Parasara, Vimsottari and Kalachakra (fwd)

[Guest guest]

Forwarding the reply of Shyamasundara Prabhu...

 

-------

Parasara, Vimsottari and Kalachakra

Thu, 14 Dec 2000 02:25 -0500

" Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer)

(USA) " <Shyamasundara.ACBSP

" Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer)

(USA) " <Shyamasundara.ACBSP,Vedic.Astrology

" Narasimha Rao " <pvr, " Vedic Astrology (Symposium

hosted by Shyamasundara Das) " <Vedic.Astrology

CC: varahamihira ,

vedic astrology ,gauranga, srath

 

Dear Narasimha Raoji,

 

Please accept my best wishes. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Bhakta-vigna-vinasha Nrsimhadeva Bhagavan ki jaya.

 

I congratulate you for a very good smashing rebuttal to my text. You

have

found my weak link in that I do not (yet) know Sanskrit. In fact your

text

has greatly enthused me to clear up that deficiency by putting some

serious

effort into learning Sanskrit in the coming years. It is expected of

any

serious scholar of a subject to learn the language that a science is

published in. For example Math graduates are required to study Russian

and

or German.

 

However, I should say that I was not satisfied by your answer since

you did

not explain very well how it is that at the end in verse 14 Parasara

concluded that Vimshottari was best for Kali. In their commentary

Sharma

says the same. I know that according to you none of these men are

competent

in Sanskrit, what to speak of me who is depending on them. And, since

you

said you will only discuss with someone who is competent in Sanskrit I

will

arrange for such a debate. I have already contacted not one, not two,

but

four Sanskrit teachers to analyze the texts in question and your

response to

my text. And, since they are also Hindi scholars I have asked them to

look

into Pandita Deva Chandra Jha's translation and commentary into Hindi

of

BPHS. I had discussed it with two of them over the phone before I sent

out

the text and they had agreed with me. But to better bolster my

position, and

so as not to insult you I will let the four Panditas speak for

themselves

this way you can't say it is the conclusion of someone who doesn't

know

Sanskrit.

 

Now just in case you say that they are not competent because they do

not

jyotish (one of them may), that would not be accurate. First of all it

is

not at all technical just a list of methods and Parasara's opinion of

them.

Secondly they will see the work of the other translators my text and

your

reply to my text, if they have any questions I can supply technical

answers.

 

It will take some time before they can give me a response as two of

them

live in India, one of them is travelling, and the other has just

recently

changed domiciles. But we have all the time in the world and when I

get the

results I will share them with you. I can hardly wait, how about you?

Then

we will finally know the answer to this question. Though I do recall

seeing

a text recently by Sanjay in which he concurs that Vimshottari is the

best.

 

Still I thank you for the good whack as it has stirred me from my

indolence.

Of course I could do nothing about it before as I had so many project

to

complete, but now those projects are nearing completion so I will have

more

free time to take up the study of Sanskrit.

 

I have made a small comment near the end.

 

Yours in the service of my eternal master Srila Prabhupada

 

Shyamasundara Dasa

 

PS Please send to the other

 

 

 

> Jaya Jaya Jagannatha

> Namaste Shyamasundara Prabhu,

>

> Thank you for your kind reply. Before I proceed, I want to clarify that I

> do not want to (and did not) " minimize " Vimsottari dasa. In my previous

> mail, I mentioned it as one of the three general purpose phalita dasas

> that stand out. I only want to counter *your* minimization of other dasas.

>

> I see that you heavily rely on incompetent commentaries that are not at

> all faithful translations. I will make some relevant points below.

>

> > I have four editions of BPHS, three in English, one in Sanskrit-Hindi,

> > in this text I shall refer to the two most well known English

> > translations those of G.C. Sharma (Sagar edition) and the other by G. S.

> > Kapoor (did the

> >

> > These two translations are in keeping with the spirit of the dictionary

> > indicating that Vimshottari Mahadasha is the supreme mahadasha. Not just

> > " important " as you have stated. There is a big difference between what

> > you said and the actual dictionary meaning of the word as understood by

> > competent translators and readers of dictionaries.

>

> I do concede that " important " was a weak translation of " mukhyaa " . I

> should have said " a particularly important " or " eminent " . Two points here:

>

> (1) The word mukhya was used in literature in various degrees. " Mukhyaa "

> is still not " the best " . If that is what it means, then expressions like

> " atimukhya " also found in Sanskrit literature do not make any sense (ati =

> excessively).

>

> (2) For argument's sake, let us assume that mukhya means " the best " . Now,

> did Parasara say that Vimsottari was " the best " among *all* dasas or among

> all *Udu* dasas? It is not clear at all. Parasara talked about all the

> nakshatra dasas ( " nakshatraadhaarikaah " ) in one group and the rest as

> another group. Whether Parasara talked about Vimsottari dasa's place among

> nakshatra dasas or all dasas is not clear at all.

>

> In the case of Kalachakra dasa, he used the expression " sarva dasaasu " ,

> which clearly means " among *all* dasas " . Sarva = all.

