by

> > > > that

> > > > > > > shloka. I had already given the English translation of

what

> > both

> > > > > > > Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha said in earlier mails. If

you go

> > > > > > through our

> > > > > > > voluminous correspondence, you will certainly get the

same.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > For the same reason i had provided the very Sanskrit

> > shloka

> > > > from

> > > > > > > > Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly if

you

> > can

> > > > give

> > > > > > > > sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from Sitaram

> > > > jha ,issue

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > closed.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Okay, let me put it in your words. As you

> > said " Bhattotpala

> > > > might

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it

can be

> > your

> > > > > > view

> > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > those translations. " Why should not

Dashaadhyaayikar not

> > > > have

> > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be

your

> > > > views

> > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > those translations? Any reason for the immunity? We

have

> > > > already

> > > > > > > > sen

> > > > > > > > > misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one

scholar on

> > > > this

> > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > list,

> > > > > > > > > not so long ago.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot be

wrong

> > is

> > > > my

> > > > > > strong

> > > > > > > > > > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -- In

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong

then so

> > can

> > > > be

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that

he can

> > > > not be

> > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view was

it

> > is

> > > > more

> > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > mere

> > > > > > > > > > > > commentary as it has clear explanations,while

> > thinking

> > > > > > from a

> > > > > > > > > > > > students perspective.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > As you know,inspite of having all those

> > > > commentaries,you

> > > > > > were

> > > > > > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > > > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a

concern

> > for

> > > > > > > > me.Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > > > there were couple of other shlokas that you

have

> > > > quoted as

> > > > > > > > > > examples.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been

> > misunderstood

> > > > > > > > > > (inadvertently)

> > > > > > > > > > > > by some or it can be your view about those

> > > > > > > > translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > > > > > > > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were

quoted

> > by

> > > > > > me,for

> > > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains

leaving

> > no

> > > > > > > > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi

etc

> > will

> > > > > > make the

> > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > mistake.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit explanations

> > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation is

> > pretty

> > > > > > straight

> > > > > > > > > > > > forward due to many similarities.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -----------------

----

> > ----

> > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ---------------------

----

> > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

I am thankful that my discussions are accpetable and taken in the

right spirit,though due to my age and inexperience at times i might

have gone emotional.I was sure that you will understand me due to

various reasons.My respect for you cannot be influenced by the

debates.

 

Regarding Horas,you may kindly understand that,even for Varahamihira

there was multiple choices in front of him.I will quote the pramanas

late in the evening.For me it seems Surya/Chandra Horas have a

broader perspective and Rashi horas have specific purpose.

 

For the same reason i said,Hora can be treated seperately.

 

Let us try to see - Why did some feel Karakamsha has to be seen from

Rashi.Why did shri Sanjay Rath feel amshaka has to be seen from

Rashi Chakra.Why did Late Santhanam say graha drishtis cannot be

possible as per rules set by sage.

 

Now if we combine these concerns with

 

1)Explanations of

Sruthakeerthi,Jeevasharma,Garga,Dashadhyayikara,Klayan Varma

(dashadhyayi explains some shlokas as having partial

drishtis,justifying your view on kalyan varma aspects)

 

2)Nadi transit principle

 

3)Rashi Tulya Principle

 

4)Definition of Varga by Parashara

 

5)Rikhsa/Rashi/Bhavana synonyms

 

6)Karakamsha examples -Bhrigwonkaraka etc

 

7)Paparksha example

 

8)Plus numerous other cases which i will mention in my paper-

 

We can arrive at Lagnashadvargas and aspects without violating the

rules.

 

Respect

Pradeep

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I have neither the inclination nor the time in this old age to

sift

> through the mails. I am sure there are many who will be willing to

do

> that. I think about Varanasi hora, I wrote about that. I am asking

you

> how you see the Vargas with the Hora used by Brihat Jataka and

> Dashaadhyaayi that you are extensively quoting. Better talk about

that.

>

> I have never deviated from Jyotish. If you remember your last mail

was

> imputing motives to me of " attributing translations to your head "

and so

> on.

>

> Quote the entire Lagna shadvargake shloka with chapter number,

shloka

> number and the text, and I shall interpret for the jyotishis. But

do not

> expect me to restrict to the Hora of Brihat jataka and

Dashaadhyaayi.

> That can never explain the shloka, properly. By the way I do not

think

> it will imply that aspects are not to be seen in D-Charts as is

being

> implied by you.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > If anybody in this list can show a single reference about myslef

> > stating K.N.Raoji not using aspects or D-Charts,i will stop this

> > discussion right now.Late Santhanam did raise concern about

aspects

> > and did quote him.Shri Prafullas first question was the

observations

> > from my discussions with Raoji.I did mention that he uses it.

