Guest guest Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 namaste, The garbled text is suppossed to be " plain old unicode " . The first two verses of the adhyAya are: atha vakShyAmi kheTAnAm Atma-prabhRiti-kArakAn.sUryAdi-manda-paryantAn rAhvantAn vA dvijottama!..1yadi kheTau samAvaMshai rAhvantAn gaNayed dvija!.evam saptAthavA.aShTau syuH kArakAH sammatAH satAm..2 And the hindi comment (whichi s almost unreadable in transliteration) is -- " aatmaadhikaH ... " ina aaTha suutroM meM ve sabhii baate heM jinheM maharShi paraashara ne isa adhyaaya ke aarambha se 15 1/2 slokoM meM vyakta kiyaa hai| ... maharShi jaimini evaM paraashara kii uktiyoM me sarvathaa saamya diikha paDataa hai| " . bhavadIyaH, ajit On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Narasimha P.V.R. Rao <pvr wrote: 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/homam Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpanaSpirituality: Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org Sri 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 वकॠषॠयामि खेटानामॠआतॠम-पॠरà¤à¥ƒà¤¤à¤¿-कारकानॠ। सूरॠयादि-मनॠद-परॠयनॠतानॠ> राहॠवनॠतानॠवा दॠविजोतॠतम!॥१> यदि खेटौ समावंशै राहॠवनॠतानॠगणयेदॠदॠविज!। ठवं सपॠताथवाऽषॠटौ सॠयॠः कारकाः > समॠमताः सतामॠ॥२ > > 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 " आतॠमाधिकः ... " इन आठसूतॠरों में वे सà¤à¥€ > बाते हें जिनॠहें महरॠषि पराशर ने इस अधॠयाय के आरमॠठसे १५ १/२ सॠलोकों में> वॠयकॠत किया है। ... महरॠषि जैमिनि ठवं पराशर की उकॠतियों मे सरॠवथा सामॠय 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 हरे राम कृषà¥à¤£ Dear Narasimha, Namaskar. Its not logical that Maharishi Jaimini would leave out that important rider, as the Maharishi has been very forthcoming with everything else. If its an 'Upadesa' Sutra then he should have provided the rider. You have not convinced me that Maharishi Jaimini deliberately left this out for us to read elsewhere. Further, according to Parampara Sri Mahadeva is right in his statement about Chara Karakas! How many can say that? Maharishi Parasara has been very consistent in leaving out philosophical explanations for his slokas, so him not speaking about jeeva- vs. jada-atma is expected and cannot be argued in the comparison you make. We know you are very suspicious of everything Sanjayji writes. You may call it a scholarly approach to any science, but how many doubt the sky is blue when someone tells them that? Do you ever stop to think that if Sanjayji speaks very confidently about a principle in public, and you openly disagree with it on the basis of you thinking that he is himself not sure of what he teaches, that you are actually questioning his sincerity towards those he teaches? Do you think he would have taught something so openly if he was not sure? This is not just some discussion over tea, which i know you have had many of with him! Suta describes eight Bandhas in the form of Prakrti, viz: the five mahabhuta, gunatmaka, buddhi and ahamkara (Shiva Purana, Vidyeshvara Samhita, Chapter 18). According to Parampara Gunatmaka is indicated by the Moon, Buddhi is indicated by Rahu and Ahamkara is indicated by the Sun. The five mahabhuta are governed by the five remaining planets and are designated based on Tatva. Some believe that Rahu governs Ahamkara and Sun governs Buddhi. When seven Chara Karaka scheme is in use then which graha will indicate Buddhi (or Ahamkara)? So, in the rasi chart using the chara karakas you have indicated that we are unable to understand whether there is a problem from mother or child to begin with? Then how do you even apply the Karaka Dasa so elegantly from the rasi chart in your example(s) if you are not able to predict with just the rasi chart? If so you should not even have given those examples? If Chara Karakas do not have Karakatva of houses, then how do you interpret sloka 32 of the same chapter: dhanabhaavam vijaaniyaad daarakaarakameva hi ? If you had simply missed this then I can accept your mistaken inference. Your inference about the Sthira Karakas is just because you have yet to be taught the same. To see the body of mother we must see the fourth from the stronger among Moon and Mars. Similarly see third from Mars incase of younger brother. This is taught in Parampara and works excellently in seeing the health and demise of relatives. This is not the point of this discussion. This is taught during the Maharishi Jaimini Krta Upadesa Sutra course which, despite your stature and knowledge, have had the bad luck of not being part of. Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen ---------- www: http://srigaruda.com @: visti Narasimha P.V.R. Rao skrev:  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, 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: > > 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 November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 Dear Sundeep, Sanjayji has been out of Delhi since 20th October busy riding camels and photographing black bucks and Damoiselle Cranes. He has had no internet connection and is blissfully unaware of these posts and debates. He will return to Delhi...and to internet and telephone contact...after 4th November. Best regards, Sarbani Rath Quoting vedicastrostudent <vedicastrostudent: > 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...
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.