Guest guest Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 Namaste friends, > But the point is, is he ready and open enough to get disproved? This one sentence made me realize that the time has come to disengage from this one and move on to the next task. When one argues something as a scholar, one stays put for the questions and arguments. That is the dharma of a scholar. But I believe I have addressed all valid concerns and criticism expressed on sohamsa and other lists to the best of my ability. I believe I fulfilled my dharma in this matter and there is no productive purpose to be served by remaining in this thread further. There is no point in repeating things. Continuing with something after the purpose is served only creates/increases attachment and possessiveness. I do not want that. This knowledge or argument is not really MINE. I do not want it to BECOME mine. In order to not be bound, the one who sows a seed should leave it to the Nature to decide whether the seed gives rise to a tree and whether people enjoy the fruits from that tree in future. I have neither any rights nor any responsibilities regarding the knowledge and argument I advanced and defended shortly. My job with it is done. I leave the rest to Nature. Whether other scholars are able to judge all arguments correctly or not, what conclusion they come to and whether people benefit from this or not is not MY business. It is for my Mother to take care of. I did what She inspired me to do and now I should surrender the action and move on to the next action. I respectfully and humbly surrender this effort to Lord Krishna and wait for the next inspiration for action. If I was unable to answer your questions, I am sorry. Please realize that I am not the only one who can answer. Nature used me merely as an instrument to put some knowledge and argument out there. They are not mine. If you have a strong desire to know something more about them, Nature WILL somehow send someone to help you. 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2008 Report Share Posted November 1, 2008 “If I was unable to answer your questions, I am sorry. Please realize that I am not the only one who can answer. Nature used me merely as an instrument to put some knowledge and argument out there. They are not mine. If you have a strong desire to know something more about them, Nature WILL somehow send someone to help you.†I heard Natural Calamities , Natural Disaster, Natural Growth, Nature always help to the Pursha and for the cause of Pursha. Pursha is not the Cause , he is the master,his slavery to Nature is because of his desires. Generations/every individual are/is cause of their own mischief and good deeds. Don’t put everything on Nature. These words looks good from the mouth of a non believer of God. One is what today because of his own cause and determinations. Inder Jit Sahni,#1351-HIG,Model Town, Bhatinda-151001 Phone-911642211360;9855224360 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 Namaste Visti, One leaving the ring voluntarily can come back anytime. When Arjuna did not want to fight, did astra sannyasa and surrendered at the feet of Lord Krishna, his opponents did not engage in a victory dance. And the warrior was back after his Guru enlightened him! Though I thought there was no productive purpose served by remaining further, I realize that there is one important point left to be made. * * * Before I counter your " argument " , I want to point out one thing. When I translated " brahmaNaa " as " by Brahma " , you wondered whether it should be " by Brahma " or " by Brahmana " . In a scholarly debate involving Sanskrit verses, one making such a comment and thus demonstrating a lack of Sanskrit knowledge would not have been allowed to continue to sit in the debate in the old days! Now, let me look at your *new* " final " argument. One not knowing Sanskrit will naturally not know what " -antam " and " -antaan " mean and how they are different and how to factor in the context in addition. There is actually no point worth commenting on in your argument. Still let me counter the crux of your argument: > Therefore the use of the word anta in raahvantan need not exclusively > indicate the scheme of Sun-to-Raahu > > ravyaadi shani paryantaaH bhavanti sapta kaarakaaH | > aMsha saamye grahau dvau ca raahvantaan gaNayet dvija > > You used this to confirm the sloka of Maharishi Parasara, but NOWHERE is > it indicated that there is talk of eight chara karakas here! In fact the > sloka only speaks of sapta kaaraka (7). Still based on your > interpretation of anta you assumed that there was talk of eight chara > karakas! You must admit that there is no mention of that here! You are simply forgetting that Parasara's corresponding lines explicitly said: athaahaM sampravakShyaami grahaanaatmaadi kaarakaan sapta ravyaadi shanyantaan raahvantaan ==> vaaShTasaMkhyakaan <== amshaiH samau grahau dvau ched raahvantaan chintayed dvija The word " aShTasaMkhyakaan " explicitly means " [those that are] eight in number " . The middle line of Parasara above means " seven starting from Sun and ending with Saturn, or eight in number ending with Rahu " . The fact that both " raahvantaan " and " aShTasaMkhyakaan " are in bahu vachana and dwitiya vibhakti clearly shows that the latter is qualifying the former and " raahvantaan " and " [those that are] eight in number " go together. This is quite explicit and hence there IS a mention of " eight " chara karakas in this verse contrary to what you thought. I did not " assume " anything. Visti, your " argument " has no substance in it whatsoever. You are drifting off on a tangent based on something (upagrahas) that has nothing to do with this, simply because there is a common word used, and ignoring a clear directive from Parasara. There is absolutely no ambiguity regarding what " raahvantaan " means. Parasara is clearly talking about 7 and 8 chara karaka schemes here, one using Sun-Saturn and the other Sun-Rahu. * * * Before I put this to rest from my side, I guess there is one additional point to be made. While I want to in general stay away from " negative campaigning " :-), this is a critical point actually. People who knew Sanskrit and the subject at hand well participated in scholarly debates in old days. In today's times, people who do not know Sanskrit, Sanskrit grammar and Sanskrit writing style can simply look up key words in online Sanskrit dictionaries and concoct convoluted arguments that sound fancy but are really absurd and frivolous and have no substance. Querying is fine, but confidently declaring things when one has no Sanskrit scholarship is problematic and irresponsible and creates unneeded confusion in the minds of genuinely interested people watching the debate from the sidelines. There may also be some people who have a conflict of interest with their other activites and not really interested in a genuine debate on what Parasara taught. When those of you who are genuinely interested in Truth read various mails on this debate or any debates in future, please bear this in mind. I will have to try to ignore comments from people of this nature of their supporters. OK, Jupiter has just risen in the east. I will send out this mail now. 