> >

> > Hora - If you follow Varanasi version,Mars can Venus can have

Hora in

> > the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> >

> > Now i feel you may explain Lagna shadvargake

shloka.Chandrashekhar ji

> > if you try to understand this shloka and explain this thread

will end

> > here.It is very important.

> >

> > I will be happy if a learned scholar like you are sticking to

jyotish

> > as compared to many people who resort to baseless allegations as

they

> > don' t have any answer.

> >

> > Objection is only w.r to varga sambandhas.Just because we draw

as a

> > chart we cannot violate basic rules.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is

obvious

> > that

> > > only selective position is given.

> > >

> > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the point as

you

> > are

> > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving them off

> > when

> > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to the

> > list. You

> > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and then

> > went on

> > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in D-

Charts.

> > Then

> > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts. Then

> > followed

> > > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in D-

Charts.

> > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you changed

the

> > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your

translation

> > of

> > > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has

prohibited

> > use of

> > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the authority

of

> > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for Bhava,

> > Ghatika,

> > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of the

> > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes. Even

the

> > Amsha

> > > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

> > confusion

> > > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is Amsha

> > though

> > > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference between

> > their

> > > meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on

Vargas.

> > >

> > > This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains to

write

> > down

> > > the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you said

that

> > > dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why

give one

> > > liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what is?

> > >

> > > Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of Sanskrit to

> > suit

> > > what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects are

not

> > > possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying

that no

> > other

> > > charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk of

other

> > charts

> > > is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in matters

> > astrological.

> > >

> > > If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free to

think

> > > that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra and

rashi

> > > chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like that

as you

> > > claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what is

now

> > being

> > > discussed and you will find it if you sift through the

voluminous

> > > exchange of mail on this subject.

> > >

> > > I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart with a

> > point

> > > other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that, it

is not

> > > possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi chart

can be

> > > drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you references

from

> > > Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be drawn

> > that

> > > have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava, but am

sure

> > you

> > > will then jump t o some other subject.

> > >

> > > If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be

found in

> > Hora

> > > chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being one

of the

> > > shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain how

Lagna

> > > Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give the

entire

> > > shloka with adhyaaya and shloka number).

> > >

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Difficulty to type in long interpretations is not to be

> > explained.I

> > > > do not know how it will become selective.

> > > >

> > > > I am bit concerned to see yourself drifting away from the

main

> > > > point,in your recent posts.

> > > >

> > > > For eg - I am still awaiting your view on how to interpret

Lagna

> > > > shadvargake,when aspects in vargas are not possible as per

rules

> > set

> > > > by sages.BPHS and Late Santhanam.

> > > >

> > > > Inspite of this impossibility ,i don't know how we can think

of

> > > > aspects in the first place.

> > > >

> > > > 1)Driksamstha was mentioned by you as example

for ''Trimshamsha

> > > > chakra''.We have seen that it is not Trimshamsha chakra but

rashi

> > > > chakra and navamsha combination.In Saravali too this is

> > > > mentioned.Dashadhayayi kara too has given the same meaning

plus

> > > > Saravali as supportive.

> > > >

> > > > You were not agreeing.

> > > >

> > > > Now today i have seen from internet

(www.brihaspati.net),English

> > > > translation of Saravali,where the shloka is interpreted

exactly

> > the

> > > > same way as Dashadhyayi kara has done 800 years back.I

request

> > > > members to go and read that.

> > > >

> > > > 2)Chapter 21 ,shloka 8 was mentioned by you as example for

amshas

> > in

> > > > isolation.We have seen that it contains both rashi and amsha

for

> > > > shoshee and together in karka or simha for another disease.

> > > >

> > > > 3)Today you are mentioning shloka 9.Which again is a

combination

> > of

> > > > amshas and rashi combined with drishti in rashi.We have

umpteen

> > > > shlokas in Saravali pointing to such drishtis.

> > > >

> > > > Thus i request you to kindly explain how Lagna shadvargake

shloka

> > can

> > > > be explained.Thanks for clarifying that,Trimshamsha chakra

was

> > your

> > > > personal view.

> > > >

> > > > As i have said nobody is opposing the drawing of amshas

within

> > rashi

> > > > skeleton.Thus as you say drawing chart is pratyaksha.

> > > >

> > > > But Paramana was only seeked for shlokas talking about

bhavas and

> > > > aspects.Riksha/Bhava/Rashi as synonyms makes the defintion

> > clear.Shri

> > > > PVR who himself is a Sanskrit scholar could only give one

shloka -

> > > > Lagnashadvargake.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > Had I had access to Dashaadhyaayi, I would not have

troubled you

> > > > with

> > > > > all these queries. If you say that you did not reproduce

the

> > > > comments

> > > > > given by Dashaadhyaayikar and only the gist of what he

says,

> > does

> > > > it

> > > > > mean you have given the comments selectively?

