RE: Attempt by a few - K.N.Rao does not know basics

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Pradeep ji,

 

>

> I would like to mention a few words regarding the attempts made by a

> some.

>

> 1)When one is asked to have a relook at the basics - It is ''high

> lighted'' by some as ''K.N.Rao does not know basics''.

>

 

[Prafulla] Well, Pradeep ji - your statements on forum can not have two meanings

- one for Shri KN Rao and another one for members arguing with you. We did not

comment on anyone's basics, but it was you who were questioning " basics " of the

members with respect to D chakra and its interpretation. You were mentioning

that sages said this, whereas they were your opinion on what " sages " mentioned.

So when people not agreeing to your opinion can be subjected to those forceful

questioning on " basics " , then why not all those people, whose views are in

contrast to your view. You should have been careful in your comments in

questioning " basics " of the people who are not agreeing to your view.

 

> 2)When Points are presented with the help of Tarka and Pramana,one

> may counter them through Tarka and Pramana.Unfortunately it is used

> as a vehicle to create rift between K.N.Raoji and his students as

> well as between K.N.Raoji and individuals having good rapport with

> him.

>

[Prafulla] Pradeep ji, I am indeed surprised to see your objections, if your

opinion is conveyed to Shri KN rao in " verbatim " . Trust me, If I meet him - I

will not twist your words, but will produce your own mails. So now you mean to

say that - those mails must not be applicable to him? Let this tarka and pramana

theory from your own perspective, be also known to him. and With my rapport with

him since 1993, let me advise you - so he likes jyotish exploration. So where

is the question of any rift? If it is your own words are troubling you, then it

was your call dear. None of the other members, questioned the " basics " including

of yours.

 

Shri Satya did object to your contents of your mail on " basics " , but you

persisted with forceful conversion.

 

> Moreover some are not interested in knowing the Truth,but to

> aggravate things and create rift and fight.

 

[Prafulla] is it? We all presented classics (Kalyan Varma), case studies (late

Santhanam) and opinion of so many learned people. But you kept on overruling

them for your whims and now asking for truth and praman. It was never twisted or

misquoted - but by you all the time to win the argument. Can truth only be those

things, which you propogated?. and Can pramana can only be your sankstri

translations?

 

>

> 3)When such comments are ignored - some say,one is selective.

 

[Prafulla] is it? You ignored the predicitve challenges on the chart. You

ignored case studies of Late Santhanam. You ignored so many areas, where members

presented - but you always opted to consider those points (even in articles),

which suited your argument. So sir, had we been closed minded - we would not

have discussed at all. But if you reread all the mails and select the points

skipped - then it may taken another long list of mails to be answered.

 

>

> It is so sad to see how people are unable to take Jyotish debates in

> an objective sense.

>

> If somebody is not in agreement with a particular understanding of a

> scholar - it can no way mean,one is degrading that scholar as a

> whole.But unfortunately some are trying to create rift between

> individuals and twist Jyotish debates as disrespect towards learned

> men.

>

 

[Prafulla] Who degraded any scholar? who questioned the basics of the people?

Sir - if you are so sure of your opinion then, what is the problem? None of us

except you, have implied a single negative comment on any learned person. When

Shri Chandrasekhar ji explained the views available in classics - you even

rediculed those sages. At one stage, you said that BV Raman did not read

Dashadhayayi. So sir please restrain defending your lies.

 

> In that case there is no need for discussion groups or debates.Every

> one can say i am in the group of Raoji,Sanjayji etc as in politics

> and support individual manifestos.

>

 

[Prafulla] well - if any argument is restricted to closed minded approach with

trust being implied, ponly when suiting your argument - then certainly such

debates have no place. But if astrologer is capable to predict with his

interpretation model, then only it is called PRAMANA. Until then - it is only

called bright ideas - not necessarily genuine one.

 

No one is supporting any manifestos. It is you - who are choosing political

terms. We simply respect, what each scholar says - and want to see it it works

or not? Can you prove with the predictive challenges? if yes - we can have

debates on any astrological principle.

 

> Regds

> Pradeep

 

regards / Prafulla Gang

http://www.prafulla.net

 

" There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two

kinds of people in the world and those who don't. "

************************************************

 

__________

Listen & Record Music from Internet Radio - Get Free Radio & MP3 Player &

Recorder

Learn more at http://www.inbox.com/radio

[Guest guest]

Dear Prafulla ji,

 

I object your mail........how can u challange Great Scholar of

Sanskrit Like Shri pradeep, who has rejected the translation of

senior astrologers........he is the one for whom we should lean and

learn sanskrit.

 

even KR Rao ji will be proud of his mails. Yes - you might have

rapport with him since 1993 - but perhaps, he will never be impressed

by your astrological explorations.

 

 

So Shri Knrao, Srath, .. santhanam...all of the senior astrologers ,

(as per pradeep ji) donot know basics........so we must learn this

holy science from him.

 

so i will please you prafulla ji, to control, i really am his bhagat

now...

 

Warm Regards

 

Tarun

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, Prafulla Gang <jyotish

wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Pradeep ji,

>

> >

> > I would like to mention a few words regarding the attempts made

by a

> > some.

> >

> > 1)When one is asked to have a relook at the basics - It is ''high

> > lighted'' by some as ''K.N.Rao does not know basics''.

> >

>

> [Prafulla] Well, Pradeep ji - your statements on forum can not have

two meanings - one for Shri KN Rao and another one for members

arguing with you. We did not comment on anyone's basics, but it was

you who were questioning " basics " of the members with respect to D

chakra and its interpretation. You were mentioning that sages said

this, whereas they were your opinion on what " sages " mentioned. So

when people not agreeing to your opinion can be subjected to those

forceful questioning on " basics " , then why not all those people,

whose views are in contrast to your view. You should have been

careful in your comments in questioning " basics " of the people who

are not agreeing to your view.

>

> > 2)When Points are presented with the help of Tarka and Pramana,one

> > may counter them through Tarka and Pramana.Unfortunately it is

used

> > as a vehicle to create rift between K.N.Raoji and his students as

> > well as between K.N.Raoji and individuals having good rapport with

> > him.

> >

> [Prafulla] Pradeep ji, I am indeed surprised to see your

objections, if your opinion is conveyed to Shri KN rao in " verbatim " .

Trust me, If I meet him - I will not twist your words, but will

produce your own mails. So now you mean to say that - those mails

must not be applicable to him? Let this tarka and pramana theory from

your own perspective, be also known to him. and With my rapport with

him since 1993, let me advise you - so he likes jyotish exploration.

So where is the question of any rift? If it is your own words are

troubling you, then it was your call dear. None of the other members,

questioned the " basics " including of yours.

>

> Shri Satya did object to your contents of your mail on " basics " ,

but you persisted with forceful conversion.

>

> > Moreover some are not interested in knowing the Truth,but to

> > aggravate things and create rift and fight.

>

> [Prafulla] is it? We all presented classics (Kalyan Varma), case

studies (late Santhanam) and opinion of so many learned people. But

you kept on overruling them for your whims and now asking for truth

and praman. It was never twisted or misquoted - but by you all the

time to win the argument. Can truth only be those things, which you

propogated?. and Can pramana can only be your sankstri translations?

>

> >

> > 3)When such comments are ignored - some say,one is selective.

>

> [Prafulla] is it? You ignored the predicitve challenges on the

chart. You ignored case studies of Late Santhanam. You ignored so

many areas, where members presented - but you always opted to

consider those points (even in articles), which suited your argument.

So sir, had we been closed minded - we would not have discussed at

all. But if you reread all the mails and select the points skipped -

then it may taken another long list of mails to be answered.

>

> >

> > It is so sad to see how people are unable to take Jyotish debates

in

> > an objective sense.

> >

> > If somebody is not in agreement with a particular understanding

of a

> > scholar - it can no way mean,one is degrading that scholar as a

> > whole.But unfortunately some are trying to create rift between

> > individuals and twist Jyotish debates as disrespect towards

learned

> > men.

> >

>

> [Prafulla] Who degraded any scholar? who questioned the basics of

the people? Sir - if you are so sure of your opinion then, what is

the problem? None of us except you, have implied a single negative

comment on any learned person. When Shri Chandrasekhar ji explained

the views available in classics - you even rediculed those sages. At

one stage, you said that BV Raman did not read Dashadhayayi. So sir

please restrain defending your lies.

>

> > In that case there is no need for discussion groups or

debates.Every

> > one can say i am in the group of Raoji,Sanjayji etc as in politics

> > and support individual manifestos.

> >

>

> [Prafulla] well - if any argument is restricted to closed minded

approach with trust being implied, ponly when suiting your argument -

then certainly such debates have no place. But if astrologer is

capable to predict with his interpretation model, then only it is

called PRAMANA. Until then - it is only called bright ideas - not

necessarily genuine one.

>

> No one is supporting any manifestos. It is you - who are choosing

political terms. We simply respect, what each scholar says - and want

to see it it works or not? Can you prove with the predictive

challenges? if yes - we can have debates on any astrological

principle.

>

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

>

> regards / Prafulla Gang

> http://www.prafulla.net

>

> " There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe

there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't. "

> ************************************************

>

> __________

> Listen & Record Music from Internet Radio - Get Free Radio & MP3

Player & Recorder

> Learn more at http://www.inbox.com/radio

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Prafulla ji

 

I repeat,we have to take a relook at basics whenever in doubt.This

does not mean K.N.Raoji does not know basics -it is your

interpretation.I am no man to judge whether Raoji has understood

basics or not.It is beyond my capacities.He may be having his own

reasons.It is upto him to say whe he use aspects.Not me.

 

For me i have presented my case with Tarka and Pramana.Now i will

present my views in a structured fashion.Those who wish can respond.

 

Regarding,Kalyan Varma etc ...explanations were given.Chandrashekhar

ji had explained to shri Rohini ranjan in the past too.Supporting

Pramana will be given in the paper.

 

Late Santhanams view -no more comment.When Lste Santhanam has

written in plain English in BPHS...there is no point in discussing

your views about opposition,though one can respect it as personal

view.

 

You may keep on trying to create rift between people,if you love to

do so.Let us see whether you succeed or not.

 

Vijayaads Pradeep is different from

Srutakeerthi,Jeevasharma,Garga,Thalakkulathu Bhattathiri etc.Thus it

is not my Sanskrit interpretation.But you may try this tactic again

if you have nothing technical to offer.

 

I would like to remind you politely,efforts to create rift will

remain unsuccesful.But whether to continue this or not is upto you.

 

For me if i have to concentrate on my duties and

promises.Oppoistions and obstacles are normal.I have been an

optimist and will always remain.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

 

, Prafulla Gang <jyotish

wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Pradeep ji,

>

> >

> > I would like to mention a few words regarding the attempts made

by a

> > some.

> >

> > 1)When one is asked to have a relook at the basics - It is ''high

> > lighted'' by some as ''K.N.Rao does not know basics''.

> >

>

> [Prafulla] Well, Pradeep ji - your statements on forum can not

have two meanings - one for Shri KN Rao and another one for members

arguing with you. We did not comment on anyone's basics, but it was

you who were questioning " basics " of the members with respect to D

chakra and its interpretation. You were mentioning that sages said

this, whereas they were your opinion on what " sages " mentioned. So

when people not agreeing to your opinion can be subjected to those

forceful questioning on " basics " , then why not all those people,

whose views are in contrast to your view. You should have been

careful in your comments in questioning " basics " of the people who

are not agreeing to your view.

>

> > 2)When Points are presented with the help of Tarka and

Pramana,one

> > may counter them through Tarka and Pramana.Unfortunately it is

used

> > as a vehicle to create rift between K.N.Raoji and his students as

> > well as between K.N.Raoji and individuals having good rapport

with

> > him.

> >

> [Prafulla] Pradeep ji, I am indeed surprised to see your

objections, if your opinion is conveyed to Shri KN rao

in " verbatim " . Trust me, If I meet him - I will not twist your

words, but will produce your own mails. So now you mean to say that -

those mails must not be applicable to him? Let this tarka and

pramana theory from your own perspective, be also known to him. and

With my rapport with him since 1993, let me advise you - so he

likes jyotish exploration. So where is the question of any rift? If

it is your own words are troubling you, then it was your call dear.