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. > Honestly, I had predicted 4 days back to my students that when Moon > entered Jyestha you would 'surrender' in this discussion. > > Here is my last point regarding this exchange: > > Your entire translation rests on the translation of the word: > raahvantan. Based on the idea that raahu+antan is a repetition of an > earlier statement in which Maharishi Parasara describes the two schemes > of shanyantan and rähvantan as the basis of the seven and eight Karaka > schemes. > > > > This is not the first time that you have questioned the use of the word > anta by Maharishi Parasara, with reference to the Parampara's teachings. > Note for other readers that anta means: end, boundary, border, limit, > etc. like in the word gandaanta. > > > > So to justify that Maharishi Parasara uses the word anta in a different > way than that you have described do note the same use when he describes > the calculation of Upagrahas in chapter 3, sloka 66: > ravi-vaaraadi-shanyantaM gulikaadi niruupyate| In the past Sanjayji has > explained wrt. to this sloka on Upagrahas, that the word anta used in > shanyantaM refers to the Upagrahas rising in the positions at the END of > the kala of the specific graha. > > Just as you have done now, you believed back then that the word anta > merely referred to the scheme from Sun to Saturn, and you believed that > this by no means clarified the exact position in the kala to be > calculated for the Upagraha. > > To clarify this I have referred to the words of Kali Dasa (Uttara > Kalamrita, Chapter 1, Sloka 8) who states clearly that Gulika rises at > the end of the portions of the Kala. He leaves no doubt in his statement > about this calculation. > > This indicates that Maharishi Parasara was indeed clarifying that the > Upagraha rise in the END of the kala of the specific Graha. > > Therefore the use of the word anta in raahvantan need not exclusively > indicate the scheme of Sun-to-Raahu, but can ALSO imply that rahu is > placed in the anta, i.e. the last most among the two grahas mentioned. > > > > To further clarify this I have used your citation from Vrddha Karika: > > ravyaadi shani paryantaaH bhavanti sapta kaarakaaH | > > aMsha saamye grahau dvau ca raahvantaan gaNayet dvija > > > > You used this to confirm the sloka of Maharishi Parasara, but NOWHERE is > it indicated that there is talk of eight chara karakas here! In fact the > sloka only speaks of sapta kaaraka (7). Still based on your > interpretation of anta you assumed that there was talk of eight chara > karakas! You must admit that there is no mention of that here! > > > > Therefore, the interpretation of the tradition that sloka 2 of the > Karaka Chapter actually refers solely to the rider of Rähu entering the > last most among the Chara Karakas in the seven chara karaka scheme, and > not the eight-chara karaka scheme, is legit and justified. Therefore > also sloka 16 is an independant sutra which refers solely to the eight > chara karaka scheme wherein which the sthira karaka can enter, and > therefore is listed only after listing all eight chara karaka. This is > further in line with the entire principles and philosophy of seven and > eight chara karakas which has been taught in the Parampara so far in a > very exhaustive manner, and further is perfectly in tune with the > teaching of the Rishis with regards to the nature of the Atma and its > bondage. > > > > If you tally that with the Sutras of Maharishi Jaimini, slokas of Sri > Mahadeva and those of Kali Dasa and all other authors, you will see that > the interpretation of the Parampara is not only justified, but is also > the one followed by all the classical authors… after all those classical > authors also came from a Parampara! > > > > Now a personal point: This proves that no matter how much Sanskrit you > may know, to learn Jyotish you still need the guidance of a Guru or > Parampara. I am glad that you have surrendered to Sri Krishna, now will > you surrender to the Parampara also? If so maybe we will both gain from > each others knowledge instead of having to fight over each word and sloka. > > > Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen > ---------- > www: http://srigaruda.com > > Narasimha PVR Rao skrev: > > > > Namaste friends, > > > > > But the point is, is he ready and open enough to get disproved? > > > > This one sentence made me realize that the time has come to disengage > > from this one and move on to the next task. > > > > When one argues something as a scholar, one stays put for the > > questions and arguments. That is the dharma of a scholar. > > > > But I believe I have addressed all valid concerns and criticism > > expressed on sohamsa and other lists to the best of my ability. I > > believe I fulfilled my dharma in this matter and there is no > > productive purpose to be served by remaining in this thread further. > > There is no point in repeating things. > > > > Continuing with something after the purpose is served only > > creates/increases attachment and possessiveness. I do not want that. > > This knowledge or argument is not really MINE. I do not want it to > > BECOME mine. In order to not be bound, the one who sows a seed should > > leave it to the Nature to decide whether the seed gives rise to a tree > > and whether people enjoy the fruits from that tree in future. I have > > neither any rights nor any responsibilities regarding the knowledge > > and argument I advanced and defended shortly. My job with it is done. > > I leave the rest to Nature. > > > > Whether other scholars are able to judge all arguments correctly or > > not, what conclusion they come to and whether people benefit from this > > or not is not MY business. It is for my Mother to take care of. I did > > what She inspired me to do and now I should surrender the action and > > move on to the next action. > > > > I respectfully and humbly surrender this effort to Lord Krishna and > > wait for the next inspiration for action. > > > > If I was unable to answer your questions, I am sorry. Please realize > > that I am not the only one who can answer. Nature used me merely as an > > instrument to put some knowledge and argument out there. They are not > > mine. If you have a strong desire to know something more about them, > > Nature WILL somehow send someone to help you. > > > > Krishnaarpanamastu, > > Narasimha 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.