> > > > >

> > > > > Did I say in any of my mails that Bhattotpala said anything

> > about

> > > > > Trimshamsha Chakra? And does Dashaadhyaayikar,

specifically,

> > says

> > > > that

> > > > > no other chart than rasi chart exists in astrology as you

are

> > > > implying?

> > > > > I would doubt he could say so. If you read 9th shloka of

21st

> > > > adhyaaya

> > > > > of Brihat jataka your doubt about navamsha drishti would

> > perhaps be

> > > > > clarified, should you accept it to mean what it does.

> > > > >

> > > > > As I said that you having made up your mind as to drawing

any

> > other

> > > > > chart other than a rasi chart as wrong, nothing will come

out of

> > > > this

> > > > > discussion. I really find it strange that even when almost

all

> > > > > astrologers in India draw Navamasha chart as a matter of

course,

> > > > you

> > > > > deny that such a chart can exist. This is the first time

that I

> > am

> > > > > seeing that Pramana is demanded for what is Pratyaksha.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You may check with some of your friends on the detailed

level

> > of

> > > > > > explanation in Dashadhyayi.As you might have noted with

> > > > bHATTOTPALA,

> > > > > > it will be difficult for me to quote explantions spanning

> > pages.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now i would love to know if Bhattotpala has mentioned any

> > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > chakra.Or was that your view.Bhattotpala can never say

so.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > When you do not accept the Sanskrit shlokas from Brihat

> > jataka,

> > > > > > which

> > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar comments upon, let apart BPHS, what

purpose

> > > > can be

> > > > > > > served by giving the voluminous comments of

Bhattotpala in

> > > > > > Sanskrit?

> > > > > > > Unlike Dashaadhyaayi (if you really gave the entire

shlokas)

> > > > > > Bhattotpala

> > > > > > > goes into explanation of each word in the shloka and

then

> > gives

> > > > his

> > > > > > > opinion of what he understands Varaha Mihira to have

meant

> > by

> > > > that

> > > > > > > shloka. I had already given the English translation of

what

> > both

> > > > > > > Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha said in earlier mails. If

you go

> > > > > > through our

> > > > > > > voluminous correspondence, you will certainly get the

same.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > For the same reason i had provided the very Sanskrit

> > shloka

> > > > from

> > > > > > > > Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly if

you

> > can

> > > > give

> > > > > > > > sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from

Sitaram

> > > > jha ,issue

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > closed.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Okay, let me put it in your words. As you

> > said " Bhattotpala

> > > > might

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it

can be

> > your

> > > > > > view

> > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > those translations. " Why should not

Dashaadhyaayikar not

> > > > have

> > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be

your

> > > > views

> > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > those translations? Any reason for the immunity?

We have

> > > > already

> > > > > > > > sen

> > > > > > > > > misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one

scholar on

> > > > this

> > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > list,

> > > > > > > > > not so long ago.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot be

wrong

> > is

> > > > my

> > > > > > strong

> > > > > > > > > > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -- In

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong

then so

> > can

> > > > be

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that

he can

> > > > not be

> > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view

was it

> > is

> > > > more

> > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > mere

> > > > > > > > > > > > commentary as it has clear explanations,while

> > thinking

> > > > > > from a

> > > > > > > > > > > > students perspective.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > As you know,inspite of having all those

> > > > commentaries,you

> > > > > > were

> > > > > > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > > > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a

concern

> > for

> > > > > > > > me.Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > > > there were couple of other shlokas that you

have

> > > > quoted as

> > > > > > > > > > examples.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been

> > misunderstood

> > > > > > > > > > (inadvertently)

> > > > > > > > > > > > by some or it can be your view about those

> > > > > > > > translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > > > > > > > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were

quoted

> > by

> > > > > > me,for

> > > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains

leaving

> > no

> > > > > > > > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi

etc

> > will

> > > > > > make the

> > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > mistake.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit

explanations

> > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation

is

> > pretty

> > > > > > straight

> > > > > > > > > > > > forward due to many similarities.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > ----------------

-----

> > ----

> > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > --------------------

-----

> > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Tarun,

 

It is kind of you to say so. I am neither a great Sanskrit scholar nor a

learned astrologer. I am a student of the divine science like everyone

else that studies the science.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

Tarun wrote:

>

> Dear ChandraShekhar ji,

>

> I really appreciate you for your way of SANSKRIT interpretation of

> Shlokas, and as you understand SANSKRIT you have very deep knowledge

> of them too.

>

> I am really glad that a great scholar like you is between us.

>

> and i am sure none of the members would disagree with me.