None of the other members, questioned the " basics " including of

yours.

>

> Shri Satya did object to your contents of your mail on " basics " ,

but you persisted with forceful conversion.

>

> > Moreover some are not interested in knowing the Truth,but to

> > aggravate things and create rift and fight.

>

> [Prafulla] is it? We all presented classics (Kalyan Varma), case

studies (late Santhanam) and opinion of so many learned people. But

you kept on overruling them for your whims and now asking for truth

and praman. It was never twisted or misquoted - but by you all the

time to win the argument. Can truth only be those things, which you

propogated?. and Can pramana can only be your sankstri translations?

>

> >

> > 3)When such comments are ignored - some say,one is selective.

>

> [Prafulla] is it? You ignored the predicitve challenges on the

chart. You ignored case studies of Late Santhanam. You ignored so

many areas, where members presented - but you always opted to

consider those points (even in articles), which suited your

argument. So sir, had we been closed minded - we would not have

discussed at all. But if you reread all the mails and select the

points skipped - then it may taken another long list of mails to be

answered.

>

> >

> > It is so sad to see how people are unable to take Jyotish

debates in

> > an objective sense.

> >

> > If somebody is not in agreement with a particular understanding

of a

> > scholar - it can no way mean,one is degrading that scholar as a

> > whole.But unfortunately some are trying to create rift between

> > individuals and twist Jyotish debates as disrespect towards

learned

> > men.

> >

>

> [Prafulla] Who degraded any scholar? who questioned the basics of

the people? Sir - if you are so sure of your opinion then, what is

the problem? None of us except you, have implied a single negative

comment on any learned person. When Shri Chandrasekhar ji explained

the views available in classics - you even rediculed those sages. At

one stage, you said that BV Raman did not read Dashadhayayi. So sir

please restrain defending your lies.

>

> > In that case there is no need for discussion groups or

debates.Every

> > one can say i am in the group of Raoji,Sanjayji etc as in

politics

> > and support individual manifestos.

> >

>

> [Prafulla] well - if any argument is restricted to closed minded

approach with trust being implied, ponly when suiting your argument -

then certainly such debates have no place. But if astrologer is

capable to predict with his interpretation model, then only it is

called PRAMANA. Until then - it is only called bright ideas - not

necessarily genuine one.

>

> No one is supporting any manifestos. It is you - who are choosing

political terms. We simply respect, what each scholar says - and

want to see it it works or not? Can you prove with the predictive

challenges? if yes - we can have debates on any astrological

principle.

>

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

>

> regards / Prafulla Gang

> http://www.prafulla.net

>

> " There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe

there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't. "

> ************************************************

>

> __________

> Listen & Record Music from Internet Radio - Get Free Radio & MP3

Player & Recorder

> Learn more at http://www.inbox.com/radio

>

[Guest guest]

Dear shri Tarun

 

Thanks a lot for your kind words.I will try my best to prove your

words true,if Lords grace and the blessings of the great scholars

you have mentioned are present.

 

Regds

Pradeep , " Tarun "

<tarun.virgo wrote:

>

> Dear Prafulla ji,

>

> I object your mail........how can u challange Great Scholar of

> Sanskrit Like Shri pradeep, who has rejected the translation of

> senior astrologers........he is the one for whom we should lean

and

> learn sanskrit.

>

> even KR Rao ji will be proud of his mails. Yes - you might have

> rapport with him since 1993 - but perhaps, he will never be

impressed

> by your astrological explorations.

>

>

> So Shri Knrao, Srath, .. santhanam...all of the senior

astrologers ,

> (as per pradeep ji) donot know basics........so we must learn this

> holy science from him.

>

> so i will please you prafulla ji, to control, i really am his

bhagat

> now...

>

> Warm Regards

>

> Tarun

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

, Prafulla Gang <jyotish@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Shri Pradeep ji,

> >

> > >

> > > I would like to mention a few words regarding the attempts

made

> by a

> > > some.

> > >

> > > 1)When one is asked to have a relook at the basics - It

is ''high

> > > lighted'' by some as ''K.N.Rao does not know basics''.

> > >

> >

> > [Prafulla] Well, Pradeep ji - your statements on forum can not

have

> two meanings - one for Shri KN Rao and another one for members

> arguing with you. We did not comment on anyone's basics, but it

was

> you who were questioning " basics " of the members with respect to D

> chakra and its interpretation. You were mentioning that sages said

> this, whereas they were your opinion on what " sages " mentioned. So

> when people not agreeing to your opinion can be subjected to those

> forceful questioning on " basics " , then why not all those people,

> whose views are in contrast to your view. You should have been

> careful in your comments in questioning " basics " of the people who

> are not agreeing to your view.

> >

> > > 2)When Points are presented with the help of Tarka and

Pramana,one

> > > may counter them through Tarka and Pramana.Unfortunately it is

> used

> > > as a vehicle to create rift between K.N.Raoji and his students

as

> > > well as between K.N.Raoji and individuals having good rapport

with

> > > him.

> > >

> > [Prafulla] Pradeep ji, I am indeed surprised to see your

> objections, if your opinion is conveyed to Shri KN rao

in " verbatim " .

> Trust me, If I meet him - I will not twist your words, but will

> produce your own mails. So now you mean to say that - those mails

> must not be applicable to him? Let this tarka and pramana theory

from

> your own perspective, be also known to him. and With my rapport

with

> him since 1993, let me advise you - so he likes jyotish

exploration.

> So where is the question of any rift? If it is your own words are

> troubling you, then it was your call dear. None of the other

members,

> questioned the " basics " including of yours.

> >

> > Shri Satya did object to your contents of your mail on " basics " ,

> but you persisted with forceful conversion.

> >

> > > Moreover some are not interested in knowing the Truth,but to

> > > aggravate things and create rift and fight.

> >

> > [Prafulla] is it? We all presented classics (Kalyan Varma), case

> studies (late Santhanam) and opinion of so many learned people.

But

> you kept on overruling them for your whims and now asking for

truth

> and praman. It was never twisted or misquoted - but by you all the

> time to win the argument. Can truth only be those things, which

you

> propogated?. and Can pramana can only be your sankstri

translations?

> >

> > >

> > > 3)When such comments are ignored - some say,one is selective.

> >

> > [Prafulla] is it? You ignored the predicitve challenges on the

> chart. You ignored case studies of Late Santhanam. You ignored so

> many areas, where members presented - but you always opted to

> consider those points (even in articles), which suited your

argument.

> So sir, had we been closed minded - we would not have discussed at

> all. But if you reread all the mails and select the points

skipped -

> then it may taken another long list of mails to be answered.

> >

> > >

> > > It is so sad to see how people are unable to take Jyotish

debates

> in

> > > an objective sense.

> > >

> > > If somebody is not in agreement with a particular

understanding

> of a

> > > scholar - it can no way mean,one is degrading that scholar as a

> > > whole.But unfortunately some are trying to create rift between

> > > individuals and twist Jyotish debates as disrespect towards

> learned

> > > men.

> > >

> >

> > [Prafulla] Who degraded any scholar? who questioned the basics

of

> the people? Sir - if you are so sure of your opinion then, what is

> the problem? None of us except you, have implied a single negative

> comment on any learned person. When Shri Chandrasekhar ji

explained

> the views available in classics - you even rediculed those sages.

At

> one stage, you said that BV Raman did not read Dashadhayayi. So

sir

> please restrain defending your lies.

> >

> > > In that case there is no need for discussion groups or

> debates.Every

> > > one can say i am in the group of Raoji,Sanjayji etc as in

politics

> > > and support individual manifestos.

> > >

> >

> > [Prafulla] well - if any argument is restricted to closed minded

> approach with trust being implied, ponly when suiting your

argument -

> then certainly such debates have no place. But if astrologer is

> capable to predict with his interpretation model, then only it is

> called PRAMANA. Until then - it is only called bright ideas - not

> necessarily genuine one.

> >

> > No one is supporting any manifestos. It is you - who are

choosing

> political terms. We simply respect, what each scholar says - and

want

> to see it it works or not? Can you prove with the predictive

> challenges? if yes - we can have debates on any astrological

> principle.

> >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> >

> > regards / Prafulla Gang

> > http://www.prafulla.net

> >

> > " There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe

> there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't. "

> > ************************************************

> >

> > __________

> > Listen & Record Music from Internet Radio - Get Free Radio & MP3

> Player & Recorder

> > Learn more at http://www.inbox.com/radio

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Pradeep ji

 

 

 

> I repeat,we have to take a relook at basics whenever in doubt.This

> does not mean K.N.Raoji does not know basics -it is your

> interpretation.I am no man to judge whether Raoji has understood

> basics or not.It is beyond my capacities.He may be having his own

> reasons.It is upto him to say whe he use aspects.Not me.

 

[Prafulla] Please re read your initial mails on the thread, and in

particular - where Shri Satya objected. You were clear that people

using d chakra have wrongly interpreted without any basis. You

objected to making even casting D chakra. It is your own statements

sir - for the people, who use D chakra.

 

 

>

> For me i have presented my case with Tarka and Pramana.Now i will

> present my views in a structured fashion.Those who wish can respond.

 

[Prafulla] what PRAMANA. Pramana in jyotish is predictive applications

- not your sanskrit translations. Pramana includes the exhibition of

predictive fallacies of people, using contrary methods. Please list me

one pramana produced by you - except quoting one prediction on Gordon

chart - that too in past 2 years.

 

 

>

> Regarding,Kalyan Varma etc ...explanations were given.Chandrashekhar

> ji had explained to shri Rohini ranjan in the past too.Supporting

> Pramana will be given in the paper.

 

[Prafulla] so if everything was to follow later, and you are not ready

- then why even initialize the thread and waste time of forum members?

 

Shri Chandrasekhar's assumption of partial aspects can not be a

conclusive proof, if kalyan varma has used at so many places. I quoted

you Satyacharya also - now do not tell me, that you do not approve of

his interpretation.

 

>

> Late Santhanams view -no more comment.When Lste Santhanam has

> written in plain English in BPHS...there is no point in discussing

> your views about opposition,though one can respect it as personal

> view.

 

[Prafulla] You are conveniently using one line in his translation book

and ignoring his own case studies. Great way to misquote a learned

soul. How can planet opposite in D9 chakra be taken from longitudinal

perspective? please clarify. But then if you do not use late

Santhanam's view on D chakra interpretation, why selectively

misquoting him on aspects in d chakra. When someone's view becomes

incorrect ab initio, then furhter views are never referred. This is

basis of any deductive or inductive logic - if you persist on the

words - tarka and pramana.

 

>

> You may keep on trying to create rift between people,if you love to

> do so.Let us see whether you succeed or not.

 

 

[Prafulla] Rift between whom? I have not created any rift or

disrespected even by implied statement. if your own statements can

hurt someone, why blame others.. Why should Shri Rao be upset with

your own mails posted on forum on " basics " - if you feel you are

right. So why all these political statements? I will appreciate, if

you clarify on rift between whom?

 

each one of us live on our karma. Why should I be worried about

success or failure, when I am not causing any rift. Your own mails, if

can cause it - then please do not blame others.

 

>

> Vijayaads Pradeep is different from

> Srutakeerthi,Jeevasharma,Garga,Thalakkulathu Bhattathiri etc.Thus it

> is not my Sanskrit interpretation.But you may try this tactic again

> if you have nothing technical to offer.

>

 

[Prafulla] What tactics? I sincerely request you to stop using this

foul allegation. You have been misquoting, selectively answering,

questioning member's basics and twisting the thread ..and now you have

started playing one level low - by accusing of using bad tactics.

Indeed interesting ploy !! We asked for predictive application on your

theory - did you do it. But you have time to answer 250+ mails and lot

more in past 2/3 years - but do not have courtesy to stop presenting

your theory - until you are ready and until you can prove by

predictive application. Who is unfair dear on this forum and thread?

 

Sorry - each of the members did present various things - including

quoting satyacharya, kalyan varma, santhanam's case studies and so on.

What more technical writings do you want now? Of course - we can not

present your theory and predictive application for you. It is your

call - and you failed to do, in spite of so many members' persistent

request. members asked you questions beyond D9 through charts - but

you skipped.

 

> I would like to remind you politely,efforts to create rift will

> remain unsuccesful.But whether to continue this or not is upto you.