>

> In 46-3 to 46-5, he said " there are several kinds of dasas. Vimsottari is

> considered (by whom?) particularly important; Ashtottari by some;

> Shodasottari by some; .... ; all these dasas based on nakshatras were said

> by earlier savants " . So a plausible case can be made to say that Parasara

> was comparing Vimsottari dasa only to other nakshatra dasas. In addition,

> the opinion in 46-3 is not necessarily Parasara's.

>

> However, in 46-14 again says that Vimsottari is pre-eminently important

> and this time it is clearly the opinion of the Sage. But, again it is

> unclear with which dasas it is being compared - all dasas or only

> nakshatra dasas. The sage made the pool of comparison clear only for

> Kalachakra dasa.

>

> > Let us move now to your second assertion. You have stated: " kaalachakra

> > dasaa chaanyaa maanyaa sarvadasaasu yaa " which according to you means

> > " there

> > is another dasa called Kalachakra dasa which the most respectable of ALL

> > dasas. " This is true but you neglected to tell us whose opinion this is.

> > Is it Parasara's opinion or some one else's? It turns out that it is not

> > Parasara's opinion at all but that of others. The antecedent half sloka

> > that

> > you did not give us tells us something very different. Here is how

> > Sharma

>

> Not at all. You may think so if you completely rely on incompetent and

> incomplete commentaries.

>

> The first line of the sloka that I omitted does not change the meaning at

> all.

>

> The sloka is:

>

> " atha kaala dasaa chakra dasaa proktaa muneeswaraih

> kaala chakra dasaa chaanyaa maanyaa sarva dasaasu yaa "

>

> It literally means " thus Kala dasa and Chakra dasa were well-mentioned by

> great Sages. There is another dasa called Kalachakra dasa, which is the

> [most] respectable dasa among *all*dasas " .

>

> (1) The use of the word " sarva " (all) makes it abundantly clear that

> Kalachakra dasa is not being compared to Kala dasa or Chakra dasa or a

> small set of dasas. Its position among *all * (sarva) dasas is being

> judged.

>

> (2) Attributing this opinion to other " great sages " (as Kapoor apparently

> does based on your quote below) is completely wrong too. " Prokta "

> (well-mentioned) in the first line is the past participle form (like

> " mataa " in 46-3) and so it applies to " by great Sages " . But the second

> part of the sloka does not use any past participles. It uses the word

> " maanyaah " , which means " respectABLE " . There is nothing to link this with

> the previous line and hence with " muneeswaraih " (by the great Sages). The

> most logical interpretation when one only says " X and Y were mentioned by

> people. And there is Z, which is the most respectable of all " is that the

> judgment on Z is the opinion of the person who said it. The most logical

> interpretation is that this is the opinion of Parasara himself.

>

> If you do not agree because a translation (or ten translations) say

> something else - with what is said varying from translation to translation

> - I do not know what to say. In that case, I guess you are the wrong

> person to argue with and I should argue with Sri Kapoor, Sri G.S. Sharma

> etc. To anyone who knows Sanskrit well, it must be evident that these

> authors did not pay much attention to small details when

> translating/commenting.

>

> To be fair them, they did a tremendous job and a great servce to the

> community. May God bless them. But their work is not complete and

> accurate. If someone who doesn't know Sanskrit well embraces the

> translations religiously, I can only say he/she is misled.

>

> > translates it:

> >

> > " The Rishis have also made mention of Kala and Chakra Dasa. But amongst

> > the remaining Dasas, Kalachakra Dasa has the greatest recognition. " BPHS

> > 48.6

>

> Sarba = all, dasaasu = among dasas. " Sarva dasaasu " means " among all

> dasas " . It does not mean " amongst the remaining dasas " .

>

> > Kapoor writes:

> >

> > " Some sages have made mention of Kala Dasa and Chakra Dasa; but they

> > have recognized the Kala Chakra Dasa as supreme. "

>

> Point refuted above.

>

> > We first note that the opinion about Kalachakra Dasa which you ascribed

> > to Parasara is not his but actually that of other people. Sharma's

> > translation suggests that Parasara thought that after Vimshottari out of

> > " the remaining "

> > Dasha systems Kalachakra is the best. But not superior to Vimshottari

> > which is supreme.

>

> " Sarva " never means " remaining " . It means " all " .

>

> As I pointed out, the sage used " all dasas " when mentioning the prominent

> place of Kalachakra dasa, but he did not qualify the pool being compared

> when mentioning the prominent place of Vimsottari dasa. The above argument

> of yours is untenable.

>

> > Then from 48.6-11 Parasara lists a number of Dasa systems like Chara,

> > Sthira, Kendra, Brahmagraha, Manduka, Shool, Yogardha, Drig, Trikona,

> > Rasi, Panchswara, Yogini, Pinda, Naisargika, Astavarga, Sandhya, Pachaka

> > and Tara.

