Guest guest Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 Respected Umesh ji, The group is going towards the positive direction now. I am really excited to the devotion you have shown toward the cause of the astrology.The plant which have been sown by Worthy Pt. Roop Chand Ji is now become the full fledged tree. The new plantation needs a lot of care and manure. The masters like you have the duty to give nourishment to these plants so they can become a healthy tree. The new generation of astrologers will be the fruit of your efforts. Thanks a lot Umesh ji. I will always be at your feet to give assistance if you feel so. Regards Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 Dear Nirmal Kumar ji, Your assistance, your help, your knowledge, your ability to articulate, your sincerity, your Love for " Lalkitab " , your respect for the others, your constructive criticism- all are very welcome. I feel strengthen by your support. I look forward to your active participation. Thanks. May God bless you. Your Brother Umesh Sharma lalkitab , " Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj " <ni_ku_bha> wrote: > > Respected Umesh ji, > The group is going towards the positive direction now. I am > really excited to the devotion you have shown toward the cause of the > astrology.The plant which have been sown by Worthy Pt. Roop Chand Ji > is now become the full fledged tree. The new plantation needs a lot > of care and manure. The masters like you have the duty to give > nourishment to these plants so they can become a healthy tree. The > new generation of astrologers will be the fruit of your efforts. > Thanks a lot Umesh ji. > I will always be at your feet to give assistance if you feel so. > Regards > Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 Dear prabhakar ji, In my previous mail i told that this edition is Brief Summery of 1939 and 1940 editions and printed in small size, so it called " Gutka " . It was published in 1941. I upload the Image of first page of book in file section. You can very easily see it. Sir, i can't understand how this information as where published, how many pages, and other details of this book helps to understanding the Book? In my opinion becaz of these, if we concentrate on " Decoding of Book " and discuss it will be much better and as i consider you to be my Lal-kitab brother, I request you for your invaluable support. Umesh Sharma lalkitab , Yograj Prabhakar <yr_prabhakar> wrote: > Respected Umesh Bhai, > This is so far " the most positive step " taken in the forum. I was eagerly waiting for these sorts of activities for a long time. I am not at all against analyzing the charts in bulk; but the lack of some constructive debate on the subject was hurting me deeply. In the absence of a positive discussion, the form was losing its very essence. But, I was ecstatic to know that a discussion on 1941 edition of Lal Kitab known as Gutka is going to begin in the group. > > I was expecting an introductory note about the book (the original 1941 edition) by you before discussing its text; I mean a brief details regarding the number of pages, why it is called Gutka, from where it was originally published, or any other unique feature etc. etc. These points are necessary for the academic interests of the students of this subject, and no one is better equipped than you to explain the above-mentioned matter in the forum. These sorts of interesting and useful information do help greatly in removing the misgivings about the book. > > I read about the first two lines along with its explanation by your good self and the subsequent clarifications by Parvez Bhai. Both of you tried your " the best " to explicate these lines for the Lal Kitab devotees. But I don't know why " DIL HAI KI MAANTA NAHIN…. " Something obviously is seems to be missing from the clarification portion, and is certainly not hitting as hard as it supposed to be. Nevertheless, I salute your endeavor and the " Something is better than nothing " scenario from deep inside. > > Regards > > Yograj Prabhakar > > > > > > > > Mail - You care about security. So do we. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 Respected Umesh Ji, In my humble opinion, starting a debate about any important issue without providing a sufficient detail is like entering someone's home by jumping the boundry wall. I am aware that giving details like the number of pages and the publishing etc. may not be ueful for understanding the book, but kindly read my messege carefully, I requested the information for the academic purposes so that any misinformation what soever regarding the book is removed. You must be aware that a couple of years back a noted astrologer mentioned in his book that there are only 156 pages in the 1941 version of the Lal Kitab. Since not everybody have access to the original books, you can well imagine how many budding Lal Kitab students took his claim as an authentic one (due to his stature), they continued to live in dark and nobody came forward to correct them. Don't you think that as a leader of this group you deserve the honour to clear these sorts of doubts and help removing the existing misgivings about the book? I will be more than honoured to offer my part of the AHUTI in this MAHAYAGYA. "Brotherly" Your's Yograj PrabhakarUmesh Sharma <mudit982001 wrote: Dear prabhakar ji,In my previous mail i told that this edition is Brief Summery of 1939and 1940 editions and printed in small size, so it called "Gutka". Itwas published in 1941. I upload the Image of first page of book infile section. You can very easily see it. Sir, i can't understand how this information as where published, howmany pages, and other details of this book helps to understanding theBook?In my opinion becaz of these, if we concentrate on "Decoding of Book "and discuss it will be much better and as i consider you to be myLal-kitab brother, I request you for your invaluable support. Umesh Sharma lalkitab , Yograj Prabhakar<yr_prabhakar> wrote:> Respected Umesh Bhai,> This is so far "the most positive step" taken in the forum. I waseagerly waiting for these sorts of activities for a long time. I amnot at all against analyzing the charts in bulk; but the lack of someconstructive debate on the subject was hurting me deeply. In theabsence of a positive discussion, the form was losing its veryessence. But, I was ecstatic to know that a discussion on 1941 editionof Lal Kitab known as Gutka is going to begin in the group.> > I was expecting an introductory note about the book (the original1941 edition) by you before discussing its text; I mean a briefdetails regarding the number of pages, why it is called Gutka, fromwhere it was originally published, or any other unique feature etc.etc. These points are necessary for the academic interests of thestudents of this subject, and no one is better equipped than you toexplain the above-mentioned matter in the forum. These sorts ofinteresting and useful information do help greatly in removing themisgivings about the book.> > I read about the first two lines along with its explanation by yourgood self and the subsequent clarifications by Parvez Bhai. Both ofyou tried your "the best" to explicate these lines for the Lal Kitabdevotees. But I don't know why "DIL HAI KI MAANTA NAHIN…." Somethingobviously is seems to be missing from the clarification portion, andis certainly not hitting as hard as it supposed to be. Nevertheless, Isalute your endeavor and the "Something is better than nothing"scenario from deep inside.> > Regards> > Yograj Prabhakar> > > > > > > > Mail - You care about security. So do we. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 Respected Umesh ji & prabhaker ji I was trying to understand the main part of the ur disscussion.But i think gutka is the compressed image of lalkitab & 1952 edition is the more enlarged pixel image so i think the explanation of gutkha should be in the perview of SOOKSHM SE STHOOL KI TARAF but there grah chali bachcha is so important , what is grah chali bachcha & how is this grah chali bachcha we must disscuss--it is the main part to disscuss & all <yr_prabhakar> wrote: > > Respected Umesh Ji, > > In my humble opinion, starting a debate about any important issue without providing a sufficient detail is like entering someone's home by jumping the boundry wall. > > I am aware that giving details like the number of pages and the publishing etc. may not be ueful for understanding the book, but kindly read my messege carefully, I requested the information for the academic purposes so that any misinformation what soever regarding the book is removed. > > You must be aware that a couple of years back a noted astrologer mentioned in his book that there are only 156 pages in the 1941 version of the Lal Kitab. Since not everybody have access to the original books, you can well imagine how many budding Lal Kitab students took his claim as an authentic one (due to his stature), they continued to live in dark and nobody came forward to correct them. > > Don't you think that as a leader of this group you deserve the honour to clear these sorts of doubts and help removing the existing misgivings about the book? > > I will be more than honoured to offer my part of the AHUTI in this MAHAYAGYA. > > " Brotherly " Your's > > Yograj Prabhakar > > > Umesh Sharma <mudit982001> wrote: > Dear prabhakar ji, > In my previous mail i told that this edition is Brief Summery of 1939 > and 1940 editions and printed in small size, so it called " Gutka " . It > was published in 1941. I upload the Image of first page of book in > file section. You can very easily see it. > Sir, i can't understand how this information as where published, how > many pages, and other details of this book helps to understanding the > Book? > In my opinion becaz of these, if we concentrate on " Decoding of Book " > and discuss it will be much better and as i consider you to be my > Lal-kitab brother, I request you for your invaluable support. > Umesh Sharma > > > > > > lalkitab , Yograj Prabhakar > <yr_prabhakar> wrote: > > Respected Umesh Bhai, > > This is so far " the most positive step " taken in the forum. I was > eagerly waiting for these sorts of activities for a long time. I am > not at all against analyzing the charts in bulk; but the lack of some > constructive debate on the subject was hurting me deeply. In the > absence of a positive discussion, the form was losing its very > essence. But, I was ecstatic to know that a discussion on 1941 edition > of Lal Kitab known as Gutka is going to begin in the group. > > > > I was expecting an introductory note about the book (the original > 1941 edition) by you before discussing its text; I mean a brief > details regarding the number of pages, why it is called Gutka, from > where it was originally published, or any other unique feature etc. > etc. These points are necessary for the academic interests of the > students of this subject, and no one is better equipped than you to > explain the above-mentioned matter in the forum. These sorts of > interesting and useful information do help greatly in removing the > misgivings about the book. > > > > I read about the first two lines along with its explanation by your > good self and the subsequent clarifications by Parvez Bhai. Both of > you tried your " the best " to explicate these lines for the Lal Kitab > devotees. But I don't know why " DIL HAI KI MAANTA NAHIN…. " Something > obviously is seems to be missing from the clarification portion, and > is certainly not hitting as hard as it supposed to be. Nevertheless, I > salute your endeavor and the " Something is better than nothing " > scenario from deep inside. > > > > Regards > > > > Yograj Prabhakar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail - You care about security. So do we. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 Sh. Lalkitabee ji, Firstly i welcome to you for participating in this debate. I think our group members are so fortunate becaz the Big masters as you and prabhakar ji, are available to guide. I try to explain BACHA GRAH CHALI with my little knowledge. In my opinion Bacha jab paida hua. Band hawa se es jamaney ki hawa main aaya. yeh jamana vah hey ki bachey ka sharir naram, pola aur tabiyat bilkul bholi-bhali hey. Abhi 7 grah ka assar mukkammal nahin hua ya 7saal tak dimag ke khaney pure nahi huey. Lok-parlok key mushtarka khyalat bachey main paida ho gaye. 12 saal tak ya 12 rashiyon ki avadhi tak koi bimari bachey ki apni nahi gintey. (1) Ab esney Guru se taalim haasil kee aur es jamaney ki hawa ka asar 16 Aanna hone laga. Karam-Dharam karna sikha aur ezzat aur bezzati ka fark hona shuru hua, to umar ka jamana vah aaya jo roohani halat ka hua. Pathey jo ab badney the badh chukey, to Brihaspati ki umar hui ..(16 saal) (2) Elmo-hunar ke bad Raj-Darbaar se khudh apney hathon dhan kamana shuru kiya to yeh samay Ahdey-Suraj hua. Bacha balig hey. 21 saal sey Rekha mey bhi koi parivartan nahi mantey. Ab Umar hui 22 saal. (3) Apni kamai sey Mata ki sewa karney laga to Chandar ka jamana hua aur Umar hui 24 saal. (4) Stri-sambhandh, badey Parivaar, Grihasth aashram aur bal-bachon ka jmana Shukra ka Aahadh hua. Umar hui 25 saal. (5) Khana-pina, Bhai-Bhandhuo ki sewa, Jango-jadal, Sharirik dukh, Bimari vegrah ka vakt Mangal( Nek-Badh) gina gaya, to Umar hui 28 saal. (6) Budhi ke kaam, Tijarat-Vyapaar, Hunar va Dastkaari, Dimagi liyakaton vagera sey Dhan-Daulat ka jmana Budh ka Aahad hua. Raj-Darbaar main hotey huey yah kaam nahi kar sakta; esliye jab Budh ke sath surya ho to Budh ka aasar ndharadh aur Umar hui 34 saal. (7) Sanyaasi ya Makaan-Jaydad, Chjalaki ki aankh sey Dhan-Daulat ka dhang pakda to Shani ka samay hua aur Umar hui 36 saal. (8) Duniya key andesha ki farzi soch-vichar khyalat ki Naklo-Harkat ka jor hua to Rahu ka jmana aaya aur Umar hui 41 saal. (9) Apney aap sey jab duniya ks hal na hua to edhar-udhar salah-mashwira key liye paanv ki naklo harkaat shuru hui ya bacha chalney aur dhodaney laga