>

 

[Prafulla] Sir question again - rift between whom? and are we

proposing to reproduce your mails with modifications? so you should

take responsibility for your mails..why blame others..and But no one

is trying to twist contents of your own original mails?

 

> For me if i have to concentrate on my duties and

> promises.Oppoistions and obstacles are normal.I have been an

> optimist and will always remain.

>

 

[Prafulla] After all these months and years, if you want to say that -

now you will prepare things to prove your point..then i can only feel

bad for the waste of time on the forum for your incomplete

presentation until now. it is highly unethical conduct for any jyotish

scholar to present - which he can not prove instantly through charts

in front of him. and for his incompleteness, he kept on wasting time

of people on the forum mercilessly...

 

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

>

 

regards / Prafulla

 

 

> , Prafulla Gang <jyotish@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Shri Pradeep ji,

> >

> > >

> > > I would like to mention a few words regarding the attempts made

> by a

> > > some.

> > >

> > > 1)When one is asked to have a relook at the basics - It is ''high

> > > lighted'' by some as ''K.N.Rao does not know basics''.

> > >

> >

> > [Prafulla] Well, Pradeep ji - your statements on forum can not

> have two meanings - one for Shri KN Rao and another one for members

> arguing with you. We did not comment on anyone's basics, but it was

> you who were questioning " basics " of the members with respect to D

> chakra and its interpretation. You were mentioning that sages said

> this, whereas they were your opinion on what " sages " mentioned. So

> when people not agreeing to your opinion can be subjected to those

> forceful questioning on " basics " , then why not all those people,

> whose views are in contrast to your view. You should have been

> careful in your comments in questioning " basics " of the people who

> are not agreeing to your view.

> >

> > > 2)When Points are presented with the help of Tarka and

> Pramana,one

> > > may counter them through Tarka and Pramana.Unfortunately it is

> used

> > > as a vehicle to create rift between K.N.Raoji and his students as

> > > well as between K.N.Raoji and individuals having good rapport

> with

> > > him.

> > >

> > [Prafulla] Pradeep ji, I am indeed surprised to see your

> objections, if your opinion is conveyed to Shri KN rao

> in " verbatim " . Trust me, If I meet him - I will not twist your

> words, but will produce your own mails. So now you mean to say that -

> those mails must not be applicable to him? Let this tarka and

> pramana theory from your own perspective, be also known to him. and

> With my rapport with him since 1993, let me advise you - so he

> likes jyotish exploration. So where is the question of any rift? If

> it is your own words are troubling you, then it was your call dear.

> None of the other members, questioned the " basics " including of

> yours.

> >

> > Shri Satya did object to your contents of your mail on " basics " ,

> but you persisted with forceful conversion.

> >

> > > Moreover some are not interested in knowing the Truth,but to

> > > aggravate things and create rift and fight.

> >

> > [Prafulla] is it? We all presented classics (Kalyan Varma), case

> studies (late Santhanam) and opinion of so many learned people. But

> you kept on overruling them for your whims and now asking for truth

> and praman. It was never twisted or misquoted - but by you all the

> time to win the argument. Can truth only be those things, which you

> propogated?. and Can pramana can only be your sankstri translations?

> >

> > >

> > > 3)When such comments are ignored - some say,one is selective.

> >

> > [Prafulla] is it? You ignored the predicitve challenges on the

> chart. You ignored case studies of Late Santhanam. You ignored so

> many areas, where members presented - but you always opted to

> consider those points (even in articles), which suited your

> argument. So sir, had we been closed minded - we would not have

> discussed at all. But if you reread all the mails and select the

> points skipped - then it may taken another long list of mails to be

> answered.

> >

> > >

> > > It is so sad to see how people are unable to take Jyotish

> debates in

> > > an objective sense.

> > >

> > > If somebody is not in agreement with a particular understanding

> of a

> > > scholar - it can no way mean,one is degrading that scholar as a

> > > whole.But unfortunately some are trying to create rift between

> > > individuals and twist Jyotish debates as disrespect towards

> learned

> > > men.

> > >

> >

> > [Prafulla] Who degraded any scholar? who questioned the basics of

> the people? Sir - if you are so sure of your opinion then, what is

> the problem? None of us except you, have implied a single negative

> comment on any learned person. When Shri Chandrasekhar ji explained

> the views available in classics - you even rediculed those sages. At

> one stage, you said that BV Raman did not read Dashadhayayi. So sir

> please restrain defending your lies.

> >

> > > In that case there is no need for discussion groups or

> debates.Every

> > > one can say i am in the group of Raoji,Sanjayji etc as in

> politics

> > > and support individual manifestos.

> > >

> >

> > [Prafulla] well - if any argument is restricted to closed minded

> approach with trust being implied, ponly when suiting your argument -

> then certainly such debates have no place. But if astrologer is

> capable to predict with his interpretation model, then only it is

> called PRAMANA. Until then - it is only called bright ideas - not

> necessarily genuine one.

> >

> > No one is supporting any manifestos. It is you - who are choosing

> political terms. We simply respect, what each scholar says - and

> want to see it it works or not? Can you prove with the predictive

> challenges? if yes - we can have debates on any astrological

> principle.

> >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> >

> > regards / Prafulla Gang

> > http://www.prafulla.net

> >

> > " There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe

> there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't. "

> > ************************************************

> >

> > __________

> > Listen & Record Music from Internet Radio - Get Free Radio & MP3

> Player & Recorder

> > Learn more at http://www.inbox.com/radio

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeepji,

 

Only a person who does not mind sweeping, is fit

to sit on the Kings throne.

 

Only a person who knows to request for pardon,

and accept his mistakes can control others.

 

Let us face the truth. You have done only tarka

and no pramana has come forth from your side.

 

Yet without even proper clothing to face the

freezing cold, and with a small blunt knife

not even good enought to cut vegetables ,You

are trying to be a great warrior on the Kargil

front, is amusing.

 

Your stupid friends have left. Sreenadh,Satish or

Sateesh whatever and few others. It is a clear

display of rats skipmpering and leaving the ship

first when it is about to sink.

 

The first rat- Sreenadh- who also misquotes the

Shastras and misinterprets them to his advantage,

to create artificial hype in public , about his

greatness,has left. Whatever little knowledge

you had was contributed from him, as he projects

in all Forums, as soon as he left, you had nothing

to contribute, but just defending yourself like a

women with transparent clothing.

 

Dear Pradeepji, I respect you much, to see you in

such a position. Have you not seen how Chandrasekharji

has rubbed you everyday with his mails since a fortnight ?

And he was right, and you were wrong. Therefore he had

full right to rub you. But why were you in such a vulnerable

position ? because You kept yourself open,with your idiotic

and senseless tarka without any pramana and sang (

Companionship) of fools whom you thought

would support you and defend your interpretations or

misinterpretations. But where are these rats now ?

Why are you left alone ?

 

Who knows for real that who is right ?

Either You or Chandrasekharji ?

 

Only time would show. Till then why dont you

keep quiet, instead of allowing yourself

to be rubbed by one and all. What is the harm in

accepting your defeat ? Why such a Big EGO ?

For the time being accept that You may be wrong and

they may be right.

 

In the meanwhile consolidate your studies, do some

research, prove your principles through theseis and

publish them. Then all those who have been rubbing

you, would start touching Your feet .

 

But at the moment you have no ammunitions

to defend yourself, so just dont

make a fool of yourself.

 

Accept silence and pardon.

Period,

 

best wishes,

Bhaskar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Prafulla ji

>

> I repeat,we have to take a relook at basics whenever in doubt.This

> does not mean K.N.Raoji does not know basics -it is your

> interpretation.I am no man to judge whether Raoji has understood

> basics or not.It is beyond my capacities.He may be having his own

> reasons.It is upto him to say whe he use aspects.Not me.

>

> For me i have presented my case with Tarka and Pramana.Now i will

> present my views in a structured fashion.Those who wish can respond.

>

> Regarding,Kalyan Varma etc ...explanations were given.Chandrashekhar

> ji had explained to shri Rohini ranjan in the past too.Supporting

> Pramana will be given in the paper.

>

> Late Santhanams view -no more comment.When Lste Santhanam has

> written in plain English in BPHS...there is no point in discussing

> your views about opposition,though one can respect it as personal

> view.

>

> You may keep on trying to create rift between people,if you love to

> do so.Let us see whether you succeed or not.

>

> Vijayaads Pradeep is different from

> Srutakeerthi,Jeevasharma,Garga,Thalakkulathu Bhattathiri etc.Thus it

> is not my Sanskrit interpretation.But you may try this tactic again

> if you have nothing technical to offer.

>

> I would like to remind you politely,efforts to create rift will

> remain unsuccesful.But whether to continue this or not is upto you.

>

> For me if i have to concentrate on my duties and

> promises.Oppoistions and obstacles are normal.I have been an

> optimist and will always remain.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

>

> , Prafulla Gang <jyotish@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Shri Pradeep ji,

> >

> > >

> > > I would like to mention a few words regarding the attempts made

> by a

> > > some.

> > >

> > > 1)When one is asked to have a relook at the basics - It is ''high

> > > lighted'' by some as ''K.N.Rao does not know basics''.

> > >

> >

> > [Prafulla] Well, Pradeep ji - your statements on forum can not

> have two meanings - one for Shri KN Rao and another one for members

> arguing with you. We did not comment on anyone's basics, but it was

> you who were questioning " basics " of the members with respect to D

> chakra and its interpretation. You were mentioning that sages said

> this, whereas they were your opinion on what " sages " mentioned. So

> when people not agreeing to your opinion can be subjected to those

> forceful questioning on " basics " , then why not all those people,

> whose views are in contrast to your view. You should have been

> careful in your comments in questioning " basics " of the people who

> are not agreeing to your view.

> >

> > > 2)When Points are presented with the help of Tarka and

> Pramana,one

> > > may counter them through Tarka and Pramana.Unfortunately it is

> used

> > > as a vehicle to create rift between K.N.Raoji and his students as

> > > well as between K.N.Raoji and individuals having good rapport

> with

> > > him.

> > >

> > [Prafulla] Pradeep ji, I am indeed surprised to see your

> objections, if your opinion is conveyed to Shri KN rao

> in " verbatim " . Trust me, If I meet him - I will not twist your

> words, but will produce your own mails. So now you mean to say that -

> those mails must not be applicable to him? Let this tarka and

> pramana theory from your own perspective, be also known to him. and

> With my rapport with him since 1993, let me advise you - so he

> likes jyotish exploration. So where is the question of any rift? If

> it is your own words are troubling you, then it was your call dear.

> None of the other members, questioned the " basics " including of

> yours.

> >

> > Shri Satya did object to your contents of your mail on " basics " ,

> but you persisted with forceful conversion.

> >

> > > Moreover some are not interested in knowing the Truth,but to

> > > aggravate things and create rift and fight.

> >

> > [Prafulla] is it? We all presented classics (Kalyan Varma), case

> studies (late Santhanam) and opinion of so many learned people. But

> you kept on overruling them for your whims and now asking for truth

> and praman. It was never twisted or misquoted - but by you all the

> time to win the argument. Can truth only be those things, which you

> propogated?. and Can pramana can only be your sankstri translations?

> >

> > >

> > > 3)When such comments are ignored - some say,one is selective.

> >

> > [Prafulla] is it? You ignored the predicitve challenges on the

> chart. You ignored case studies of Late Santhanam. You ignored so

> many areas, where members presented - but you always opted to

> consider those points (even in articles), which suited your

> argument. So sir, had we been closed minded - we would not have

> discussed at all. But if you reread all the mails and select the

> points skipped - then it may taken another long list of mails to be

> answered.

> >

> > >

> > > It is so sad to see how people are unable to take Jyotish

> debates in

> > > an objective sense.

> > >

> > > If somebody is not in agreement with a particular understanding

> of a

> > > scholar - it can no way mean,one is degrading that scholar as a

> > > whole.But unfortunately some are trying to create rift between

> > > individuals and twist Jyotish debates as disrespect towards

> learned

> > > men.

