Guest guest Posted October 26, 2008 Report Share Posted October 26, 2008 Namaste Sir, > Seven > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . If you or anyone can show me the verse of Parasara that says the above, we can discuss your views further. When mentioning the two schemes, Parasara clearly said that the 8-karaka scheme is used when two planets are in the same degree. He never talked about " living beings " vs " mundane charts " . Instead he talked about matching the degrees of planets to decide 7 vs 8 karaka schemes. A clear guideline of Parasara has been ignored and a big hypothesis is made instead. Such a theory with a weak foundation fails to convince me. Best regards, Narasimha Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana Spirituality: Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org - Gopal Goel Narasimha Rao Cc: vedic astrology ; Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest ; sohamsa Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:43 AM Char Karka Dear Friend, Why bring Pt. Sanjay Rath , place your views independently. I have again gone through the article of Rath ji and your article carefully.I got the impression , that you are try to advocate your views instead of trying to understand the real intent of BPH. I may like to bring following points to your kind attention: 1. Rath ji is your guru , never show disrespect to your guru. Such attitude will bring your downfall. Rishi Yajvalkya ,Jaimni sometimes taken different line of thinking , but with the permission and with due respect to his guru.I think you are in USA too long. that is why you do not like to stick these simple norms. 2. Parasara had refereed higher authorities in BPHS KIKE 'SEER GARG' 3. BPHS INTENDS THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT SCHEMES OF CHAR KARKAS-7 AS WELL AS 8 4 In 7 char karka scheme Rahu is not considered .However , if two planets are same zodiac degree in their respective signs, then char Karka replacement occurs and Rahu takes its place as sthir Karka of confusion and deceit.Seven (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, THAT IS WHY PUTRA kARKA IS ABSENT AND RAHU AS STHIR kARKA DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY LIVING PERSON BUT DECEIT ETC. 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . BPHS CLEARLY STATES 8 kARKA IN SERIAL ORDER-AK,AMK, BK, MK, PITK,PUTK,GK AND DK.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY ON AMBIGUITY OR CONFUSION. 6. kindly TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPORT AND REASON BEHIND REPLACEMENT OF CHAR KARKA WITH STHIR KARKA. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE ,AS TO WHY CHAR KARKA ARE REPLACED BY STHIR KARKAS.IN FACT THIS CHAPTER OF BPHS DEALS IN ALL KINDS OF KARKAS ACCEPT NAISARGIKA KARKAS. THE SLOKAS IN THIS CHAPTER ARE LIKE SUTRA AND LOT OF CO-RELATION IS REQUIRED TO DECIPHER THEM. CHAR KARKA INDICATE THE HELP AND SUSTENANCE PROVIDED BY OTHER LIVING BEING OR LACK OF IT DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF PAST BIRTHS.STHIR KARKA INDICATE WHEN SUCH LIVING BEING WILL PUT TO GRIEF . 6. I urge , kindly read the article written by Rathji . It will show the light. Regards, G.K.GOEL Ph: 09350311433 Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR NEW DELHI-110 076 INDIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2008 Report Share Posted October 26, 2008 Namaste Respected Goelji Just a simple thought regarding Gurus. Adi Guru is Lord Shankar himself as the knower of brahman and also a wholesome teacher of the same. Guru the sabda losely translates to " Dispeller of Darkness " . Herein, darkness is to be understood as ignorance. The ignorance with respect to Shashtra is always in reference to the subject of Brahman. Therefore, the word Guru refers only to the dispeller of the ignorant notions of Brahman. Nowadays, it is fashionable to call teachers as Gurus even in other subject matters. This is incorrect in the vision of the Shastra. Furthermore, what is more important - Seeking knowledge or maintaining Gurudom? The very fact that Gurukul is for knowledge and has no meaning if knowledge is missing, it is abundantly clear that knowledge is what is to be sought. Thirdly, by questioning the teacher one does not disrespect one. Most of the Vedanta Shastra is in the form of questions and answers. The biggest disrespect for any great teacher is when the student believes in Gurudom more than Knowledge. There is a abundance of Gurudoms nowadays in India and I guess it is best we do not try to form another one here. With warm regards Anuj (Bharat) On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937 wrote: > Dear Friend, > Why bring Pt. Sanjay Rath , place your views independently. > I have again gone through the article of Rath ji and your article > carefully.I got the impression , that you are try to advocate your > views instead of trying to understand the real intent of BPH. > I may like to bring following points to your kind attention: > 1. Rath ji is your guru , never show disrespect to your guru. > Such attitude will bring your downfall. Rishi Yajvalkya ,Jaimni > sometimes taken different line of thinking , but with the permission > and with due respect to his guru.I think you are in USA too long. > that is why you do not like to stick these simple norms. > 2. Parasara had refereed higher authorities in BPHS KIKE 'SEER GARG' > 3. BPHS INTENDS THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT > SCHEMES OF CHAR KARKAS-7 AS WELL AS 8 > 4 In 7 char karka scheme Rahu is not considered .However , if two planets > are same zodiac degree in their respective signs, then char Karka > replacement > occurs and Rahu takes its place as sthir Karka of confusion and > deceit.Seven > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, THAT IS WHY > PUTRA kARKA IS ABSENT AND RAHU AS STHIR kARKA DOES NOT > REPRESENT ANY LIVING PERSON BUT DECEIT ETC. > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . BPHS > CLEARLY STATES 8 kARKA IN SERIAL ORDER-AK,AMK, > BK, MK, PITK,PUTK,GK AND DK.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY > ON AMBIGUITY OR CONFUSION. > 6. kindly TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPORT AND REASON > BEHIND REPLACEMENT OF CHAR KARKA WITH STHIR KARKA. > THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE ,AS TO > WHY CHAR KARKA ARE REPLACED BY STHIR > KARKAS.IN FACT THIS CHAPTER OF BPHS DEALS IN ALL KINDS OF > KARKAS ACCEPT NAISARGIKA KARKAS. THE SLOKAS IN THIS CHAPTER ARE LIKE SUTRA > AND LOT OF CO-RELATION IS REQUIRED TO DECIPHER > THEM. CHAR KARKA INDICATE THE HELP AND SUSTENANCE PROVIDED > BY OTHER LIVING BEING OR LACK OF IT DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF PAST > BIRTHS.STHIR KARKA INDICATE WHEN SUCH LIVING BEING WILL > PUT TO GRIEF . > 6. I urge , kindly read the article written by Rathji . It will show the > light. > Regards, > > > > G.K.GOEL > Ph: 09350311433 > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR > NEW DELHI-110 076 > INDIA > > ------------------------------ > Get rid of Add-Ons in your email ID. Get yourname. Sign up > now!<http://in.rd./tagline_dbid_3/*http://in.promos./address> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008  Namaste Sir, > Seven > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . If you or anyone can show me the verse of Parasara that says the above, we can discuss your views further. When mentioning the two schemes, Parasara clearly said that the 8-karaka scheme is used when two planets are in the same degree. He never talked about "living beings" vs "mundane charts". Instead he talked about matching the degrees of planets to decide 7 vs 8 karaka schemes. A clear guideline of Parasara has been ignored and a big hypothesis is made instead. Such a theory with a weak foundation fails to convince me. Best regards,NarasimhaDo a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homamDo Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpanaSpirituality: Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org - Gopal Goel Narasimha Rao Cc: vedic astrology ; Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest ; sohamsa Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:43 AM Char Karka Dear Friend, Why bring Pt. Sanjay Rath , place your views independently. I have again gone through the article of Rath ji and your article carefully.I got the impression , that you are try to advocate your views instead of trying to understand the real intent of BPH. I may like to bring following points to your kind attention: 1. Rath ji is your guru , never show disrespect to your guru. Such attitude will bring your downfall. Rishi Yajvalkya ,Jaimni sometimes taken different line of thinking , but with the permission and with due respect to his guru.I think you are in USA too long. that is why you do not like to stick these simple norms. 2. Parasara had refereed higher authorities in BPHS KIKE 'SEER GARG' 3. BPHS INTENDS THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT SCHEMES OF CHAR KARKAS-7 AS WELL AS 8 4 In 7 char karka scheme Rahu is not considered .However , if two planets are same zodiac degree in their respective signs, then char Karka replacement occurs and Rahu takes its place as sthir Karka of confusion and deceit.Seven (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, THAT IS WHY PUTRA kARKA IS ABSENT AND RAHU AS STHIR kARKA DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY LIVING PERSON BUT DECEIT ETC. 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . BPHS CLEARLY STATES 8 kARKA IN SERIAL ORDER-AK,AMK, BK, MK, PITK,PUTK,GK AND DK.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY ON AMBIGUITY OR CONFUSION. 6. kindly TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPORT AND REASON BEHIND REPLACEMENT OF CHAR KARKA WITH STHIR KARKA. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE ,AS TO WHY CHAR KARKA ARE REPLACED BY STHIR KARKAS.IN FACT THIS CHAPTER OF BPHS DEALS IN ALL KINDS OF KARKAS ACCEPT NAISARGIKA KARKAS. THE SLOKAS IN THIS CHAPTER ARE LIKE SUTRA AND LOT OF CO-RELATION IS REQUIRED TO DECIPHER THEM. CHAR KARKA INDICATE THE HELP AND SUSTENANCE PROVIDED BY OTHER LIVING BEING OR LACK OF IT DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF PAST BIRTHS.STHIR KARKA INDICATE WHEN SUCH LIVING BEING WILL PUT TO GRIEF . 6. I urge , kindly read the article written by Rathji . It will show the light. Regards, G.K.GOELPh: 09350311433Add: L-409, SARITA VIHARNEW DELHI-110 076INDIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 Hare Rama Krsna ||Dear Narasimha,Can you show me the verse of Parasara that explains the basis of chaturdasi dosa? Is the story of Chandra kidnapping Tara and betraying Guru mentioned in BPHS? Perhaps it is, I must be honest with you I have not done justice to this great work - yet. I know it is mentioned elsewhere. But point is, this and many other vital Jyotish understanding is found in allied sorces of knowledge which includes other scriptures and parampara.Is it enough to learn sanskrit to derive the real meaning of the Maharishi's? Meaning cannot come from grammar alone. A literal translation is a face value interpretation. A beggar may find a bag of money, but if what he sees is just paper, and decides to start a fire with it to stay warm, imagine the loss.Sincerely,MichalNarasimha P.V.R. Rao <pvrGopal Goel <gkgoel1937Cc: vedic astrology ; Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest ; sohamsa <sohamsa >Monday, October 27, 2008 3:06:30 PM Re: Char Karka  Namaste Sir, > Seven > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . If you or anyone can show me the verse of Parasara that says the above, we can discuss your views further. When mentioning the two schemes, Parasara clearly said that the 8-karaka scheme is used when two planets are in the same degree. He never talked about "living beings" vs "mundane charts". Instead he talked about matching the degrees of planets to decide 7 vs 8 karaka schemes. A clear guideline of Parasara has been ignored and a big hypothesis is made instead. Such a theory with a weak foundation fails to convince me. Best regards,Narasimha------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homamDo Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpanaSpirituality: http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdomFree Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro. home.comcast. netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAst rologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagan nath.org------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - Gopal Goel Narasimha Rao Cc: vedic astrology ; Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com ; sohamsa Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:43 AM Char Karka Dear Friend, Why bring Pt. Sanjay Rath , place your views independently. I have again gone through the article of Rath ji and your article carefully.I got the impression , that you are try to advocate your views instead of trying to understand the real intent of BPH. I may like to bring following points to your kind attention: 1. Rath ji is your guru , never show disrespect to your guru. Such attitude will bring your downfall. Rishi Yajvalkya ,Jaimni sometimes taken different line of thinking , but with the permission and with due respect to his guru.I think you are in USA too long. that is why you do not like to stick these simple norms. 2. Parasara had refereed higher authorities in BPHS KIKE 'SEER GARG' 3. BPHS INTENDS THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT SCHEMES OF CHAR KARKAS-7 AS WELL AS 8 4 In 7 char karka scheme Rahu is not considered .However , if two planets are same zodiac degree in their respective signs, then char Karka replacement occurs and Rahu takes its place as sthir Karka of confusion and deceit.Seven (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, THAT IS WHY PUTRA kARKA IS ABSENT AND RAHU AS STHIR kARKA DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY LIVING PERSON BUT DECEIT ETC. 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . BPHS CLEARLY STATES 8 kARKA IN SERIAL ORDER-AK,AMK, BK, MK, PITK,PUTK,GK AND DK.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY ON AMBIGUITY OR CONFUSION. 6. kindly TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPORT AND REASON BEHIND REPLACEMENT OF CHAR KARKA WITH STHIR KARKA. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE ,AS TO WHY CHAR KARKA ARE REPLACED BY STHIR KARKAS.IN FACT THIS CHAPTER OF BPHS DEALS IN ALL KINDS OF KARKAS ACCEPT NAISARGIKA KARKAS. THE SLOKAS IN THIS CHAPTER ARE LIKE SUTRA AND LOT OF CO-RELATION IS REQUIRED TO DECIPHER THEM. CHAR KARKA INDICATE THE HELP AND SUSTENANCE PROVIDED BY OTHER LIVING BEING OR LACK OF IT DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF PAST BIRTHS.STHIR KARKA INDICATE WHEN SUCH LIVING BEING WILL PUT TO GRIEF . 6. I urge , kindly read the article written by Rathji . It will show the light. Regards, G.K.GOELPh: 09350311433Add: L-409, SARITA VIHARNEW DELHI-110 076INDIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 Hare Rama Krsna ||Dear Bharat,Regarding the following:>>Nowadays, it is fashionable to call teachers as Gurus even in other subject matters. This is incorrect in the vision of the Shastra.The following is from wikipedia:"In the Bhagavata Purana, Dattatreya enumerates a list of his twenty-four gurus: earth, air, sky or ether, water, fire, sun, moon, python, pigeons, sea, moth, bee, bull elephant, bear, deer, fish, osprey, a child, a maiden, a courtesan, a blacksmith, serpent, spider, and wasp".The above seems to counter what you are saying. If we follow Dattatreya then it is not only our teachers who are Guru's but even spiders!Should we not see knowledge and the Guru as synonoymous ie. anywhere where there is knowledge there is a Guru? If you are lost and you stop and ask for directions, is that person not your Guru? Or am I being too fashionable?:)Respectfully,MichalBharat - Hindu Astrology <astrologyhindusohamsa ; Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 9:45:48 AMRe: Char Karka Namaste Respected GoeljiJust a simple thought regarding Gurus. Adi Guru is Lord Shankar himself as the knower of brahman and also a wholesome teacher of the same. Guru the sabda losely translates to "Dispeller of Darkness". Herein, darkness is to be understood as ignorance. The ignorance with respect to Shashtra is always in reference to the subject of Brahman. Therefore, the word Guru refers only to the dispeller of the ignorant notions of Brahman. Nowadays, it is fashionable to call teachers as Gurus even in other subject matters. This is incorrect in the vision of the Shastra. Furthermore, what is more important - Seeking knowledge or maintaining Gurudom? The very fact that Gurukul is for knowledge and has no meaning if knowledge is missing, it is abundantly clear that knowledge is what is to be sought. Thirdly, by questioning the teacher one does not disrespect one. Most of the Vedanta Shastra is in the form of questions and answers. The biggest disrespect for any great teacher is when the student believes in Gurudom more than Knowledge. There is a abundance of Gurudoms nowadays in India and I guess it is best we do not try to form another one here.With warm regardsAnuj (Bharat)On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937 (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote: Dear Friend, Why bring Pt. Sanjay Rath , place your views independently. I have again gone through the article of Rath ji and your article carefully.I got the impression , that you are try to advocate your views instead of trying to understand the real intent of BPH. I may like to bring following points to your kind attention: 1. Rath ji is your guru , never show disrespect to your guru. Such attitude will bring your downfall. Rishi Yajvalkya ,Jaimni sometimes taken different line of thinking , but with the permission and with due respect to his guru.I think you are in USA too long. that is why you do not like to stick these simple norms. 2. Parasara had refereed higher authorities in BPHS KIKE 'SEER GARG' 3. BPHS INTENDS THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT SCHEMES OF CHAR KARKAS-7 AS WELL AS 8 4 In 7 char karka scheme Rahu is not considered .However , if two planets are same zodiac degree in their respective signs, then char Karka replacement occurs and Rahu takes its place as sthir Karka of confusion and deceit.Seven (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, THAT IS WHY PUTRA kARKA IS ABSENT AND RAHU AS STHIR kARKA DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY LIVING PERSON BUT DECEIT ETC. 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . BPHS CLEARLY STATES 8 kARKA IN SERIAL ORDER-AK,AMK, BK, MK, PITK,PUTK,GK AND DK.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY ON AMBIGUITY OR CONFUSION. 6. kindly TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPORT AND REASON BEHIND REPLACEMENT OF CHAR KARKA WITH STHIR KARKA. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE ,AS TO WHY CHAR KARKA ARE REPLACED BY STHIR KARKAS.IN FACT THIS CHAPTER OF BPHS DEALS IN ALL KINDS OF KARKAS ACCEPT NAISARGIKA KARKAS. THE SLOKAS IN THIS CHAPTER ARE LIKE SUTRA AND LOT OF CO-RELATION IS REQUIRED TO DECIPHER THEM. CHAR KARKA INDICATE THE HELP AND SUSTENANCE PROVIDED BY OTHER LIVING BEING OR LACK OF IT DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF PAST BIRTHS.STHIR KARKA INDICATE WHEN SUCH LIVING BEING WILL PUT TO GRIEF . 6. I urge , kindly read the article written by Rathji . It will show the light. Regards, G.K.GOELPh: 09350311433Add: L-409, SARITA VIHARNEW DELHI-110 076INDIA Get rid of Add-Ons in your email ID. Get yourname@rocketmail .com. Sign up now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 Om Gurave namahDear Narasimha,Not being even close to any expert on subject which is causing numerous debates since times immemorial, I though, understood few things so far ,and that is that both Parashara and Jaimini mentioned both schemes in specific order. Jaimini in first chapter listing first list of eight and in the ending sloka 1.1.19 says about merging of MK and PK ,that some further again derive in use as basing seven karaka scheme.Further, I wouldn't say it's accidental that Jataka Tatva as well give us list of eight chara karakas in decreseing order.Above all,further sloka by Parashara of AK and PK or Lg lord and 5th lord causing rajayoga (atmakarakaputrabhyam...) If he was giving us basing scheme of seven karakas as starting point wouldn't he give us sloka as atmakarakamatrubhyam?!Or why at all specificaly using merging of Putra karaka into MK ? why not some other way ? Unless Jataka (living beings) are not somehow different because of that procreative ability...These points were satisfying for my understandig on matter, but of corse others may disagree.SincerelyMajasohamsa , "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" <pvr wrote:>> Namaste Sir,> > > Seven> > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS,> > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING .> > If you or anyone can show me the verse of Parasara that says the above, we can discuss your views further.> > When mentioning the two schemes, Parasara clearly said that the 8-karaka scheme is used when two planets are in the same degree. He never talked about "living beings" vs "mundane charts". Instead he talked about matching the degrees of planets to decide 7 vs 8 karaka schemes.> > A clear guideline of Parasara has been ignored and a big hypothesis is made instead. Such a theory with a weak foundation fails to convince me.> > Best regards,> Narasimha> > Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam> Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana> Spirituality: > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net> Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org> Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org> > > - > Gopal Goel > Narasimha Rao > Cc: vedic astrology ; Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest ; sohamsa > Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:43 AM> Char Karka> > > Dear Friend,> Why bring Pt. Sanjay Rath , place your views independently.> I have again gone through the article of Rath ji and your article> carefully.I got the impression , that you are try to advocate your> views instead of trying to understand the real intent of BPH.> I may like to bring following points to your kind attention:> 1. Rath ji is your guru , never show disrespect to your guru.> Such attitude will bring your downfall. Rishi Yajvalkya ,Jaimni > sometimes taken different line of thinking , but with the permission> and with due respect to his guru.I think you are in USA too long.> that is why you do not like to stick these simple norms.> 2. Parasara had refereed higher authorities in BPHS KIKE 'SEER GARG'> 3. BPHS INTENDS THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT> SCHEMES OF CHAR KARKAS-7 AS WELL AS 8> 4 In 7 char karka scheme Rahu is not considered .However , if two planets > are same zodiac degree in their respective signs, then char Karka replacement> occurs and Rahu takes its place as sthir Karka of confusion and deceit.Seven> (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, THAT IS WHY> PUTRA kARKA IS ABSENT AND RAHU AS STHIR kARKA DOES NOT> REPRESENT ANY LIVING PERSON BUT DECEIT ETC.> 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . BPHS> CLEARLY STATES 8 kARKA IN SERIAL ORDER-AK,AMK,> BK, MK, PITK,PUTK,GK AND DK.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY> ON AMBIGUITY OR CONFUSION.> 6. kindly TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPORT AND REASON > BEHIND REPLACEMENT OF CHAR KARKA WITH STHIR KARKA.> THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE ,AS TO WHY CHAR KARKA ARE REPLACED BY STHIR> KARKAS.IN FACT THIS CHAPTER OF BPHS DEALS IN ALL KINDS OF> KARKAS ACCEPT NAISARGIKA KARKAS. THE SLOKAS IN THIS CHAPTER ARE LIKE SUTRA AND LOT OF CO-RELATION IS REQUIRED TO DECIPHER> THEM. CHAR KARKA INDICATE THE HELP AND SUSTENANCE PROVIDED> BY OTHER LIVING BEING OR LACK OF IT DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF PAST BIRTHS.STHIR KARKA INDICATE WHEN SUCH LIVING BEING WILL> PUT TO GRIEF .> 6. I urge , kindly read the article written by Rathji . It will show the light.> Regards,> > G.K.GOEL> Ph: 09350311433> Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR> NEW DELHI-110 076> INDIA> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 Namaste MichalIt is not about who is called a Guru. It is about in what subject one is called a Guru. You are just enumerating a list which may be a Guru. Please read my post again before commenting.Secondly, if Vedanta Shastra (shruti) says something then it holds over and above any smriti. Thirdly, Guru is knowledge only when the subject matter is Brahm Vidya and the said Guru is a Jeevan Mukta and also expert in disemination of the knowledge. Herein, the Guru sabda is not related to any secular knowledge, but only that of Brahm Vidya. Finally, even if you were to use the word Guru losely for any other subject, the disrespect does not come if one pursues knowledge of the subject with devotion, even if it is different from the understanding of the said " Guru " . Wishing all members a happy diwali.BharatOn Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Michal Dziwulski <nearmichal wrote: Hare Rama Krsna ||Dear Bharat,Regarding the following:>>Nowadays, it is fashionable to call teachers as Gurus even in other subject matters. This is incorrect in the vision of the Shastra.The following is from wikipedia: " In the Bhagavata Purana, Dattatreya enumerates a list of his twenty-four gurus: earth, air, sky or ether, water, fire, sun, moon, python, pigeons, sea, moth, bee, bull elephant, bear, deer, fish, osprey, a child, a maiden, a courtesan, a blacksmith, serpent, spider, and wasp " .The above seems to counter what you are saying. If we follow Dattatreya then it is not only our teachers who are Guru's but even spiders!Should we not see knowledge and the Guru as synonoymous ie. anywhere where there is knowledge there is a Guru? If you are lost and you stop and ask for directions, is that person not your Guru? Or am I being too fashionable? Respectfully,Michal Bharat - Hindu Astrology <astrologyhindusohamsa ; Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 9:45:48 AMRe: Char Karka Namaste Respected GoeljiJust a simple thought regarding Gurus. Adi Guru is Lord Shankar himself as the knower of brahman and also a wholesome teacher of the same. Guru the sabda losely translates to " Dispeller of Darkness " . Herein, darkness is to be understood as ignorance. The ignorance with respect to Shashtra is always in reference to the subject of Brahman. Therefore, the word Guru refers only to the dispeller of the ignorant notions of Brahman. Nowadays, it is fashionable to call teachers as Gurus even in other subject matters. This is incorrect in the vision of the Shastra. Furthermore, what is more important - Seeking knowledge or maintaining Gurudom? The very fact that Gurukul is for knowledge and has no meaning if knowledge is missing, it is abundantly clear that knowledge is what is to be sought. Thirdly, by questioning the teacher one does not disrespect one. Most of the Vedanta Shastra is in the form of questions and answers. The biggest disrespect for any great teacher is when the student believes in Gurudom more than Knowledge. There is a abundance of Gurudoms nowadays in India and I guess it is best we do not try to form another one here.With warm regardsAnuj (Bharat) On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937 (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote: Dear Friend, Why bring Pt. Sanjay Rath , place your views independently. I have again gone through the article of Rath ji and your article carefully.I got the impression , that you are try to advocate your views instead of trying to understand the real intent of BPH. I may like to bring following points to your kind attention: 1. Rath ji is your guru , never show disrespect to your guru. Such attitude will bring your downfall. Rishi Yajvalkya ,Jaimni sometimes taken different line of thinking , but with the permission and with due respect to his guru.I think you are in USA too long. that is why you do not like to stick these simple norms. 2. Parasara had refereed higher authorities in BPHS KIKE 'SEER GARG' 3. BPHS INTENDS THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT SCHEMES OF CHAR KARKAS-7 AS WELL AS 8 4 In 7 char karka scheme Rahu is not considered .However , if two planets are same zodiac degree in their respective signs, then char Karka replacement occurs and Rahu takes its place as sthir Karka of confusion and deceit.Seven (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, THAT IS WHY PUTRA kARKA IS ABSENT AND RAHU AS STHIR kARKA DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY LIVING PERSON BUT DECEIT ETC. 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . BPHS CLEARLY STATES 8 kARKA IN SERIAL ORDER-AK,AMK, BK, MK, PITK,PUTK,GK AND DK.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY ON AMBIGUITY OR CONFUSION. 6. kindly TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPORT AND REASON BEHIND REPLACEMENT OF CHAR KARKA WITH STHIR KARKA. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE ,AS TO WHY CHAR KARKA ARE REPLACED BY STHIR KARKAS.IN FACT THIS CHAPTER OF BPHS DEALS IN ALL KINDS OF KARKAS ACCEPT NAISARGIKA KARKAS. THE SLOKAS IN THIS CHAPTER ARE LIKE SUTRA AND LOT OF CO-RELATION IS REQUIRED TO DECIPHER THEM. CHAR KARKA INDICATE THE HELP AND SUSTENANCE PROVIDED BY OTHER LIVING BEING OR LACK OF IT DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF PAST BIRTHS.STHIR KARKA INDICATE WHEN SUCH LIVING BEING WILL PUT TO GRIEF . 