Guest guest Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Hi All, Saturday is off and I decide to do jyotish after long time, I come to meet my friend and we see such mails on our favourite list wherein someone called Sreenadh is attacking Chandrashekhar and becoming so personal. So unfortunate to see hardly ONE MAN ON THIS LIST to come up to defense of Mr. Chandrashekhar. Hats off to you Mr. Mukesh & I hope Mr. Chandrashekhar has not left this list. Whether he has not knowledge or not is another question but atleast he maintains nobility in his talks. I have browsed through some mails and seems today is a sad day for this list which had greats like Mr. Rao who gave us pearls. The good old days would never come back. Shame on us all. Sushmita , " mukesh_vats9992 " <mukesh_vats9992 wrote: > > sreenadh ji, > hope you recognise me ,we are colleagues on another group and > probably that group is owned by you,perhaps you also remember the > long lecture given in context to conduct with people who are > knoeledgeable,elderly and have devoted their life for some cause. > then why is this use of indecent language for a person who is very > knowledgeable and perhaps elder to you as well. > i respect you for all the knowledge you have,it is definitely more > than me and perhaps more than a lot of other astrologers that i > know,i am your well wisher so i will be blunt enough to tell you > that i feel you have a habit of showcasing your knowledge > unneccessarily,giving references where they are not needed,quoting > left right and centre again unneccessarily,creating topics from > nowhere these are traits which should not be there in a person as > well read as you.sometimes it looks as if you are trying to bombard > lesser people like us with your knowledge.but sometimes you are > bound to get people like chandrashekhar ji who would cross question > you.you should have ideally let the matter cool down but you have > just blown it out of proportions by calling names to a very > knowledgeable and elderly person. > coming back to the original matter why this duality of giving long > lectures to people on conduct on your own group but misbehaving with > good people on another,is it because this group is not owned by you? > regards..mukesh > > , " Sreenadh " sreesog@ wrote: > > > > The problem not solved!!! > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, I would advice you to first go and learn > > what " Bhoota Sankhya Vidhi " is!! What you are referring to is > Decimal > > system numbers pronounced in Decimal system style itself! Don't be > > this much idotic. Even though Brihat Jataka uses " Bhoota Sankhya > > Vidhi at some places it is not the rule that is followed through > out > > the book! It is elementary knowledge who know both " Bhoota Sakhya > > Vidhi " and " Decimal System " and also know how to differenciate > > Numbers notated using both of them! > > ==> > > > Brihat jataka type of writing of numbers. > > <== > > There is NO Brihat Jataka type of writing numbers! The statement > is > > absurd man! The fundamental number notation systems used were- > > 1. Decimal System (From Vedic Period) > > 2. Bhoota Sakhya Vidhi (From Vedic Period) > > 3. Arya Bhateeya System (From the period of Aryabhatta) > > 4. KaTaPaYa System (The time of origin still in mystery, and not > yet > > clarified by research) > > Know these facts and modify your arguments accordingly and > > the 'fact' mentioned in previous mail still hold - and makes me > > laugh. :=) > > P.S.: To see our own ignorance is a bliss, which only some rare > > individuals possess. What we know we know, what we don't we > > don't. Also, remember that error is human, and accepting it > needs > > courage. > > Love, > > Sreenadh > > > > , Chandrashekhar > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > Try to answer the questions asked, and not dodge them by > diverting > > the > > > issue. If you are so fixed on other methods of writing numbers. > It > > would > > > be interesting to see how you read > > > " shannavatyadhikanavashataadhikasahasramitaM " for me not using > the > > > principle " AmkaaMaaM Vamato gatiH " > Or " rasagraharandhrabhUmimitaM " , > > if > > > you like Brihat jataka type of writing of numbers. > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > > > The correct answer is 'Drop your ego'. > > > > > > > > As far as the ancient number systems are concerned- > > > > * As you rightly mentioned KaTaPaYa system and Decimal system > are > > > > from 'Right to Left' & > > > > * As I told Bhoota Sakhya system and Aryabhateeya system are > > > > from " Left to Right " > > > > > > > > If you are not getting the first point told (far) above > then I > > > > don't have anything to say. > > > > > > > > Now coming to commentary on some beginning Jaimini sutra > slokas > > are > > > > concerned - > > > > * I am totally new to the BPHS/Jaimini system, and came to this > > > > group asking a doubt " What is Argala? " > > > > * I think I made a good beginning in learning that system - as > you > > > > too may agree. > > > > * That (start learning of BPHS/Jaimini system in a proper way) > was > > > > the only thing intended. I have no wrong notions or claims > on > > the > > > > same. What you told about Jaimini's approach and use of > KaTaPaYa > > > > system is right and that was just a new info to me. Thanks for > > > > that. > > > > > > > > But see, I a vibrant childish individual with not much ego or > much > > > > defense, so be beware :=). It could be dangerous, if you have > same > > > > thing to protect. > > > > > > > > Love, > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > > > > > You are good at dodging the original query. You do not > indicate > > how > > > > the > > > > > plain numbers are read, how do you read " Ekavimshat " ? You > may > > bring > > > > all > > > > > your knowledge of reading ankas from right to left, as you > > claim is > > > > > followed in Sanskrit, to bear upon on this two simple > > questions. If > > > > your > > > > > contention is right then it must be read as I said you > probably > > > > read it. > > > > > Interpreting sutras on wrong parameters and claiming them to > be > > > > right as > > > > > one is scholar of Sanskrit and thinking that knowledge of > > astrology > > > > is > > > > > not required, for translation of astrological texts, is of > > course > > > > your > > > > > privilege. > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar, > > > > > > I always regard my self as none, nothing. I don't you > > comprehend > > > > it > > > > > > or not. We can be only students always - and the teacher > is > > always > > > > > > within, and the learning too always happen from within - > it > > can > > > > not > > > > > > be otherwise. > > > > > > Now coming back to the point of numbers. Even if roadside > old > > book > > > > > > shops you may find a book called 'Brihat Jataka' which is > > > > considered > > > > > > as one of the foundation book of astrology. There is a > soloka > > in > > > > > > it " Dasa Sikhi ManuYuk Thitheendiyamse... " which > uses " Bhoota > > > > Sakhya > > > > > > Vidhi " popular from far past vedic civilization to notate > > numbers. > > > > > > ManuYuk means = 14 x 2 = 28 which is the exaltation degree > for > > > > some > > > > > > planet, hope you may know which planet. > > > > > > If we look at Arya Bhateeyam we will find the sutras > > > > like " YugaRavi > > > > > > BhaganaH KhuKHru " where KhuKHru notates a number. KhUuKHru > = > > > > (Kh+U) > > > > > > u+KH+ru = (2+30)100^2+4+100^3=4320000. If you are > interested > > in > > > > > > teaching new way of mathametics to AryaBhatta; by saying > > > > that " ALWAYS > > > > > > numbers are written from right to left " - I would have > stay > > amazed > > > > > > and away from such a person (persona = mask) who has got > such > > a > > > > great > > > > > > knowledge! You should better discuss with those who > possess > > the > > > > same > > > > > > kind knowledge like Professional astrologer Bhasker ji and > > > > continue > > > > > > appreciating each other. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > > I do not claim to be knowledgeable. That is your claim, > > hence I > > > > > > asked > > > > > > > the question, which is unanswered so far. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr. Chandrashekhar, > > > > > > > > Oh! You seem to be very knowlegeable! r u really?!! > > > > > > > > By the way, how many questions are remaining now? > > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see that you do not have any answer. > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar, > > > > > > > > > > Yap, it is really getting to be funny. :=) > Especailly > > > > because > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > love teasing egos. Ha..Ha.. > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>, > > Chandrashekhar > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If that be the case, please let me know how you > > > > > > read " ekavimshat " > > > > > > > > > > I hope > > > > > > > > > > > you do not read it as 120 or 12. This is really > > getting > > > > to > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > funny. > > > > > > > > > > > This is precisely the reason, I had said I > withdraw > > > > from the > > > > > > > > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekar, > > > > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sanskrit ankas are always read with vama > gati, > > it is > > > > > > not the > > > > > > > > > > > > > proprietary right of KaTaPaYaadi system. > > > > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for enlightening - Are you inventing a > > > > new " Bhoota > > > > > > Sankhya > > > > > > > > > > > > Vidhi " for Vedas and a new " Decimal system " > > > > > > and " Aryabhateeya > > > > > > > > > > > > System " ?!! Just refer it and know it is not so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, if that is not acceptable to you > > then you > > > > > > will have > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > read D-Charts as independent charts to apply > > Jaimini > > > > > > sutras. > > > > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, thanks for the second invention - hope > it > > > > would be > > > > > > useful > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please answer a question I asked you long > > back... > > > > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > Not much interested, since the total > discussion > > could > > > > end > > > > > > up as a > > > > > > > > > > > > waste of for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>, > > > > Chandrashekhar > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sanskrit ankas are always read with vama > gati, > > it is > > > > > > not the > > > > > > > > > > > > proprietary > > > > > > > > > > > > > right of KaTaPaYaadi system. The division by > 12 > > does > > > > > > not have > > > > > > > > > > > > anything > > > > > > > > > > > > > to do with Jaimini. The division by the > > variable is > > > > > > implied > > > > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > > > > > applying the system. Plain application of the > > > > numbers > > > > > > will give > > > > > > > > > > > > rasis > > > > > > > > > > > > > that do not exist. What is done in such a > case > > in > > > > > > astrology is > > > > > > > > > > > > divided > > > > > > > > > > > > > by the maximum numbers possible hence the > > division > > > > by > > > > > > 12. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, if that is not acceptable to you > > then you > > > > > > will have > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > read > > > > > > > > > > > > > D-Charts as independent charts to apply > Jaimini > > > > sutras. > > > > > > Please > > > > > > > > > > > > answer a > > > > > > > > > > > > > question I asked you long back. Interpret the > > > > > > Sutra " Svasthe > > > > > > > > > > dara " , > > > > > > > > > > > > > using what you think is the correct way to > apply > > > > > > KaTaPaYaaDi > > > > > > > > > > system > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > the sutras. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No - the KaPaTaYa system ends > with " ankanam > > vamato > > > > > > gati " and > > > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is no division by 12 involved; as is > evident > > from > > > > the > > > > > > many > > > > > > > > > > > > > > astronomical works available (Text bys > > Vararuchi, > > > > > > Sangama > > > > > > > > > > grama > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Madhava, Neelakandha etc are examples). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you say that this division by 12 is a > > Jaimini > > > > > > extension to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KaPaTaYa system - i can understand and > accept > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But for sure this " division by 12 rule " is > not > > > > part of > > > > > > > > > > KaPaTaYa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>, > > > > > > Chandrashekhar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is the basic Katapayaadi principle > > about > > > > > > identifying > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > variable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dara = 28/12 =4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhagya = 14/12=2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shoola = 35/12 = 11. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That was good. Thanks for > clarification. > > But > > > > one > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > doubt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remains - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How come you (or anybody) interpret > that > > the > > > > > > KaTaPaYa > > > > > > > > > > numbers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be divided by 12 ? How can we > argue > > > > that > > > > > > that the > > > > > > > > > > sloka > > > > > > > > > > > > > > asks us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to divide the numbers by 12 ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am sending the diagram to your > private > > > > mail > > > > > > id as > > > > > > > > > > > > requested. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am yet to receive it - but thanks in > > > > advance. > > > > > > Please > > > > > > > > > > send > > > > > > > > > > > > it in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sreesog(at) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <% > 40>, > > > > > > Chandrashekhar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That happens with all of us. I only > > thought > > > > it > > > > > > was my > > > > > > > > > > duty > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > point out > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as this could lead to distorting of > > > > principles. > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > > variable > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > number of rasis in the zodiac, which > is > > 12. > > > > So > > > > > > Dara = > > > > > > > > > > 28/12 > > > > > > > > > > > > =4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhagya = 14/12=2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shoola = 35/12 = 11. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The word Nidhayaatu is interpreted > as > > give > > > > or > > > > > > cast > > > > > > > > > > argala by > > > > > > > > > > > > > > most of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commentators including Neelkantha and > > > > > > Krishnaananda > > > > > > > > > > > > Saraswati. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dhaya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means sucking and nidhaaya means > having > > > > fixed or > > > > > > > > > > layered > > > > > > > > > > > > upon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being interpreted as > > > > > > obstruction/influence/argala > > > > > > > > > > appears > > > > > > > > > > > > to be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > appropriate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ******** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not being a scholar of Sanskrit > (though > > I > > > > > > understand > > > > > > > > > > quite > > > > > > > > > > > > a bit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brahmin by birth), I shall try to > > ascertain > > > > > > from my > > > > > > > > > > brother- > > > > > > > > > > > > in- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > law who > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was professor of Linguistics at Both > > > > Michigan > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > Bombay > > > > > > > > > > > > > > university and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a Sanskrit scholar himself or the > Vice > > > > > > Chancellor of > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sanskrit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > University here, when I meet them. On > > > > learning > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > them, I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shall > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly write to you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ******** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am sending the diagram to your > private > > > > mail > > > > > > id as > > > > > > > > > > > > requested. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ********** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the mistake I made in > haste > > > > about > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > KaTaPaYaDi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ka Kha Ga Gha Ngha Ca Cha Ja Jha > Nja > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ta Tha Da Dha Na Ta Tha Da Tha Na > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pa Pha Ba Bha Ma > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ya Ra La Va Sa Sha Sa Ha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Da - Ra = 8-2 " Sankhyanam Vamato > Gati " > > > > (The > > > > > > numbers > > > > > > > > > > > > should be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > counted > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in reverse order); Thus it becomes > 28. > > > > Thus > > > > > > DaRa = 28 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhag-Ya = 14 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soo-La = 35 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry. It was not the > understanding > > but > > > > the > > > > > > haste > > > > > > > > > > caused > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mistake. Thanks for pointing it > out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divide by variable and you get > the > > > > answer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DaRa = 28; BhagYa=14; SooLa = 35 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Variable (common multiple) > here > > is 7. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 28/7 = 04; 14/7 = 02 ; 35/7 = 5 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus my answers would be 4-2-5. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is this? 4-2-5 ?!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am I supposed to interpret that > > Planets > > > > in 4- > > > > > > 2-5 will > > > > > > > > > > > > cause > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Virodhargala? What is the trick > you > > are > > > > > > using - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * To change 4-2-5 to 4-2-11 ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * To change Virodhargala to > Aargala? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The sutra is " Dara Bhagya Sulastha > > Argala > > > > > > > > > > > > Nidhyatu " . " Argala > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nidhyatu " definitely > > > > means " Destroys/Oppose > > > > > > Argala " i > > > > > > > > > > > > hope; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there another interpretation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the info - but please > > clarify. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S: Please send the diagram to my > > > > personal > > > > > > mail id, > > > > > > > > > > as I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > read the group posts from the web > (I > > used > > > > to > > > > > > select > > > > > > > > > > no- > > > > > > > > > > > > mail > > > > > > > > > > > > > > option in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all groups). Thanks for the doc in > > > > advance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * By the way, can you provide me > any > > > > > > reference to > > > > > > > > > > use of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KaTaPaYaDi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > system in any other book prior to > AD > > 4th > > > > > > century. I > > > > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look back > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is necessory at the history of this > > > > system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <% > > 40>, > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read the shloka on Parijatamsha > and > > let > > > > me > > > > > > know > > > > > > > > > > what you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time Parashara lived or at least > > when > > > > the > > > > > > text was > > > > > > > > > > > > recited > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maitreya. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ******** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree with that logic as > > > > > > Katapayaadi is > > > > > > > > > > to be > > > > > > > > > > > > used > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation of the factors > other > > than > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > > grahas are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if we accept your contention > that > > common > > > > > > meaning > > > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words is to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used and equate Dara with 7th, > > Bhagya > > > > with > > > > > > 9th and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > presumably > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shoola > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with 6th (though I would > associate > > it > > > > with > > > > > > 11th). > > > > > > > > > > Where > > > > > > > > > > > > > > does the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11th > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava enter the sutra? Equating > 7th > > with > > > > > > 11th for > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > sake > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advancing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an argument is fine, but is that > > right? > > > > I > > > > > > do not > > > > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > > > > so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If, as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say, we have to bring in > Parashara > > then > > > > why > > > > > > not the > > > > > > > > > > > > argalas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that he > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > says > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > blocks those from 2,4 and 11? I > > would > > > > like > > > > > > to know > > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the sutra " Svasthe Dara " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ******************* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the > > words > > > > used > > > > > > in the > > > > > > > > > > above > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sloka > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dara = 24 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhagya = 12 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soola = 37 " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see that you are interpreting > > > > katapayaadi > > > > > > in a > > > > > > > > > > novel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > manner. Da > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 4th letter in Ta varga, it > is > > the > > > > 8th > > > > > > one. No > > > > > > > > > > > > wonder the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation has gone awry. > > > > Katapayaadi > > > > > > rules are > > > > > > > > > > > > almost > > > > > > > > > > > > > > standard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you insist that it is only > used > > in > > > > south > > > > > > India > > > > > > > > > > ( Now > > > > > > > > > > > > > > coming to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reference to " KaTaPaYaaDi " -I > > thought > > > > > > > > > > that " KaTaPaYaaDi " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was system > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > popular only in south India.), I > am > > sure > > > > > > you must > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dara is 28, Bhagya is 14 and > Shoola > > is > > > > 35 > > > > > > (reversed > > > > > > > > > > > > values > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alphabets in Katapayaadi Vargas). > > > > Divide by > > > > > > > > > > variable and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you get > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > answer. By the way Sanskrit > > language is > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > limited to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > South India > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nor are the katapayaadi rules. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *********** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am sure you must be familiar > with > > the > > > > word > > > > > > > > > > Sanakaadi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rishis. They > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ones sitting in front of > > > > Dakshinamurti- > > > > > > Shiva. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sanandan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is one > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them. Read Purva Bhaga 2nd pada > > shiksha > > > > > > prakarana > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > Narada > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Purana > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you will find the name. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *********** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The way you asked for the > reference > > I > > > > > > thought you > > > > > > > > > > were > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are not more than x number > of > > > > > > adhayaayas of > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > available. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > More so as you were insisting > that > > > > Jaimini > > > > > > was only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spreading the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > teaching of Parashara and so on. > > That > > > > is I > > > > > > asked > > > > > > > > > > you if > > > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > had > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reference about the number of > > adhyaayas > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > manuscripts. I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > many > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commentaries on Jaimini and some > > > > > > photocopies of > > > > > > > > > > > > manuscripts > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhandarkar research institute > > (kindly > > > > sent > > > > > > to me > > > > > > > > > > by one > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > friends > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who has forgotten more Jaimini > than, > > > > > > perhaps, what > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > read) and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > most > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of them agree that there are 8 > > > > adhayaayas > > > > > > written > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only 4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > been discovered till date. Some > > Pandits > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > Varanasi are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > said to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possess > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some more manuscripts but our > > attempts > > > > to > > > > > > procure > > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > been in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > till now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ************ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, is that so? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ************ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *********** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not to your views > > about > > > > how > > > > > > argalas > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > to be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > viewed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again I read Sitaram Jha's > edition > > of > > > > BPHS, > > > > > > that is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > referred to in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > document, and do not find the > shloka > > > > > > mentioned in > > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > > pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > file. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you quote the shloka and adhyaaya > > > > number? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *********** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought you must have drawn the > > > > diagram > > > > > > since > > > > > > > > > > you were > > > > > > > > > > > > > > talking > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the description of Parashara > > matching > > > > the > > > > > > south > > > > > > > > > > Indian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > earlier > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mail. I'm attaching the diagram > I > > have > > > > with > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > mail > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comments > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all those who are perhaps > > interested in > > > > > > Jaimini > > > > > > > > > > and rasi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aspects. I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > am > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure you will pardon my poor > skills > > with > > > > > > drawing > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > draftsmanship. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is believed tat Jaimini > was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > student of Vyasa and some > > therefore > > > > > > believe > > > > > > > > > > him to > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shishya of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara who was father of > > Vyasa. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is news to me - but of > not > > much > > > > use, > > > > > > > > > > because I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > believe based > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some available evidence, that > the > > > > > > Parashara who > > > > > > > > > > wrote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara Samhita was not the > > > > Parshara of > > > > > > > > > > Mahabharata > > > > > > > > > > > > > > period, as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned in some of my > previous > > > > mails. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we accept your > translation " > > > > planets > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > 11th 9th > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6th > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > destroys argala yoga " as the > > right > > > > > > > > > > interpretation of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the shloka > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then we may, perhaps, have to > > > > redefine > > > > > > > > > > KaTaPaYaaDi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rules. Most of the > commentators, > > > > > > rightly, > > > > > > > > > > think they > > > > > > > > > > > > > > refer to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4, 2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and 11 houses and indicating > the > > > > argala > > > > > > cast > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > those > > > > > > > > > > > > > > houses. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you throw some light > on > > how > > > > you > > > > > > equated > > > > > > > > > > Dara > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhagya and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shoola with 11-9 and 6? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The sutra is " Dara Bhagya > Sulastha > > > > Argala > > > > > > > > > > Nidhyatu " . > > > > > > > > > > > > By > > > > > > > > > > > > > > common > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > knowledge Dara is wife and is > 7th; > > > > Bhagya > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > luck and > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 9th; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soola > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is suffering and is 6th. The > sutra > > > > says > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > houses > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distroys > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Argala > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yoga, i.e. cause Virodhargala. > > > > Looking at > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > light of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS sloka > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stating 4-2-11 houses causing > > Argala > > > > we > > > > > > find > > > > > > > > > > that this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sloka > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speaks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about the combinations that > > obstruct > > > > the > > > > > > same; > > > > > > > > > > and a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > further > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scrutiny > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the logic applied behind > > reveals > > > > that > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > word " Dara " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (wife) is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used to mean 11th house here. > And > > > > thus the > > > > > > > > > > derivation- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Planets in 11-9-6 cause > > Virodhargala > > > > to > > > > > > Argala > > > > > > > > > > > > caused by > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planets > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in 4-2-11 respectively " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The logic behind is 11th is > 8th > > from > > > > 4th, > > > > > > 9th is > > > > > > > > > > 8th > > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd, 6th > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is 8th from 11th - the > pointing > > to 8th > > > > > > house > > > > > > > > > > being the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > common > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now comming to reference > > > > > > to " KaTaPaYaaDi " - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought that " KaTaPaYaaDi " > was > > > > system > > > > > > popular > > > > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > south > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > India. (Pradeep may have > > something to > > > > say > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > same) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vararuchi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is thought to have introduced > this > > > > system > > > > > > in 4th > > > > > > > > > > > > centrury > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AD. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is no reference to this system > > prior > > > > to > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > period, > > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > per my > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > current knowledge. Even though > > some > > > > refer > > > > > > to the > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word " jaya " in Maharbharata to > > argue > > > > that > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > system > > > > > > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in use > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at that time, neither > Mahabharata > > nor > > > > any > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > text > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ancient > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > past provides us explicit proof > > > > > > > > > > that, " KaTaPaYaDi " > > > > > > > > > > > > system > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at that time. But it is clear > that > > > > from > > > > > > vedic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > period " Bhoota > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sankhya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > system " and " Decimal system " > was > > in > > > > use. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the > > words > > > > used > > > > > > in the > > > > > > > > > > above > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sloka > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dara = 24 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhagya = 12 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soola = 37 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you want to interpret > it to > > > > 04 - > > > > > > 02 - > > > > > > > > > > 11 ?!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > Can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > elaborate the " KaTaPaYaDi " > rules > > you > > > > have > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > mind? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Further if somebody is > > > > > > finding " KaTaPaYaDi " > > > > > > > > > > rules in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jaimini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sutra, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is clear that the text > > originated > > > > > > after 4th > > > > > > > > > > century > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AD, since > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the " KaTaPaYaDi " system came to > > > > existance > > > > > > by that > > > > > > > > > > > > period > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only. I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't think that you would > like > > that > > > > > > > > > > argument. If > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear use > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of " KaTaPaYaDi " is present in > > Jaimini > > > > > > Sutra, > > > > > > > > > > then well > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and good. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that case 2 possiblities > exists- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Jaimini sutra is a text > > originated > > > > > > after 4th > > > > > > > > > > > > century. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * " KaTaPaYaDi " system existed > even > > > > prior > > > > > > to 4th > > > > > > > > > > > > century > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I am yet to find any sutra > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > support " KaTaPaYaDi " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > system in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini Sutra. Possibily I may > or > > may > > > > not > > > > > > find > > > > > > > > > > some, > > > > > > > > > > > > as I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > am yet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > read or study the complete > text. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sanandan rishi that gave the > > > > Jyotish to > > > > > > Narada > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whose > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shishyas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like Garga and then Shaunaka > > even > > > > > > Parashara > > > > > > > > > > > > > > acknowledges having > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > received the principles of > > Jyotish, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not mentioned among the > > > > Pravartakas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sanadan Rishi?! The name is > new to > > > > me - > > > > > > can you > > > > > > > > > > quote > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sloka? I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > am familiar with the names > such as > > > > Skanda, > > > > > > > > > > Sanaka, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saunaka etc - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yet to see a sloka stating > that > > there > > > > was > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > Rishi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > called > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sanadan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who imparted astrological > > knowledge to > > > > > > Narada. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The word meaning of the > > > > word " Sanadan " is > > > > > > > > > > something > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like " Ever > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lasting " i think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact of 8 adhyaayas of > > Jaimini > > > > being > > > > > > > > > > written is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned by > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > many worthies like > Suryanarain > > Rao, > > > > > > B.V. Raman > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > many > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commentators of Jaimini > sutras, > > if > > > > my > > > > > > memory > > > > > > > > > > serves > > > > > > > > > > > > me > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right. Do > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you have any reference that > > mentions > > > > > > exactly > > > > > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > > > > > many > > > > > > > > > > > > > > adhyaayas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini sutras were written? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you have that, it might > > benefit > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > astrological > > > > > > > > > > > > > > brotherhood > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > large. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh!! I am asking were it is > said > > so, > > > > and > > > > > > you are > > > > > > > > > > > > asking > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reference!! I am yet to see > or > > > > read the > > > > > > > > > > > > commentaries > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Jaimini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sutra by Suryanarain Rao or > B.V. > > > > Raman. > > > > > > My be I > > > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > > > get > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some clue > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from them, about where to find > the > > > > > > reference. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the info. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe > > KaulakaanaaM > > > > > > phalaani > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rogaadayaH. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the reference to > > Kaulaka in > > > > > > Jaimini > > > > > > > > > > sutras. > > > > > > > > > > > > Of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is possible you may have > > interpreted > > > > > > this in a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different manner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as in case of 4th sutra of > 1st > > > > > > chapter,1st > > > > > > > > > > pada. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ha ha.. It may happen, I > don't > > know > > > > > > yet. I am > > > > > > > > > > yet > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > read that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > portion of the book, I have > just > > > > started > > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > > study of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini sutra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only. When I complete studying > > though > > > > the > > > > > > book - > > > > > > > > > > many > > > > > > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > revelations > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and insights may come to > me.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I mean why should he ignore > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Graha drishti told by > > > > Parashara, if > > > > > > he was > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advocate only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara's teaching. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini " ignores " Graha > Drishi?! I > > > > keep a > > > > > > watch > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > point, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > while > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > continuing my study of Jaimini > > sutra > > > > and > > > > > > come > > > > > > > > > > back > > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supporting or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > opposing evidance later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not think Parashara > > supports > > > > > > Argala from > > > > > > > > > > 7th > > > > > > > > > > > > house > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The results given for > argalas in > > > > BPHS > > > > > > are about > > > > > > > > > > > > argalas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > houses and not from the > houses. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Argalas on the houses and from > the > > > > > > houses! Why > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusion and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > complexity?! When Parasara is > > speaking > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > Argala > > > > > > > > > > > > > > caused by > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planets > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in various houses, then the > > results > > > > told > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attributed to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the same - right? This is > normal > > > > simple > > > > > > logical > > > > > > > > > > path. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have not responded to my > > request > > > > > > for the > > > > > > > > > > diagram > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara as indicated by > you. > > May I > > > > > > know why? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can send the file in .doc > > format > > > > as I > > > > > > drew > > > > > > > > > > it in > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > format. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I haven't drawn any diagram > > how am > > > > I > > > > > > supposed > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > give > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you? Please mail the doc you > > > > created > > > > > > in my > > > > > > > > > > mail id: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sreesog@ <sreesog% > > 40yhoo.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love and Hugs, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <% > > 40> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <% > > > > 40>, > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am sorry if that was not > your > > > > > > intention when > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > said > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying to further teachings > of > > > > > > Parashara. It is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > believed tat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > student of Vyasa and some > > therefore > > > > > > believe > > > > > > > > > > him to > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shishya of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara who was father of > > Vyasa. > > > > If > > > > > > that is > > > > > > > > > > not so > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > logic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini wanting to elaborate > on > > > > > > Parashara's > > > > > > > > > > > > teaching as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advanced by > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes even more tenuous. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have read what you > translated > > > > about > > > > > > the the > > > > > > > > > > > > sutra. I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wanted to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the translation or > > interpretation > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > > sutras out > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However as you think I have > not > > read > > > > > > the pdf > > > > > > > > > > file, > > > > > > > > > > > > let > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me assure > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I have and do not find > any > > > > sutras > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini > > > > > > > > > > > > quoted > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > therein to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support your contention that > > 11th > > > > house > > > > > > argala > > > > > > > > > > > > blocks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4th > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava. If we accept your > > > > translation " > > > > > > planets > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > 11th > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 9th and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6th > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > destroys argala yoga " as the > > right > > > > > > > > > > interpretation of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the shloka > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may, perhaps, have to > redefine > > > > > > KaTaPaYaaDi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation rules. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Most of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the commentators, rightly, > think > > > > they > > > > > > refer to > > > > > > > > > > 4, 2 > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > houses > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicating the argala cast > from > > > > those > > > > > > houses. > > > > > > > > > > Could > > > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on how you equated Dara > Bhagya > > and > > > > > > Shoola with > > > > > > > > > > 11-9 > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am sorry, if the portion > about > > > > > > Jaimini being > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pravartaka > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > appeared in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the mail. That was a slip on > my > > > > part. I > > > > > > > > > > remember > > > > > > > > > > > > > > writing that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > his > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pravartaka or not not being > > > > material as > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > > > > > Sanandan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rishi that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gave > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Jyotish to Narada from > whose > > > > > > shishyas like > > > > > > > > > > Garga > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and then > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shaunaka > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even Parashara acknowledges > > having > > > > > > received the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > principles of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jyotish, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not mentioned among the > > > > Pravartakas. > > > > > > Did > > > > > > > > > > that not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > appear in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mail > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > received by you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact of 8 adhyaayas of > > Jaimini > > > > being > > > > > > > > > > written is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned by > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > many > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worthies like Suryanarain > Rao, > > B.V. > > > > > > Raman and > > > > > > > > > > many > > > > > > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commentators of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini sutras, if my memory > > serves > > > > me > > > > > > right. > > > > > > > > > > Do you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have any > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reference > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that mentions exactly how > many > > > > > > adhyaayas of > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sutras were > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > written? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you have that, it might > > benefit > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > astrological > > > > > > > > > > > > > > brotherhood > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > large. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe > > KaulakaanaaM > > > > > > phalaani > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rogaadayaH. " This > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reference to Kaulaka in > Jaimini > > > > sutras. > > > > > > Of > > > > > > > > > > course > > > > > > > > > > > > it is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you may > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have interpreted this in a > > different > > > > > > manner as > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > case > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of 4th > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sutra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1st chapter,1st pada. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does my mail mention that > > Jaimini > > > > > > ignored rasi > > > > > > > > > > > > drishti? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the sign of my age and health > > > > catching > > > > > > up. I > > > > > > > > > > mean > > > > > > > > > > > > why > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should he > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ignore > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Graha drishti told by > > > > Parashara, if > > > > > > he was > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advocate only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara's teaching. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was perhaps wrong of me > to > > ask > > > > for > > > > > > the name > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > edition of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you were quoting from, not > > having > > > > gone > > > > > > through > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > entire > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > document. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > find that you are referring > to > > > > Sitaram > > > > > > Jha > > > > > > > > > > edition. > > > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shall read > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relevant shloka, as > translated > > by > > > > > > Sitaram Jha, > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > send > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comments > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not think Parashara > > supports > > > > > > Argala from > > > > > > > > > > 7th > > > > > > > > > > > > house > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > results given for argalas in > > BPHS > > > > are > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > argalas > > > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > houses > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not from the houses. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have not responded to my > > request > > > > > > for the > > > > > > > > > > diagram > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara as indicated by > you. > > May I > > > > > > know why? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can send the file in .doc > > format > > > > as I > > > > > > drew > > > > > > > > > > it in > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > format. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can find that the > entire > > > > thrust > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > > same > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is to prove that Jaimini > was > > > > > > shishya of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vyaasa....?!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From where Vyasa came in?! > I > > > > haven't > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the name > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vyasa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in that document! And never > > > > argued so! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How ever the sutras to > > support > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your concept about 11th > > house > > > > > > giving virodh > > > > > > > > > > > > argala > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4th > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > house > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > argala etc. do not > appear in > > > > your > > > > > > PDF file. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh! The first sutra of > Jaimini > > > > about > > > > > > Argala > > > > > > > > > > states > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the same! I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > elaborated on the same in > > detail > > > > as > > > > > > well. > > > > > > > > > > Did you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > read that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for sure?! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini does not appear > in > > the > > > > 18 > > > > > > > > > > Pravartakas is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > totally > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > incorrect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Below is the shloka > Samhita > > > > giving > > > > > > names > > > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > > > > 18 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pravartakas,.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is the sloka?! In > your > > mail > > > > I > > > > > > couldn't > > > > > > > > > > find > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that, please > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > post > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it in the next mail. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only 4 out of 8 > adhayaayas > > of > > > > > > Jaimini > > > > > > > > > > sutras are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > available > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > till date. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is new knowledge to > me, > > > > Thanks > > > > > > for the > > > > > > > > > > same. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pelase > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > elaborate, where it is > > mentioned > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > complete > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini sutra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 8 adhyaayas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some concept like > Kauluka or > > > > > > application > > > > > > > > > > of D-6 > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > peculiar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini and not found in > > > > Parashara. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kauluka?! That also is new > to > > me. > > > > Can > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > provide > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more info, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > please? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is also necessary to > > explain > > > > as > > > > > > to why > > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > given > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drishtis which Jaimini > > ignores > > > > > > totally. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini " ignores " Rasi > > Drishti?! > > > > In > > > > > > many > > > > > > > > > > slokas of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the intial > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chapter, Jaimini describes > > Rasi > > > > > > Drishti > > > > > > > > > > itself! > > > > > > > > > > > > Then > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that Jaimini ignores Rasi > > > > Drishti?!! > > > > > > That > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also " totally " ?!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think twise before stating > so! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The shloka bout 7th > Bhava > > argala > > > > > > given by > > > > > > > > > > you is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interesting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can you give the edition > of > > > > > > Parashari that > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > appears in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the shloka and > adhyaaya > > > > number? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The edition of BPHS I > > referred is > > > > > > mentioned > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > itself, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > edition of Jaimini sutra I > > > > referred > > > > > > is also > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The shloka could also be > > > > translated > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > mean that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > neither a weak argala not > > > > planets > > > > > > in 7th > > > > > > > > > > cause > > > > > > > > > > > > > > obstruction > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > argala, indicating that > 7th > > > > house, > > > > > > from the > > > > > > > > > > > > house > > > > > > > > > > > > > > receiving > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting argala can not > cast > > > > argala > > > > > > or can > > > > > > > > > > not be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > taken into > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > consideration for giving > > virodh > > > > > > argala. > > > > > > > > > > This > > > > > > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > been > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > given by way of > amplifying > > the > > > > > > concept of > > > > > > > > > > > > argalas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Argala results for 7th > house > > is > > > > given > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > BPHS, > > > > > > > > > > > > thus > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Parasara supports Argala > > caused by > > > > > > planets > > > > > > > > > > in 7th > > > > > > > > > > > > > > house. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find you describing > the > > way > > > > > > Parashara has > > > > > > > > > > > > asked > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to cast a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chakra and saying that > this > > > > itself > > > > > > proves > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signs can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aspects. It would have > > supported > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > > arguments, if > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you had > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drawn > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the chakra as described > by > > > > > > Parashara and > > > > > > > > > > > > indicated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drishtis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described in the sutras > fit > > th > > > > > > Chakra > > > > > > > > > > drawn with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aries and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Taurus in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > east, etc. It would have > > been > > > > > > interesting > > > > > > > > > > to see > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please send the diagram > (pdf > > file) > > > > > > you send > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep to me > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well. I would be thankful. > > > > Possibly I > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > get some > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new insight > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > <% > > 40> > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <% > > 40> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <% > > > > 40> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <% > > > > > > 40>, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have read the pdf > file. I > > can > > > > > > find that > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > entire thrust > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the same > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is to prove that Jaimini > was > > > > > > shishya of > > > > > > > > > > Vyaasa > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > therefore he > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wanted > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to spread the knowledge > of > > > > > > Parashara. How > > > > > > > > > > ever > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sutras to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your concept about 11th > > house > > > > > > giving virodh > > > > > > > > > > > > argala > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4th > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > house > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > argala etc. do not > appear in > > > > your > > > > > > PDF > > > > > > > > > > file. The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > statement > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini does not appear > in > > the > > > > 18 > > > > > > > > > > Pravartakas is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > totally > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > incorrect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Below is the shloka > Samhita > > > > giving > > > > > > names > > > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > > > > 18 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pravartakas, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > though > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right, does not in any > way > > prove > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini > > > > > > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > elaborating > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on what > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was taught by Parashara. > Had > > > > that > > > > > > been the > > > > > > > > > > case > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > referred the readers to > > > > Parashara's > > > > > > > > > > principles > > > > > > > > > > > > > > instead of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > telling > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " horadaya siddhaaH " , in > > effect > > > > > > telling the > > > > > > > > > > > > readers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to refer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > texts (for what is not > told > > in > > > > the > > > > > > sutras/ > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > basic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concepts of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > astrology). Narada one > of > > the > > > > > > Pravartakas > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jyotish and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > through whose > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lineage, even Parashara > > accepts > > > > > > having got > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > knowledge of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jyotish > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > received his knowledge > > through > > > > rishi > > > > > > > > > > Sanandan, > > > > > > > > > > > > who > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > named > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > amongst > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pravartakas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even the translation > > > > of " upadesham > > > > > > > > > > vyakhyasaam " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as " I am > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commenting on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the advise of Jaimini " > does > > not > > > > > > appear > > > > > > > > > > correct > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > venerated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Krishnaanand Saraswati > the > > > > > > commentator on > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sutras, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Neelakantha interprets > it > > that > > > > way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The logic that you have > > > > presented > > > > > > is that > > > > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shlokas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > appearing in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > elaborate upon what is > said > > in > > > > > > Jaimini > > > > > > > > > > sutras > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > therefore > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is based > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on Parashara only. The > > argument > > > > > > appears to > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attractive, at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glance, but does not > hold > > water. > > > > > > There are > > > > > > > > > > many > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vriddha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karikas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain the rasi > drishtis > > and > > > > it is > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interesting to note > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > though > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rasi drishti appear in > > BPHS, not > > > > > > much about > > > > > > > > > > > > their > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that distinguishes their > use > > > > from > > > > > > that of > > > > > > > > > > Graha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drishti is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > found in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > text. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " ubhayaanubhayaH > > pashyeccaraan > > > > > > sthaasnuH > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sthiraaMshcaraH | > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > samIpasaMsthitaM raashiM > > tyktwaa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trIMstrInyathaakramam || " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vriddha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karikas and many other > > shlokas > > > > in > > > > > > many > > > > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > > > texts > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > referred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand the sutra of > > Jaimini > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > understand > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sutras on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drishti. I have many > other > > > > shlokas > > > > > > besides > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicated in the > document. > > So > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > argument does > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not hold > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > water. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One could also say that > the > > > > Jaimini > > > > > > > > > > concept of > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drishti > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > appear in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS, if mere parallel > > shlokas > > > > > > means the > > > > > > > > > > test of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > borrowing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > granthas. The argument > that > > > > since > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > effects of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > argalas are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > given in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS means that Jaimini > > > > borrowed the > > > > > > > > > > concept > > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS, it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > having > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the info on that part is > > > > misleading > > > > > > as it > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > well > > > > > > > > > > > > > > known that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only 4 out > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of 8 adhayaayas of > Jaimini > > > > sutras > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > available > > > > > > > > > > > > > > till date. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some concept like > Kauluka or > > > > > > application > > > > > > > > > > of D-6 > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > peculiar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not found in > Parashara. > > If > > > > one > > > > > > were to > > > > > > > > > > > > accept > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > argument. even > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this concept should have > > been in > > > > > > BPHS. It > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > > > > > > necessary > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as to why Parashara has > > given > > > > rasi > > > > > > drishtis > > > > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ignores > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > totally. Surely, he > would > > not do > > > > > > that if > > > > > > > > > > he was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > elaborating > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara said. He would > > also > > > > not > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > skipped > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vimshottari > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kalachakra dasha which > > Parashara > > > > > > opines > > > > > > > > > > are the > > > > > > > > > > > > most > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > amongst > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dashas, in his sutras. > Most > > of > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > arguments > > > > > > > > > > > > > > presented > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being argala yogas in > > Jaimini > > > > and > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > > > > appearing in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > face of it are good > though > > there > > > > > > are only > > > > > > > > > > > > results > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Argalas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > given in BPHS and not > argala > > > > yogas > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > claimed. > > > > > > > > > > > > That > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > refers one > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to standard texts in the > > first > > > > > > chapter, > > > > > > > > > > only is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > totally > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ignored > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > argument presented. > Sutras > > are > > > > > > rightly > > > > > > > > > > known for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > brevity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even the brahma sutras > can > > be > > > > > > interpreted > > > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > > > mere > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > translation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One has > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to interpret them taking > > help of > > > > > > basic > > > > > > > > > > > > principles > > > > > > > > > > > > > > given in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > standard texts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The shloka bout 7th > Bhava > > argala > > > > > > given by > > > > > > > > > > you is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interesting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > give the edition of > > Parashari > > > > that > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > appears in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shloka > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > adhyaaya number? The > shloka > > > > could > > > > > > also be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated to mean > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > neither a weak argala not > > > > planets > > > > > > in 7th > > > > > > > > > > cause > > > > > > > > > > > > > > obstruction > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > argala, indicating that > 7th > > > > house, > > > > > > from the > > > > > > > > > > > > house > > > > > > > > > > > > > > receiving > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > argala can not cast > argala > > or > > > > can > > > > > > not be > > > > > > > > > > taken > > > > > > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > consideration for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > giving virodh argala. > This > > could > > > > > > only have > > > > > > > > > > been > > > > > > > > > > > > > > given by > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > way of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > amplifying the concept of > > > > argalas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find you describing > the > > way > > > > > > Parashara has > > > > > > > > > > > > asked > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to cast a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi chakra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and saying that this > itself > > > > proves > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > signs > > > > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aspects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have supported your > > arguments, > > > > if > > > > > > you had > > > > > > > > > > drawn > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chakra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by Parashara and > indicated > > how > > > > the > > > > > > drishtis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sutras fit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > th Chakra drawn with > Aries > > and > > > > > > Taurus in > > > > > > > > > > east, > > > > > > > > > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have been > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interesting to see this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So while congratulating > you > > on > > > > the > > > > > > efforts > > > > > > > > > > > > > > undertaken to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > create > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a PDF > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > document on Jaimini > sutras, > > I > > > > must > > > > > > disagree > > > > > > > > > > > > with the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conclusions drawn > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there in. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said earlier, let > us > > agree > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > disagree on > > > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The following document > is > > a > > > > > > commentary > > > > > > > > > > for the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > beginning > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > portion of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini sutra. > Currently > > it > > > > > > covers the > > > > > > > > > > portion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > upto Rasi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Drishti and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Argala. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- > --- > > ---- > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > ------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: > 269.8.13/844 - > > > > Release > > > > > > Date: > > > > > > > > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > > removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------- > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - > > Release > > > > > > Date: > > > > > > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Hi Sushmita, excellent post. I observed people did not object to foul language (rather they were busy in defiending him yesterday) used by Sreenadh. When I read the thread, i realized he did the same with senior astrologer / member Shri Chandrasekhar ji. Yesterday, similiar thing happened on his own forum, when he rediculed another senior astrologer Robert Koch. Prior to that, he made / supported racist comment again Shri Sunil John. Well there seems to be history of such incidents. May be that is how people have learnt/adapted to resist in civilized (and self centered) society. Really shameful conduct. regards / Prafulla Gang http://www.prafulla.net " Men who never get carried away should be. " ************************************************ > > sushmita34 > Sat, 07 Jul 2007 06:12:06 -0000 > > Only one man > > Hi All, > Saturday is off and I decide to do jyotish after long time, I come to > meet my friend and we see such mails on our favourite list wherein > someone called Sreenadh is attacking Chandrashekhar and becoming so > personal. So unfortunate to see hardly ONE MAN ON THIS LIST to come up > to defense of Mr. Chandrashekhar. Hats off to you Mr. Mukesh & I hope > Mr. Chandrashekhar has not left this list. Whether he has not knowledge > or not is another question but atleast he maintains nobility in his > talks. > > I have browsed through some mails and seems today is a sad day for this > list which had greats like Mr. Rao who gave us pearls. The good old days > would never come back. > > Shame on us all. > > Sushmita > > > > , " mukesh_vats9992 " > <mukesh_vats9992 wrote: >> >> sreenadh ji, >> hope you recognise me ,we are colleagues on another group and >> probably that group is owned by you,perhaps you also remember the >> long lecture given in context to conduct with people who are >> knoeledgeable,elderly and have devoted their life for some cause. >> then why is this use of indecent language for a person who is very >> knowledgeable and perhaps elder to you as well. >> i respect you for all the knowledge you have,it is definitely more >> than me and perhaps more than a lot of other astrologers that i >> know,i am your well wisher so i will be blunt enough to tell you >> that i feel you have a habit of showcasing your knowledge >> unneccessarily,giving references where they are not needed,quoting >> left right and centre again unneccessarily,creating topics from >> nowhere these are traits which should not be there in a person as >> well read as you.sometimes it looks as if you are trying to bombard >> lesser people like us with your knowledge.but sometimes you are >> bound to get people like chandrashekhar ji who would cross question >> you.you should have ideally let the matter cool down but you have >> just blown it out of proportions by calling names to a very >> knowledgeable and elderly person. >> coming back to the original matter why this duality of giving long >> lectures to people on conduct on your own group but misbehaving with >> good people on another,is it because this group is not owned by you? >> regards..mukesh >> >> , " Sreenadh " sreesog@ wrote: >>> >>> The problem not solved!!! >>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji, I would advice you to first go and learn >>> what " Bhoota Sankhya Vidhi " is!! What you are referring to is >> Decimal >>> system numbers pronounced in Decimal system style itself! Don't be >>> this much idotic. Even though Brihat Jataka uses " Bhoota Sankhya >>> Vidhi at some places it is not the rule that is followed through >> out >>> the book! It is elementary knowledge who know both " Bhoota Sakhya >>> Vidhi " and " Decimal System " and also know how to differenciate >>> Numbers notated using both of them! >>> ==> >>>> Brihat jataka type of writing of numbers. >>> <== >>> There is NO Brihat Jataka type of writing numbers! The statement >> is >>> absurd man! The fundamental number notation systems used were- >>> 1. Decimal System (From Vedic Period) >>> 2. Bhoota Sakhya Vidhi (From Vedic Period) >>> 3. Arya Bhateeya System (From the period of Aryabhatta) >>> 4. KaTaPaYa System (The time of origin still in mystery, and not >> yet >>> clarified by research) >>> Know these facts and modify your arguments accordingly and >>> the 'fact' mentioned in previous mail still hold - and makes me >>> laugh. :=) >>> P.S.: To see our own ignorance is a bliss, which only some rare >>> individuals possess. What we know we know, what we don't we >>> don't. Also, remember that error is human, and accepting it >> needs >>> courage. >>> Love, >>> Sreenadh >>> >>> , Chandrashekhar >>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Sreenadh, >>>> >>>> Try to answer the questions asked, and not dodge them by >> diverting >>> the >>>> issue. If you are so fixed on other methods of writing numbers. >> It >>> would >>>> be interesting to see how you read >>>> " shannavatyadhikanavashataadhikasahasramitaM " for me not using >> the >>>> principle " AmkaaMaaM Vamato gatiH " >> Or " rasagraharandhrabhUmimitaM " , >>> if >>>> you like Brihat jataka type of writing of numbers. >>>> >>>> Chandrashekhar. >>>> >>>> Sreenadh wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji, >>>>> The correct answer is 'Drop your ego'. >>>>> >>>>> As far as the ancient number systems are concerned- >>>>> * As you rightly mentioned KaTaPaYa system and Decimal system >> are >>>>> from 'Right to Left' & >>>>> * As I told Bhoota Sakhya system and Aryabhateeya system are >>>>> from " Left to Right " >>>>> >>>>> If you are not getting the first point told (far) above >> then I >>>>> don't have anything to say. >>>>> >>>>> Now coming to commentary on some beginning Jaimini sutra >> slokas >>> are >>>>> concerned - >>>>> * I am totally new to the BPHS/Jaimini system, and came to this >>>>> group asking a doubt " What is Argala? " >>>>> * I think I made a good beginning in learning that system - as >> you >>>>> too may agree. >>>>> * That (start learning of BPHS/Jaimini system in a proper way) >> was >>>>> the only thing intended. I have no wrong notions or claims >> on >>> the >>>>> same. What you told about Jaimini's approach and use of >> KaTaPaYa >>>>> system is right and that was just a new info to me. Thanks for >>>>> that. >>>>> >>>>> But see, I a vibrant childish individual with not much ego or >> much >>>>> defense, so be beware :=). It could be dangerous, if you have >> same >>>>> thing to protect. >>>>> >>>>> Love, >>>>> Sreenadh >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <%40>, Chandrashekhar >>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, >>>>>> >>>>>> You are good at dodging the original query. You do not >> indicate >>> how >>>>> the >>>>>> plain numbers are read, how do you read " Ekavimshat " ? You >> may >>> bring >>>>> all >>>>>> your knowledge of reading ankas from right to left, as you >>> claim is >>>>>> followed in Sanskrit, to bear upon on this two simple >>> questions. If >>>>> your >>>>>> contention is right then it must be read as I said you >> probably >>>>> read it. >>>>>> Interpreting sutras on wrong parameters and claiming them to >> be >>>>> right as >>>>>> one is scholar of Sanskrit and thinking that knowledge of >>> astrology >>>>> is >>>>>> not required, for translation of astrological texts, is of >>> course >>>>> your >>>>>> privilege. >>>>>> >>>>>> Chandrashekhar. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar, >>>>>>> I always regard my self as none, nothing. I don't you >>> comprehend >>>>> it >>>>>>> or not. We can be only students always - and the teacher >> is >>> always >>>>>>> within, and the learning too always happen from within - >> it >>> can >>>>> not >>>>>>> be otherwise. >>>>>>> Now coming back to the point of numbers. Even if roadside >> old >>> book >>>>>>> shops you may find a book called 'Brihat Jataka' which is >>>>> considered >>>>>>> as one of the foundation book of astrology. There is a >> soloka >>> in >>>>>>> it " Dasa Sikhi ManuYuk Thitheendiyamse... " which >> uses " Bhoota >>>>> Sakhya >>>>>>> Vidhi " popular from far past vedic civilization to notate >>> numbers. >>>>>>> ManuYuk means = 14 x 2 = 28 which is the exaltation degree >> for >>>>> some >>>>>>> planet, hope you may know which planet. >>>>>>> If we look at Arya Bhateeyam we will find the sutras >>>>> like " YugaRavi >>>>>>> BhaganaH KhuKHru " where KhuKHru notates a number. KhUuKHru >> = >>>>> (Kh+U) >>>>>>> u+KH+ru = (2+30)100^2+4+100^3=4320000. If you are >> interested >>> in >>>>>>> teaching new way of mathametics to AryaBhatta; by saying >>>>> that " ALWAYS >>>>>>> numbers are written from right to left " - I would have >> stay >>> amazed >>>>>>> and away from such a person (persona = mask) who has got >> such >>> a >>>>> great >>>>>>> knowledge! You should better discuss with those who >> possess >>> the >>>>> same >>>>>>> kind knowledge like Professional astrologer Bhasker ji and >>>>> continue >>>>>>> appreciating each other. >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Sreenadh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> <%40> >>>>>>> <%40>, Chandrashekhar >>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, >>>>>>>> I do not claim to be knowledgeable. That is your claim, >>> hence I >>>>>>> asked >>>>>>>> the question, which is unanswered so far. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Mr. Chandrashekhar, >>>>>>>>> Oh! You seem to be very knowlegeable! r u really?!! >>>>>>>>> By the way, how many questions are remaining now? >>>>>>>>> Sreenadh >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> <%40> >>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>> <%40>, Chandrashekhar >>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I see that you do not have any answer. >>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar, >>>>>>>>>>> Yap, it is really getting to be funny. :=) >> Especailly >>>>> because >>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>> love teasing egos. Ha..Ha.. >>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> <%40> >>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>> <%40>, >>> Chandrashekhar >>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If that be the case, please let me know how you >>>>>>> read " ekavimshat " >>>>>>>>>>> I hope >>>>>>>>>>>> you do not read it as 120 or 12. This is really >>> getting >>>>> to >>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>> funny. >>>>>>>>>>>> This is precisely the reason, I had said I >> withdraw >>>>> from the >>>>>>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekar, >>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanskrit ankas are always read with vama >> gati, >>> it is >>>>>>> not the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proprietary right of KaTaPaYaadi system. >>>>>>>>>>>>> <== >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for enlightening - Are you inventing a >>>>> new " Bhoota >>>>>>> Sankhya >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vidhi " for Vedas and a new " Decimal system " >>>>>>> and " Aryabhateeya >>>>>>>>>>>>> System " ?!! Just refer it and know it is not so. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, if that is not acceptable to you >>> then you >>>>>>> will have >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> read D-Charts as independent charts to apply >>> Jaimini >>>>>>> sutras. >>>>>>>>>>>>> <== >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, thanks for the second invention - hope >> it >>>>> would be >>>>>>> useful >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> you. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please answer a question I asked you long >>> back... >>>>>>>>>>>>> <== >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not much interested, since the total >> discussion >>> could >>>>> end >>>>>>> up as a >>>>>>>>>>>>> waste of for me. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> <%40> >>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>, >>>>> Chandrashekhar >>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanskrit ankas are always read with vama >> gati, >>> it is >>>>>>> not the >>>>>>>>>>>>> proprietary >>>>>>>>>>>>>> right of KaTaPaYaadi system. The division by >> 12 >>> does >>>>>>> not have >>>>>>>>>>>>> anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do with Jaimini. The division by the >>> variable is >>>>>>> implied >>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>>>> applying the system. Plain application of the >>>>> numbers >>>>>>> will give >>>>>>>>>>>>> rasis >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that do not exist. What is done in such a >> case >>> in >>>>>>> astrology is >>>>>>>>>>>>> divided >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the maximum numbers possible hence the >>> division >>>>> by >>>>>>> 12. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, if that is not acceptable to you >>> then you >>>>>>> will have >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> read >>>>>>>>>>>>>> D-Charts as independent charts to apply >> Jaimini >>>>> sutras. >>>>>>> Please >>>>>>>>>>>>> answer a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> question I asked you long back. Interpret the >>>>>>> Sutra " Svasthe >>>>>>>>>>> dara " , >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using what you think is the correct way to >> apply >>>>>>> KaTaPaYaaDi >>>>>>>>>>> system >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sutras. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No - the KaPaTaYa system ends >> with " ankanam >>> vamato >>>>>>> gati " and >>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no division by 12 involved; as is >> evident >>> from >>>>> the >>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> astronomical works available (Text bys >>> Vararuchi, >>>>>>> Sangama >>>>>>>>>>> grama >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Madhava, Neelakandha etc are examples). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you say that this division by 12 is a >>> Jaimini >>>>>>> extension to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KaPaTaYa system - i can understand and >> accept >>> it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But for sure this " division by 12 rule " is >> not >>>>> part of >>>>>>>>>>> KaPaTaYa >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Love, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> <%40> >>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>, >>>>>>> Chandrashekhar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the basic Katapayaadi principle >>> about >>>>>>> identifying >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dara = 28/12 =4 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhagya = 14/12=2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shoola = 35/12 = 11. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That was good. Thanks for >> clarification. >>> But >>>>> one >>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>> doubt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remains - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How come you (or anybody) interpret >> that >>> the >>>>>>> KaTaPaYa >>>>>>>>>>> numbers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be divided by 12 ? How can we >> argue >>>>> that >>>>>>> that the >>>>>>>>>>> sloka >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asks us >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to divide the numbers by 12 ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am sending the diagram to your >> private >>>>> mail >>>>>>> id as >>>>>>>>>>>>> requested. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am yet to receive it - but thanks in >>>>> advance. >>>>>>> Please >>>>>>>>>>> send >>>>>>>>>>>>> it in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sreesog(at) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Love, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> <%40> >>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <% >> 40>, >>>>>>> Chandrashekhar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That happens with all of us. I only >>> thought >>>>> it >>>>>>> was my >>>>>>>>>>> duty >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as this could lead to distorting of >>>>> principles. >>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>> variable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of rasis in the zodiac, which >> is >>> 12. >>>>> So >>>>>>> Dara = >>>>>>>>>>> 28/12 >>>>>>>>>>>>> =4 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhagya = 14/12=2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shoola = 35/12 = 11. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The word Nidhayaatu is interpreted >> as >>> give >>>>> or >>>>>>> cast >>>>>>>>>>> argala by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commentators including Neelkantha and >>>>>>> Krishnaananda >>>>>>>>>>>>> Saraswati. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dhaya >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means sucking and nidhaaya means >> having >>>>> fixed or >>>>>>>>>>> layered >>>>>>>>>>>>> upon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being interpreted as >>>>>>> obstruction/influence/argala >>>>>>>>>>> appears >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ******** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not being a scholar of Sanskrit >> (though >>> I >>>>>>> understand >>>>>>>>>>> quite >>>>>>>>>>>>> a bit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brahmin by birth), I shall try to >>> ascertain >>>>>>> from my >>>>>>>>>>> brother- >>>>>>>>>>>>> in- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> law who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was professor of Linguistics at Both >>>>> Michigan >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> Bombay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> university and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Sanskrit scholar himself or the >> Vice >>>>>>> Chancellor of >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanskrit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> University here, when I meet them. On >>>>> learning >>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>> them, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly write to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ******** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am sending the diagram to your >> private >>>>> mail >>>>>>> id as >>>>>>>>>>>>> requested. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ********** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for the mistake I made in >> haste >>>>> about >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> KaTaPaYaDi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ka Kha Ga Gha Ngha Ca Cha Ja Jha >> Nja >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ta Tha Da Dha Na Ta Tha Da Tha Na >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pa Pha Ba Bha Ma >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ya Ra La Va Sa Sha Sa Ha >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Da - Ra = 8-2 " Sankhyanam Vamato >> Gati " >>>>> (The >>>>>>> numbers >>>>>>>>>>>>> should be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in reverse order); Thus it becomes >> 28. >>>>> Thus >>>>>>> DaRa = 28 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhag-Ya = 14 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Soo-La = 35 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry. It was not the >> understanding >>> but >>>>> the >>>>>>> haste >>>>>>>>>>> caused >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mistake. Thanks for pointing it >> out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Divide by variable and you get >> the >>>>> answer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DaRa = 28; BhagYa=14; SooLa = 35 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Variable (common multiple) >> here >>> is 7. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 28/7 = 04; 14/7 = 02 ; 35/7 = 5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus my answers would be 4-2-5. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is this? 4-2-5 ?!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am I supposed to interpret that >>> Planets >>>>> in 4- >>>>>>> 2-5 will >>>>>>>>>>>>> cause >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Virodhargala? What is the trick >> you >>> are >>>>>>> using - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * To change 4-2-5 to 4-2-11 ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * To change Virodhargala to >> Aargala? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sutra is " Dara Bhagya Sulastha >>> Argala >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nidhyatu " . " Argala >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nidhyatu " definitely >>>>> means " Destroys/Oppose >>>>>>> Argala " i >>>>>>>>>>>>> hope; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there another interpretation? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the info - but please >>> clarify. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.S: Please send the diagram to my >>>>> personal >>>>>>> mail id, >>>>>>>>>>> as I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read the group posts from the web >> (I >>> used >>>>> to >>>>>>> select >>>>>>>>>>> no- >>>>>>>>>>>>> mail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all groups). Thanks for the doc in >>>>> advance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * By the way, can you provide me >> any >>>>>>> reference to >>>>>>>>>>> use of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KaTaPaYaDi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system in any other book prior to >> AD >>> 4th >>>>>>> century. I >>>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look back >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is necessory at the history of this >>>>> system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Love, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- In >> >>>>> <%40> >>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <% >>> 40>, >>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read the shloka on Parijatamsha >> and >>> let >>>>> me >>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>>> what you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time Parashara lived or at least >>> when >>>>> the >>>>>>> text was >>>>>>>>>>>>> recited >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maitreya. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ******** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not agree with that logic as >>>>>>> Katapayaadi is >>>>>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation of the factors >> other >>> than >>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>> grahas are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we accept your contention >> that >>> common >>>>>>> meaning >>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words is to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used and equate Dara with 7th, >>> Bhagya >>>>> with >>>>>>> 9th and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presumably >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shoola >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with 6th (though I would >> associate >>> it >>>>> with >>>>>>> 11th). >>>>>>>>>>> Where >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11th >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhava enter the sutra? Equating >> 7th >>> with >>>>>>> 11th for >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> sake >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advancing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an argument is fine, but is that >>> right? >>>>> I >>>>>>> do not >>>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>>>>> so. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say, we have to bring in >> Parashara >>> then >>>>> why >>>>>>> not the >>>>>>>>>>>>> argalas >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocks those from 2,4 and 11? I >>> would >>>>> like >>>>>>> to know >>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the sutra " Svasthe Dara " . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ******************* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the >>> words >>>>> used >>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>> above >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sloka >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicates - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dara = 24 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhagya = 12 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Soola = 37 " >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see that you are interpreting >>>>> katapayaadi >>>>>>> in a >>>>>>>>>>> novel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manner. Da >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 4th letter in Ta varga, it >> is >>> the >>>>> 8th >>>>>>> one. No >>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation has gone awry. >>>>> Katapayaadi >>>>>>> rules are >>>>>>>>>>>>> almost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as you insist that it is only >> used >>> in >>>>> south >>>>>>> India >>>>>>>>>>> ( Now >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coming to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference to " KaTaPaYaaDi " -I >>> thought >>>>>>>>>>> that " KaTaPaYaaDi " >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> popular only in south India.), I >> am >>> sure >>>>>>> you must >>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> familiar with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dara is 28, Bhagya is 14 and >> Shoola >>> is >>>>> 35 >>>>>>> (reversed >>>>>>>>>>>>> values >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alphabets in Katapayaadi Vargas). >>>>> Divide by >>>>>>>>>>> variable and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer. By the way Sanskrit >>> language is >>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>> limited to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> South India >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nor are the katapayaadi rules. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *********** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am sure you must be familiar >> with >>> the >>>>> word >>>>>>>>>>> Sanakaadi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rishis. They >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ones sitting in front of >>>>> Dakshinamurti- >>>>>>> Shiva. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanandan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. Read Purva Bhaga 2nd pada >>> shiksha >>>>>>> prakarana >>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Narada >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Purana >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you will find the name. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *********** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The way you asked for the >> reference >>> I >>>>>>> thought you >>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are not more than x number >> of >>>>>>> adhayaayas of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More so as you were insisting >> that >>>>> Jaimini >>>>>>> was only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spreading the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching of Parashara and so on. >>> That >>>>> is I >>>>>>> asked >>>>>>>>>>> you if >>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference about the number of >>> adhyaayas >>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>> manuscripts. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commentaries on Jaimini and some >>>>>>> photocopies of >>>>>>>>>>>>> manuscripts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhandarkar research institute >>> (kindly >>>>> sent >>>>>>> to me >>>>>>>>>>> by one >>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friends >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who has forgotten more Jaimini >> than, >>>>>>> perhaps, what >>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read) and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of them agree that there are 8 >>>>> adhayaayas >>>>>>> written >>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 4 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been discovered till date. Some >>> Pandits >>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>> Varanasi are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possess >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some more manuscripts but our >>> attempts >>>>> to >>>>>>> procure >>>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ************ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, is that so? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ************ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *********** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not to your views >>> about >>>>> how >>>>>>> argalas >>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> viewed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again I read Sitaram Jha's >> edition >>> of >>>>> BPHS, >>>>>>> that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referred to in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document, and do not find the >> shloka >>>>>>> mentioned in >>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>>> pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you quote the shloka and adhyaaya >>>>> number? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *********** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you must have drawn the >>>>> diagram >>>>>>> since >>>>>>>>>>> you were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the description of Parashara >>> matching >>>>> the >>>>>>> south >>>>>>>>>>> Indian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chart in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earlier >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mail. I'm attaching the diagram >> I >>> have >>>>> with >>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>> mail >>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all those who are perhaps >>> interested in >>>>>>> Jaimini >>>>>>>>>>> and rasi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure you will pardon my poor >> skills >>> with >>>>>>> drawing >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> draftsmanship. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take care, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is believed tat Jaimini >> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> student of Vyasa and some >>> therefore >>>>>>> believe >>>>>>>>>>> him to >>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shishya of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara who was father of >>> Vyasa. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is news to me - but of >> not >>> much >>>>> use, >>>>>>>>>>> because I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some available evidence, that >> the >>>>>>> Parashara who >>>>>>>>>>> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BPHS and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara Samhita was not the >>>>> Parshara of >>>>>>>>>>> Mahabharata >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> period, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned in some of my >> previous >>>>> mails. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we accept your >> translation " >>>>> planets >>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>> 11th 9th >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6th >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> destroys argala yoga " as the >>> right >>>>>>>>>>> interpretation of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the shloka >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we may, perhaps, have to >>>>> redefine >>>>>>>>>>> KaTaPaYaaDi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules. Most of the >> commentators, >>>>>>> rightly, >>>>>>>>>>> think they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refer to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4, 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and 11 houses and indicating >> the >>>>> argala >>>>>>> cast >>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>> those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> houses. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you throw some light >> on >>> how >>>>> you >>>>>>> equated >>>>>>>>>>> Dara >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhagya and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shoola with 11-9 and 6? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sutra is " Dara Bhagya >> Sulastha >>>>> Argala >>>>>>>>>>> Nidhyatu " . >>>>>>>>>>>>> By >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge Dara is wife and is >> 7th; >>>>> Bhagya >>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>> luck and >>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9th; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Soola >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is suffering and is 6th. The >> sutra >>>>> says >>>>>>> these >>>>>>>>>>> houses >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distroys >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argala >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yoga, i.e. cause Virodhargala. >>>>> Looking at >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> light of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BPHS sloka >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stating 4-2-11 houses causing >>> Argala >>>>> we >>>>>>> find >>>>>>>>>>> that this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sloka >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the combinations that >>> obstruct >>>>> the >>>>>>> same; >>>>>>>>>>> and a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scrutiny >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the logic applied behind >>> reveals >>>>> that >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> word " Dara " >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (wife) is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to mean 11th house here. >> And >>>>> thus the >>>>>>>>>>> derivation- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " Planets in 11-9-6 cause >>> Virodhargala >>>>> to >>>>>>> Argala >>>>>>>>>>>>> caused by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 4-2-11 respectively " >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The logic behind is 11th is >> 8th >>> from >>>>> 4th, >>>>>>> 9th is >>>>>>>>>>> 8th >>>>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd, 6th >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is 8th from 11th - the >> pointing >>> to 8th >>>>>>> house >>>>>>>>>>> being the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now comming to reference >>>>>>> to " KaTaPaYaaDi " - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought that " KaTaPaYaaDi " >> was >>>>> system >>>>>>> popular >>>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> south >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> India. (Pradeep may have >>> something to >>>>> say >>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> same) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vararuchi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is thought to have introduced >> this >>>>> system >>>>>>> in 4th >>>>>>>>>>>>> centrury >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no reference to this system >>> prior >>>>> to >>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>> period, >>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current knowledge. Even though >>> some >>>>> refer >>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word " jaya " in Maharbharata to >>> argue >>>>> that >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> system >>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at that time, neither >> Mahabharata >>> nor >>>>> any >>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>> text >>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ancient >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past provides us explicit proof >>>>>>>>>>> that, " KaTaPaYaDi " >>>>>>>>>>>>> system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at that time. But it is clear >> that >>>>> from >>>>>>> vedic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> period " Bhoota >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankhya >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system " and " Decimal system " >> was >>> in >>>>> use. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the >>> words >>>>> used >>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>> above >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sloka >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicates - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dara = 24 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhagya = 12 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Soola = 37 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you want to interpret >> it to >>>>> 04 - >>>>>>> 02 - >>>>>>>>>>> 11 ?!!! >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaborate the " KaTaPaYaDi " >> rules >>> you >>>>> have >>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>> mind? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Further if somebody is >>>>>>> finding " KaTaPaYaDi " >>>>>>>>>>> rules in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jaimini >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sutra, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is clear that the text >>> originated >>>>>>> after 4th >>>>>>>>>>> century >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD, since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the " KaTaPaYaDi " system came to >>>>> existance >>>>>>> by that >>>>>>>>>>>>> period >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't think that you would >> like >>> that >>>>>>>>>>> argument. If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of " KaTaPaYaDi " is present in >>> Jaimini >>>>>>> Sutra, >>>>>>>>>>> then well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and good. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that case 2 possiblities >> exists- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Jaimini sutra is a text >>> originated >>>>>>> after 4th >>>>>>>>>>>>> century. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * " KaTaPaYaDi " system existed >> even >>>>> prior >>>>>>> to 4th >>>>>>>>>>>>> century >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I am yet to find any sutra >>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>> support " KaTaPaYaDi " >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini Sutra. Possibily I may >> or >>> may >>>>> not >>>>>>> find >>>>>>>>>>> some, >>>>>>>>>>>>> as I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am yet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read or study the complete >> text. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanandan rishi that gave the >>>>> Jyotish to >>>>>>> Narada >>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shishyas >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like Garga and then Shaunaka >>> even >>>>>>> Parashara >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledges having >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> received the principles of >>> Jyotish, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not mentioned among the >>>>> Pravartakas. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanadan Rishi?! The name is >> new to >>>>> me - >>>>>>> can you >>>>>>>>>>> quote >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sloka? I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am familiar with the names >> such as >>>>> Skanda, >>>>>>>>>>> Sanaka, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saunaka etc - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet to see a sloka stating >> that >>> there >>>>> was >>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>>> Rishi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanadan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who imparted astrological >>> knowledge to >>>>>>> Narada. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The word meaning of the >>>>> word " Sanadan " is >>>>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like " Ever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lasting " i think. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact of 8 adhyaayas of >>> Jaimini >>>>> being >>>>>>>>>>> written is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many worthies like >> Suryanarain >>> Rao, >>>>>>> B.V. Raman >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commentators of Jaimini >> sutras, >>> if >>>>> my >>>>>>> memory >>>>>>>>>>> serves >>>>>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. Do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have any reference that >>> mentions >>>>>>> exactly >>>>>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adhyaayas >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini sutras were written? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have that, it might >>> benefit >>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> astrological >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brotherhood >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh!! I am asking were it is >> said >>> so, >>>>> and >>>>>>> you are >>>>>>>>>>>>> asking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference!! I am yet to see >> or >>>>> read the >>>>>>>>>>>>> commentaries >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Jaimini >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sutra by Suryanarain Rao or >> B.V. >>>>> Raman. >>>>>>> My be I >>>>>>>>>>> may >>>>>>>>>>>>> get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some clue >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from them, about where to find >> the >>>>>>> reference. >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the info. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe >>> KaulakaanaaM >>>>>>> phalaani >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rogaadayaH. " >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the reference to >>> Kaulaka in >>>>>>> Jaimini >>>>>>>>>>> sutras. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is possible you may have >>> interpreted >>>>>>> this in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different manner >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as in case of 4th sutra of >> 1st >>>>>>> chapter,1st >>>>>>>>>>> pada. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ha ha.. It may happen, I >> don't >>> know >>>>>>> yet. I am >>>>>>>>>>> yet >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> portion of the book, I have >> just >>>>> started >>>>>>> my >>>>>>>>>>> study of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini sutra >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only. When I complete studying >>> though >>>>> the >>>>>>> book - >>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>> new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revelations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and insights may come to >> me.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I mean why should he ignore >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Graha drishti told by >>>>> Parashara, if >>>>>>> he was >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocate only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara's teaching. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini " ignores " Graha >> Drishi?! I >>>>> keep a >>>>>>> watch >>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continuing my study of Jaimini >>> sutra >>>>> and >>>>>>> come >>>>>>>>>>> back >>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supporting or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposing evidance later. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not think Parashara >>> supports >>>>>>> Argala from >>>>>>>>>>> 7th >>>>>>>>>>>>> house >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhava. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The results given for >> argalas in >>>>> BPHS >>>>>>> are about >>>>>>>>>>>>> argalas >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> houses and not from the >> houses. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argalas on the houses and from >> the >>>>>>> houses! Why >>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confusion and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity?! When Parasara is >>> speaking >>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>> Argala >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in various houses, then the >>> results >>>>> told >>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attributed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same - right? This is >> normal >>>>> simple >>>>>>> logical >>>>>>>>>>> path. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have not responded to my >>> request >>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>>>>> diagram >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara as indicated by >> you. >>> May I >>>>>>> know why? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can send the file in .doc >>> format >>>>> as I >>>>>>> drew >>>>>>>>>>> it in >>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I haven't drawn any diagram >>> how am >>>>> I >>>>>>> supposed >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> give >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you? Please mail the doc you >>>>> created >>>>>>> in my >>>>>>>>>>> mail id: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sreesog@ <sreesog% >>> 40yhoo.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Love and Hugs, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- In >>> >>>>> <%40> >>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <% >>> 40> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <% >>>>> 40>, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am sorry if that was not >> your >>>>>>> intention when >>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>> said >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to further teachings >> of >>>>>>> Parashara. It is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believed tat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> student of Vyasa and some >>> therefore >>>>>>> believe >>>>>>>>>>> him to >>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shishya of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara who was father of >>> Vyasa. >>>>> If >>>>>>> that is >>>>>>>>>>> not so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini wanting to elaborate >> on >>>>>>> Parashara's >>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advanced by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes even more tenuous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have read what you >> translated >>>>> about >>>>>>> the the >>>>>>>>>>>>> sutra. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the translation or >>> interpretation >>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>> sutras out >>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However as you think I have >> not >>> read >>>>>>> the pdf >>>>>>>>>>> file, >>>>>>>>>>>>> let >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me assure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I have and do not find >> any >>>>> sutras >>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini >>>>>>>>>>>>> quoted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therein to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support your contention that >>> 11th >>>>> house >>>>>>> argala >>>>>>>>>>>>> blocks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4th >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhava. If we accept your >>>>> translation " >>>>>>> planets >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>> 11th >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9th and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6th >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> destroys argala yoga " as the >>> right >>>>>>>>>>> interpretation of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the shloka >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may, perhaps, have to >> redefine >>>>>>> KaTaPaYaaDi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation rules. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commentators, rightly, >> think >>>>> they >>>>>>> refer to >>>>>>>>>>> 4, 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> houses >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicating the argala cast >> from >>>>> those >>>>>>> houses. >>>>>>>>>>> Could >>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throw >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on how you equated Dara >> Bhagya >>> and >>>>>>> Shoola with >>>>>>>>>>> 11-9 >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am sorry, if the portion >> about >>>>>>> Jaimini being >>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pravartaka >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appeared in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mail. That was a slip on >> my >>>>> part. I >>>>>>>>>>> remember >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writing that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pravartaka or not not being >>>>> material as >>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanandan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rishi that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gave >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Jyotish to Narada from >> whose >>>>>>> shishyas like >>>>>>>>>>> Garga >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaunaka >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even Parashara acknowledges >>> having >>>>>>> received the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principles of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jyotish, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not mentioned among the >>>>> Pravartakas. >>>>>>> Did >>>>>>>>>>> that not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appear in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> received by you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact of 8 adhyaayas of >>> Jaimini >>>>> being >>>>>>>>>>> written is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worthies like Suryanarain >> Rao, >>> B.V. >>>>>>> Raman and >>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commentators of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini sutras, if my memory >>> serves >>>>> me >>>>>>> right. >>>>>>>>>>> Do you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that mentions exactly how >> many >>>>>>> adhyaayas of >>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sutras were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have that, it might >>> benefit >>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> astrological >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brotherhood >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe >>> KaulakaanaaM >>>>>>> phalaani >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rogaadayaH. " This >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference to Kaulaka in >> Jaimini >>>>> sutras. >>>>>>> Of >>>>>>>>>>> course >>>>>>>>>>>>> it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you may >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have interpreted this in a >>> different >>>>>>> manner as >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>> case >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of 4th >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sutra >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1st chapter,1st pada. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does my mail mention that >>> Jaimini >>>>>>> ignored rasi >>>>>>>>>>>>> drishti? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sign of my age and health >>>>> catching >>>>>>> up. I >>>>>>>>>>> mean >>>>>>>>>>>>> why >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Graha drishti told by >>>>> Parashara, if >>>>>>> he was >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocate only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara's teaching. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was perhaps wrong of me >> to >>> ask >>>>> for >>>>>>> the name >>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> edition of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BPHS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you were quoting from, not >>> having >>>>> gone >>>>>>> through >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find that you are referring >> to >>>>> Sitaram >>>>>>> Jha >>>>>>>>>>> edition. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall read >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant shloka, as >> translated >>> by >>>>>>> Sitaram Jha, >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>> send >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them tomorrow. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not think Parashara >>> supports >>>>>>> Argala from >>>>>>>>>>> 7th >>>>>>>>>>>>> house >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhava. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results given for argalas in >>> BPHS >>>>> are >>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>> argalas >>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> houses >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not from the houses. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have not responded to my >>> request >>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>>>>> diagram >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara as indicated by >> you. >>> May I >>>>>>> know why? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can send the file in .doc >>> format >>>>> as I >>>>>>> drew >>>>>>>>>>> it in >>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrasekhar ji, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the comments. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can find that the >> entire >>>>> thrust >>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>> same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to prove that Jaimini >> was >>>>>>> shishya of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vyaasa....?!!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From where Vyasa came in?! >> I >>>>> haven't >>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the name >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vyasa >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that document! And never >>>>> argued so! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How ever the sutras to >>> support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your concept about 11th >>> house >>>>>>> giving virodh >>>>>>>>>>>>> argala >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4th >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> house >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argala etc. do not >> appear in >>>>> your >>>>>>> PDF file. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh! The first sutra of >> Jaimini >>>>> about >>>>>>> Argala >>>>>>>>>>> states >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same! I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaborated on the same in >>> detail >>>>> as >>>>>>> well. >>>>>>>>>>> Did you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for sure?! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini does not appear >> in >>> the >>>>> 18 >>>>>>>>>>> Pravartakas is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Below is the shloka >> Samhita >>>>> giving >>>>>>> names >>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> 18 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pravartakas,.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is the sloka?! In >> your >>> mail >>>>> I >>>>>>> couldn't >>>>>>>>>>> find >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that, please >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it in the next mail. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 4 out of 8 >> adhayaayas >>> of >>>>>>> Jaimini >>>>>>>>>>> sutras are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till date. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is new knowledge to >> me, >>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>>>>> same. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pelase >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaborate, where it is >>> mentioned >>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> complete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini sutra >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8 adhyaayas? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some concept like >> Kauluka or >>>>>>> application >>>>>>>>>>> of D-6 >>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peculiar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini and not found in >>>>> Parashara. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kauluka?! That also is new >> to >>> me. >>>>> Can >>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>> provide >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more info, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is also necessary to >>> explain >>>>> as >>>>>>> to why >>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drishtis which Jaimini >>> ignores >>>>>>> totally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini " ignores " Rasi >>> Drishti?! >>>>> In >>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>> slokas of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the intial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chapter, Jaimini describes >>> Rasi >>>>>>> Drishti >>>>>>>>>>> itself! >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Jaimini ignores Rasi >>>>> Drishti?!! >>>>>>> That >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also " totally " ?!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think twise before stating >> so! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The shloka bout 7th >> Bhava >>> argala >>>>>>> given by >>>>>>>>>>> you is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you give the edition >> of >>>>>>> Parashari that >>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the shloka and >> adhyaaya >>>>> number? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The edition of BPHS I >>> referred is >>>>>>> mentioned >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> edition of Jaimini sutra I >>>>> referred >>>>>>> is also >>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The shloka could also be >>>>> translated >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> mean that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither a weak argala not >>>>> planets >>>>>>> in 7th >>>>>>>>>>> cause >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obstruction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argala, indicating that >> 7th >>>>> house, >>>>>>> from the >>>>>>>>>>>>> house >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> receiving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> casting argala can not >> cast >>>>> argala >>>>>>> or can >>>>>>>>>>> not be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taken into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration for giving >>> virodh >>>>>>> argala. >>>>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given by way of >> amplifying >>> the >>>>>>> concept of >>>>>>>>>>>>> argalas. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argala results for 7th >> house >>> is >>>>> given >>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>> BPHS, >>>>>>>>>>>>> thus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parasara supports Argala >>> caused by >>>>>>> planets >>>>>>>>>>> in 7th >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> house. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find you describing >> the >>> way >>>>>>> Parashara has >>>>>>>>>>>>> asked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cast a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chakra and saying that >> this >>>>> itself >>>>>>> proves >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signs can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects. It would have >>> supported >>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments, if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you had >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drawn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the chakra as described >> by >>>>>>> Parashara and >>>>>>>>>>>>> indicated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drishtis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described in the sutras >> fit >>> th >>>>>>> Chakra >>>>>>>>>>> drawn with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aries and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taurus in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> east, etc. It would have >>> been >>>>>>> interesting >>>>>>>>>>> to see >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please send the diagram >> (pdf >>> file) >>>>>>> you send >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep to me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well. I would be thankful. >>>>> Possibly I >>>>>>> may >>>>>>>>>>> get some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new insight >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Love, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- In >>>>> <% >>> 40> >>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <% >>> 40> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <% >>>>> 40> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <% >>>>>>> 40>, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have read the pdf >> file. I >>> can >>>>>>> find that >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire thrust >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to prove that Jaimini >> was >>>>>>> shishya of >>>>>>>>>>> Vyaasa >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to spread the knowledge >> of >>>>>>> Parashara. How >>>>>>>>>>> ever >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sutras to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your concept about 11th >>> house >>>>>>> giving virodh >>>>>>>>>>>>> argala >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4th >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> house >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argala etc. do not >> appear in >>>>> your >>>>>>> PDF >>>>>>>>>>> file. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini does not appear >> in >>> the >>>>> 18 >>>>>>>>>>> Pravartakas is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Below is the shloka >> Samhita >>>>> giving >>>>>>> names >>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> 18 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pravartakas, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right, does not in any >> way >>> prove >>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini >>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaborating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was taught by Parashara. >> Had >>>>> that >>>>>>> been the >>>>>>>>>>> case >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referred the readers to >>>>> Parashara's >>>>>>>>>>> principles >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> telling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " horadaya siddhaaH " , in >>> effect >>>>>>> telling the >>>>>>>>>>>>> readers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to refer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> texts (for what is not >> told >>> in >>>>> the >>>>>>> sutras/ >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> basic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concepts of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> astrology). Narada one >> of >>> the >>>>>>> Pravartakas >>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jyotish and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through whose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lineage, even Parashara >>> accepts >>>>>>> having got >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jyotish >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> received his knowledge >>> through >>>>> rishi >>>>>>>>>>> Sanandan, >>>>>>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> named >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amongst >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pravartakas. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even the translation >>>>> of " upadesham >>>>>>>>>>> vyakhyasaam " >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as " I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commenting on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the advise of Jaimini " >> does >>> not >>>>>>> appear >>>>>>>>>>> correct >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> venerated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Krishnaanand Saraswati >> the >>>>>>> commentator on >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sutras, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neelakantha interprets >> it >>> that >>>>> way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The logic that you have >>>>> presented >>>>>>> is that >>>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shlokas >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appearing in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BPHS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaborate upon what is >> said >>> in >>>>>>> Jaimini >>>>>>>>>>> sutras >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on Parashara only. The >>> argument >>>>>>> appears to >>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attractive, at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> glance, but does not >> hold >>> water. >>>>>>> There are >>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vriddha >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Karikas >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain the rasi >> drishtis >>> and >>>>> it is >>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting to note >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rasi drishti appear in >>> BPHS, not >>>>>>> much about >>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usage or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that distinguishes their >> use >>>>> from >>>>>>> that of >>>>>>>>>>> Graha >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drishti is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> text. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " ubhayaanubhayaH >>> pashyeccaraan >>>>>>> sthaasnuH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sthiraaMshcaraH | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> samIpasaMsthitaM raashiM >>> tyktwaa >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trIMstrInyathaakramam || " >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vriddha >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Karikas and many other >>> shlokas >>>>> in >>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>> texts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referred >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the sutra of >>> Jaimini >>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> understand >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sutras on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drishti. I have many >> other >>>>> shlokas >>>>>>> besides >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicated in the >> document. >>> So >>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> argument does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not hold >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One could also say that >> the >>>>> Jaimini >>>>>>>>>>> concept of >>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drishti >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appear in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BPHS, if mere parallel >>> shlokas >>>>>>> means the >>>>>>>>>>> test of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> borrowing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> granthas. The argument >> that >>>>> since >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> effects of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argalas are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BPHS means that Jaimini >>>>> borrowed the >>>>>>>>>>> concept >>>>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BPHS, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the info on that part is >>>>> misleading >>>>>>> as it >>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>> well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 4 out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of 8 adhayaayas of >> Jaimini >>>>> sutras >>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>> available >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till date. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some concept like >> Kauluka or >>>>>>> application >>>>>>>>>>> of D-6 >>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peculiar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not found in >> Parashara. >>> If >>>>> one >>>>>>> were to >>>>>>>>>>>>> accept >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument. even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this concept should have >>> been in >>>>>>> BPHS. It >>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as to why Parashara has >>> given >>>>> rasi >>>>>>> drishtis >>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignores >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally. Surely, he >> would >>> not do >>>>>>> that if >>>>>>>>>>> he was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaborating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara said. He would >>> also >>>>> not >>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>> skipped >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vimshottari >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kalachakra dasha which >>> Parashara >>>>>>> opines >>>>>>>>>>> are the >>>>>>>>>>>>> most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amongst >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dashas, in his sutras. >> Most >>> of >>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>> arguments >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being argala yogas in >>> Jaimini >>>>> and >>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>> appearing in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> face of it are good >> though >>> there >>>>>>> are only >>>>>>>>>>>>> results >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Argalas >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given in BPHS and not >> argala >>>>> yogas >>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>> claimed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> That >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refers one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to standard texts in the >>> first >>>>>>> chapter, >>>>>>>>>>> only is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument presented. >> Sutras >>> are >>>>>>> rightly >>>>>>>>>>> known for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brevity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even the brahma sutras >> can >>> be >>>>>>> interpreted >>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>> mere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to interpret them taking >>> help of >>>>>>> basic >>>>>>>>>>>>> principles >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard texts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The shloka bout 7th >> Bhava >>> argala >>>>>>> given by >>>>>>>>>>> you is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give the edition of >>> Parashari >>>>> that >>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>> appears in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shloka >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adhyaaya number? The >> shloka >>>>> could >>>>>>> also be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translated to mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither a weak argala not >>>>> planets >>>>>>> in 7th >>>>>>>>>>> cause >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obstruction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argala, indicating that >> 7th >>>>> house, >>>>>>> from the >>>>>>>>>>>>> house >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> receiving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> casting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argala can not cast >> argala >>> or >>>>> can >>>>>>> not be >>>>>>>>>>> taken >>>>>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving virodh argala. >> This >>> could >>>>>>> only have >>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amplifying the concept of >>>>> argalas. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find you describing >> the >>> way >>>>>>> Parashara has >>>>>>>>>>>>> asked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cast a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi chakra >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and saying that this >> itself >>>>> proves >>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> signs >>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have supported your >>> arguments, >>>>> if >>>>>>> you had >>>>>>>>>>> drawn >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chakra >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Parashara and >> indicated >>> how >>>>> the >>>>>>> drishtis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sutras fit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> th Chakra drawn with >> Aries >>> and >>>>>>> Taurus in >>>>>>>>>>> east, >>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting to see this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So while congratulating >> you >>> on >>>>> the >>>>>>> efforts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undertaken to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a PDF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document on Jaimini >> sutras, >>> I >>>>> must >>>>>>> disagree >>>>>>>>>>>>> with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusions drawn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there in. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said earlier, let >> us >>> agree >>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> disagree on >>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The following document >> is >>> a >>>>>>> commentary >>>>>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> portion of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini sutra. >> Currently >>> it >>>>>>> covers the >>>>>>>>>>> portion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upto Rasi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Drishti and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argala. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------- >> --- >>> ---- >>>>> ---- >>>>>>>>>>> ------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: >> 269.8.13/844 - >>>>> Release >>>>>>> Date: >>>>>>>>>>> 6/11/2007 5:10 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been >>> removed] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ---------------------- >> --- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - >>> Release >>>>>>> Date: >>>>>>>>> 6/11/2007 5:10 PM >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Hi Prafulla, Thanks. I just might not believe what you wrote. 1) I read a post where good old Chandrashekhar was insulted, are you telling me the moderator did nothing about it later. I just read a quick post by Mukesh but assumed that later Pradeep or maybe members who are older to him cum senior here would have come forth and reprimanded such display of arrogance. Did Ben do nothing about it. 2) I did not know this Sreenadh had a forum, Robert Koch is a very senior astrologer ridiculing him means Kaliyuga has really started in his worst form here on these lists. 3) This is shocking and the very first in the history of forums I assume - a Racist comment and that too against Sunil. Let me go deeper in this..... This would have caused Sunil to unleash his fury on that list, will find out which list is this and join there to see what happened. Sounds fun. Are you telling me after doing all these, there are people who support this Sreenadh and want to learn from him. I would die but never ever read a mail from Sreenadh even if he gives Brahma Gyan since such knowledge comes with sin. And this Sin ruins our life, I have met many senior astrologers who have told me this. I have had deep discussions on what are the effects of learning from evil people, this is bad bad karma & the effects of it would show someday. How come after all this none of the lists bans such people or have our morals gone down the drain that we want to be in good books of everyone by becoming PR specialists. I feel curse comes on us when we do not act properly on such issues. I must go for a lunch meeting (someone treating me )), would try to check mails tonight. Regards, Sushmita , Prafulla Gang <jyotish wrote: > > Hi Sushmita, > > excellent post. I observed people did not object to foul language (rather they were busy in defiending him yesterday) used by Sreenadh. When I read the thread, i realized he did the same with senior astrologer / member Shri Chandrasekhar ji. Yesterday, similiar thing happened on his own forum, when he rediculed another senior astrologer Robert Koch. Prior to that, he made / supported racist comment again Shri Sunil John. > > Well there seems to be history of such incidents. > > May be that is how people have learnt/adapted to resist in civilized (and self centered) society. > > Really shameful conduct. > > regards / Prafulla Gang > http://www.prafulla.net > > " Men who never get carried away should be. " > ************************************************ > > > > > > sushmita34 > > Sat, 07 Jul 2007 06:12:06 -0000 > > > > Only one man > > > > Hi All, > > Saturday is off and I decide to do jyotish after long time, I come to > > meet my friend and we see such mails on our favourite list wherein > > someone called Sreenadh is attacking Chandrashekhar and becoming so > > personal. So unfortunate to see hardly ONE MAN ON THIS LIST to come up > > to defense of Mr. Chandrashekhar. Hats off to you Mr. Mukesh & I hope > > Mr. Chandrashekhar has not left this list. Whether he has not knowledge > > or not is another question but atleast he maintains nobility in his > > talks. > > > > I have browsed through some mails and seems today is a sad day for this > > list which had greats like Mr. Rao who gave us pearls. The good old days > > would never come back. > > > > Shame on us all. > > > > Sushmita > > > > > > > > , " mukesh_vats9992 " > > mukesh_vats9992@ wrote: > >> > >> sreenadh ji, > >> hope you recognise me ,we are colleagues on another group and > >> probably that group is owned by you,perhaps you also remember the > >> long lecture given in context to conduct with people who are > >> knoeledgeable,elderly and have devoted their life for some cause. > >> then why is this use of indecent language for a person who is very > >> knowledgeable and perhaps elder to you as well. > >> i respect you for all the knowledge you have,it is definitely more > >> than me and perhaps more than a lot of other astrologers that i > >> know,i am your well wisher so i will be blunt enough to tell you > >> that i feel you have a habit of showcasing your knowledge > >> unneccessarily,giving references where they are not needed,quoting > >> left right and centre again unneccessarily,creating topics from > >> nowhere these are traits which should not be there in a person as > >> well read as you.sometimes it looks as if you are trying to bombard > >> lesser people like us with your knowledge.but sometimes you are > >> bound to get people like chandrashekhar ji who would cross question > >> you.you should have ideally let the matter cool down but you have > >> just blown it out of proportions by calling names to a very > >> knowledgeable and elderly person. > >> coming back to the original matter why this duality of giving long > >> lectures to people on conduct on your own group but misbehaving with > >> good people on another,is it because this group is not owned by you? > >> regards..mukesh > >> > >> , " Sreenadh " sreesog@ wrote: > >>> > >>> The problem not solved!!! > >>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji, I would advice you to first go and learn > >>> what " Bhoota Sankhya Vidhi " is!! What you are referring to is > >> Decimal > >>> system numbers pronounced in Decimal system style itself! Don't be > >>> this much idotic. Even though Brihat Jataka uses " Bhoota Sankhya > >>> Vidhi at some places it is not the rule that is followed through > >> out > >>> the book! It is elementary knowledge who know both " Bhoota Sakhya > >>> Vidhi " and " Decimal System " and also know how to differenciate > >>> Numbers notated using both of them! > >>> ==> > >>>> Brihat jataka type of writing of numbers. > >>> <== > >>> There is NO Brihat Jataka type of writing numbers! The statement > >> is > >>> absurd man! The fundamental number notation systems used were- > >>> 1. Decimal System (From Vedic Period) > >>> 2. Bhoota Sakhya Vidhi (From Vedic Period) > >>> 3. Arya Bhateeya System (From the period of Aryabhatta) > >>> 4. KaTaPaYa System (The time of origin still in mystery, and not > >> yet > >>> clarified by research) > >>> Know these facts and modify your arguments accordingly and > >>> the 'fact' mentioned in previous mail still hold - and makes me > >>> laugh. :=) > >>> P.S.: To see our own ignorance is a bliss, which only some rare > >>> individuals possess. What we know we know, what we don't we > >>> don't. Also, remember that error is human, and accepting it > >> needs > >>> courage. > >>> Love, > >>> Sreenadh > >>> > >>> , Chandrashekhar > >>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dear Sreenadh, > >>>> > >>>> Try to answer the questions asked, and not dodge them by > >> diverting > >>> the > >>>> issue. If you are so fixed on other methods of writing numbers. > >> It > >>> would > >>>> be interesting to see how you read > >>>> " shannavatyadhikanavashataadhikasahasramitaM " for me not using > >> the > >>>> principle " AmkaaMaaM Vamato gatiH " > >> Or " rasagraharandhrabhUmimitaM " , > >>> if > >>>> you like Brihat jataka type of writing of numbers. > >>>> > >>>> Chandrashekhar. > >>>> > >>>> Sreenadh wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > >>>>> The correct answer is 'Drop your ego'. > >>>>> > >>>>> As far as the ancient number systems are concerned- > >>>>> * As you rightly mentioned KaTaPaYa system and Decimal system > >> are > >>>>> from 'Right to Left' & > >>>>> * As I told Bhoota Sakhya system and Aryabhateeya system are > >>>>> from " Left to Right " > >>>>> > >>>>> If you are not getting the first point told (far) above > >> then I > >>>>> don't have anything to say. > >>>>> > >>>>> Now coming to commentary on some beginning Jaimini sutra > >> slokas > >>> are > >>>>> concerned - > >>>>> * I am totally new to the BPHS/Jaimini system, and came to this > >>>>> group asking a doubt " What is Argala? " > >>>>> * I think I made a good beginning in learning that system - as > >> you > >>>>> too may agree. > >>>>> * That (start learning of BPHS/Jaimini system in a proper way) > >> was > >>>>> the only thing intended. I have no wrong notions or claims > >> on > >>> the > >>>>> same. What you told about Jaimini's approach and use of > >> KaTaPaYa > >>>>> system is right and that was just a new info to me. Thanks for > >>>>> that. > >>>>> > >>>>> But see, I a vibrant childish individual with not much ego or > >> much > >>>>> defense, so be beware :=). It could be dangerous, if you have > >> same > >>>>> thing to protect. > >>>>> > >>>>> Love, > >>>>> Sreenadh > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> <%40>, Chandrashekhar > >>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You are good at dodging the original query. You do not > >> indicate > >>> how > >>>>> the > >>>>>> plain numbers are read, how do you read " Ekavimshat " ? You > >> may > >>> bring > >>>>> all > >>>>>> your knowledge of reading ankas from right to left, as you > >>> claim is > >>>>>> followed in Sanskrit, to bear upon on this two simple > >>> questions. If > >>>>> your > >>>>>> contention is right then it must be read as I said you > >> probably > >>>>> read it. > >>>>>> Interpreting sutras on wrong parameters and claiming them to > >> be > >>>>> right as > >>>>>> one is scholar of Sanskrit and thinking that knowledge of > >>> astrology > >>>>> is > >>>>>> not required, for translation of astrological texts, is of > >>> course > >>>>> your > >>>>>> privilege. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Chandrashekhar. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar, > >>>>>>> I always regard my self as none, nothing. I don't you > >>> comprehend > >>>>> it > >>>>>>> or not. We can be only students always - and the teacher > >> is > >>> always > >>>>>>> within, and the learning too always happen from within - > >> it > >>> can > >>>>> not > >>>>>>> be otherwise. > >>>>>>> Now coming back to the point of numbers. Even if roadside > >> old > >>> book > >>>>>>> shops you may find a book called 'Brihat Jataka' which is > >>>>> considered > >>>>>>> as one of the foundation book of astrology. There is a > >> soloka > >>> in > >>>>>>> it " Dasa Sikhi ManuYuk Thitheendiyamse... " which > >> uses " Bhoota > >>>>> Sakhya > >>>>>>> Vidhi " popular from far past vedic civilization to notate > >>> numbers. > >>>>>>> ManuYuk means = 14 x 2 = 28 which is the exaltation degree > >> for > >>>>> some > >>>>>>> planet, hope you may know which planet. > >>>>>>> If we look at Arya Bhateeyam we will find the sutras > >>>>> like " YugaRavi > >>>>>>> BhaganaH KhuKHru " where KhuKHru notates a number. KhUuKHru > >> = > >>>>> (Kh+U) > >>>>>>> u+KH+ru = (2+30)100^2+4+100^3=4320000. If you are > >> interested > >>> in > >>>>>>> teaching new way of mathametics to AryaBhatta; by saying > >>>>> that " ALWAYS > >>>>>>> numbers are written from right to left " - I would have > >> stay > >>> amazed > >>>>>>> and away from such a person (persona = mask) who has got > >> such > >>> a > >>>>> great > >>>>>>> knowledge! You should better discuss with those who > >> possess > >>> the > >>>>> same > >>>>>>> kind knowledge like Professional astrologer Bhasker ji and > >>>>> continue > >>>>>>> appreciating each other. > >>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>> Sreenadh > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>> <%40>, Chandrashekhar > >>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, > >>>>>>>> I do not claim to be knowledgeable. That is your claim, > >>> hence I > >>>>>>> asked > >>>>>>>> the question, which is unanswered so far. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Mr. Chandrashekhar, > >>>>>>>>> Oh! You seem to be very knowlegeable! r u really?!! > >>>>>>>>> By the way, how many questions are remaining now? > >>>>>>>>> Sreenadh > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>> <%40>, Chandrashekhar > >>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I see that you do not have any answer. > >>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar, > >>>>>>>>>>> Yap, it is really getting to be funny. :=) > >> Especailly > >>>>> because > >>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>> love teasing egos. Ha..Ha.. > >>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>> <%40>, > >>> Chandrashekhar > >>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> If that be the case, please let me know how you > >>>>>>> read " ekavimshat " > >>>>>>>>>>> I hope > >>>>>>>>>>>> you do not read it as 120 or 12. This is really > >>> getting > >>>>> to > >>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>> funny. > >>>>>>>>>>>> This is precisely the reason, I had said I > >> withdraw > >>>>> from the > >>>>>>>>>>> discussion. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekar, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanskrit ankas are always read with vama > >> gati, > >>> it is > >>>>>>> not the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proprietary right of KaTaPaYaadi system. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for enlightening - Are you inventing a > >>>>> new " Bhoota > >>>>>>> Sankhya > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vidhi " for Vedas and a new " Decimal system " > >>>>>>> and " Aryabhateeya > >>>>>>>>>>>>> System " ?!! Just refer it and know it is not so. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, if that is not acceptable to you > >>> then you > >>>>>>> will have > >>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> read D-Charts as independent charts to apply > >>> Jaimini > >>>>>>> sutras. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, thanks for the second invention - hope > >> it > >>>>> would be > >>>>>>> useful > >>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>> you. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please answer a question I asked you long > >>> back... > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not much interested, since the total > >> discussion > >>> could > >>>>> end > >>>>>>> up as a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> waste of for me. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>, > >>>>> Chandrashekhar > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanskrit ankas are always read with vama > >> gati, > >>> it is > >>>>>>> not the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> proprietary > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> right of KaTaPaYaadi system. The division by > >> 12 > >>> does > >>>>>>> not have > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anything > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do with Jaimini. The division by the > >>> variable is > >>>>>>> implied > >>>>>>>>>>> when > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> applying the system. Plain application of the > >>>>> numbers > >>>>>>> will give > >>>>>>>>>>>>> rasis > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that do not exist. What is done in such a > >> case > >>> in > >>>>>>> astrology is > >>>>>>>>>>>>> divided > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the maximum numbers possible hence the > >>> division > >>>>> by > >>>>>>> 12. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, if that is not acceptable to you > >>> then you > >>>>>>> will have > >>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>> read > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> D-Charts as independent charts to apply > >> Jaimini > >>>>> sutras. > >>>>>>> Please > >>>>>>>>>>>>> answer a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> question I asked you long back. Interpret the > >>>>>>> Sutra " Svasthe > >>>>>>>>>>> dara " , > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using what you think is the correct way to > >> apply > >>>>>>> KaTaPaYaaDi > >>>>>>>>>>> system > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sutras. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No - the KaPaTaYa system ends > >> with " ankanam > >>> vamato > >>>>>>> gati " and > >>>>>>>>>>> there > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no division by 12 involved; as is > >> evident > >>> from > >>>>> the > >>>>>>> many > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> astronomical works available (Text bys > >>> Vararuchi, > >>>>>>> Sangama > >>>>>>>>>>> grama > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Madhava, Neelakandha etc are examples). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you say that this division by 12 is a > >>> Jaimini > >>>>>>> extension to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KaPaTaYa system - i can understand and > >> accept > >>> it. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But for sure this " division by 12 rule " is > >> not > >>>>> part of > >>>>>>>>>>> KaPaTaYa > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Love, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>, > >>>>>>> Chandrashekhar > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the basic Katapayaadi principle > >>> about > >>>>>>> identifying > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variable. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dara = 28/12 =4 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhagya = 14/12=2 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shoola = 35/12 = 11. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That was good. Thanks for > >> clarification. > >>> But > >>>>> one > >>>>>>> more > >>>>>>>>>>> doubt > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remains - > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How come you (or anybody) interpret > >> that > >>> the > >>>>>>> KaTaPaYa > >>>>>>>>>>> numbers > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be divided by 12 ? How can we > >> argue > >>>>> that > >>>>>>> that the > >>>>>>>>>>> sloka > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asks us > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to divide the numbers by 12 ? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am sending the diagram to your > >> private > >>>>> mail > >>>>>>> id as > >>>>>>>>>>>>> requested. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am yet to receive it - but thanks in > >>>>> advance. > >>>>>>> Please > >>>>>>>>>>> send > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sreesog(at) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Love, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <% > >> 40>, > >>>>>>> Chandrashekhar > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That happens with all of us. I only > >>> thought > >>>>> it > >>>>>>> was my > >>>>>>>>>>> duty > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point out > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as this could lead to distorting of > >>>>> principles. > >>>>>>> The > >>>>>>>>>>> variable > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of rasis in the zodiac, which > >> is > >>> 12. > >>>>> So > >>>>>>> Dara = > >>>>>>>>>>> 28/12 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> =4 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhagya = 14/12=2 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shoola = 35/12 = 11. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The word Nidhayaatu is interpreted > >> as > >>> give > >>>>> or > >>>>>>> cast > >>>>>>>>>>> argala by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commentators including Neelkantha and > >>>>>>> Krishnaananda > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Saraswati. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dhaya > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means sucking and nidhaaya means > >> having > >>>>> fixed or > >>>>>>>>>>> layered > >>>>>>>>>>>>> upon > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being interpreted as > >>>>>>> obstruction/influence/argala > >>>>>>>>>>> appears > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ******** > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not being a scholar of Sanskrit > >> (though > >>> I > >>>>>>> understand > >>>>>>>>>>> quite > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a bit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brahmin by birth), I shall try to > >>> ascertain > >>>>>>> from my > >>>>>>>>>>> brother- > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> law who > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was professor of Linguistics at Both > >>>>> Michigan > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>> Bombay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> university and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Sanskrit scholar himself or the > >> Vice > >>>>>>> Chancellor of > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanskrit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> University here, when I meet them. On > >>>>> learning > >>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>> them, I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly write to you. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ******** > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am sending the diagram to your > >> private > >>>>> mail > >>>>>>> id as > >>>>>>>>>>>>> requested. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ********** > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for the mistake I made in > >> haste > >>>>> about > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> KaTaPaYaDi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ka Kha Ga Gha Ngha Ca Cha Ja Jha > >> Nja > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ta Tha Da Dha Na Ta Tha Da Tha Na > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pa Pha Ba Bha Ma > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ya Ra La Va Sa Sha Sa Ha > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Da - Ra = 8-2 " Sankhyanam Vamato > >> Gati " > >>>>> (The > >>>>>>> numbers > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counted > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in reverse order); Thus it becomes > >> 28. > >>>>> Thus > >>>>>>> DaRa = 28 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhag-Ya = 14 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Soo-La = 35 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry. It was not the > >> understanding > >>> but > >>>>> the > >>>>>>> haste > >>>>>>>>>>> caused > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mistake. Thanks for pointing it > >> out. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Divide by variable and you get > >> the > >>>>> answer. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DaRa = 28; BhagYa=14; SooLa = 35 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Variable (common multiple) > >> here > >>> is 7. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 28/7 = 04; 14/7 = 02 ; 35/7 = 5 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus my answers would be 4-2-5. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is this? 4-2-5 ?!! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am I supposed to interpret that > >>> Planets > >>>>> in 4- > >>>>>>> 2-5 will > >>>>>>>>>>>>> cause > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Virodhargala? What is the trick > >> you > >>> are > >>>>>>> using - > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * To change 4-2-5 to 4-2-11 ? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * To change Virodhargala to > >> Aargala? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sutra is " Dara Bhagya Sulastha > >>> Argala > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nidhyatu " . " Argala > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nidhyatu " definitely > >>>>> means " Destroys/Oppose > >>>>>>> Argala " i > >>>>>>>>>>>>> hope; > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there another interpretation? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the info - but please > >>> clarify. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.S: Please send the diagram to my > >>>>> personal > >>>>>>> mail id, > >>>>>>>>>>> as I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read the group posts from the web > >> (I > >>> used > >>>>> to > >>>>>>> select > >>>>>>>>>>> no- > >>>>>>>>>>>>> mail > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all groups). Thanks for the doc in > >>>>> advance. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * By the way, can you provide me > >> any > >>>>>>> reference to > >>>>>>>>>>> use of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KaTaPaYaDi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system in any other book prior to > >> AD > >>> 4th > >>>>>>> century. I > >>>>>>>>>>> think > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look back > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is necessory at the history of this > >>>>> system. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Love, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- In > >> > >>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <% > >>> 40>, > >>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read the shloka on Parijatamsha > >> and > >>> let > >>>>> me > >>>>>>> know > >>>>>>>>>>> what you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time Parashara lived or at least > >>> when > >>>>> the > >>>>>>> text was > >>>>>>>>>>>>> recited > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maitreya. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ******** > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not agree with that logic as > >>>>>>> Katapayaadi is > >>>>>>>>>>> to be > >>>>>>>>>>>>> used > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation of the factors > >> other > >>> than > >>>>>>> when > >>>>>>>>>>> grahas are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we accept your contention > >> that > >>> common > >>>>>>> meaning > >>>>>>>>>>> of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words is to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used and equate Dara with 7th, > >>> Bhagya > >>>>> with > >>>>>>> 9th and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presumably > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shoola > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with 6th (though I would > >> associate > >>> it > >>>>> with > >>>>>>> 11th). > >>>>>>>>>>> Where > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11th > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhava enter the sutra? Equating > >> 7th > >>> with > >>>>>>> 11th for > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sake > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advancing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an argument is fine, but is that > >>> right? > >>>>> I > >>>>>>> do not > >>>>>>>>>>> think > >>>>>>>>>>>>> so. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If, as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say, we have to bring in > >> Parashara > >>> then > >>>>> why > >>>>>>> not the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> argalas > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocks those from 2,4 and 11? I > >>> would > >>>>> like > >>>>>>> to know > >>>>>>>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the sutra " Svasthe Dara " . > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ******************* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the > >>> words > >>>>> used > >>>>>>> in the > >>>>>>>>>>> above > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sloka > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicates - > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dara = 24 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhagya = 12 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Soola = 37 " > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see that you are interpreting > >>>>> katapayaadi > >>>>>>> in a > >>>>>>>>>>> novel > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manner. Da > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 4th letter in Ta varga, it > >> is > >>> the > >>>>> 8th > >>>>>>> one. No > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation has gone awry. > >>>>> Katapayaadi > >>>>>>> rules are > >>>>>>>>>>>>> almost > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as you insist that it is only > >> used > >>> in > >>>>> south > >>>>>>> India > >>>>>>>>>>> ( Now > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coming to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference to " KaTaPaYaaDi " -I > >>> thought > >>>>>>>>>>> that " KaTaPaYaaDi " > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was system > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> popular only in south India.), I > >> am > >>> sure > >>>>>>> you must > >>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> familiar with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dara is 28, Bhagya is 14 and > >> Shoola > >>> is > >>>>> 35 > >>>>>>> (reversed > >>>>>>>>>>>>> values > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alphabets in Katapayaadi Vargas). > >>>>> Divide by > >>>>>>>>>>> variable and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you get > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer. By the way Sanskrit > >>> language is > >>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>> limited to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> South India > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nor are the katapayaadi rules. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *********** > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am sure you must be familiar > >> with > >>> the > >>>>> word > >>>>>>>>>>> Sanakaadi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rishis. They > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ones sitting in front of > >>>>> Dakshinamurti- > >>>>>>> Shiva. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanandan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. Read Purva Bhaga 2nd pada > >>> shiksha > >>>>>>> prakarana > >>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Narada > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Purana > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you will find the name. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *********** > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The way you asked for the > >> reference > >>> I > >>>>>>> thought you > >>>>>>>>>>> were > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are not more than x number > >> of > >>>>>>> adhayaayas of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More so as you were insisting > >> that > >>>>> Jaimini > >>>>>>> was only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spreading the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching of Parashara and so on. > >>> That > >>>>> is I > >>>>>>> asked > >>>>>>>>>>> you if > >>>>>>>>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference about the number of > >>> adhyaayas > >>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>>>> manuscripts. I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commentaries on Jaimini and some > >>>>>>> photocopies of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> manuscripts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhandarkar research institute > >>> (kindly > >>>>> sent > >>>>>>> to me > >>>>>>>>>>> by one > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friends > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who has forgotten more Jaimini > >> than, > >>>>>>> perhaps, what > >>>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read) and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of them agree that there are 8 > >>>>> adhayaayas > >>>>>>> written > >>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> which > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 4 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been discovered till date. Some > >>> Pandits > >>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>> Varanasi are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possess > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some more manuscripts but our > >>> attempts > >>>>> to > >>>>>>> procure > >>>>>>>>>>> them > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vain > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till now. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ************ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, is that so? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ************ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do that. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *********** > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not to your views > >>> about > >>>>> how > >>>>>>> argalas > >>>>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> viewed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again I read Sitaram Jha's > >> edition > >>> of > >>>>> BPHS, > >>>>>>> that is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referred to in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document, and do not find the > >> shloka > >>>>>>> mentioned in > >>>>>>>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>>>>>> pdf > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you quote the shloka and adhyaaya > >>>>> number? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *********** > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you must have drawn the > >>>>> diagram > >>>>>>> since > >>>>>>>>>>> you were > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the description of Parashara > >>> matching > >>>>> the > >>>>>>> south > >>>>>>>>>>> Indian > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chart in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earlier > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mail. I'm attaching the diagram > >> I > >>> have > >>>>> with > >>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>>> mail > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all those who are perhaps > >>> interested in > >>>>>>> Jaimini > >>>>>>>>>>> and rasi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects. I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure you will pardon my poor > >> skills > >>> with > >>>>>>> drawing > >>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> draftsmanship. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take care, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is believed tat Jaimini > >> was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> student of Vyasa and some > >>> therefore > >>>>>>> believe > >>>>>>>>>>> him to > >>>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shishya of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara who was father of > >>> Vyasa. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is news to me - but of > >> not > >>> much > >>>>> use, > >>>>>>>>>>> because I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe based > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some available evidence, that > >> the > >>>>>>> Parashara who > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BPHS and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara Samhita was not the > >>>>> Parshara of > >>>>>>>>>>> Mahabharata > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> period, as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned in some of my > >> previous > >>>>> mails. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we accept your > >> translation " > >>>>> planets > >>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>> 11th 9th > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6th > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> destroys argala yoga " as the > >>> right > >>>>>>>>>>> interpretation of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the shloka > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we may, perhaps, have to > >>>>> redefine > >>>>>>>>>>> KaTaPaYaaDi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules. Most of the > >> commentators, > >>>>>>> rightly, > >>>>>>>>>>> think they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refer to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4, 2 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and 11 houses and indicating > >> the > >>>>> argala > >>>>>>> cast > >>>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>>>> those > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> houses. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you throw some light > >> on > >>> how > >>>>> you > >>>>>>> equated > >>>>>>>>>>> Dara > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhagya and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shoola with 11-9 and 6? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sutra is " Dara Bhagya > >> Sulastha > >>>>> Argala > >>>>>>>>>>> Nidhyatu " . > >>>>>>>>>>>>> By > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge Dara is wife and is > >> 7th; > >>>>> Bhagya > >>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>> luck and > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9th; > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Soola > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is suffering and is 6th. The > >> sutra > >>>>> says > >>>>>>> these > >>>>>>>>>>> houses > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distroys > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argala > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yoga, i.e. cause Virodhargala. > >>>>> Looking at > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> light of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BPHS sloka > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stating 4-2-11 houses causing > >>> Argala > >>>>> we > >>>>>>> find > >>>>>>>>>>> that this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sloka > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the combinations that > >>> obstruct > >>>>> the > >>>>>>> same; > >>>>>>>>>>> and a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scrutiny > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the logic applied behind > >>> reveals > >>>>> that > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> word " Dara " > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (wife) is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to mean 11th house here. > >> And > >>>>> thus the > >>>>>>>>>>> derivation- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " Planets in 11-9-6 cause > >>> Virodhargala > >>>>> to > >>>>>>> Argala > >>>>>>>>>>>>> caused by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planets > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 4-2-11 respectively " > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The logic behind is 11th is > >> 8th > >>> from > >>>>> 4th, > >>>>>>> 9th is > >>>>>>>>>>> 8th > >>>>>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd, 6th > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is 8th from 11th - the > >> pointing > >>> to 8th > >>>>>>> house > >>>>>>>>>>> being the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now comming to reference > >>>>>>> to " KaTaPaYaaDi " - > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought that " KaTaPaYaaDi " > >> was > >>>>> system > >>>>>>> popular > >>>>>>>>>>> only > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> south > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> India. (Pradeep may have > >>> something to > >>>>> say > >>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> same) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vararuchi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is thought to have introduced > >> this > >>>>> system > >>>>>>> in 4th > >>>>>>>>>>>>> centrury > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no reference to this system > >>> prior > >>>>> to > >>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>>> period, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current knowledge. Even though > >>> some > >>>>> refer > >>>>>>> to the > >>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word " jaya " in Maharbharata to > >>> argue > >>>>> that > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> system > >>>>>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at that time, neither > >> Mahabharata > >>> nor > >>>>> any > >>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>> text > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ancient > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past provides us explicit proof > >>>>>>>>>>> that, " KaTaPaYaDi " > >>>>>>>>>>>>> system > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at that time. But it is clear > >> that > >>>>> from > >>>>>>> vedic > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> period " Bhoota > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankhya > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system " and " Decimal system " > >> was > >>> in > >>>>> use. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the > >>> words > >>>>> used > >>>>>>> in the > >>>>>>>>>>> above > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sloka > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicates - > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dara = 24 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhagya = 12 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Soola = 37 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you want to interpret > >> it to > >>>>> 04 - > >>>>>>> 02 - > >>>>>>>>>>> 11 ?!!! > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaborate the " KaTaPaYaDi " > >> rules > >>> you > >>>>> have > >>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>> mind? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Further if somebody is > >>>>>>> finding " KaTaPaYaDi " > >>>>>>>>>>> rules in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jaimini > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sutra, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is clear that the text > >>> originated > >>>>>>> after 4th > >>>>>>>>>>> century > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD, since > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the " KaTaPaYaDi " system came to > >>>>> existance > >>>>>>> by that > >>>>>>>>>>>>> period > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only. I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't think that you would > >> like > >>> that > >>>>>>>>>>> argument. If > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of " KaTaPaYaDi " is present in > >>> Jaimini > >>>>>>> Sutra, > >>>>>>>>>>> then well > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and good. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that case 2 possiblities > >> exists- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Jaimini sutra is a text > >>> originated > >>>>>>> after 4th > >>>>>>>>>>>>> century. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * " KaTaPaYaDi " system existed > >> even > >>>>> prior > >>>>>>> to 4th > >>>>>>>>>>>>> century > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I am yet to find any sutra > >>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>> support " KaTaPaYaDi " > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini Sutra. Possibily I may > >> or > >>> may > >>>>> not > >>>>>>> find > >>>>>>>>>>> some, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am yet > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read or study the complete > >> text. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanandan rishi that gave the > >>>>> Jyotish to > >>>>>>> Narada > >>>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whose > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shishyas > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like Garga and then Shaunaka > >>> even > >>>>>>> Parashara > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledges having > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> received the principles of > >>> Jyotish, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not mentioned among the > >>>>> Pravartakas. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanadan Rishi?! The name is > >> new to > >>>>> me - > >>>>>>> can you > >>>>>>>>>>> quote > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sloka? I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am familiar with the names > >> such as > >>>>> Skanda, > >>>>>>>>>>> Sanaka, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saunaka etc - > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet to see a sloka stating > >> that > >>> there > >>>>> was > >>>>>>> some > >>>>>>>>>>> Rishi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanadan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who imparted astrological > >>> knowledge to > >>>>>>> Narada. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The word meaning of the > >>>>> word " Sanadan " is > >>>>>>>>>>> something > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like " Ever > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lasting " i think. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact of 8 adhyaayas of > >>> Jaimini > >>>>> being > >>>>>>>>>>> written is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many worthies like > >> Suryanarain > >>> Rao, > >>>>>>> B.V. Raman > >>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>> many > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commentators of Jaimini > >> sutras, > >>> if > >>>>> my > >>>>>>> memory > >>>>>>>>>>> serves > >>>>>>>>>>>>> me > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. Do > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have any reference that > >>> mentions > >>>>>>> exactly > >>>>>>>>>>> how > >>>>>>>>>>>>> many > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adhyaayas > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini sutras were written? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have that, it might > >>> benefit > >>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> astrological > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brotherhood > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh!! I am asking were it is > >> said > >>> so, > >>>>> and > >>>>>>> you are > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asking > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference!! I am yet to see > >> or > >>>>> read the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> commentaries > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Jaimini > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sutra by Suryanarain Rao or > >> B.V. > >>>>> Raman. > >>>>>>> My be I > >>>>>>>>>>> may > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some clue > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from them, about where to find > >> the > >>>>>>> reference. > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the info. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe > >>> KaulakaanaaM > >>>>>>> phalaani > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rogaadayaH. " > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the reference to > >>> Kaulaka in > >>>>>>> Jaimini > >>>>>>>>>>> sutras. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is possible you may have > >>> interpreted > >>>>>>> this in a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different manner > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as in case of 4th sutra of > >> 1st > >>>>>>> chapter,1st > >>>>>>>>>>> pada. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ha ha.. It may happen, I > >> don't > >>> know > >>>>>>> yet. I am > >>>>>>>>>>> yet > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> portion of the book, I have > >> just > >>>>> started > >>>>>>> my > >>>>>>>>>>> study of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini sutra > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only. When I complete studying > >>> though > >>>>> the > >>>>>>> book - > >>>>>>>>>>> many > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revelations > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and insights may come to > >> me.. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I mean why should he ignore > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Graha drishti told by > >>>>> Parashara, if > >>>>>>> he was > >>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocate only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara's teaching. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini " ignores " Graha > >> Drishi?! I > >>>>> keep a > >>>>>>> watch > >>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continuing my study of Jaimini > >>> sutra > >>>>> and > >>>>>>> come > >>>>>>>>>>> back > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supporting or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposing evidance later. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not think Parashara > >>> supports > >>>>>>> Argala from > >>>>>>>>>>> 7th > >>>>>>>>>>>>> house > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhava. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The results given for > >> argalas in > >>>>> BPHS > >>>>>>> are about > >>>>>>>>>>>>> argalas > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> houses and not from the > >> houses. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argalas on the houses and from > >> the > >>>>>>> houses! Why > >>>>>>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confusion and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity?! When Parasara is > >>> speaking > >>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>> Argala > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planets > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in various houses, then the > >>> results > >>>>> told > >>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attributed to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same - right? This is > >> normal > >>>>> simple > >>>>>>> logical > >>>>>>>>>>> path. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have not responded to my > >>> request > >>>>>>> for the > >>>>>>>>>>> diagram > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicated > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara as indicated by > >> you. > >>> May I > >>>>>>> know why? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can send the file in .doc > >>> format > >>>>> as I > >>>>>>> drew > >>>>>>>>>>> it in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I haven't drawn any diagram > >>> how am > >>>>> I > >>>>>>> supposed > >>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>> give > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you? Please mail the doc you > >>>>> created > >>>>>>> in my > >>>>>>>>>>> mail id: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sreesog@ <sreesog% > >>> 40yhoo.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Love and Hugs, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- In > >>> > >>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <% > >>> 40> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <% > >>>>> 40>, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am sorry if that was not > >> your > >>>>>>> intention when > >>>>>>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>>>>>> said > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to further teachings > >> of > >>>>>>> Parashara. It is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believed tat > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> student of Vyasa and some > >>> therefore > >>>>>>> believe > >>>>>>>>>>> him to > >>>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shishya of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara who was father of > >>> Vyasa. > >>>>> If > >>>>>>> that is > >>>>>>>>>>> not so > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini wanting to elaborate > >> on > >>>>>>> Parashara's > >>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advanced by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes even more tenuous. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have read what you > >> translated > >>>>> about > >>>>>>> the the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sutra. I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the translation or > >>> interpretation > >>>>> of the > >>>>>>>>>>> sutras out > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However as you think I have > >> not > >>> read > >>>>>>> the pdf > >>>>>>>>>>> file, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> let > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me assure > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I have and do not find > >> any > >>>>> sutras > >>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini > >>>>>>>>>>>>> quoted > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therein to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support your contention that > >>> 11th > >>>>> house > >>>>>>> argala > >>>>>>>>>>>>> blocks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4th > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhava. If we accept your > >>>>> translation " > >>>>>>> planets > >>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 11th > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9th and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6th > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> destroys argala yoga " as the > >>> right > >>>>>>>>>>> interpretation of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the shloka > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may, perhaps, have to > >> redefine > >>>>>>> KaTaPaYaaDi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation rules. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commentators, rightly, > >> think > >>>>> they > >>>>>>> refer to > >>>>>>>>>>> 4, 2 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> houses > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicating the argala cast > >> from > >>>>> those > >>>>>>> houses. > >>>>>>>>>>> Could > >>>>>>>>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throw > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on how you equated Dara > >> Bhagya > >>> and > >>>>>>> Shoola with > >>>>>>>>>>> 11-9 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am sorry, if the portion > >> about > >>>>>>> Jaimini being > >>>>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pravartaka > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appeared in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mail. That was a slip on > >> my > >>>>> part. I > >>>>>>>>>>> remember > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writing that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pravartaka or not not being > >>>>> material as > >>>>>>> even > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanandan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rishi that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gave > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Jyotish to Narada from > >> whose > >>>>>>> shishyas like > >>>>>>>>>>> Garga > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaunaka > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even Parashara acknowledges > >>> having > >>>>>>> received the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principles of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jyotish, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not mentioned among the > >>>>> Pravartakas. > >>>>>>> Did > >>>>>>>>>>> that not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appear in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mail > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> received by you? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact of 8 adhyaayas of > >>> Jaimini > >>>>> being > >>>>>>>>>>> written is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worthies like Suryanarain > >> Rao, > >>> B.V. > >>>>>>> Raman and > >>>>>>>>>>> many > >>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commentators of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini sutras, if my memory > >>> serves > >>>>> me > >>>>>>> right. > >>>>>>>>>>> Do you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that mentions exactly how > >> many > >>>>>>> adhyaayas of > >>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sutras were > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have that, it might > >>> benefit > >>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> astrological > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brotherhood > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe > >>> KaulakaanaaM > >>>>>>> phalaani > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rogaadayaH. " This > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference to Kaulaka in > >> Jaimini > >>>>> sutras. > >>>>>>> Of > >>>>>>>>>>> course > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you may > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have interpreted this in a > >>> different > >>>>>>> manner as > >>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> case > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of 4th > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sutra > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1st chapter,1st pada. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does my mail mention that > >>> Jaimini > >>>>>>> ignored rasi > >>>>>>>>>>>>> drishti? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sign of my age and health > >>>>> catching > >>>>>>> up. I > >>>>>>>>>>> mean > >>>>>>>>>>>>> why > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Graha drishti told by > >>>>> Parashara, if > >>>>>>> he was > >>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocate only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara's teaching. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was perhaps wrong of me > >> to > >>> ask > >>>>> for > >>>>>>> the name > >>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> edition of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BPHS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you were quoting from, not > >>> having > >>>>> gone > >>>>>>> through > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find that you are referring > >> to > >>>>> Sitaram > >>>>>>> Jha > >>>>>>>>>>> edition. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall read > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant shloka, as > >> translated > >>> by > >>>>>>> Sitaram Jha, > >>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>> send > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them tomorrow. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not think Parashara > >>> supports > >>>>>>> Argala from > >>>>>>>>>>> 7th > >>>>>>>>>>>>> house > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhava. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results given for argalas in > >>> BPHS > >>>>> are > >>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>> argalas > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> houses > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not from the houses. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have not responded to my > >>> request > >>>>>>> for the > >>>>>>>>>>> diagram > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicated > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara as indicated by > >> you. > >>> May I > >>>>>>> know why? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can send the file in .doc > >>> format > >>>>> as I > >>>>>>> drew > >>>>>>>>>>> it in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrasekhar ji, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the comments. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can find that the > >> entire > >>>>> thrust > >>>>>>> of the > >>>>>>>>>>> same > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to prove that Jaimini > >> was > >>>>>>> shishya of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vyaasa....?!!! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From where Vyasa came in?! > >> I > >>>>> haven't > >>>>>>> even > >>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the name > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vyasa > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that document! And never > >>>>> argued so! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How ever the sutras to > >>> support > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your concept about 11th > >>> house > >>>>>>> giving virodh > >>>>>>>>>>>>> argala > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4th > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> house > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argala etc. do not > >> appear in > >>>>> your > >>>>>>> PDF file. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh! The first sutra of > >> Jaimini > >>>>> about > >>>>>>> Argala > >>>>>>>>>>> states > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same! I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaborated on the same in > >>> detail > >>>>> as > >>>>>>> well. > >>>>>>>>>>> Did you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pdf > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for sure?! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini does not appear > >> in > >>> the > >>>>> 18 > >>>>>>>>>>> Pravartakas is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Below is the shloka > >> Samhita > >>>>> giving > >>>>>>> names > >>>>>>>>>>> of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 18 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pravartakas,.... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is the sloka?! In > >> your > >>> mail > >>>>> I > >>>>>>> couldn't > >>>>>>>>>>> find > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that, please > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it in the next mail. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 4 out of 8 > >> adhayaayas > >>> of > >>>>>>> Jaimini > >>>>>>>>>>> sutras are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till date. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is new knowledge to > >> me, > >>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>> for the > >>>>>>>>>>> same. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pelase > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaborate, where it is > >>> mentioned > >>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>> complete > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini sutra > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8 adhyaayas? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some concept like > >> Kauluka or > >>>>>>> application > >>>>>>>>>>> of D-6 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peculiar > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini and not found in > >>>>> Parashara. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kauluka?! That also is new > >> to > >>> me. > >>>>> Can > >>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>>>> provide > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more info, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is also necessary to > >>> explain > >>>>> as > >>>>>>> to why > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drishtis which Jaimini > >>> ignores > >>>>>>> totally. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini " ignores " Rasi > >>> Drishti?! > >>>>> In > >>>>>>> many > >>>>>>>>>>> slokas of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the intial > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chapter, Jaimini describes > >>> Rasi > >>>>>>> Drishti > >>>>>>>>>>> itself! > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Jaimini ignores Rasi > >>>>> Drishti?!! > >>>>>>> That > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also " totally " ?!! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think twise before stating > >> so! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The shloka bout 7th > >> Bhava > >>> argala > >>>>>>> given by > >>>>>>>>>>> you is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you give the edition > >> of > >>>>>>> Parashari that > >>>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the shloka and > >> adhyaaya > >>>>> number? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The edition of BPHS I > >>> referred is > >>>>>>> mentioned > >>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pdf > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> edition of Jaimini sutra I > >>>>> referred > >>>>>>> is also > >>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The shloka could also be > >>>>> translated > >>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>> mean that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither a weak argala not > >>>>> planets > >>>>>>> in 7th > >>>>>>>>>>> cause > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obstruction > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argala, indicating that > >> 7th > >>>>> house, > >>>>>>> from the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> house > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> receiving > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> casting argala can not > >> cast > >>>>> argala > >>>>>>> or can > >>>>>>>>>>> not be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taken into > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration for giving > >>> virodh > >>>>>>> argala. > >>>>>>>>>>> This > >>>>>>>>>>>>> could > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given by way of > >> amplifying > >>> the > >>>>>>> concept of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> argalas. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argala results for 7th > >> house > >>> is > >>>>> given > >>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>> BPHS, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> thus > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parasara supports Argala > >>> caused by > >>>>>>> planets > >>>>>>>>>>> in 7th > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> house. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find you describing > >> the > >>> way > >>>>>>> Parashara has > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asked > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cast a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chakra and saying that > >> this > >>>>> itself > >>>>>>> proves > >>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signs can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects. It would have > >>> supported > >>>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments, if > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you had > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drawn > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the chakra as described > >> by > >>>>>>> Parashara and > >>>>>>>>>>>>> indicated > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drishtis > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described in the sutras > >> fit > >>> th > >>>>>>> Chakra > >>>>>>>>>>> drawn with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aries and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taurus in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> east, etc. It would have > >>> been > >>>>>>> interesting > >>>>>>>>>>> to see > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please send the diagram > >> (pdf > >>> file) > >>>>>>> you send > >>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep to me > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well. I would be thankful. > >>>>> Possibly I > >>>>>>> may > >>>>>>>>>>> get some > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new insight > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Love, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- In > >>>>> <% > >>> 40> > >>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <% > >>> 40> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <% > >>>>> 40> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <% > >>>>>>> 40>, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have read the pdf > >> file. I > >>> can > >>>>>>> find that > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire thrust > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to prove that Jaimini > >> was > >>>>>>> shishya of > >>>>>>>>>>> Vyaasa > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to spread the knowledge > >> of > >>>>>>> Parashara. How > >>>>>>>>>>> ever > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sutras to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your concept about 11th > >>> house > >>>>>>> giving virodh > >>>>>>>>>>>>> argala > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4th > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> house > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argala etc. do not > >> appear in > >>>>> your > >>>>>>> PDF > >>>>>>>>>>> file. The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini does not appear > >> in > >>> the > >>>>> 18 > >>>>>>>>>>> Pravartakas is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Below is the shloka > >> Samhita > >>>>> giving > >>>>>>> names > >>>>>>>>>>> of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 18 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pravartakas, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right, does not in any > >> way > >>> prove > >>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini > >>>>>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaborating > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on what > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was taught by Parashara. > >> Had > >>>>> that > >>>>>>> been the > >>>>>>>>>>> case > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referred the readers to > >>>>> Parashara's > >>>>>>>>>>> principles > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> telling > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " horadaya siddhaaH " , in > >>> effect > >>>>>>> telling the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> readers > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to refer > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> texts (for what is not > >> told > >>> in > >>>>> the > >>>>>>> sutras/ > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> basic > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concepts of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> astrology). Narada one > >> of > >>> the > >>>>>>> Pravartakas > >>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jyotish and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through whose > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lineage, even Parashara > >>> accepts > >>>>>>> having got > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jyotish > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> received his knowledge > >>> through > >>>>> rishi > >>>>>>>>>>> Sanandan, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> who > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> named > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amongst > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pravartakas. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even the translation > >>>>> of " upadesham > >>>>>>>>>>> vyakhyasaam " > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as " I am > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commenting on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the advise of Jaimini " > >> does > >>> not > >>>>>>> appear > >>>>>>>>>>> correct > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> venerated > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Krishnaanand Saraswati > >> the > >>>>>>> commentator on > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sutras, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nor > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neelakantha interprets > >> it > >>> that > >>>>> way. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The logic that you have > >>>>> presented > >>>>>>> is that > >>>>>>>>>>> some > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shlokas > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appearing in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BPHS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaborate upon what is > >> said > >>> in > >>>>>>> Jaimini > >>>>>>>>>>> sutras > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is based > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on Parashara only. The > >>> argument > >>>>>>> appears to > >>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attractive, at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> glance, but does not > >> hold > >>> water. > >>>>>>> There are > >>>>>>>>>>> many > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vriddha > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Karikas > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain the rasi > >> drishtis > >>> and > >>>>> it is > >>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting to note > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rasi drishti appear in > >>> BPHS, not > >>>>>>> much about > >>>>>>>>>>>>> their > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usage or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that distinguishes their > >> use > >>>>> from > >>>>>>> that of > >>>>>>>>>>> Graha > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drishti is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> text. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " ubhayaanubhayaH > >>> pashyeccaraan > >>>>>>> sthaasnuH > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sthiraaMshcaraH | > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> samIpasaMsthitaM raashiM > >>> tyktwaa > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trIMstrInyathaakramam || " > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vriddha > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Karikas and many other > >>> shlokas > >>>>> in > >>>>>>> many > >>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>> texts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referred > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the sutra of > >>> Jaimini > >>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>> understand > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sutras on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drishti. I have many > >> other > >>>>> shlokas > >>>>>>> besides > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicated in the > >> document. > >>> So > >>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>> argument does > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not hold > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One could also say that > >> the > >>>>> Jaimini > >>>>>>>>>>> concept of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drishti > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appear in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BPHS, if mere parallel > >>> shlokas > >>>>>>> means the > >>>>>>>>>>> test of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> borrowing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> granthas. The argument > >> that > >>>>> since > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> effects of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argalas are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BPHS means that Jaimini > >>>>> borrowed the > >>>>>>>>>>> concept > >>>>>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BPHS, it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the info on that part is > >>>>> misleading > >>>>>>> as it > >>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 4 out > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of 8 adhayaayas of > >> Jaimini > >>>>> sutras > >>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>>> available > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till date. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some concept like > >> Kauluka or > >>>>>>> application > >>>>>>>>>>> of D-6 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peculiar > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not found in > >> Parashara. > >>> If > >>>>> one > >>>>>>> were to > >>>>>>>>>>>>> accept > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument. even > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this concept should have > >>> been in > >>>>>>> BPHS. It > >>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as to why Parashara has > >>> given > >>>>> rasi > >>>>>>> drishtis > >>>>>>>>>>>>> which > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignores > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally. Surely, he > >> would > >>> not do > >>>>>>> that if > >>>>>>>>>>> he was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaborating > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara said. He would > >>> also > >>>>> not > >>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>> skipped > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vimshottari > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kalachakra dasha which > >>> Parashara > >>>>>>> opines > >>>>>>>>>>> are the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> most > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amongst > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dashas, in his sutras. > >> Most > >>> of > >>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>> arguments > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being argala yogas in > >>> Jaimini > >>>>> and > >>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>>>> appearing in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> face of it are good > >> though > >>> there > >>>>>>> are only > >>>>>>>>>>>>> results > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Argalas > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given in BPHS and not > >> argala > >>>>> yogas > >>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>> claimed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> That > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refers one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to standard texts in the > >>> first > >>>>>>> chapter, > >>>>>>>>>>> only is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument presented. > >> Sutras > >>> are > >>>>>>> rightly > >>>>>>>>>>> known for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brevity > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even the brahma sutras > >> can > >>> be > >>>>>>> interpreted > >>>>>>>>>>> by > >>>>>>>>>>>>> mere > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translation. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One has > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to interpret them taking > >>> help of > >>>>>>> basic > >>>>>>>>>>>>> principles > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard texts. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The shloka bout 7th > >> Bhava > >>> argala > >>>>>>> given by > >>>>>>>>>>> you is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give the edition of > >>> Parashari > >>>>> that > >>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>> appears in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shloka > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adhyaaya number? The > >> shloka > >>>>> could > >>>>>>> also be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translated to mean > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither a weak argala not > >>>>> planets > >>>>>>> in 7th > >>>>>>>>>>> cause > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obstruction > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argala, indicating that > >> 7th > >>>>> house, > >>>>>>> from the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> house > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> receiving > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> casting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argala can not cast > >> argala > >>> or > >>>>> can > >>>>>>> not be > >>>>>>>>>>> taken > >>>>>>>>>>>>> into > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving virodh argala. > >> This > >>> could > >>>>>>> only have > >>>>>>>>>>> been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amplifying the concept of > >>>>> argalas. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find you describing > >> the > >>> way > >>>>>>> Parashara has > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asked > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cast a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi chakra > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and saying that this > >> itself > >>>>> proves > >>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>> signs > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have supported your > >>> arguments, > >>>>> if > >>>>>>> you had > >>>>>>>>>>> drawn > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chakra > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Parashara and > >> indicated > >>> how > >>>>> the > >>>>>>> drishtis > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sutras fit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> th Chakra drawn with > >> Aries > >>> and > >>>>>>> Taurus in > >>>>>>>>>>> east, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting to see this. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So while congratulating > >> you > >>> on > >>>>> the > >>>>>>> efforts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undertaken to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a PDF > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document on Jaimini > >> sutras, > >>> I > >>>>> must > >>>>>>> disagree > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusions drawn > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there in. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said earlier, let > >> us > >>> agree > >>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>> disagree on > >>>>>>>>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear All, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The following document > >> is > >>> a > >>>>>>> commentary > >>>>>>>>>>> for the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> portion of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini sutra. > >> Currently > >>> it > >>>>>>> covers the > >>>>>>>>>>> portion > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upto Rasi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Drishti and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argala. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------- > >> --- > >>> ---- > >>>>> ---- > >>>>>>>>>>> ------- > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: > >> 269.8.13/844 - > >>>>> Release > >>>>>>> Date: > >>>>>>>>>>> 6/11/2007 5:10 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been > >>> removed] > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ---------------------- > >> --- > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - > >>> Release > >>>>>>> Date: > >>>>>>>>> 6/11/2007 5:10 PM > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Hi Sushmita, > Thanks. I just might not believe what you wrote. [Prafulla] - well, once you read the threads / posts, you will have to believe it painfully. > > 1) I read a post where good old Chandrashekhar was insulted, are you > telling me the moderator did nothing about it later. I just read a quick > post by Mukesh but assumed that later Pradeep or maybe members who are > older to him cum senior here would have come forth and reprimanded such > display of arrogance. Did Ben do nothing about it. > [Prafulla] what is the point, once damage is done or abuse is caused. I do not think, that moderator banned him - else, he would not have repeated the incident. > 2) I did not know this Sreenadh had a forum, Robert Koch is a very > senior astrologer ridiculing him means Kaliyuga has really started in > his worst form here on these lists. > > 3) This is shocking and the very first in the history of forums I assume > - a Racist comment and that too against Sunil. Let me go deeper in > this..... This would have caused Sunil to unleash his fury on that list, > will find out which list is this and join there to see what happened. > Sounds fun. > [Prafulla] Yes real sad incidents. > Are you telling me after doing all these, there are people who support > this Sreenadh and want to learn from him. I would die but never ever > read a mail from Sreenadh even if he gives Brahma Gyan since such > knowledge comes with sin. And this Sin ruins our life, I have met many > senior astrologers who have told me this. I have had deep discussions on > what are the effects of learning from evil people, this is bad bad karma > & the effects of it would show someday. > [Prafulla] well, in our journey, each one has perception of " art of living " . > How come after all this none of the lists bans such people or have our > morals gone down the drain that we want to be in good books of everyone > by becoming PR specialists. > > I feel curse comes on us when we do not act properly on such issues. [Prafulla] Isn't it sad !! Perhaps politicisng of groups have the conclusive impact, on " internet jyotish " . > > I must go for a lunch meeting (someone treating me )), would try to > check mails tonight. [Prafulla] thanks for sharing your feelings. regards / Prafulla > > > > , Prafulla Gang <jyotish@> wrote: > > > > Hi Sushmita, > > > > excellent post. I observed people did not object to foul language > (rather they were busy in defiending him yesterday) used by Sreenadh. > When I read the thread, i realized he did the same with senior > astrologer / member Shri Chandrasekhar ji. Yesterday, similiar thing > happened on his own forum, when he rediculed another senior astrologer > Robert Koch. Prior to that, he made / supported racist comment again > Shri Sunil John. > > > > Well there seems to be history of such incidents. > > > > May be that is how people have learnt/adapted to resist in civilized > (and self centered) society. > > > > Really shameful conduct. > > > > regards / Prafulla Gang > > http://www.prafulla.net > > > > " Men who never get carried away should be. " > > ************************************************ > > > > > > > > > > sushmita34@ > > > Sat, 07 Jul 2007 06:12:06 -0000 > > > > > > Only one man > > > > > > Hi All, > > > Saturday is off and I decide to do jyotish after long time, I come > to > > > meet my friend and we see such mails on our favourite list wherein > > > someone called Sreenadh is attacking Chandrashekhar and becoming so > > > personal. So unfortunate to see hardly ONE MAN ON THIS LIST to come > up > > > to defense of Mr. Chandrashekhar. Hats off to you Mr. Mukesh & I > hope > > > Mr. Chandrashekhar has not left this list. Whether he has not > knowledge > > > or not is another question but atleast he maintains nobility in his > > > talks. > > > > > > I have browsed through some mails and seems today is a sad day for > this > > > list which had greats like Mr. Rao who gave us pearls. The good old > days > > > would never come back. > > > > > > Shame on us all. > > > > > > Sushmita > > > > > > > > > > > > , " mukesh_vats9992 " > > > mukesh_vats9992@ wrote: > > >> > > >> sreenadh ji, > > >> hope you recognise me ,we are colleagues on another group and > > >> probably that group is owned by you,perhaps you also remember the > > >> long lecture given in context to conduct with people who are > > >> knoeledgeable,elderly and have devoted their life for some cause. > > >> then why is this use of indecent language for a person who is > very > > >> knowledgeable and perhaps elder to you as well. > > >> i respect you for all the knowledge you have,it is definitely > more > > >> than me and perhaps more than a lot of other astrologers that i > > >> know,i am your well wisher so i will be blunt enough to tell you > > >> that i feel you have a habit of showcasing your knowledge > > >> unneccessarily,giving references where they are not needed,quoting > > >> left right and centre again unneccessarily,creating topics from > > >> nowhere these are traits which should not be there in a person as > > >> well read as you.sometimes it looks as if you are trying to bombard > > >> lesser people like us with your knowledge.but sometimes you are > > >> bound to get people like chandrashekhar ji who would cross question > > >> you.you should have ideally let the matter cool down but you have > > >> just blown it out of proportions by calling names to a very > > >> knowledgeable and elderly person. > > >> coming back to the original matter why this duality of giving > long > > >> lectures to people on conduct on your own group but misbehaving > with > > >> good people on another,is it because this group is not owned by > you? > > >> regards..mukesh > > >> > > >> , " Sreenadh " sreesog@ wrote: > > >>> > > >>> The problem not solved!!! > > >>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji, I would advice you to first go and learn > > >>> what " Bhoota Sankhya Vidhi " is!! What you are referring to is > > >> Decimal > > >>> system numbers pronounced in Decimal system style itself! Don't be > > >>> this much idotic. Even though Brihat Jataka uses " Bhoota Sankhya > > >>> Vidhi at some places it is not the rule that is followed through > > >> out > > >>> the book! It is elementary knowledge who know both " Bhoota Sakhya > > >>> Vidhi " and " Decimal System " and also know how to differenciate > > >>> Numbers notated using both of them! > > >>> ==> > > >>>> Brihat jataka type of writing of numbers. > > >>> <== > > >>> There is NO Brihat Jataka type of writing numbers! The statement > > >> is > > >>> absurd man! The fundamental number notation systems used were- > > >>> 1. Decimal System (From Vedic Period) > > >>> 2. Bhoota Sakhya Vidhi (From Vedic Period) > > >>> 3. Arya Bhateeya System (From the period of Aryabhatta) > > >>> 4. KaTaPaYa System (The time of origin still in mystery, and not > > >> yet > > >>> clarified by research) > > >>> Know these facts and modify your arguments accordingly and > > >>> the 'fact' mentioned in previous mail still hold - and makes me > > >>> laugh. :=) > > >>> P.S.: To see our own ignorance is a bliss, which only some rare > > >>> individuals possess. What we know we know, what we don't we > > >>> don't. Also, remember that error is human, and accepting it > > >> needs > > >>> courage. > > >>> Love, > > >>> Sreenadh > > >>> > > >>> , Chandrashekhar > > >>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Dear Sreenadh, > > >>>> > > >>>> Try to answer the questions asked, and not dodge them by > > >> diverting > > >>> the > > >>>> issue. If you are so fixed on other methods of writing numbers. > > >> It > > >>> would > > >>>> be interesting to see how you read > > >>>> " shannavatyadhikanavashataadhikasahasramitaM " for me not using > > >> the > > >>>> principle " AmkaaMaaM Vamato gatiH " > > >> Or " rasagraharandhrabhUmimitaM " , > > >>> if > > >>>> you like Brihat jataka type of writing of numbers. > > >>>> > > >>>> Chandrashekhar. > > >>>> > > >>>> Sreenadh wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > >>>>> The correct answer is 'Drop your ego'. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> As far as the ancient number systems are concerned- > > >>>>> * As you rightly mentioned KaTaPaYa system and Decimal system > > >> are > > >>>>> from 'Right to Left' & > > >>>>> * As I told Bhoota Sakhya system and Aryabhateeya system are > > >>>>> from " Left to Right " > > >>>>> > > >>>>> If you are not getting the first point told (far) above > > >> then I > > >>>>> don't have anything to say. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Now coming to commentary on some beginning Jaimini sutra > > >> slokas > > >>> are > > >>>>> concerned - > > >>>>> * I am totally new to the BPHS/Jaimini system, and came to this > > >>>>> group asking a doubt " What is Argala? " > > >>>>> * I think I made a good beginning in learning that system - as > > >> you > > >>>>> too may agree. > > >>>>> * That (start learning of BPHS/Jaimini system in a proper way) > > >> was > > >>>>> the only thing intended. I have no wrong notions or claims > > >> on > > >>> the > > >>>>> same. What you told about Jaimini's approach and use of > > >> KaTaPaYa > > >>>>> system is right and that was just a new info to me. Thanks for > > >>>>> that. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> But see, I a vibrant childish individual with not much ego or > > >> much > > >>>>> defense, so be beware :=). It could be dangerous, if you have > > >> same > > >>>>> thing to protect. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Love, > > >>>>> Sreenadh > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > >>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> You are good at dodging the original query. You do not > > >> indicate > > >>> how > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>> plain numbers are read, how do you read " Ekavimshat " ? You > > >> may > > >>> bring > > >>>>> all > > >>>>>> your knowledge of reading ankas from right to left, as you > > >>> claim is > > >>>>>> followed in Sanskrit, to bear upon on this two simple > > >>> questions. If > > >>>>> your > > >>>>>> contention is right then it must be read as I said you > > >> probably > > >>>>> read it. > > >>>>>> Interpreting sutras on wrong parameters and claiming them to > > >> be > > >>>>> right as > > >>>>>> one is scholar of Sanskrit and thinking that knowledge of > > >>> astrology > > >>>>> is > > >>>>>> not required, for translation of astrological texts, is of > > >>> course > > >>>>> your > > >>>>>> privilege. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Chandrashekhar. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar, > > >>>>>>> I always regard my self as none, nothing. I don't you > > >>> comprehend > > >>>>> it > > >>>>>>> or not. We can be only students always - and the teacher > > >> is > > >>> always > > >>>>>>> within, and the learning too always happen from within - > > >> it > > >>> can > > >>>>> not > > >>>>>>> be otherwise. > > >>>>>>> Now coming back to the point of numbers. Even if roadside > > >> old > > >>> book > > >>>>>>> shops you may find a book called 'Brihat Jataka' which is > > >>>>> considered > > >>>>>>> as one of the foundation book of astrology. There is a > > >> soloka > > >>> in > > >>>>>>> it " Dasa Sikhi ManuYuk Thitheendiyamse... " which > > >> uses " Bhoota > > >>>>> Sakhya > > >>>>>>> Vidhi " popular from far past vedic civilization to notate > > >>> numbers. > > >>>>>>> ManuYuk means = 14 x 2 = 28 which is the exaltation degree > > >> for > > >>>>> some > > >>>>>>> planet, hope you may know which planet. > > >>>>>>> If we look at Arya Bhateeyam we will find the sutras > > >>>>> like " YugaRavi > > >>>>>>> BhaganaH KhuKHru " where KhuKHru notates a number. KhUuKHru > > >> = > > >>>>> (Kh+U) > > >>>>>>> u+KH+ru = (2+30)100^2+4+100^3=4320000. If you are > > >> interested > > >>> in > > >>>>>>> teaching new way of mathametics to AryaBhatta; by saying > > >>>>> that " ALWAYS > > >>>>>>> numbers are written from right to left " - I would have > > >> stay > > >>> amazed > > >>>>>>> and away from such a person (persona = mask) who has got > > >> such > > >>> a > > >>>>> great > > >>>>>>> knowledge! You should better discuss with those who > > >> possess > > >>> the > > >>>>> same > > >>>>>>> kind knowledge like Professional astrologer Bhasker ji and > > >>>>> continue > > >>>>>>> appreciating each other. > > >>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>> Sreenadh > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>> <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > >>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, > > >>>>>>>> I do not claim to be knowledgeable. That is your claim, > > >>> hence I > > >>>>>>> asked > > >>>>>>>> the question, which is unanswered so far. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Mr. Chandrashekhar, > > >>>>>>>>> Oh! You seem to be very knowlegeable! r u really?!! > > >>>>>>>>> By the way, how many questions are remaining now? > > >>>>>>>>> Sreenadh > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>> <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > >>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> I see that you do not have any answer. > > >>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar, > > >>>>>>>>>>> Yap, it is really getting to be funny. :=) > > >> Especailly > > >>>>> because > > >>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>>>>> love teasing egos. Ha..Ha.. > > >>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>> <%40>, > > >>> Chandrashekhar > > >>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> If that be the case, please let me know how you > > >>>>>>> read " ekavimshat " > > >>>>>>>>>>> I hope > > >>>>>>>>>>>> you do not read it as 120 or 12. This is really > > >>> getting > > >>>>> to > > >>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>> funny. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> This is precisely the reason, I had said I > > >> withdraw > > >>>>> from the > > >>>>>>>>>>> discussion. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekar, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanskrit ankas are always read with vama > > >> gati, > > >>> it is > > >>>>>>> not the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proprietary right of KaTaPaYaadi system. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for enlightening - Are you inventing a > > >>>>> new " Bhoota > > >>>>>>> Sankhya > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vidhi " for Vedas and a new " Decimal system " > > >>>>>>> and " Aryabhateeya > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> System " ?!! Just refer it and know it is not so. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, if that is not acceptable to you > > >>> then you > > >>>>>>> will have > > >>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> read D-Charts as independent charts to apply > > >>> Jaimini > > >>>>>>> sutras. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, thanks for the second invention - hope > > >> it > > >>>>> would be > > >>>>>>> useful > > >>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> you. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please answer a question I asked you long > > >>> back... > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not much interested, since the total > > >> discussion > > >>> could > > >>>>> end > > >>>>>>> up as a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> waste of for me. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>, > > >>>>> Chandrashekhar > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanskrit ankas are always read with vama > > >> gati, > > >>> it is > > >>>>>>> not the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> proprietary > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> right of KaTaPaYaadi system. The division by > > >> 12 > > >>> does > > >>>>>>> not have > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anything > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do with Jaimini. The division by the > > >>> variable is > > >>>>>>> implied > > >>>>>>>>>>> when > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> applying the system. Plain application of the > > >>>>> numbers > > >>>>>>> will give > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> rasis > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that do not exist. What is done in such a > > >> case > > >>> in > > >>>>>>> astrology is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> divided > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the maximum numbers possible hence the > > >>> division > > >>>>> by > > >>>>>>> 12. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, if that is not acceptable to you > > >>> then you > > >>>>>>> will have > > >>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> read > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> D-Charts as independent charts to apply > > >> Jaimini > > >>>>> sutras. > > >>>>>>> Please > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> answer a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> question I asked you long back. Interpret the > > >>>>>>> Sutra " Svasthe > > >>>>>>>>>>> dara " , > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using what you think is the correct way to > > >> apply > > >>>>>>> KaTaPaYaaDi > > >>>>>>>>>>> system > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sutras. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No - the KaPaTaYa system ends > > >> with " ankanam > > >>> vamato > > >>>>>>> gati " and > > >>>>>>>>>>> there > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no division by 12 involved; as is > > >> evident > > >>> from > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>> many > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> astronomical works available (Text bys > > >>> Vararuchi, > > >>>>>>> Sangama > > >>>>>>>>>>> grama > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Madhava, Neelakandha etc are examples). > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you say that this division by 12 is a > > >>> Jaimini > > >>>>>>> extension to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KaPaTaYa system - i can understand and > > >> accept > > >>> it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But for sure this " division by 12 rule " is > > >> not > > >>>>> part of > > >>>>>>>>>>> KaPaTaYa > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Love, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>, > > >>>>>>> Chandrashekhar > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the basic Katapayaadi principle > > >>> about > > >>>>>>> identifying > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variable. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dara = 28/12 =4 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhagya = 14/12=2 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shoola = 35/12 = 11. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That was good. Thanks for > > >> clarification. > > >>> But > > >>>>> one > > >>>>>>> more > > >>>>>>>>>>> doubt > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remains - > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How come you (or anybody) interpret > > >> that > > >>> the > > >>>>>>> KaTaPaYa > > >>>>>>>>>>> numbers > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be divided by 12 ? How can we > > >> argue > > >>>>> that > > >>>>>>> that the > > >>>>>>>>>>> sloka > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asks us > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to divide the numbers by 12 ? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am sending the diagram to your > > >> private > > >>>>> mail > > >>>>>>> id as > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> requested. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am yet to receive it - but thanks in > > >>>>> advance. > > >>>>>>> Please > > >>>>>>>>>>> send > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sreesog(at) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Love, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <% > > >> 40>, > > >>>>>>> Chandrashekhar > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That happens with all of us. I only > > >>> thought > > >>>>> it > > >>>>>>> was my > > >>>>>>>>>>> duty > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point out > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as this could lead to distorting of > > >>>>> principles. > > >>>>>>> The > > >>>>>>>>>>> variable > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of rasis in the zodiac, which > > >> is > > >>> 12. > > >>>>> So > > >>>>>>> Dara = > > >>>>>>>>>>> 28/12 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> =4 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhagya = 14/12=2 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shoola = 35/12 = 11. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The word Nidhayaatu is interpreted > > >> as > > >>> give > > >>>>> or > > >>>>>>> cast > > >>>>>>>>>>> argala by > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commentators including Neelkantha and > > >>>>>>> Krishnaananda > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Saraswati. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dhaya > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means sucking and nidhaaya means > > >> having > > >>>>> fixed or > > >>>>>>>>>>> layered > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> upon > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being interpreted as > > >>>>>>> obstruction/influence/argala > > >>>>>>>>>>> appears > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ******** > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not being a scholar of Sanskrit > > >> (though > > >>> I > > >>>>>>> understand > > >>>>>>>>>>> quite > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a bit > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brahmin by birth), I shall try to > > >>> ascertain > > >>>>>>> from my > > >>>>>>>>>>> brother- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> law who > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was professor of Linguistics at Both > > >>>>> Michigan > > >>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>> Bombay > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> university and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Sanskrit scholar himself or the > > >> Vice > > >>>>>>> Chancellor of > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanskrit > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> University here, when I meet them. On > > >>>>> learning > > >>>>>>> from > > >>>>>>>>>>> them, I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly write to you. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ******** > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am sending the diagram to your > > >> private > > >>>>> mail > > >>>>>>> id as > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> requested. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ********** > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for the mistake I made in > > >> haste > > >>>>> about > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>> KaTaPaYaDi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ka Kha Ga Gha Ngha Ca Cha Ja Jha > > >> Nja > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ta Tha Da Dha Na Ta Tha Da Tha Na > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pa Pha Ba Bha Ma > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ya Ra La Va Sa Sha Sa Ha > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Da - Ra = 8-2 " Sankhyanam Vamato > > >> Gati " > > >>>>> (The > > >>>>>>> numbers > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counted > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in reverse order); Thus it becomes > > >> 28. > > >>>>> Thus > > >>>>>>> DaRa = 28 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhag-Ya = 14 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Soo-La = 35 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry. It was not the > > >> understanding > > >>> but > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>> haste > > >>>>>>>>>>> caused > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mistake. Thanks for pointing it > > >> out. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Divide by variable and you get > > >> the > > >>>>> answer. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DaRa = 28; BhagYa=14; SooLa = 35 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Variable (common multiple) > > >> here > > >>> is 7. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 28/7 = 04; 14/7 = 02 ; 35/7 = 5 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus my answers would be 4-2-5. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is this? 4-2-5 ?!! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am I supposed to interpret that > > >>> Planets > > >>>>> in 4- > > >>>>>>> 2-5 will > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> cause > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Virodhargala? What is the trick > > >> you > > >>> are > > >>>>>>> using - > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * To change 4-2-5 to 4-2-11 ? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * To change Virodhargala to > > >> Aargala? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sutra is " Dara Bhagya Sulastha > > >>> Argala > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nidhyatu " . " Argala > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nidhyatu " definitely > > >>>>> means " Destroys/Oppose > > >>>>>>> Argala " i > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> hope; > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there another interpretation? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the info - but please > > >>> clarify. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.S: Please send the diagram to my > > >>>>> personal > > >>>>>>> mail id, > > >>>>>>>>>>> as I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read the group posts from the web > > >> (I > > >>> used > > >>>>> to > > >>>>>>> select > > >>>>>>>>>>> no- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> mail > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all groups). Thanks for the doc in > > >>>>> advance. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * By the way, can you provide me > > >> any > > >>>>>>> reference to > > >>>>>>>>>>> use of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KaTaPaYaDi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system in any other book prior to > > >> AD > > >>> 4th > > >>>>>>> century. I > > >>>>>>>>>>> think > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look back > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is necessory at the history of this > > >>>>> system. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Love, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- In > > >> > > >>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <% > > >>> 40>, > > >>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read the shloka on Parijatamsha > > >> and > > >>> let > > >>>>> me > > >>>>>>> know > > >>>>>>>>>>> what you > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time Parashara lived or at least > > >>> when > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>> text was > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> recited > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maitreya. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ******** > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not agree with that logic as > > >>>>>>> Katapayaadi is > > >>>>>>>>>>> to be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> used > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation of the factors > > >> other > > >>> than > > >>>>>>> when > > >>>>>>>>>>> grahas are > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we accept your contention > > >> that > > >>> common > > >>>>>>> meaning > > >>>>>>>>>>> of the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words is to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used and equate Dara with 7th, > > >>> Bhagya > > >>>>> with > > >>>>>>> 9th and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presumably > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shoola > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with 6th (though I would > > >> associate > > >>> it > > >>>>> with > > >>>>>>> 11th). > > >>>>>>>>>>> Where > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11th > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhava enter the sutra? Equating > > >> 7th > > >>> with > > >>>>>>> 11th for > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sake > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advancing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an argument is fine, but is that > > >>> right? > > >>>>> I > > >>>>>>> do not > > >>>>>>>>>>> think > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> so. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If, as > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say, we have to bring in > > >> Parashara > > >>> then > > >>>>> why > > >>>>>>> not the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> argalas > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that he > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocks those from 2,4 and 11? I > > >>> would > > >>>>> like > > >>>>>>> to know > > >>>>>>>>>>> your > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the sutra " Svasthe Dara " . > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ******************* > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the > > >>> words > > >>>>> used > > >>>>>>> in the > > >>>>>>>>>>> above > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sloka > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicates - > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dara = 24 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhagya = 12 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Soola = 37 " > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see that you are interpreting > > >>>>> katapayaadi > > >>>>>>> in a > > >>>>>>>>>>> novel > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manner. Da > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 4th letter in Ta varga, it > > >> is > > >>> the > > >>>>> 8th > > >>>>>>> one. No > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation has gone awry. > > >>>>> Katapayaadi > > >>>>>>> rules are > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> almost > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as you insist that it is only > > >> used > > >>> in > > >>>>> south > > >>>>>>> India > > >>>>>>>>>>> ( Now > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coming to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference to " KaTaPaYaaDi " -I > > >>> thought > > >>>>>>>>>>> that " KaTaPaYaaDi " > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was system > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> popular only in south India.), I > > >> am > > >>> sure > > >>>>>>> you must > > >>>>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> familiar with > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dara is 28, Bhagya is 14 and > > >> Shoola > > >>> is > > >>>>> 35 > > >>>>>>> (reversed > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> values > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alphabets in Katapayaadi Vargas). > > >>>>> Divide by > > >>>>>>>>>>> variable and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you get > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer. By the way Sanskrit > > >>> language is > > >>>>> not > > >>>>>>>>>>> limited to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> South India > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nor are the katapayaadi rules. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *********** > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am sure you must be familiar > > >> with > > >>> the > > >>>>> word > > >>>>>>>>>>> Sanakaadi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rishis. They > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ones sitting in front of > > >>>>> Dakshinamurti- > > >>>>>>> Shiva. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanandan > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is one > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. Read Purva Bhaga 2nd pada > > >>> shiksha > > >>>>>>> prakarana > > >>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Narada > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Purana > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you will find the name. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *********** > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The way you asked for the > > >> reference > > >>> I > > >>>>>>> thought you > > >>>>>>>>>>> were > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are not more than x number > > >> of > > >>>>>>> adhayaayas of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More so as you were insisting > > >> that > > >>>>> Jaimini > > >>>>>>> was only > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spreading the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching of Parashara and so on. > > >>> That > > >>>>> is I > > >>>>>>> asked > > >>>>>>>>>>> you if > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> you > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference about the number of > > >>> adhyaayas > > >>>>> from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> manuscripts. I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commentaries on Jaimini and some > > >>>>>>> photocopies of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> manuscripts > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhandarkar research institute > > >>> (kindly > > >>>>> sent > > >>>>>>> to me > > >>>>>>>>>>> by one > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friends > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who has forgotten more Jaimini > > >> than, > > >>>>>>> perhaps, what > > >>>>>>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read) and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of them agree that there are 8 > > >>>>> adhayaayas > > >>>>>>> written > > >>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> which > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 4 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been discovered till date. Some > > >>> Pandits > > >>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>> Varanasi are > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possess > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some more manuscripts but our > > >>> attempts > > >>>>> to > > >>>>>>> procure > > >>>>>>>>>>> them > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vain > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till now. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ************ > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, is that so? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ************ > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do that. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *********** > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not to your views > > >>> about > > >>>>> how > > >>>>>>> argalas > > >>>>>>>>>>> are > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> viewed. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again I read Sitaram Jha's > > >> edition > > >>> of > > >>>>> BPHS, > > >>>>>>> that is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referred to in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document, and do not find the > > >> shloka > > >>>>>>> mentioned in > > >>>>>>>>>>> your > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> pdf > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you quote the shloka and adhyaaya > > >>>>> number? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *********** > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you must have drawn the > > >>>>> diagram > > >>>>>>> since > > >>>>>>>>>>> you were > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the description of Parashara > > >>> matching > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>> south > > >>>>>>>>>>> Indian > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chart in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earlier > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mail. I'm attaching the diagram > > >> I > > >>> have > > >>>>> with > > >>>>>>> this > > >>>>>>>>>>> mail > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all those who are perhaps > > >>> interested in > > >>>>>>> Jaimini > > >>>>>>>>>>> and rasi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects. I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure you will pardon my poor > > >> skills > > >>> with > > >>>>>>> drawing > > >>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> draftsmanship. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take care, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is believed tat Jaimini > > >> was > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> student of Vyasa and some > > >>> therefore > > >>>>>>> believe > > >>>>>>>>>>> him to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shishya of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara who was father of > > >>> Vyasa. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is news to me - but of > > >> not > > >>> much > > >>>>> use, > > >>>>>>>>>>> because I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe based > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some available evidence, that > > >> the > > >>>>>>> Parashara who > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BPHS and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara Samhita was not the > > >>>>> Parshara of > > >>>>>>>>>>> Mahabharata > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> period, as > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned in some of my > > >> previous > > >>>>> mails. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we accept your > > >> translation " > > >>>>> planets > > >>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>> 11th 9th > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6th > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> destroys argala yoga " as the > > >>> right > > >>>>>>>>>>> interpretation of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the shloka > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we may, perhaps, have to > > >>>>> redefine > > >>>>>>>>>>> KaTaPaYaaDi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules. Most of the > > >> commentators, > > >>>>>>> rightly, > > >>>>>>>>>>> think they > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refer to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4, 2 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and 11 houses and indicating > > >> the > > >>>>> argala > > >>>>>>> cast > > >>>>>>>>>>> from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> those > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> houses. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you throw some light > > >> on > > >>> how > > >>>>> you > > >>>>>>> equated > > >>>>>>>>>>> Dara > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhagya and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shoola with 11-9 and 6? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sutra is " Dara Bhagya > > >> Sulastha > > >>>>> Argala > > >>>>>>>>>>> Nidhyatu " . > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> By > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge Dara is wife and is > > >> 7th; > > >>>>> Bhagya > > >>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>> luck and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9th; > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Soola > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is suffering and is 6th. The > > >> sutra > > >>>>> says > > >>>>>>> these > > >>>>>>>>>>> houses > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distroys > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argala > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yoga, i.e. cause Virodhargala. > > >>>>> Looking at > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>> light of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BPHS sloka > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stating 4-2-11 houses causing > > >>> Argala > > >>>>> we > > >>>>>>> find > > >>>>>>>>>>> that this > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sloka > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaks > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the combinations that > > >>> obstruct > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>> same; > > >>>>>>>>>>> and a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scrutiny > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the logic applied behind > > >>> reveals > > >>>>> that > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> word " Dara " > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (wife) is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to mean 11th house here. > > >> And > > >>>>> thus the > > >>>>>>>>>>> derivation- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " Planets in 11-9-6 cause > > >>> Virodhargala > > >>>>> to > > >>>>>>> Argala > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> caused by > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planets > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 4-2-11 respectively " > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The logic behind is 11th is > > >> 8th > > >>> from > > >>>>> 4th, > > >>>>>>> 9th is > > >>>>>>>>>>> 8th > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd, 6th > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is 8th from 11th - the > > >> pointing > > >>> to 8th > > >>>>>>> house > > >>>>>>>>>>> being the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now comming to reference > > >>>>>>> to " KaTaPaYaaDi " - > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought that " KaTaPaYaaDi " > > >> was > > >>>>> system > > >>>>>>> popular > > >>>>>>>>>>> only > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> south > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> India. (Pradeep may have > > >>> something to > > >>>>> say > > >>>>>>> about > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> same) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vararuchi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is thought to have introduced > > >> this > > >>>>> system > > >>>>>>> in 4th > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> centrury > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no reference to this system > > >>> prior > > >>>>> to > > >>>>>>> this > > >>>>>>>>>>> period, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per my > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current knowledge. Even though > > >>> some > > >>>>> refer > > >>>>>>> to the > > >>>>>>>>>>> use > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word " jaya " in Maharbharata to > > >>> argue > > >>>>> that > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>> system > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> was > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in use > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at that time, neither > > >> Mahabharata > > >>> nor > > >>>>> any > > >>>>>>> other > > >>>>>>>>>>> text > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ancient > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past provides us explicit proof > > >>>>>>>>>>> that, " KaTaPaYaDi " > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> system > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at that time. But it is clear > > >> that > > >>>>> from > > >>>>>>> vedic > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> period " Bhoota > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankhya > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system " and " Decimal system " > > >> was > > >>> in > > >>>>> use. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the > > >>> words > > >>>>> used > > >>>>>>> in the > > >>>>>>>>>>> above > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sloka > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicates - > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dara = 24 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhagya = 12 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Soola = 37 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you want to interpret > > >> it to > > >>>>> 04 - > > >>>>>>> 02 - > > >>>>>>>>>>> 11 ?!!! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaborate the " KaTaPaYaDi " > > >> rules > > >>> you > > >>>>> have > > >>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>> mind? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Further if somebody is > > >>>>>>> finding " KaTaPaYaDi " > > >>>>>>>>>>> rules in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jaimini > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sutra, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is clear that the text > > >>> originated > > >>>>>>> after 4th > > >>>>>>>>>>> century > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AD, since > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the " KaTaPaYaDi " system came to > > >>>>> existance > > >>>>>>> by that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> period > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only. I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't think that you would > > >> like > > >>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>> argument. If > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear use > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of " KaTaPaYaDi " is present in > > >>> Jaimini > > >>>>>>> Sutra, > > >>>>>>>>>>> then well > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and good. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that case 2 possiblities > > >> exists- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Jaimini sutra is a text > > >>> originated > > >>>>>>> after 4th > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> century. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * " KaTaPaYaDi " system existed > > >> even > > >>>>> prior > > >>>>>>> to 4th > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> century > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I am yet to find any sutra > > >>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> support " KaTaPaYaDi " > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini Sutra. Possibily I may > > >> or > > >>> may > > >>>>> not > > >>>>>>> find > > >>>>>>>>>>> some, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am yet > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read or study the complete > > >> text. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanandan rishi that gave the > > >>>>> Jyotish to > > >>>>>>> Narada > > >>>>>>>>>>> from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whose > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shishyas > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like Garga and then Shaunaka > > >>> even > > >>>>>>> Parashara > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledges having > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> received the principles of > > >>> Jyotish, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not mentioned among the > > >>>>> Pravartakas. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanadan Rishi?! The name is > > >> new to > > >>>>> me - > > >>>>>>> can you > > >>>>>>>>>>> quote > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sloka? I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am familiar with the names > > >> such as > > >>>>> Skanda, > > >>>>>>>>>>> Sanaka, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saunaka etc - > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet to see a sloka stating > > >> that > > >>> there > > >>>>> was > > >>>>>>> some > > >>>>>>>>>>> Rishi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanadan > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who imparted astrological > > >>> knowledge to > > >>>>>>> Narada. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The word meaning of the > > >>>>> word " Sanadan " is > > >>>>>>>>>>> something > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like " Ever > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lasting " i think. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact of 8 adhyaayas of > > >>> Jaimini > > >>>>> being > > >>>>>>>>>>> written is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned by > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many worthies like > > >> Suryanarain > > >>> Rao, > > >>>>>>> B.V. Raman > > >>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> many > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commentators of Jaimini > > >> sutras, > > >>> if > > >>>>> my > > >>>>>>> memory > > >>>>>>>>>>> serves > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> me > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. Do > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have any reference that > > >>> mentions > > >>>>>>> exactly > > >>>>>>>>>>> how > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> many > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adhyaayas > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini sutras were written? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have that, it might > > >>> benefit > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>> astrological > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brotherhood > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh!! I am asking were it is > > >> said > > >>> so, > > >>>>> and > > >>>>>>> you are > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asking > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference!! I am yet to see > > >> or > > >>>>> read the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> commentaries > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Jaimini > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sutra by Suryanarain Rao or > > >> B.V. > > >>>>> Raman. > > >>>>>>> My be I > > >>>>>>>>>>> may > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some clue > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from them, about where to find > > >> the > > >>>>>>> reference. > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the info. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe > > >>> KaulakaanaaM > > >>>>>>> phalaani > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rogaadayaH. " > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the reference to > > >>> Kaulaka in > > >>>>>>> Jaimini > > >>>>>>>>>>> sutras. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is possible you may have > > >>> interpreted > > >>>>>>> this in a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different manner > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as in case of 4th sutra of > > >> 1st > > >>>>>>> chapter,1st > > >>>>>>>>>>> pada. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ha ha.. It may happen, I > > >> don't > > >>> know > > >>>>>>> yet. I am > > >>>>>>>>>>> yet > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> portion of the book, I have > > >> just > > >>>>> started > > >>>>>>> my > > >>>>>>>>>>> study of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini sutra > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only. When I complete studying > > >>> though > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>> book - > > >>>>>>>>>>> many > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revelations > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and insights may come to > > >> me.. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I mean why should he ignore > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Graha drishti told by > > >>>>> Parashara, if > > >>>>>>> he was > > >>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocate only > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara's teaching. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini " ignores " Graha > > >> Drishi?! I > > >>>>> keep a > > >>>>>>> watch > > >>>>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> this > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continuing my study of Jaimini > > >>> sutra > > >>>>> and > > >>>>>>> come > > >>>>>>>>>>> back > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supporting or > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposing evidance later. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not think Parashara > > >>> supports > > >>>>>>> Argala from > > >>>>>>>>>>> 7th > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> house > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhava. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The results given for > > >> argalas in > > >>>>> BPHS > > >>>>>>> are about > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> argalas > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> houses and not from the > > >> houses. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argalas on the houses and from > > >> the > > >>>>>>> houses! Why > > >>>>>>>>>>> this > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confusion and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity?! When Parasara is > > >>> speaking > > >>>>>>> about > > >>>>>>>>>>> Argala > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused by > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planets > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in various houses, then the > > >>> results > > >>>>> told > > >>>>>>> should > > >>>>>>>>>>> also > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attributed to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same - right? This is > > >> normal > > >>>>> simple > > >>>>>>> logical > > >>>>>>>>>>> path. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have not responded to my > > >>> request > > >>>>>>> for the > > >>>>>>>>>>> diagram > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicated > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara as indicated by > > >> you. > > >>> May I > > >>>>>>> know why? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can send the file in .doc > > >>> format > > >>>>> as I > > >>>>>>> drew > > >>>>>>>>>>> it in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I haven't drawn any diagram > > >>> how am > > >>>>> I > > >>>>>>> supposed > > >>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> give > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you? Please mail the doc you > > >>>>> created > > >>>>>>> in my > > >>>>>>>>>>> mail id: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sreesog@ <sreesog% > > >>> 40yhoo.com> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Love and Hugs, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- In > > >>> > > >>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <% > > >>> 40> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <% > > >>>>> 40>, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am sorry if that was not > > >> your > > >>>>>>> intention when > > >>>>>>>>>>> you > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> said > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini was > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to further teachings > > >> of > > >>>>>>> Parashara. It is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believed tat > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini was > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> student of Vyasa and some > > >>> therefore > > >>>>>>> believe > > >>>>>>>>>>> him to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shishya of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara who was father of > > >>> Vyasa. > > >>>>> If > > >>>>>>> that is > > >>>>>>>>>>> not so > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini wanting to elaborate > > >> on > > >>>>>>> Parashara's > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching as > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advanced by > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes even more tenuous. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have read what you > > >> translated > > >>>>> about > > >>>>>>> the the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sutra. I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the translation or > > >>> interpretation > > >>>>> of the > > >>>>>>>>>>> sutras out > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However as you think I have > > >> not > > >>> read > > >>>>>>> the pdf > > >>>>>>>>>>> file, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> let > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me assure > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I have and do not find > > >> any > > >>>>> sutras > > >>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> quoted > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therein to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support your contention that > > >>> 11th > > >>>>> house > > >>>>>>> argala > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> blocks > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4th > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhava. If we accept your > > >>>>> translation " > > >>>>>>> planets > > >>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 11th > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9th and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6th > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> destroys argala yoga " as the > > >>> right > > >>>>>>>>>>> interpretation of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the shloka > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may, perhaps, have to > > >> redefine > > >>>>>>> KaTaPaYaaDi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation rules. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the commentators, rightly, > > >> think > > >>>>> they > > >>>>>>> refer to > > >>>>>>>>>>> 4, 2 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> houses > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicating the argala cast > > >> from > > >>>>> those > > >>>>>>> houses. > > >>>>>>>>>>> Could > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> you > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throw > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on how you equated Dara > > >> Bhagya > > >>> and > > >>>>>>> Shoola with > > >>>>>>>>>>> 11-9 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am sorry, if the portion > > >> about > > >>>>>>> Jaimini being > > >>>>>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pravartaka > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appeared in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mail. That was a slip on > > >> my > > >>>>> part. I > > >>>>>>>>>>> remember > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writing that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pravartaka or not not being > > >>>>> material as > > >>>>>>> even > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanandan > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rishi that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gave > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Jyotish to Narada from > > >> whose > > >>>>>>> shishyas like > > >>>>>>>>>>> Garga > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaunaka > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even Parashara acknowledges > > >>> having > > >>>>>>> received the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principles of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jyotish, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not mentioned among the > > >>>>> Pravartakas. > > >>>>>>> Did > > >>>>>>>>>>> that not > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appear in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mail > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> received by you? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact of 8 adhyaayas of > > >>> Jaimini > > >>>>> being > > >>>>>>>>>>> written is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned by > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worthies like Suryanarain > > >> Rao, > > >>> B.V. > > >>>>>>> Raman and > > >>>>>>>>>>> many > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> other > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commentators of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini sutras, if my memory > > >>> serves > > >>>>> me > > >>>>>>> right. > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do you > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that mentions exactly how > > >> many > > >>>>>>> adhyaayas of > > >>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sutras were > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have that, it might > > >>> benefit > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>> astrological > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brotherhood > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe > > >>> KaulakaanaaM > > >>>>>>> phalaani > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rogaadayaH. " This > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference to Kaulaka in > > >> Jaimini > > >>>>> sutras. > > >>>>>>> Of > > >>>>>>>>>>> course > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you may > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have interpreted this in a > > >>> different > > >>>>>>> manner as > > >>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> case > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of 4th > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sutra > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1st chapter,1st pada. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does my mail mention that > > >>> Jaimini > > >>>>>>> ignored rasi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> drishti? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sign of my age and health > > >>>>> catching > > >>>>>>> up. I > > >>>>>>>>>>> mean > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> why > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should he > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Graha drishti told by > > >>>>> Parashara, if > > >>>>>>> he was > > >>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocate only > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara's teaching. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was perhaps wrong of me > > >> to > > >>> ask > > >>>>> for > > >>>>>>> the name > > >>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> edition of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BPHS > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you were quoting from, not > > >>> having > > >>>>> gone > > >>>>>>> through > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find that you are referring > > >> to > > >>>>> Sitaram > > >>>>>>> Jha > > >>>>>>>>>>> edition. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall read > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant shloka, as > > >> translated > > >>> by > > >>>>>>> Sitaram Jha, > > >>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> send > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them tomorrow. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not think Parashara > > >>> supports > > >>>>>>> Argala from > > >>>>>>>>>>> 7th > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> house > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhava. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results given for argalas in > > >>> BPHS > > >>>>> are > > >>>>>>> about > > >>>>>>>>>>> argalas > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> houses > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not from the houses. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have not responded to my > > >>> request > > >>>>>>> for the > > >>>>>>>>>>> diagram > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicated > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara as indicated by > > >> you. > > >>> May I > > >>>>>>> know why? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can send the file in .doc > > >>> format > > >>>>> as I > > >>>>>>> drew > > >>>>>>>>>>> it in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrasekhar ji, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the comments. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can find that the > > >> entire > > >>>>> thrust > > >>>>>>> of the > > >>>>>>>>>>> same > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to prove that Jaimini > > >> was > > >>>>>>> shishya of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vyaasa....?!!! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From where Vyasa came in?! > > >> I > > >>>>> haven't > > >>>>>>> even > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the name > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vyasa > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that document! And never > > >>>>> argued so! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How ever the sutras to > > >>> support > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your concept about 11th > > >>> house > > >>>>>>> giving virodh > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> argala > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4th > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> house > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argala etc. do not > > >> appear in > > >>>>> your > > >>>>>>> PDF file. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh! The first sutra of > > >> Jaimini > > >>>>> about > > >>>>>>> Argala > > >>>>>>>>>>> states > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same! I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaborated on the same in > > >>> detail > > >>>>> as > > >>>>>>> well. > > >>>>>>>>>>> Did you > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pdf > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for sure?! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini does not appear > > >> in > > >>> the > > >>>>> 18 > > >>>>>>>>>>> Pravartakas is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Below is the shloka > > >> Samhita > > >>>>> giving > > >>>>>>> names > > >>>>>>>>>>> of the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 18 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pravartakas,.... > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is the sloka?! In > > >> your > > >>> mail > > >>>>> I > > >>>>>>> couldn't > > >>>>>>>>>>> find > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that, please > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it in the next mail. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 4 out of 8 > > >> adhayaayas > > >>> of > > >>>>>>> Jaimini > > >>>>>>>>>>> sutras are > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till date. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is new knowledge to > > >> me, > > >>>>> Thanks > > >>>>>>> for the > > >>>>>>>>>>> same. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pelase > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaborate, where it is > > >>> mentioned > > >>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>> complete > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini sutra > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8 adhyaayas? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some concept like > > >> Kauluka or > > >>>>>>> application > > >>>>>>>>>>> of D-6 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peculiar > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini and not found in > > >>>>> Parashara. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kauluka?! That also is new > > >> to > > >>> me. > > >>>>> Can > > >>>>>>> you > > >>>>>>>>>>> provide > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more info, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is also necessary to > > >>> explain > > >>>>> as > > >>>>>>> to why > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drishtis which Jaimini > > >>> ignores > > >>>>>>> totally. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini " ignores " Rasi > > >>> Drishti?! > > >>>>> In > > >>>>>>> many > > >>>>>>>>>>> slokas of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the intial > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chapter, Jaimini describes > > >>> Rasi > > >>>>>>> Drishti > > >>>>>>>>>>> itself! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Jaimini ignores Rasi > > >>>>> Drishti?!! > > >>>>>>> That > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also " totally " ?!! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think twise before stating > > >> so! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The shloka bout 7th > > >> Bhava > > >>> argala > > >>>>>>> given by > > >>>>>>>>>>> you is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you give the edition > > >> of > > >>>>>>> Parashari that > > >>>>>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the shloka and > > >> adhyaaya > > >>>>> number? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The edition of BPHS I > > >>> referred is > > >>>>>>> mentioned > > >>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pdf > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> edition of Jaimini sutra I > > >>>>> referred > > >>>>>>> is also > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The shloka could also be > > >>>>> translated > > >>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>> mean that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither a weak argala not > > >>>>> planets > > >>>>>>> in 7th > > >>>>>>>>>>> cause > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obstruction > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argala, indicating that > > >> 7th > > >>>>> house, > > >>>>>>> from the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> house > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> receiving > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> casting argala can not > > >> cast > > >>>>> argala > > >>>>>>> or can > > >>>>>>>>>>> not be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taken into > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration for giving > > >>> virodh > > >>>>>>> argala. > > >>>>>>>>>>> This > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> could > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only have > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given by way of > > >> amplifying > > >>> the > > >>>>>>> concept of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> argalas. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argala results for 7th > > >> house > > >>> is > > >>>>> given > > >>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>> BPHS, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> thus > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parasara supports Argala > > >>> caused by > > >>>>>>> planets > > >>>>>>>>>>> in 7th > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> house. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find you describing > > >> the > > >>> way > > >>>>>>> Parashara has > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asked > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cast a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chakra and saying that > > >> this > > >>>>> itself > > >>>>>>> proves > > >>>>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signs can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects. It would have > > >>> supported > > >>>>>>> your > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments, if > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you had > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drawn > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the chakra as described > > >> by > > >>>>>>> Parashara and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> indicated > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drishtis > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described in the sutras > > >> fit > > >>> th > > >>>>>>> Chakra > > >>>>>>>>>>> drawn with > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aries and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taurus in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> east, etc. It would have > > >>> been > > >>>>>>> interesting > > >>>>>>>>>>> to see > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <== > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please send the diagram > > >> (pdf > > >>> file) > > >>>>>>> you send > > >>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep to me > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well. I would be thankful. > > >>>>> Possibly I > > >>>>>>> may > > >>>>>>>>>>> get some > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new insight > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Love, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- In > > >>>>> <% > > >>> 40> > > >>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <% > > >>> 40> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <% > > >>>>> 40> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <% > > >>>>>>> 40>, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have read the pdf > > >> file. I > > >>> can > > >>>>>>> find that > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire thrust > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to prove that Jaimini > > >> was > > >>>>>>> shishya of > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vyaasa > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore he > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to spread the knowledge > > >> of > > >>>>>>> Parashara. How > > >>>>>>>>>>> ever > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sutras to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your concept about 11th > > >>> house > > >>>>>>> giving virodh > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> argala > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4th > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> house > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argala etc. do not > > >> appear in > > >>>>> your > > >>>>>>> PDF > > >>>>>>>>>>> file. The > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini does not appear > > >> in > > >>> the > > >>>>> 18 > > >>>>>>>>>>> Pravartakas is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Below is the shloka > > >> Samhita > > >>>>> giving > > >>>>>>> names > > >>>>>>>>>>> of the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 18 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pravartakas, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right, does not in any > > >> way > > >>> prove > > >>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> was > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaborating > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on what > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was taught by Parashara. > > >> Had > > >>>>> that > > >>>>>>> been the > > >>>>>>>>>>> case > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referred the readers to > > >>>>> Parashara's > > >>>>>>>>>>> principles > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> telling > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " horadaya siddhaaH " , in > > >>> effect > > >>>>>>> telling the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> readers > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to refer > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> texts (for what is not > > >> told > > >>> in > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>> sutras/ > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> basic > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concepts of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> astrology). Narada one > > >> of > > >>> the > > >>>>>>> Pravartakas > > >>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jyotish and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through whose > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lineage, even Parashara > > >>> accepts > > >>>>>>> having got > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jyotish > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> received his knowledge > > >>> through > > >>>>> rishi > > >>>>>>>>>>> Sanandan, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> who > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> named > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amongst > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pravartakas. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even the translation > > >>>>> of " upadesham > > >>>>>>>>>>> vyakhyasaam " > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as " I am > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commenting on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the advise of Jaimini " > > >> does > > >>> not > > >>>>>>> appear > > >>>>>>>>>>> correct > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> venerated > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Krishnaanand Saraswati > > >> the > > >>>>>>> commentator on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sutras, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nor > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neelakantha interprets > > >> it > > >>> that > > >>>>> way. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The logic that you have > > >>>>> presented > > >>>>>>> is that > > >>>>>>>>>>> some > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shlokas > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appearing in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BPHS > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaborate upon what is > > >> said > > >>> in > > >>>>>>> Jaimini > > >>>>>>>>>>> sutras > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is based > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on Parashara only. The > > >>> argument > > >>>>>>> appears to > > >>>>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attractive, at > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> glance, but does not > > >> hold > > >>> water. > > >>>>>>> There are > > >>>>>>>>>>> many > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vriddha > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Karikas > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain the rasi > > >> drishtis > > >>> and > > >>>>> it is > > >>>>>>> also > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting to note > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rasi drishti appear in > > >>> BPHS, not > > >>>>>>> much about > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> their > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usage or > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that distinguishes their > > >> use > > >>>>> from > > >>>>>>> that of > > >>>>>>>>>>> Graha > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drishti is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> text. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " ubhayaanubhayaH > > >>> pashyeccaraan > > >>>>>>> sthaasnuH > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sthiraaMshcaraH | > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> samIpasaMsthitaM raashiM > > >>> tyktwaa > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trIMstrInyathaakramam || " > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vriddha > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Karikas and many other > > >>> shlokas > > >>>>> in > > >>>>>>> many > > >>>>>>>>>>> other > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> texts > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referred > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the sutra of > > >>> Jaimini > > >>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>> understand > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sutras on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drishti. I have many > > >> other > > >>>>> shlokas > > >>>>>>> besides > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> one > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicated in the > > >> document. > > >>> So > > >>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>> argument does > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not hold > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One could also say that > > >> the > > >>>>> Jaimini > > >>>>>>>>>>> concept of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drishti > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appear in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BPHS, if mere parallel > > >>> shlokas > > >>>>>>> means the > > >>>>>>>>>>> test of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> borrowing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> granthas. The argument > > >> that > > >>>>> since > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>> effects of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argalas are > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BPHS means that Jaimini > > >>>>> borrowed the > > >>>>>>>>>>> concept > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BPHS, it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the info on that part is > > >>>>> misleading > > >>>>>>> as it > > >>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 4 out > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of 8 adhayaayas of > > >> Jaimini > > >>>>> sutras > > >>>>>>> are > > >>>>>>>>>>> available > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till date. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some concept like > > >> Kauluka or > > >>>>>>> application > > >>>>>>>>>>> of D-6 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peculiar > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not found in > > >> Parashara. > > >>> If > > >>>>> one > > >>>>>>> were to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> accept > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument. even > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this concept should have > > >>> been in > > >>>>>>> BPHS. It > > >>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> also > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as to why Parashara has > > >>> given > > >>>>> rasi > > >>>>>>> drishtis > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> which > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignores > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally. Surely, he > > >> would > > >>> not do > > >>>>>>> that if > > >>>>>>>>>>> he was > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaborating > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara said. He would > > >>> also > > >>>>> not > > >>>>>>> have > > >>>>>>>>>>> skipped > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vimshottari > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kalachakra dasha which > > >>> Parashara > > >>>>>>> opines > > >>>>>>>>>>> are the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> most > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amongst > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dashas, in his sutras. > > >> Most > > >>> of > > >>>>> other > > >>>>>>>>>>> arguments > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being argala yogas in > > >>> Jaimini > > >>>>> and > > >>>>>>> they > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> appearing in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> face of it are good > > >> though > > >>> there > > >>>>>>> are only > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> results > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Argalas > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given in BPHS and not > > >> argala > > >>>>> yogas > > >>>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>>>> claimed. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> That > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refers one > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to standard texts in the > > >>> first > > >>>>>>> chapter, > > >>>>>>>>>>> only is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument presented. > > >> Sutras > > >>> are > > >>>>>>> rightly > > >>>>>>>>>>> known for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brevity > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even the brahma sutras > > >> can > > >>> be > > >>>>>>> interpreted > > >>>>>>>>>>> by > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> mere > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translation. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One has > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to interpret them taking > > >>> help of > > >>>>>>> basic > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> principles > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard texts. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The shloka bout 7th > > >> Bhava > > >>> argala > > >>>>>>> given by > > >>>>>>>>>>> you is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give the edition of > > >>> Parashari > > >>>>> that > > >>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>>> appears in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shloka > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adhyaaya number? The > > >> shloka > > >>>>> could > > >>>>>>> also be > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translated to mean > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither a weak argala not > > >>>>> planets > > >>>>>>> in 7th > > >>>>>>>>>>> cause > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obstruction > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argala, indicating that > > >> 7th > > >>>>> house, > > >>>>>>> from the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> house > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> receiving > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> casting > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argala can not cast > > >> argala > > >>> or > > >>>>> can > > >>>>>>> not be > > >>>>>>>>>>> taken > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> into > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving virodh argala. > > >> This > > >>> could > > >>>>>>> only have > > >>>>>>>>>>> been > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given by > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amplifying the concept of > > >>>>> argalas. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find you describing > > >> the > > >>> way > > >>>>>>> Parashara has > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asked > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cast a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi chakra > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and saying that this > > >> itself > > >>>>> proves > > >>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>> signs > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have supported your > > >>> arguments, > > >>>>> if > > >>>>>>> you had > > >>>>>>>>>>> drawn > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chakra > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Parashara and > > >> indicated > > >>> how > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>> drishtis > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described in the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sutras fit > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> th Chakra drawn with > > >> Aries > > >>> and > > >>>>>>> Taurus in > > >>>>>>>>>>> east, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting to see this. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So while congratulating > > >> you > > >>> on > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>> efforts > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undertaken to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a PDF > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document on Jaimini > > >> sutras, > > >>> I > > >>>>> must > > >>>>>>> disagree > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusions drawn > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there in. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said earlier, let > > >> us > > >>> agree > > >>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>> disagree on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> this > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sreenadh wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear All, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The following document > > >> is > > >>> a > > >>>>>>> commentary > > >>>>>>>>>>> for the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> portion of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini sutra. > > >> Currently > > >>> it > > >>>>>>> covers the > > >>>>>>>>>>> portion > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upto Rasi > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Drishti and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argala. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------- > > >> --- > > >>> ---- > > >>>>> ---- > > >>>>>>>>>>> ------- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: > > >> 269.8.13/844 - > > >>>>> Release > > >>>>>>> Date: > > >>>>>>>>>>> 6/11/2007 5:10 PM > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been > > >>> removed] > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> ---------------------- > > >> --- > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - > > >>> Release > > >>>>>>> Date: > > >>>>>>>>> 6/11/2007 5:10 PM > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> 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.