> > >

> >

> > [Prafulla] Who degraded any scholar? who questioned the basics of

> the people? Sir - if you are so sure of your opinion then, what is

> the problem? None of us except you, have implied a single negative

> comment on any learned person. When Shri Chandrasekhar ji explained

> the views available in classics - you even rediculed those sages. At

> one stage, you said that BV Raman did not read Dashadhayayi. So sir

> please restrain defending your lies.

> >

> > > In that case there is no need for discussion groups or

> debates.Every

> > > one can say i am in the group of Raoji,Sanjayji etc as in

> politics

> > > and support individual manifestos.

> > >

> >

> > [Prafulla] well - if any argument is restricted to closed minded

> approach with trust being implied, ponly when suiting your argument -

> then certainly such debates have no place. But if astrologer is

> capable to predict with his interpretation model, then only it is

> called PRAMANA. Until then - it is only called bright ideas - not

> necessarily genuine one.

> >

> > No one is supporting any manifestos. It is you - who are choosing

> political terms. We simply respect, what each scholar says - and

> want to see it it works or not? Can you prove with the predictive

> challenges? if yes - we can have debates on any astrological

> principle.

> >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> >

> > regards / Prafulla Gang

> > http://www.prafulla.net

> >

> > " There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe

> there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't. "

> > ************************************************

> >

> > __________

> > Listen & Record Music from Internet Radio - Get Free Radio & MP3

> Player & Recorder

> > Learn more at http://www.inbox.com/radio

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar ji

 

Thank you for all the comments.

I will concentrate on my work.You may kindly carry on whatever you

want to say.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish

wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeepji,

>

> Only a person who does not mind sweeping, is fit

> to sit on the Kings throne.

>

> Only a person who knows to request for pardon,

> and accept his mistakes can control others.

>

> Let us face the truth. You have done only tarka

> and no pramana has come forth from your side.

>

> Yet without even proper clothing to face the

> freezing cold, and with a small blunt knife

> not even good enought to cut vegetables ,You

> are trying to be a great warrior on the Kargil

> front, is amusing.

>

> Your stupid friends have left. Sreenadh,Satish or

> Sateesh whatever and few others. It is a clear

> display of rats skipmpering and leaving the ship

> first when it is about to sink.

>

> The first rat- Sreenadh- who also misquotes the

> Shastras and misinterprets them to his advantage,

> to create artificial hype in public , about his

> greatness,has left. Whatever little knowledge

> you had was contributed from him, as he projects

> in all Forums, as soon as he left, you had nothing

> to contribute, but just defending yourself like a

> women with transparent clothing.

>

> Dear Pradeepji, I respect you much, to see you in

> such a position. Have you not seen how Chandrasekharji

> has rubbed you everyday with his mails since a fortnight ?

> And he was right, and you were wrong. Therefore he had

> full right to rub you. But why were you in such a vulnerable

> position ? because You kept yourself open,with your idiotic

> and senseless tarka without any pramana and sang (

> Companionship) of fools whom you thought

> would support you and defend your interpretations or

> misinterpretations. But where are these rats now ?

> Why are you left alone ?

>

> Who knows for real that who is right ?

> Either You or Chandrasekharji ?

>

> Only time would show. Till then why dont you

> keep quiet, instead of allowing yourself

> to be rubbed by one and all. What is the harm in

> accepting your defeat ? Why such a Big EGO ?

> For the time being accept that You may be wrong and

> they may be right.

>

> In the meanwhile consolidate your studies, do some

> research, prove your principles through theseis and

> publish them. Then all those who have been rubbing

> you, would start touching Your feet .

>

> But at the moment you have no ammunitions

> to defend yourself, so just dont

> make a fool of yourself.

>

> Accept silence and pardon.

> Period,

>

> best wishes,

> Bhaskar.

>

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

> <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Prafulla ji

> >

> > I repeat,we have to take a relook at basics whenever in

doubt.This

> > does not mean K.N.Raoji does not know basics -it is your

> > interpretation.I am no man to judge whether Raoji has understood

> > basics or not.It is beyond my capacities.He may be having his own

> > reasons.It is upto him to say whe he use aspects.Not me.

> >

> > For me i have presented my case with Tarka and Pramana.Now i will

> > present my views in a structured fashion.Those who wish can

respond.

> >

> > Regarding,Kalyan Varma etc ...explanations were

given.Chandrashekhar

> > ji had explained to shri Rohini ranjan in the past too.Supporting

> > Pramana will be given in the paper.

> >

> > Late Santhanams view -no more comment.When Lste Santhanam has

> > written in plain English in BPHS...there is no point in

discussing

> > your views about opposition,though one can respect it as personal

> > view.

> >

> > You may keep on trying to create rift between people,if you love

to

> > do so.Let us see whether you succeed or not.

> >

> > Vijayaads Pradeep is different from

> > Srutakeerthi,Jeevasharma,Garga,Thalakkulathu Bhattathiri etc.Thus

it

> > is not my Sanskrit interpretation.But you may try this tactic

again

> > if you have nothing technical to offer.

> >

> > I would like to remind you politely,efforts to create rift will

> > remain unsuccesful.But whether to continue this or not is upto

you.

> >

> > For me if i have to concentrate on my duties and

> > promises.Oppoistions and obstacles are normal.I have been an

> > optimist and will always remain.

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > , Prafulla Gang <jyotish@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Shri Pradeep ji,

> > >

> > > >

> > > > I would like to mention a few words regarding the attempts

made

> > by a

> > > > some.

> > > >

> > > > 1)When one is asked to have a relook at the basics - It

is ''high

> > > > lighted'' by some as ''K.N.Rao does not know basics''.

> > > >

> > >

> > > [Prafulla] Well, Pradeep ji - your statements on forum can not

> > have two meanings - one for Shri KN Rao and another one for

members

> > arguing with you. We did not comment on anyone's basics, but it

was

> > you who were questioning " basics " of the members with respect to

D

> > chakra and its interpretation. You were mentioning that sages

said

> > this, whereas they were your opinion on what " sages " mentioned.

So

> > when people not agreeing to your opinion can be subjected to

those

> > forceful questioning on " basics " , then why not all those people,

> > whose views are in contrast to your view. You should have been

> > careful in your comments in questioning " basics " of the people

who

> > are not agreeing to your view.

> > >

> > > > 2)When Points are presented with the help of Tarka and

> > Pramana,one

> > > > may counter them through Tarka and Pramana.Unfortunately it

is

> > used

> > > > as a vehicle to create rift between K.N.Raoji and his

students as

> > > > well as between K.N.Raoji and individuals having good rapport

> > with

> > > > him.

> > > >

> > > [Prafulla] Pradeep ji, I am indeed surprised to see your

> > objections, if your opinion is conveyed to Shri KN rao

> > in " verbatim " . Trust me, If I meet him - I will not twist your

> > words, but will produce your own mails. So now you mean to say

that -

> > those mails must not be applicable to him? Let this tarka and

> > pramana theory from your own perspective, be also known to him.

and

> > With my rapport with him since 1993, let me advise you - so he

> > likes jyotish exploration. So where is the question of any rift?

If

> > it is your own words are troubling you, then it was your call

dear.

> > None of the other members, questioned the " basics " including of

> > yours.

> > >

> > > Shri Satya did object to your contents of your mail

on " basics " ,

> > but you persisted with forceful conversion.

> > >

> > > > Moreover some are not interested in knowing the Truth,but to

> > > > aggravate things and create rift and fight.

> > >

> > > [Prafulla] is it? We all presented classics (Kalyan Varma),

case

> > studies (late Santhanam) and opinion of so many learned people.

But

> > you kept on overruling them for your whims and now asking for

truth

> > and praman. It was never twisted or misquoted - but by you all

the

> > time to win the argument. Can truth only be those things, which

you

> > propogated?. and Can pramana can only be your sankstri

translations?

> > >

> > > >

> > > > 3)When such comments are ignored - some say,one is selective.

> > >

> > > [Prafulla] is it? You ignored the predicitve challenges on the

> > chart. You ignored case studies of Late Santhanam. You ignored so

> > many areas, where members presented - but you always opted to

> > consider those points (even in articles), which suited your

> > argument. So sir, had we been closed minded - we would not have

> > discussed at all. But if you reread all the mails and select the

> > points skipped - then it may taken another long list of mails to

be

> > answered.

> > >

> > > >

> > > > It is so sad to see how people are unable to take Jyotish

> > debates in

> > > > an objective sense.

> > > >

> > > > If somebody is not in agreement with a particular

understanding

> > of a

> > > > scholar - it can no way mean,one is degrading that scholar as

a

> > > > whole.But unfortunately some are trying to create rift between

> > > > individuals and twist Jyotish debates as disrespect towards

> > learned

> > > > men.

> > > >

> > >

> > > [Prafulla] Who degraded any scholar? who questioned the basics

of

> > the people? Sir - if you are so sure of your opinion then, what

is

> > the problem? None of us except you, have implied a single

negative

> > comment on any learned person. When Shri Chandrasekhar ji

explained

> > the views available in classics - you even rediculed those sages.

At

> > one stage, you said that BV Raman did not read Dashadhayayi. So

sir

> > please restrain defending your lies.

> > >

> > > > In that case there is no need for discussion groups or

> > debates.Every

> > > > one can say i am in the group of Raoji,Sanjayji etc as in

> > politics

> > > > and support individual manifestos.

> > > >

> > >

> > > [Prafulla] well - if any argument is restricted to closed

minded

> > approach with trust being implied, ponly when suiting your

argument -

> > then certainly such debates have no place. But if astrologer is

> > capable to predict with his interpretation model, then only it is

> > called PRAMANA. Until then - it is only called bright ideas - not

> > necessarily genuine one.

> > >

> > > No one is supporting any manifestos. It is you - who are

choosing

> > political terms. We simply respect, what each scholar says - and

> > want to see it it works or not? Can you prove with the predictive

> > challenges? if yes - we can have debates on any astrological

> > principle.

> > >

> > > > Regds

> > > > Pradeep

> > >

> > > regards / Prafulla Gang

> > > http://www.prafulla.net

> > >

> > > " There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe

> > there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't. "

> > > ************************************************

> > >

> > > __________

> > > Listen & Record Music from Internet Radio - Get Free Radio &

MP3

> > Player & Recorder

> > > Learn more at http://www.inbox.com/radio

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Respected Pradeep ji,

 

That is the humility a real scholar aquires. You have proved your

point.

 

Respectfully,

 

RP Singh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Bhaskar ji

>

> Thank you for all the comments.

> I will concentrate on my work.You may kindly carry on whatever you

> want to say.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

> , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeepji,

> >

> > Only a person who does not mind sweeping, is fit

> > to sit on the Kings throne.

> >

> > Only a person who knows to request for pardon,

> > and accept his mistakes can control others.

> >

> > Let us face the truth. You have done only tarka

> > and no pramana has come forth from your side.

> >

> > Yet without even proper clothing to face the

> > freezing cold, and with a small blunt knife

> > not even good enought to cut vegetables ,You

> > are trying to be a great warrior on the Kargil

> > front, is amusing.

> >

> > Your stupid friends have left. Sreenadh,Satish or

> > Sateesh whatever and few others. It is a clear

> > display of rats skipmpering and leaving the ship

> > first when it is about to sink.

> >

> > The first rat- Sreenadh- who also misquotes the

> > Shastras and misinterprets them to his advantage,

> > to create artificial hype in public , about his

> > greatness,has left. Whatever little knowledge

> > you had was contributed from him, as he projects

> > in all Forums, as soon as he left, you had nothing

> > to contribute, but just defending yourself like a

> > women with transparent clothing.

> >

> > Dear Pradeepji, I respect you much, to see you in

> > such a position. Have you not seen how Chandrasekharji

> > has rubbed you everyday with his mails since a fortnight ?

> > And he was right, and you were wrong. Therefore he had

> > full right to rub you. But why were you in such a vulnerable

> > position ? because You kept yourself open,with your idiotic

> > and senseless tarka without any pramana and sang (

> > Companionship) of fools whom you thought

> > would support you and defend your interpretations or

> > misinterpretations. But where are these rats now ?

> > Why are you left alone ?

> >

> > Who knows for real that who is right ?

> > Either You or Chandrasekharji ?

> >

> > Only time would show. Till then why dont you

> > keep quiet, instead of allowing yourself

> > to be rubbed by one and all. What is the harm in

> > accepting your defeat ? Why such a Big EGO ?