>

> Warm Regards,

>

> Tarun

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I have neither the inclination nor the time in this old age to sift

> > through the mails. I am sure there are many who will be willing to

> do

> > that. I think about Varanasi hora, I wrote about that. I am asking

> you

> > how you see the Vargas with the Hora used by Brihat Jataka and

> > Dashaadhyaayi that you are extensively quoting. Better talk about

> that.

> >

> > I have never deviated from Jyotish. If you remember your last mail

> was

> > imputing motives to me of " attributing translations to your head "

> and so

> > on.

> >

> > Quote the entire Lagna shadvargake shloka with chapter number,

> shloka

> > number and the text, and I shall interpret for the jyotishis. But

> do not

> > expect me to restrict to the Hora of Brihat jataka and

> Dashaadhyaayi.

> > That can never explain the shloka, properly. By the way I do not

> think

> > it will imply that aspects are not to be seen in D-Charts as is

> being

> > implied by you.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > If anybody in this list can show a single reference about myslef

> > > stating K.N.Raoji not using aspects or D-Charts,i will stop this

> > > discussion right now.Late Santhanam did raise concern about

> aspects

> > > and did quote him.Shri Prafullas first question was the

> observations

> > > from my discussions with Raoji.I did mention that he uses it.

> > >

> > > Hora - If you follow Varanasi version,Mars can Venus can have

> Hora in

> > > the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> > >

> > > Now i feel you may explain Lagna shadvargake

> shloka.Chandrashekhar ji

> > > if you try to understand this shloka and explain this thread will

> end

> > > here.It is very important.

> > >

> > > I will be happy if a learned scholar like you are sticking to

> jyotish

> > > as compared to many people who resort to baseless allegations as

> they

> > > don' t have any answer.

> > >

> > > Objection is only w.r to varga sambandhas.Just because we draw as

> a

> > > chart we cannot violate basic rules.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is

> obvious

> > > that

> > > > only selective position is given.

> > > >

> > > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the point as

> you

> > > are

> > > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving them off

> > > when

> > > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to the

> > > list. You

> > > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and then

> > > went on

> > > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in D-Charts.

> > > Then

> > > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts. Then

> > > followed

> > > > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in D-

> Charts.

> > > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you changed

> the

> > > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your

> translation

> > > of

> > > > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has prohibited

> > > use of

> > > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the authority

> of

> > > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for Bhava,

> > > Ghatika,

> > > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of the

> > > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes. Even

> the

> > > Amsha

> > > > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

> > > confusion

> > > > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is Amsha

> > > though

> > > > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference between

> > > their

> > > > meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on

> Vargas.

> > > >

> > > > This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains to

> write

> > > down

> > > > the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you said

> that

> > > > dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why give

> one

> > > > liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what is?

> > > >

> > > > Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of Sanskrit to

> > > suit

> > > > what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects are

> not

> > > > possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying that

> no

> > > other

> > > > charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk of

> other

> > > charts

> > > > is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in matters

> > > astrological.

> > > >

> > > > If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free to

> think

> > > > that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra and

> rashi

> > > > chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like that as

> you

> > > > claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what is

> now

> > > being

> > > > discussed and you will find it if you sift through the

> voluminous

> > > > exchange of mail on this subject.

> > > >

> > > > I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart with a

> > > point

> > > > other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that, it is

> not

> > > > possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi chart

> can be

> > > > drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you references

> from

> > > > Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be drawn

> > > that

> > > > have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava, but am

> sure

> > > you

> > > > will then jump t o some other subject.

> > > >

> > > > If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be

> found in

> > > Hora

> > > > chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being one of

> the

> > > > shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain how

> Lagna

> > > > Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give the

> entire

> > > > shloka with adhyaaya and shloka number).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Difficulty to type in long interpretations is not to be

> > > explained.I

> > > > > do not know how it will become selective.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am bit concerned to see yourself drifting away from the main

> > > > > point,in your recent posts.

> > > > >

> > > > > For eg - I am still awaiting your view on how to interpret

> Lagna

> > > > > shadvargake,when aspects in vargas are not possible as per

> rules

> > > set

> > > > > by sages.BPHS and Late Santhanam.

> > > > >

> > > > > Inspite of this impossibility ,i don't know how we can think

> of

> > > > > aspects in the first place.

> > > > >

> > > > > 1)Driksamstha was mentioned by you as example

> for ''Trimshamsha

> > > > > chakra''.We have seen that it is not Trimshamsha chakra but

> rashi

> > > > > chakra and navamsha combination.In Saravali too this is

> > > > > mentioned.Dashadhayayi kara too has given the same meaning

> plus

> > > > > Saravali as supportive.

> > > > >

> > > > > You were not agreeing.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now today i have seen from internet

> (www.brihaspati.net),English

> > > > > translation of Saravali,where the shloka is interpreted

> exactly

> > > the

> > > > > same way as Dashadhyayi kara has done 800 years back.I request

> > > > > members to go and read that.