6. I urge , kindly read the article written by Rathji . It will show the light. Regards, G.K.GOELPh: 09350311433Add: L-409, SARITA VIHARNEW DELHI-110 076INDIA Get rid of Add-Ons in your email ID. Get yourname@rocketmail .com. Sign up now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 Hare Rama Krsna ||Dear Bharat,I appreciate your comments, even the one where you order me to read your message again.__________Questioning is fine. In fact many things are fine. Trouble is usually not in what we do, but how we do it. I fully agree that questioning does not equal disrespect. It is in the tone, the manner, the attitude - that qualifies it as respectful or not. This is more subtle so it is more difficult to determine the intentions. This is why we learn Jyotish - to have easier access to this 'hidden' information.Respectfully,MichalBharat - Hindu Astrology <astrologyhindusohamsa Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:42:19 AMRe: Char Karka Namaste MichalIt is not about who is called a Guru. It is about in what subject one is called a Guru. You are just enumerating a list which may be a Guru. Please read my post again before commenting.Secondly, if Vedanta Shastra (shruti) says something then it holds over and above any smriti. Thirdly, Guru is knowledge only when the subject matter is Brahm Vidya and the said Guru is a Jeevan Mukta and also expert in disemination of the knowledge. Herein, the Guru sabda is not related to any secular knowledge, but only that of Brahm Vidya. Finally, even if you were to use the word Guru losely for any other subject, the disrespect does not come if one pursues knowledge of the subject with devotion, even if it is different from the understanding of the said "Guru". Wishing all members a happy diwali.BharatOn Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Michal Dziwulski <nearmichal > wrote: Hare Rama Krsna ||Dear Bharat,Regarding the following:>>Nowadays, it is fashionable to call teachers as Gurus even in other subject matters. This is incorrect in the vision of the Shastra.The following is from wikipedia:"In the Bhagavata Purana, Dattatreya enumerates a list of his twenty-four gurus: earth, air, sky or ether, water, fire, sun, moon, python, pigeons, sea, moth, bee, bull elephant, bear, deer, fish, osprey, a child, a maiden, a courtesan, a blacksmith, serpent, spider, and wasp".The above seems to counter what you are saying. If we follow Dattatreya then it is not only our teachers who are Guru's but even spiders!Should we not see knowledge and the Guru as synonoymous ie. anywhere where there is knowledge there is a Guru? If you are lost and you stop and ask for directions, is that person not your Guru? Or am I being too fashionable? Respectfully,Michal Bharat - Hindu Astrology <astrologyhindu@ gmail.com>sohamsa@ .com; Monday, October 27, 2008 9:45:48 AMRe: Char Karka Namaste Respected GoeljiJust a simple thought regarding Gurus. Adi Guru is Lord Shankar himself as the knower of brahman and also a wholesome teacher of the same. Guru the sabda losely translates to "Dispeller of Darkness". Herein, darkness is to be understood as ignorance. The ignorance with respect to Shashtra is always in reference to the subject of Brahman. Therefore, the word Guru refers only to the dispeller of the ignorant notions of Brahman. Nowadays, it is fashionable to call teachers as Gurus even in other subject matters. This is incorrect in the vision of the Shastra. Furthermore, what is more important - Seeking knowledge or maintaining Gurudom? The very fact that Gurukul is for knowledge and has no meaning if knowledge is missing, it is abundantly clear that knowledge is what is to be sought. Thirdly, by questioning the teacher one does not disrespect one. Most of the Vedanta Shastra is in the form of questions and answers. The biggest disrespect for any great teacher is when the student believes in Gurudom more than Knowledge. There is a abundance of Gurudoms nowadays in India and I guess it is best we do not try to form another one here.With warm regardsAnuj (Bharat) On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937 (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote: Dear Friend, Why bring Pt. Sanjay Rath , place your views independently. I have again gone through the article of Rath ji and your article carefully.I got the impression , that you are try to advocate your views instead of trying to understand the real intent of BPH. I may like to bring following points to your kind attention: 1. Rath ji is your guru , never show disrespect to your guru. Such attitude will bring your downfall. Rishi Yajvalkya ,Jaimni sometimes taken different line of thinking , but with the permission and with due respect to his guru.I think you are in USA too long. that is why you do not like to stick these simple norms. 2. Parasara had refereed higher authorities in BPHS KIKE 'SEER GARG' 3. BPHS INTENDS THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT SCHEMES OF CHAR KARKAS-7 AS WELL AS 8 4 In 7 char karka scheme Rahu is not considered .However , if two planets are same zodiac degree in their respective signs, then char Karka replacement occurs and Rahu takes its place as sthir Karka of confusion and deceit.Seven (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, THAT IS WHY PUTRA kARKA IS ABSENT AND RAHU AS STHIR kARKA DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY LIVING PERSON BUT DECEIT ETC. 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . BPHS CLEARLY STATES 8 kARKA IN SERIAL ORDER-AK,AMK, BK, MK, PITK,PUTK,GK AND DK.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY ON AMBIGUITY OR CONFUSION. 6. kindly TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPORT AND REASON BEHIND REPLACEMENT OF CHAR KARKA WITH STHIR KARKA. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE ,AS TO WHY CHAR KARKA ARE REPLACED BY STHIR KARKAS.IN FACT THIS CHAPTER OF BPHS DEALS IN ALL KINDS OF KARKAS ACCEPT NAISARGIKA KARKAS. THE SLOKAS IN THIS CHAPTER ARE LIKE SUTRA AND LOT OF CO-RELATION IS REQUIRED TO DECIPHER THEM. CHAR KARKA INDICATE THE HELP AND SUSTENANCE PROVIDED BY OTHER LIVING BEING OR LACK OF IT DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF PAST BIRTHS.STHIR KARKA INDICATE WHEN SUCH LIVING BEING WILL PUT TO GRIEF . 6. I urge , kindly read the article written by Rathji . It will show the light. Regards, G.K.GOELPh: 09350311433Add: L-409, SARITA VIHARNEW DELHI-110 076INDIA Get rid of Add-Ons in your email ID. Get yourname@rocketmail .com. Sign up now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 Namaste MichalI happened to be online when you posted your reply. One member of the forum sent me a beautiful passage on how the knower of Brahman has so much love, that endless questions, irritable behavior of the sadhaka is understood immediately. May I suggest reading the dialogues between Sri Ramakrishna Paramhamsa and his students. The intention is known by the thirst for knowledge and truthfulness towards it despite all odds. This proves that Gurudom should never be constructed in the minds of the sadhaks ever! With just a 1% understanding of 0.005% of knowledge of the Rishis who wrote Jyotish Shastra, I certainly do not qualify as a person who can check intentions from the chart and know the hidden information with full surety. Best wishes for your progress and pursuit of knowledgeBharatOn Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 1:34 AM, Michal Dziwulski <nearmichal wrote: Hare Rama Krsna ||Dear Bharat,I appreciate your comments, even the one where you order me to read your message again. __________Questioning is fine. In fact many things are fine. Trouble is usually not in what we do, but how we do it. I fully agree that questioning does not equal disrespect. It is in the tone, the manner, the attitude - that qualifies it as respectful or not. This is more subtle so it is more difficult to determine the intentions. This is why we learn Jyotish - to have easier access to this 'hidden' information. Respectfully,Michal Bharat - Hindu Astrology <astrologyhindu sohamsa Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:42:19 AM Re: Char Karka Namaste MichalIt is not about who is called a Guru. It is about in what subject one is called a Guru. You are just enumerating a list which may be a Guru. Please read my post again before commenting. Secondly, if Vedanta Shastra (shruti) says something then it holds over and above any smriti. Thirdly, Guru is knowledge only when the subject matter is Brahm Vidya and the said Guru is a Jeevan Mukta and also expert in disemination of the knowledge. Herein, the Guru sabda is not related to any secular knowledge, but only that of Brahm Vidya. Finally, even if you were to use the word Guru losely for any other subject, the disrespect does not come if one pursues knowledge of the subject with devotion, even if it is different from the understanding of the said " Guru " . Wishing all members a happy diwali.BharatOn Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Michal Dziwulski <nearmichal > wrote: Hare Rama Krsna ||Dear Bharat,Regarding the following:>>Nowadays, it is fashionable to call teachers as Gurus even in other subject matters. This is incorrect in the vision of the Shastra.The following is from wikipedia: " In the Bhagavata Purana, Dattatreya enumerates a list of his twenty-four gurus: earth, air, sky or ether, water, fire, sun, moon, python, pigeons, sea, moth, bee, bull elephant, bear, deer, fish, osprey, a child, a maiden, a courtesan, a blacksmith, serpent, spider, and wasp " .The above seems to counter what you are saying. If we follow Dattatreya then it is not only our teachers who are Guru's but even spiders!Should we not see knowledge and the Guru as synonoymous ie. anywhere where there is knowledge there is a Guru? If you are lost and you stop and ask for directions, is that person not your Guru? Or am I being too fashionable? Respectfully,Michal Bharat - Hindu Astrology <astrologyhindu@ gmail.com> sohamsa@ .com; Monday, October 27, 2008 9:45:48 AMRe: Char Karka Namaste Respected GoeljiJust a simple thought regarding Gurus. Adi Guru is Lord Shankar himself as the knower of brahman and also a wholesome teacher of the same. Guru the sabda losely translates to " Dispeller of Darkness " . Herein, darkness is to be understood as ignorance. The ignorance with respect to Shashtra is always in reference to the subject of Brahman. Therefore, the word Guru refers only to the dispeller of the ignorant notions of Brahman. Nowadays, it is fashionable to call teachers as Gurus even in other subject matters. This is incorrect in the vision of the Shastra. Furthermore, what is more important - Seeking knowledge or maintaining Gurudom? The very fact that Gurukul is for knowledge and has no meaning if knowledge is missing, it is abundantly clear that knowledge is what is to be sought. Thirdly, by questioning the teacher one does not disrespect one. Most of the Vedanta Shastra is in the form of questions and answers. The biggest disrespect for any great teacher is when the student believes in Gurudom more than Knowledge. There is a abundance of Gurudoms nowadays in India and I guess it is best we do not try to form another one here.With warm regardsAnuj (Bharat) On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937 (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote: Dear Friend, Why bring Pt. Sanjay Rath , place your views independently. I have again gone through the article of Rath ji and your article carefully.I got the impression , that you are try to advocate your views instead of trying to understand the real intent of BPH. I may like to bring following points to your kind attention: 1. Rath ji is your guru , never show disrespect to your guru. Such attitude will bring your downfall. Rishi Yajvalkya ,Jaimni sometimes taken different line of thinking , but with the permission and with due respect to his guru.I think you are in USA too long. that is why you do not like to stick these simple norms. 2. Parasara had refereed higher authorities in BPHS KIKE 'SEER GARG' 3. BPHS INTENDS THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT SCHEMES OF CHAR KARKAS-7 AS WELL AS 8 4 In 7 char karka scheme Rahu is not considered .However , if two planets are same zodiac degree in their respective signs, then char Karka replacement occurs and Rahu takes its place as sthir Karka of confusion and deceit.Seven (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, THAT IS WHY PUTRA kARKA IS ABSENT AND RAHU AS STHIR kARKA DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY LIVING PERSON BUT DECEIT ETC. 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . BPHS CLEARLY STATES 8 kARKA IN SERIAL ORDER-AK,AMK, BK, MK, PITK,PUTK,GK AND DK.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY ON AMBIGUITY OR CONFUSION. 6. kindly TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPORT AND REASON BEHIND REPLACEMENT OF CHAR KARKA WITH STHIR KARKA. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE ,AS TO WHY CHAR KARKA ARE REPLACED BY STHIR KARKAS.IN FACT THIS CHAPTER OF BPHS DEALS IN ALL KINDS OF KARKAS ACCEPT NAISARGIKA KARKAS. THE SLOKAS IN THIS CHAPTER ARE LIKE SUTRA AND LOT OF CO-RELATION IS REQUIRED TO DECIPHER THEM. CHAR KARKA INDICATE THE HELP AND SUSTENANCE PROVIDED BY OTHER LIVING BEING OR LACK OF IT DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF PAST BIRTHS.STHIR KARKA INDICATE WHEN SUCH LIVING BEING WILL PUT TO GRIEF . 6. I urge , kindly read the article written by Rathji . It will show the light. Regards, G.K.GOELPh: 09350311433Add: L-409, SARITA VIHARNEW DELHI-110 076INDIA Get rid of Add-Ons in your email ID. Get yourname@rocketmail .com. Sign up now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2008 Report Share Posted October 28, 2008 Hare Rama Krsna ||Namaste Bharat,Would be nice if you or the said member could share with us all this beautiful passage. Anyway thank you for your enigmatic suggestion - I hope it comes from the heart and not from the false sense of security offered by secret assembly.Guru is great, important, serious, momentous, valuable, highly prized, venerable, and respectable. This is what I want constructed in my mind - forever!All the best,MichalBharat - Hindu Astrology <astrologyhindusohamsa Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:15:58 AMRe: Char Karka Namaste MichalI happened to be online when you posted your reply. One member of the forum sent me a beautiful passage on how the knower of Brahman has so much love, that endless questions, irritable behavior of the sadhaka is understood immediately. May I suggest reading the dialogues between Sri Ramakrishna Paramhamsa and his students. The intention is known by the thirst for knowledge and truthfulness towards it despite all odds. This proves that Gurudom should never be constructed in the minds of the sadhaks ever! With just a 1% understanding of 0.005% of knowledge of the Rishis who wrote Jyotish Shastra, I certainly do not qualify as a person who can check intentions from the chart and know the hidden information with full surety. Best wishes for your progress and pursuit of knowledgeBharatOn Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 1:34 AM, Michal Dziwulski <nearmichal > wrote: Hare Rama Krsna ||Dear Bharat,I appreciate your comments, even the one where you order me to read your message again. __________Questioning is fine. In fact many things are fine. Trouble is usually not in what we do, but how we do it. I fully agree that questioning does not equal disrespect. It is in the tone, the manner, the attitude - that qualifies it as respectful or not. This is more subtle so it is more difficult to determine the intentions. This is why we learn Jyotish - to have easier access to this 'hidden' information. Respectfully,Michal Bharat - Hindu Astrology <astrologyhindu@ gmail.com> sohamsa@ .comTuesday, October 28, 2008 5:42:19 AM Re: Char Karka Namaste MichalIt is not about who is called a Guru. It is about in what subject one is called a Guru. You are just enumerating a list which may be a Guru. Please read my post again before commenting. Secondly, if Vedanta Shastra (shruti) says something then it holds over and above any smriti. Thirdly, Guru is knowledge only when the subject matter is Brahm Vidya and the said Guru is a Jeevan Mukta and also expert in disemination of the knowledge. Herein, the Guru sabda is not related to any secular knowledge, but only that of Brahm Vidya. Finally, even if you were to use the word Guru losely for any other subject, the disrespect does not come if one pursues knowledge of the subject with devotion, even if it is different from the understanding of the said "Guru". Wishing all members a happy diwali.BharatOn Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Michal Dziwulski <nearmichal > wrote: Hare Rama Krsna ||Dear Bharat,Regarding the following:>>Nowadays, it is fashionable to call teachers as Gurus even in other subject matters. This is incorrect in the vision of the Shastra.The following is from wikipedia:"In the Bhagavata Purana, Dattatreya enumerates a list of his twenty-four gurus: earth, air, sky or ether, water, fire, sun, moon, python, pigeons, sea, moth, bee, bull elephant, bear, deer, fish, osprey, a child, a maiden, a courtesan, a blacksmith, serpent, spider, and wasp".The above seems to counter what you are saying. If we follow Dattatreya then it is not only our teachers who are Guru's but even spiders!Should we not see knowledge and the Guru as synonoymous ie. anywhere where there is knowledge there is a Guru? If you are lost and you stop and ask for directions, is that person not your Guru? Or am I being too fashionable? Respectfully,Michal Bharat - Hindu Astrology <astrologyhindu@ gmail.com> sohamsa@ .com; Monday, October 27, 2008 9:45:48 AMRe: Char Karka Namaste Respected GoeljiJust a simple thought regarding Gurus. Adi Guru is Lord Shankar himself as the knower of brahman and also a wholesome teacher of the same. Guru the sabda losely translates to "Dispeller of Darkness". Herein, darkness is to be understood as ignorance. The ignorance with respect to Shashtra is always in reference to the subject of Brahman. Therefore, the word Guru refers only to the dispeller of the ignorant notions of Brahman. Nowadays, it is fashionable to call teachers as Gurus even in other subject matters. This is incorrect in the vision of the Shastra. Furthermore, what is more important - Seeking knowledge or maintaining Gurudom? The very fact that Gurukul is for knowledge and has no meaning if knowledge is missing, it is abundantly clear that knowledge is what is to be sought. Thirdly, by questioning the teacher one does not disrespect one. Most of the Vedanta Shastra is in the form of questions and answers. The biggest disrespect for any great teacher is when the student believes in Gurudom more than Knowledge. There is a abundance of Gurudoms nowadays in India and I guess it is best we do not try to form another one here.With warm regardsAnuj (Bharat) On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937 (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote: Dear Friend, Why bring Pt. Sanjay Rath , place your views independently. I have again gone through the article of Rath ji and your article carefully.I got the impression , that you are try to advocate your views instead of trying to understand the real intent of BPH. I may like to bring following points to your kind attention: 1. Rath ji is your guru , never show disrespect to your guru. Such attitude will bring your downfall. Rishi Yajvalkya ,Jaimni sometimes taken different line of thinking , but with the permission and with due respect to his guru.I think you are in USA too long. that is why you do not like to stick these simple norms. 2. Parasara had refereed higher authorities in BPHS KIKE 'SEER GARG' 3. BPHS INTENDS THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT SCHEMES OF CHAR KARKAS-7 AS WELL AS 8 4 In 7 char karka scheme Rahu is not considered .However , if two planets are same zodiac degree in their respective signs, then char Karka replacement occurs and Rahu takes its place as sthir Karka of confusion and deceit.Seven (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, THAT IS WHY PUTRA kARKA IS ABSENT AND RAHU AS STHIR kARKA DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY LIVING PERSON BUT DECEIT ETC. 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . BPHS CLEARLY STATES 8 kARKA IN SERIAL ORDER-AK,AMK, BK, MK, PITK,PUTK,GK AND DK.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY ON AMBIGUITY OR CONFUSION. 6. kindly TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPORT AND REASON BEHIND REPLACEMENT OF CHAR KARKA WITH STHIR KARKA. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE ,AS TO WHY CHAR KARKA ARE REPLACED BY STHIR KARKAS.IN FACT THIS CHAPTER OF BPHS DEALS IN ALL KINDS OF KARKAS ACCEPT NAISARGIKA KARKAS. THE SLOKAS IN THIS CHAPTER ARE LIKE SUTRA AND LOT OF CO-RELATION IS REQUIRED TO DECIPHER THEM. CHAR KARKA INDICATE THE HELP AND SUSTENANCE PROVIDED BY OTHER LIVING BEING OR LACK OF IT DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF PAST BIRTHS.STHIR KARKA INDICATE WHEN SUCH LIVING BEING WILL PUT TO GRIEF . 6. I urge , kindly read the article written by Rathji . It will show the light. Regards, G.K.GOELPh: 09350311433Add: L-409, SARITA VIHARNEW DELHI-110 076INDIA Get rid of Add-Ons in your email ID. Get yourname@rocketmail .com. Sign up now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2008 Report Share Posted October 28, 2008 Namaste MichalThe thought of secret assembly is only possible in those who lack faith or have reasons to believe that a secret society is out to get them. Truth does not require secret assembly and you can surely take that thought out. Reading the dialogue between Sri Ramakrishna and his Naren is a delight. I would read it even if the suggestion came from an imagined enemy. It is a blessing for all who read and understand it.Guru is Knowledge itself (as a Brahm Nishta), therefore Gurudom is not required. However, in secular subjects the teacher is only as good as the subject offers and the level of expertise a teacher attains. I am happy to see that you have a high regard for a Guru which should let you to ever let knowledge slip away and form a Gurudom in your mind. Thanks and RegardsBharatOn Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Michal Dziwulski <nearmichal wrote: Hare Rama Krsna ||Namaste Bharat,Would be nice if you or the said member could share with us all this beautiful passage. Anyway thank you for your enigmatic suggestion - I hope it comes from the heart and not from the false sense of security offered by secret assembly. Guru is great, important, serious, momentous, valuable, highly prized, venerable, and respectable. This is what I want constructed in my mind - forever!All the best,Michal Bharat - Hindu Astrology <astrologyhindu sohamsa Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:15:58 AM Re: Char Karka Namaste MichalI happened to be online when you posted your reply. One member of the forum sent me a beautiful passage on how the knower of Brahman has so much love, that endless questions, irritable behavior of the sadhaka is understood immediately. May I suggest reading the dialogues between Sri Ramakrishna Paramhamsa and his students. The intention is known by the thirst for knowledge and truthfulness towards it despite all odds. This proves that Gurudom should never be constructed in the minds of the sadhaks ever! With just a 1% understanding of 0.005% of knowledge of the Rishis who wrote Jyotish Shastra, I certainly do not qualify as a person who can check intentions from the chart and know the hidden information with full surety. Best wishes for your progress and pursuit of knowledgeBharatOn Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 1:34 AM, Michal Dziwulski <nearmichal > wrote: Hare Rama Krsna ||Dear Bharat,I appreciate your comments, even the one where you order me to read your message again. __________Questioning is fine. In fact many things are fine. Trouble is usually not in what we do, but how we do it. I fully agree that questioning does not equal disrespect. It is in the tone, the manner, the attitude - that qualifies it as respectful or not. This is more subtle so it is more difficult to determine the intentions. This is why we learn Jyotish - to have easier access to this 'hidden' information. Respectfully,Michal Bharat - Hindu Astrology <astrologyhindu@ gmail.com> sohamsa@ .comTuesday, October 28, 2008 5:42:19 AM Re: Char Karka Namaste MichalIt is not about who is called a Guru. It is about in what subject one is called a Guru. You are just enumerating a list which may be a Guru. Please read my post again before commenting. Secondly, if Vedanta Shastra (shruti) says something then it holds over and above any smriti. Thirdly, Guru is knowledge only when the subject matter is Brahm Vidya and the said Guru is a Jeevan Mukta and also expert in disemination of the knowledge. Herein, the Guru sabda is not related to any secular knowledge, but only that of Brahm Vidya. Finally, even if you were to use the word Guru losely for any other subject, the disrespect does not come if one pursues knowledge of the subject with devotion, even if it is different from the understanding of the said " Guru " . Wishing all members a happy diwali.BharatOn Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Michal Dziwulski <nearmichal > wrote: Hare Rama Krsna ||Dear Bharat,Regarding the following:>>Nowadays, it is fashionable to call teachers as Gurus even in other subject matters. This is incorrect in the vision of the Shastra.The following is from wikipedia: " In the Bhagavata Purana, Dattatreya enumerates a list of his twenty-four gurus: earth, air, sky or ether, water, fire, sun, moon, python, pigeons, sea, moth, bee, bull elephant, bear, deer, fish, osprey, a child, a maiden, a courtesan, a blacksmith, serpent, spider, and wasp " .The above seems to counter what you are saying. If we follow Dattatreya then it is not only our teachers who are Guru's but even spiders!Should we not see knowledge and the Guru as synonoymous ie. anywhere where there is knowledge there is a Guru? If you are lost and you stop and ask for directions, is that person not your Guru? Or am I being too fashionable? Respectfully,Michal Bharat - Hindu Astrology <astrologyhindu@ gmail.com> sohamsa@ .com; Monday, October 27, 2008 9:45:48 AMRe: Char Karka Namaste Respected GoeljiJust a simple thought regarding Gurus. Adi Guru is Lord Shankar himself as the knower of brahman and also a wholesome teacher of the same. Guru the sabda losely translates to " Dispeller of Darkness " . Herein, darkness is to be understood as ignorance. The ignorance with respect to Shashtra is always in reference to the subject of Brahman. Therefore, the word Guru refers only to the dispeller of the ignorant notions of Brahman. Nowadays, it is fashionable to call teachers as Gurus even in other subject matters. This is incorrect in the vision of the Shastra. Furthermore, what is more important - Seeking knowledge or maintaining Gurudom? The very fact that Gurukul is for knowledge and has no meaning if knowledge is missing, it is abundantly clear that knowledge is what is to be sought. Thirdly, by questioning the teacher one does not disrespect one. Most of the Vedanta Shastra is in the form of questions and answers. The biggest disrespect for any great teacher is when the student believes in Gurudom more than Knowledge. There is a abundance of Gurudoms nowadays in India and I guess it is best we do not try to form another one here.With warm regardsAnuj (Bharat) On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937 (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote: Dear Friend, Why bring Pt. Sanjay Rath , place your views independently. I have again gone through the article of Rath ji and your article carefully.I got the impression , that you are try to advocate your views instead of trying to understand the real intent of BPH. I may like to bring following points to your kind attention: 1. Rath ji is your guru , never show disrespect to your guru. Such attitude will bring your downfall. Rishi Yajvalkya ,Jaimni sometimes taken different line of thinking , but with the permission and with due respect to his guru.I think you are in USA too long. that is why you do not like to stick these simple norms. 2. Parasara had refereed higher authorities in BPHS KIKE 'SEER GARG' 3. BPHS INTENDS THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT SCHEMES OF CHAR KARKAS-7 AS WELL AS 8 4 In 7 char karka scheme Rahu is not considered .However , if two planets are same zodiac degree in their respective signs, then char Karka replacement occurs and Rahu takes its place as sthir Karka of confusion and deceit.Seven (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, THAT IS WHY PUTRA kARKA IS ABSENT AND RAHU AS STHIR kARKA DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY LIVING PERSON BUT DECEIT ETC. 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . BPHS CLEARLY STATES 8 kARKA IN SERIAL ORDER-AK,AMK, BK, MK, PITK,PUTK,GK AND DK.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY ON AMBIGUITY OR CONFUSION. 6. kindly TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPORT AND REASON BEHIND REPLACEMENT OF CHAR KARKA WITH STHIR KARKA. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE ,AS TO WHY CHAR KARKA ARE REPLACED BY STHIR KARKAS.IN FACT THIS CHAPTER OF BPHS DEALS IN ALL KINDS OF KARKAS ACCEPT NAISARGIKA KARKAS. THE SLOKAS IN THIS CHAPTER ARE LIKE SUTRA AND LOT OF CO-RELATION IS REQUIRED TO DECIPHER THEM. CHAR KARKA INDICATE THE HELP AND SUSTENANCE PROVIDED BY OTHER LIVING BEING OR LACK OF IT DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF PAST BIRTHS.STHIR KARKA INDICATE WHEN SUCH LIVING BEING WILL PUT TO GRIEF . 6. I urge , kindly read the article written by Rathji . It will show the light. Regards, G.K.GOELPh: 09350311433Add: L-409, SARITA VIHARNEW DELHI-110 076INDIA Get rid of Add-Ons in your email ID. Get yourname@rocketmail .com. Sign up now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2008 Report Share Posted October 28, 2008 हरे राम कृषà¥à¤£ Dear Narasimha, What is your take on that neither Maharishi Jaimini Krta Upadesa Sutram (slokas 1.1.10-1.1.19) nor Sri Mahadeva Krtam Jataka Tattva (sloka 1.65) indicate nor hint in anyway towards this special circumstance of Rahu only entering the Charakaraka scheme once two planets are at the same degree? Maharishi Jaimini, with his otherwise very brief sutras, only speaks of two schemes namely seven or eighth charakarakas and after listing out eight charakaraka later states that the putrakaraka becomes one with the Matrikaraka, which is obviously only the case in the scheme of seven chara karaka. If he wishes to be this explicit then why didn't he mention this special condition of including Rahu only when planets occupied the same degree? Further, Mahadeva's Jataka Tattvam also does not even entertain an idea of using seven Chara Karakas, wherein he when mentioning the same simply lists out all eight Chara Karakas by name, without any conditions. Looking forward to your reply. Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen ---------- www: http://srigaruda.com @: visti Narasimha P.V.R. Rao skrev:  Namaste Sir,  > Seven > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING .  If you or anyone can show me the verse of Parasara that says the above, we can discuss your views further.  When mentioning the two schemes, Parasara clearly said that the 8-karaka scheme is used when two planets are in the same degree. He never talked about "living beings" vs "mundane charts". Instead he talked about matching the degrees of planets to decide 7 vs 8 karaka schemes.  A clear guideline of Parasara has been ignored and a big hypothesis is made instead. Such a theory with a weak foundation fails to convince me.  Best regards, Narasimha Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana Spirituality: Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org ----- Original Message ----- Gopal Goel To: Narasimha Rao Cc: vedic astrology ; Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest ; sohamsa Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:43 AM Subject: Char Karka Dear Friend, Why bring Pt. Sanjay Rath , place your views independently.  I have again gone through the article of Rath ji and your article carefully.I got the impression , that you are try to advocate your views instead of trying to understand the real intent of BPH. I may like to bring following points to your kind attention: 1. Rath ji is your guru , never show disrespect to your guru.   Such attitude will bring your downfall. Rishi Yajvalkya ,Jaimni   sometimes taken different line of thinking , but with the permission  and with due respect to his guru.I think you are in USA too long. that is why you do not like to stick these simple norms. 2. Parasara had refereed higher authorities in BPHS KIKE 'SEER GARG' 3. BPHS INTENDS THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT  SCHEMES OF CHAR KARKAS-7 AS WELL AS 8 4 In 7 char karka scheme Rahu is not considered .However , if two planets  are same zodiac degree in their respective signs, then char Karka replacement  occurs and Rahu takes its place as sthir Karka of confusion and deceit.Seven  (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, THAT IS WHY     PUTRA kARKA IS ABSENT AND RAHU AS STHIR kARKA DOES NOT    REPRESENT ANY LIVING PERSON BUT DECEIT ETC. 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . BPHS  CLEARLY STATES 8 kARKA IN SERIAL ORDER-AK,AMK,  BK, MK, PITK,PUTK,GK AND DK.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY  ON AMBIGUITY OR CONFUSION. 6. kindly TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPORT AND REASON   BEHIND REPLACEMENT OF CHAR KARKA WITH STHIR KARKA. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE ,AS TO WHY CHAR KARKA ARE REPLACED BY STHIR KARKAS.IN FACT THIS CHAPTER OF BPHS DEALS IN ALL KINDS OF KARKAS ACCEPT NAISARGIKA KARKAS. THE SLOKAS IN THIS CHAPTER ARE LIKE SUTRA AND LOT OF CO-RELATION IS REQUIRED TO DECIPHER THEM. CHAR KARKA INDICATE THE HELP AND SUSTENANCE PROVIDED BY OTHER LIVING BEING OR LACK OF IT DUE TO THE  ACTIONS OF PAST BIRTHS.STHIR KARKA INDICATE WHEN SUCH LIVING BEING WILL PUT TO GRIEF . 6. I urge , kindly read the article written by Rathji . It will show the light. Regards,  G.K.GOEL Ph: 09350311433 Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR NEW DELHI-110 076 INDIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 Namaste Visti, (1) First regarding Jaimini: Jaimini did NOT deviate from Parasara in whatever he said. Though he did not specifically say how to choose between 7 and 8 planets, we have to remember that Jaimini Sutram is not a self-sufficient text and Jaimini did say " siddhamanyat " at the beginning. We have to fill in a lot of blanks using other sources. Parasara would be a perfect choice. In fact, Vriddha Karikas say the following: ravyaadi shani paryantaaH bhavanti sapta kaarakaaH | aMsha saamye grahau dvau ca raahvantaan gaNayet dvija || (Meaning: Planets starting from Sun and going upto Saturn become seven significators. And, O brahmin, if two planets are in equality of degrees, one may count ending with Rahu.) This is pretty much what Parasara said, in slightly different words! After all, when Jaimini leaves one detail out, it is logical to get that detail from Parasara. (2) Regarding Mahadeva: Mahadeva is great scholar, just as Dr BV Raman, Sri KN Rao and Pt Sanjay Rath are. However, this great scholar from mid-to-late 1800's is hardly an authority on par with Maharshi Parasara. We can use him to interpret Parasara when there is an ambiguity in Parasara that was clarified by Mahadeva. When Parasara is clear that there and Mahadeva deviates, there is no reason to give preference to Mahadeva. Regarding when to use 7 and when to use 8 planets, I believe Parasara is clear and vriddha karikas point in the same direction. Krishnaarpanamastu, Narasimha Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana Spirituality: Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org sohamsa , Visti Larsen <visti wrote: > > हरे राम कृषà¥à¤£ > Dear Narasimha, > What is your take on that neither Maharishi Jaimini Krta Upadesa Sutram > (slokas 1.1.10-1.1.19) nor Sri Mahadeva Krtam Jataka Tattva (sloka 1.65) > indicate nor hint in anyway towards this special circumstance of Rahu > only entering the Charakaraka scheme once two planets are at the same > degree? > > Maharishi Jaimini, with his otherwise very brief sutras, only speaks of > two schemes namely seven or eighth charakarakas and after listing out > eight charakaraka later states that the putrakaraka becomes one with the > Matrikaraka, which is obviously only the case in the scheme of seven > chara karaka. > If he wishes to be this explicit then why didn't he mention this special > condition of including Rahu only when planets occupied the same degree? > > Further, Mahadeva's Jataka Tattvam also does not even entertain an idea > of using seven Chara Karakas, wherein he when mentioning the same simply > lists out all eight Chara Karakas by name, without any conditions. > > Looking forward to your reply. > Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen > ---------- > www: http://srigaruda.com > @: visti > > Narasimha P.V.R. Rao skrev: > > > >  > > > > Namaste Sir, > > > > > Seven > > > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, > > > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . > > > > If you or anyone can show me the verse of Parasara that says the > > above, we can discuss your views further. > > > > When mentioning the two schemes, Parasara clearly said that the > > 8-karaka scheme is used when two planets are in the same degree. He > > never talked about " living beings " vs " mundane charts " . Instead he > > talked about matching the degrees of planets to decide 7 vs 8 karaka > > schemes. > > > > A clear guideline of Parasara has been ignored and a big hypothesis is > > made instead. Such a theory with a weak foundation fails to convince me. > > > > Best regards, > > Narasimha > > > > Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam> > > Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana> > > Spirituality: > > <> > > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net > > <http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net> > > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org> > > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org > > <http://www.SriJagannath.org> > > > > > > - > > ** Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937 > > *To:* Narasimha Rao <pvr > > *Cc:* vedic astrology > > <vedic astrology > ; > > Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest > > <Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest > ; > > sohamsa <sohamsa > > > *Sent:* Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:43 AM > > *Subject:* Char Karka > > > > Dear Friend, > > Why bring Pt. Sanjay Rath , place your views independently. > > I have again gone through the article of Rath ji and your article > > carefully.I got the impression , that you are try to advocate your > > views instead of trying to understand the real intent of BPH. > > I may like to bring following points to your kind attention: > > 1. Rath ji is your guru , never show disrespect to your guru. > > Such attitude will bring your downfall. Rishi Yajvalkya ,Jaimni > > sometimes taken different line of thinking , but with the permission > > and with due respect to his guru.I think you are in USA too long. > > that is why you do not like to stick these simple norms. > > 2. Parasara had refereed higher authorities in BPHS KIKE 'SEER GARG' > > 3. BPHS INTENDS THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT > > SCHEMES OF CHAR KARKAS-7 AS WELL AS 8 > > 4 In 7 char karka scheme Rahu is not considered .However , if two > > planets > > are same zodiac degree in their respective signs, then char > > Karka replacement > > occurs and Rahu takes its place as sthir Karka of confusion and > > deceit.Seven > > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, THAT IS WHY > > PUTRA kARKA IS ABSENT AND RAHU AS STHIR kARKA DOES NOT > > REPRESENT ANY LIVING PERSON BUT DECEIT ETC. > > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . BPHS > > CLEARLY STATES 8 kARKA IN SERIAL ORDER-AK,AMK, > > BK, MK, PITK,PUTK,GK AND DK.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY > > ON AMBIGUITY OR CONFUSION. > > 6. kindly TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPORT AND REASON > > BEHIND REPLACEMENT OF CHAR KARKA WITH STHIR KARKA. > > THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE > > ,AS TO WHY CHAR KARKA ARE REPLACED BY STHIR > > KARKAS.IN FACT THIS CHAPTER OF BPHS DEALS IN ALL KINDS OF > > KARKAS ACCEPT NAISARGIKA KARKAS. THE SLOKAS IN THIS CHAPTER ARE > > LIKE SUTRA AND LOT OF CO-RELATION IS REQUIRED TO DECIPHER > > THEM. CHAR KARKA INDICATE THE HELP AND SUSTENANCE PROVIDED > > BY OTHER LIVING BEING OR LACK OF IT DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF PAST > > BIRTHS.STHIR KARKA INDICATE WHEN SUCH LIVING BEING WILL > > PUT TO GRIEF . > > 6. I urge , kindly read the article written by Rathji . It will > > show the light. > > Regards, > > > > G.K.GOEL > > Ph: 09350311433 > > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR > > NEW DELHI-110 076 > > INDIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 Dear Narasimhaji (and Vistiji), While I cant question Narasimhaji's scholarship, it is clear that these kind of issues question the very root of parampara knowledge if not astrology itself. The silence (from SJC Gurus and Sanjayji) surprises me. In scientific subjects, if a new theory comes up that contradicts an old one, it must either be a generalization of the old theory (e.g. Einstein's theory of relativity (new) is not in contradiction with Newton's theory (old) at speeds far less than the speed of light), or at the very least it must explain why the old theory correctly predicted in some cases, or if the old theory didnt even do that, then why the old theory's observations were wrong (since those wrong observations supported the old theory). In this case, Narasimhaji has simply thrown the entire CK replacement theory into the trash can. Which immediately begs the question: So are Sanjayji's explanations of Alan Leo's and Mahatma Gandhi's charts, in his AK paper, wrong? Narasimhaji, after your new found knowledge, you must either conclude that the events in one's life (i.e. total change of motivation and direction in life, not present in most people's life) that Sanjayji has hitherto explained using AK replacement, do not exist i.e Sanjayji was merely deluding himself, OR that they are explained by some other astrological combination. So far, in the new scheme of things, you havent volunteered any astrological combination that explains ALL and ONLY those events that have so far been explained by Sanjayji as CK replacement. I quote directly from Sanjayji's paper, Section 3.1 - " The carakaraka being replaced gives us an idea of the area of life where a major unheaval is expected to occur while the slot, which is falling vacant, needs the strong support of Lord Siva in the form of a strong sthira karaka so that the concerned relation/aspect of life is not disturbed or destroyed. <some omitted>. The spiritual impact on the person is very strong if the AK, AMK or BK are involved.. " . Please clarify your position on this. And relatedly, note that all this suddenly puts a lot of parampara knowledge in question. An average person like me treats parampara knowledge with respect because one naturally assumes that this knowledge has been tested over the generations. As an example, how do I build confidence that one day some one wont come up with a key undiscovered precursor verse of Parasara that unambiguously says " In all my remaining verses, when I say Rahu I actually mean Jupiter and when I say Jupiter, I actually mean Rahu " , and in doing so trashes all current knowledge. The way I build that confidence is that I see that the current knowledge WORKS IN PRACTICE. Since it WORKS IN PRACTICE, I know that the probability of discovering such a verse is next to nil. And Narasimhaji, now that you have thrown CK replacement (and earlier Drig Dasa calculation), into the trash can, it makes me wonder - Were Sanjay Rathji, his Guru Pt Kasinath Rathji, or his Guru Pt Jagannath Rathji, and their Gurus, were they all using this knowledge previously AT ALL or NOT? Or if they were, were they just deluding themselves? Were they simply predicting correctly because of their spiritual strength? If so, we might as well all give up astrology, and throw some tea leaves up in the air and predict using spiritual strength, no? Regards, Sundeep sohamsa , " Narasimha Rao " <pvr wrote: > > Namaste Visti, > > (1) First regarding Jaimini: Jaimini did NOT deviate from Parasara in > whatever he said. Though he did not specifically say how to choose > between 7 and 8 planets, we have to remember that Jaimini Sutram is > not a self-sufficient text and Jaimini did say " siddhamanyat " at the > beginning. We have to fill in a lot of blanks using other sources. > Parasara would be a perfect choice. > > In fact, Vriddha Karikas say the following: > > ravyaadi shani paryantaaH bhavanti sapta kaarakaaH | > aMsha saamye grahau dvau ca raahvantaan gaNayet dvija || > > (Meaning: Planets starting from Sun and going upto Saturn become seven > significators. And, O brahmin, if two planets are in equality of > degrees, one may count ending with Rahu.) > > This is pretty much what Parasara said, in slightly different words! > After all, when Jaimini leaves one detail out, it is logical to get > that detail from Parasara. > > (2) Regarding Mahadeva: Mahadeva is great scholar, just as Dr BV > Raman, Sri KN Rao and Pt Sanjay Rath are. However, this great scholar > from mid-to-late 1800's is hardly an authority on par with Maharshi > Parasara. We can use him to interpret Parasara when there is an > ambiguity in Parasara that was clarified by Mahadeva. When Parasara is > clear that there and Mahadeva deviates, there is no reason to give > preference to Mahadeva. > > Regarding when to use 7 and when to use 8 planets, I believe Parasara > is clear and vriddha karikas point in the same direction. > > Krishnaarpanamastu, > Narasimha > > Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam > Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana > Spirituality: > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org > > > sohamsa , Visti Larsen <visti@> wrote: > > > > हरे राम कृषà¥à¤£ > > Dear Narasimha, > > What is your take on that neither Maharishi Jaimini Krta Upadesa Sutram > > (slokas 1.1.10-1.1.19) nor Sri Mahadeva Krtam Jataka Tattva (sloka > 1.65) > > indicate nor hint in anyway towards this special circumstance of Rahu > > only entering the Charakaraka scheme once two planets are at the same > > degree? > > > > Maharishi Jaimini, with his otherwise very brief sutras, only speaks of > > two schemes namely seven or eighth charakarakas and after listing out > > eight charakaraka later states that the putrakaraka becomes one with > the > > Matrikaraka, which is obviously only the case in the scheme of seven > > chara karaka. > > If he wishes to be this explicit then why didn't he mention this > special > > condition of including Rahu only when planets occupied the same degree? > > > > Further, Mahadeva's Jataka Tattvam also does not even entertain an idea > > of using seven Chara Karakas, wherein he when mentioning the same > simply > > lists out all eight Chara Karakas by name, without any conditions. > > > > Looking forward to your reply. > > Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen > > ---------- > > www: http://srigaruda.com > > @: visti@ > > > > Narasimha P.V.R. Rao skrev: > > > > > >  > > > > > > Namaste Sir, > > > > > > > Seven > > > > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, > > > > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . > > > > > > If you or anyone can show me the verse of Parasara that says the > > > above, we can discuss your views further. > > > > > > When mentioning the two schemes, Parasara clearly said that the > > > 8-karaka scheme is used when two planets are in the same degree. He > > > never talked about " living beings " vs " mundane charts " . Instead he > > > talked about matching the degrees of planets to decide 7 vs 8 karaka > > > schemes. > > > > > > A clear guideline of Parasara has been ignored and a big > hypothesis is > > > made instead. Such a theory with a weak foundation fails to > convince me. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Narasimha > > > ------------------------------ --- > > > Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam > > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam> > > > Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana > > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana> > > > Spirituality: > > > <> > > > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net > > > <http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net> > > > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org > > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org> > > > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org > > > <http://www.SriJagannath.org> > > > ------------------------------ --- > > > > > > - > > > ** Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937@> > > > *To:* Narasimha Rao <pvr@> > > > *Cc:* vedic astrology > > > <vedic astrology > ; > > > Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest > > > <Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest > ; > > > sohamsa <sohamsa > > > > *Sent:* Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:43 AM > > > *Subject:* Char Karka > > > > > > Dear Friend, > > > Why bring Pt. Sanjay Rath , place your views independently. > > > I have again gone through the article of Rath ji and your article > > > carefully.I got the impression , that you are try to advocate your > > > views instead of trying to understand the real intent of BPH. > > > I may like to bring following points to your kind attention: > > > 1. Rath ji is your guru , never show disrespect to your guru. > > > Such attitude will bring your downfall. Rishi Yajvalkya ,Jaimni > > > sometimes taken different line of thinking , but with the > permission > > > and with due respect to his guru.I think you are in USA too > long. > > > that is why you do not like to stick these simple norms. > > > 2. Parasara had refereed higher authorities in BPHS KIKE 'SEER > GARG' > > > 3. BPHS INTENDS THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT > > > SCHEMES OF CHAR KARKAS-7 AS WELL AS 8 > > > 4 In 7 char karka scheme Rahu is not considered .However , if two > > > planets > > > are same zodiac degree in their respective signs, then char > > > Karka replacement > > > occurs and Rahu takes its place as sthir Karka of confusion and > > > deceit.Seven > > > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, THAT IS WHY > > > PUTRA kARKA IS ABSENT AND RAHU AS STHIR kARKA DOES NOT > > > REPRESENT ANY LIVING PERSON BUT DECEIT ETC. > > > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . BPHS > > > CLEARLY STATES 8 kARKA IN SERIAL ORDER-AK,AMK, > > > BK, MK, PITK,PUTK,GK AND DK.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY > > > ON AMBIGUITY OR CONFUSION. > > > 6. kindly TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPORT AND REASON > > > BEHIND REPLACEMENT OF CHAR KARKA WITH STHIR KARKA. > > > THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE > > > ,AS TO WHY CHAR KARKA ARE REPLACED BY STHIR > > > KARKAS.IN FACT THIS CHAPTER OF BPHS DEALS IN ALL KINDS OF > > > KARKAS ACCEPT NAISARGIKA KARKAS. THE SLOKAS IN THIS CHAPTER ARE > > > LIKE SUTRA AND LOT OF CO-RELATION IS REQUIRED TO DECIPHER > > > THEM. CHAR KARKA INDICATE THE HELP AND SUSTENANCE PROVIDED > > > BY OTHER LIVING BEING OR LACK OF IT DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF PAST > > > BIRTHS.STHIR KARKA INDICATE WHEN SUCH LIVING BEING WILL > > > PUT TO GRIEF . > > > 6. I urge , kindly read the article written by Rathji . It will > > > show the light. > > > Regards, > > > > > > G.K.GOEL > > > Ph: 09350311433 > > > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR > > > NEW DELHI-110 076 > > > INDIA > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 हरे राम कृष्ण Dear Narasimha, Namaskar. Let us begin with accepting that you are not a spokesperson for Maharishi Parasara, and we are not discussing Maharishi Parasara's words, but your translation/interpretation of his words. You are not Maharishi Parasara and stating that 'Parasara said this' and 'Parasara said that' is bordering megalomania. Therefore it is only appropriate that we understand that Maharishi Parasara has written something, and we are now discussing the interpretations of the Parampara/tradition versus your own. If we do not keep this purity and decorum in our discussion, then we risk falling to the weakness of Vishakha nakshatra which rejects even the Rishis words. If the light of knowledge has to continue, the lamp must be lit and the ghee must be mixed with the pure yellow haldi through which our intelligence will be protected and our knowledge will bloom. Of course Maharishi Jaimini did not deviate from Maharishi Parasara, question is whether you have... refer to my above statements. Maharishi Jaimini did indeed ask us to master the 'Siddha Jyotish' Shastra before reading his works, but so does Maharishi Parasara in the beginning of the third chapter where he requires us to have mastered the entire Samhita aspect of Jyotish before reading his work, and therefore with the logic you present we can add numerous imaginative additions to whatever we read in these two classics. See that Maharishi Jaimini went to the extent of defining that there are schemes of seven or eight Chara Karakas and even defined how both schemes appear. If he did this much, then why wouldn't he also define the important rider for ALL charts through which we decide when to use either seven or eight Chara Karakas? Is it not completely illogical that he would have said this much and not added that one extra sutra which defined when to choose which? Especially if it was a hard-and-set rule in the way that you have interpreted Maharishi Parasara and now also interpreted the Vrddha Karika? If your interpretation is correct, then Maharishi Jaimini might as well have not even spoken about the Chara karakas in the nine sutras that he does if he is not going to add that important rider which you have given in your interpretation. Therefore, your statement that Maharishi Jaimini left out that ONE rider simply because we are to read it from elsewhere is completely illogical and not acceptable. Surely, you can do better than that! Sri Mahadeva was a far more learned author than many Jyotisha today and is from a tradition of Jyotisha, and if we are to belittle him because of his birth in the 1800's then of what value can I consider your writings or that of any of the Gurus you have mentioned? The logic you present towards Sri Mahadeva reduces the value of your own book to the mere cost of the paper it was printed on. So therefore your logic is also not acceptable and you must consider his opinion. Now to the crux of this: Sri Mahadeva's statement is so clear that its hard to derive any different interpretation from it. Its impossible to deviate from. Further, the interpretation of the Chara Karakas presented by the tradition accommodates Sri Mahadeva's statement as well as Maharishi Jaimini's sutras. It also accommodates an interpretation of Maharishi Parasara which you do not accept at present. As a result your interpretation disagrees with that of the tradition, Sri Mahadeva and Maharishi Jaimini. The logic behind your statement being in disagreement with Maharishi Jaimini is as per the logic presented by me in the second paragraph of this mail. Stating that Maharishi Jaimini left out the rider that YOU believe is Maharishi Parasara's words, and thus accepting that Maharishi Jaimini did this deliberately is absolutely ridiculous, and sounds solely as a means to keep your integrity, and has no scholarly basis. So lets try again: The Maharishi Jaimini Krta Upadesa Sutras are complete, and neither of the current scholars i.e. Irangati Rangacharya nor Pt. Sanjay Rath, who are considered the experts in Maharishi Jaimini's work, have indicated that any sutras are missing from the work. So nothing is missing, and surely nothing was omitted which Maharishi Jaimnini hasn't specifically indicated is missing, i.e. the entire Udu Dasa calculations he has referred to be read elsewhere, as is the case for the siddha jyotish principles such as lordships, signs, grahaguna, balas, vargas, etc. Further, Sri Mahadeva has indicated that his work brings about the essence (sara) of Hora and Tantra, which by implication indicates that he has studied these works to derive meaning from them. He thus wrote a very voluminous number of slokas on them, and for this simple reason you cannot just discard his statement about Chara Karakas as being a mere different opinion. In fact you have to now justify WHY his opinion defers from yours as the tradition shares his opinion. Its now 3 against you, Narasimha. Sticking to your own interpretation of Parasara and discarding the words of Sri Mahadeva is like eating only the lemon in lemon-rice. Further, accepting that sutras are missing at random in the Jaimini Sutras is like looking for oregano in Garam Masala. Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen ---------- www: http://srigaruda.com @: visti Narasimha Rao skrev: Namaste Visti, (1) First regarding Jaimini: Jaimini did NOT deviate from Parasara in whatever he said. Though he did not specifically say how to choose between 7 and 8 planets, we have to remember that Jaimini Sutram is not a self-sufficient text and Jaimini did say "siddhamanyat" at the beginning. We have to fill in a lot of blanks using other sources. Parasara would be a perfect choice. In fact, Vriddha Karikas say the following: ravyaadi shani paryantaaH bhavanti sapta kaarakaaH | aMsha saamye grahau dvau ca raahvantaan gaNayet dvija || (Meaning: Planets starting from Sun and going upto Saturn become seven significators. And, O brahmin, if two planets are in equality of degrees, one may count ending with Rahu.) This is pretty much what Parasara said, in slightly different words! After all, when Jaimini leaves one detail out, it is logical to get that detail from Parasara. (2) Regarding Mahadeva: Mahadeva is great scholar, just as Dr BV Raman, Sri KN Rao and Pt Sanjay Rath are. However, this great scholar from mid-to-late 1800's is hardly an authority on par with Maharshi Parasara. We can use him to interpret Parasara when there is an ambiguity in Parasara that was clarified by Mahadeva. When Parasara is clear that there and Mahadeva deviates, there is no reason to give preference to Mahadeva. Regarding when to use 7 and when to use 8 planets, I believe Parasara is clear and vriddha karikas point in the same direction. Krishnaarpanamastu, Narasimha ------------------------- Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana Spirituality: Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org ------------------------- sohamsa , Visti Larsen <visti wrote: > > हरे राम कृषà¥�ण > Dear Narasimha, > What is your take on that neither Maharishi Jaimini Krta Upadesa Sutram > (slokas 1.1.10-1.1.19) nor Sri Mahadeva Krtam Jataka Tattva (sloka 1.65) > indicate nor hint in anyway towards this special circumstance of Rahu > only entering the Charakaraka scheme once two planets are at the same > degree? > > Maharishi Jaimini, with his otherwise very brief sutras, only speaks of > two schemes namely seven or eighth charakarakas and after listing out > eight charakaraka later states that the putrakaraka becomes one with the > Matrikaraka, which is obviously only the case in the scheme of seven > chara karaka. > If he wishes to be this explicit then why didn't he mention this special > condition of including Rahu only when planets occupied the same degree? > > Further, Mahadeva's Jataka Tattvam also does not even entertain an idea > of using seven Chara Karakas, wherein he when mentioning the same simply > lists out all eight Chara Karakas by name, without any conditions. > > Looking forward to your reply. > Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen > ---------- > www: http://srigaruda.com > @: visti > > Narasimha P.V.R. Rao skrev: > > > >  > > > > Namaste Sir, > > > > > Seven > > > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, > > > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . > > > > If you or anyone can show me the verse of Parasara that says the > > above, we can discuss your views further. > > > > When mentioning the two schemes, Parasara clearly said that the > > 8-karaka scheme is used when two planets are in the same degree. He > > never talked about "living beings" vs "mundane charts". Instead he > > talked about matching the degrees of planets to decide 7 vs 8 karaka > > schemes. > > > > A clear guideline of Parasara has been ignored and a big hypothesis is > > made instead. Such a theory with a weak foundation fails to convince me. > > > > Best regards, > > Narasimha > > ------------------------- > > Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam> > > Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana> > > Spirituality: > > <> > > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net > > <http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net> > > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org> > > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org > > <http://www.SriJagannath.org> > > ------------------------- > > > > - > > ** Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937 > > *To:* Narasimha Rao <pvr > > *Cc:* vedic astrology > > <vedic astrology > ; > > Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest > > <Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest > ; > > sohamsa <sohamsa > > > *Sent:* Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:43 AM > > *Subject:* Char Karka > > > > Dear Friend, > > Why bring Pt. Sanjay Rath , place your views independently. > > I have again gone through the article of Rath ji and your article > > carefully.I got the impression , that you are try to advocate your > > views instead of trying to understand the real intent of BPH. > > I may like to bring following points to your kind attention: > > 1. Rath ji is your guru , never show disrespect to your guru. > > Such attitude will bring your downfall. Rishi Yajvalkya ,Jaimni > > sometimes taken different line of thinking , but with the permission > > and with due respect to his guru.I think you are in USA too long. > > that is why you do not like to stick these simple norms. > > 2. Parasara had refereed higher authorities in BPHS KIKE 'SEER GARG' > > 3. BPHS INTENDS THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT > > SCHEMES OF CHAR KARKAS-7 AS WELL AS 8 > > 4 In 7 char karka scheme Rahu is not considered .However , if two > > planets > > are same zodiac degree in their respective signs, then char > > Karka replacement > > occurs and Rahu takes its place as sthir Karka of confusion and > > deceit.Seven > > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, THAT IS WHY > > PUTRA kARKA IS ABSENT AND RAHU AS STHIR kARKA DOES NOT > > REPRESENT ANY LIVING PERSON BUT DECEIT ETC. > > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . BPHS > > CLEARLY STATES 8 kARKA IN SERIAL ORDER-AK,AMK, > > BK, MK, PITK,PUTK,GK AND DK.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY > > ON AMBIGUITY OR CONFUSION. > > 6. kindly TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPORT AND REASON > > BEHIND REPLACEMENT OF CHAR KARKA WITH STHIR KARKA. > > THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE > > ,AS TO WHY CHAR KARKA ARE REPLACED BY STHIR > > KARKAS.IN FACT THIS CHAPTER OF BPHS DEALS IN ALL KINDS OF > > KARKAS ACCEPT NAISARGIKA KARKAS. THE SLOKAS IN THIS CHAPTER ARE > > LIKE SUTRA AND LOT OF CO-RELATION IS REQUIRED TO DECIPHER > > THEM. CHAR KARKA INDICATE THE HELP AND SUSTENANCE PROVIDED > > BY OTHER LIVING BEING OR LACK OF IT DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF PAST > > BIRTHS.STHIR KARKA INDICATE WHEN SUCH LIVING BEING WILL > > PUT TO GRIEF . > > 6. I urge , kindly read the article written by Rathji . It will > > show the light. > > Regards, > > > > G.K.GOEL > > Ph: 09350311433 > > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR > > NEW DELHI-110 076 > > INDIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 Namaste Visti, Of course, I am not asking anyone to accept me as an authority on Parasara. But, as a Sanskrit scholar, I am pointing out what a few verses unambigously mean. If you are a Sanskrit scholar and disagree with my assertion, please suggest an alternative interpretation and we can debate on which is more logical. Otherwise, well, we have no common basis to debate! In Indian tradition, words of rishis are pramaana. Scholar debate them from time to time and form/refine the " current understanding " of those words. * * * If you expect Jaimini to lay down everything clearly, you are expecting too much. There is nothing wrong with getting from Parasara the details Jaimini did not mention due to the compactness of his work. You mentioned Iranganti Rangacharya as an " expert in Maharishi Jaimini's work " . When interpreting the sutra of Jaimini that mentioned 7 *or* 8 planets as chara karakas, he DID refer to the vriddha karika quote I gave in my last mail and concluded that 8 planets are used when two planets are in the same degree and 7 planets otherwise. We cannot question why Jaimini did not mention a specific detail. He definitely warned beforehand that he would not mention all details! * * * I do not want a political discussion on the stature of Mahadeva, who I acknowledged as a great scholar. Bottomline is that Mahadeva mentioned only the 8 karaka scheme. Parasara and Jaimini mentioned that either 7 or 8 are used and Parasara gave the astrological criterion that decides when 8 are used. There is a clear discrepancy. Not every great scholar is perfect and flawless. One may be perfect in some areas and not so in others. Only somebody of the stature of a rishi is perfect and flawless in everything he says and only his words have the power to give correct knowledge to people for a long long time, despite setbacks now and then. Words of rishis are truly immortal. You are welcome to *believe* that Mahadeva could not have made a mistake and hence Parasara's verse does not mean what I say it means. But that is no argument. Krishnaarpanamastu, Narasimha Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana Spirituality: Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org sohamsa , Visti Larsen <visti wrote: > > ??? ??? ????? > Dear Narasimha, Namaskar. > Let us begin with accepting that you are not a spokesperson for > Maharishi Parasara, and we are not discussing Maharishi Parasara's > words, but your translation/interpretation of his words. You are not > Maharishi Parasara and stating that 'Parasara said this' and 'Parasara > said that' is bordering megalomania. Therefore it is only appropriate > that we understand that Maharishi Parasara has written something, and we > are now discussing the interpretations of the Parampara/tradition versus > your own. > If we do not keep this purity and decorum in our discussion, then we > risk falling to the weakness of Vishakha nakshatra which rejects even > the Rishis words. If the light of knowledge has to continue, the lamp > must be lit and the ghee must be mixed with the pure yellow haldi > through which our intelligence will be protected and our knowledge will > bloom. > > * Of course Maharishi Jaimini did not deviate from Maharishi > Parasara, question is whether you have... refer to my above > statements. > Maharishi Jaimini did indeed ask us to master the 'Siddha Jyotish' > Shastra before reading his works, but so does Maharishi Parasara > in the beginning of the third chapter where he requires us to have > mastered the entire Samhita aspect of Jyotish before reading his > work, and therefore with the logic you present we can add numerous > imaginative additions to whatever we read in these two classics. > See that Maharishi Jaimini went to the extent of defining that > there are schemes of seven or eight Chara Karakas and even defined > how both schemes appear. If he did this much, then why wouldn't he > also define the important rider for ALL charts through which we > decide when to use either seven or eight Chara Karakas? Is it not > completely illogical that he would have said this much and not > added that one extra sutra which defined when to choose which? > Especially if it was a hard-and-set rule in the way that you have > interpreted Maharishi Parasara and now also interpreted the Vrddha > Karika? > If your interpretation is correct, then Maharishi Jaimini might as > well have not even spoken about the Chara karakas in the nine > sutras that he does if he is not going to add that important rider > which you have given in your interpretation. Therefore, your > statement that Maharishi Jaimini left out that ONE rider simply > because we are to read it from elsewhere is completely illogical > and not acceptable. Surely, you can do better than that! > > * Sri Mahadeva was a far more learned author than many Jyotisha > today and is from a tradition of Jyotisha, and if we are to > belittle him because of his birth in the 1800's then of what value > can I consider your writings or that of any of the Gurus you have > mentioned? The logic you present towards Sri Mahadeva reduces the > value of your own book to the mere cost of the paper it was > printed on. So therefore your logic is also not acceptable and you > must consider his opinion. > > Now to the crux of this: Sri Mahadeva's statement is so clear that its > hard to derive any different interpretation from it. Its impossible to > deviate from. Further, the interpretation of the Chara Karakas presented > by the tradition accommodates Sri Mahadeva's statement as well as > Maharishi Jaimini's sutras. It also accommodates an interpretation of > Maharishi Parasara which you do not accept at present. > As a result your interpretation disagrees with that of the tradition, > Sri Mahadeva and Maharishi Jaimini. The logic behind your statement > being in disagreement with Maharishi Jaimini is as per the logic > presented by me in the second paragraph of this mail. > Stating that Maharishi Jaimini left out the rider that YOU believe is > Maharishi Parasara's words, and thus accepting that Maharishi Jaimini > did this deliberately is absolutely ridiculous, and sounds solely as a > means to keep your integrity, and has no scholarly basis. > > So lets try again: The Maharishi Jaimini Krta Upadesa Sutras are > complete, and neither of the current scholars i.e. Irangati Rangacharya > nor Pt. Sanjay Rath, who are considered the experts in Maharishi > Jaimini's work, have indicated that any sutras are missing from the > work. So nothing is missing, and surely nothing was omitted which > Maharishi Jaimnini hasn't specifically indicated is missing, i.e. the > entire Udu Dasa calculations he has referred to be read elsewhere, as is > the case for the siddha jyotish principles such as lordships, signs, > grahaguna, balas, vargas, etc. > Further, Sri Mahadeva has indicated that his work brings about the > essence (sara) of Hora and Tantra, which by implication indicates that > he has studied these works to derive meaning from them. He thus wrote a > very voluminous number of slokas on them, and for this simple reason you > cannot just discard his statement about Chara Karakas as being a mere > different opinion. In fact you have to now justify WHY his opinion > defers from yours as the tradition shares his opinion. > > Its now 3 against you, Narasimha. Sticking to your own interpretation of > Parasara and discarding the words of Sri Mahadeva is like eating only > the lemon in lemon-rice. Further, accepting that sutras are missing at > random in the Jaimini Sutras is like looking for oregano in Garam Masala. > Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen > ---------- > www: http://srigaruda.com > @: visti > > Narasimha Rao skrev: > > > > Namaste Visti, > > > > (1) First regarding Jaimini: Jaimini did NOT deviate from Parasara in > > whatever he said. Though he did not specifically say how to choose > > between 7 and 8 planets, we have to remember that Jaimini Sutram is > > not a self-sufficient text and Jaimini did say " siddhamanyat " at the > > beginning. We have to fill in a lot of blanks using other sources. > > Parasara would be a perfect choice. > > > > In fact, Vriddha Karikas say the following: > > > > ravyaadi shani paryantaaH bhavanti sapta kaarakaaH | > > aMsha saamye grahau dvau ca raahvantaan gaNayet dvija || > > > > (Meaning: Planets starting from Sun and going upto Saturn become seven > > significators. And, O brahmin, if two planets are in equality of > > degrees, one may count ending with Rahu.) > > > > This is pretty much what Parasara said, in slightly different words! > > After all, when Jaimini leaves one detail out, it is logical to get > > that detail from Parasara. > > > > (2) Regarding Mahadeva: Mahadeva is great scholar, just as Dr BV > > Raman, Sri KN Rao and Pt Sanjay Rath are. However, this great scholar > > from mid-to-late 1800's is hardly an authority on par with Maharshi > > Parasara. We can use him to interpret Parasara when there is an > > ambiguity in Parasara that was clarified by Mahadeva. When Parasara is > > clear that there and Mahadeva deviates, there is no reason to give > > preference to Mahadeva. > > > > Regarding when to use 7 and when to use 8 planets, I believe Parasara > > is clear and vriddha karikas point in the same direction. > > > > Krishnaarpanamastu, > > Narasimha > > ------------------------- > > Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam> > > Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana> > > Spirituality: > > <> > > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net > > <http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net> > > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org> > > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org > > <http://www.SriJagannath.org> > > ------------------------- > > > > sohamsa <sohamsa%40>, > > Visti Larsen <visti@> wrote: > > > > > > à ¤¹à ¤°à ¥++ à ¤°à ¤¾à ¤® à ¤.à ¥fà ¤·à ¥?à ¤£ > > > Dear Narasimha, > > > What is your take on that neither Maharishi Jaimini Krta Upadesa Sutram > > > (slokas 1.1.10-1.1.19) nor Sri Mahadeva Krtam Jataka Tattva (sloka > > 1.65) > > > indicate nor hint in anyway towards this special circumstance of Rahu > > > only entering the Charakaraka scheme once two planets are at the same > > > degree? > > > > > > Maharishi Jaimini, with his otherwise very brief sutras, only speaks of > > > two schemes namely seven or eighth charakarakas and after listing out > > > eight charakaraka later states that the putrakaraka becomes one with > > the > > > Matrikaraka, which is obviously only the case in the scheme of seven > > > chara karaka. > > > If he wishes to be this explicit then why didn't he mention this > > special > > > condition of including Rahu only when planets occupied the same degree? > > > > > > Further, Mahadeva's Jataka Tattvam also does not even entertain an idea > > > of using seven Chara Karakas, wherein he when mentioning the same > > simply > > > lists out all eight Chara Karakas by name, without any conditions. > > > > > > Looking forward to your reply. > > > Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen > > > ---------- > > > www: http://srigaruda.com <http://srigaruda.com> > > > @: visti@ > > > > > > Narasimha P.V.R. Rao skrev: > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > Namaste Sir, > > > > > > > > > Seven > > > > > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, > > > > > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . > > > > > > > > If you or anyone can show me the verse of Parasara that says the > > > > above, we can discuss your views further. > > > > > > > > When mentioning the two schemes, Parasara clearly said that the > > > > 8-karaka scheme is used when two planets are in the same degree. He > > > > never talked about " living beings " vs " mundane charts " . Instead he > > > > talked about matching the degrees of planets to decide 7 vs 8 karaka > > > > schemes. > > > > > > > > A clear guideline of Parasara has been ignored and a big > > hypothesis is > > > > made instead. Such a theory with a weak foundation fails to > > convince me. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Narasimha > > > > ------------------------- > > > > Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam> > > > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam>> > > > > Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana> > > > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana>> > > > > Spirituality: > > <> > > > > < > > <>> > > > > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net > > <http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net> > > > > <http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net > > <http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net>> > > > > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org> > > > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org>> > > > > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org > > <http://www.SriJagannath.org> > > > > <http://www.SriJagannath.org <http://www.SriJagannath.org>> > > > > ------------------------- > > > > > > > > - > > > > ** Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937@> > > > > *To:* Narasimha Rao <pvr@> > > > > *Cc:* vedic astrology > > <vedic astrology%40> > > > > <vedic astrology > > <vedic astrology%40>> ; > > > > Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest > > <Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest%40> > > > > <Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest > > <Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest%40>> ; > > > > sohamsa <sohamsa > > <sohamsa%40>> > > > > *Sent:* Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:43 AM > > > > *Subject:* Char Karka > > > > > > > > Dear Friend, > > > > Why bring Pt. Sanjay Rath , place your views independently. > > > > I have again gone through the article of Rath ji and your article > > > > carefully.I got the impression , that you are try to advocate your > > > > views instead of trying to understand the real intent of BPH. > > > > I may like to bring following points to your kind attention: > > > > 1. Rath ji is your guru , never show disrespect to your guru. > > > > Such attitude will bring your downfall. Rishi Yajvalkya ,Jaimni > > > > sometimes taken different line of thinking , but with the > > permission > > > > and with due respect to his guru.I think you are in USA too > > long. > > > > that is why you do not like to stick these simple norms. > > > > 2. Parasara had refereed higher authorities in BPHS KIKE 'SEER > > GARG' > > > > 3. BPHS INTENDS THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT > > > > SCHEMES OF CHAR KARKAS-7 AS WELL AS 8 > > > > 4 In 7 char karka scheme Rahu is not considered .However , if two > > > > planets > > > > are same zodiac degree in their respective signs, then char > > > > Karka replacement > > > > occurs and Rahu takes its place as sthir Karka of confusion and > > > > deceit.Seven > > > > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, THAT IS WHY > > > > PUTRA kARKA IS ABSENT AND RAHU AS STHIR kARKA DOES NOT > > > > REPRESENT ANY LIVING PERSON BUT DECEIT ETC. > > > > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . BPHS > > > > CLEARLY STATES 8 kARKA IN SERIAL ORDER-AK,AMK, > > > > BK, MK, PITK,PUTK,GK AND DK.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY > > > > ON AMBIGUITY OR CONFUSION. > > > > 6. kindly TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPORT AND REASON > > > > BEHIND REPLACEMENT OF CHAR KARKA WITH STHIR KARKA. > > > > THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE > > > > ,AS TO WHY CHAR KARKA ARE REPLACED BY STHIR > > > > KARKAS.IN FACT THIS CHAPTER OF BPHS DEALS IN ALL KINDS OF > > > > KARKAS ACCEPT NAISARGIKA KARKAS. THE SLOKAS IN THIS CHAPTER ARE > > > > LIKE SUTRA AND LOT OF CO-RELATION IS REQUIRED TO DECIPHER > > > > THEM. CHAR KARKA INDICATE THE HELP AND SUSTENANCE PROVIDED > > > > BY OTHER LIVING BEING OR LACK OF IT DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF PAST > > > > BIRTHS.STHIR KARKA INDICATE WHEN SUCH LIVING BEING WILL > > > > PUT TO GRIEF . > > > > 6. I urge , kindly read the article written by Rathji . It will > > > > show the light. > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > G.K.GOEL > > > > Ph: 09350311433 > > > > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR > > > > NEW DELHI-110 076 > > > > INDIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 What's happening Visti? I know you have 'vested interest' but assumed your intellectual honesty wouldn't allow you to talk about what you want, no matter what the issue! I expected you'd address the topic and focus discussion in that direction, so that we finally have two well argumented sides, deserving.further research. Instead, you've changed the topic, without changing the subject line!- who cares who might be assumed to be 'better' scholar. It's not an issue, you can make even longer list, you'd still fail on the college exam, lol! Expecting your input in expanding understanding of Jyotish. Best wishes, Anna--- On Wed, 10/29/08, Visti Larsen <visti wrote: Visti Larsen <vistiRe: Re: Char Karkasohamsa Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 4:42 PM हरे राम कृषà¥à¤£Dear Narasimha, Namaskar.Let us begin with accepting that you are not a spokesperson for Maharishi Parasara, and we are not discussing Maharishi Parasara's words, but your translation/ interpretation of his words. You are not Maharishi Parasara and stating that 'Parasara said this' and 'Parasara said that' is bordering megalomania. Therefore it is only appropriate that we understand that Maharishi Parasara has written something, and we are now discussing the interpretations of the Parampara/tradition versus your own.If we do not keep this purity and decorum in our discussion, then we risk falling to the weakness of Vishakha nakshatra which rejects even the Rishis words. If the light of knowledge has to continue, the lamp must be lit and the ghee must be mixed with the pure yellow haldi through which our intelligence will be protected and our knowledge will bloom. Of course Maharishi Jaimini did not deviate from Maharishi Parasara, question is whether you have... refer to my above statements.Maharishi Jaimini did indeed ask us to master the 'Siddha Jyotish' Shastra before reading his works, but so does Maharishi Parasara in the beginning of the third chapter where he requires us to have mastered the entire Samhita aspect of Jyotish before reading his work, and therefore with the logic you present we can add numerous imaginative additions to whatever we read in these two classics.See that Maharishi Jaimini went to the extent of defining that there are schemes of seven or eight Chara Karakas and even defined how both schemes appear. If he did this much, then why wouldn't he also define the important rider for ALL charts through which we decide when to use either seven or eight Chara Karakas? Is it not completely illogical that he would have said this much and not added that one extra sutra which defined when to choose which? Especially if it was a hard-and-set rule in the way that you have interpreted Maharishi Parasara and now also interpreted the Vrddha Karika?If your interpretation is correct, then Maharishi Jaimini might as well have not even spoken about the Chara karakas in the nine sutras that he does if he is not going to add that important rider which you have given in your interpretation. Therefore, your statement that Maharishi Jaimini left out that ONE rider simply because we are to read it from elsewhere is completely illogical and not acceptable. Surely, you can do better than that! Sri Mahadeva was a far more learned author than many Jyotisha today and is from a tradition of Jyotisha, and if we are to belittle him because of his birth in the 1800's then of what value can I consider your writings or that of any of the Gurus you have mentioned? The logic you present towards Sri Mahadeva reduces the value of your own book to the mere cost of the paper it was printed on. So therefore your logic is also not acceptable and you must consider his opinion.Now to the crux of this: Sri Mahadeva's statement is so clear that its hard to derive any different interpretation from it. Its impossible to deviate from. Further, the interpretation of the Chara Karakas presented by the tradition accommodates Sri Mahadeva's statement as well as Maharishi Jaimini's sutras. It also accommodates an interpretation of Maharishi Parasara which you do not accept at present.As a result your interpretation disagrees with that of the tradition, Sri Mahadeva and Maharishi Jaimini. The logic behind your statement being in disagreement with Maharishi Jaimini is as per the logic presented by me in the second paragraph of this mail.Stating that Maharishi Jaimini left out the rider that YOU believe is Maharishi Parasara's words, and thus accepting that Maharishi Jaimini did this deliberately is absolutely ridiculous, and sounds solely as a means to keep your integrity, and has no scholarly basis.So lets try again: The Maharishi Jaimini Krta Upadesa Sutras are complete, and neither of the current scholars i.e. Irangati Rangacharya nor Pt. Sanjay Rath, who are considered the experts in Maharishi Jaimini's work, have indicated that any sutras are missing from the work. So nothing is missing, and surely nothing was omitted which Maharishi Jaimnini hasn't specifically indicated is missing, i.e. the entire Udu Dasa calculations he has referred to be read elsewhere, as is the case for the siddha jyotish principles such as lordships, signs, grahaguna, balas, vargas, etc.Further, Sri Mahadeva has indicated that his work brings about the essence (sara) of Hora and Tantra, which by implication indicates that he has studied these works to derive meaning from them. He thus wrote a very voluminous number of slokas on them, and for this simple reason you cannot just discard his statement about Chara Karakas as being a mere different opinion. In fact you have to now justify WHY his opinion defers from yours as the tradition shares his opinion.Its now 3 against you, Narasimha. Sticking to your own interpretation of Parasara and discarding the words of Sri Mahadeva is like eating only the lemon in lemon-rice. Further, accepting that sutras are missing at random in the Jaimini Sutras is like looking for oregano in Garam Masala.Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen------------ --------- --------- --------- ----www: http://srigaruda. com@: visti (AT) srigaruda (DOT) com Narasimha Rao skrev: Namaste Visti,(1) First regarding Jaimini: Jaimini did NOT deviate from Parasara inwhatever he said. Though he did not specifically say how to choosebetween 7 and 8 planets, we have to remember that Jaimini Sutram isnot a self-sufficient text and Jaimini did say "siddhamanyat" at thebeginning. We have to fill in a lot of blanks using other sources.Parasara would be a perfect choice.In fact, Vriddha Karikas say the following:ravyaadi shani paryantaaH bhavanti sapta kaarakaaH |aMsha saamye grahau dvau ca raahvantaan gaNayet dvija ||(Meaning: Planets starting from Sun and going upto Saturn become sevensignificators. And, O brahmin, if two planets are in equality ofdegrees, one may count ending with Rahu.)This is pretty much what Parasara said, in slightly different words!After all, when Jaimini leaves one detail out, it is logical to getthat detail from Parasara.