> >

> > At this point Kapoor states in his translation: " But in our [Parasara's]

> > view all these Dasas [mentioned from verse 6-11 including Kalachakra]

> > are not appropriate (for the purpose for which they are meant.) "

>

> Again, Kapoor gives *his own* commentary instead of faithfully translating

> Parasara. This is not at all a faithful translation. After listing many

> dasas, Parasara says:

>

> " na sarvaah sarva sammataah "

>

> This clearly means " not all are accepted by all " . That is all it means. I

> hope you know enough Sanskrit to see this. This is not at all complicated.

>

> na = not

> sarvaah = all

> sarva = [by] all

> sammataah = agreed/accepted

>

> Parasara does NOT mention his view here. He only says that not everybody

> accepts every dasa. He also does not mention which dasas are not accepted

> by some.

>

> > Sharma's translation is slightly different. " Besides these Dasas

> > [Kalachakra

> > etc] some have said about Chara, Sthira, Kendra, Brahmagraha Dasas. O

> > Vipra!

> > apart from these, Manduka, Shool, Yogardha, Drig, Trikona, and Rasi are

> > also

> > there. Oh Brahmin! Panchswara, Yogini, Pinda, Naisargika, Astavarga,

> > Sandhya, Pachaka and Tara Dasa and the like are the different form of

> > Dasas.

> > However, out of these Dasa forms, all are not acceptable by common

> > consensus. "

>

> This is more reasonable than the other quotes so far.

>

> > Sharma's translation suggests that there is no common consensus on which

> > of these Dasa system is acceptable. Or, it could mean that by common

> > consensus all of them are unacceptable. This seems to be what Kapoor is

> > saying, he seems to suggest that they all are not useful or appropriate.

> > Anyway, exactly what is the correct translation here will need to be

> > researched more. In any case both translations suggest the inferiority

> > of the Dasa systems mentioned in BPHS 48.6-11

>

> You are jumping to conclusions here. " Not all are accepted by all " does

> not suggest any inferiority. Why did Maharshi Parasara teach them in the

> first place?

>

> In any case, he clearly qualified " Kalachakra dasa " as " most respectable

> among ALL dasas " .

>

> > I have used Vimshottari Mahadasha for over 20 years in conjunction with

> > gochara and been very satisfied with it. You may not be in such a

> > position. I should say that I am not an arm chair astrologer or a

> > hobbyist I am a professional astrologer. This is my sole source of

> > income. I do not advertise, rather I depend on word-of-mouth referrals

> > from satisfied clients. That means that I have to be right a lot more

> > often than I am wrong

> > otherwise I would starve. I do not claim perfection or omniscience but I

> > must be doing something right. I have a very long list of charts to do,

> > I am

> > still working on charts ordered last September and I am not cheap, my

> > web site will prove that to you. I must be one of the only astrologers

> > outside of India whom people in (not from but in) India consult

> > regularly and pay US$ for what I do. Just last week I had a DHL package

> > with a Demand Draft from Pune.

>

> When you used Sri K.N. Rao's name to put down someone's argument, my

> Gurudeva Pt. Sanjay Rath pointed out the deficiencies of Sri Rao (the

> authority whose name you tried to use to force an issue). You took it out

> of context and said Pt. Rath's comments were " jalpa " (chattering) and not

> " vaada " (arguments).

>

> Now, you are resorting to some real jalpa above. The above points are

> quite irrelevant to the topic at hand and perhaps their purpose is to

> inspire awe in onlookers and intimidate the opponent in vaada (debate).

>

> A Tarot card reader may experience the same success you describe. This

> 'supposed' success proves nothing in an argument on what Parasara said.

 

On the contrary I disagree since the point of discussion is

Vimshottari

Mahadasha I gave as an example myself a person who uses this method

primarily in concert with Gochara as getting more than adequate

results. It

is in the category of anecdotal eveidence and is in relationship to

the

topic, that is, showing the pre-eminent position of this system in the

hands

of a trained person. This would be the same as saying that a surgen

trained

is method " A " gets better results than one trained in method " B. "

 

Tarot is not a method of Vedic Astrology so you are mixing apples and

organges. BTW I do know TAROT, I CHING and other methods of divination

but

only practice Jyotish, not others.

 

The shot against KN Rao was uncalled for and totally irrelavant to the

discussion. In that case he mentioned how in the midst of some other

argument he asked KN Rao a question on some unrelated topic to which

Sriman

Rao didn't know the answer. I have been the victim of this before as

well.

Last year during some other discussion on a totaly different subject

to

throw me off Sanjay had someone ask me if I knew the astrological

reason why

Rama went to the forest? It had nothing to do with what we were

discussing

it was a Red Herring. This is like jyotish-trivial pursuits. I have

several

hundred books on jyotish, as well as astrology of the Greeks, Romans,

Arabs,

Ancient Persians, European Middle ages etc. I could ask you some

esoteric

questions that could stumpt you for sure. But it would mean nothing.

Just

trivial pursuits. For example how would you disprove the assertion of

David

Pingree that Yavana Jataka is Greek Astrology and imported into India

in the

2-3 century AD and tha before this there was no jyotish in India? (The

significance being that any reference to Jyotish found in sastras is

all

post Christian.) That is not so trivial to answer.