> > > > >

> > > > > 2)Chapter 21 ,shloka 8 was mentioned by you as example for

> amshas

> > > in

> > > > > isolation.We have seen that it contains both rashi and amsha

> for

> > > > > shoshee and together in karka or simha for another disease.

> > > > >

> > > > > 3)Today you are mentioning shloka 9.Which again is a

> combination

> > > of

> > > > > amshas and rashi combined with drishti in rashi.We have

> umpteen

> > > > > shlokas in Saravali pointing to such drishtis.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus i request you to kindly explain how Lagna shadvargake

> shloka

> > > can

> > > > > be explained.Thanks for clarifying that,Trimshamsha chakra was

> > > your

> > > > > personal view.

> > > > >

> > > > > As i have said nobody is opposing the drawing of amshas within

> > > rashi

> > > > > skeleton.Thus as you say drawing chart is pratyaksha.

> > > > >

> > > > > But Paramana was only seeked for shlokas talking about bhavas

> and

> > > > > aspects.Riksha/Bhava/Rashi as synonyms makes the defintion

> > > clear.Shri

> > > > > PVR who himself is a Sanskrit scholar could only give one

> shloka -

> > > > > Lagnashadvargake.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Had I had access to Dashaadhyaayi, I would not have

> troubled you

> > > > > with

> > > > > > all these queries. If you say that you did not reproduce the

> > > > > comments

> > > > > > given by Dashaadhyaayikar and only the gist of what he says,

> > > does

> > > > > it

> > > > > > mean you have given the comments selectively?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Did I say in any of my mails that Bhattotpala said anything

> > > about

> > > > > > Trimshamsha Chakra? And does Dashaadhyaayikar, specifically,

> > > says

> > > > > that

> > > > > > no other chart than rasi chart exists in astrology as you

> are

> > > > > implying?

> > > > > > I would doubt he could say so. If you read 9th shloka of

> 21st

> > > > > adhyaaya

> > > > > > of Brihat jataka your doubt about navamsha drishti would

> > > perhaps be

> > > > > > clarified, should you accept it to mean what it does.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As I said that you having made up your mind as to drawing

> any

> > > other

> > > > > > chart other than a rasi chart as wrong, nothing will come

> out of

> > > > > this

> > > > > > discussion. I really find it strange that even when almost

> all

> > > > > > astrologers in India draw Navamasha chart as a matter of

> course,

> > > > > you

> > > > > > deny that such a chart can exist. This is the first time

> that I

> > > am

> > > > > > seeing that Pramana is demanded for what is Pratyaksha.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You may check with some of your friends on the detailed

> level

> > > of

> > > > > > > explanation in Dashadhyayi.As you might have noted with

> > > > > bHATTOTPALA,

> > > > > > > it will be difficult for me to quote explantions spanning

> > > pages.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now i would love to know if Bhattotpala has mentioned any

> > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > chakra.Or was that your view.Bhattotpala can never say so.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > When you do not accept the Sanskrit shlokas from Brihat

> > > jataka,

> > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar comments upon, let apart BPHS, what

> purpose

> > > > > can be

> > > > > > > > served by giving the voluminous comments of Bhattotpala

> in

> > > > > > > Sanskrit?

> > > > > > > > Unlike Dashaadhyaayi (if you really gave the entire

> shlokas)

> > > > > > > Bhattotpala

> > > > > > > > goes into explanation of each word in the shloka and

> then

> > > gives

> > > > > his

> > > > > > > > opinion of what he understands Varaha Mihira to have

> meant

> > > by

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > shloka. I had already given the English translation of

> what

> > > both

> > > > > > > > Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha said in earlier mails. If

> you go

> > > > > > > through our

> > > > > > > > voluminous correspondence, you will certainly get the

> same.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > For the same reason i had provided the very Sanskrit

> > > shloka

> > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly if

> you

> > > can

> > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from Sitaram

> > > > > jha ,issue

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > closed.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Okay, let me put it in your words. As you

> > > said " Bhattotpala

> > > > > might

> > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it

> can be

> > > your

> > > > > > > view

> > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > those translations. " Why should not

> Dashaadhyaayikar not

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be

> your

> > > > > views

> > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > those translations? Any reason for the immunity? We

> have

> > > > > already

> > > > > > > > > sen

> > > > > > > > > > misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one

> scholar on

> > > > > this

> > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > list,

> > > > > > > > > > not so long ago.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot be

> wrong

> > > is

> > > > > my

> > > > > > > strong

> > > > > > > > > > > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > -- In

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong

> then so

> > > can

> > > > > be

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that

> he can

> > > > > not be

> > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view was

> it

> > > is

> > > > > more

> > > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > mere

> > > > > > > > > > > > > commentary as it has clear explanations,while

> > > thinking

> > > > > > > from a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > students perspective.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > As you know,inspite of having all those