(2) Regarding Mahadeva: Mahadeva is great scholar, just as Dr BVRaman, Sri KN Rao and Pt Sanjay Rath are. However, this great scholarfrom mid-to-late 1800's is hardly an authority on par with MaharshiParasara. We can use him to interpret Parasara when there is anambiguity in Parasara that was clarified by Mahadeva. When Parasara isclear that there and Mahadeva deviates, there is no reason to givepreference to Mahadeva.Regarding when to use 7 and when to use 8 planets, I believe Parasarais clear and vriddha karikas point in the same direction.Krishnaarpanamastu,Narasimha------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homamDo Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpanaSpirituality: http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdomFree Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro. home.comcast. netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAst rologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagan nath.org------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - sohamsa@ .com, Visti Larsen <visti wrote:>> à ¤¹à ¤°à ¥‡ à ¤°à ¤¾à ¤® à ¤•à ¥ƒà ¤·à ¥�à ¤£> Dear Narasimha,> What is your take on that neither Maharishi Jaimini Krta Upadesa Sutram > (slokas 1.1.10-1.1.19) nor Sri Mahadeva Krtam Jataka Tattva (sloka1.65) > indicate nor hint in anyway towards this special circumstance of Rahu > only entering the Charakaraka scheme once two planets are at the same > degree?> > Maharishi Jaimini, with his otherwise very brief sutras, only speaks of > two schemes namely seven or eighth charakarakas and after listing out > eight charakaraka later states that the putrakaraka becomes one withthe > Matrikaraka, which is obviously only the case in the scheme of seven > chara karaka.> If he wishes to be this explicit then why didn't he mention thisspecial > condition of including Rahu only when planets occupied the same degree?> > Further, Mahadeva's Jataka Tattvam also does not even entertain an idea > of using seven Chara Karakas, wherein he when mentioning the samesimply > lists out all eight Chara Karakas by name, without any conditions.> > Looking forward to your reply.> Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen> ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----> www: http://srigaruda. com> @: visti > Narasimha P.V.R. Rao skrev:> >> > > >> > Namaste Sir,> > > > > Seven> > > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS,> > > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING .> > > > If you or anyone can show me the verse of Parasara that says the > > above, we can discuss your views further.> > > > When mentioning the two schemes, Parasara clearly said that the > > 8-karaka scheme is used when two planets are in the same degree. He > > never talked about "living beings" vs "mundane charts". Instead he > > talked about matching the degrees of planets to decide 7 vs 8 karaka > > schemes.> > > > A clear guideline of Parasara has been ignored and a bighypothesis is > > made instead. Such a theory with a weak foundation fails toconvince me.> > > > Best regards,> > Narasimha> > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -> > Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homam > > <http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homam>> > Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpana > > <http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpana>> > Spirituality: http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdom > > <http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdom>> > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro. home.comcast. net > > <http://vedicastro. home.comcast. net>> > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAst rologer.org > > <http://www.VedicAst rologer.org>> > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagan nath.org > > <http://www.SriJagan nath.org>> > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -> >> > -> > ** Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937@ ...>> > *To:* Narasimha Rao <pvr@ ...>> > *Cc:* vedic astrology> > <vedic astrology> ;> > Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com> > <Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com> ;> > sohamsa <sohamsa@ .com>> > *Sent:* Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:43 AM> > *Subject:* Char Karka> >> > Dear Friend,> > Why bring Pt. Sanjay Rath , place your views independently.> > I have again gone through the article of Rath ji and your article> > carefully.I got the impression , that you are try to advocate your> > views instead of trying to understand the real intent of BPH.> > I may like to bring following points to your kind attention:> > 1. Rath ji is your guru , never show disrespect to your guru.> > Such attitude will bring your downfall. Rishi Yajvalkya ,Jaimni> > sometimes taken different line of thinking , but with thepermission> > and with due respect to his guru.I think you are in USA toolong.> > that is why you do not like to stick these simple norms.> > 2. Parasara had refereed higher authorities in BPHS KIKE 'SEERGARG'> > 3. BPHS INTENDS THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT> > SCHEMES OF CHAR KARKAS-7 AS WELL AS 8> > 4 In 7 char karka scheme Rahu is not considered .However , if two> > planets> > are same zodiac degree in their respective signs, then char> > Karka replacement> > occurs and Rahu takes its place as sthir Karka of confusion and> > deceit.Seven> > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, THAT IS WHY> > PUTRA kARKA IS ABSENT AND RAHU AS STHIR kARKA DOES NOT> > REPRESENT ANY LIVING PERSON BUT DECEIT ETC.> > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . BPHS> > CLEARLY STATES 8 kARKA IN SERIAL ORDER-AK,AMK,> > BK, MK, PITK,PUTK,GK AND DK.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY> > ON AMBIGUITY OR CONFUSION.> > 6. kindly TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPORT AND REASON> > BEHIND REPLACEMENT OF CHAR KARKA WITH STHIR KARKA.> > THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE> > ,AS TO WHY CHAR KARKA ARE REPLACED BY STHIR> > KARKAS.IN FACT THIS CHAPTER OF BPHS DEALS IN ALL KINDS OF> > KARKAS ACCEPT NAISARGIKA KARKAS. THE SLOKAS IN THIS CHAPTER ARE> > LIKE SUTRA AND LOT OF CO-RELATION IS REQUIRED TO DECIPHER> > THEM. CHAR KARKA INDICATE THE HELP AND SUSTENANCE PROVIDED> > BY OTHER LIVING BEING OR LACK OF IT DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF PAST> > BIRTHS.STHIR KARKA INDICATE WHEN SUCH LIVING BEING WILL> > PUT TO GRIEF .> > 6. I urge , kindly read the article written by Rathji . It will> > show the light.> > Regards,> > > > G.K.GOEL> > Ph: 09350311433> > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR> > NEW DELHI-110 076> > INDIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 हरे राम कृषà¥à¤£ Dear Anna, Namaskar. This is still an intellectual debate. I have just brought in two authors points to refute Narasimha's points. Did you notice how my mail actually takes into account the transits of the day? Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen ---------- www: http://srigaruda.com @: visti 108ar skrev: What's happening Visti?  I know you have 'vested interest' but assumed your intellectual honesty wouldn't allow you to talk about what you want, no matter what the issue!  I expected you'd address the topic and focus discussion in that direction, so that we finally have two well argumented sides, deserving.further research.   Instead, you've changed the topic, without changing the subject line!- who cares who might be assumed to be 'better' scholar. It's not an issue, you can make even longer list, you'd still fail on the college exam, lol! Expecting your input in expanding understanding of Jyotish. Best wishes, Anna --- On Wed, 10/29/08, Visti Larsen <visti (AT) srigaruda (DOT) com> wrote: Visti Larsen <visti (AT) srigaruda (DOT) com> Re: Re: Char Karka sohamsa Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 4:42 PM हरे राम कृषà¥à¤£ Dear Narasimha, Namaskar. Let us begin with accepting that you are not a spokesperson for Maharishi Parasara, and we are not discussing Maharishi Parasara's words, but your translation/ interpretation of his words. You are not Maharishi Parasara and stating that 'Parasara said this' and 'Parasara said that' is bordering megalomania. Therefore it is only appropriate that we understand that Maharishi Parasara has written something, and we are now discussing the interpretations of the Parampara/tradition versus your own. If we do not keep this purity and decorum in our discussion, then we risk falling to the weakness of Vishakha nakshatra which rejects even the Rishis words. If the light of knowledge has to continue, the lamp must be lit and the ghee must be mixed with the pure yellow haldi through which our intelligence will be protected and our knowledge will bloom. Of course Maharishi Jaimini did not deviate from Maharishi Parasara, question is whether you have... refer to my above statements. Maharishi Jaimini did indeed ask us to master the 'Siddha Jyotish' Shastra before reading his works, but so does Maharishi Parasara in the beginning of the third chapter where he requires us to have mastered the entire Samhita aspect of Jyotish before reading his work, and therefore with the logic you present we can add numerous imaginative additions to whatever we read in these two classics. See that Maharishi Jaimini went to the extent of defining that there are schemes of seven or eight Chara Karakas and even defined how both schemes appear. If he did this much, then why wouldn't he also define the important rider for ALL charts through which we decide when to use either seven or eight Chara Karakas? Is it not completely illogical that he would have said this much and not added that one extra sutra which defined when to choose which? Especially if it was a hard-and-set rule in the way that you have interpreted Maharishi Parasara and now also interpreted the Vrddha Karika? If your interpretation is correct, then Maharishi Jaimini might as well have not even spoken about the Chara karakas in the nine sutras that he does if he is not going to add that important rider which you have given in your interpretation. Therefore, your statement that Maharishi Jaimini left out that ONE rider simply because we are to read it from elsewhere is completely illogical and not acceptable. Surely, you can do better than that! Sri Mahadeva was a far more learned author than many Jyotisha today and is from a tradition of Jyotisha, and if we are to belittle him because of his birth in the 1800's then of what value can I consider your writings or that of any of the Gurus you have mentioned? The logic you present towards Sri Mahadeva reduces the value of your own book to the mere cost of the paper it was printed on. So therefore your logic is also not acceptable and you must consider his opinion. Now to the crux of this: Sri Mahadeva's statement is so clear that its hard to derive any different interpretation from it. Its impossible to deviate from. Further, the interpretation of the Chara Karakas presented by the tradition accommodates Sri Mahadeva's statement as well as Maharishi Jaimini's sutras. It also accommodates an interpretation of Maharishi Parasara which you do not accept at present. As a result your interpretation disagrees with that of the tradition, Sri Mahadeva and Maharishi Jaimini. The logic behind your statement being in disagreement with Maharishi Jaimini is as per the logic presented by me in the second paragraph of this mail. Stating that Maharishi Jaimini left out the rider that YOU believe is Maharishi Parasara's words, and thus accepting that Maharishi Jaimini did this deliberately is absolutely ridiculous, and sounds solely as a means to keep your integrity, and has no scholarly basis. So lets try again: The Maharishi Jaimini Krta Upadesa Sutras are complete, and neither of the current scholars i.e. Irangati Rangacharya nor Pt. Sanjay Rath, who are considered the experts in Maharishi Jaimini's work, have indicated that any sutras are missing from the work. So nothing is missing, and surely nothing was omitted which Maharishi Jaimnini hasn't specifically indicated is missing, i.e. the entire Udu Dasa calculations he has referred to be read elsewhere, as is the case for the siddha jyotish principles such as lordships, signs, grahaguna, balas, vargas, etc. Further, Sri Mahadeva has indicated that his work brings about the essence (sara) of Hora and Tantra, which by implication indicates that he has studied these works to derive meaning from them. He thus wrote a very voluminous number of slokas on them, and for this simple reason you cannot just discard his statement about Chara Karakas as being a mere different opinion. In fact you have to now justify WHY his opinion defers from yours as the tradition shares his opinion. Its now 3 against you, Narasimha. Sticking to your own interpretation of Parasara and discarding the words of Sri Mahadeva is like eating only the lemon in lemon-rice. Further, accepting that sutras are missing at random in the Jaimini Sutras is like looking for oregano in Garam Masala. Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---- www: http://srigaruda. com @: visti (AT) srigaruda (DOT) com Narasimha Rao skrev: Namaste Visti, (1) First regarding Jaimini: Jaimini did NOT deviate from Parasara in whatever he said. Though he did not specifically say how to choose between 7 and 8 planets, we have to remember that Jaimini Sutram is not a self-sufficient text and Jaimini did say "siddhamanyat" at the beginning. We have to fill in a lot of blanks using other sources. Parasara would be a perfect choice. In fact, Vriddha Karikas say the following: ravyaadi shani paryantaaH bhavanti sapta kaarakaaH | aMsha saamye grahau dvau ca raahvantaan gaNayet dvija || (Meaning: Planets starting from Sun and going upto Saturn become seven significators. And, O brahmin, if two planets are in equality of degrees, one may count ending with Rahu.) This is pretty much what Parasara said, in slightly different words! After all, when Jaimini leaves one detail out, it is logical to get that detail from Parasara. (2) Regarding Mahadeva: Mahadeva is great scholar, just as Dr BV Raman, Sri KN Rao and Pt Sanjay Rath are. However, this great scholar from mid-to-late 1800's is hardly an authority on par with Maharshi Parasara. We can use him to interpret Parasara when there is an ambiguity in Parasara that was clarified by Mahadeva. When Parasara is clear that there and Mahadeva deviates, there is no reason to give preference to Mahadeva. Regarding when to use 7 and when to use 8 planets, I believe Parasara is clear and vriddha karikas point in the same direction. Krishnaarpanamastu, Narasimha ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homam Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpana Spirituality: http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdom Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro. home.comcast. net Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAst rologer.org Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagan nath.org ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - sohamsa@ ..com, Visti Larsen <visti wrote: > > à ¤¹à ¤°à ¥‡ à ¤°à ¤¾à ¤® à ¤•à ¥ƒà ¤·à ¥�à ¤£ > Dear Narasimha, > What is your take on that neither Maharishi Jaimini Krta Upadesa Sutram > (slokas 1.1.10-1.1.19) nor Sri Mahadeva Krtam Jataka Tattva (sloka 1.65) > indicate nor hint in anyway towards this special circumstance of Rahu > only entering the Charakaraka scheme once two planets are at the same > degree? > > Maharishi Jaimini, with his otherwise very brief sutras, only speaks of > two schemes namely seven or eighth charakarakas and after listing out > eight charakaraka later states that the putrakaraka becomes one with the > Matrikaraka, which is obviously only the case in the scheme of seven > chara karaka. > If he wishes to be this explicit then why didn't he mention this special > condition of including Rahu only when planets occupied the same degree? > > Further, Mahadeva's Jataka Tattvam also does not even entertain an idea > of using seven Chara Karakas, wherein he when mentioning the same simply > lists out all eight Chara Karakas by name, without any conditions. > > Looking forward to your reply. > Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen > ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---- > www: http://srigaruda. com > @: visti > > Narasimha P.V.R. Rao skrev: > > > >  > > > > Namaste Sir, > > > > > Seven > > > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, > > > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . > > > > If you or anyone can show me the verse of Parasara that says the > > above, we can discuss your views further. > > > > When mentioning the two schemes, Parasara clearly said that the > > 8-karaka scheme is used when two planets are in the same degree. He > > never talked about "living beings" vs "mundane charts". Instead he > > talked about matching the degrees of planets to decide 7 vs 8 karaka > > schemes. > > > > A clear guideline of Parasara has been ignored and a big hypothesis is > > made instead. Such a theory with a weak foundation fails to convince me. > > > > Best regards, > > Narasimha > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - > > Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homam > > <http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homam> > > Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpana > > <http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpana> > > Spirituality: http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdom > > <http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdom> > > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro. home.comcast. net > > <http://vedicastro. home.comcast. net> > > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAst rologer.org > > <http://www.VedicAst rologer.org> > > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagan nath.org > > <http://www.SriJagan nath.org> > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - > > > > - > > ** Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937@ ...> > > *To:* Narasimha Rao <pvr@ ...> > > *Cc:* vedic astrology > > <vedic astrology> ; > > Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com > > <Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com> ; > > sohamsa <sohamsa@ ..com> > > *Sent:* Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:43 AM > > *Subject:* Char Karka > > > > Dear Friend, > > Why bring Pt. Sanjay Rath , place your views independently. > > I have again gone through the article of Rath ji and your article > > carefully.I got the impression , that you are try to advocate your > > views instead of trying to understand the real intent of BPH. > > I may like to bring following points to your kind attention: > > 1. Rath ji is your guru , never show disrespect to your guru. > > Such attitude will bring your downfall. Rishi Yajvalkya ,Jaimni > > sometimes taken different line of thinking , but with the permission > > and with due respect to his guru.I think you are in USA too long. > > that is why you do not like to stick these simple norms. > > 2. Parasara had refereed higher authorities in BPHS KIKE 'SEER GARG' > > 3. BPHS INTENDS THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT > > SCHEMES OF CHAR KARKAS-7 AS WELL AS 8 > > 4 In 7 char karka scheme Rahu is not considered .However , if two > > planets > > are same zodiac degree in their respective signs, then char > > Karka replacement > > occurs and Rahu takes its place as sthir Karka of confusion and > > deceit.Seven > > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, THAT IS WHY > > PUTRA kARKA IS ABSENT AND RAHU AS STHIR kARKA DOES NOT > > REPRESENT ANY LIVING PERSON BUT DECEIT ETC. > > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . BPHS > > CLEARLY STATES 8 kARKA IN SERIAL ORDER-AK,AMK, > > BK, MK, PITK,PUTK,GK AND DK.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY > > ON AMBIGUITY OR CONFUSION. > > 6. kindly TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPORT AND REASON > > BEHIND REPLACEMENT OF CHAR KARKA WITH STHIR KARKA. > > THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE > > ,AS TO WHY CHAR KARKA ARE REPLACED BY STHIR > > KARKAS.IN FACT THIS CHAPTER OF BPHS DEALS IN ALL KINDS OF > > KARKAS ACCEPT NAISARGIKA KARKAS. THE SLOKAS IN THIS CHAPTER ARE > > LIKE SUTRA AND LOT OF CO-RELATION IS REQUIRED TO DECIPHER > > THEM. CHAR KARKA INDICATE THE HELP AND SUSTENANCE PROVIDED > > BY OTHER LIVING BEING OR LACK OF IT DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF PAST > > BIRTHS.STHIR KARKA INDICATE WHEN SUCH LIVING BEING WILL > > PUT TO GRIEF . > > 6. I urge , kindly read the article written by Rathji . It will > > show the light. > > Regards, > > > > G.K.GOEL > > Ph: 09350311433 > > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR > > NEW DELHI-110 076 > > INDIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 Dear Visti, Sounds good, theoretically - unless one expects that huge quantity of concepts will somehow miraculously, by itself, bring new quality, /thus 'tieding him in a knot'/. Yes, I've noticed Moon-Mars transit.. /ha, ha/ But, lets's not fool ourselves /with patrial, out-of-context, lesser-fair, as- it-pleases-you astro data-manipulation/- transits cannot create opinion, they can only facilitate, or give the form, to it's expression. Form neither proves nor denies quality of content, as you may have noticed. Best wishes, Anna --- On Thu, 10/30/08, Visti Larsen <visti wrote: Visti Larsen <vistiRe: Re: Char Karkasohamsa Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 7:53 AM हरे राम कृषà¥à¤£Dear Anna, Namaskar.This is still an intellectual debate. I have just brought in two authors points to refute Narasimha's points.Did you notice how my mail actually takes into account the transits of the day?Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen------------ --------- --------- --------- ----www: http://srigaruda. com@: visti (AT) srigaruda (DOT) com 108ar skrev: What's happening Visti? I know you have 'vested interest' but assumed your intellectual honesty wouldn't allow you to talk about what you want, no matter what the issue! I expected you'd address the topic and focus discussion in that direction, so that we finally have two well argumented sides, deserving.further research. Instead, you've changed the topic, without changing the subject line!- who cares who might be assumed to be 'better' scholar. It's not an issue, you can make even longer list, you'd still fail on the college exam, lol! Expecting your input in expanding understanding of Jyotish. Best wishes, Anna--- On Wed, 10/29/08, Visti Larsen <visti (AT) srigaruda (DOT) com> wrote: Visti Larsen <visti (AT) srigaruda (DOT) com>Re: Re: Char Karkasohamsa@ .comWednesday, October 29, 2008, 4:42 PM हरे राम कृषà¥à¤£Dear Narasimha, Namaskar.Let us begin with accepting that you are not a spokesperson for Maharishi Parasara, and we are not discussing Maharishi Parasara's words, but your translation/ interpretation of his words. You are not Maharishi Parasara and stating that 'Parasara said this' and 'Parasara said that' is bordering megalomania. Therefore it is only appropriate that we understand that Maharishi Parasara has written something, and we are now discussing the interpretations of the Parampara/tradition versus your own.If we do not keep this purity and decorum in our discussion, then we risk falling to the weakness of Vishakha nakshatra which rejects even the Rishis words. If the light of knowledge has to continue, the lamp must be lit and the ghee must be mixed with the pure yellow haldi through which our intelligence will be protected and our knowledge will bloom. Of course Maharishi Jaimini did not deviate from Maharishi Parasara, question is whether you have... refer to my above statements.Maharishi Jaimini did indeed ask us to master the 'Siddha Jyotish' Shastra before reading his works, but so does Maharishi Parasara in the beginning of the third chapter where he requires us to have mastered the entire Samhita aspect of Jyotish before reading his work, and therefore with the logic you present we can add numerous imaginative additions to whatever we read in these two classics.See that Maharishi Jaimini went to the extent of defining that there are schemes of seven or eight Chara Karakas and even defined how both schemes appear. If he did this much, then why wouldn't he also define the important rider for ALL charts through which we decide when to use either seven or eight Chara Karakas? Is it not completely illogical that he would have said this much and not added that one extra sutra which defined when to choose which? Especially if it was a hard-and-set rule in the way that you have interpreted Maharishi Parasara and now also interpreted the Vrddha Karika?If your interpretation is correct, then Maharishi Jaimini might as well have not even spoken about the Chara karakas in the nine sutras that he does if he is not going to add that important rider which you have given in your interpretation. Therefore, your statement that Maharishi Jaimini left out that ONE rider simply because we are to read it from elsewhere is completely illogical and not acceptable. Surely, you can do better than that! Sri Mahadeva was a far more learned author than many Jyotisha today and is from a tradition of Jyotisha, and if we are to belittle him because of his birth in the 1800's then of what value can I consider your writings or that of any of the Gurus you have mentioned? The logic you present towards Sri Mahadeva reduces the value of your own book to the mere cost of the paper it was printed on. So therefore your logic is also not acceptable and you must consider his opinion.Now to the crux of this: Sri Mahadeva's statement is so clear that its hard to derive any different interpretation from it. Its impossible to deviate from. Further, the interpretation of the Chara Karakas presented by the tradition accommodates Sri Mahadeva's statement as well as Maharishi Jaimini's sutras. It also accommodates an interpretation of Maharishi Parasara which you do not accept at present.As a result your interpretation disagrees with that of the tradition, Sri Mahadeva and Maharishi Jaimini. The logic behind your statement being in disagreement with Maharishi Jaimini is as per the logic presented by me in the second paragraph of this mail.Stating that Maharishi Jaimini left out the rider that YOU believe is Maharishi Parasara's words, and thus accepting that Maharishi Jaimini did this deliberately is absolutely ridiculous, and sounds solely as a means to keep your integrity, and has no scholarly basis.So lets try again: The Maharishi Jaimini Krta Upadesa Sutras are complete, and neither of the current scholars i.e. Irangati Rangacharya nor Pt. Sanjay Rath, who are considered the experts in Maharishi Jaimini's work, have indicated that any sutras are missing from the work. So nothing is missing, and surely nothing was omitted which Maharishi Jaimnini hasn't specifically indicated is missing, i.e. the entire Udu Dasa calculations he has referred to be read elsewhere, as is the case for the siddha jyotish principles such as lordships, signs, grahaguna, balas, vargas, etc.Further, Sri Mahadeva has indicated that his work brings about the essence (sara) of Hora and Tantra, which by implication indicates that he has studied these works to derive meaning from them. He thus wrote a very voluminous number of slokas on them, and for this simple reason you cannot just discard his statement about Chara Karakas as being a mere different opinion. In fact you have to now justify WHY his opinion defers from yours as the tradition shares his opinion.Its now 3 against you, Narasimha. Sticking to your own interpretation of Parasara and discarding the words of Sri Mahadeva is like eating only the lemon in lemon-rice. Further, accepting that sutras are missing at random in the Jaimini Sutras is like looking for oregano in Garam Masala.Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen------------ --------- --------- --------- ----www: http://srigaruda. com@: visti (AT) srigaruda (DOT) com Narasimha Rao skrev: Namaste Visti,(1) First regarding Jaimini: Jaimini did NOT deviate from Parasara inwhatever he said. Though he did not specifically say how to choosebetween 7 and 8 planets, we have to remember that Jaimini Sutram isnot a self-sufficient text and Jaimini did say "siddhamanyat" at thebeginning. We have to fill in a lot of blanks using other sources.Parasara would be a perfect choice.In fact, Vriddha Karikas say the following:ravyaadi shani paryantaaH bhavanti sapta kaarakaaH |aMsha saamye grahau dvau ca raahvantaan gaNayet dvija ||(Meaning: Planets starting from Sun and going upto Saturn become sevensignificators. And, O brahmin, if two planets are in equality ofdegrees, one may count ending with Rahu.)This is pretty much what Parasara said, in slightly different words!After all, when Jaimini leaves one detail out, it is logical to getthat detail from Parasara.(2) Regarding Mahadeva: Mahadeva is great scholar, just as Dr BVRaman, Sri KN Rao and Pt Sanjay Rath are. However, this great scholarfrom mid-to-late 1800's is hardly an authority on par with MaharshiParasara. We can use him to interpret Parasara when there is anambiguity in Parasara that was clarified by Mahadeva. When Parasara isclear that there and Mahadeva deviates, there is no reason to givepreference to Mahadeva.Regarding when to use 7 and when to use 8 planets, I believe Parasarais clear and vriddha karikas point in the same direction.Krishnaarpanamastu,Narasimha------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homamDo Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpanaSpirituality: http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdomFree Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro. home.comcast. netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAst rologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagan nath.org------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - sohamsa@ .com, Visti Larsen <visti wrote:>> à ¤¹à ¤°à ¥‡ à ¤°à ¤¾à ¤® à ¤•à ¥ƒà ¤·à ¥�à ¤£> Dear Narasimha,> What is your take on that neither Maharishi Jaimini Krta Upadesa Sutram > (slokas 1.1.10-1.1.19) nor Sri Mahadeva Krtam Jataka Tattva (sloka1.65) > indicate nor hint in anyway towards this special circumstance of Rahu > only entering the Charakaraka scheme once two planets are at the same > degree?