> > For the time being accept that You may be wrong and

> > they may be right.

> >

> > In the meanwhile consolidate your studies, do some

> > research, prove your principles through theseis and

> > publish them. Then all those who have been rubbing

> > you, would start touching Your feet .

> >

> > But at the moment you have no ammunitions

> > to defend yourself, so just dont

> > make a fool of yourself.

> >

> > Accept silence and pardon.

> > Period,

> >

> > best wishes,

> > Bhaskar.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > >

> > > I repeat,we have to take a relook at basics whenever in

> doubt.This

> > > does not mean K.N.Raoji does not know basics -it is your

> > > interpretation.I am no man to judge whether Raoji has

understood

> > > basics or not.It is beyond my capacities.He may be having his

own

> > > reasons.It is upto him to say whe he use aspects.Not me.

> > >

> > > For me i have presented my case with Tarka and Pramana.Now i

will

> > > present my views in a structured fashion.Those who wish can

> respond.

> > >

> > > Regarding,Kalyan Varma etc ...explanations were

> given.Chandrashekhar

> > > ji had explained to shri Rohini ranjan in the past

too.Supporting

> > > Pramana will be given in the paper.

> > >

> > > Late Santhanams view -no more comment.When Lste Santhanam has

> > > written in plain English in BPHS...there is no point in

> discussing

> > > your views about opposition,though one can respect it as

personal

> > > view.

> > >

> > > You may keep on trying to create rift between people,if you

love

> to

> > > do so.Let us see whether you succeed or not.

> > >

> > > Vijayaads Pradeep is different from

> > > Srutakeerthi,Jeevasharma,Garga,Thalakkulathu Bhattathiri

etc.Thus

> it

> > > is not my Sanskrit interpretation.But you may try this tactic

> again

> > > if you have nothing technical to offer.

> > >

> > > I would like to remind you politely,efforts to create rift

will

> > > remain unsuccesful.But whether to continue this or not is upto

> you.

> > >

> > > For me if i have to concentrate on my duties and

> > > promises.Oppoistions and obstacles are normal.I have been an

> > > optimist and will always remain.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> > > , Prafulla Gang <jyotish@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Shri Pradeep ji,

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I would like to mention a few words regarding the attempts

> made

> > > by a

> > > > > some.

> > > > >

> > > > > 1)When one is asked to have a relook at the basics - It

> is ''high

> > > > > lighted'' by some as ''K.N.Rao does not know basics''.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > [Prafulla] Well, Pradeep ji - your statements on forum can

not

> > > have two meanings - one for Shri KN Rao and another one for

> members

> > > arguing with you. We did not comment on anyone's basics, but

it

> was

> > > you who were questioning " basics " of the members with respect

to

> D

> > > chakra and its interpretation. You were mentioning that sages

> said

> > > this, whereas they were your opinion on what " sages "

mentioned.

> So

> > > when people not agreeing to your opinion can be subjected to

> those

> > > forceful questioning on " basics " , then why not all those

people,

> > > whose views are in contrast to your view. You should have been

> > > careful in your comments in questioning " basics " of the people

> who

> > > are not agreeing to your view.

> > > >

> > > > > 2)When Points are presented with the help of Tarka and

> > > Pramana,one

> > > > > may counter them through Tarka and Pramana.Unfortunately

it

> is

> > > used

> > > > > as a vehicle to create rift between K.N.Raoji and his

> students as

> > > > > well as between K.N.Raoji and individuals having good

rapport

> > > with

> > > > > him.

> > > > >

> > > > [Prafulla] Pradeep ji, I am indeed surprised to see your

> > > objections, if your opinion is conveyed to Shri KN rao

> > > in " verbatim " . Trust me, If I meet him - I will not twist your

> > > words, but will produce your own mails. So now you mean to say

> that -

> > > those mails must not be applicable to him? Let this tarka and

> > > pramana theory from your own perspective, be also known to

him.

> and

> > > With my rapport with him since 1993, let me advise you - so

he

> > > likes jyotish exploration. So where is the question of any

rift?

> If

> > > it is your own words are troubling you, then it was your call

> dear.

> > > None of the other members, questioned the " basics " including

of

> > > yours.

> > > >

> > > > Shri Satya did object to your contents of your mail

> on " basics " ,

> > > but you persisted with forceful conversion.

> > > >

> > > > > Moreover some are not interested in knowing the Truth,but

to

> > > > > aggravate things and create rift and fight.

> > > >

> > > > [Prafulla] is it? We all presented classics (Kalyan Varma),

> case

> > > studies (late Santhanam) and opinion of so many learned

people.

> But

> > > you kept on overruling them for your whims and now asking for

> truth

> > > and praman. It was never twisted or misquoted - but by you all

> the

> > > time to win the argument. Can truth only be those things,

which

> you

> > > propogated?. and Can pramana can only be your sankstri

> translations?

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > 3)When such comments are ignored - some say,one is

selective.

> > > >

> > > > [Prafulla] is it? You ignored the predicitve challenges on

the

> > > chart. You ignored case studies of Late Santhanam. You ignored

so

> > > many areas, where members presented - but you always opted to

> > > consider those points (even in articles), which suited your

> > > argument. So sir, had we been closed minded - we would not

have

> > > discussed at all. But if you reread all the mails and select

the

> > > points skipped - then it may taken another long list of mails

to

> be

> > > answered.

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > It is so sad to see how people are unable to take Jyotish

> > > debates in

> > > > > an objective sense.

> > > > >

> > > > > If somebody is not in agreement with a particular

> understanding

> > > of a

> > > > > scholar - it can no way mean,one is degrading that scholar

as

> a

> > > > > whole.But unfortunately some are trying to create rift

between

> > > > > individuals and twist Jyotish debates as disrespect

towards

> > > learned

> > > > > men.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > [Prafulla] Who degraded any scholar? who questioned the

basics

> of

> > > the people? Sir - if you are so sure of your opinion then,

what

> is

> > > the problem? None of us except you, have implied a single

> negative

> > > comment on any learned person. When Shri Chandrasekhar ji

> explained

> > > the views available in classics - you even rediculed those

sages.

> At

> > > one stage, you said that BV Raman did not read Dashadhayayi.

So

> sir

> > > please restrain defending your lies.

> > > >

> > > > > In that case there is no need for discussion groups or

> > > debates.Every

> > > > > one can say i am in the group of Raoji,Sanjayji etc as in

> > > politics

> > > > > and support individual manifestos.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > [Prafulla] well - if any argument is restricted to closed

> minded

> > > approach with trust being implied, ponly when suiting your

> argument -

> > > then certainly such debates have no place. But if astrologer

is

> > > capable to predict with his interpretation model, then only it

is

> > > called PRAMANA. Until then - it is only called bright ideas -

not

> > > necessarily genuine one.

> > > >

> > > > No one is supporting any manifestos. It is you - who are

> choosing

> > > political terms. We simply respect, what each scholar says -

and

> > > want to see it it works or not? Can you prove with the

predictive

> > > challenges? if yes - we can have debates on any astrological

> > > principle.

> > > >

> > > > > Regds

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > > regards / Prafulla Gang

> > > > http://www.prafulla.net

> > > >

> > > > " There are two kinds of people in the world, those who

believe

> > > there are two kinds of people in the world and those who

don't. "

> > > > ************************************************

> > > >

> > > > __________

> > > > Listen & Record Music from Internet Radio - Get Free Radio &

> MP3

> > > Player & Recorder

> > > > Learn more at http://www.inbox.com/radio

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeepji,

 

Just that I dont want you good and wise people to

enter into any mudslinging business,

hence I keep entering in between and try to

stop you people.Thats all.

If You feel offended, then I am extremely sorry

and beg to be forgiven. You may cast a Prashna chart

about me anytime and check my intentions. And You

would always find the truth and God besides me,

asking for your welfare. That is all I have in mind

for you all.

 

Unfortunately I am the Doctor who gives the bitter pill

and syrup to the patient to drink,so I am misjudged, but

does not matter, as long as the purpose is served.

 

I have nothing more to say to You.

 

best wishes,

Bhaskar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Bhaskar ji

>

> Thank you for all the comments.

> I will concentrate on my work.You may kindly carry on whatever you

> want to say.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

> , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeepji,

> >

> > Only a person who does not mind sweeping, is fit

> > to sit on the Kings throne.

> >

> > Only a person who knows to request for pardon,

> > and accept his mistakes can control others.

> >

> > Let us face the truth. You have done only tarka

> > and no pramana has come forth from your side.

> >

> > Yet without even proper clothing to face the

> > freezing cold, and with a small blunt knife

> > not even good enought to cut vegetables ,You

> > are trying to be a great warrior on the Kargil

> > front, is amusing.

> >

> > Your stupid friends have left. Sreenadh,Satish or

> > Sateesh whatever and few others. It is a clear

> > display of rats skipmpering and leaving the ship

> > first when it is about to sink.

> >

> > The first rat- Sreenadh- who also misquotes the

> > Shastras and misinterprets them to his advantage,

> > to create artificial hype in public , about his

> > greatness,has left. Whatever little knowledge

> > you had was contributed from him, as he projects

> > in all Forums, as soon as he left, you had nothing

> > to contribute, but just defending yourself like a

> > women with transparent clothing.

> >

> > Dear Pradeepji, I respect you much, to see you in

> > such a position. Have you not seen how Chandrasekharji

> > has rubbed you everyday with his mails since a fortnight ?

> > And he was right, and you were wrong. Therefore he had

> > full right to rub you. But why were you in such a vulnerable

> > position ? because You kept yourself open,with your idiotic

> > and senseless tarka without any pramana and sang (

> > Companionship) of fools whom you thought

> > would support you and defend your interpretations or

> > misinterpretations. But where are these rats now ?

> > Why are you left alone ?

> >

> > Who knows for real that who is right ?

> > Either You or Chandrasekharji ?

> >

> > Only time would show. Till then why dont you

> > keep quiet, instead of allowing yourself

> > to be rubbed by one and all. What is the harm in

> > accepting your defeat ? Why such a Big EGO ?

> > For the time being accept that You may be wrong and

> > they may be right.

> >

> > In the meanwhile consolidate your studies, do some

> > research, prove your principles through theseis and

> > publish them. Then all those who have been rubbing

> > you, would start touching Your feet .

> >

> > But at the moment you have no ammunitions

> > to defend yourself, so just dont

> > make a fool of yourself.

> >

> > Accept silence and pardon.

> > Period,

> >

> > best wishes,

> > Bhaskar.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > >

> > > I repeat,we have to take a relook at basics whenever in

> doubt.This

> > > does not mean K.N.Raoji does not know basics -it is your

> > > interpretation.I am no man to judge whether Raoji has understood

> > > basics or not.It is beyond my capacities.He may be having his own

> > > reasons.It is upto him to say whe he use aspects.Not me.

> > >

> > > For me i have presented my case with Tarka and Pramana.Now i will

> > > present my views in a structured fashion.Those who wish can

> respond.

> > >

> > > Regarding,Kalyan Varma etc ...explanations were

> given.Chandrashekhar

> > > ji had explained to shri Rohini ranjan in the past too.Supporting

> > > Pramana will be given in the paper.

> > >

> > > Late Santhanams view -no more comment.When Lste Santhanam has

> > > written in plain English in BPHS...there is no point in

> discussing

> > > your views about opposition,though one can respect it as personal

> > > view.

> > >

> > > You may keep on trying to create rift between people,if you love

> to

> > > do so.Let us see whether you succeed or not.

> > >

> > > Vijayaads Pradeep is different from

> > > Srutakeerthi,Jeevasharma,Garga,Thalakkulathu Bhattathiri etc.Thus

> it

> > > is not my Sanskrit interpretation.But you may try this tactic

> again

> > > if you have nothing technical to offer.

> > >

> > > I would like to remind you politely,efforts to create rift will

> > > remain unsuccesful.But whether to continue this or not is upto

> you.

> > >

> > > For me if i have to concentrate on my duties and

> > > promises.Oppoistions and obstacles are normal.I have been an

> > > optimist and will always remain.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> > > , Prafulla Gang <jyotish@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Shri Pradeep ji,

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I would like to mention a few words regarding the attempts

> made

> > > by a

> > > > > some.

> > > > >

> > > > > 1)When one is asked to have a relook at the basics - It

> is ''high

> > > > > lighted'' by some as ''K.N.Rao does not know basics''.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > [Prafulla] Well, Pradeep ji - your statements on forum can not

> > > have two meanings - one for Shri KN Rao and another one for

> members

> > > arguing with you. We did not comment on anyone's basics, but it

> was

> > > you who were questioning " basics " of the members with respect to

> D

> > > chakra and its interpretation. You were mentioning that sages

> said

> > > this, whereas they were your opinion on what " sages " mentioned.

> So

> > > when people not agreeing to your opinion can be subjected to

> those

> > > forceful questioning on " basics " , then why not all those people,

> > > whose views are in contrast to your view. You should have been

> > > careful in your comments in questioning " basics " of the people

> who

> > > are not agreeing to your view.

> > > >

> > > > > 2)When Points are presented with the help of Tarka and

> > > Pramana,one

> > > > > may counter them through Tarka and Pramana.Unfortunately it

> is

> > > used

> > > > > as a vehicle to create rift between K.N.Raoji and his

> students as

> > > > > well as between K.N.Raoji and individuals having good rapport

> > > with

> > > > > him.

> > > > >

> > > > [Prafulla] Pradeep ji, I am indeed surprised to see your

> > > objections, if your opinion is conveyed to Shri KN rao

> > > in " verbatim " . Trust me, If I meet him - I will not twist your

> > > words, but will produce your own mails. So now you mean to say

> that -

> > > those mails must not be applicable to him? Let this tarka and

> > > pramana theory from your own perspective, be also known to him.

> and

> > > With my rapport with him since 1993, let me advise you - so he

> > > likes jyotish exploration. So where is the question of any rift?

> If

> > > it is your own words are troubling you, then it was your call

> dear.

> > > None of the other members, questioned the " basics " including of

> > > yours.

> > > >

> > > > Shri Satya did object to your contents of your mail

> on " basics " ,

> > > but you persisted with forceful conversion.

> > > >

> > > > > Moreover some are not interested in knowing the Truth,but to

> > > > > aggravate things and create rift and fight.

> > > >

> > > > [Prafulla] is it? We all presented classics (Kalyan Varma),

> case

> > > studies (late Santhanam) and opinion of so many learned people.

> But

> > > you kept on overruling them for your whims and now asking for

> truth

> > > and praman. It was never twisted or misquoted - but by you all

> the

> > > time to win the argument. Can truth only be those things, which

> you

> > > propogated?. and Can pramana can only be your sankstri

> translations?

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > 3)When such comments are ignored - some say,one is selective.

> > > >

> > > > [Prafulla] is it? You ignored the predicitve challenges on the

> > > chart. You ignored case studies of Late Santhanam. You ignored so

> > > many areas, where members presented - but you always opted to

> > > consider those points (even in articles), which suited your

> > > argument. So sir, had we been closed minded - we would not have

> > > discussed at all. But if you reread all the mails and select the

> > > points skipped - then it may taken another long list of mails to

> be

> > > answered.

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > It is so sad to see how people are unable to take Jyotish

> > > debates in

> > > > > an objective sense.

> > > > >

> > > > > If somebody is not in agreement with a particular

> understanding

> > > of a

> > > > > scholar - it can no way mean,one is degrading that scholar as

> a

> > > > > whole.But unfortunately some are trying to create rift between

> > > > > individuals and twist Jyotish debates as disrespect towards

> > > learned

> > > > > men.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > [Prafulla] Who degraded any scholar? who questioned the basics

> of

> > > the people? Sir - if you are so sure of your opinion then, what

> is

> > > the problem? None of us except you, have implied a single

> negative

> > > comment on any learned person. When Shri Chandrasekhar ji

> explained

> > > the views available in classics - you even rediculed those sages.

> At

> > > one stage, you said that BV Raman did not read Dashadhayayi. So

> sir

> > > please restrain defending your lies.

> > > >

> > > > > In that case there is no need for discussion groups or

> > > debates.Every

> > > > > one can say i am in the group of Raoji,Sanjayji etc as in

> > > politics

> > > > > and support individual manifestos.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > [Prafulla] well - if any argument is restricted to closed

> minded

> > > approach with trust being implied, ponly when suiting your

> argument -

> > > then certainly such debates have no place. But if astrologer is

> > > capable to predict with his interpretation model, then only it is

> > > called PRAMANA. Until then - it is only called bright ideas - not

> > > necessarily genuine one.

> > > >

> > > > No one is supporting any manifestos. It is you - who are

> choosing

> > > political terms. We simply respect, what each scholar says - and

> > > want to see it it works or not? Can you prove with the predictive

> > > challenges? if yes - we can have debates on any astrological

> > > principle.

> > > >

> > > > > Regds

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > > regards / Prafulla Gang

> > > > http://www.prafulla.net

> > > >

> > > > " There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe

> > > there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't. "

> > > > ************************************************

> > > >

> > > > __________

> > > > Listen & Record Music from Internet Radio - Get Free Radio &

> MP3

> > > Player & Recorder

> > > > Learn more at http://www.inbox.com/radio

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

But what have You proved yourself ?

Neither a scholar and neither a torn Dollar ?

 

Bhaskar.

 

 

 

, " rpsingh2710 " <rpsingh2710

wrote:

>

> Respected Pradeep ji,

>

> That is the humility a real scholar aquires. You have proved your

> point.

>

> Respectfully,

>

> RP Singh

>

>

>

>

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

> <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Bhaskar ji

> >

> > Thank you for all the comments.

> > I will concentrate on my work.You may kindly carry on whatever you

> > want to say.

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeepji,

> > >

> > > Only a person who does not mind sweeping, is fit

> > > to sit on the Kings throne.

> > >

> > > Only a person who knows to request for pardon,

> > > and accept his mistakes can control others.

> > >

> > > Let us face the truth. You have done only tarka

> > > and no pramana has come forth from your side.

> > >

> > > Yet without even proper clothing to face the

> > > freezing cold, and with a small blunt knife

> > > not even good enought to cut vegetables ,You

> > > are trying to be a great warrior on the Kargil

> > > front, is amusing.

> > >

> > > Your stupid friends have left. Sreenadh,Satish or

> > > Sateesh whatever and few others. It is a clear

> > > display of rats skipmpering and leaving the ship

> > > first when it is about to sink.

> > >

> > > The first rat- Sreenadh- who also misquotes the

> > > Shastras and misinterprets them to his advantage,

> > > to create artificial hype in public , about his

> > > greatness,has left. Whatever little knowledge

> > > you had was contributed from him, as he projects

> > > in all Forums, as soon as he left, you had nothing

> > > to contribute, but just defending yourself like a

> > > women with transparent clothing.

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeepji, I respect you much, to see you in

> > > such a position. Have you not seen how Chandrasekharji

> > > has rubbed you everyday with his mails since a fortnight ?

> > > And he was right, and you were wrong. Therefore he had

> > > full right to rub you. But why were you in such a vulnerable

> > > position ? because You kept yourself open,with your idiotic

> > > and senseless tarka without any pramana and sang (

> > > Companionship) of fools whom you thought

> > > would support you and defend your interpretations or

> > > misinterpretations. But where are these rats now ?

> > > Why are you left alone ?

> > >

> > > Who knows for real that who is right ?

> > > Either You or Chandrasekharji ?

> > >

> > > Only time would show. Till then why dont you

> > > keep quiet, instead of allowing yourself

> > > to be rubbed by one and all. What is the harm in

> > > accepting your defeat ? Why such a Big EGO ?

> > > For the time being accept that You may be wrong and

> > > they may be right.

> > >

> > > In the meanwhile consolidate your studies, do some

> > > research, prove your principles through theseis and

> > > publish them. Then all those who have been rubbing

> > > you, would start touching Your feet .

> > >

> > > But at the moment you have no ammunitions

> > > to defend yourself, so just dont

> > > make a fool of yourself.

> > >

> > > Accept silence and pardon.

> > > Period,

> > >

> > > best wishes,

> > > Bhaskar.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > >

> > > > I repeat,we have to take a relook at basics whenever in

> > doubt.This

> > > > does not mean K.N.Raoji does not know basics -it is your

> > > > interpretation.I am no man to judge whether Raoji has

> understood

> > > > basics or not.It is beyond my capacities.He may be having his

> own

> > > > reasons.It is upto him to say whe he use aspects.Not me.

> > > >

> > > > For me i have presented my case with Tarka and Pramana.Now i

> will

> > > > present my views in a structured fashion.Those who wish can

> > respond.

> > > >

> > > > Regarding,Kalyan Varma etc ...explanations were

> > given.Chandrashekhar

> > > > ji had explained to shri Rohini ranjan in the past

> too.Supporting

> > > > Pramana will be given in the paper.

> > > >

> > > > Late Santhanams view -no more comment.When Lste Santhanam has

> > > > written in plain English in BPHS...there is no point in

> > discussing

> > > > your views about opposition,though one can respect it as

> personal

> > > > view.

> > > >

> > > > You may keep on trying to create rift between people,if you

> love

> > to

> > > > do so.Let us see whether you succeed or not.

> > > >

> > > > Vijayaads Pradeep is different from

> > > > Srutakeerthi,Jeevasharma,Garga,Thalakkulathu Bhattathiri

> etc.Thus

> > it

> > > > is not my Sanskrit interpretation.But you may try this tactic

> > again

> > > > if you have nothing technical to offer.

> > > >

> > > > I would like to remind you politely,efforts to create rift

> will

> > > > remain unsuccesful.But whether to continue this or not is upto

> > you.

> > > >

> > > > For me if i have to concentrate on my duties and

> > > > promises.Oppoistions and obstacles are normal.I have been an

> > > > optimist and will always remain.

> > > >

> > > > Regds

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > , Prafulla Gang <jyotish@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Shri Pradeep ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I would like to mention a few words regarding the attempts

> > made

> > > > by a

> > > > > > some.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1)When one is asked to have a relook at the basics - It

> > is ''high

> > > > > > lighted'' by some as ''K.N.Rao does not know basics''.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > [Prafulla] Well, Pradeep ji - your statements on forum can

> not

> > > > have two meanings - one for Shri KN Rao and another one for

> > members

> > > > arguing with you. We did not comment on anyone's basics, but

> it

> > was

> > > > you who were questioning " basics " of the members with respect

> to

> > D

> > > > chakra and its interpretation. You were mentioning that sages

> > said

> > > > this, whereas they were your opinion on what " sages "

> mentioned.

> > So

> > > > when people not agreeing to your opinion can be subjected to

> > those

> > > > forceful questioning on " basics " , then why not all those

> people,

> > > > whose views are in contrast to your view. You should have been

> > > > careful in your comments in questioning " basics " of the people

> > who

> > > > are not agreeing to your view.

> > > > >

> > > > > > 2)When Points are presented with the help of Tarka and

> > > > Pramana,one

> > > > > > may counter them through Tarka and Pramana.Unfortunately

> it

> > is

> > > > used

> > > > > > as a vehicle to create rift between K.N.Raoji and his

> > students as

> > > > > > well as between K.N.Raoji and individuals having good

> rapport

> > > > with

> > > > > > him.

> > > > > >

> > > > > [Prafulla] Pradeep ji, I am indeed surprised to see your

> > > > objections, if your opinion is conveyed to Shri KN rao

> > > > in " verbatim " . Trust me, If I meet him - I will not twist your

> > > > words, but will produce your own mails. So now you mean to say

> > that -

> > > > those mails must not be applicable to him? Let this tarka and

> > > > pramana theory from your own perspective, be also known to

> him.

> > and

> > > > With my rapport with him since 1993, let me advise you - so

> he

> > > > likes jyotish exploration. So where is the question of any

> rift?

> > If

> > > > it is your own words are troubling you, then it was your call

> > dear.

> > > > None of the other members, questioned the " basics " including

> of

> > > > yours.

> > > > >

> > > > > Shri Satya did object to your contents of your mail

> > on " basics " ,

> > > > but you persisted with forceful conversion.

> > > > >

> > > > > > Moreover some are not interested in knowing the Truth,but

> to

> > > > > > aggravate things and create rift and fight.

> > > > >

> > > > > [Prafulla] is it? We all presented classics (Kalyan Varma),

> > case

> > > > studies (late Santhanam) and opinion of so many learned

> people.

> > But

> > > > you kept on overruling them for your whims and now asking for

> > truth

> > > > and praman. It was never twisted or misquoted - but by you all

> > the

> > > > time to win the argument. Can truth only be those things,

> which

> > you

> > > > propogated?. and Can pramana can only be your sankstri

> > translations?

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 3)When such comments are ignored - some say,one is

> selective.

> > > > >

> > > > > [Prafulla] is it? You ignored the predicitve challenges on

> the

> > > > chart. You ignored case studies of Late Santhanam. You ignored

> so

> > > > many areas, where members presented - but you always opted to

> > > > consider those points (even in articles), which suited your

> > > > argument. So sir, had we been closed minded - we would not

> have

> > > > discussed at all. But if you reread all the mails and select

> the

> > > > points skipped - then it may taken another long list of mails

> to

> > be

> > > > answered.

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is so sad to see how people are unable to take Jyotish

> > > > debates in

> > > > > > an objective sense.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If somebody is not in agreement with a particular

> > understanding

> > > > of a

> > > > > > scholar - it can no way mean,one is degrading that scholar

> as

> > a

> > > > > > whole.But unfortunately some are trying to create rift

> between

> > > > > > individuals and twist Jyotish debates as disrespect

> towards

> > > > learned

> > > > > > men.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > [Prafulla] Who degraded any scholar? who questioned the

> basics

> > of

> > > > the people? Sir - if you are so sure of your opinion then,

> what

> > is

> > > > the problem? None of us except you, have implied a single

> > negative

> > > > comment on any learned person. When Shri Chandrasekhar ji

> > explained

> > > > the views available in classics - you even rediculed those

> sages.

> > At

> > > > one stage, you said that BV Raman did not read Dashadhayayi.

> So

> > sir

> > > > please restrain defending your lies.

> > > > >

> > > > > > In that case there is no need for discussion groups or

> > > > debates.Every

> > > > > > one can say i am in the group of Raoji,Sanjayji etc as in

> > > > politics

> > > > > > and support individual manifestos.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > [Prafulla] well - if any argument is restricted to closed

> > minded

> > > > approach with trust being implied, ponly when suiting your

> > argument -

> > > > then certainly such debates have no place. But if astrologer

> is

> > > > capable to predict with his interpretation model, then only it

> is

> > > > called PRAMANA. Until then - it is only called bright ideas -

> not

> > > > necessarily genuine one.

> > > > >

> > > > > No one is supporting any manifestos. It is you - who are

> > choosing

> > > > political terms. We simply respect, what each scholar says -

> and

> > > > want to see it it works or not? Can you prove with the

> predictive

> > > > challenges? if yes - we can have debates on any astrological

> > > > principle.

> > > > >

> > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > > regards / Prafulla Gang

> > > > > http://www.prafulla.net

> > > > >

> > > > > " There are two kinds of people in the world, those who

> believe

> > > > there are two kinds of people in the world and those who

> don't. "

> > > > > ************************************************

> > > > >

> > > > > __________

> > > > > Listen & Record Music from Internet Radio - Get Free Radio &

> > MP3

> > > > Player & Recorder

> > > > > Learn more at http://www.inbox.com/radio

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

LOL

LOL

LOL

 

All I can do is laugh out loudly.

 

RP Singh

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish

wrote:

>

> But what have You proved yourself ?

> Neither a scholar and neither a torn Dollar ?

>

> Bhaskar.

>

>

>

> , " rpsingh2710 " <rpsingh2710@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Respected Pradeep ji,

> >

> > That is the humility a real scholar aquires. You have proved

your

> > point.

> >

> > Respectfully,

> >

> > RP Singh

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Bhaskar ji

> > >

> > > Thank you for all the comments.

> > > I will concentrate on my work.You may kindly carry on whatever

you

> > > want to say.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > > , " Bhaskar "

<bhaskar_jyotish@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeepji,

> > > >

> > > > Only a person who does not mind sweeping, is fit

> > > > to sit on the Kings throne.

> > > >

> > > > Only a person who knows to request for pardon,

> > > > and accept his mistakes can control others.

> > > >

> > > > Let us face the truth. You have done only tarka

> > > > and no pramana has come forth from your side.

> > > >

> > > > Yet without even proper clothing to face the

> > > > freezing cold, and with a small blunt knife

> > > > not even good enought to cut vegetables ,You

> > > > are trying to be a great warrior on the Kargil

> > > > front, is amusing.

> > > >

> > > > Your stupid friends have left. Sreenadh,Satish or

> > > > Sateesh whatever and few others. It is a clear

> > > > display of rats skipmpering and leaving the ship

> > > > first when it is about to sink.

> > > >

> > > > The first rat- Sreenadh- who also misquotes the

> > > > Shastras and misinterprets them to his advantage,

> > > > to create artificial hype in public , about his

> > > > greatness,has left. Whatever little knowledge

> > > > you had was contributed from him, as he projects

> > > > in all Forums, as soon as he left, you had nothing

> > > > to contribute, but just defending yourself like a

> > > > women with transparent clothing.

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeepji, I respect you much, to see you in

> > > > such a position. Have you not seen how Chandrasekharji

> > > > has rubbed you everyday with his mails since a fortnight ?

> > > > And he was right, and you were wrong. Therefore he had

> > > > full right to rub you. But why were you in such a vulnerable

> > > > position ? because You kept yourself open,with your idiotic

> > > > and senseless tarka without any pramana and sang (

> > > > Companionship) of fools whom you thought

> > > > would support you and defend your interpretations or

> > > > misinterpretations. But where are these rats now ?

> > > > Why are you left alone ?

> > > >

> > > > Who knows for real that who is right ?

> > > > Either You or Chandrasekharji ?

> > > >

> > > > Only time would show. Till then why dont you

> > > > keep quiet, instead of allowing yourself

> > > > to be rubbed by one and all. What is the harm in

> > > > accepting your defeat ? Why such a Big EGO ?

> > > > For the time being accept that You may be wrong and

> > > > they may be right.

> > > >

> > > > In the meanwhile consolidate your studies, do some

> > > > research, prove your principles through theseis and

> > > > publish them. Then all those who have been rubbing

> > > > you, would start touching Your feet .

> > > >

> > > > But at the moment you have no ammunitions

> > > > to defend yourself, so just dont

> > > > make a fool of yourself.

> > > >

> > > > Accept silence and pardon.

> > > > Period,

> > > >

> > > > best wishes,

> > > > Bhaskar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > > >

> > > > > I repeat,we have to take a relook at basics whenever in

> > > doubt.This

> > > > > does not mean K.N.Raoji does not know basics -it is your

> > > > > interpretation.I am no man to judge whether Raoji has

> > understood

> > > > > basics or not.It is beyond my capacities.He may be having

his

> > own

> > > > > reasons.It is upto him to say whe he use aspects.Not me.

> > > > >

> > > > > For me i have presented my case with Tarka and Pramana.Now

i

> > will

> > > > > present my views in a structured fashion.Those who wish

can

> > > respond.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regarding,Kalyan Varma etc ...explanations were

> > > given.Chandrashekhar

> > > > > ji had explained to shri Rohini ranjan in the past

> > too.Supporting

> > > > > Pramana will be given in the paper.

> > > > >

> > > > > Late Santhanams view -no more comment.When Lste Santhanam

has

> > > > > written in plain English in BPHS...there is no point in

> > > discussing

> > > > > your views about opposition,though one can respect it as

> > personal

> > > > > view.

> > > > >

> > > > > You may keep on trying to create rift between people,if

you

> > love

> > > to

> > > > > do so.Let us see whether you succeed or not.

> > > > >

> > > > > Vijayaads Pradeep is different from

> > > > > Srutakeerthi,Jeevasharma,Garga,Thalakkulathu Bhattathiri

> > etc.Thus

> > > it

> > > > > is not my Sanskrit interpretation.But you may try this

tactic

> > > again

> > > > > if you have nothing technical to offer.

> > > > >

> > > > > I would like to remind you politely,efforts to create rift

> > will

> > > > > remain unsuccesful.But whether to continue this or not is

upto

> > > you.

> > > > >

> > > > > For me if i have to concentrate on my duties and

> > > > > promises.Oppoistions and obstacles are normal.I have been

an

> > > > > optimist and will always remain.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regds

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > , Prafulla Gang

<jyotish@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Shri Pradeep ji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I would like to mention a few words regarding the

attempts

> > > made

> > > > > by a

> > > > > > > some.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 1)When one is asked to have a relook at the basics -

It

> > > is ''high

> > > > > > > lighted'' by some as ''K.N.Rao does not know basics''.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > [Prafulla] Well, Pradeep ji - your statements on forum

can

> > not

> > > > > have two meanings - one for Shri KN Rao and another one

for

> > > members

> > > > > arguing with you. We did not comment on anyone's basics,

but

> > it

> > > was

> > > > > you who were questioning " basics " of the members with

respect

> > to

> > > D

> > > > > chakra and its interpretation. You were mentioning that

sages

> > > said

> > > > > this, whereas they were your opinion on what " sages "

> > mentioned.

> > > So

> > > > > when people not agreeing to your opinion can be subjected

to

> > > those

> > > > > forceful questioning on " basics " , then why not all those

> > people,

> > > > > whose views are in contrast to your view. You should have

been

> > > > > careful in your comments in questioning " basics " of the

people

> > > who

> > > > > are not agreeing to your view.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > 2)When Points are presented with the help of Tarka and

> > > > > Pramana,one

> > > > > > > may counter them through Tarka and

Pramana.Unfortunately

> > it

> > > is

> > > > > used

> > > > > > > as a vehicle to create rift between K.N.Raoji and his

> > > students as

> > > > > > > well as between K.N.Raoji and individuals having good

> > rapport

> > > > > with

> > > > > > > him.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > [Prafulla] Pradeep ji, I am indeed surprised to see your

> > > > > objections, if your opinion is conveyed to Shri KN rao

> > > > > in " verbatim " . Trust me, If I meet him - I will not twist

your

> > > > > words, but will produce your own mails. So now you mean to

say

> > > that -

> > > > > those mails must not be applicable to him? Let this tarka

and

> > > > > pramana theory from your own perspective, be also known to

> > him.

> > > and

> > > > > With my rapport with him since 1993, let me advise you -

so

> > he

> > > > > likes jyotish exploration. So where is the question of any

> > rift?

> > > If

> > > > > it is your own words are troubling you, then it was your

call

> > > dear.

> > > > > None of the other members, questioned the " basics "

including

> > of

> > > > > yours.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Shri Satya did object to your contents of your mail

> > > on " basics " ,

> > > > > but you persisted with forceful conversion.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > Moreover some are not interested in knowing the

Truth,but

> > to

> > > > > > > aggravate things and create rift and fight.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > [Prafulla] is it? We all presented classics (Kalyan

Varma),

> > > case

> > > > > studies (late Santhanam) and opinion of so many learned

> > people.

> > > But

> > > > > you kept on overruling them for your whims and now asking

for

> > > truth

> > > > > and praman. It was never twisted or misquoted - but by you

all

> > > the

> > > > > time to win the argument. Can truth only be those things,

> > which

> > > you

> > > > > propogated?. and Can pramana can only be your sankstri

> > > translations?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 3)When such comments are ignored - some say,one is

> > selective.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > [Prafulla] is it? You ignored the predicitve challenges

on

> > the

> > > > > chart. You ignored case studies of Late Santhanam. You

ignored

> > so

> > > > > many areas, where members presented - but you always opted

to

> > > > > consider those points (even in articles), which suited

your

> > > > > argument. So sir, had we been closed minded - we would not

> > have

> > > > > discussed at all. But if you reread all the mails and

select

> > the

> > > > > points skipped - then it may taken another long list of

mails

> > to

> > > be

> > > > > answered.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It is so sad to see how people are unable to take

Jyotish

> > > > > debates in

> > > > > > > an objective sense.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If somebody is not in agreement with a particular

> > > understanding

> > > > > of a

> > > > > > > scholar - it can no way mean,one is degrading that

scholar

> > as

> > > a

> > > > > > > whole.But unfortunately some are trying to create rift

> > between

> > > > > > > individuals and twist Jyotish debates as disrespect

> > towards

> > > > > learned

> > > > > > > men.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > [Prafulla] Who degraded any scholar? who questioned the

> > basics

> > > of

> > > > > the people? Sir - if you are so sure of your opinion then,

> > what

> > > is

> > > > > the problem? None of us except you, have implied a single

> > > negative

> > > > > comment on any learned person. When Shri Chandrasekhar ji

> > > explained

> > > > > the views available in classics - you even rediculed those

> > sages.

> > > At

> > > > > one stage, you said that BV Raman did not read

Dashadhayayi.

> > So

> > > sir

> > > > > please restrain defending your lies.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > In that case there is no need for discussion groups or

> > > > > debates.Every

> > > > > > > one can say i am in the group of Raoji,Sanjayji etc as

in

> > > > > politics

> > > > > > > and support individual manifestos.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > [Prafulla] well - if any argument is restricted to

closed

> > > minded

> > > > > approach with trust being implied, ponly when suiting your

> > > argument -

> > > > > then certainly such debates have no place. But if

astrologer

> > is

> > > > > capable to predict with his interpretation model, then

only it

> > is

> > > > > called PRAMANA. Until then - it is only called bright

ideas -

> > not

> > > > > necessarily genuine one.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > No one is supporting any manifestos. It is you - who are

> > > choosing

> > > > > political terms. We simply respect, what each scholar

says -

> > and

> > > > > want to see it it works or not? Can you prove with the

> > predictive

> > > > > challenges? if yes - we can have debates on any

astrological

> > > > > principle.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > > regards / Prafulla Gang

> > > > > > http://www.prafulla.net

> > > > > >

> > > > > > " There are two kinds of people in the world, those who

> > believe

> > > > > there are two kinds of people in the world and those who

> > don't. "

> > > > > > ************************************************

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

__________

> > > > > > Listen & Record Music from Internet Radio - Get Free

Radio &

> > > MP3

> > > > > Player & Recorder

> > > > > > Learn more at http://www.inbox.com/radio

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

 

Those of you who are enamoured by Late Shri Santhanam's translations would be

delighted to know that he never translated a single book and got it translated

through Pandits who knew Sanskrit by paying a measely sum of Rs. 5/- or so per

shloka. It is a common knowledge in Delhi's astrological circle.

 

regards,

 

Manoj

 

Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote:

Dear Pradeepji,

 

Just that I dont want you good and wise people to

enter into any mudslinging business,

hence I keep entering in between and try to

stop you people.Thats all.

If You feel offended, then I am extremely sorry

and beg to be forgiven. You may cast a Prashna chart

about me anytime and check my intentions. And You

would always find the truth and God besides me,

asking for your welfare. That is all I have in mind

for you all.

 

Unfortunately I am the Doctor who gives the bitter pill

and syrup to the patient to drink,so I am misjudged, but

does not matter, as long as the purpose is served.

 

I have nothing more to say to You.

 

best wishes,

Bhaskar.

 

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Bhaskar ji

>

> Thank you for all the comments.

> I will concentrate on my work.You may kindly carry on whatever you

> want to say.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

> , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeepji,

> >

> > Only a person who does not mind sweeping, is fit

> > to sit on the Kings throne.

> >

> > Only a person who knows to request for pardon,

> > and accept his mistakes can control others.

> >

> > Let us face the truth. You have done only tarka

> > and no pramana has come forth from your side.

> >

> > Yet without even proper clothing to face the

> > freezing cold, and with a small blunt knife

> > not even good enought to cut vegetables ,You

> > are trying to be a great warrior on the Kargil

> > front, is amusing.

> >

> > Your stupid friends have left. Sreenadh,Satish or

> > Sateesh whatever and few others. It is a clear

> > display of rats skipmpering and leaving the ship

> > first when it is about to sink.

> >

> > The first rat- Sreenadh- who also misquotes the

> > Shastras and misinterprets them to his advantage,

> > to create artificial hype in public , about his

> > greatness,has left. Whatever little knowledge

> > you had was contributed from him, as he projects

> > in all Forums, as soon as he left, you had nothing

> > to contribute, but just defending yourself like a

> > women with transparent clothing.

> >

> > Dear Pradeepji, I respect you much, to see you in

> > such a position. Have you not seen how Chandrasekharji

> > has rubbed you everyday with his mails since a fortnight ?

> > And he was right, and you were wrong. Therefore he had

> > full right to rub you. But why were you in such a vulnerable

> > position ? because You kept yourself open,with your idiotic

> > and senseless tarka without any pramana and sang (

> > Companionship) of fools whom you thought

> > would support you and defend your interpretations or

> > misinterpretations. But where are these rats now ?

> > Why are you left alone ?

> >

> > Who knows for real that who is right ?

> > Either You or Chandrasekharji ?

> >

> > Only time would show. Till then why dont you

> > keep quiet, instead of allowing yourself

> > to be rubbed by one and all. What is the harm in

> > accepting your defeat ? Why such a Big EGO ?

> > For the time being accept that You may be wrong and

> > they may be right.

> >

> > In the meanwhile consolidate your studies, do some

> > research, prove your principles through theseis and

> > publish them. Then all those who have been rubbing

> > you, would start touching Your feet .

> >

> > But at the moment you have no ammunitions

> > to defend yourself, so just dont

> > make a fool of yourself.

> >

> > Accept silence and pardon.

> > Period,

> >

> > best wishes,

> > Bhaskar.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > >

> > > I repeat,we have to take a relook at basics whenever in

> doubt.This

> > > does not mean K.N.Raoji does not know basics -it is your

> > > interpretation.I am no man to judge whether Raoji has understood

> > > basics or not.It is beyond my capacities.He may be having his own

> > > reasons.It is upto him to say whe he use aspects.Not me.

> > >

> > > For me i have presented my case with Tarka and Pramana.Now i will

> > > present my views in a structured fashion.Those who wish can

> respond.

> > >

> > > Regarding,Kalyan Varma etc ...explanations were

> given.Chandrashekhar

> > > ji had explained to shri Rohini ranjan in the past too.Supporting

> > > Pramana will be given in the paper.

> > >

> > > Late Santhanams view -no more comment.When Lste Santhanam has

> > > written in plain English in BPHS...there is no point in

> discussing

> > > your views about opposition,though one can respect it as personal

> > > view.

> > >

> > > You may keep on trying to create rift between people,if you love

> to

> > > do so.Let us see whether you succeed or not.

> > >

> > > Vijayaads Pradeep is different from

> > > Srutakeerthi,Jeevasharma,Garga,Thalakkulathu Bhattathiri etc.Thus

> it

> > > is not my Sanskrit interpretation.But you may try this tactic

> again

> > > if you have nothing technical to offer.

> > >

> > > I would like to remind you politely,efforts to create rift will

> > > remain unsuccesful.But whether to continue this or not is upto

> you.

> > >

> > > For me if i have to concentrate on my duties and

> > > promises.Oppoistions and obstacles are normal.I have been an

> > > optimist and will always remain.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> > > , Prafulla Gang <jyotish@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Shri Pradeep ji,

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I would like to mention a few words regarding the attempts

> made

> > > by a

> > > > > some.

> > > > >

> > > > > 1)When one is asked to have a relook at the basics - It

> is ''high

> > > > > lighted'' by some as ''K.N.Rao does not know basics''.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > [Prafulla] Well, Pradeep ji - your statements on forum can not

> > > have two meanings - one for Shri KN Rao and another one for

> members

> > > arguing with you. We did not comment on anyone's basics, but it

> was

> > > you who were questioning " basics " of the members with respect to

> D

> > > chakra and its interpretation. You were mentioning that sages

> said

> > > this, whereas they were your opinion on what " sages " mentioned.

> So

> > > when people not agreeing to your opinion can be subjected to

> those

> > > forceful questioning on " basics " , then why not all those people,

> > > whose views are in contrast to your view. You should have been

> > > careful in your comments in questioning " basics " of the people

> who

> > > are not agreeing to your view.

> > > >

> > > > > 2)When Points are presented with the help of Tarka and

> > > Pramana,one

> > > > > may counter them through Tarka and Pramana.Unfortunately it

> is

> > > used

> > > > > as a vehicle to create rift between K.N.Raoji and his

> students as

> > > > > well as between K.N.Raoji and individuals having good rapport

> > > with

> > > > > him.

> > > > >

> > > > [Prafulla] Pradeep ji, I am indeed surprised to see your

> > > objections, if your opinion is conveyed to Shri KN rao

> > > in " verbatim " . Trust me, If I meet him - I will not twist your

> > > words, but will produce your own mails. So now you mean to say

> that -

> > > those mails must not be applicable to him? Let this tarka and

> > > pramana theory from your own perspective, be also known to him.

> and

> > > With my rapport with him since 1993, let me advise you - so he

> > > likes jyotish exploration. So where is the question of any rift?

> If

> > > it is your own words are troubling you, then it was your call

> dear.

> > > None of the other members, questioned the " basics " including of

> > > yours.

> > > >

> > > > Shri Satya did object to your contents of your mail

> on " basics " ,

> > > but you persisted with forceful conversion.

> > > >

> > > > > Moreover some are not interested in knowing the Truth,but to

> > > > > aggravate things and create rift and fight.

> > > >

> > > > [Prafulla] is it? We all presented classics (Kalyan Varma),

> case

> > > studies (late Santhanam) and opinion of so many learned people.

> But

> > > you kept on overruling them for your whims and now asking for

> truth

> > > and praman. It was never twisted or misquoted - but by you all

> the

> > > time to win the argument. Can truth only be those things, which

> you

> > > propogated?. and Can pramana can only be your sankstri

> translations?

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > 3)When such comments are ignored - some say,one is selective.

> > > >

> > > > [Prafulla] is it? You ignored the predicitve challenges on the

> > > chart. You ignored case studies of Late Santhanam. You ignored so

> > > many areas, where members presented - but you always opted to

> > > consider those points (even in articles), which suited your

> > > argument. So sir, had we been closed minded - we would not have

> > > discussed at all. But if you reread all the mails and select the

> > > points skipped - then it may taken another long list of mails to

> be

> > > answered.

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > It is so sad to see how people are unable to take Jyotish

> > > debates in

> > > > > an objective sense.

> > > > >

> > > > > If somebody is not in agreement with a particular

> understanding

> > > of a

> > > > > scholar - it can no way mean,one is degrading that scholar as

> a

> > > > > whole.But unfortunately some are trying to create rift between

> > > > > individuals and twist Jyotish debates as disrespect towards

> > > learned

> > > > > men.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > [Prafulla] Who degraded any scholar? who questioned the basics

> of

> > > the people? Sir - if you are so sure of your opinion then, what

> is

> > > the problem? None of us except you, have implied a single

> negative

> > > comment on any learned person. When Shri Chandrasekhar ji

> explained

> > > the views available in classics - you even rediculed those sages.

> At

> > > one stage, you said that BV Raman did not read Dashadhayayi. So

> sir

> > > please restrain defending your lies.

> > > >

> > > > > In that case there is no need for discussion groups or

> > > debates.Every

> > > > > one can say i am in the group of Raoji,Sanjayji etc as in

> > > politics

> > > > > and support individual manifestos.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > [Prafulla] well - if any argument is restricted to closed

> minded

> > > approach with trust being implied, ponly when suiting your

> argument -

> > > then certainly such debates have no place. But if astrologer is

> > > capable to predict with his interpretation model, then only it is

> > > called PRAMANA. Until then - it is only called bright ideas - not

> > > necessarily genuine one.

> > > >

> > > > No one is supporting any manifestos. It is you - who are

> choosing

> > > political terms. We simply respect, what each scholar says - and

> > > want to see it it works or not? Can you prove with the predictive

> > > challenges? if yes - we can have debates on any astrological

> > > principle.

> > > >

> > > > > Regds

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > > regards / Prafulla Gang

> > > > http://www.prafulla.net

> > > >

> > > > " There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe

> > > there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't. "

> > > > ************************************************

> > > >

> > > > ________

> > > > Listen & Record Music from Internet Radio - Get Free Radio &

> MP3

> > > Player & Recorder

> > > > Learn more at http://www.inbox.com/radio

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.

Visit the Auto Green Center.