> > > > > commentaries,you

> > > > > > > were

> > > > > > > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > > > > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a

> concern

> > > for

> > > > > > > > > me.Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > there were couple of other shlokas that you

> have

> > > > > quoted as

> > > > > > > > > > > examples.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been

> > > misunderstood

> > > > > > > > > > > (inadvertently)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > by some or it can be your view about those

> > > > > > > > > translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > > > > > > > > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were

> quoted

> > > by

> > > > > > > me,for

> > > > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains

> leaving

> > > no

> > > > > > > > > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi

> etc

> > > will

> > > > > > > make the

> > > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mistake.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit explanations

> > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation is

> > > pretty

> > > > > > > straight

> > > > > > > > > > > > > forward due to many similarities.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > -----------------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ---------------------

> ----

> > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

my love for chandrashekharji is boundless and I hope to prove to him one day

that I am worthy of his association. with deep love and reverence may I be

able to do something for him one day. I know that I don't exhibit a good

persona at times but it is my love for him that makes me try to become a

better person. it is his boundless love and compassion for human beings that

makes him great. maybe bv raman was not only great for his predictions but

for his spiritual understanding of the subject. I believe the greatest

astrologers not only predict but imbibe the universal truths of astrology

into their daily lives and this magic touches us deeply in our soul and that

is why we have this boundless love for such a person and that is why we name

him guru. guru is equated to jupiter and what is jupiter but one who

espouses to teach us the highest truths. chandrashekharji may you always be

protected with divine grace and may god bestow upon you more divinity.

 

 

 

sincerely,

 

 

 

__________

 

Raja G. Gursahani

*: 314.761.3134 (Clovis, CA)

*: rajagursahani(atgmail.com)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

I never take any discussion on astro topics personally unless I have

reason to believe that they are deteriorating to low level accusations.

So do not worry on that count.

 

I am sure you will agree that Varaha Mihira indicates that the Surya and

Chandra hora i acceptable to him, so his accepting other horas

selectively or otherwise does not arise.

 

I think the members have seen both sides presented and logics discussed

ad nauseum. So there would not be any point in talking more on this.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> I am thankful that my discussions are accpetable and taken in the

> right spirit,though due to my age and inexperience at times i might

> have gone emotional.I was sure that you will understand me due to

> various reasons.My respect for you cannot be influenced by the

> debates.

>

> Regarding Horas,you may kindly understand that,even for Varahamihira

> there was multiple choices in front of him.I will quote the pramanas

> late in the evening.For me it seems Surya/Chandra Horas have a

> broader perspective and Rashi horas have specific purpose.

>

> For the same reason i said,Hora can be treated seperately.

>

> Let us try to see - Why did some feel Karakamsha has to be seen from

> Rashi.Why did shri Sanjay Rath feel amshaka has to be seen from

> Rashi Chakra.Why did Late Santhanam say graha drishtis cannot be

> possible as per rules set by sage.

>

> Now if we combine these concerns with

>

> 1)Explanations of

> Sruthakeerthi,Jeevasharma,Garga,Dashadhyayikara,Klayan Varma

> (dashadhyayi explains some shlokas as having partial

> drishtis,justifying your view on kalyan varma aspects)

>

> 2)Nadi transit principle

>

> 3)Rashi Tulya Principle

>

> 4)Definition of Varga by Parashara

>

> 5)Rikhsa/Rashi/Bhavana synonyms

>

> 6)Karakamsha examples -Bhrigwonkaraka etc

>

> 7)Paparksha example

>

> 8)Plus numerous other cases which i will mention in my paper-

>

> We can arrive at Lagnashadvargas and aspects without violating the

> rules.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I have neither the inclination nor the time in this old age to

> sift

> > through the mails. I am sure there are many who will be willing to

> do

> > that. I think about Varanasi hora, I wrote about that. I am asking

> you

> > how you see the Vargas with the Hora used by Brihat Jataka and

> > Dashaadhyaayi that you are extensively quoting. Better talk about

> that.

> >

> > I have never deviated from Jyotish. If you remember your last mail

> was

> > imputing motives to me of " attributing translations to your head "

> and so

> > on.

> >

> > Quote the entire Lagna shadvargake shloka with chapter number,

> shloka

> > number and the text, and I shall interpret for the jyotishis. But

> do not

> > expect me to restrict to the Hora of Brihat jataka and

> Dashaadhyaayi.

> > That can never explain the shloka, properly. By the way I do not

> think

> > it will imply that aspects are not to be seen in D-Charts as is

> being

> > implied by you.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > If anybody in this list can show a single reference about myslef

> > > stating K.N.Raoji not using aspects or D-Charts,i will stop this

> > > discussion right now.Late Santhanam did raise concern about

> aspects

> > > and did quote him.Shri Prafullas first question was the

> observations

> > > from my discussions with Raoji.I did mention that he uses it.