> > Maharishi Jaimini, with his otherwise very brief sutras, only speaks of > two schemes namely seven or eighth charakarakas and after listing out > eight charakaraka later states that the putrakaraka becomes one withthe > Matrikaraka, which is obviously only the case in the scheme of seven > chara karaka.> If he wishes to be this explicit then why didn't he mention thisspecial > condition of including Rahu only when planets occupied the same degree?> > Further, Mahadeva's Jataka Tattvam also does not even entertain an idea > of using seven Chara Karakas, wherein he when mentioning the samesimply > lists out all eight Chara Karakas by name, without any conditions.> > Looking forward to your reply.> Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen> ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----> www: http://srigaruda. com> @: visti > Narasimha P.V.R. Rao skrev:> >> > > >> > Namaste Sir,> > > > > Seven> > > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS,> > > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING .> > > > If you or anyone can show me the verse of Parasara that says the > > above, we can discuss your views further.> > > > When mentioning the two schemes, Parasara clearly said that the > > 8-karaka scheme is used when two planets are in the same degree. He > > never talked about "living beings" vs "mundane charts". Instead he > > talked about matching the degrees of planets to decide 7 vs 8 karaka > > schemes.> > > > A clear guideline of Parasara has been ignored and a bighypothesis is > > made instead. Such a theory with a weak foundation fails toconvince me.> > > > Best regards,> > Narasimha> > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -> > Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homam > > <http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homam>> > Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpana > > <http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpana>> > Spirituality: http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdom > > <http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdom>> > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro. home.comcast. net > > <http://vedicastro. home.comcast. net>> > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAst rologer.org > > <http://www.VedicAst rologer.org>> > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagan nath.org > > <http://www.SriJagan nath.org>> > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -> >> > -> > ** Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937@ ...>> > *To:* Narasimha Rao <pvr@ ...>> > *Cc:* vedic astrology> > <vedic astrology> ;> > Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com> > <Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com> ;> > sohamsa <sohamsa@ .com>> > *Sent:* Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:43 AM> > *Subject:* Char Karka> >> > Dear Friend,> > Why bring Pt. Sanjay Rath , place your views independently.> > I have again gone through the article of Rath ji and your article> > carefully.I got the impression , that you are try to advocate your> > views instead of trying to understand the real intent of BPH.> > I may like to bring following points to your kind attention:> > 1. Rath ji is your guru , never show disrespect to your guru.> > Such attitude will bring your downfall. Rishi Yajvalkya ,Jaimni> > sometimes taken different line of thinking , but with thepermission> > and with due respect to his guru.I think you are in USA toolong.> > that is why you do not like to stick these simple norms.> > 2. Parasara had refereed higher authorities in BPHS KIKE 'SEERGARG'> > 3. BPHS INTENDS THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT> > SCHEMES OF CHAR KARKAS-7 AS WELL AS 8> > 4 In 7 char karka scheme Rahu is not considered .However , if two> > planets> > are same zodiac degree in their respective signs, then char> > Karka replacement> > occurs and Rahu takes its place as sthir Karka of confusion and> > deceit.Seven> > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, THAT IS WHY> > PUTRA kARKA IS ABSENT AND RAHU AS STHIR kARKA DOES NOT> > REPRESENT ANY LIVING PERSON BUT DECEIT ETC.> > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . BPHS> > CLEARLY STATES 8 kARKA IN SERIAL ORDER-AK,AMK,> > BK, MK, PITK,PUTK,GK AND DK.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY> > ON AMBIGUITY OR CONFUSION.> > 6. kindly TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPORT AND REASON> > BEHIND REPLACEMENT OF CHAR KARKA WITH STHIR KARKA.> > THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE> > ,AS TO WHY CHAR KARKA ARE REPLACED BY STHIR> > KARKAS.IN FACT THIS CHAPTER OF BPHS DEALS IN ALL KINDS OF> > KARKAS ACCEPT NAISARGIKA KARKAS. THE SLOKAS IN THIS CHAPTER ARE> > LIKE SUTRA AND LOT OF CO-RELATION IS REQUIRED TO DECIPHER> > THEM. CHAR KARKA INDICATE THE HELP AND SUSTENANCE PROVIDED> > BY OTHER LIVING BEING OR LACK OF IT DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF PAST> > BIRTHS.STHIR KARKA INDICATE WHEN SUCH LIVING BEING WILL> > PUT TO GRIEF .> > 6. I urge , kindly read the article written by Rathji . It will> > show the light.> > Regards,> > > > G.K.GOEL> > Ph: 09350311433> > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR> > NEW DELHI-110 076> > INDIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 --- On Thu, 10/30/08, 108ar <bona_mente wrote: 108ar <bona_menteRe: Re: Char Karkasohamsa Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 11:32 AM Dear Visti, Sounds good, theoretically - unless one expects that huge quantity of concepts will somehow miraculously, by itself, bring new quality, /thus 'tieding him in a knot'/. Yes, I've noticed Moon-Mars transit.. /ha, ha/ But, lets's not fool ourselves /with patrial, out-of-context, lesser-fair, as- it-pleases-you astro data-manipulation/- transits cannot create opinion, they can only facilitate, or give the form, to it's expression. Form neither proves nor denies quality of content, as you may have noticed. Best wishes, Anna --- On Thu, 10/30/08, Visti Larsen <visti wrote: Visti Larsen <vistiRe: Re: Char Karkasohamsa Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 7:53 AM हरे राम कृषà¥à¤£Dear Anna, Namaskar.This is still an intellectual debate. I have just brought in two authors points to refute Narasimha's points.Did you notice how my mail actually takes into account the transits of the day?Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen------------ --------- --------- --------- ----www: http://srigaruda. com@: visti (AT) srigaruda (DOT) com 108ar skrev: What's happening Visti? I know you have 'vested interest' but assumed your intellectual honesty wouldn't allow you to talk about what you want, no matter what the issue! I expected you'd address the topic and focus discussion in that direction, so that we finally have two well argumented sides, deserving.further research. Instead, you've changed the topic, without changing the subject line!- who cares who might be assumed to be 'better' scholar. It's not an issue, you can make even longer list, you'd still fail on the college exam, lol! Expecting your input in expanding understanding of Jyotish. Best wishes, Anna--- On Wed, 10/29/08, Visti Larsen <visti (AT) srigaruda (DOT) com> wrote: Visti Larsen <visti (AT) srigaruda (DOT) com>Re: Re: Char Karkasohamsa@ .comWednesday, October 29, 2008, 4:42 PM हरे राम कृषà¥à¤£Dear Narasimha, Namaskar.Let us begin with accepting that you are not a spokesperson for Maharishi Parasara, and we are not discussing Maharishi Parasara's words, but your translation/ interpretation of his words. You are not Maharishi Parasara and stating that 'Parasara said this' and 'Parasara said that' is bordering megalomania. Therefore it is only appropriate that we understand that Maharishi Parasara has written something, and we are now discussing the interpretations of the Parampara/tradition versus your own.If we do not keep this purity and decorum in our discussion, then we risk falling to the weakness of Vishakha nakshatra which rejects even the Rishis words. If the light of knowledge has to continue, the lamp must be lit and the ghee must be mixed with the pure yellow haldi through which our intelligence will be protected and our knowledge will bloom. Of course Maharishi Jaimini did not deviate from Maharishi Parasara, question is whether you have... refer to my above statements.Maharishi Jaimini did indeed ask us to master the 'Siddha Jyotish' Shastra before reading his works, but so does Maharishi Parasara in the beginning of the third chapter where he requires us to have mastered the entire Samhita aspect of Jyotish before reading his work, and therefore with the logic you present we can add numerous imaginative additions to whatever we read in these two classics.See that Maharishi Jaimini went to the extent of defining that there are schemes of seven or eight Chara Karakas and even defined how both schemes appear. If he did this much, then why wouldn't he also define the important rider for ALL charts through which we decide when to use either seven or eight Chara Karakas? Is it not completely illogical that he would have said this much and not added that one extra sutra which defined when to choose which? Especially if it was a hard-and-set rule in the way that you have interpreted Maharishi Parasara and now also interpreted the Vrddha Karika?If your interpretation is correct, then Maharishi Jaimini might as well have not even spoken about the Chara karakas in the nine sutras that he does if he is not going to add that important rider which you have given in your interpretation. Therefore, your statement that Maharishi Jaimini left out that ONE rider simply because we are to read it from elsewhere is completely illogical and not acceptable. Surely, you can do better than that! Sri Mahadeva was a far more learned author than many Jyotisha today and is from a tradition of Jyotisha, and if we are to belittle him because of his birth in the 1800's then of what value can I consider your writings or that of any of the Gurus you have mentioned? The logic you present towards Sri Mahadeva reduces the value of your own book to the mere cost of the paper it was printed on. So therefore your logic is also not acceptable and you must consider his opinion.Now to the crux of this: Sri Mahadeva's statement is so clear that its hard to derive any different interpretation from it. Its impossible to deviate from. Further, the interpretation of the Chara Karakas presented by the tradition accommodates Sri Mahadeva's statement as well as Maharishi Jaimini's sutras. It also accommodates an interpretation of Maharishi Parasara which you do not accept at present.As a result your interpretation disagrees with that of the tradition, Sri Mahadeva and Maharishi Jaimini. The logic behind your statement being in disagreement with Maharishi Jaimini is as per the logic presented by me in the second paragraph of this mail.Stating that Maharishi Jaimini left out the rider that YOU believe is Maharishi Parasara's words, and thus accepting that Maharishi Jaimini did this deliberately is absolutely ridiculous, and sounds solely as a means to keep your integrity, and has no scholarly basis.So lets try again: The Maharishi Jaimini Krta Upadesa Sutras are complete, and neither of the current scholars i.e. Irangati Rangacharya nor Pt. Sanjay Rath, who are considered the experts in Maharishi Jaimini's work, have indicated that any sutras are missing from the work. So nothing is missing, and surely nothing was omitted which Maharishi Jaimnini hasn't specifically indicated is missing, i.e. the entire Udu Dasa calculations he has referred to be read elsewhere, as is the case for the siddha jyotish principles such as lordships, signs, grahaguna, balas, vargas, etc.Further, Sri Mahadeva has indicated that his work brings about the essence (sara) of Hora and Tantra, which by implication indicates that he has studied these works to derive meaning from them. He thus wrote a very voluminous number of slokas on them, and for this simple reason you cannot just discard his statement about Chara Karakas as being a mere different opinion. In fact you have to now justify WHY his opinion defers from yours as the tradition shares his opinion.Its now 3 against you, Narasimha. Sticking to your own interpretation of Parasara and discarding the words of Sri Mahadeva is like eating only the lemon in lemon-rice. Further, accepting that sutras are missing at random in the Jaimini Sutras is like looking for oregano in Garam Masala.Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen------------ --------- --------- --------- ----www: http://srigaruda. com@: visti (AT) srigaruda (DOT) com Narasimha Rao skrev: Namaste Visti,(1) First regarding Jaimini: Jaimini did NOT deviate from Parasara inwhatever he said. Though he did not specifically say how to choosebetween 7 and 8 planets, we have to remember that Jaimini Sutram isnot a self-sufficient text and Jaimini did say "siddhamanyat" at thebeginning. We have to fill in a lot of blanks using other sources.Parasara would be a perfect choice.In fact, Vriddha Karikas say the following:ravyaadi shani paryantaaH bhavanti sapta kaarakaaH |aMsha saamye grahau dvau ca raahvantaan gaNayet dvija ||(Meaning: Planets starting from Sun and going upto Saturn become sevensignificators. And, O brahmin, if two planets are in equality ofdegrees, one may count ending with Rahu.)This is pretty much what Parasara said, in slightly different words!After all, when Jaimini leaves one detail out, it is logical to getthat detail from Parasara.(2) Regarding Mahadeva: Mahadeva is great scholar, just as Dr BVRaman, Sri KN Rao and Pt Sanjay Rath are. However, this great scholarfrom mid-to-late 1800's is hardly an authority on par with MaharshiParasara. We can use him to interpret Parasara when there is anambiguity in Parasara that was clarified by Mahadeva. When Parasara isclear that there and Mahadeva deviates, there is no reason to givepreference to Mahadeva.Regarding when to use 7 and when to use 8 planets, I believe Parasarais clear and vriddha karikas point in the same direction.Krishnaarpanamastu,Narasimha------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homamDo Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpanaSpirituality: http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdomFree Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro. home.comcast. netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAst rologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagan nath.org------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - sohamsa@ .com, Visti Larsen <visti wrote:>> à ¤¹à ¤°à ¥‡ à ¤°à ¤¾à ¤® à ¤•à ¥ƒà ¤·à ¥�à ¤£> Dear Narasimha,> What is your take on that neither Maharishi Jaimini Krta Upadesa Sutram > (slokas 1.1.10-1.1.19) nor Sri Mahadeva Krtam Jataka Tattva (sloka1.65) > indicate nor hint in anyway towards this special circumstance of Rahu > only entering the Charakaraka scheme once two planets are at the same > degree?> > Maharishi Jaimini, with his otherwise very brief sutras, only speaks of > two schemes namely seven or eighth charakarakas and after listing out > eight charakaraka later states that the putrakaraka becomes one withthe > Matrikaraka, which is obviously only the case in the scheme of seven > chara karaka.> If he wishes to be this explicit then why didn't he mention thisspecial > condition of including Rahu only when planets occupied the same degree?> > Further, Mahadeva's Jataka Tattvam also does not even entertain an idea > of using seven Chara Karakas, wherein he when mentioning the samesimply > lists out all eight Chara Karakas by name, without any conditions.> > Looking forward to your reply.> Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen> ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----> www: http://srigaruda. com> @: visti > Narasimha P.V.R. Rao skrev:> >> > > >> > Namaste Sir,> > > > > Seven> > > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS,> > > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING .> > > > If you or anyone can show me the verse of Parasara that says the > > above, we can discuss your views further.> > > > When mentioning the two schemes, Parasara clearly said that the > > 8-karaka scheme is used when two planets are in the same degree. He > > never talked about "living beings" vs "mundane charts". Instead he > > talked about matching the degrees of planets to decide 7 vs 8 karaka > > schemes.> > > > A clear guideline of Parasara has been ignored and a bighypothesis is > > made instead. Such a theory with a weak foundation fails toconvince me.> > > > Best regards,> > Narasimha> > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -> > Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homam > > <http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homam>> > Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpana > > <http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpana>> > Spirituality: http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdom > > <http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdom>> > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro. home.comcast. net > > <http://vedicastro. home.comcast. net>> > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAst rologer.org > > <http://www.VedicAst rologer.org>> > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagan nath.org > > <http://www.SriJagan nath.org>> > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -> >> > -> > ** Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937@ ...>> > *To:* Narasimha Rao <pvr@ ...>> > *Cc:* vedic astrology> > <vedic astrology> ;> > Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com> > <Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com> ;> > sohamsa <sohamsa@ .com>> > *Sent:* Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:43 AM> > *Subject:* Char Karka> >> > Dear Friend,> > Why bring Pt. Sanjay Rath , place your views independently.> > I have again gone through the article of Rath ji and your article> > carefully.I got the impression , that you are try to advocate your> > views instead of trying to understand the real intent of BPH.> > I may like to bring following points to your kind attention:> > 1. Rath ji is your guru , never show disrespect to your guru.> > Such attitude will bring your downfall. Rishi Yajvalkya ,Jaimni> > sometimes taken different line of thinking , but with thepermission> > and with due respect to his guru.I think you are in USA toolong.> > that is why you do not like to stick these simple norms.> > 2. Parasara had refereed higher authorities in BPHS KIKE 'SEERGARG'> > 3. BPHS INTENDS THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT> > SCHEMES OF CHAR KARKAS-7 AS WELL AS 8> > 4 In 7 char karka scheme Rahu is not considered .However , if two> > planets> > are same zodiac degree in their respective signs, then char> > Karka replacement> > occurs and Rahu takes its place as sthir Karka of confusion and> > deceit.Seven> > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, THAT IS WHY> > PUTRA kARKA IS ABSENT AND RAHU AS STHIR kARKA DOES NOT> > REPRESENT ANY LIVING PERSON BUT DECEIT ETC.> > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . BPHS> > CLEARLY STATES 8 kARKA IN SERIAL ORDER-AK,AMK,> > BK, MK, PITK,PUTK,GK AND DK.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY> > ON AMBIGUITY OR CONFUSION.> > 6. kindly TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPORT AND REASON> > BEHIND REPLACEMENT OF CHAR KARKA WITH STHIR KARKA.> > THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE> > ,AS TO WHY CHAR KARKA ARE REPLACED BY STHIR> > KARKAS.IN FACT THIS CHAPTER OF BPHS DEALS IN ALL KINDS OF> > KARKAS ACCEPT NAISARGIKA KARKAS. THE SLOKAS IN THIS CHAPTER ARE> > LIKE SUTRA AND LOT OF CO-RELATION IS REQUIRED TO DECIPHER> > THEM. CHAR KARKA INDICATE THE HELP AND SUSTENANCE PROVIDED> > BY OTHER LIVING BEING OR LACK OF IT DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF PAST> > BIRTHS.STHIR KARKA INDICATE WHEN SUCH LIVING BEING WILL> > PUT TO GRIEF .> > 6. I urge , kindly read the article written by Rathji . It will> > show the light.> > Regards,> > > > G.K.GOEL> > Ph: 09350311433> > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR> > NEW DELHI-110 076> > INDIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 Om Gurave namahDear Ana,Oh, pleaseee lady !!!! ....as you nicely said " let me remind you, this is supposed to be Jyotish forum, not provincial box competition." Please just apply same rule,and among 'your various skills ', add as well developing a bit of nice manners when addressing others and witting on this list !You are really crossing lines lately ! I keep trying to understand why you keep beeing too emotionaly defenssive toward anyone who dissagrees with said theory?... just can't figure out !As I see ...more than fine and valid arguments are just geting 'waving with shastric degree' in return ! I wonder is this how true/real scholars should behave?!With best wishesMajasohamsa , 108ar <bona_mente wrote:>> > > Dear Visti,>  > Sounds good, theoretically - unless one expects that huge quantity of concepts will somehow miraculously, by itself, bring new quality, /thus 'tieding him in a knot'/. > Yes, I've noticed Moon-Mars transit.. /ha, ha/    > But, lets's not fool ourselves /with patrial, out-of-context, lesser-fair, as- it-pleases-you astro data-manipulation/- transits cannot create opinion, they can only facilitate, or give the form, to it's expression. Form neither proves nor denies quality of content, as you may have noticed.>  > Best wishes,> Anna >  > > > --- On Thu, 10/30/08, Visti Larsen visti wrote:> > Visti Larsen visti Re: Re: Char Karka> sohamsa > Thursday, October 30, 2008, 7:53 AM> > > > > > > हरे राम कृषà¥à¤£> Dear Anna, Namaskar.> This is still an intellectual debate. I have just brought in two authors points to refute Narasimha's points.> Did you notice how my mail actually takes into account the transits of the day?> Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen> ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----> www: http://srigaruda. com> @: visti (AT) srigaruda (DOT) com > > 108ar skrev: > > > > > > > > > What's happening Visti?>  > I know you have 'vested interest' but assumed your intellectual honesty wouldn't allow you to talk about what you want, no matter what the issue!>  > I expected you'd address the topic and focus discussion in that direction, so that we finally have two well argumented sides, deserving.further research.   Instead, you've changed the topic, without changing the subject line!- who cares who might be assumed to be 'better' scholar. It's not an issue, you can make even longer list, you'd still fail on the college exam, lol! > Expecting your input in expanding understanding of Jyotish.> Best wishes, > Anna> > --- On Wed, 10/29/08, Visti Larsen visti (AT) srigaruda (DOT) com> wrote:> > Visti Larsen visti (AT) srigaruda (DOT) com>> Re: Re: Char Karka> sohamsa@ .com> Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 4:42 PM> > > > > हरे राम कृषà¥à¤£> Dear Narasimha, Namaskar.> Let us begin with accepting that you are not a spokesperson for Maharishi Parasara, and we are not discussing Maharishi Parasara's words, but your translation/ interpretation of his words. You are not Maharishi Parasara and stating that 'Parasara said this' and 'Parasara said that' is bordering megalomania. Therefore it is only appropriate that we understand that Maharishi Parasara has written something, and we are now discussing the interpretations of the Parampara/tradition versus your own.> If we do not keep this purity and decorum in our discussion, then we risk falling to the weakness of Vishakha nakshatra which rejects even the Rishis words. If the light of knowledge has to continue, the lamp must be lit and the ghee must be mixed with the pure yellow haldi through which our intelligence will be protected and our knowledge will bloom.> > > > Of course Maharishi Jaimini did not deviate from Maharishi Parasara, question is whether you have... refer to my above statements.> Maharishi Jaimini did indeed ask us to master the 'Siddha Jyotish' Shastra before reading his works, but so does Maharishi Parasara in the beginning of the third chapter where he requires us to have mastered the entire Samhita aspect of Jyotish before reading his work, and therefore with the logic you present we can add numerous imaginative additions to whatever we read in these two classics.> See that Maharishi Jaimini went to the extent of defining that there are schemes of seven or eight Chara Karakas and even defined how both schemes appear. If he did this much, then why wouldn't he also define the important rider for ALL charts through which we decide when to use either seven or eight Chara Karakas? Is it not completely illogical that he would have said this much and not added that one extra sutra which defined when to choose which? Especially if it was a hard-and-set rule in the way that you have interpreted Maharishi Parasara and now also interpreted the Vrddha Karika?> If your interpretation is correct, then Maharishi Jaimini might as well have not even spoken about the Chara karakas in the nine sutras that he does if he is not going to add that important rider which you have given in your interpretation. Therefore, your statement that Maharishi Jaimini left out that ONE rider simply because we are to read it from elsewhere is completely illogical and not acceptable. Surely, you can do better than that!> > > Sri Mahadeva was a far more learned author than many Jyotisha today and is from a tradition of Jyotisha, and if we are to belittle him because of his birth in the 1800's then of what value can I consider your writings or that of any of the Gurus you have mentioned? The logic you present towards Sri Mahadeva reduces the value of your own book to the mere cost of the paper it was printed on. So therefore your logic is also not acceptable and you must consider his opinion.Now to the crux of this: Sri Mahadeva's statement is so clear that its hard to derive any different interpretation from it. Its impossible to deviate from. Further, the interpretation of the Chara Karakas presented by the tradition accommodates Sri Mahadeva's statement as well as Maharishi Jaimini's sutras. It also accommodates an interpretation of Maharishi Parasara which you do not accept at present.> As a result your interpretation disagrees with that of the tradition, Sri Mahadeva and Maharishi Jaimini. The logic behind your statement being in disagreement with Maharishi Jaimini is as per the logic presented by me in the second paragraph of this mail.> Stating that Maharishi Jaimini left out the rider that YOU believe is Maharishi Parasara's words, and thus accepting that Maharishi Jaimini did this deliberately is absolutely ridiculous, and sounds solely as a means to keep your integrity, and has no scholarly basis.> > So lets try again: The Maharishi Jaimini Krta Upadesa Sutras are complete, and neither of the current scholars i.e. Irangati Rangacharya nor Pt. Sanjay Rath, who are considered the experts in Maharishi Jaimini's work, have indicated that any sutras are missing from the work. So nothing is missing, and surely nothing was omitted which Maharishi Jaimnini hasn't specifically indicated is missing, i.e. the entire Udu Dasa calculations he has referred to be read elsewhere, as is the case for the siddha jyotish principles such as lordships, signs, grahaguna, balas, vargas, etc.> Further, Sri Mahadeva has indicated that his work brings about the essence (sara) of Hora and Tantra, which by implication indicates that he has studied these works to derive meaning from them. He thus wrote a very voluminous number of slokas on them, and for this simple reason you cannot just discard his statement about Chara Karakas as being a mere different opinion. In fact you have to now justify WHY his opinion defers from yours as the tradition shares his opinion.> > Its now 3 against you, Narasimha. Sticking to your own interpretation of Parasara and discarding the words of Sri Mahadeva is like eating only the lemon in lemon-rice. Further, accepting that sutras are missing at random in the Jaimini Sutras is like looking for oregano in Garam Masala.> Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen> ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----> www: http://srigaruda. com> @: visti (AT) srigaruda (DOT) com > > Narasimha Rao skrev: > > > Namaste Visti,> > (1) First regarding Jaimini: Jaimini did NOT deviate from Parasara in> whatever he said. Though he did not specifically say how to choose> between 7 and 8 planets, we have to remember that Jaimini Sutram is> not a self-sufficient text and Jaimini did say "siddhamanyat" at the> beginning. We have to fill in a lot of blanks using other sources.> Parasara would be a perfect choice.> > In fact, Vriddha Karikas say the following:> > ravyaadi shani paryantaaH bhavanti sapta kaarakaaH |> aMsha saamye grahau dvau ca raahvantaan gaNayet dvija ||> > (Meaning: Planets starting from Sun and going upto Saturn become seven> significators. And, O brahmin, if two planets are in equality of> degrees, one may count ending with Rahu.)