to Ketu ka jmana hua aur umar ho gai 48 saal. It is a analysis of " Bacha Grah-Chali " with my little knowledge. So, all experts are welcome to comments. Umesh Sharma. lalkitab , " lalkitabee " <lalkitabee> wrote: > > Respected Umesh ji & prabhaker ji > I was trying to understand the main part of the ur disscussion.But i > think gutka is the compressed image of lalkitab & 1952 edition is the > more enlarged pixel image so i think the explanation of gutkha should > be in the perview of SOOKSHM SE STHOOL KI TARAF but there grah chali > bachcha is so important , what is grah chali bachcha & how is this > grah chali bachcha we must disscuss--it is the main part to disscuss > & all <yr_prabhakar> wrote: > > > > Respected Umesh Ji, > > > > In my humble opinion, starting a debate about any important issue > without providing a sufficient detail is like entering someone's home > by jumping the boundry wall. > > > > I am aware that giving details like the number of pages and the > publishing etc. may not be ueful for understanding the book, but > kindly read my messege carefully, I requested the information for the > academic purposes so that any misinformation what soever regarding > the book is removed. > > > > You must be aware that a couple of years back a noted astrologer > mentioned in his book that there are only 156 pages in the 1941 > version of the Lal Kitab. Since not everybody have access to the > original books, you can well imagine how many budding Lal Kitab > students took his claim as an authentic one (due to his stature), > they continued to live in dark and nobody came forward to correct > them. > > > > Don't you think that as a leader of this group you deserve the > honour to clear these sorts of doubts and help removing the existing > misgivings about the book? > > > > I will be more than honoured to offer my part of the AHUTI in this > MAHAYAGYA. > > > > " Brotherly " Your's > > > > Yograj Prabhakar > > > > > > Umesh Sharma <mudit982001> wrote: > > Dear prabhakar ji, > > In my previous mail i told that this edition is Brief Summery of > 1939 > > and 1940 editions and printed in small size, so it called " Gutka " . > It > > was published in 1941. I upload the Image of first page of book in > > file section. You can very easily see it. > > Sir, i can't understand how this information as where published, how > > many pages, and other details of this book helps to understanding > the > > Book? > > In my opinion becaz of these, if we concentrate on " Decoding of > Book " > > and discuss it will be much better and as i consider you to be my > > Lal-kitab brother, I request you for your invaluable support. > > Umesh Sharma > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lalkitab , Yograj Prabhakar > > <yr_prabhakar> wrote: > > > Respected Umesh Bhai, > > > This is so far " the most positive step " taken in the forum. I was > > eagerly waiting for these sorts of activities for a long time. I am > > not at all against analyzing the charts in bulk; but the lack of > some > > constructive debate on the subject was hurting me deeply. In the > > absence of a positive discussion, the form was losing its very > > essence. But, I was ecstatic to know that a discussion on 1941 > edition > > of Lal Kitab known as Gutka is going to begin in the group. > > > > > > I was expecting an introductory note about the book (the original > > 1941 edition) by you before discussing its text; I mean a brief > > details regarding the number of pages, why it is called Gutka, from > > where it was originally published, or any other unique feature etc. > > etc. These points are necessary for the academic interests of the > > students of this subject, and no one is better equipped than you to > > explain the above-mentioned matter in the forum. These sorts of > > interesting and useful information do help greatly in removing the > > misgivings about the book. > > > > > > I read about the first two lines along with its explanation by > your > > good self and the subsequent clarifications by Parvez Bhai. Both of > > you tried your " the best " to explicate these lines for the Lal Kitab > > devotees. But I don't know why " DIL HAI KI MAANTA NAHIN…. " Something > > obviously is seems to be missing from the clarification portion, and > > is certainly not hitting as hard as it supposed to be. > Nevertheless, I > > salute your endeavor and the " Something is better than nothing " > > scenario from deep inside. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Yograj Prabhakar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail - You care about security. So do we. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.