> > >

> > > Hora - If you follow Varanasi version,Mars can Venus can have

> Hora in

> > > the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> > >

> > > Now i feel you may explain Lagna shadvargake

> shloka.Chandrashekhar ji

> > > if you try to understand this shloka and explain this thread

> will end

> > > here.It is very important.

> > >

> > > I will be happy if a learned scholar like you are sticking to

> jyotish

> > > as compared to many people who resort to baseless allegations as

> they

> > > don' t have any answer.

> > >

> > > Objection is only w.r to varga sambandhas.Just because we draw

> as a

> > > chart we cannot violate basic rules.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is

> obvious

> > > that

> > > > only selective position is given.

> > > >

> > > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the point as

> you

> > > are

> > > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving them off

> > > when

> > > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to the

> > > list. You

> > > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and then

> > > went on

> > > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in D-

> Charts.

> > > Then

> > > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts. Then

> > > followed

> > > > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in D-

> Charts.

> > > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you changed

> the

> > > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your

> translation

> > > of

> > > > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has

> prohibited

> > > use of

> > > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the authority

> of

> > > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for Bhava,

> > > Ghatika,

> > > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of the

> > > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes. Even

> the

> > > Amsha

> > > > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

> > > confusion

> > > > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is Amsha

> > > though

> > > > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference between

> > > their

> > > > meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on

> Vargas.

> > > >

> > > > This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains to

> write

> > > down

> > > > the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you said

> that

> > > > dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why

> give one

> > > > liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what is?

> > > >

> > > > Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of Sanskrit to

> > > suit

> > > > what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects are

> not

> > > > possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying

> that no

> > > other

> > > > charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk of

> other

> > > charts

> > > > is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in matters

> > > astrological.

> > > >

> > > > If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free to

> think

> > > > that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra and

> rashi

> > > > chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like that

> as you

> > > > claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what is

> now

> > > being

> > > > discussed and you will find it if you sift through the

> voluminous

> > > > exchange of mail on this subject.

> > > >

> > > > I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart with a

> > > point

> > > > other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that, it

> is not

> > > > possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi chart

> can be

> > > > drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you references

> from

> > > > Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be drawn

> > > that

> > > > have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava, but am

> sure

> > > you

> > > > will then jump t o some other subject.

> > > >

> > > > If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be

> found in

> > > Hora

> > > > chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being one

> of the

> > > > shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain how

> Lagna

> > > > Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give the

> entire

> > > > shloka with adhyaaya and shloka number).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Difficulty to type in long interpretations is not to be

> > > explained.I

> > > > > do not know how it will become selective.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am bit concerned to see yourself drifting away from the

> main

> > > > > point,in your recent posts.

> > > > >

> > > > > For eg - I am still awaiting your view on how to interpret

> Lagna

> > > > > shadvargake,when aspects in vargas are not possible as per

> rules

> > > set

> > > > > by sages.BPHS and Late Santhanam.

> > > > >

> > > > > Inspite of this impossibility ,i don't know how we can think

> of

> > > > > aspects in the first place.

> > > > >

> > > > > 1)Driksamstha was mentioned by you as example

> for ''Trimshamsha

> > > > > chakra''.We have seen that it is not Trimshamsha chakra but

> rashi

> > > > > chakra and navamsha combination.In Saravali too this is

> > > > > mentioned.Dashadhayayi kara too has given the same meaning

> plus

> > > > > Saravali as supportive.

> > > > >

> > > > > You were not agreeing.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now today i have seen from internet

> (www.brihaspati.net),English

> > > > > translation of Saravali,where the shloka is interpreted

> exactly

> > > the

> > > > > same way as Dashadhyayi kara has done 800 years back.I

> request

> > > > > members to go and read that.

> > > > >

> > > > > 2)Chapter 21 ,shloka 8 was mentioned by you as example for

> amshas

> > > in

> > > > > isolation.We have seen that it contains both rashi and amsha

> for

> > > > > shoshee and together in karka or simha for another disease.

> > > > >

> > > > > 3)Today you are mentioning shloka 9.Which again is a

> combination

> > > of

> > > > > amshas and rashi combined with drishti in rashi.We have

> umpteen

> > > > > shlokas in Saravali pointing to such drishtis.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus i request you to kindly explain how Lagna shadvargake

> shloka

> > > can

> > > > > be explained.Thanks for clarifying that,Trimshamsha chakra

> was

> > > your

> > > > > personal view.

> > > > >

> > > > > As i have said nobody is opposing the drawing of amshas

> within

> > > rashi

> > > > > skeleton.Thus as you say drawing chart is pratyaksha.