> > This is pretty much what Parasara said, in slightly different words!> After all, when Jaimini leaves one detail out, it is logical to get> that detail from Parasara.> > (2) Regarding Mahadeva: Mahadeva is great scholar, just as Dr BV> Raman, Sri KN Rao and Pt Sanjay Rath are. However, this great scholar> from mid-to-late 1800's is hardly an authority on par with Maharshi> Parasara. We can use him to interpret Parasara when there is an> ambiguity in Parasara that was clarified by Mahadeva. When Parasara is> clear that there and Mahadeva deviates, there is no reason to give> preference to Mahadeva.> > Regarding when to use 7 and when to use 8 planets, I believe Parasara> is clear and vriddha karikas point in the same direction.> > Krishnaarpanamastu,> Narasimha> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -> Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homam> Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpana> Spirituality: http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdom> Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro. home.comcast. net> Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAst rologer.org> Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagan nath.org> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - > > sohamsa@ .com, Visti Larsen visti@ wrote:> >> > à ¤¹à ¤°à ¥‡ à ¤°à ¤¾à ¤® à ¤•à ¥Æ'à ¤·à ¥�à ¤£> > Dear Narasimha,> > What is your take on that neither Maharishi Jaimini Krta Upadesa Sutram > > (slokas 1.1.10-1.1.19) nor Sri Mahadeva Krtam Jataka Tattva (sloka> 1.65) > > indicate nor hint in anyway towards this special circumstance of Rahu > > only entering the Charakaraka scheme once two planets are at the same > > degree?> > > > Maharishi Jaimini, with his otherwise very brief sutras, only speaks of > > two schemes namely seven or eighth charakarakas and after listing out > > eight charakaraka later states that the putrakaraka becomes one with> the > > Matrikaraka, which is obviously only the case in the scheme of seven > > chara karaka.> > If he wishes to be this explicit then why didn't he mention this> special > > condition of including Rahu only when planets occupied the same degree?> > > > Further, Mahadeva's Jataka Tattvam also does not even entertain an idea > > of using seven Chara Karakas, wherein he when mentioning the same> simply > > lists out all eight Chara Karakas by name, without any conditions.> > > > Looking forward to your reply.> > Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen> > ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----> > www: http://srigaruda. com> > @: visti@> > > > Narasimha P.V.R. Rao skrev:> > >> > > > > >> > > Namaste Sir,> > > > > > > Seven> > > > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS,> > > > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING .> > > > > > If you or anyone can show me the verse of Parasara that says the > > > above, we can discuss your views further.> > > > > > When mentioning the two schemes, Parasara clearly said that the > > > 8-karaka scheme is used when two planets are in the same degree. He > > > never talked about "living beings" vs "mundane charts". Instead he > > > talked about matching the degrees of planets to decide 7 vs 8 karaka > > > schemes.> > > > > > A clear guideline of Parasara has been ignored and a big> hypothesis is > > > made instead. Such a theory with a weak foundation fails to> convince me.> > > > > > Best regards,> > > Narasimha> > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -> > > Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homam > > > <http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homam>> > > Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpana > > > <http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpana>> > > Spirituality: http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdom > > > <http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdom>> > > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro. home.comcast. net > > > <http://vedicastro. home.comcast. net>> > > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAst rologer.org > > > <http://www.VedicAst rologer.org>> > > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagan nath.org > > > <http://www.SriJagan nath.org>> > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -> > >> > > -> > > ** Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937@ ...>> > > *To:* Narasimha Rao <pvr@ ...>> > > *Cc:* vedic astrology> > > <vedic astrology> ;> > > Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com> > > <Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com> ;> > > sohamsa <sohamsa@ .com>> > > *Sent:* Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:43 AM> > > *Subject:* Char Karka> > >> > > Dear Friend,> > > Why bring Pt. Sanjay Rath , place your views independently.> > > I have again gone through the article of Rath ji and your article> > > carefully.I got the impression , that you are try to advocate your> > > views instead of trying to understand the real intent of BPH.> > > I may like to bring following points to your kind attention:> > > 1. Rath ji is your guru , never show disrespect to your guru.> > > Such attitude will bring your downfall. Rishi Yajvalkya ,Jaimni> > > sometimes taken different line of thinking , but with the> permission> > > and with due respect to his guru.I think you are in USA too> long.> > > that is why you do not like to stick these simple norms.> > > 2. Parasara had refereed higher authorities in BPHS KIKE 'SEER> GARG'> > > 3. BPHS INTENDS THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT> > > SCHEMES OF CHAR KARKAS-7 AS WELL AS 8> > > 4 In 7 char karka scheme Rahu is not considered .However , if two> > > planets> > > are same zodiac degree in their respective signs, then char> > > Karka replacement> > > occurs and Rahu takes its place as sthir Karka of confusion and> > > deceit.Seven> > > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, THAT IS WHY> > > PUTRA kARKA IS ABSENT AND RAHU AS STHIR kARKA DOES NOT> > > REPRESENT ANY LIVING PERSON BUT DECEIT ETC.> > > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . BPHS> > > CLEARLY STATES 8 kARKA IN SERIAL ORDER-AK,AMK,> > > BK, MK, PITK,PUTK,GK AND DK.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY> > > ON AMBIGUITY OR CONFUSION.> > > 6. kindly TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPORT AND REASON> > > BEHIND REPLACEMENT OF CHAR KARKA WITH STHIR KARKA.> > > THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE> > > ,AS TO WHY CHAR KARKA ARE REPLACED BY STHIR> > > KARKAS.IN FACT THIS CHAPTER OF BPHS DEALS IN ALL KINDS OF> > > KARKAS ACCEPT NAISARGIKA KARKAS. THE SLOKAS IN THIS CHAPTER ARE> > > LIKE SUTRA AND LOT OF CO-RELATION IS REQUIRED TO DECIPHER> > > THEM. CHAR KARKA INDICATE THE HELP AND SUSTENANCE PROVIDED> > > BY OTHER LIVING BEING OR LACK OF IT DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF PAST> > > BIRTHS.STHIR KARKA INDICATE WHEN SUCH LIVING BEING WILL> > > PUT TO GRIEF .> > > 6. I urge , kindly read the article written by Rathji . It will> > > show the light.> > > Regards,> > > > > > G.K.GOEL> > > Ph: 09350311433> > > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR> > > NEW DELHI-110 076> > > INDIA> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 हरे राम कृषà¥à¤£ Dear Narasimha, >From what you have answered I see that you are not able to justify your interpretation using the present verses of Maharishi Jaimini nor Sri Mahadeva. Your basic argument for the Upadesa Sutras is that the relevant sutra was omitted on purpose... Your basic argument against Sri Mahadeva is that you consider him wrong... And now you are hiding behind your title as a Sanskrit Scholar instead of a Jyotish Scholar. If indeed you wish to defend your work on the basis of Sanskrit acumen, when why did you leave out some words in your translation of the BPHS slokas. If you claim your translation to be literal then why did you leave out words from the original sanskrit? In truth your translation is more lucid than literal. Further are you sure the eight charakarakas were listed out by Brahmaa or Brahmanaa? Now some tough Jyotish questions: From the Atmakaraka one should learn of Bandha and Moksha (BPHS 34.8 & Jaimini Sutras: 1.1.11). There are eight Bandhas on the Jiva (living beings) as indicated by Sri Shiva (Shiva Purana, Vidyesvara Samhita), so why are there only seven for some people, and does that mean that the Ashta-bandhana do not apply to them? If so which scheme of bandhana applies to those with seven charakarakas? Also please explain how to use Putrakaraka for a car, because your scheme allows us to use eight charakarakas for cars, boats, chairs, laptops, rocks, mountains, etc. You state that Matrikaraka and Putrakaraka act as the same graha in the scheme of seven grahas. Then how is Rajayoga caused by Atmakaraka with Putrakaraka differentiated from the yoga of good genealogy/health caused by Atmakaraka in yoga with the Matrikaraka? Also please clarify whether matrikaraka takes on the karakatva of the fifth house when using solely a seven karaka scheme. If the matrikaraka (in the seven karaka scheme) is ill placed from the Atmakaraka do you interpret that the person will see unhappiness from both mother and child? Even if neither the naisargika karakas nor bhavas are negative in any way, you should be able to differentiate between whether a badly placed karaka will affect either mother or child… how would you differentiate?  Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen ---------- www: http://srigaruda.com @: visti Narasimha PVR Rao skrev: Namaste Visti, Of course, I am not asking anyone to accept me as an authority on Parasara. But, as a Sanskrit scholar, I am pointing out what a few verses unambigously mean. If you are a Sanskrit scholar and disagree with my assertion, please suggest an alternative interpretation and we can debate on which is more logical. Otherwise, well, we have no common basis to debate! In Indian tradition, words of rishis are pramaana. Scholar debate them from time to time and form/refine the "current understanding" of those words. * * * If you expect Jaimini to lay down everything clearly, you are expecting too much. There is nothing wrong with getting from Parasara the details Jaimini did not mention due to the compactness of his work. You mentioned Iranganti Rangacharya as an "expert in Maharishi Jaimini's work". When interpreting the sutra of Jaimini that mentioned 7 *or* 8 planets as chara karakas, he DID refer to the vriddha karika quote I gave in my last mail and concluded that 8 planets are used when two planets are in the same degree and 7 planets otherwise. We cannot question why Jaimini did not mention a specific detail. He definitely warned beforehand that he would not mention all details! * * * I do not want a political discussion on the stature of Mahadeva, who I acknowledged as a great scholar. Bottomline is that Mahadeva mentioned only the 8 karaka scheme. Parasara and Jaimini mentioned that either 7 or 8 are used and Parasara gave the astrological criterion that decides when 8 are used. There is a clear discrepancy. Not every great scholar is perfect and flawless. One may be perfect in some areas and not so in others. Only somebody of the stature of a rishi is perfect and flawless in everything he says and only his words have the power to give correct knowledge to people for a long long time, despite setbacks now and then. Words of rishis are truly immortal. You are welcome to *believe* that Mahadeva could not have made a mistake and hence Parasara's verse does not mean what I say it means. But that is no argument. Krishnaarpanamastu, Narasimha ------------------------- Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana Spirituality: Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org ------------------------- sohamsa , Visti Larsen <visti wrote: > > ??? ??? ????? > Dear Narasimha, Namaskar. > Let us begin with accepting that you are not a spokesperson for > Maharishi Parasara, and we are not discussing Maharishi Parasara's > words, but your translation/interpretation of his words. You are not > Maharishi Parasara and stating that 'Parasara said this' and 'Parasara > said that' is bordering megalomania. Therefore it is only appropriate > that we understand that Maharishi Parasara has written something, and we > are now discussing the interpretations of the Parampara/tradition versus > your own. > If we do not keep this purity and decorum in our discussion, then we > risk falling to the weakness of Vishakha nakshatra which rejects even > the Rishis words. If the light of knowledge has to continue, the lamp > must be lit and the ghee must be mixed with the pure yellow haldi > through which our intelligence will be protected and our knowledge will > bloom. > > * Of course Maharishi Jaimini did not deviate from Maharishi > Parasara, question is whether you have... refer to my above > statements. > Maharishi Jaimini did indeed ask us to master the 'Siddha Jyotish' > Shastra before reading his works, but so does Maharishi Parasara > in the beginning of the third chapter where he requires us to have > mastered the entire Samhita aspect of Jyotish before reading his > work, and therefore with the logic you present we can add numerous > imaginative additions to whatever we read in these two classics. > See that Maharishi Jaimini went to the extent of defining that > there are schemes of seven or eight Chara Karakas and even defined > how both schemes appear. If he did this much, then why wouldn't he > also define the important rider for ALL charts through which we > decide when to use either seven or eight Chara Karakas? Is it not > completely illogical that he would have said this much and not > added that one extra sutra which defined when to choose which? > Especially if it was a hard-and-set rule in the way that you have > interpreted Maharishi Parasara and now also interpreted the Vrddha > Karika? > If your interpretation is correct, then Maharishi Jaimini might as > well have not even spoken about the Chara karakas in the nine > sutras that he does if he is not going to add that important rider > which you have given in your interpretation. Therefore, your > statement that Maharishi Jaimini left out that ONE rider simply > because we are to read it from elsewhere is completely illogical > and not acceptable. Surely, you can do better than that! > > * Sri Mahadeva was a far more learned author than many Jyotisha > today and is from a tradition of Jyotisha, and if we are to > belittle him because of his birth in the 1800's then of what value > can I consider your writings or that of any of the Gurus you have > mentioned? The logic you present towards Sri Mahadeva reduces the > value of your own book to the mere cost of the paper it was > printed on. So therefore your logic is also not acceptable and you > must consider his opinion. > > Now to the crux of this: Sri Mahadeva's statement is so clear that its > hard to derive any different interpretation from it. Its impossible to > deviate from. Further, the interpretation of the Chara Karakas presented > by the tradition accommodates Sri Mahadeva's statement as well as > Maharishi Jaimini's sutras. It also accommodates an interpretation of > Maharishi Parasara which you do not accept at present. > As a result your interpretation disagrees with that of the tradition, > Sri Mahadeva and Maharishi Jaimini. The logic behind your statement > being in disagreement with Maharishi Jaimini is as per the logic > presented by me in the second paragraph of this mail. > Stating that Maharishi Jaimini left out the rider that YOU believe is > Maharishi Parasara's words, and thus accepting that Maharishi Jaimini > did this deliberately is absolutely ridiculous, and sounds solely as a > means to keep your integrity, and has no scholarly basis. > > So lets try again: The Maharishi Jaimini Krta Upadesa Sutras are > complete, and neither of the current scholars i.e. Irangati Rangacharya > nor Pt. Sanjay Rath, who are considered the experts in Maharishi > Jaimini's work, have indicated that any sutras are missing from the > work. So nothing is missing, and surely nothing was omitted which > Maharishi Jaimnini hasn't specifically indicated is missing, i.e. the > entire Udu Dasa calculations he has referred to be read elsewhere, as is > the case for the siddha jyotish principles such as lordships, signs, > grahaguna, balas, vargas, etc. > Further, Sri Mahadeva has indicated that his work brings about the > essence (sara) of Hora and Tantra, which by implication indicates that > he has studied these works to derive meaning from them. He thus wrote a > very voluminous number of slokas on them, and for this simple reason you > cannot just discard his statement about Chara Karakas as being a mere > different opinion. In fact you have to now justify WHY his opinion > defers from yours as the tradition shares his opinion. > > Its now 3 against you, Narasimha. Sticking to your own interpretation of > Parasara and discarding the words of Sri Mahadeva is like eating only > the lemon in lemon-rice. Further, accepting that sutras are missing at > random in the Jaimini Sutras is like looking for oregano in Garam Masala. > Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen > ---------- > www: http://srigaruda.com > @: visti > > Narasimha Rao skrev: > > > > Namaste Visti, > > > > (1) First regarding Jaimini: Jaimini did NOT deviate from Parasara in > > whatever he said. Though he did not specifically say how to choose > > between 7 and 8 planets, we have to remember that Jaimini Sutram is > > not a self-sufficient text and Jaimini did say "siddhamanyat" at the > > beginning. We have to fill in a lot of blanks using other sources. > > Parasara would be a perfect choice. > > > > In fact, Vriddha Karikas say the following: > > > > ravyaadi shani paryantaaH bhavanti sapta kaarakaaH | > > aMsha saamye grahau dvau ca raahvantaan gaNayet dvija || > > > > (Meaning: Planets starting from Sun and going upto Saturn become seven > > significators. And, O brahmin, if two planets are in equality of > > degrees, one may count ending with Rahu.) > > > > This is pretty much what Parasara said, in slightly different words! > > After all, when Jaimini leaves one detail out, it is logical to get > > that detail from Parasara. > > > > (2) Regarding Mahadeva: Mahadeva is great scholar, just as Dr BV > > Raman, Sri KN Rao and Pt Sanjay Rath are. However, this great scholar > > from mid-to-late 1800's is hardly an authority on par with Maharshi > > Parasara. We can use him to interpret Parasara when there is an > > ambiguity in Parasara that was clarified by Mahadeva. When Parasara is > > clear that there and Mahadeva deviates, there is no reason to give > > preference to Mahadeva. > > > > Regarding when to use 7 and when to use 8 planets, I believe Parasara > > is clear and vriddha karikas point in the same direction. > > > > Krishnaarpanamastu, > > Narasimha > > ------------------------- > > Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam> > > Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana> > > Spirituality: > > <> > > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net > > <http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net> > > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org> > > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org > > <http://www.SriJagannath.org> > > ------------------------- > > > > sohamsa <sohamsa%40>, > > Visti Larsen <visti@> wrote: > > > > > > à ¤¹à ¤°à ¥++ à ¤°à ¤¾à ¤® à ¤.à ¥fà ¤·à ¥?à ¤£ > > > Dear Narasimha, > > > What is your take on that neither Maharishi Jaimini Krta Upadesa Sutram > > > (slokas 1.1.10-1.1.19) nor Sri Mahadeva Krtam Jataka Tattva (sloka > > 1.65) > > > indicate nor hint in anyway towards this special circumstance of Rahu > > > only entering the Charakaraka scheme once two planets are at the same > > > degree? > > > > > > Maharishi Jaimini, with his otherwise very brief sutras, only speaks of > > > two schemes namely seven or eighth charakarakas and after listing out > > > eight charakaraka later states that the putrakaraka becomes one with > > the > > > Matrikaraka, which is obviously only the case in the scheme of seven > > > chara karaka. > > > If he wishes to be this explicit then why didn't he mention this > > special > > > condition of including Rahu only when planets occupied the same degree? > > > > > > Further, Mahadeva's Jataka Tattvam also does not even entertain an idea > > > of using seven Chara Karakas, wherein he when mentioning the same > > simply > > > lists out all eight Chara Karakas by name, without any conditions. > > > > > > Looking forward to your reply. > > > Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen > > > ---------- > > > www: http://srigaruda.com <http://srigaruda.com> > > > @: visti@ > > > > > > Narasimha P.V.R. Rao skrev: > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > Namaste Sir, > > > > > > > > > Seven > > > > > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, > > > > > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . > > > > > > > > If you or anyone can show me the verse of Parasara that says the > > > > above, we can discuss your views further. > > > > > > > > When mentioning the two schemes, Parasara clearly said that the > > > > 8-karaka scheme is used when two planets are in the same degree. He > > > > never talked about "living beings" vs "mundane charts". Instead he > > > > talked about matching the degrees of planets to decide 7 vs 8 karaka > > > > schemes. > > > > > > > > A clear guideline of Parasara has been ignored and a big > > hypothesis is > > > > made instead. Such a theory with a weak foundation fails to > > convince me. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Narasimha > > > > ------------------------- > > > > Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam> > > > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam>> > > > > Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana> > > > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana>> > > > > Spirituality: > > <> > > > > < > > <>> > > > > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net > > <http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net> > > > > <http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net > > <http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net>> > > > > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org> > > > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org>> > > > > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org > > <http://www.SriJagannath.org> > > > > <http://www.SriJagannath.org <http://www.SriJagannath.org>> > > > > ------------------------- > > > > > > > > - > > > > ** Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937@> > > > > *To:* Narasimha Rao <pvr@> > > > > *Cc:* vedic astrology > > <vedic astrology%40> > > > > <vedic astrology > > <vedic astrology%40>> ; > > > > Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest > > <Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest%40> > > > > <Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest > > <Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest%40>> ; > > > > sohamsa <sohamsa > > <sohamsa%40>> > > > > *Sent:* Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:43 AM > > > > *Subject:* Char Karka > > > > > > > > Dear Friend, > > > > Why bring Pt. Sanjay Rath , place your views independently. > > > > I have again gone through the article of Rath ji and your article > > > > carefully.I got the impression , that you are try to advocate your > > > > views instead of trying to understand the real intent of BPH. > > > > I may like to bring following points to your kind attention: > > > > 1. Rath ji is your guru , never show disrespect to your guru. > > > > Such attitude will bring your downfall. Rishi Yajvalkya ,Jaimni > > > > sometimes taken different line of thinking , but with the > > permission > > > > and with due respect to his guru.I think you are in USA too > > long. > > > > that is why you do not like to stick these simple norms. > > > > 2. Parasara had refereed higher authorities in BPHS KIKE 'SEER > > GARG' > > > > 3. BPHS INTENDS THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT > > > > SCHEMES OF CHAR KARKAS-7 AS WELL AS 8 > > > > 4 In 7 char karka scheme Rahu is not considered ..However , if two > > > > planets > > > > are same zodiac degree in their respective signs, then char > > > > Karka replacement > > > > occurs and Rahu takes its place as sthir Karka of confusion and > > > > deceit.Seven > > > > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, THAT IS WHY > > > > PUTRA kARKA IS ABSENT AND RAHU AS STHIR kARKA DOES NOT > > > > REPRESENT ANY LIVING PERSON BUT DECEIT ETC. > > > > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . BPHS > > > > CLEARLY STATES 8 kARKA IN SERIAL ORDER-AK,AMK, > > > > BK, MK, PITK,PUTK,GK AND DK.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY > > > > ON AMBIGUITY OR CONFUSION. > > > > 6. kindly TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPORT AND REASON > > > > BEHIND REPLACEMENT OF CHAR KARKA WITH STHIR KARKA. > > > > THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE > > > > ,AS TO WHY CHAR KARKA ARE REPLACED BY STHIR > > > > KARKAS.IN FACT THIS CHAPTER OF BPHS DEALS IN ALL KINDS OF > > > > KARKAS ACCEPT NAISARGIKA KARKAS. THE SLOKAS IN THIS CHAPTER ARE > > > > LIKE SUTRA AND LOT OF CO-RELATION IS REQUIRED TO DECIPHER > > > > THEM. CHAR KARKA INDICATE THE HELP AND SUSTENANCE PROVIDED > > > > BY OTHER LIVING BEING OR LACK OF IT DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF PAST > > > > BIRTHS.STHIR KARKA INDICATE WHEN SUCH LIVING BEING WILL > > > > PUT TO GRIEF . > > > > 6. I urge , kindly read the article written by Rathji . It will > > > > show the light. > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > G.K.GOEL > > > > Ph: 09350311433 > > > > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR > > > > NEW DELHI-110 076 > > > > INDIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008  Namaste Visti, > Your basic argument for the Upadesa Sutras is that the relevant sutra > was omitted on purpose... If you insist on calling this an omission and making it an issue, what about Parasara not mentioning mundane vs living beings? If you claim "having spent 9 sutras on chara karakas, why would Jaimini not include another sutra giving the rule for picking 7 vs 8", I can also say "having spent so many verses on chara karakas, why wouldn't Parasara clarify that 8 karakas are for living beings and 7 for mundane"! If Jaimini, having said at the beginning itself that he will leave out some things which can be obtained from other sources, is nevertheless expected to mention each important detail, why can't you expect the same from Parasara who is far more verbose? > Your basic argument against Sri Mahadeva is that you consider him wrong... I take Parasara as an authority. We have to realize that Mahadeva's work is not a commentary on BPHS. It is an independent work. If a specific teaching of that independent work deviates from BPHS, I am valid in sticking to rishi as an authority. > And now you are hiding behind your title as a Sanskrit Scholar instead > of a Jyotish Scholar. If indeed you wish to defend your work on the > basis of Sanskrit acumen, when why did you leave out some words in your > translation of the BPHS slokas. If you claim your translation to be > literal then why did you leave out words from the original sanskrit? In > truth your translation is more lucid than literal. Further are you sure > the eight charakarakas were listed out by Brahmaa or Brahmanaa? I did not leave out any words. Regarding the last sentence, Parasara does refers to "Brahma" as I said. The word Brahmanaa in Sanskrit means "BY Brahma". The "-naa" at the end is a vibhakti pratyaya. > 1. There are eight Bandhas on the Jiva (living beings) as indicated> by Sri Shiva (Shiva Purana, Vidyesvara Samhita), so why are there> only seven for some people, and does that mean that the> Ashta-bandhana do not apply to them? People with Rahu excluded also have a PK. The same planet acts as MK and PK. It is not that they do not have a PK. > 3. Also please explain how to use Putrakaraka for a car, because your> scheme allows us to use eight charakarakas for cars, boats,> chairs, laptops, rocks, mountains, etc. Not just putrakaraka, but I don't really know how to use the karakas of father, mother, brother, enemies, wife etc also for cars, boats, laptops and rocks etc. That is why I would like to focus on human beings first. I have a lot more to learn on human beings, before venturing into the astrology of "rocks". :-) > You state that Matrikaraka and Putrakaraka act as the same graha in the > scheme of seven grahas. It is not *I* who states it. Both Parasara and Jaimini explicitly state it. There may be some who omit PK, but the instruction of the two rishis is to use the same planet as MK and PK. > 2. Also please clarify whether matrikaraka takes on the karakatva of> the fifth house when using solely a seven karaka scheme. There is no link between chara karakas and houses. In the 8-karaka scheme, PiK is the 5th karaka, PK is the 6th karaka, GK is the 7th karaka and DK is the 8th karakas, but they do not take on the karakatwas of 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th houses. > 3. If the matrikaraka (in the seven karaka scheme) is ill placed from> the Atmakaraka do you interpret that the person will see> unhappiness from both mother and child? Even if neither the> naisargika karakas nor bhavas are negative in any way, you should> be able to differentiate between whether a badly placed karaka> will affect either mother or child… how would you differentiate? Both are possible. We have multiple charts to see parents and children. One may have unhappiness from one child and great happiness from another child. But the same PK shows both children. Mother and children being shown by the same chara karaka is a simpler problem than this because we atleast have two different divisional charts for them. Let us consider sthira karakas for a minute. The same sthira karaka may show two relationships. If Mars is stronger than Moon, he can show mother as well as brother. Each planet may show many many things in astrology. Krishnaarpanamastu,NarasimhaDo a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homamDo Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpanaSpirituality: Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org sohamsa , Visti Larsen <visti wrote:>> à ¤¹à ¤°à ¥‡ à ¤°à ¤¾à ¤® à ¤•à ¥ƒà ¤·à ¥Âà ¤£> Dear Narasimha,> From what you have answered I see that you are not able to justify your > interpretation using the present verses of Maharishi Jaimini nor Sri > Mahadeva.> > Your basic argument for the Upadesa Sutras is that the relevant sutra > was omitted on purpose...> Your basic argument against Sri Mahadeva is that you consider him wrong...> > And now you are hiding behind your title as a Sanskrit Scholar instead > of a Jyotish Scholar. If indeed you wish to defend your work on the > basis of Sanskrit acumen, when why did you leave out some words in your > translation of the BPHS slokas. If you claim your translation to be > literal then why did you leave out words from the original sanskrit? In > truth your translation is more lucid than literal. Further are you sure > the eight charakarakas were listed out by Brahmaa or Brahmanaa?> > Now some tough Jyotish questions:> From the Atmakaraka one should learn of Bandha and Moksha (BPHS 34.8 & > Jaimini Sutras: 1.1.11).> > 1. There are eight Bandhas on the Jiva (living beings) as indicated> by Sri Shiva (Shiva Purana, Vidyesvara Samhita), so why are there> only seven for some people, and does that mean that the> Ashta-bandhana do not apply to them?> 2. If so which scheme of bandhana applies to those with seven> charakarakas?> 3. Also please explain how to use Putrakaraka for a car, because your> scheme allows us to use eight charakarakas for cars, boats,> chairs, laptops, rocks, mountains, etc.> > You state that Matrikaraka and Putrakaraka act as the same graha in the > scheme of seven grahas.> > 1. Then how is Rajayoga caused by Atmakaraka with Putrakaraka> differentiated from the yoga of good genealogy/health caused by> Atmakaraka in yoga with the Matrikaraka?> 2. Also please clarify whether matrikaraka takes on the karakatva of> the fifth house when using solely a seven karaka scheme.> 3. If the matrikaraka (in the seven karaka scheme) is ill placed from> the Atmakaraka do you interpret that the person will see> unhappiness from both mother and child? Even if neither the> naisargika karakas nor bhavas are negative in any way, you should> be able to differentiate between whether a badly placed karaka> will affect either mother or child… how would you differentiate?> > > > Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen> ----------> www: http://srigaruda.com> @: visti > Narasimha PVR Rao skrev:> >> > Namaste Visti,> >> > Of course, I am not asking anyone to accept me as an authority on > > Parasara. But, as a Sanskrit scholar, I am pointing out what a few > > verses unambigously mean.> >> > If you are a Sanskrit scholar and disagree with my assertion, please > > suggest an alternative interpretation and we can debate on which is > > more logical. Otherwise, well, we have no common basis to debate!> >> > In Indian tradition, words of rishis are pramaana. Scholar debate them > > from time to time and form/refine the "current understanding" of those > > words.> >> > * * *> >> > If you expect Jaimini to lay down everything clearly, you are > > expecting too much. There is nothing wrong with getting from Parasara > > the details Jaimini did not mention due to the compactness of his work.> >> > You mentioned Iranganti Rangacharya as an "expert in Maharishi > > Jaimini's work". When interpreting the sutra of Jaimini that mentioned > > 7 *or* 8 planets as chara karakas, he DID refer to the vriddha karika > > quote I gave in my last mail and concluded that 8 planets are used > > when two planets are in the same degree and 7 planets otherwise.> >> > We cannot question why Jaimini did not mention a specific detail. He > > definitely warned beforehand that he would not mention all details!> >> > * * *> >> > I do not want a political discussion on the stature of Mahadeva, who I > > acknowledged as a great scholar.> >> > Bottomline is that Mahadeva mentioned only the 8 karaka scheme. > > Parasara and Jaimini mentioned that either 7 or 8 are used and > > Parasara gave the astrological criterion that decides when 8 are used. > > There is a clear discrepancy.> >> > Not every great scholar is perfect and flawless. One may be perfect in > > some areas and not so in others. Only somebody of the stature of a > > rishi is perfect and flawless in everything he says and only his words > > have the power to give correct knowledge to people for a long long > > time, despite setbacks now and then. Words of rishis are truly immortal.> >> > You are welcome to *believe* that Mahadeva could not have made a > > mistake and hence Parasara's verse does not mean what I say it means. > > But that is no argument.> >> > Krishnaarpanamastu,> > Narasimha> > -------------------------> > Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam>> > Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana>> > Spirituality: > > <>> > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net > > <http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net>> > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org>> > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org > > <http://www.SriJagannath.org>> > -------------------------> >> > sohamsa <sohamsa%40>, > > Visti Larsen <visti@> wrote:> > >> > > ??? ??? ?????> > > Dear Narasimha, Namaskar.> > > Let us begin with accepting that you are not a spokesperson for> > > Maharishi Parasara, and we are not discussing Maharishi Parasara's> > > words, but your translation/interpretation of his words. You are not> > > Maharishi Parasara and stating that 'Parasara said this' and 'Parasara> > > said that' is bordering megalomania. Therefore it is only appropriate> > > that we understand that Maharishi Parasara has written something, > > and we> > > are now discussing the interpretations of the Parampara/tradition > > versus> > > your own.> > > If we do not keep this purity and decorum in our discussion, then we> > > risk falling to the weakness of Vishakha nakshatra which rejects even> > > the Rishis words. If the light of knowledge has to continue, the lamp> > > must be lit and the ghee must be mixed with the pure yellow haldi> > > through which our intelligence will be protected and our knowledge will> > > bloom.> > >> > > * Of course Maharishi Jaimini did not deviate from Maharishi> > > Parasara, question is whether you have... refer to my above> > > statements.> > > Maharishi Jaimini did indeed ask us to master the 'Siddha Jyotish'> > > Shastra before reading his works, but so does Maharishi Parasara> > > in the beginning of the third chapter where he requires us to have> > > mastered the entire Samhita aspect of Jyotish before reading his> > > work, and therefore with the logic you present we can add numerous> > > imaginative additions to whatever we read in these two classics.> > > See that Maharishi Jaimini went to the extent of defining that> > > there are schemes of seven or eight Chara Karakas and even defined> > > how both schemes appear. If he did this much, then why wouldn't he> > > also define the important rider for ALL charts through which we> > > decide when to use either seven or eight Chara Karakas? Is it not> > > completely illogical that he would have said this much and not> > > added that one extra sutra which defined when to choose which?> > > Especially if it was a hard-and-set rule in the way that you have> > > interpreted Maharishi Parasara and now also interpreted the Vrddha> > > Karika?> > > If your interpretation is correct, then Maharishi Jaimini might as> > > well have not even spoken about the Chara karakas in the nine> > > sutras that he does if he is not going to add that important rider> > > which you have given in your interpretation. Therefore, your> > > statement that Maharishi Jaimini left out that ONE rider simply> > > because we are to read it from elsewhere is completely illogical> > > and not acceptable. Surely, you can do better than that!> > >> > > * Sri Mahadeva was a far more learned author than many Jyotisha> > > today and is from a tradition of Jyotisha, and if we are to> > > belittle him because of his birth in the 1800's then of what value> > > can I consider your writings or that of any of the Gurus you have> > > mentioned? The logic you present towards Sri Mahadeva reduces the> > > value of your own book to the mere cost of the paper it was> > > printed on. So therefore your logic is also not acceptable and you> > > must consider his opinion.> > >> > > Now to the crux of this: Sri Mahadeva's statement is so clear that its> > > hard to derive any different interpretation from it. Its impossible to> > > deviate from. Further, the interpretation of the Chara Karakas > > presented> > > by the tradition accommodates Sri Mahadeva's statement as well as> > > Maharishi Jaimini's sutras. It also accommodates an interpretation of> > > Maharishi Parasara which you do not accept at present.> > > As a result your interpretation disagrees with that of the tradition,> > > Sri Mahadeva and Maharishi Jaimini. The logic behind your statement> > > being in disagreement with Maharishi Jaimini is as per the logic> > > presented by me in the second paragraph of this mail.> > > Stating that Maharishi Jaimini left out the rider that YOU believe is> > > Maharishi Parasara's words, and thus accepting that Maharishi Jaimini> > > did this deliberately is absolutely ridiculous, and sounds solely as a> > > means to keep your integrity, and has no scholarly basis.> > >> > > So lets try again: The Maharishi Jaimini Krta Upadesa Sutras are> > > complete, and neither of the current scholars i.e. Irangati Rangacharya> > > nor Pt. Sanjay Rath, who are considered the experts in Maharishi> > > Jaimini's work, have indicated that any sutras are missing from the> > > work. So nothing is missing, and surely nothing was omitted which> > > Maharishi Jaimnini hasn't specifically indicated is missing, i.e. the> > > entire Udu Dasa calculations he has referred to be read elsewhere, > > as is> > > the case for the siddha jyotish principles such as lordships, signs,> > > grahaguna, balas, vargas, etc.> > > Further, Sri Mahadeva has indicated that his work brings about the> > > essence (sara) of Hora and Tantra, which by implication indicates that> > > he has studied these works to derive meaning from them. He thus wrote a> > > very voluminous number of slokas on them, and for this simple reason > > you> > > cannot just discard his statement about Chara Karakas as being a mere> > > different opinion. In fact you have to now justify WHY his opinion> > > defers from yours as the tradition shares his opinion.> > >> > > Its now 3 against you, Narasimha. Sticking to your own > > interpretation of> > > Parasara and discarding the words of Sri Mahadeva is like eating only> > > the lemon in lemon-rice. Further, accepting that sutras are missing at> > > random in the Jaimini Sutras is like looking for oregano in Garam > > Masala.> > > Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen> > > ----------> > > www: http://srigaruda.com <http://srigaruda.com>> > > @: visti@> > >> > > Narasimha Rao skrev:> > > >> > > > Namaste Visti,> > > >> > > > (1) First regarding Jaimini: Jaimini did NOT deviate from Parasara in> > > > whatever he said. Though he did not specifically say how to choose> > > > between 7 and 8 planets, we have to remember that Jaimini Sutram is> > > > not a self-sufficient text and Jaimini did say "siddhamanyat" at the> > > > beginning. We have to fill in a lot of blanks using other sources.> > > > Parasara would be a perfect choice.> > > >> > > > In fact, Vriddha Karikas say the following:> > > >> > > > ravyaadi shani paryantaaH bhavanti sapta kaarakaaH |> > > > aMsha saamye grahau dvau ca raahvantaan gaNayet dvija ||> > > >> > > > (Meaning: Planets starting from Sun and going upto Saturn become seven> > > > significators. And, O brahmin, if two planets are in equality of> > > > degrees, one may count ending with Rahu.)> > > >> > > > This is pretty much what Parasara said, in slightly different words!> > > > After all, when Jaimini leaves one detail out, it is logical to get> > > > that detail from Parasara.> > > >> > > > (2) Regarding Mahadeva: Mahadeva is great scholar, just as Dr BV> > > > Raman, Sri KN Rao and Pt Sanjay Rath are. However, this great scholar> > > > from mid-to-late 1800's is hardly an authority on par with Maharshi> > > > Parasara. We can use him to interpret Parasara when there is an> > > > ambiguity in Parasara that was clarified by Mahadeva. When Parasara is> > > > clear that there and Mahadeva deviates, there is no reason to give> > > > preference to Mahadeva.> > > >> > > > Regarding when to use 7 and when to use 8 planets, I believe Parasara> > > > is clear and vriddha karikas point in the same direction.> > > >> > > > Krishnaarpanamastu,> > > > Narasimha> > > > -------------------------> > > > Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam>> > > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam>>> > > > Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana>> > > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana>>> > > > Spirituality: > > <>> > > > > <>>> > > > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net > > <http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net>> > > > <http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net > > <http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net>>> > > > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org>> > > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org>>> > > > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org > > <http://www.SriJagannath.org>> > > > <http://www.SriJagannath.org <http://www.SriJagannath.org>>> > > > -------------------------> > > >> > > > sohamsa <sohamsa%40> > > <sohamsa%40>,> > > > Visti Larsen <visti@> wrote:> > > > >> > > > > à ¤¹Ã ¤°Ã Â¥++ à ¤°Ã ¤¾Ã ¤® à ¤.à ¥fà ¤·Ã Â¥?à ¤£> > > > > Dear Narasimha,> > > > > What is your take on that neither Maharishi Jaimini Krta Upadesa > > Sutram> > > > > (slokas 1.1.10-1.1.19) nor Sri Mahadeva Krtam Jataka Tattva (sloka> > > > 1.65)> > > > > indicate nor hint in anyway towards this special circumstance of > > Rahu> > > > > only entering the Charakaraka scheme once two planets are at the > > same> > > > > degree?> > > > >> > > > > Maharishi Jaimini, with his otherwise very brief sutras, only > > speaks of> > > > > two schemes namely seven or eighth charakarakas and after > > listing out> > > > > eight charakaraka later states that the putrakaraka becomes one with> > > > the> > > > > Matrikaraka, which is obviously only the case in the scheme of seven> > > > > chara karaka.> > > > > If he wishes to be this explicit then why didn't he mention this> > > > special> > > > > condition of including Rahu only when planets occupied the same > > degree?> > > > >> > > > > Further, Mahadeva's Jataka Tattvam also does not even entertain > > an idea> > > > > of using seven Chara Karakas, wherein he when mentioning the same> > > > simply> > > > > lists out all eight Chara Karakas by name, without any conditions.> > > > >> > > > > Looking forward to your reply.> > > > > Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen> > > > > ----------> > > > > www: http://srigaruda.com <http://srigaruda.com> > > <http://srigaruda.com <http://srigaruda.com>>> > > > > @: visti@> > > > >> > > > > Narasimha P.V.R. Rao skrev:> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Namaste Sir,> > > > > >> > > > > > > Seven> > > > > > > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS,> > > > > > > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING .> > > > > >> > > > > > If you or anyone can show me the verse of Parasara that says the> > > > > > above, we can discuss your views further.> > > > > >> > > > > > When mentioning the two schemes, Parasara clearly said that the> > > > > > 8-karaka scheme is used when two planets are in the same > > degree. He> > > > > > never talked about "living beings" vs "mundane charts". Instead he> > > > > > talked about matching the degrees of planets to decide 7 vs 8 > > karaka> > > > > > schemes.> > > > > >> > > > > > A clear guideline of Parasara has been ignored and a big> > > > hypothesis is> > > > > > made instead. Such a theory with a weak foundation fails to> > > > convince me.> > > > > >> > > > > > Best regards,> > > > > > Narasimha> > > > > > -------------------------> > > > > > Do a Short Homam Yourself: > > http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam>> > > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam>>> > > > > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam>> > > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam>>>> > > > > > Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: > > http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana>> > > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana>>> > > > > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana>> > > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana>>>> > > > > > Spirituality: > > <>> > > > > <>>> > > > > > > <>> > > > > <>>>> > > > > > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net > > <http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net>> > > > <http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net > > <http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net>>> > > > > > <http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net > > <http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net>> > > > <http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net > > <http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net>>>> > > > > > Free Jyotish software (Windows): > > http://www.VedicAstrologer.org <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org>> > > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org>>> > > > > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org> <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org > > <http://www.VedicAstrologer.org>>>> > > > > > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: > > http://www.SriJagannath.org <http://www.SriJagannath.org>> > > > <http://www.SriJagannath.org <http://www.SriJagannath.org>>> > > > > > <http://www.SriJagannath.org <http://www.SriJagannath.org> > > <http://www.SriJagannath.org <http://www.SriJagannath.org>>>> > > > > > -------------------------> > > > > >> > > > > > -> > > > > > ** Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937@>> > > > > > *To:* Narasimha Rao <pvr@>> > > > > > *Cc:* vedic astrology > > <vedic astrology%40>> > > > <vedic astrology%40>> > > > > > <vedic astrology > > <vedic astrology%40>> > > > <vedic astrology%40>> ;> > > > > > Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest > > <Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest%40>> > > > <Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest%40>> > > > > > <Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest > > <Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest%40>> > > > <Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest%40>> ;> > > > > > sohamsa <sohamsa > > <sohamsa%40>> > > > <sohamsa%40>>> > > > > > *Sent:* Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:43 AM> > > > > > *Subject:* Char Karka> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear Friend,> > > > > > Why bring Pt. Sanjay Rath , place your views independently.> > > > > > I have again gone through the article of Rath ji and your article> > > > > > carefully.I got the impression , that you are try to advocate your> > > > > > views instead of trying to understand the real intent of BPH.> > > > > > I may like to bring following points to your kind attention:> > > > > > 1. Rath ji is your guru , never show disrespect to your guru.> > > > > > Such attitude will bring your downfall. Rishi Yajvalkya ,Jaimni> > > > > > sometimes taken different line of thinking , but with the> > > > permission> > > > > > and with due respect to his guru.I think you are in USA too> > > > long.> > > > > > that is why you do not like to stick these simple norms.> > > > > > 2. Parasara had refereed higher authorities in BPHS KIKE 'SEER> > > > GARG'> > > > > > 3. BPHS INTENDS THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT> > > > > > SCHEMES OF CHAR KARKAS-7 AS WELL AS 8> > > > > > 4 In 7 char karka scheme Rahu is not considered .However , if two> > > > > > planets> > > > > > are same zodiac degree in their respective signs, then char> > > > > > Karka replacement> > > > > > occurs and Rahu takes its place as sthir Karka of confusion and> > > > > > deceit.Seven> > > > > > (7 )CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR MUNDANE CHARTS, THAT IS WHY> > > > > > PUTRA kARKA IS ABSENT AND RAHU AS STHIR kARKA DOES NOT> > > > > > REPRESENT ANY LIVING PERSON BUT DECEIT ETC.> > > > > > 5. 8 CHAR KARKA SCHEME IS FOR LIVING BEING . BPHS> > > > > > CLEARLY STATES 8 kARKA IN SERIAL ORDER-AK,AMK,> > > > > > BK, MK, PITK,PUTK,GK AND DK.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY> > > > > > ON AMBIGUITY OR CONFUSION.> > > > > > 6. kindly TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPORT AND REASON> > > > > > BEHIND REPLACEMENT OF CHAR KARKA WITH STHIR KARKA.> > > > > > THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE> > > > > > ,AS TO WHY CHAR KARKA ARE REPLACED BY STHIR> > > > > > KARKAS.IN FACT THIS CHAPTER OF BPHS DEALS IN ALL KINDS OF> > > > > > KARKAS ACCEPT NAISARGIKA KARKAS. THE SLOKAS IN THIS CHAPTER ARE> > > > > > LIKE SUTRA AND LOT OF CO-RELATION IS REQUIRED TO DECIPHER> > > > > > THEM. CHAR KARKA INDICATE THE HELP AND SUSTENANCE PROVIDED> > > > > > BY OTHER LIVING BEING OR LACK OF IT DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF PAST> > > > > > BIRTHS.STHIR KARKA INDICATE WHEN SUCH LIVING BEING WILL> > > > > > PUT TO GRIEF .> > > > > > 6. I urge , kindly read the article written by Rathji . It will> > > > > > show the light.> > > > > > Regards,> > > > > >> > > > > > G.K.GOEL> > > > > > Ph: 09350311433> > > > > > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR> > > > > > NEW DELHI-110 076> > > > > > INDIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 namaste Visti & Narasimha, VL> If indeed you wish to defend your work on the basis of Sanskrit acumen Firstly, Narasimha's translation is quite reasonable. I have no special Sankrit knowledge, but these verses are simple. Others may choose to translate them and interpret them differently, but that still doesn't negate the fact that his translation is straightforward. That said, I presume the sticking point is the phrase " kecit aShTau pracakShate " . Luckily, a different edition of BPHS uses slightly different phrasing. अथ वकà¥à¤·à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤®à¤¿ खेटानामॠआतà¥à¤®-पà¥à¤°à¤à¥ƒà¤¤à¤¿-कारकानà¥à¥¤ सूरà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¦à¤¿-मनà¥à¤¦-परà¥à¤¯à¤¨à¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤¨à¥ राहà¥à¤µà¤¨à¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤¨à¥ वा दà¥à¤µà¤¿à¤œà¥‹à¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤®!॥१ यदि खेटौ समावंशै राहà¥à¤µà¤¨à¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤¨à¥ गणयेदॠदà¥à¤µà¤¿à¤œ!। à¤à¤µà¤‚ सपà¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤¥à¤µà¤¾à¤½à¤·à¥à¤Ÿà¥Œ सà¥à¤¯à¥à¤ƒ कारकाः समà¥à¤®à¤¤à¤¾à¤ƒ सतामà¥à¥¥à¥¨ atha vakShyAmi kheTAnAm Atma-prabhRiti-kArakAn. sUryAdi-manda-paryantAn rAhvantAn vA dvijottama!..1 yadi kheTau samAvaMshai rAhvantAn gaNayed dvija!. evam saptAthavA.aShTau syuH kArakAH sammatAH satAm..2 VL> Your basic argument for the Upadesa Sutras is that the relevant sutra was omitted on purpose... The author of the book with the verses I included actually quotes Jaimini's relevant sutras (Incidentally, his translation seems quite similar to Narasimha's). Here, he comments " आतà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤§à¤¿à¤•à¤ƒ ... " इन आठसूतà¥à¤°à¥‹à¤‚ में वे सà¤à¥€ बाते हें जिनà¥à¤¹à¥‡à¤‚ महरà¥à¤·à¤¿ पराशर ने इस अधà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¯ के आरमà¥à¤ से १५ १/२ सà¥à¤²à¥‹à¤•à¥‹à¤‚ में वà¥à¤¯à¤•à¥à¤¤ किया है। ... महरà¥à¤·à¤¿ जैमिनि à¤à¤µà¤‚ पराशर की उकà¥à¤¤à¤¿à¤¯à¥‹à¤‚ मे सरà¥à¤µà¤¥à¤¾ सामà¥à¤¯ दीख पडता है। " . NR> I take Parasara as an authority. How well have his words been preserved? My understanding is that all modern " BPHS " books contain verses that have been collected from various corners, and thus the text we have is a patchy quilt. VL> There are eight Bandhas on the Jiva (living beings) as indicated by Sri Shiva (Shiva Purana, Vidyesvara Samhita) It you have the book at hand, can you please be more specific? I didn't find it with a quick perusal. Unfortunately, I cannot comment on the Jyotisha points. I was not a fitting student for the jyotiShagyas who spent some of their valuable time teaching this dullard. bhavadIyaH, ajit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 Dear Ajit, Some of the text you quoted is presumably using a font I do not have and shows up garbled. Is it possible to type it in iTrans transliteration in Roman script? > NR> I take Parasara as an authority.> > How well have his words been preserved? My understanding is that all modern> "BPHS" books contain verses that have been collected from various corners,> and thus the text we have is a patchy quilt. True. But luckily, all available versions of Parasara seem to point at the same thing - using 8 planets when 2 planets are in the same degree and using 7 otherwise. There do not seem to be any versions of Parasara giving something different. If such a verse attributed to Parasara comes up, then we will be in trouble and will have to take stock of the situation. Right now, multiple sources - Parasara's available verses and vriddha karikas - seem to say the same thing. Krishnaarpanamastu,NarasimhaDo a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homamDo Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpanaSpirituality: Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org sohamsa , "Ajit Krishnan" <ajit.krishnan wrote:>> namaste Visti & Narasimha,> > VL> If indeed you wish to defend your work on the basis of Sanskrit acumen> > Firstly, Narasimha's translation is quite reasonable. I have no special> Sankrit knowledge, but these verses are simple. Others may choose to> translate them and interpret them differently, but that still doesn't negate> the fact that his translation is straightforward. That said, I presume the> sticking point is the phrase "kecit aShTau pracakShate". Luckily, a> different edition of BPHS uses slightly different phrasing.> > अथ वकà¥à¤·à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤®à¤¿ खेटानामॠआतà¥à¤®-पà¥à¤°à¤à¥ƒà¤¤à¤¿-कारकानà¥à¥¤ सूरà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¦à¤¿-मनà¥à¤¦-परà¥à¤¯à¤¨à¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤¨à¥> राहà¥à¤µà¤¨à¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤¨à¥ वा दà¥à¤µà¤¿à¤œà¥‹à¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤®!॥१> यदि खेटौ समावंशै राहà¥à¤µà¤¨à¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤¨à¥ गणयेदॠदà¥à¤µà¤¿à¤œ!। à¤à¤µà¤‚ सपà¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤¥à¤µà¤¾à¤½à¤·à¥à¤Ÿà¥Œ सà¥à¤¯à¥à¤ƒ कारकाः> समà¥à¤®à¤¤à¤¾à¤ƒ सतामà¥à¥¥à¥¨> > atha vakShyAmi kheTAnAm Atma-prabhRiti-kArakAn.> sUryAdi-manda-paryantAn rAhvantAn vA dvijottama!..1> yadi kheTau samAvaMshai rAhvantAn gaNayed dvija!.> evam saptAthavA.aShTau syuH kArakAH sammatAH satAm..2> > VL> Your basic argument for the Upadesa Sutras is that the relevant> sutra was omitted on purpose...> > The author of the book with the verses I included actually quotes Jaimini's> relevant sutras (Incidentally, his translation seems quite similar to> Narasimha's). Here, he comments "आतà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤§à¤¿à¤•à¤ƒ ..." इन आठसूतà¥à¤°à¥‹à¤‚ में वे सà¤à¥€> बाते हें जिनà¥à¤¹à¥‡à¤‚ महरà¥à¤·à¤¿ पराशर ने इस अधà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¯ के आरमà¥à¤ से १५ १/२ सà¥à¤²à¥‹à¤•à¥‹à¤‚ में> वà¥à¤¯à¤•à¥à¤¤ किया है। ... महरà¥à¤·à¤¿ जैमिनि à¤à¤µà¤‚ पराशर की उकà¥à¤¤à¤¿à¤¯à¥‹à¤‚ मे सरà¥à¤µà¤¥à¤¾ सामà¥à¤¯ दीख> पडता है।".> > NR> I take Parasara as an authority.> > How well have his words been preserved? My understanding is that all modern> "BPHS" books contain verses that have been collected from various corners,> and thus the text we have is a patchy quilt.> > VL> There are eight Bandhas on the Jiva (living beings) as indicated by Sri> Shiva (Shiva Purana, Vidyesvara Samhita)> > It you have the book at hand, can you please be more specific? I didn't find> it with a quick perusal.> > Unfortunately, I cannot comment on the Jyotisha points. I was not a fitting> student for the jyotiShagyas who spent some of their valuable time teaching> this dullard.> > bhavadIyaH,> > ajit 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.