> > > > >

> > > > > But Paramana was only seeked for shlokas talking about

> bhavas and

> > > > > aspects.Riksha/Bhava/Rashi as synonyms makes the defintion

> > > clear.Shri

> > > > > PVR who himself is a Sanskrit scholar could only give one

> shloka -

> > > > > Lagnashadvargake.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Had I had access to Dashaadhyaayi, I would not have

> troubled you

> > > > > with

> > > > > > all these queries. If you say that you did not reproduce

> the

> > > > > comments

> > > > > > given by Dashaadhyaayikar and only the gist of what he

> says,

> > > does

> > > > > it

> > > > > > mean you have given the comments selectively?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Did I say in any of my mails that Bhattotpala said anything

> > > about

> > > > > > Trimshamsha Chakra? And does Dashaadhyaayikar,

> specifically,

> > > says

> > > > > that

> > > > > > no other chart than rasi chart exists in astrology as you

> are

> > > > > implying?

> > > > > > I would doubt he could say so. If you read 9th shloka of

> 21st

> > > > > adhyaaya

> > > > > > of Brihat jataka your doubt about navamsha drishti would

> > > perhaps be

> > > > > > clarified, should you accept it to mean what it does.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As I said that you having made up your mind as to drawing

> any

> > > other

> > > > > > chart other than a rasi chart as wrong, nothing will come

> out of

> > > > > this

> > > > > > discussion. I really find it strange that even when almost

> all

> > > > > > astrologers in India draw Navamasha chart as a matter of

> course,

> > > > > you

> > > > > > deny that such a chart can exist. This is the first time

> that I

> > > am

> > > > > > seeing that Pramana is demanded for what is Pratyaksha.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You may check with some of your friends on the detailed

> level

> > > of

> > > > > > > explanation in Dashadhyayi.As you might have noted with

> > > > > bHATTOTPALA,

> > > > > > > it will be difficult for me to quote explantions spanning

> > > pages.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now i would love to know if Bhattotpala has mentioned any

> > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > chakra.Or was that your view.Bhattotpala can never say

> so.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > When you do not accept the Sanskrit shlokas from Brihat

> > > jataka,

> > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar comments upon, let apart BPHS, what

> purpose

> > > > > can be

> > > > > > > > served by giving the voluminous comments of

> Bhattotpala in

> > > > > > > Sanskrit?

> > > > > > > > Unlike Dashaadhyaayi (if you really gave the entire

> shlokas)

> > > > > > > Bhattotpala

> > > > > > > > goes into explanation of each word in the shloka and

> then

> > > gives

> > > > > his

> > > > > > > > opinion of what he understands Varaha Mihira to have

> meant

> > > by

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > shloka. I had already given the English translation of

> what

> > > both

> > > > > > > > Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha said in earlier mails. If

> you go

> > > > > > > through our

> > > > > > > > voluminous correspondence, you will certainly get the

> same.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > For the same reason i had provided the very Sanskrit

> > > shloka

> > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly if

> you

> > > can

> > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from

> Sitaram

> > > > > jha ,issue

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > closed.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Okay, let me put it in your words. As you

> > > said " Bhattotpala

> > > > > might

> > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it

> can be

> > > your

> > > > > > > view

> > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > those translations. " Why should not

> Dashaadhyaayikar not

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be

> your

> > > > > views

> > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > those translations? Any reason for the immunity?

> We have

> > > > > already

> > > > > > > > > sen

> > > > > > > > > > misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one

> scholar on

> > > > > this

> > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > list,

> > > > > > > > > > not so long ago.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot be

> wrong

> > > is

> > > > > my

> > > > > > > strong

> > > > > > > > > > > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > -- In

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong

> then so

> > > can

> > > > > be

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that

> he can

> > > > > not be

> > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view

> was it

> > > is

> > > > > more

> > > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > mere

> > > > > > > > > > > > > commentary as it has clear explanations,while

> > > thinking

> > > > > > > from a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > students perspective.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > As you know,inspite of having all those

> > > > > commentaries,you

> > > > > > > were

> > > > > > > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > > > > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a

> concern

> > > for

> > > > > > > > > me.Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > there were couple of other shlokas that you

> have

> > > > > quoted as

> > > > > > > > > > > examples.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been

> > > misunderstood

> > > > > > > > > > > (inadvertently)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > by some or it can be your view about those

> > > > > > > > > translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > > > > > > > > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were

> quoted

> > > by

> > > > > > > me,for

> > > > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains

> leaving

> > > no

> > > > > > > > > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi

> etc

> > > will

> > > > > > > make the

> > > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mistake.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit

> explanations

> > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation

> is

> > > pretty

> > > > > > > straight

> > > > > > > > > > > > > forward due to many similarities.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > ----------------

> -----

> > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > --------------------

> -----

> > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >