Atmakaraka 52 page doc

> http://www.varahamihira

visti

saaji kulangara

[saajik]

14 March 2005 17:42

varahamihira

|Sri Varaha| Re:

Atmakaraka 52 page doc

Dear Sanjay Ji,

Personally, I hold the view that whenever acharyas

hold different

views, one should follow one's Guru. Here in this

case, I'd say that

Maharshi Parasara also only quotes the views. This

is the same as

what the great Varahamihira says, that he doesn't

formulate anything

but only quotes the different views of great

rishis and authors. The

different schemes might work in different times (acharyas

do their

work considering the combinations for all times)

and also as per the

advise of Gurus, hence they used to only quote the

different views.

Maharshi Parasara is only one of the 18 acharyas

though he is the

acharya of Jyotish in Kaliyuga. Though Sanskrit is

flexible, in the

shlokas quoted by you, in 34.1 He first mentions

seven karaka scheme

then eight. Being a great Rishi He could have

specified what's right

and what's wrong or what's his opinion, he doesn't

seem to specify

that. Since he specifies both schemes, can't that

be, His courtesy to

speak about the yoga of 8 karaka scheme also in

the same way?

This is the shloka quoted by Dr Raman which he

says is from BPHS:

ravyadi Sani paryanta bhavanti saptakarakaha

Amsaih Samyam grahaih dwou cha Rahum

tangunayodwijaha

This is a very simple sholka which I can also

understand. BPHS is

said to have many editions and interpolations.

In Jaimini Sutras, Jaimini mentions both schemes.

Here also why

should a Maharshi quote both schemes when He could

have specified

something? In a " Sutra " I don't think

Maharshi will add something

which is not important.

Acharyas of recent times have only quoted those of

earlier times.

Whenever they got two opinions, they quoted both

as it was difficult

to specify which one is correct. ** Rishi proktams

should have to be

correct evenif they contradict.** As such saying

one is correct is

not correct.

Since Mahadeva is of Kaliyuga, 8 karaka scheme may

be important in

Kaliyuga for living beings. My conclusion is that

I cant specify

which one is correct, as I can only quote these

things. Thereafter

I'll say that I use this Scheme.

I don't know why I am writing this when I am not

an expert

of " Parasari " or Jaimini. I've just

started Jaimini Sutras that too I

still to complete the shlokas of Brihat Jataka.

Sri Narasimha always

quotes that you are very kind and considers all

opinion. Hope you

will consider this * my opinion *. I always pray

to Goddess

Mookambika to help me restrain from doing

something incorrect. May

Goddess bless me, and you.

Best Regards,

Saaji

varahamihira , " Sanjay

Rath " <guruji@s...>

wrote:

>

> Jaya Jagannatha

> Dear Jyotisa

> Forgot to mention...those of you who do not

believe in Sadhana can

skip the

> first chapter of that work and go straight to

'Understanding

Parasara'. I

> have given arguments that 'PARASARA USES 8

CHARA KARAKA himself'

> With best wishes and warm regards,

> Sanjay Rath

> * * *

> Sri Jagannath CenterR

> 15B Gangaram

Hospital Road

> New Delhi

110060, India

> http://srath.com

<http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162

> * * *

>

> _____

>

> Sanjay Rath [guruji@s...]

> Monday, March 14, 2005 8:33 PM

> vedic astrology ;

varahamihira

> |Sri Varaha| Atmakaraka 52 page doc

>

> Jaya Jagannatha

> Dear Jyotisa

> I have seen many arguments in these lists

about the seven and eight

chara

> karaka. I have uploaded a 52 page document

titled Atmakaraka which

was the

> handout for the SJC West Coast conference in

2003. Please go

through this

> first and hen get into debates. All I am

requesting is -

> PLEASE READ THIS DOCUMENT FIRST and then give

your opinion. If

there is any

> portion thereof which cannot be understood,

please the West coast

CD and I

> am always there to answer.

> There are references to

> 1. Parasara

> 2. Jaimini

> 3. Mahadeva Jataka Tatva

> other documents and works. Please read the

references for yourself.

> The link is at http://srath.com/lectures/ak.pdf

>

> With best wishes and warm regards,

> Sanjay Rath

> * * *

> Sri Jagannath CenterR

> 15B Gangaram

Hospital Road

> New Delhi

110060, India

> http://srath.com

<http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162

> * * *

>

> |Om Tat Sat|

>

Sponsor

>

<http://us.ard./SIG=129j5go9p/M=298184.6018725.7038619.300117

6/D=gr

>

oups/S=1705082690:HM/EXP=1110899019/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http:

//www.

> netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075> click

here

>

> <http://us.adserver./l?

M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=groups/S=

> :HM/A=2593423/rand=886250985>

>

> _____

>

March 14, 2005

Dear Sanjay,

If you are disturbed on the discussions on Sadhana going on currently,

do not get perturbed. I am certain all of those who are participating

are doing Sadhana. The Lord has said that Gyana Yoga is shreshtha.

na hi GYaanena sadRishyaM pavitramiha vidyate |

tatsvayaM yogasaMsiddhaH kaalenaatmani vindati ||4.38||

So even those who are not doing religious Sadhana but are pursuing

attainment of knowledge are doing Sadhana, though they might not be

aware of that.

Chandrashekhar.

Sanjay Rath wrote:

Jaya Jagannatha

Dear Jyotisa

Forgot to mention...those of you who do not

believe in Sadhana can skip the first chapter of that work and go

straight to 'Understanding Parasara'. I have given arguments that

'PARASARA USES 8 CHARA KARAKA himself'

With best wishes and

warm regards,

Sanjay Rath

* * *

Sri

Jagannath Center®

15B

Gangaram Hospital Road

New Delhi

110060, India

http://srath.com, +91-11-25717162

* * *

Sanjay Rath [guruji]

Monday, March 14, 2005 8:33 PM

vedic astrology ;

varahamihira

|Sri Varaha| Atmakaraka 52 page doc

Jaya Jagannatha

Dear Jyotisa

I have seen many arguments in these lists

about the seven and eight chara karaka. I have uploaded a 52 page

document titled Atmakaraka which was the handout for the SJC West Coast

conference in 2003. Please go through this first and hen get into

debates. All I am requesting is -

PLEASE READ THIS DOCUMENT FIRST and then

give your opinion. If there is any portion thereof which cannot be

understood, please the West coast CD and I am always there to answer.

There are references to

1. Parasara

2. Jaimini

3. Mahadeva Jataka Tatva

other documents and works. Please read the

references for yourself.

The link is at http://srath.com/lectures/ak.pdf

With best wishes

and warm regards,

Sanjay Rath

* * *

Sri

Jagannath Center®

15B

Gangaram Hospital Road

New Delhi

110060, India

http://srath.com, +91-11-25717162

* * *

|Om Tat Sat|

http://www.varahamihira

|Om Tat Sat|

http://www.varahamihira

Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release 3/11/2005

March 15, 2005

Vistiji, I understand what you want to prove : ) Please see archives,

you will get all information.

varahamihira , " Visti Larsen " <visti@s...>

wrote:

> ||Hare Rama Krsna||

>

> Dear Saaji, Namaskar

>

> You wrote:

>

> Personally, I hold the view that whenever acharyas hold different

> views, one should follow one's Guru.

>

> Who is your Guru?

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Visti Larsen

>

> <http://srigaruda.com> http://srigaruda.com

>

> <visti@s...> visti@s...

>

_____

>

> saaji kulangara [saajik]

> 14 March 2005 17:42

> varahamihira

> |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

>

> Dear Sanjay Ji,

>

> Personally, I hold the view that whenever acharyas hold different

> views, one should follow one's Guru. Here in this case, I'd say

that

> Maharshi Parasara also only quotes the views. This is the same as

> what the great Varahamihira says, that he doesn't formulate

anything

> but only quotes the different views of great rishis and authors.

The

> different schemes might work in different times (acharyas do their

> work considering the combinations for all times) and also as per

the

> advise of Gurus, hence they used to only quote the different views.

> Maharshi Parasara is only one of the 18 acharyas though he is the

> acharya of Jyotish in Kaliyuga. Though Sanskrit is flexible, in the

> shlokas quoted by you, in 34.1 He first mentions seven karaka

scheme

> then eight. Being a great Rishi He could have specified what's

right

> and what's wrong or what's his opinion, he doesn't seem to specify

> that. Since he specifies both schemes, can't that be, His courtesy

to

> speak about the yoga of 8 karaka scheme also in the same way?

>

> This is the shloka quoted by Dr Raman which he says is from BPHS:

>

> ravyadi Sani paryanta bhavanti saptakarakaha

> Amsaih Samyam grahaih dwou cha Rahum tangunayodwijaha

>

> This is a very simple sholka which I can also understand. BPHS is

> said to have many editions and interpolations.

>

> In Jaimini Sutras, Jaimini mentions both schemes. Here also why

> should a Maharshi quote both schemes when He could have specified

> something? In a " Sutra " I don't think Maharshi will add something

> which is not important.

>

> Acharyas of recent times have only quoted those of earlier times.

> Whenever they got two opinions, they quoted both as it was

difficult

> to specify which one is correct. ** Rishi proktams should have to

be

> correct evenif they contradict.** As such saying one is correct is

> not correct.

>

> Since Mahadeva is of Kaliyuga, 8 karaka scheme may be important in

> Kaliyuga for living beings. My conclusion is that I cant specify

> which one is correct, as I can only quote these things. Thereafter

> I'll say that I use this Scheme.

>

> I don't know why I am writing this when I am not an expert

> of " Parasari " or Jaimini. I've just started Jaimini Sutras that too

I

> still to complete the shlokas of Brihat Jataka. Sri Narasimha

always

> quotes that you are very kind and considers all opinion. Hope you

> will consider this * my opinion *. I always pray to Goddess

> Mookambika to help me restrain from doing something incorrect. May

> Goddess bless me, and you.

>

> Best Regards,

>

> Saaji

>

> varahamihira , " Sanjay Rath " <guruji@s...>

> wrote:

> >

> > Jaya Jagannatha

> > Dear Jyotisa

> > Forgot to mention...those of you who do not believe in Sadhana

can

> skip the

> > first chapter of that work and go straight to 'Understanding

> Parasara'. I

> > have given arguments that 'PARASARA USES 8 CHARA KARAKA himself'

> > With best wishes and warm regards,

> > Sanjay Rath

> > * * *

> > Sri Jagannath CenterR

> > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road

> > New Delhi 110060, India

> > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162

> > * * *

> >

> > _____

> >

> > Sanjay Rath [guruji@s...]

> > Monday, March 14, 2005 8:33 PM

> > vedic astrology ; varahamihira

> > |Sri Varaha| Atmakaraka 52 page doc

> >

> > Jaya Jagannatha

> > Dear Jyotisa

> > I have seen many arguments in these lists about the seven and

eight

> chara

> > karaka. I have uploaded a 52 page document titled Atmakaraka

which

> was the

> > handout for the SJC West Coast conference in 2003. Please go

> through this

> > first and hen get into debates. All I am requesting is -

> > PLEASE READ THIS DOCUMENT FIRST and then give your opinion. If

> there is any

> > portion thereof which cannot be understood, please the West coast

> CD and I

> > am always there to answer.

> > There are references to

> > 1. Parasara

> > 2. Jaimini

> > 3. Mahadeva Jataka Tatva

> > other documents and works. Please read the references for

yourself.

> > The link is at http://srath.com/lectures/ak.pdf

> >

> > With best wishes and warm regards,

> > Sanjay Rath

> > * * *

> > Sri Jagannath CenterR

> > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road

> > New Delhi 110060, India

> > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162

> > * * *

> >

> > |Om Tat Sat|

> >

March 15, 2005

Dear Sanjay ji and All Gurus(including Partha)

I think I have created lot of troubles and feel very sorry for that.

My intentions were not at all to create any problems to the Gurus. I

apologize for any trouble I caused in the list. My point was not to

degrade 'Sadhana' nor anybody doing any kind of sadhana. But I just

wanted to say some thing about 'compulsion' of Sadhana for jyotish

learning.

I do my Sadhana as suggested by H.H.Shankaracharya and Sanjayji daily

without fail but it is to have communication(implicit) with these

great souls everyday. I enjoy that!

Lastly I just want to clarify to Sarbani ji that I am also in the same

Train in which everybody is travelling. We all have the same

destination and are driven by same driver. Possibly I am eating

sometimes some different food!. Once again sorry for the trouble caused.

Thanks a lot for your Time and Astrology.

Prabodh Vekhande

Jai Jai Shankar

Har Har Shankar

varahamihira , Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46> wrote:

> Dear Sanjay,

> If you are disturbed on the discussions on Sadhana going on currently,

> do not get perturbed. I am certain all of those who are participating

> are doing Sadhana. The Lord has said that Gyana Yoga is shreshtha.

>

> na hi GYaanena sadRishyaM pavitramiha vidyate |

> tatsvayaM yogasaMsiddhaH kaalenaatmani vindati ||4.38||

> So even those who are not doing religious Sadhana but are pursuing

> attainment of knowledge are doing Sadhana, though they might not be

> aware of that.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> Sanjay Rath wrote:

>

> >

> > Jaya Jagannatha

> > Dear Jyotisa

> > Forgot to mention...those of you who do not believe in Sadhana can

> > skip the first chapter of that work and go straight to 'Understanding

> > Parasara'. I have given arguments that 'PARASARA USES 8 CHARA KARAKA

> > himself'

> > With best wishes and warm regards,

> > Sanjay Rath

> > * * *

> > Sri Jagannath Center®

> > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road

> > New Delhi 110060, India

> > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/>, +91-11-25717162

> > * * *

> >

------

> > ** Sanjay Rath [guruji@s...]

> > *Sent:* Monday, March 14, 2005 8:33 PM

> > *To:* vedic astrology ;

varahamihira

> > *Subject:* |Sri Varaha| Atmakaraka 52 page doc

> >

> > Jaya Jagannatha

> > Dear Jyotisa

> > I have seen many arguments in these lists about the seven and

> > eight chara karaka. I have uploaded a 52 page document titled

> > Atmakaraka which was the handout for the SJC West Coast conference

> > in 2003. Please go through this first and hen get into debates.

> > All I am requesting is -

> > PLEASE READ THIS DOCUMENT FIRST and then give your opinion. If

> > there is any portion thereof which cannot be understood, please

> > the West coast CD and I am always there to answer.

> > There are references to

> > 1. Parasara

> > 2. Jaimini

> > 3. Mahadeva Jataka Tatva

> > other documents and works. Please read the references for

yourself.

> > The link is at http://srath.com/lectures/ak.pdf

> >

> > With best wishes and warm regards,

> > Sanjay Rath

> > * * *

> > Sri Jagannath Center®

> > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road

> > New Delhi 110060, India

> > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/>, +91-11-25717162

> > * * *

> >

> > |Om Tat Sat|

> >

> > |Om Tat Sat|

> >

> > *

March 15, 2005

||Hare Rama Krsna||

Dear Saaji, Namaskar

I’ve read some of your past

emails.. now i have to guess; is PVR Narasimha Rao your Guru?

If you followed the mails on

list, i’ve requested someone to give their biography when they presented

contradicting views. Please present yours. That way we know the person behind

the email-id, and can better understand why you say the things you say.

Best wishes,

Visti Larsen

visti

saaji kulangara

[saajik]

15 March 2005 05:32

varahamihira

|Sri Varaha| Re:

Atmakaraka 52 page doc

Vistiji, I understand what you want to prove : )

Please see archives,

you will get all information.

varahamihira , " Visti

Larsen " <visti@s...>

wrote:

> ||Hare Rama Krsna||

>

> Dear Saaji, Namaskar

>

> You wrote:

>

> Personally, I hold the view that whenever

acharyas hold different

> views, one should follow one's Guru.

>

> Who is your Guru?

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Visti Larsen

>

> <http://srigaruda.com>

>

> <visti@s...> visti@s...

>

> _____

>

> saaji kulangara [saajik]

> 14 March 2005 17:42

> varahamihira

> |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page

doc

>

> Dear Sanjay Ji,

>

> Personally, I hold the view that whenever

acharyas hold different

> views, one should follow one's Guru. Here in

this case, I'd say

that

> Maharshi Parasara also only quotes the views.

This is the same as

> what the great Varahamihira says, that he

doesn't formulate

anything

> but only quotes the different views of great

rishis and authors.

The

> different schemes might work in different

times (acharyas do their

> work considering the combinations for all

times) and also as per

the

> advise of Gurus, hence they used to only

quote the different views.

> Maharshi Parasara is only one of the 18

acharyas though he is the

> acharya of Jyotish in Kaliyuga. Though

Sanskrit is flexible, in the

> shlokas quoted by you, in 34.1 He first

mentions seven karaka

scheme

> then eight. Being a great Rishi He could have

specified what's

right

> and what's wrong or what's his opinion, he

doesn't seem to specify

> that. Since he specifies both schemes, can't

that be, His courtesy

to

> speak about the yoga of 8 karaka scheme also

in the same way?

>

> This is the shloka quoted by Dr Raman which

he says is from BPHS:

>

> ravyadi Sani paryanta bhavanti saptakarakaha

> Amsaih Samyam grahaih dwou cha Rahum

tangunayodwijaha

>

> This is a very simple sholka which I can also

understand. BPHS is

> said to have many editions and

interpolations.

>

> In Jaimini Sutras, Jaimini mentions both

schemes. Here also why

> should a Maharshi quote both schemes when He

could have specified

> something? In a " Sutra " I don't

think Maharshi will add something

> which is not important.

>

> Acharyas of recent times have only quoted

those of earlier times.

> Whenever they got two opinions, they quoted

both as it was

difficult

> to specify which one is correct. ** Rishi

proktams should have to

be

> correct evenif they contradict.** As such

saying one is correct is

> not correct.

>

> Since Mahadeva is of Kaliyuga, 8 karaka

scheme may be important in

> Kaliyuga for living beings. My conclusion is

that I cant specify

> which one is correct, as I can only quote

these things. Thereafter

> I'll say that I use this Scheme.

>

> I don't know why I am writing this when I am

not an expert

> of " Parasari " or Jaimini. I've just

started Jaimini Sutras that too

I

> still to complete the shlokas of Brihat

Jataka. Sri Narasimha

always

> quotes that you are very kind and considers

all opinion. Hope you

> will consider this * my opinion *. I always

pray to Goddess

> Mookambika to help me restrain from doing

something incorrect. May

> Goddess bless me, and you.

>

> Best Regards,

>

> Saaji

>

> varahamihira ,

" Sanjay Rath " <guruji@s...>

> wrote:

> >

> > Jaya Jagannatha

> > Dear Jyotisa

> > Forgot to mention...those of you who do

not believe in Sadhana

can

> skip the

> > first chapter of that work and go

straight to 'Understanding

> Parasara'. I

> > have given arguments that 'PARASARA USES

8 CHARA KARAKA himself'

> > With best wishes and warm regards,

> > Sanjay Rath

> > * * *

> > Sri Jagannath CenterR

> > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road

> > New Delhi

110060, India

> > http://srath.com

<http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162

> > * * *

> >

> > _____

> >

> > Sanjay Rath [guruji@s...]

> > Monday, March 14, 2005 8:33 PM

> > vedic astrology ;

varahamihira

> > |Sri Varaha| Atmakaraka 52 page

doc

> >

> > Jaya Jagannatha

> > Dear Jyotisa

> > I have seen many arguments in these

lists about the seven and

eight

> chara

> > karaka. I have uploaded a 52 page

document titled Atmakaraka

which

> was the

> > handout for the SJC West Coast

conference in 2003. Please go

> through this

> > first and hen get into debates. All I am

requesting is -

> > PLEASE READ THIS DOCUMENT FIRST and then

give your opinion. If

> there is any

> > portion thereof which cannot be

understood, please the West coast

> CD and I

> > am always there to answer.

> > There are references to

> > 1. Parasara

> > 2. Jaimini

> > 3. Mahadeva Jataka Tatva

> > other documents and works. Please read

the references for

yourself.

> > The link is at http://srath.com/lectures/ak.pdf

> >

> > With best wishes and warm regards,

> > Sanjay Rath

> > * * *

> > Sri Jagannath CenterR

> > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road

> > New Delhi

110060, India

> > http://srath.com

<http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162

> > * * *

> >

> > |Om Tat Sat|

<http://us.ard./SIG=129j5go9p/M=298184.6018725.7038619.300117

> >

Sponsor

> >

>

> 6/D=gr

> >

>

oups/S=1705082690:HM/EXP=1110899019/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http:

> //www.

> > netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075>

click here

> >

> > <http://us.adserver./l?

> M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=groups/S=

> >

:HM/A=2593423/rand=886250985>

> >

> > _____

> >

March 15, 2005

Dear Visti,

I checked up the Guru Shishya list at the office today and asked Mr. Guha Roy. Saaji is Chandrashekharji's shishya.

Best regards,

Sarbani

Visti Larsen [visti] Tuesday, March 15, 2005 4:00 PMvarahamihira Subject: RE: |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

||Hare Rama Krsna||

Dear Saaji, Namaskar

I’ve read some of your past emails.. now i have to guess; is PVR Narasimha Rao your Guru?

If you followed the mails on list, i’ve requested someone to give their biography when they presented contradicting views. Please present yours. That way we know the person behind the email-id, and can better understand why you say the things you say.

Best wishes,

Visti Larsen

> <http://srigaruda.com> http://srigaruda.com

visti

saaji kulangara [saajik] 15 March 2005 05:32varahamihira Subject: |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

Vistiji, I understand what you want to prove : ) Please see archives, you will get all information.varahamihira , "Visti Larsen" <visti@s...> wrote:> ||Hare Rama Krsna||> > Dear Saaji, Namaskar> > You wrote: > > Personally, I hold the view that whenever acharyas hold different > views, one should follow one's Guru.> > > > Who is your Guru?> > Best wishes,> > > > > Visti Larsen> > <http://srigaruda.com> http://srigaruda.com> > <visti@s...> visti@s... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > saaji kulangara [saajik] > 14 March 2005 17:42> varahamihira > |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc> > > > > Dear Sanjay Ji,> > Personally, I hold the view that whenever acharyas hold different > views, one should follow one's Guru. Here in this case, I'd say that > Maharshi Parasara also only quotes the views. This is the same as > what the great Varahamihira says, that he doesn't formulate anything > but only quotes the different views of great rishis and authors. The > different schemes might work in different times (acharyas do their > work considering the combinations for all times) and also as per the > advise of Gurus, hence they used to only quote the different views. > Maharshi Parasara is only one of the 18 acharyas though he is the > acharya of Jyotish in Kaliyuga. Though Sanskrit is flexible, in the > shlokas quoted by you, in 34.1 He first mentions seven karaka scheme > then eight. Being a great Rishi He could have specified what's right > and what's wrong or what's his opinion, he doesn't seem to specify > that. Since he specifies both schemes, can't that be, His courtesy to > speak about the yoga of 8 karaka scheme also in the same way? > > This is the shloka quoted by Dr Raman which he says is from BPHS:> > ravyadi Sani paryanta bhavanti saptakarakaha> Amsaih Samyam grahaih dwou cha Rahum tangunayodwijaha> > This is a very simple sholka which I can also understand. BPHS is > said to have many editions and interpolations.> > In Jaimini Sutras, Jaimini mentions both schemes. Here also why > should a Maharshi quote both schemes when He could have specified > something? In a "Sutra" I don't think Maharshi will add something > which is not important. > > Acharyas of recent times have only quoted those of earlier times. > Whenever they got two opinions, they quoted both as it was difficult > to specify which one is correct. ** Rishi proktams should have to be > correct evenif they contradict.** As such saying one is correct is > not correct.> > Since Mahadeva is of Kaliyuga, 8 karaka scheme may be important in > Kaliyuga for living beings. My conclusion is that I cant specify > which one is correct, as I can only quote these things. Thereafter > I'll say that I use this Scheme.> > I don't know why I am writing this when I am not an expert > of "Parasari" or Jaimini. I've just started Jaimini Sutras that too I > still to complete the shlokas of Brihat Jataka. Sri Narasimha always > quotes that you are very kind and considers all opinion. Hope you > will consider this * my opinion *. I always pray to Goddess > Mookambika to help me restrain from doing something incorrect. May > Goddess bless me, and you.> > Best Regards,> > Saaji> > > > > varahamihira , "Sanjay Rath" <guruji@s...> > wrote:> > > > Jaya Jagannatha> > Dear Jyotisa> > Forgot to mention...those of you who do not believe in Sadhana can > skip the> > first chapter of that work and go straight to 'Understanding > Parasara'. I> > have given arguments that 'PARASARA USES 8 CHARA KARAKA himself'> > With best wishes and warm regards,> > Sanjay Rath> > * * *> > Sri Jagannath CenterR> > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road > > New Delhi 110060, India> > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162> > * * *> > > > > > > > _____ > > > > Sanjay Rath [guruji@s...] > > Monday, March 14, 2005 8:33 PM> > vedic astrology ; varahamihira > > |Sri Varaha| Atmakaraka 52 page doc> > > > > > Jaya Jagannatha> > Dear Jyotisa> > I have seen many arguments in these lists about the seven and eight > chara> > karaka. I have uploaded a 52 page document titled Atmakaraka which > was the> > handout for the SJC West Coast conference in 2003. Please go > through this> > first and hen get into debates. All I am requesting is -> > PLEASE READ THIS DOCUMENT FIRST and then give your opinion. If > there is any> > portion thereof which cannot be understood, please the West coast > CD and I> > am always there to answer.> > There are references to> > 1. Parasara> > 2. Jaimini> > 3. Mahadeva Jataka Tatva> > other documents and works. Please read the references for yourself.> > The link is at http://srath.com/lectures/ak.pdf> > > > With best wishes and warm regards,> > Sanjay Rath> > * * *> > Sri Jagannath CenterR> > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road > > New Delhi 110060, India> > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162> > * * *> > > > > > > > |Om Tat Sat|> > http://www.varahamihira > > > > > > > >

March 15, 2005

Vistiji,

Well, you got the mail fm Sarbaniji.

I was offlist for sometime, hence I didn't see your post. I joined

SJC 9 months back, but I was learning astrology for quite sometime

before. I was very inspired by SJC and that's why I joined SJC. I

wrote this to Sanjay Ji in one of our personal mails then. Sri

Chandrashekhar Sharma is my Guru. I'm grateful to God in this regard.

My family background etc; I don't want to write, I'm sure that you

are not looking for that information.(This also you will get from my

previous posts) I have no expectations from Jyotish(fame, name, money

whatever) but I become very happy when some one finds my post useful.

This time I posted my views, first I was amused by the way the posts

went in Probodh's case. And I hope so long as they are posted in

groups others can give their opinion. (Sarbaniji, Jyotish is not a

Para Vidya, so long as my reading in Upanishads go, only brahmagyana

is para vidya. I've a text of 110 Upanishads translated) and another

time, Sanjay Ji wanted to have the opinion after going through the

article. I think the post was not liked by you and probably by Sanjay

Ji also, and I would take care of this in future.

Any further mails in this regard, please send to my personal id.

Best Regards,

Saaji

varahamihira , " Sarbani Sarkar " <sarbani@s...>

wrote:

> Dear Visti,

>

> I checked up the Guru Shishya list at the office today and asked

Mr. Guha

> Roy. Saaji is Chandrashekharji's shishya.

>

> Best regards,

>

> Sarbani

>

> _____

>

> Visti Larsen [visti@s...]

> Tuesday, March 15, 2005 4:00 PM

> varahamihira

> RE: |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

>

> ||Hare Rama Krsna||

>

> Dear Saaji, Namaskar

>

> I've read some of your past emails.. now i have to guess; is PVR

Narasimha

> Rao your Guru?

>

> If you followed the mails on list, i've requested

someone to

> give their biography when they presented contradicting views.

Please present

> yours. That way we know the person behind the email-id, and can

better

> understand why you say the things you say.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Visti Larsen

>

>

> <visti@s...> visti@s...

>

_____

>

> saaji kulangara [saajik]

> 15 March 2005 05:32

> varahamihira

> |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

>

> Vistiji, I understand what you want to prove : ) Please see

archives,

> you will get all information.

>

> varahamihira , " Visti Larsen " <visti@s...>

> wrote:

> > ||Hare Rama Krsna||

> >

> > Dear Saaji, Namaskar

> >

> > You wrote:

> >

> > Personally, I hold the view that whenever acharyas hold different

> > views, one should follow one's Guru.

> >

> > Who is your Guru?

> >

> > Best wishes,

> >

> > Visti Larsen

> >

> >

> > <visti@s...> visti@s...

> >

> > _____

> >

> > saaji kulangara [saajik]

> > 14 March 2005 17:42

> > varahamihira

> > |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

> >

> > Dear Sanjay Ji,

> >

> > Personally, I hold the view that whenever acharyas hold different

> > views, one should follow one's Guru. Here in this case, I'd say

> that

> > Maharshi Parasara also only quotes the views. This is the same as

> > what the great Varahamihira says, that he doesn't formulate

> anything

> > but only quotes the different views of great rishis and authors.

> The

> > different schemes might work in different times (acharyas do

their

> > work considering the combinations for all times) and also as per

> the

> > advise of Gurus, hence they used to only quote the different

views.

> > Maharshi Parasara is only one of the 18 acharyas though he is the

> > acharya of Jyotish in Kaliyuga. Though Sanskrit is flexible, in

the

> > shlokas quoted by you, in 34.1 He first mentions seven karaka

> scheme

> > then eight. Being a great Rishi He could have specified what's

> right

> > and what's wrong or what's his opinion, he doesn't seem to

specify

> > that. Since he specifies both schemes, can't that be, His

courtesy

> to

> > speak about the yoga of 8 karaka scheme also in the same way?

> >

> > This is the shloka quoted by Dr Raman which he says is from BPHS:

> >

> > ravyadi Sani paryanta bhavanti saptakarakaha

> > Amsaih Samyam grahaih dwou cha Rahum tangunayodwijaha

> >

> > This is a very simple sholka which I can also understand. BPHS is

> > said to have many editions and interpolations.

> >

> > In Jaimini Sutras, Jaimini mentions both schemes. Here also why

> > should a Maharshi quote both schemes when He could have specified

> > something? In a " Sutra " I don't think Maharshi will add something

> > which is not important.

> >

> > Acharyas of recent times have only quoted those of earlier times.

> > Whenever they got two opinions, they quoted both as it was

> difficult

> > to specify which one is correct. ** Rishi proktams should have to

> be

> > correct evenif they contradict.** As such saying one is correct

is

> > not correct.

> >

> > Since Mahadeva is of Kaliyuga, 8 karaka scheme may be important

in

> > Kaliyuga for living beings. My conclusion is that I cant specify

> > which one is correct, as I can only quote these things.

Thereafter

> > I'll say that I use this Scheme.

> >

> > I don't know why I am writing this when I am not an expert

> > of " Parasari " or Jaimini. I've just started Jaimini Sutras that

too

> I

> > still to complete the shlokas of Brihat Jataka. Sri Narasimha

> always

> > quotes that you are very kind and considers all opinion. Hope you

> > will consider this * my opinion *. I always pray to Goddess

> > Mookambika to help me restrain from doing something incorrect.

May

> > Goddess bless me, and you.

> >

> > Best Regards,

> >

> > Saaji

> >

> > varahamihira , " Sanjay Rath " <guruji@s...>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Jaya Jagannatha

> > > Dear Jyotisa

> > > Forgot to mention...those of you who do not believe in Sadhana

> can

> > skip the

> > > first chapter of that work and go straight to 'Understanding

> > Parasara'. I

> > > have given arguments that 'PARASARA USES 8 CHARA KARAKA himself'

> > > With best wishes and warm regards,

> > > Sanjay Rath

> > > * * *

> > > Sri Jagannath CenterR

> > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road

> > > New Delhi 110060, India

> > > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162

> > > * * *

> > >

> > > _____

> > >

> > > Sanjay Rath [guruji@s...]

> > > Monday, March 14, 2005 8:33 PM

> > > vedic astrology ;

varahamihira

> > > |Sri Varaha| Atmakaraka 52 page doc

> > >

> > > Jaya Jagannatha

> > > Dear Jyotisa

> > > I have seen many arguments in these lists about the seven and

> eight

> > chara

> > > karaka. I have uploaded a 52 page document titled Atmakaraka

> which

> > was the

> > > handout for the SJC West Coast conference in 2003. Please go

> > through this

> > > first and hen get into debates. All I am requesting is -

> > > PLEASE READ THIS DOCUMENT FIRST and then give your opinion. If

> > there is any

> > > portion thereof which cannot be understood, please the West

coast

> > CD and I

> > > am always there to answer.

> > > There are references to

> > > 1. Parasara

> > > 2. Jaimini

> > > 3. Mahadeva Jataka Tatva

> > > other documents and works. Please read the references for

> yourself.

> > > The link is at http://srath.com/lectures/ak.pdf

> > >

> > > With best wishes and warm regards,

> > > Sanjay Rath

> > > * * *

> > > Sri Jagannath CenterR

> > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road

> > > New Delhi 110060, India

> > > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162

> > > * * *

> > >

> > > |Om Tat Sat|

> > > http://www.varahamihira

> > >

March 15, 2005

Jaya Jagannatha

Dear Jyotisa

Forgot to mention...those of you who do not believe in Sadhana can skip the first chapter of that work and go straight to 'Understanding Parasara'. I have given arguments that 'PARASARA USES 8 CHARA KARAKA himself'

With best wishes and warm regards,

Sanjay Rath

* * *

Sri Jagannath Center®

15B Gangaram Hospital Road

New Delhi 110060, India

http://srath.com, +91-11-25717162

* * *

Sanjay Rath [guruji] Monday, March 14, 2005 8:33 PMvedic astrology ; varahamihira Subject: |Sri Varaha| Atmakaraka 52 page doc

Jaya Jagannatha

Dear Jyotisa

I have seen many arguments in these lists about the seven and eight chara karaka. I have uploaded a 52 page document titled Atmakaraka which was the handout for the SJC West Coast conference in 2003. Please go through this first and hen get into debates. All I am requesting is -

PLEASE READ THIS DOCUMENT FIRST and then give your opinion. If there is any portion thereof which cannot be understood, please the West coast CD and I am always there to answer.

There are references to

1. Parasara

2. Jaimini

3. Mahadeva Jataka Tatva

other documents and works. Please read the references for yourself.

The link is at http://srath.com/lectures/ak.pdf

With best wishes and warm regards,

Sanjay Rath

* * *

Sri Jagannath Center®

15B Gangaram Hospital Road

New Delhi 110060, India

http://srath.com, +91-11-25717162

* * *

|Om Tat Sat|http://www.varahamihira

March 15, 2005

Jaya Jagannatha

Dear Saaji

SAD...you did not read the paper I sent and have started giving great quotes. Have you read the chapter titled Understanding Parasara? Can you refute the fact that Parasara uses eight charakaraka himself as he talks of a Rajyoga when the Atmakaraka and the Putrakaraka are involved.

Parasara clearly mentions that there ae two schemes - one from the Sun to Saturn and the other that includes Rahu. He also accepts that there is controversy regarding this...bound to be as Rahu always causes controversy. Then Parasara goes on to say that Atmakaraka and Putrakaraka constitute Maharaja Yoga just as Lagna lord and fifth lord constitute Maharaja yoga.

PLEASE note that there is NO PUTRAKARAKA in 7 charakaraka scheme due to the dictum 'matri saha putram eke' i.e. in the 7 chara karaka the Putrakaraka is absent as it merges with Matri and then how can there be a Rajyoga between Atmakaraa and Putrakaraka when there is no putrakaraka?

Now to get out of this problem, the learned pundits kicked Pitrikaraka out and introduced a new 7-charakaraka scheme where the Putrakaraka is used instead of the Pitrikaraka!!!

Please tell me first -

1. Which seven chara karaka scheme do you follow and why?

2. What happens when either there is no putrakaraka or no Pitrikaraka (depends on the one you follow).

3. What & charakaraka scheme has Parasara and Jaimini advocated? To my knowledge they use Pirtikaraka for the 7 charakaraka scheme and not Putrakaraka.

Now Saaji I am happy you asked this question and I am happy that you are going to read that document before answering this. So please make me happy. It is important that you ask questions so that I know which areas of the paper are weak and then I will start quoting the vedas and other texts for the charakaraka...this is really necessary.

I have alwas respected the elders but then whatever they say need not be right. In this matter I cannot agree with Dr Raman. We at Jagannath Puri have a much stronger foundation in matters of the Atmakaraka and the other charakaraka. See the arguments I give.

In fact in Sundays class on Amatyakaraka I showed how the professon can be seen from the rasi chart using the Amatyakaraka and how to find the future Prime Ministers who will hang on in the seat of India for a few years at least...I think those lessons are being noted for the benefit of all.

With best wishes and warm regards,

Sanjay Rath

* * *

Sri Jagannath Center®

15B Gangaram Hospital Road

New Delhi 110060, India

http://srath.com, +91-11-25717162

* * *

saaji kulangara [saajik] Monday, March 14, 2005 10:12 PMvarahamihira Subject: |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

Dear Sanjay Ji,Personally, I hold the view that whenever acharyas hold different views, one should follow one's Guru. Here in this case, I'd say that Maharshi Parasara also only quotes the views. This is the same as what the great Varahamihira says, that he doesn't formulate anything but only quotes the different views of great rishis and authors. The different schemes might work in different times (acharyas do their work considering the combinations for all times) and also as per the advise of Gurus, hence they used to only quote the different views. Maharshi Parasara is only one of the 18 acharyas though he is the acharya of Jyotish in Kaliyuga. Though Sanskrit is flexible, in the shlokas quoted by you, in 34.1 He first mentions seven karaka scheme then eight. Being a great Rishi He could have specified what's right and what's wrong or what's his opinion, he doesn't seem to specify that. Since he specifies both schemes, can't that be, His courtesy to speak about the yoga of 8 karaka scheme also in the same way? This is the shloka quoted by Dr Raman which he says is from BPHS:ravyadi Sani paryanta bhavanti saptakarakahaAmsaih Samyam grahaih dwou cha Rahum tangunayodwijahaThis is a very simple sholka which I can also understand. BPHS is said to have many editions and interpolations.In Jaimini Sutras, Jaimini mentions both schemes. Here also why should a Maharshi quote both schemes when He could have specified something? In a "Sutra" I don't think Maharshi will add something which is not important. Acharyas of recent times have only quoted those of earlier times. Whenever they got two opinions, they quoted both as it was difficult to specify which one is correct. ** Rishi proktams should have to be correct evenif they contradict.** As such saying one is correct is not correct.Since Mahadeva is of Kaliyuga, 8 karaka scheme may be important in Kaliyuga for living beings. My conclusion is that I cant specify which one is correct, as I can only quote these things. Thereafter I'll say that I use this Scheme.I don't know why I am writing this when I am not an expert of "Parasari" or Jaimini. I've just started Jaimini Sutras that too I still to complete the shlokas of Brihat Jataka. Sri Narasimha always quotes that you are very kind and considers all opinion. Hope you will consider this * my opinion *. I always pray to Goddess Mookambika to help me restrain from doing something incorrect. May Goddess bless me, and you.Best Regards,Saajivarahamihira , "Sanjay Rath" <guruji@s...> wrote:> > Jaya Jagannatha> Dear Jyotisa> Forgot to mention...those of you who do not believe in Sadhana can skip the> first chapter of that work and go straight to 'Understanding Parasara'. I> have given arguments that 'PARASARA USES 8 CHARA KARAKA himself'> With best wishes and warm regards,> Sanjay Rath> * * *> Sri Jagannath CenterR> 15B Gangaram Hospital Road > New Delhi 110060, India> http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162> * * *> > > > _____ > > Sanjay Rath [guruji@s...] > Monday, March 14, 2005 8:33 PM> vedic astrology ; varahamihira > |Sri Varaha| Atmakaraka 52 page doc> > > Jaya Jagannatha> Dear Jyotisa> I have seen many arguments in these lists about the seven and eight chara> karaka. I have uploaded a 52 page document titled Atmakaraka which was the> handout for the SJC West Coast conference in 2003. Please go through this> first and hen get into debates. All I am requesting is -> PLEASE READ THIS DOCUMENT FIRST and then give your opinion. If there is any> portion thereof which cannot be understood, please the West coast CD and I> am always there to answer.> There are references to> 1. Parasara> 2. Jaimini> 3. Mahadeva Jataka Tatva> other documents and works. Please read the references for yourself.> The link is at http://srath.com/lectures/ak.pdf> > With best wishes and warm regards,> Sanjay Rath> * * *> Sri Jagannath CenterR> 15B Gangaram Hospital Road > New Delhi 110060, India> http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162> * * *> > > > |Om Tat Sat|> http://www.varahamihira > > > >

March 15, 2005

Dear Sanjay Ji,

Thank you very much for the reply. I had read the portion mentioned

by you, probably not the way you expected. It's in Understanding

Parasara only you quote the shlokas, which was the basis of my reply.

You wrote:

" PLEASE note that there is NO PUTRAKARAKA in 7 charakaraka scheme due

to the dictum 'matri saha putram eke' i.e. in the 7 chara karaka the

Putrakaraka is absent as it merges with Matri and then how can there

be a Rajyoga between Atmakaraa and Putrakaraka when there is no

putrakaraka?

Now to get out of this problem, the learned pundits kicked

Pitrikaraka out and introduced a new 7-charakaraka scheme where the

Putrakaraka is used instead of the Pitrikaraka!!! "

The Rajayoga is not important for me as it can also mean Guru(Su 22,

Jaimini), but the last line is interesting. This one I didn't see in

the file. Please let me work on this. However onething I don't

understand, why in such state also they are getting results? My

arguments were based on these things.

I have just started Jaimini, I'll work in detail and will send you a

detailed mail later. You are probably short of time.

Best Regards,

Saaji

varahamihira , " Sanjay Rath " <guruji@s...>

wrote:

> Jaya Jagannatha

> Dear Saaji

>

> SAD...you did not read the paper I sent and have started giving

great

> quotes. Have you read the chapter titled Understanding Parasara?

Can you

> refute the fact that Parasara uses eight charakaraka himself as he

talks of

> a Rajyoga when the Atmakaraka and the Putrakaraka are involved.

>

> Parasara clearly mentions that there ae two schemes - one from the

Sun to

> Saturn and the other that includes Rahu. He also accepts that there

is

> controversy regarding this...bound to be as Rahu always causes

controversy.

> Then Parasara goes on to say that Atmakaraka and Putrakaraka

constitute

> Maharaja Yoga just as Lagna lord and fifth lord constitute Maharaja

yoga.

>

> PLEASE note that there is NO PUTRAKARAKA in 7 charakaraka scheme

due to the

> dictum 'matri saha putram eke' i.e. in the 7 chara karaka the

Putrakaraka is

> absent as it merges with Matri and then how can there be a Rajyoga

between

> Atmakaraa and Putrakaraka when there is no putrakaraka?

> Now to get out of this problem, the learned pundits kicked

Pitrikaraka out

> and introduced a new 7-charakaraka scheme where the Putrakaraka is

used

> instead of the Pitrikaraka!!!

>

> Please tell me first -

> 1. Which seven chara karaka scheme do you follow and why?

> 2. What happens when either there is no putrakaraka or no

Pitrikaraka

> (depends on the one you follow).

> 3. What & charakaraka scheme has Parasara and Jaimini advocated? To

my

> knowledge they use Pirtikaraka for the 7 charakaraka scheme and not

> Putrakaraka.

> Now Saaji I am happy you asked this question and I am happy that

you are

> going to read that document before answering this. So please make

me happy.

> It is important that you ask questions so that I know which areas

of the

> paper are weak and then I will start quoting the vedas and other

texts for

> the charakaraka...this is really necessary.

>

> I have alwas respected the elders but then whatever they say need

not be

> right. In this matter I cannot agree with Dr Raman. We at Jagannath

Puri

> have a much stronger foundation in matters of the Atmakaraka and

the other

> charakaraka. See the arguments I give.

>

> In fact in Sundays class on Amatyakaraka I showed how the professon

can be

> seen from the rasi chart using the Amatyakaraka and how to find the

future

> Prime Ministers who will hang on in the seat of India for a few

years at

> least...I think those lessons are being noted for the benefit of

all.

>

> With best wishes and warm regards,

> Sanjay Rath

> * * *

> Sri Jagannath CenterR

> 15B Gangaram Hospital Road

> New Delhi 110060, India

> http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162

> * * *

>

> _____

>

> saaji kulangara [saajik]

> Monday, March 14, 2005 10:12 PM

> varahamihira

> |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

>

> Dear Sanjay Ji,

>

> Personally, I hold the view that whenever acharyas hold different

> views, one should follow one's Guru. Here in this case, I'd say

that

> Maharshi Parasara also only quotes the views. This is the same as

> what the great Varahamihira says, that he doesn't formulate

anything

> but only quotes the different views of great rishis and authors.

The

> different schemes might work in different times (acharyas do their

> work considering the combinations for all times) and also as per

the

> advise of Gurus, hence they used to only quote the different views.

> Maharshi Parasara is only one of the 18 acharyas though he is the

> acharya of Jyotish in Kaliyuga. Though Sanskrit is flexible, in the

> shlokas quoted by you, in 34.1 He first mentions seven karaka

scheme

> then eight. Being a great Rishi He could have specified what's

right

> and what's wrong or what's his opinion, he doesn't seem to specify

> that. Since he specifies both schemes, can't that be, His courtesy

to

> speak about the yoga of 8 karaka scheme also in the same way?

>

> This is the shloka quoted by Dr Raman which he says is from BPHS:

>

> ravyadi Sani paryanta bhavanti saptakarakaha

> Amsaih Samyam grahaih dwou cha Rahum tangunayodwijaha

>

> This is a very simple sholka which I can also understand. BPHS is

> said to have many editions and interpolations.

>

> In Jaimini Sutras, Jaimini mentions both schemes. Here also why

> should a Maharshi quote both schemes when He could have specified

> something? In a " Sutra " I don't think Maharshi will add something

> which is not important.

>

> Acharyas of recent times have only quoted those of earlier times.

> Whenever they got two opinions, they quoted both as it was

difficult

> to specify which one is correct. ** Rishi proktams should have to

be

> correct evenif they contradict.** As such saying one is correct is

> not correct.

>

> Since Mahadeva is of Kaliyuga, 8 karaka scheme may be important in

> Kaliyuga for living beings. My conclusion is that I cant specify

> which one is correct, as I can only quote these things. Thereafter

> I'll say that I use this Scheme.

>

> I don't know why I am writing this when I am not an expert

> of " Parasari " or Jaimini. I've just started Jaimini Sutras that too

I

> still to complete the shlokas of Brihat Jataka. Sri Narasimha

always

> quotes that you are very kind and considers all opinion. Hope you

> will consider this * my opinion *. I always pray to Goddess

> Mookambika to help me restrain from doing something incorrect. May

> Goddess bless me, and you.

>

> Best Regards,

>

> Saaji

>

> varahamihira , " Sanjay Rath " <guruji@s...>

> wrote:

> >

> > Jaya Jagannatha

> > Dear Jyotisa

> > Forgot to mention...those of you who do not believe in Sadhana

can

> skip the

> > first chapter of that work and go straight to 'Understanding

> Parasara'. I

> > have given arguments that 'PARASARA USES 8 CHARA KARAKA himself'

> > With best wishes and warm regards,

> > Sanjay Rath

> > * * *

> > Sri Jagannath CenterR

> > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road

> > New Delhi 110060, India

> > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162

> > * * *

> >

> > _____

> >

> > Sanjay Rath [guruji@s...]

> > Monday, March 14, 2005 8:33 PM

> > vedic astrology ; varahamihira

> > |Sri Varaha| Atmakaraka 52 page doc

> >

> > Jaya Jagannatha

> > Dear Jyotisa

> > I have seen many arguments in these lists about the seven and

eight

> chara

> > karaka. I have uploaded a 52 page document titled Atmakaraka

which

> was the

> > handout for the SJC West Coast conference in 2003. Please go

> through this

> > first and hen get into debates. All I am requesting is -

> > PLEASE READ THIS DOCUMENT FIRST and then give your opinion. If

> there is any

> > portion thereof which cannot be understood, please the West coast

> CD and I

> > am always there to answer.

> > There are references to

> > 1. Parasara

> > 2. Jaimini

> > 3. Mahadeva Jataka Tatva

> > other documents and works. Please read the references for

yourself.

> > The link is at http://srath.com/lectures/ak.pdf

> >

> > With best wishes and warm regards,

> > Sanjay Rath

> > * * *

> > Sri Jagannath CenterR

> > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road

> > New Delhi 110060, India

> > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162

> > * * *

> >

> > |Om Tat Sat|

> >

March 15, 2005

Jaya Jagannatha

Dear Saaji

I didn't understand...getting what results?

Which Rajyoga is not important for you? The Maharaja Yoga? Why??!! I am not talking of Jaimini at all. I am talking only of Parasara. This Rajyoga is mentioned by Parasara in BPHS. The sloka is mentioned in my paper.

With best wishes and warm regards,

Sanjay Rath

* * *

Sri Jagannath Center®

15B Gangaram Hospital Road

New Delhi 110060, India

http://srath.com, +91-11-25717162

* * *

saaji kulangara [saajik] Tuesday, March 15, 2005 11:35 PMvarahamihira Subject: |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

Dear Sanjay Ji,Thank you very much for the reply. I had read the portion mentioned by you, probably not the way you expected. It's in Understanding Parasara only you quote the shlokas, which was the basis of my reply. You wrote:"PLEASE note that there is NO PUTRAKARAKA in 7 charakaraka scheme due to the dictum 'matri saha putram eke' i.e. in the 7 chara karaka the Putrakaraka is absent as it merges with Matri and then how can there be a Rajyoga between Atmakaraa and Putrakaraka when there is no putrakaraka?Now to get out of this problem, the learned pundits kicked Pitrikaraka out and introduced a new 7-charakaraka scheme where the Putrakaraka is used instead of the Pitrikaraka!!!"The Rajayoga is not important for me as it can also mean Guru(Su 22, Jaimini), but the last line is interesting. This one I didn't see in the file. Please let me work on this. However onething I don't understand, why in such state also they are getting results? My arguments were based on these things.I have just started Jaimini, I'll work in detail and will send you a detailed mail later. You are probably short of time.Best Regards,Saajivarahamihira , "Sanjay Rath" <guruji@s...> wrote:> Jaya Jagannatha> Dear Saaji> > SAD...you did not read the paper I sent and have started giving great> quotes. Have you read the chapter titled Understanding Parasara? Can you> refute the fact that Parasara uses eight charakaraka himself as he talks of> a Rajyoga when the Atmakaraka and the Putrakaraka are involved.> > Parasara clearly mentions that there ae two schemes - one from the Sun to> Saturn and the other that includes Rahu. He also accepts that there is> controversy regarding this...bound to be as Rahu always causes controversy.> Then Parasara goes on to say that Atmakaraka and Putrakaraka constitute> Maharaja Yoga just as Lagna lord and fifth lord constitute Maharaja yoga. > > PLEASE note that there is NO PUTRAKARAKA in 7 charakaraka scheme due to the> dictum 'matri saha putram eke' i.e. in the 7 chara karaka the Putrakaraka is> absent as it merges with Matri and then how can there be a Rajyoga between> Atmakaraa and Putrakaraka when there is no putrakaraka?> Now to get out of this problem, the learned pundits kicked Pitrikaraka out> and introduced a new 7-charakaraka scheme where the Putrakaraka is used> instead of the Pitrikaraka!!!> > Please tell me first -> 1. Which seven chara karaka scheme do you follow and why?> 2. What happens when either there is no putrakaraka or no Pitrikaraka> (depends on the one you follow).> 3. What & charakaraka scheme has Parasara and Jaimini advocated? To my> knowledge they use Pirtikaraka for the 7 charakaraka scheme and not> Putrakaraka.> Now Saaji I am happy you asked this question and I am happy that you are> going to read that document before answering this. So please make me happy.> It is important that you ask questions so that I know which areas of the> paper are weak and then I will start quoting the vedas and other texts for> the charakaraka...this is really necessary.> > I have alwas respected the elders but then whatever they say need not be> right. In this matter I cannot agree with Dr Raman. We at Jagannath Puri> have a much stronger foundation in matters of the Atmakaraka and the other> charakaraka. See the arguments I give.> > > > In fact in Sundays class on Amatyakaraka I showed how the professon can be> seen from the rasi chart using the Amatyakaraka and how to find the future> Prime Ministers who will hang on in the seat of India for a few years at> least...I think those lessons are being noted for the benefit of all.> > With best wishes and warm regards,> Sanjay Rath> * * *> Sri Jagannath CenterR> 15B Gangaram Hospital Road > New Delhi 110060, India> http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162> * * *> > > > _____ > > saaji kulangara [saajik] > Monday, March 14, 2005 10:12 PM> varahamihira > |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc> > > > Dear Sanjay Ji,> > Personally, I hold the view that whenever acharyas hold different > views, one should follow one's Guru. Here in this case, I'd say that > Maharshi Parasara also only quotes the views. This is the same as > what the great Varahamihira says, that he doesn't formulate anything > but only quotes the different views of great rishis and authors. The > different schemes might work in different times (acharyas do their > work considering the combinations for all times) and also as per the > advise of Gurus, hence they used to only quote the different views. > Maharshi Parasara is only one of the 18 acharyas though he is the > acharya of Jyotish in Kaliyuga. Though Sanskrit is flexible, in the > shlokas quoted by you, in 34.1 He first mentions seven karaka scheme > then eight. Being a great Rishi He could have specified what's right > and what's wrong or what's his opinion, he doesn't seem to specify > that. Since he specifies both schemes, can't that be, His courtesy to > speak about the yoga of 8 karaka scheme also in the same way? > > This is the shloka quoted by Dr Raman which he says is from BPHS:> > ravyadi Sani paryanta bhavanti saptakarakaha> Amsaih Samyam grahaih dwou cha Rahum tangunayodwijaha> > This is a very simple sholka which I can also understand. BPHS is > said to have many editions and interpolations.> > In Jaimini Sutras, Jaimini mentions both schemes. Here also why > should a Maharshi quote both schemes when He could have specified > something? In a "Sutra" I don't think Maharshi will add something > which is not important. > > Acharyas of recent times have only quoted those of earlier times. > Whenever they got two opinions, they quoted both as it was difficult > to specify which one is correct. ** Rishi proktams should have to be > correct evenif they contradict.** As such saying one is correct is > not correct.> > Since Mahadeva is of Kaliyuga, 8 karaka scheme may be important in > Kaliyuga for living beings. My conclusion is that I cant specify > which one is correct, as I can only quote these things. Thereafter > I'll say that I use this Scheme.> > I don't know why I am writing this when I am not an expert > of "Parasari" or Jaimini. I've just started Jaimini Sutras that too I > still to complete the shlokas of Brihat Jataka. Sri Narasimha always > quotes that you are very kind and considers all opinion. Hope you > will consider this * my opinion *. I always pray to Goddess > Mookambika to help me restrain from doing something incorrect. May > Goddess bless me, and you.> > Best Regards,> > Saaji> > > > > varahamihira , "Sanjay Rath" <guruji@s...> > wrote:> > > > Jaya Jagannatha> > Dear Jyotisa> > Forgot to mention...those of you who do not believe in Sadhana can > skip the> > first chapter of that work and go straight to 'Understanding > Parasara'. I> > have given arguments that 'PARASARA USES 8 CHARA KARAKA himself'> > With best wishes and warm regards,> > Sanjay Rath> > * * *> > Sri Jagannath CenterR> > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road > > New Delhi 110060, India> > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162> > * * *> > > > > > > > _____ > > > > Sanjay Rath [guruji@s...] > > Monday, March 14, 2005 8:33 PM> > vedic astrology ; varahamihira > > |Sri Varaha| Atmakaraka 52 page doc> > > > > > Jaya Jagannatha> > Dear Jyotisa> > I have seen many arguments in these lists about the seven and eight > chara> > karaka. I have uploaded a 52 page document titled Atmakaraka which > was the> > handout for the SJC West Coast conference in 2003. Please go > through this> > first and hen get into debates. All I am requesting is -> > PLEASE READ THIS DOCUMENT FIRST and then give your opinion. If > there is any> > portion thereof which cannot be understood, please the West coast > CD and I> > am always there to answer.> > There are references to> > 1. Parasara> > 2. Jaimini> > 3. Mahadeva Jataka Tatva> > other documents and works. Please read the references for yourself.> > The link is at http://srath.com/lectures/ak.pdf> > > > With best wishes and warm regards,> > Sanjay Rath> > * * *> > Sri Jagannath CenterR> > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road > > New Delhi 110060, India> > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162> > * * *> > > > > > > > |Om Tat Sat|> > http://www.varahamihira > > > > > > > >

March 15, 2005

Jaya Jagannath

Dear Saaji,

Jyotish is NOT a para vidya? Now you are talking exactly like Prabodh! Do you accept jyotish is a Vedanga? Swami Vigyanananda in his translation of the Brhat Jataka has said that jyotish is one of the six angas of the Vedas "that every Brahmana must study for his welfare in this and in the other world...". He has called it "the eye of the Vedas". So has Sitaram Jha, in his translation of the same text: "vedasya nirmalam chakshurjyotishastramakalmasham". Do brush up your reading of Parashara at the same time. I think 'all' versions of Parsara will have this, chapter 1 shloka 2:

Bhagavan paramam punyam guhyam vedangamuttamam

triskandham jyotisham hora ganitam sanheti cha

Parasara thinks that jyotish is the most superior among all vedangas. Read on after that, he immediately proceeds to describe the tatvadarshan of Bhagavan Vishnu and the beginning of creation, ending with the statement that grahas predominantly have paramatamsa. Why does he begin the hora shastra in this manner? (Read the opening shloka of Braht Jatakam. When you next talk about the Sun, remember what Varahamihira said). Read about the Sisumara Chakra in the Vishnu Purana as a starter. Do spend a little more time reflecting.

The Vedas, Vedangas and Vedantas (the last includes the Upanishads) all teach Brahmagyana. That is the ultimate aim of jyotish, as it is a vedanga. I know both you and Prabodh will have problems in accepting this, but I can at least request you to reflect.

It is strange that one is writing a mail in Varahamihira on this subject. I thought this was a forum for advanced students!

Best regards,

Sarbani

saaji kulangara [saajik] Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:45 PMvarahamihira Subject: |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

Vistiji,Well, you got the mail fm Sarbaniji.I was offlist for sometime, hence I didn't see your post. I joined SJC 9 months back, but I was learning astrology for quite sometime before. I was very inspired by SJC and that's why I joined SJC. I wrote this to Sanjay Ji in one of our personal mails then. Sri Chandrashekhar Sharma is my Guru. I'm grateful to God in this regard.My family background etc; I don't want to write, I'm sure that you are not looking for that information.(This also you will get from my previous posts) I have no expectations from Jyotish(fame, name, money whatever) but I become very happy when some one finds my post useful. This time I posted my views, first I was amused by the way the posts went in Probodh's case. And I hope so long as they are posted in groups others can give their opinion. (Sarbaniji, Jyotish is not a Para Vidya, so long as my reading in Upanishads go, only brahmagyana is para vidya. I've a text of 110 Upanishads translated) and another time, Sanjay Ji wanted to have the opinion after going through the article. I think the post was not liked by you and probably by Sanjay Ji also, and I would take care of this in future. Any further mails in this regard, please send to my personal id.Best Regards,Saajivarahamihira , "Sarbani Sarkar" <sarbani@s...> wrote:> Dear Visti,> > I checked up the Guru Shishya list at the office today and asked Mr. Guha> Roy. Saaji is Chandrashekharji's shishya.> > Best regards,> > Sarbani> > > _____ > > Visti Larsen [visti@s...] > Tuesday, March 15, 2005 4:00 PM> varahamihira > RE: |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc> > > > ||Hare Rama Krsna||> > Dear Saaji, Namaskar> > I've read some of your past emails.. now i have to guess; is PVR Narasimha> Rao your Guru? > > If you followed the mails on list, i've requested someone to> give their biography when they presented contradicting views. Please present> yours. That way we know the person behind the email-id, and can better> understand why you say the things you say.> > > > Best wishes,> > > > > Visti Larsen> > <http://srigaruda.com> http://srigaruda.com> > <visti@s...> visti@s... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > saaji kulangara [saajik] > 15 March 2005 05:32> varahamihira > |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc> > > > > Vistiji, I understand what you want to prove : ) Please see archives, > you will get all information.> > > varahamihira , "Visti Larsen" <visti@s...> > wrote:> > ||Hare Rama Krsna||> > > > Dear Saaji, Namaskar> > > > You wrote: > > > > Personally, I hold the view that whenever acharyas hold different > > views, one should follow one's Guru.> > > > > > > > Who is your Guru?> > > > Best wishes,> > > > > > > > > > Visti Larsen> > > > <http://srigaruda.com> http://srigaruda.com> > > > <visti@s...> visti@s... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > saaji kulangara [saajik] > > 14 March 2005 17:42> > varahamihira > > |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc> > > > > > > > > > Dear Sanjay Ji,> > > > Personally, I hold the view that whenever acharyas hold different > > views, one should follow one's Guru. Here in this case, I'd say > that > > Maharshi Parasara also only quotes the views. This is the same as > > what the great Varahamihira says, that he doesn't formulate > anything > > but only quotes the different views of great rishis and authors. > The > > different schemes might work in different times (acharyas do their > > work considering the combinations for all times) and also as per > the > > advise of Gurus, hence they used to only quote the different views. > > Maharshi Parasara is only one of the 18 acharyas though he is the > > acharya of Jyotish in Kaliyuga. Though Sanskrit is flexible, in the > > shlokas quoted by you, in 34.1 He first mentions seven karaka > scheme > > then eight. Being a great Rishi He could have specified what's > right > > and what's wrong or what's his opinion, he doesn't seem to specify > > that. Since he specifies both schemes, can't that be, His courtesy > to > > speak about the yoga of 8 karaka scheme also in the same way? > > > > This is the shloka quoted by Dr Raman which he says is from BPHS:> > > > ravyadi Sani paryanta bhavanti saptakarakaha> > Amsaih Samyam grahaih dwou cha Rahum tangunayodwijaha> > > > This is a very simple sholka which I can also understand. BPHS is > > said to have many editions and interpolations.> > > > In Jaimini Sutras, Jaimini mentions both schemes. Here also why > > should a Maharshi quote both schemes when He could have specified > > something? In a "Sutra" I don't think Maharshi will add something > > which is not important. > > > > Acharyas of recent times have only quoted those of earlier times. > > Whenever they got two opinions, they quoted both as it was > difficult > > to specify which one is correct. ** Rishi proktams should have to > be > > correct evenif they contradict.** As such saying one is correct is > > not correct.> > > > Since Mahadeva is of Kaliyuga, 8 karaka scheme may be important in > > Kaliyuga for living beings. My conclusion is that I cant specify > > which one is correct, as I can only quote these things. Thereafter > > I'll say that I use this Scheme.> > > > I don't know why I am writing this when I am not an expert > > of "Parasari" or Jaimini. I've just started Jaimini Sutras that too > I > > still to complete the shlokas of Brihat Jataka. Sri Narasimha > always > > quotes that you are very kind and considers all opinion. Hope you > > will consider this * my opinion *. I always pray to Goddess > > Mookambika to help me restrain from doing something incorrect. May > > Goddess bless me, and you.> > > > Best Regards,> > > > Saaji> > > > > > > > > > varahamihira , "Sanjay Rath" <guruji@s...> > > wrote:> > > > > > Jaya Jagannatha> > > Dear Jyotisa> > > Forgot to mention...those of you who do not believe in Sadhana > can > > skip the> > > first chapter of that work and go straight to 'Understanding > > Parasara'. I> > > have given arguments that 'PARASARA USES 8 CHARA KARAKA himself'> > > With best wishes and warm regards,> > > Sanjay Rath> > > * * *> > > Sri Jagannath CenterR> > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road > > > New Delhi 110060, India> > > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162> > > * * *> > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > Sanjay Rath [guruji@s...] > > > Monday, March 14, 2005 8:33 PM> > > vedic astrology ; varahamihira > > > |Sri Varaha| Atmakaraka 52 page doc> > > > > > > > > Jaya Jagannatha> > > Dear Jyotisa> > > I have seen many arguments in these lists about the seven and > eight > > chara> > > karaka. I have uploaded a 52 page document titled Atmakaraka > which > > was the> > > handout for the SJC West Coast conference in 2003. Please go > > through this> > > first and hen get into debates. All I am requesting is -> > > PLEASE READ THIS DOCUMENT FIRST and then give your opinion. If > > there is any> > > portion thereof which cannot be understood, please the West coast > > CD and I> > > am always there to answer.> > > There are references to> > > 1. Parasara> > > 2. Jaimini> > > 3. Mahadeva Jataka Tatva> > > other documents and works. Please read the references for > yourself.> > > The link is at http://srath.com/lectures/ak.pdf> > > > > > With best wishes and warm regards,> > > Sanjay Rath> > > * * *> > > Sri Jagannath CenterR> > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road > > > New Delhi 110060, India> > > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162> > > * * *> > > > > > > > > > > > |Om Tat Sat|> > > http://www.varahamihira > > > > > > > > > > > >

March 15, 2005

Mundakopanishad, Mundakam 1.6

varahamihira , " Sarbani Sarkar " <sarbani@s...>

wrote:

>

Jaya

> Jagannath

>

> Dear Saaji,

>

> Jyotish is NOT a para vidya? Now you are talking exactly like

Prabodh! Do

> you accept jyotish is a Vedanga? Swami Vigyanananda in his

translation of

> the Brhat Jataka has said that jyotish is one of the six angas of

the Vedas

> " that every Brahmana must study for his welfare in this and in the

other

> world... " . He has called it " the eye of the Vedas " . So has Sitaram

Jha, in

> his translation of the same text: " vedasya nirmalam

> chakshurjyotishastramakalmasham " . Do brush up your reading of

Parashara at

> the same time. I think 'all' versions of Parsara will have this,

chapter 1

> shloka 2:

>

> Bhagavan paramam punyam guhyam vedangamuttamam

> triskandham jyotisham hora ganitam sanheti cha

>

> Parasara thinks that jyotish is the most superior among all

vedangas. Read

> on after that, he immediately proceeds to describe the tatvadarshan

of

> Bhagavan Vishnu and the beginning of creation, ending with the

statement

> that grahas predominantly have paramatamsa. Why does he begin the

hora

> shastra in this manner? (Read the opening shloka of Braht Jatakam.

When you

> next talk about the Sun, remember what Varahamihira said). Read

about the

> Sisumara Chakra in the Vishnu Purana as a starter. Do spend a

little more

> time reflecting.

>

> The Vedas, Vedangas and Vedantas (the last includes the Upanishads)

all

> teach Brahmagyana. That is the ultimate aim of jyotish, as it is a

vedanga.

> I know both you and Prabodh will have problems in accepting this,

but I can

> at least request you to reflect.

>

> It is strange that one is writing a mail in Varahamihira on this

subject. I

> thought this was a forum for advanced students!

>

> Best regards,

>

> Sarbani

>

> _____

>

> saaji kulangara [saajik]

> Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:45 PM

> varahamihira

> |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

>

> Vistiji,

>

> Well, you got the mail fm Sarbaniji.

>

> I was offlist for sometime, hence I didn't see your post. I joined

> SJC 9 months back, but I was learning astrology for quite sometime

> before. I was very inspired by SJC and that's why I joined SJC. I

> wrote this to Sanjay Ji in one of our personal mails then. Sri

> Chandrashekhar Sharma is my Guru. I'm grateful to God in this

regard.

>

> My family background etc; I don't want to write, I'm sure that you

> are not looking for that information.(This also you will get from

my

> previous posts) I have no expectations from Jyotish(fame, name,

money

> whatever) but I become very happy when some one finds my post

useful.

> This time I posted my views, first I was amused by the way the

posts

> went in Probodh's case. And I hope so long as they are posted in

> groups others can give their opinion. (Sarbaniji, Jyotish is not a

> Para Vidya, so long as my reading in Upanishads go, only

brahmagyana

> is para vidya. I've a text of 110 Upanishads translated) and

another

> time, Sanjay Ji wanted to have the opinion after going through the

> article. I think the post was not liked by you and probably by

Sanjay

> Ji also, and I would take care of this in future.

>

> Any further mails in this regard, please send to my personal id.

>

> Best Regards,

>

> Saaji

>

> varahamihira , " Sarbani Sarkar "

<sarbani@s...>

> wrote:

> > Dear Visti,

> >

> > I checked up the Guru Shishya list at the office today and asked

> Mr. Guha

> > Roy. Saaji is Chandrashekharji's shishya.

> >

> > Best regards,

> >

> > Sarbani

> >

> > _____

> >

> > Visti Larsen [visti@s...]

> > Tuesday, March 15, 2005 4:00 PM

> > varahamihira

> > RE: |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

> >

> > ||Hare Rama Krsna||

> >

> > Dear Saaji, Namaskar

> >

> > I've read some of your past emails.. now i have to guess; is PVR

> Narasimha

> > Rao your Guru?

> >

> > If you followed the mails on list, i've requested

> someone to

> > give their biography when they presented contradicting views.

> Please present

> > yours. That way we know the person behind the email-id, and can

> better

> > understand why you say the things you say.

> >

> > Best wishes,

> >

> > Visti Larsen

> >

> >

> > <visti@s...> visti@s...

> >

> > _____

> >

> > saaji kulangara [saajik]

> > 15 March 2005 05:32

> > varahamihira

> > |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

> >

> > Vistiji, I understand what you want to prove : ) Please see

> archives,

> > you will get all information.

> >

> > varahamihira , " Visti Larsen " <visti@s...>

> > wrote:

> > > ||Hare Rama Krsna||

> > >

> > > Dear Saaji, Namaskar

> > >

> > > You wrote:

> > >

> > > Personally, I hold the view that whenever acharyas hold

different

> > > views, one should follow one's Guru.

> > >

> > > Who is your Guru?

> > >

> > > Best wishes,

> > >

> > > Visti Larsen

> > >

> > >

> > > <visti@s...> visti@s...

> > >

> > > _____

> > >

> > > saaji kulangara [saajik]

> > > 14 March 2005 17:42

> > > varahamihira

> > > |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

> > >

> > > Dear Sanjay Ji,

> > >

> > > Personally, I hold the view that whenever acharyas hold

different

> > > views, one should follow one's Guru. Here in this case, I'd say

> > that

> > > Maharshi Parasara also only quotes the views. This is the same

as

> > > what the great Varahamihira says, that he doesn't formulate

> > anything

> > > but only quotes the different views of great rishis and

authors.

> > The

> > > different schemes might work in different times (acharyas do

> their

> > > work considering the combinations for all times) and also as

per

> > the

> > > advise of Gurus, hence they used to only quote the different

> views.

> > > Maharshi Parasara is only one of the 18 acharyas though he is

the

> > > acharya of Jyotish in Kaliyuga. Though Sanskrit is flexible, in

> the

> > > shlokas quoted by you, in 34.1 He first mentions seven karaka

> > scheme

> > > then eight. Being a great Rishi He could have specified what's

> > right

> > > and what's wrong or what's his opinion, he doesn't seem to

> specify

> > > that. Since he specifies both schemes, can't that be, His

> courtesy

> > to

> > > speak about the yoga of 8 karaka scheme also in the same way?

> > >

> > > This is the shloka quoted by Dr Raman which he says is from

BPHS:

> > >

> > > ravyadi Sani paryanta bhavanti saptakarakaha

> > > Amsaih Samyam grahaih dwou cha Rahum tangunayodwijaha

> > >

> > > This is a very simple sholka which I can also understand. BPHS

is

> > > said to have many editions and interpolations.

> > >

> > > In Jaimini Sutras, Jaimini mentions both schemes. Here also why

> > > should a Maharshi quote both schemes when He could have

specified

> > > something? In a " Sutra " I don't think Maharshi will add

something

> > > which is not important.

> > >

> > > Acharyas of recent times have only quoted those of earlier

times.

> > > Whenever they got two opinions, they quoted both as it was

> > difficult

> > > to specify which one is correct. ** Rishi proktams should have

to

> > be

> > > correct evenif they contradict.** As such saying one is correct

> is

> > > not correct.

> > >

> > > Since Mahadeva is of Kaliyuga, 8 karaka scheme may be important

> in

> > > Kaliyuga for living beings. My conclusion is that I cant

specify

> > > which one is correct, as I can only quote these things.

> Thereafter

> > > I'll say that I use this Scheme.

> > >

> > > I don't know why I am writing this when I am not an expert

> > > of " Parasari " or Jaimini. I've just started Jaimini Sutras that

> too

> > I

> > > still to complete the shlokas of Brihat Jataka. Sri Narasimha

> > always

> > > quotes that you are very kind and considers all opinion. Hope

you

> > > will consider this * my opinion *. I always pray to Goddess

> > > Mookambika to help me restrain from doing something incorrect.

> May

> > > Goddess bless me, and you.

> > >

> > > Best Regards,

> > >

> > > Saaji

> > >

> > > varahamihira , " Sanjay Rath "

<guruji@s...>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Jaya Jagannatha

> > > > Dear Jyotisa

> > > > Forgot to mention...those of you who do not believe in

Sadhana

> > can

> > > skip the

> > > > first chapter of that work and go straight to 'Understanding

> > > Parasara'. I

> > > > have given arguments that 'PARASARA USES 8 CHARA KARAKA

himself'

> > > > With best wishes and warm regards,

> > > > Sanjay Rath

> > > > * * *

> > > > Sri Jagannath CenterR

> > > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road

> > > > New Delhi 110060, India

> > > > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162

> > > > * * *

> > > >

> > > > _____

> > > >

> > > > Sanjay Rath [guruji@s...]

> > > > Monday, March 14, 2005 8:33 PM

> > > > vedic astrology ;

> varahamihira

> > > > |Sri Varaha| Atmakaraka 52 page doc

> > > >

> > > > Jaya Jagannatha

> > > > Dear Jyotisa

> > > > I have seen many arguments in these lists about the seven and

> > eight

> > > chara

> > > > karaka. I have uploaded a 52 page document titled Atmakaraka

> > which

> > > was the

> > > > handout for the SJC West Coast conference in 2003. Please go

> > > through this

> > > > first and hen get into debates. All I am requesting is -

> > > > PLEASE READ THIS DOCUMENT FIRST and then give your opinion.

If

> > > there is any

> > > > portion thereof which cannot be understood, please the West

> coast

> > > CD and I

> > > > am always there to answer.

> > > > There are references to

> > > > 1. Parasara

> > > > 2. Jaimini

> > > > 3. Mahadeva Jataka Tatva

> > > > other documents and works. Please read the references for

> > yourself.

> > > > The link is at http://srath.com/lectures/ak.pdf

> > > >

> > > > With best wishes and warm regards,

> > > > Sanjay Rath

> > > > * * *

> > > > Sri Jagannath CenterR

> > > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road

> > > > New Delhi 110060, India

> > > > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162

> > > > * * *

> > > >

> > > > |Om Tat Sat|

> > > > http://www.varahamihira

> > > >

March 15, 2005

Dear Saaji,

If I may butt in for a second: Read shlokas 13-17 of chapter 32 of BPHS (Santhanam edition). I think all your questions will be very clearly answered. Parasara actually gives a clear opinion. No interpretive skill is required here. Read carefully and slowly...don't miss out.

Best regards,

Sarbani

saaji kulangara [saajik] Tuesday, March 15, 2005 11:35 PMvarahamihira Subject: |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

Dear Sanjay Ji,Thank you very much for the reply. I had read the portion mentioned by you, probably not the way you expected. It's in Understanding Parasara only you quote the shlokas, which was the basis of my reply. You wrote:"PLEASE note that there is NO PUTRAKARAKA in 7 charakaraka scheme due to the dictum 'matri saha putram eke' i.e. in the 7 chara karaka the Putrakaraka is absent as it merges with Matri and then how can there be a Rajyoga between Atmakaraa and Putrakaraka when there is no putrakaraka?Now to get out of this problem, the learned pundits kicked Pitrikaraka out and introduced a new 7-charakaraka scheme where the Putrakaraka is used instead of the Pitrikaraka!!!"The Rajayoga is not important for me as it can also mean Guru(Su 22, Jaimini), but the last line is interesting. This one I didn't see in the file. Please let me work on this. However onething I don't understand, why in such state also they are getting results? My arguments were based on these things.I have just started Jaimini, I'll work in detail and will send you a detailed mail later. You are probably short of time.Best Regards,Saajivarahamihira , "Sanjay Rath" <guruji@s...> wrote:> Jaya Jagannatha> Dear Saaji> > SAD...you did not read the paper I sent and have started giving great> quotes. Have you read the chapter titled Understanding Parasara? Can you> refute the fact that Parasara uses eight charakaraka himself as he talks of> a Rajyoga when the Atmakaraka and the Putrakaraka are involved.> > Parasara clearly mentions that there ae two schemes - one from the Sun to> Saturn and the other that includes Rahu. He also accepts that there is> controversy regarding this...bound to be as Rahu always causes controversy.> Then Parasara goes on to say that Atmakaraka and Putrakaraka constitute> Maharaja Yoga just as Lagna lord and fifth lord constitute Maharaja yoga. > > PLEASE note that there is NO PUTRAKARAKA in 7 charakaraka scheme due to the> dictum 'matri saha putram eke' i.e. in the 7 chara karaka the Putrakaraka is> absent as it merges with Matri and then how can there be a Rajyoga between> Atmakaraa and Putrakaraka when there is no putrakaraka?> Now to get out of this problem, the learned pundits kicked Pitrikaraka out> and introduced a new 7-charakaraka scheme where the Putrakaraka is used> instead of the Pitrikaraka!!!> > Please tell me first -> 1. Which seven chara karaka scheme do you follow and why?> 2. What happens when either there is no putrakaraka or no Pitrikaraka> (depends on the one you follow).> 3. What & charakaraka scheme has Parasara and Jaimini advocated? To my> knowledge they use Pirtikaraka for the 7 charakaraka scheme and not> Putrakaraka.> Now Saaji I am happy you asked this question and I am happy that you are> going to read that document before answering this. So please make me happy.> It is important that you ask questions so that I know which areas of the> paper are weak and then I will start quoting the vedas and other texts for> the charakaraka...this is really necessary.> > I have alwas respected the elders but then whatever they say need not be> right. In this matter I cannot agree with Dr Raman. We at Jagannath Puri> have a much stronger foundation in matters of the Atmakaraka and the other> charakaraka. See the arguments I give.> > > > In fact in Sundays class on Amatyakaraka I showed how the professon can be> seen from the rasi chart using the Amatyakaraka and how to find the future> Prime Ministers who will hang on in the seat of India for a few years at> least...I think those lessons are being noted for the benefit of all.> > With best wishes and warm regards,> Sanjay Rath> * * *> Sri Jagannath CenterR> 15B Gangaram Hospital Road > New Delhi 110060, India> http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162> * * *> > > > _____ > > saaji kulangara [saajik] > Monday, March 14, 2005 10:12 PM> varahamihira > |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc> > > > Dear Sanjay Ji,> > Personally, I hold the view that whenever acharyas hold different > views, one should follow one's Guru. Here in this case, I'd say that > Maharshi Parasara also only quotes the views. This is the same as > what the great Varahamihira says, that he doesn't formulate anything > but only quotes the different views of great rishis and authors. The > different schemes might work in different times (acharyas do their > work considering the combinations for all times) and also as per the > advise of Gurus, hence they used to only quote the different views. > Maharshi Parasara is only one of the 18 acharyas though he is the > acharya of Jyotish in Kaliyuga. Though Sanskrit is flexible, in the > shlokas quoted by you, in 34.1 He first mentions seven karaka scheme > then eight. Being a great Rishi He could have specified what's right > and what's wrong or what's his opinion, he doesn't seem to specify > that. Since he specifies both schemes, can't that be, His courtesy to > speak about the yoga of 8 karaka scheme also in the same way? > > This is the shloka quoted by Dr Raman which he says is from BPHS:> > ravyadi Sani paryanta bhavanti saptakarakaha> Amsaih Samyam grahaih dwou cha Rahum tangunayodwijaha> > This is a very simple sholka which I can also understand. BPHS is > said to have many editions and interpolations.> > In Jaimini Sutras, Jaimini mentions both schemes. Here also why > should a Maharshi quote both schemes when He could have specified > something? In a "Sutra" I don't think Maharshi will add something > which is not important. > > Acharyas of recent times have only quoted those of earlier times. > Whenever they got two opinions, they quoted both as it was difficult > to specify which one is correct. ** Rishi proktams should have to be > correct evenif they contradict.** As such saying one is correct is > not correct.> > Since Mahadeva is of Kaliyuga, 8 karaka scheme may be important in > Kaliyuga for living beings. My conclusion is that I cant specify > which one is correct, as I can only quote these things. Thereafter > I'll say that I use this Scheme.> > I don't know why I am writing this when I am not an expert > of "Parasari" or Jaimini. I've just started Jaimini Sutras that too I > still to complete the shlokas of Brihat Jataka. Sri Narasimha always > quotes that you are very kind and considers all opinion. Hope you > will consider this * my opinion *. I always pray to Goddess > Mookambika to help me restrain from doing something incorrect. May > Goddess bless me, and you.> > Best Regards,> > Saaji> > > > > varahamihira , "Sanjay Rath" <guruji@s...> > wrote:> > > > Jaya Jagannatha> > Dear Jyotisa> > Forgot to mention...those of you who do not believe in Sadhana can > skip the> > first chapter of that work and go straight to 'Understanding > Parasara'. I> > have given arguments that 'PARASARA USES 8 CHARA KARAKA himself'> > With best wishes and warm regards,> > Sanjay Rath> > * * *> > Sri Jagannath CenterR> > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road > > New Delhi 110060, India> > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162> > * * *> > > > > > > > _____ > > > > Sanjay Rath [guruji@s...] > > Monday, March 14, 2005 8:33 PM> > vedic astrology ; varahamihira > > |Sri Varaha| Atmakaraka 52 page doc> > > > > > Jaya Jagannatha> > Dear Jyotisa> > I have seen many arguments in these lists about the seven and eight > chara> > karaka. I have uploaded a 52 page document titled Atmakaraka which > was the> > handout for the SJC West Coast conference in 2003. Please go > through this> > first and hen get into debates. All I am requesting is -> > PLEASE READ THIS DOCUMENT FIRST and then give your opinion. If > there is any> > portion thereof which cannot be understood, please the West coast > CD and I> > am always there to answer.> > There are references to> > 1. Parasara> > 2. Jaimini> > 3. Mahadeva Jataka Tatva> > other documents and works. Please read the references for yourself.> > The link is at http://srath.com/lectures/ak.pdf> > > > With best wishes and warm regards,> > Sanjay Rath> > * * *> > Sri Jagannath CenterR> > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road > > New Delhi 110060, India> > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162> > * * *> > > > > > > > |Om Tat Sat|> > http://www.varahamihira > > > > > > > >

March 15, 2005

Dear Sanjay Ji,

First, let me understand the problem in the last line and then I'll

reply you in detail. There is explanation for this too, but I am not

satisfied.

Best regards,

Saaji

varahamihira , " Sanjay Rath " <guruji@s...>

wrote:

>

> Jaya Jagannatha

> Dear Saaji

> I didn't understand...getting what results?

> Which Rajyoga is not important for you? The Maharaja Yoga? Why??!!

I am not

> talking of Jaimini at all. I am talking only of Parasara. This

Rajyoga is

> mentioned by Parasara in BPHS. The sloka is mentioned in my paper.

> With best wishes and warm regards,

> Sanjay Rath

> * * *

> Sri Jagannath CenterR

> 15B Gangaram Hospital Road

> New Delhi 110060, India

> http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162

> * * *

>

> _____

>

> saaji kulangara [saajik]

> Tuesday, March 15, 2005 11:35 PM

> varahamihira

> |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

>

> Dear Sanjay Ji,

>

> Thank you very much for the reply. I had read the portion mentioned

> by you, probably not the way you expected. It's in Understanding

> Parasara only you quote the shlokas, which was the basis of my

reply.

>

> You wrote:

> " PLEASE note that there is NO PUTRAKARAKA in 7 charakaraka scheme

due

> to the dictum 'matri saha putram eke' i.e. in the 7 chara karaka

the

> Putrakaraka is absent as it merges with Matri and then how can

there

> be a Rajyoga between Atmakaraa and Putrakaraka when there is no

> putrakaraka?

> Now to get out of this problem, the learned pundits kicked

> Pitrikaraka out and introduced a new 7-charakaraka scheme where the

> Putrakaraka is used instead of the Pitrikaraka!!! "

>

> The Rajayoga is not important for me as it can also mean Guru(Su

22,

> Jaimini), but the last line is interesting. This one I didn't see

in

> the file. Please let me work on this. However onething I don't

> understand, why in such state also they are getting results? My

> arguments were based on these things.

>

> I have just started Jaimini, I'll work in detail and will send you

a

> detailed mail later. You are probably short of time.

>

> Best Regards,

>

> Saaji

>

> varahamihira , " Sanjay Rath " <guruji@s...>

> wrote:

> > Jaya Jagannatha

> > Dear Saaji

> >

> > SAD...you did not read the paper I sent and have started giving

> great

> > quotes. Have you read the chapter titled Understanding Parasara?

> Can you

> > refute the fact that Parasara uses eight charakaraka himself as

he

> talks of

> > a Rajyoga when the Atmakaraka and the Putrakaraka are involved.

> >

> > Parasara clearly mentions that there ae two schemes - one from

the

> Sun to

> > Saturn and the other that includes Rahu. He also accepts that

there

> is

> > controversy regarding this...bound to be as Rahu always causes

> controversy.

> > Then Parasara goes on to say that Atmakaraka and Putrakaraka

> constitute

> > Maharaja Yoga just as Lagna lord and fifth lord constitute

Maharaja

> yoga.

> >

> > PLEASE note that there is NO PUTRAKARAKA in 7 charakaraka scheme

> due to the

> > dictum 'matri saha putram eke' i.e. in the 7 chara karaka the

> Putrakaraka is

> > absent as it merges with Matri and then how can there be a

Rajyoga

> between

> > Atmakaraa and Putrakaraka when there is no putrakaraka?

> > Now to get out of this problem, the learned pundits kicked

> Pitrikaraka out

> > and introduced a new 7-charakaraka scheme where the Putrakaraka

is

> used

> > instead of the Pitrikaraka!!!

> >

> > Please tell me first -

> > 1. Which seven chara karaka scheme do you follow and why?

> > 2. What happens when either there is no putrakaraka or no

> Pitrikaraka

> > (depends on the one you follow).

> > 3. What & charakaraka scheme has Parasara and Jaimini advocated?

To

> my

> > knowledge they use Pirtikaraka for the 7 charakaraka scheme and

not

> > Putrakaraka.

> > Now Saaji I am happy you asked this question and I am happy that

> you are

> > going to read that document before answering this. So please make

> me happy.

> > It is important that you ask questions so that I know which areas

> of the

> > paper are weak and then I will start quoting the vedas and other

> texts for

> > the charakaraka...this is really necessary.

> >

> > I have alwas respected the elders but then whatever they say need

> not be

> > right. In this matter I cannot agree with Dr Raman. We at

Jagannath

> Puri

> > have a much stronger foundation in matters of the Atmakaraka and

> the other

> > charakaraka. See the arguments I give.

> >

> > In fact in Sundays class on Amatyakaraka I showed how the

professon

> can be

> > seen from the rasi chart using the Amatyakaraka and how to find

the

> future

> > Prime Ministers who will hang on in the seat of India for a few

> years at

> > least...I think those lessons are being noted for the benefit of

> all.

> >

> > With best wishes and warm regards,

> > Sanjay Rath

> > * * *

> > Sri Jagannath CenterR

> > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road

> > New Delhi 110060, India

> > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162

> > * * *

> >

> > _____

> >

> > saaji kulangara [saajik]

> > Monday, March 14, 2005 10:12 PM

> > varahamihira

> > |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

> >

> > Dear Sanjay Ji,

> >

> > Personally, I hold the view that whenever acharyas hold different

> > views, one should follow one's Guru. Here in this case, I'd say

> that

> > Maharshi Parasara also only quotes the views. This is the same as

> > what the great Varahamihira says, that he doesn't formulate

> anything

> > but only quotes the different views of great rishis and authors.

> The

> > different schemes might work in different times (acharyas do

their

> > work considering the combinations for all times) and also as per

> the

> > advise of Gurus, hence they used to only quote the different

views.

> > Maharshi Parasara is only one of the 18 acharyas though he is the

> > acharya of Jyotish in Kaliyuga. Though Sanskrit is flexible, in

the

> > shlokas quoted by you, in 34.1 He first mentions seven karaka

> scheme

> > then eight. Being a great Rishi He could have specified what's

> right

> > and what's wrong or what's his opinion, he doesn't seem to

specify

> > that. Since he specifies both schemes, can't that be, His

courtesy

> to

> > speak about the yoga of 8 karaka scheme also in the same way?

> >

> > This is the shloka quoted by Dr Raman which he says is from BPHS:

> >

> > ravyadi Sani paryanta bhavanti saptakarakaha

> > Amsaih Samyam grahaih dwou cha Rahum tangunayodwijaha

> >

> > This is a very simple sholka which I can also understand. BPHS is

> > said to have many editions and interpolations.

> >

> > In Jaimini Sutras, Jaimini mentions both schemes. Here also why

> > should a Maharshi quote both schemes when He could have specified

> > something? In a " Sutra " I don't think Maharshi will add something

> > which is not important.

> >

> > Acharyas of recent times have only quoted those of earlier times.

> > Whenever they got two opinions, they quoted both as it was

> difficult

> > to specify which one is correct. ** Rishi proktams should have to

> be

> > correct evenif they contradict.** As such saying one is correct

is

> > not correct.

> >

> > Since Mahadeva is of Kaliyuga, 8 karaka scheme may be important

in

> > Kaliyuga for living beings. My conclusion is that I cant specify

> > which one is correct, as I can only quote these things.

Thereafter

> > I'll say that I use this Scheme.

> >

> > I don't know why I am writing this when I am not an expert

> > of " Parasari " or Jaimini. I've just started Jaimini Sutras that

too

> I

> > still to complete the shlokas of Brihat Jataka. Sri Narasimha

> always

> > quotes that you are very kind and considers all opinion. Hope you

> > will consider this * my opinion *. I always pray to Goddess

> > Mookambika to help me restrain from doing something incorrect.

May

> > Goddess bless me, and you.

> >

> > Best Regards,

> >

> > Saaji

> >

> > varahamihira , " Sanjay Rath " <guruji@s...>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Jaya Jagannatha

> > > Dear Jyotisa

> > > Forgot to mention...those of you who do not believe in Sadhana

> can

> > skip the

> > > first chapter of that work and go straight to 'Understanding

> > Parasara'. I

> > > have given arguments that 'PARASARA USES 8 CHARA KARAKA himself'

> > > With best wishes and warm regards,

> > > Sanjay Rath

> > > * * *

> > > Sri Jagannath CenterR

> > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road

> > > New Delhi 110060, India

> > > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162

> > > * * *

> > >

> > > _____

> > >

> > > Sanjay Rath [guruji@s...]

> > > Monday, March 14, 2005 8:33 PM

> > > vedic astrology ;

varahamihira

> > > |Sri Varaha| Atmakaraka 52 page doc

> > >

> > > Jaya Jagannatha

> > > Dear Jyotisa

> > > I have seen many arguments in these lists about the seven and

> eight

> > chara

> > > karaka. I have uploaded a 52 page document titled Atmakaraka

> which

> > was the

> > > handout for the SJC West Coast conference in 2003. Please go

> > through this

> > > first and hen get into debates. All I am requesting is -

> > > PLEASE READ THIS DOCUMENT FIRST and then give your opinion. If

> > there is any

> > > portion thereof which cannot be understood, please the West

coast

> > CD and I

> > > am always there to answer.

> > > There are references to

> > > 1. Parasara

> > > 2. Jaimini

> > > 3. Mahadeva Jataka Tatva

> > > other documents and works. Please read the references for

> yourself.

> > > The link is at http://srath.com/lectures/ak.pdf

> > >

> > > With best wishes and warm regards,

> > > Sanjay Rath

> > > * * *

> > > Sri Jagannath CenterR

> > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road

> > > New Delhi 110060, India

> > > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162

> > > * * *

> > >

> > > |Om Tat Sat|

> > > http://www.varahamihira

> > >

March 15, 2005

|| Om Gurave Namah ||

Dear Sarbaniji,

I think most of this confusion is due to another popular Jyotisha

Shree K. N. Rao. He constantly emphasises that it's not a Para Vidya

and it's like any other mundane subject. I started to wonder then why

I am into this so much.

I think His emphasis is to make it secular and remove religion from

Jyotish. Which I do agree that Jyotish is a Universal subject for all

religion. But it should be more by linking to all beliefs rather than

delinking from all.

Thank you and Guruji for the quotes.

Warm Regards

Sanjay P.

Hari Om Tat Sat

Hare Rama Krishna

varahamihira , " Sarbani Sarkar " <sarbani@s...>

wrote:

>

Jaya

> Jagannath

>

> Dear Saaji,

>

> Jyotish is NOT a para vidya? Now you are talking exactly like

Prabodh! Do

> you accept jyotish is a Vedanga? Swami Vigyanananda in his

translation of

> the Brhat Jataka has said that jyotish is one of the six angas of

the Vedas

> " that every Brahmana must study for his welfare in this and in the other

> world... " . He has called it " the eye of the Vedas " . So has Sitaram

Jha, in

> his translation of the same text: " vedasya nirmalam

> chakshurjyotishastramakalmasham " . Do brush up your reading of

Parashara at

> the same time. I think 'all' versions of Parsara will have this,

chapter 1

> shloka 2:

>

> Bhagavan paramam punyam guhyam vedangamuttamam

> triskandham jyotisham hora ganitam sanheti cha

>

> Parasara thinks that jyotish is the most superior among all

vedangas. Read

> on after that, he immediately proceeds to describe the tatvadarshan of

> Bhagavan Vishnu and the beginning of creation, ending with the statement

> that grahas predominantly have paramatamsa. Why does he begin the hora

> shastra in this manner? (Read the opening shloka of Braht Jatakam.

When you

> next talk about the Sun, remember what Varahamihira said). Read

about the

> Sisumara Chakra in the Vishnu Purana as a starter. Do spend a little

more

> time reflecting.

>

> The Vedas, Vedangas and Vedantas (the last includes the Upanishads) all

> teach Brahmagyana. That is the ultimate aim of jyotish, as it is a

vedanga.

> I know both you and Prabodh will have problems in accepting this,

but I can

> at least request you to reflect.

>

> It is strange that one is writing a mail in Varahamihira on this

subject. I

> thought this was a forum for advanced students!

>

> Best regards,

>

> Sarbani

>

> _____

>

> saaji kulangara [saajik]

> Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:45 PM

> varahamihira

> |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

>

> Vistiji,

>

> Well, you got the mail fm Sarbaniji.

>

> I was offlist for sometime, hence I didn't see your post. I joined

> SJC 9 months back, but I was learning astrology for quite sometime

> before. I was very inspired by SJC and that's why I joined SJC. I

> wrote this to Sanjay Ji in one of our personal mails then. Sri

> Chandrashekhar Sharma is my Guru. I'm grateful to God in this regard.

>

> My family background etc; I don't want to write, I'm sure that you

> are not looking for that information.(This also you will get from my

> previous posts) I have no expectations from Jyotish(fame, name, money

> whatever) but I become very happy when some one finds my post useful.

> This time I posted my views, first I was amused by the way the posts

> went in Probodh's case. And I hope so long as they are posted in

> groups others can give their opinion. (Sarbaniji, Jyotish is not a

> Para Vidya, so long as my reading in Upanishads go, only brahmagyana

> is para vidya. I've a text of 110 Upanishads translated) and another

> time, Sanjay Ji wanted to have the opinion after going through the

> article. I think the post was not liked by you and probably by Sanjay

> Ji also, and I would take care of this in future.

>

> Any further mails in this regard, please send to my personal id.

>

> Best Regards,

>

> Saaji

>

> varahamihira , " Sarbani Sarkar " <sarbani@s...>

> wrote:

> > Dear Visti,

> >

> > I checked up the Guru Shishya list at the office today and asked

> Mr. Guha

> > Roy. Saaji is Chandrashekharji's shishya.

> >

> > Best regards,

> >

> > Sarbani

> >

> > _____

> >

> > Visti Larsen [visti@s...]

> > Tuesday, March 15, 2005 4:00 PM

> > varahamihira

> > RE: |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

> >

> > ||Hare Rama Krsna||

> >

> > Dear Saaji, Namaskar

> >

> > I've read some of your past emails.. now i have to guess; is PVR

> Narasimha

> > Rao your Guru?

> >

> > If you followed the mails on list, i've requested

> someone to

> > give their biography when they presented contradicting views.

> Please present

> > yours. That way we know the person behind the email-id, and can

> better

> > understand why you say the things you say.

> >

> > Best wishes,

> >

> > Visti Larsen

> >

> >

> > <visti@s...> visti@s...

> >

> > _____

> >

> > saaji kulangara [saajik]

> > 15 March 2005 05:32

> > varahamihira

> > |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

> >

> > Vistiji, I understand what you want to prove : ) Please see

> archives,

> > you will get all information.

> >

> > varahamihira , " Visti Larsen " <visti@s...>

> > wrote:

> > > ||Hare Rama Krsna||

> > >

> > > Dear Saaji, Namaskar

> > >

> > > You wrote:

> > >

> > > Personally, I hold the view that whenever acharyas hold different

> > > views, one should follow one's Guru.

> > >

> > > Who is your Guru?

> > >

> > > Best wishes,

> > >

> > > Visti Larsen

> > >

> > >

> > > <visti@s...> visti@s...

> > >

> > > _____

> > >

> > > saaji kulangara [saajik]

> > > 14 March 2005 17:42

> > > varahamihira

> > > |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

> > >

> > > Dear Sanjay Ji,

> > >

> > > Personally, I hold the view that whenever acharyas hold different

> > > views, one should follow one's Guru. Here in this case, I'd say

> > that

> > > Maharshi Parasara also only quotes the views. This is the same as

> > > what the great Varahamihira says, that he doesn't formulate

> > anything

> > > but only quotes the different views of great rishis and authors.

> > The

> > > different schemes might work in different times (acharyas do

> their

> > > work considering the combinations for all times) and also as per

> > the

> > > advise of Gurus, hence they used to only quote the different

> views.

> > > Maharshi Parasara is only one of the 18 acharyas though he is the

> > > acharya of Jyotish in Kaliyuga. Though Sanskrit is flexible, in

> the

> > > shlokas quoted by you, in 34.1 He first mentions seven karaka

> > scheme

> > > then eight. Being a great Rishi He could have specified what's

> > right

> > > and what's wrong or what's his opinion, he doesn't seem to

> specify

> > > that. Since he specifies both schemes, can't that be, His

> courtesy

> > to

> > > speak about the yoga of 8 karaka scheme also in the same way?

> > >

> > > This is the shloka quoted by Dr Raman which he says is from BPHS:

> > >

> > > ravyadi Sani paryanta bhavanti saptakarakaha

> > > Amsaih Samyam grahaih dwou cha Rahum tangunayodwijaha

> > >

> > > This is a very simple sholka which I can also understand. BPHS is

> > > said to have many editions and interpolations.

> > >

> > > In Jaimini Sutras, Jaimini mentions both schemes. Here also why

> > > should a Maharshi quote both schemes when He could have specified

> > > something? In a " Sutra " I don't think Maharshi will add something

> > > which is not important.

> > >

> > > Acharyas of recent times have only quoted those of earlier times.

> > > Whenever they got two opinions, they quoted both as it was

> > difficult

> > > to specify which one is correct. ** Rishi proktams should have to

> > be

> > > correct evenif they contradict.** As such saying one is correct

> is

> > > not correct.

> > >

> > > Since Mahadeva is of Kaliyuga, 8 karaka scheme may be important

> in

> > > Kaliyuga for living beings. My conclusion is that I cant specify

> > > which one is correct, as I can only quote these things.

> Thereafter

> > > I'll say that I use this Scheme.

> > >

> > > I don't know why I am writing this when I am not an expert

> > > of " Parasari " or Jaimini. I've just started Jaimini Sutras that

> too

> > I

> > > still to complete the shlokas of Brihat Jataka. Sri Narasimha

> > always

> > > quotes that you are very kind and considers all opinion. Hope you

> > > will consider this * my opinion *. I always pray to Goddess

> > > Mookambika to help me restrain from doing something incorrect.

> May

> > > Goddess bless me, and you.

> > >

> > > Best Regards,

> > >

> > > Saaji

> > >

> > > varahamihira , " Sanjay Rath " <guruji@s...>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Jaya Jagannatha

> > > > Dear Jyotisa

> > > > Forgot to mention...those of you who do not believe in Sadhana

> > can

> > > skip the

> > > > first chapter of that work and go straight to 'Understanding

> > > Parasara'. I

> > > > have given arguments that 'PARASARA USES 8 CHARA KARAKA himself'

> > > > With best wishes and warm regards,

> > > > Sanjay Rath

> > > > * * *

> > > > Sri Jagannath CenterR

> > > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road

> > > > New Delhi 110060, India

> > > > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162

> > > > * * *

> > > >

> > > > _____

> > > >

> > > > Sanjay Rath [guruji@s...]

> > > > Monday, March 14, 2005 8:33 PM

> > > > vedic astrology ;

> varahamihira

> > > > |Sri Varaha| Atmakaraka 52 page doc

> > > >

> > > > Jaya Jagannatha

> > > > Dear Jyotisa

> > > > I have seen many arguments in these lists about the seven and

> > eight

> > > chara

> > > > karaka. I have uploaded a 52 page document titled Atmakaraka

> > which

> > > was the

> > > > handout for the SJC West Coast conference in 2003. Please go

> > > through this

> > > > first and hen get into debates. All I am requesting is -

> > > > PLEASE READ THIS DOCUMENT FIRST and then give your opinion. If

> > > there is any

> > > > portion thereof which cannot be understood, please the West

> coast

> > > CD and I

> > > > am always there to answer.

> > > > There are references to

> > > > 1. Parasara

> > > > 2. Jaimini

> > > > 3. Mahadeva Jataka Tatva

> > > > other documents and works. Please read the references for

> > yourself.

> > > > The link is at http://srath.com/lectures/ak.pdf

> > > >

> > > > With best wishes and warm regards,

> > > > Sanjay Rath

> > > > * * *

> > > > Sri Jagannath CenterR

> > > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road

> > > > New Delhi 110060, India

> > > > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162

> > > > * * *

> > > >

> > > > |Om Tat Sat|

> > > > http://www.varahamihira

> > > >

March 15, 2005

I quoted this to find any other authority to prove otherwise.

Mundakam 1 is very clear and this is one of the most important

Upanishads.(SanjayRath Ji, I was not telling Upanishad a Para Vidya

as you wrote in Vedic Astrology list, I was telling Brahma Vidya is

Para Vidya) What you say as Veda and Vedanga are also include in

Apara Vidya by Mundaka.

And SanjayPji, If you were following the thread I was taking

Sarbaniji's seat there. But I didnt venture to prove that Jyotish is

Para Vidya since I didnt have any authority. The question was

connecting that to religion, that was easy since this include in

Vedanga and Veda is also considered as Apara Vidya.

Prashnopanishad and all others focus on this as Para Vidya.

The question is not where I believe in this or not. Here is an

authority which should be countered to prove otherwise.

Yes I am not an advanced student, probably because of my age!!!

Best Regards,

Saaji

varahamihira , sanjaychettiar@g... wrote:

>

> || Om Gurave Namah ||

> Dear Sarbaniji,

> I think most of this confusion is due to another popular Jyotisha

> Shree K. N. Rao. He constantly emphasises that it's not a Para Vidya

> and it's like any other mundane subject. I started to wonder then

why

> I am into this so much.

> I think His emphasis is to make it secular and remove religion from

> Jyotish. Which I do agree that Jyotish is a Universal subject for

all

> religion. But it should be more by linking to all beliefs rather

than

> delinking from all.

> Thank you and Guruji for the quotes.

> Warm Regards

> Sanjay P.

> Hari Om Tat Sat

> Hare Rama Krishna

>

> varahamihira , " Sarbani Sarkar " <sarbani@s...>

> wrote:

>

> Jaya

> > Jagannath

> >

> > Dear Saaji,

> >

> > Jyotish is NOT a para vidya? Now you are talking exactly like

> Prabodh! Do

> > you accept jyotish is a Vedanga? Swami Vigyanananda in his

> translation of

> > the Brhat Jataka has said that jyotish is one of the six angas of

> the Vedas

> > " that every Brahmana must study for his welfare in this and in

the other

> > world... " . He has called it " the eye of the Vedas " . So has Sitaram

> Jha, in

> > his translation of the same text: " vedasya nirmalam

> > chakshurjyotishastramakalmasham " . Do brush up your reading of

> Parashara at

> > the same time. I think 'all' versions of Parsara will have this,

> chapter 1

> > shloka 2:

> >

> > Bhagavan paramam punyam guhyam vedangamuttamam

> > triskandham jyotisham hora ganitam sanheti cha

> >

> > Parasara thinks that jyotish is the most superior among all

> vedangas. Read

> > on after that, he immediately proceeds to describe the

tatvadarshan of

> > Bhagavan Vishnu and the beginning of creation, ending with the

statement

> > that grahas predominantly have paramatamsa. Why does he begin the

hora

> > shastra in this manner? (Read the opening shloka of Braht Jatakam.

> When you

> > next talk about the Sun, remember what Varahamihira said). Read

> about the

> > Sisumara Chakra in the Vishnu Purana as a starter. Do spend a

little

> more

> > time reflecting.

> >

> > The Vedas, Vedangas and Vedantas (the last includes the

Upanishads) all

> > teach Brahmagyana. That is the ultimate aim of jyotish, as it is a

> vedanga.

> > I know both you and Prabodh will have problems in accepting this,

> but I can

> > at least request you to reflect.

> >

> > It is strange that one is writing a mail in Varahamihira on this

> subject. I

> > thought this was a forum for advanced students!

> >

> > Best regards,

> >

> > Sarbani

> >

> > _____

> >

> > saaji kulangara [saajik]

> > Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:45 PM

> > varahamihira

> > |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

> >

> > Vistiji,

> >

> > Well, you got the mail fm Sarbaniji.

> >

> > I was offlist for sometime, hence I didn't see your post. I

joined

> > SJC 9 months back, but I was learning astrology for quite

sometime

> > before. I was very inspired by SJC and that's why I joined SJC. I

> > wrote this to Sanjay Ji in one of our personal mails then. Sri

> > Chandrashekhar Sharma is my Guru. I'm grateful to God in this

regard.

> >

> > My family background etc; I don't want to write, I'm sure that

you

> > are not looking for that information.(This also you will get from

my

> > previous posts) I have no expectations from Jyotish(fame, name,

money

> > whatever) but I become very happy when some one finds my post

useful.

> > This time I posted my views, first I was amused by the way the

posts

> > went in Probodh's case. And I hope so long as they are posted in

> > groups others can give their opinion. (Sarbaniji, Jyotish is not

a

> > Para Vidya, so long as my reading in Upanishads go, only

brahmagyana

> > is para vidya. I've a text of 110 Upanishads translated) and

another

> > time, Sanjay Ji wanted to have the opinion after going through

the

> > article. I think the post was not liked by you and probably by

Sanjay

> > Ji also, and I would take care of this in future.

> >

> > Any further mails in this regard, please send to my personal id.

> >

> > Best Regards,

> >

> > Saaji

> >

> > varahamihira , " Sarbani Sarkar "

<sarbani@s...>

> > wrote:

> > > Dear Visti,

> > >

> > > I checked up the Guru Shishya list at the office today and

asked

> > Mr. Guha

> > > Roy. Saaji is Chandrashekharji's shishya.

> > >

> > > Best regards,

> > >

> > > Sarbani

> > >

> > > _____

> > >

> > > Visti Larsen [visti@s...]

> > > Tuesday, March 15, 2005 4:00 PM

> > > varahamihira

> > > RE: |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

> > >

> > > ||Hare Rama Krsna||

> > >

> > > Dear Saaji, Namaskar

> > >

> > > I've read some of your past emails.. now i have to guess; is

PVR

> > Narasimha

> > > Rao your Guru?

> > >

> > > If you followed the mails on list, i've requested

> > someone to

> > > give their biography when they presented contradicting views.

> > Please present

> > > yours. That way we know the person behind the email-id, and can

> > better

> > > understand why you say the things you say.

> > >

> > > Best wishes,

> > >

> > > Visti Larsen

> > >

http://www.teosofiskakompaniet.net/BPWadiaSecretDoctrineStudies5.htm

> > >

> > > <visti@s...> visti@s...

> > >

> > > _____

> > >

> > > saaji kulangara [saajik]

> > > 15 March 2005 05:32

> > > varahamihira

> > > |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

> > >

> > > Vistiji, I understand what you want to prove : ) Please see

> > archives,

> > > you will get all information.

> > >

> > > varahamihira , " Visti Larsen "

<visti@s...>

> > > wrote:

> > > > ||Hare Rama Krsna||

> > > >

> > > > Dear Saaji, Namaskar

> > > >

> > > > You wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Personally, I hold the view that whenever acharyas hold

different

> > > > views, one should follow one's Guru.

> > > >

> > > > Who is your Guru?

> > > >

> > > > Best wishes,

> > > >

> > > > Visti Larsen

> > > >

> > > > <http://srigaruda.com> http://srigaruda.com

> > > >

> > > > <visti@s...> visti@s...

> > > >

> > > > _____

> > > >

> > > > saaji kulangara [saajik]

> > > > 14 March 2005 17:42

> > > > varahamihira

> > > > |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sanjay Ji,

> > > >

> > > > Personally, I hold the view that whenever acharyas hold

different

> > > > views, one should follow one's Guru. Here in this case, I'd

say

> > > that

> > > > Maharshi Parasara also only quotes the views. This is the

same as

> > > > what the great Varahamihira says, that he doesn't formulate

> > > anything

> > > > but only quotes the different views of great rishis and

authors.

> > > The

> > > > different schemes might work in different times (acharyas do

> > their

> > > > work considering the combinations for all times) and also as

per

> > > the

> > > > advise of Gurus, hence they used to only quote the different

> > views.

> > > > Maharshi Parasara is only one of the 18 acharyas though he is

the

> > > > acharya of Jyotish in Kaliyuga. Though Sanskrit is flexible,

in

> > the

> > > > shlokas quoted by you, in 34.1 He first mentions seven karaka

> > > scheme

> > > > then eight. Being a great Rishi He could have specified

what's

> > > right

> > > > and what's wrong or what's his opinion, he doesn't seem to

> > specify

> > > > that. Since he specifies both schemes, can't that be, His

> > courtesy

> > > to

> > > > speak about the yoga of 8 karaka scheme also in the same

way?

> > > >

> > > > This is the shloka quoted by Dr Raman which he says is from

BPHS:

> > > >

> > > > ravyadi Sani paryanta bhavanti saptakarakaha

> > > > Amsaih Samyam grahaih dwou cha Rahum tangunayodwijaha

> > > >

> > > > This is a very simple sholka which I can also understand.

BPHS is

> > > > said to have many editions and interpolations.

> > > >

> > > > In Jaimini Sutras, Jaimini mentions both schemes. Here also

why

> > > > should a Maharshi quote both schemes when He could have

specified

> > > > something? In a " Sutra " I don't think Maharshi will add

something

> > > > which is not important.

> > > >

> > > > Acharyas of recent times have only quoted those of earlier

times.

> > > > Whenever they got two opinions, they quoted both as it was

> > > difficult

> > > > to specify which one is correct. ** Rishi proktams should

have to

> > > be

> > > > correct evenif they contradict.** As such saying one is

correct

> > is

> > > > not correct.

> > > >

> > > > Since Mahadeva is of Kaliyuga, 8 karaka scheme may be

important

> > in

> > > > Kaliyuga for living beings. My conclusion is that I cant

specify

> > > > which one is correct, as I can only quote these things.

> > Thereafter

> > > > I'll say that I use this Scheme.

> > > >

> > > > I don't know why I am writing this when I am not an expert

> > > > of " Parasari " or Jaimini. I've just started Jaimini Sutras

that

> > too

> > > I

> > > > still to complete the shlokas of Brihat Jataka. Sri Narasimha

> > > always

> > > > quotes that you are very kind and considers all opinion. Hope

you

> > > > will consider this * my opinion *. I always pray to Goddess

> > > > Mookambika to help me restrain from doing something

incorrect.

> > May

> > > > Goddess bless me, and you.

> > > >

> > > > Best Regards,

> > > >

> > > > Saaji

> > > >

> > > > varahamihira , " Sanjay Rath "

<guruji@s...>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Jaya Jagannatha

> > > > > Dear Jyotisa

> > > > > Forgot to mention...those of you who do not believe in

Sadhana

> > > can

> > > > skip the

> > > > > first chapter of that work and go straight

to 'Understanding

> > > > Parasara'. I

> > > > > have given arguments that 'PARASARA USES 8 CHARA KARAKA

himself'

> > > > > With best wishes and warm regards,

> > > > > Sanjay Rath

> > > > > * * *

> > > > > Sri Jagannath CenterR

> > > > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road

> > > > > New Delhi 110060, India

> > > > > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162

> > > > > * * *

> > > > >

> > > > > _____

> > > > >

> > > > > Sanjay Rath [guruji@s...]

> > > > > Monday, March 14, 2005 8:33 PM

> > > > > vedic astrology ;

> > varahamihira

> > > > > |Sri Varaha| Atmakaraka 52 page doc

> > > > >

> > > > > Jaya Jagannatha

> > > > > Dear Jyotisa

> > > > > I have seen many arguments in these lists about the seven

and

> > > eight

> > > > chara

> > > > > karaka. I have uploaded a 52 page document titled

Atmakaraka

> > > which

> > > > was the

> > > > > handout for the SJC West Coast conference in 2003. Please

go

> > > > through this

> > > > > first and hen get into debates. All I am requesting is -

> > > > > PLEASE READ THIS DOCUMENT FIRST and then give your opinion.

If

> > > > there is any

> > > > > portion thereof which cannot be understood, please the West

> > coast

> > > > CD and I

> > > > > am always there to answer.

> > > > > There are references to

> > > > > 1. Parasara

> > > > > 2. Jaimini

> > > > > 3. Mahadeva Jataka Tatva

> > > > > other documents and works. Please read the references for

> > > yourself.

> > > > > The link is at http://srath.com/lectures/ak.pdf

> > > > >

> > > > > With best wishes and warm regards,

> > > > > Sanjay Rath

> > > > > * * *

> > > > > Sri Jagannath CenterR

> > > > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road

> > > > > New Delhi 110060, India

> > > > > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162

> > > > > * * *

> > > > >

> > > > > |Om Tat Sat|

> > > > > http://www.varahamihira

> > > > >

March 15, 2005

Jaya Jagannatha

Dear Saaji

Looks like you have been reading a lot of trash in the internet. One

such trash at

states the following -

----------

Noumenal Knowledge is Atma – Para Vidya.

Archetypal Knowledge is Buddhi – Gupta Vidya.

Typal Knowledge is Manas – Apara Vidya.

Nescience or No-Knowledge is the lower Quaternary – Avidya.

Here, too, " mind is the slayer of the Real. " It is the fall of Apara

Vidya into the abyss of separation, instead of remaining faithful to

its parent-source of Absolute Knowledge.

Four Vedas and six Vedangas (limbs of the Vedas) make the perfect

number ten, and they constitute Apara-Vidya, the Lower Knowledge, as

shown by the above quotation of the Mundakopanishad. These ten are

organized orifices in the body of Akshara -- the Imperishable Aum; the

substance composing that body is manasic or mahatic.

-----------

See how this stupid interpretation is now saying that the four Vedas

itself are Apara vidya!!! Don't believe such fools. Their excessive

thinking has caused their brains to rot. Stick to the Vedas and the

Seers...go back to the vedas. Get a copy and try to read it for yourself.

With best wishes and warm regards,

Sanjay Rath

* * *

Sri Jagannath Center®

15B Gangaram Hospital Road

New Delhi 110060, India

http://srath.com, +91-11-25717162

* * *

--

saaji kulangara [saajik]

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 11:58 PM

varahamihira

|Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

Mundakopanishad, Mundakam 1.6

varahamihira , " Sarbani Sarkar " <sarbani@s...>

wrote:

>

Jaya

> Jagannath

>

> Dear Saaji,

>

> Jyotish is NOT a para vidya? Now you are talking exactly like

Prabodh! Do

> you accept jyotish is a Vedanga? Swami Vigyanananda in his

translation of

> the Brhat Jataka has said that jyotish is one of the six angas of

the Vedas

> " that every Brahmana must study for his welfare in this and in the

other

> world... " . He has called it " the eye of the Vedas " . So has Sitaram

Jha, in

> his translation of the same text: " vedasya nirmalam

> chakshurjyotishastramakalmasham " . Do brush up your reading of

Parashara at

> the same time. I think 'all' versions of Parsara will have this,

chapter 1

> shloka 2:

>

> Bhagavan paramam punyam guhyam vedangamuttamam

> triskandham jyotisham hora ganitam sanheti cha

>

> Parasara thinks that jyotish is the most superior among all

vedangas. Read

> on after that, he immediately proceeds to describe the tatvadarshan

of

> Bhagavan Vishnu and the beginning of creation, ending with the

statement

> that grahas predominantly have paramatamsa. Why does he begin the

hora

> shastra in this manner? (Read the opening shloka of Braht Jatakam.

When you

> next talk about the Sun, remember what Varahamihira said). Read

about the

> Sisumara Chakra in the Vishnu Purana as a starter. Do spend a

little more

> time reflecting.

>

> The Vedas, Vedangas and Vedantas (the last includes the Upanishads)

all

> teach Brahmagyana. That is the ultimate aim of jyotish, as it is a

vedanga.

> I know both you and Prabodh will have problems in accepting this,

but I can

> at least request you to reflect.

>

> It is strange that one is writing a mail in Varahamihira on this

subject. I

> thought this was a forum for advanced students!

>

> Best regards,

>

> Sarbani

>

> _____

>

> saaji kulangara [saajik]

> Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:45 PM

> varahamihira

> |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

>

> Vistiji,

>

> Well, you got the mail fm Sarbaniji.

>

> I was offlist for sometime, hence I didn't see your post. I joined

> SJC 9 months back, but I was learning astrology for quite sometime

> before. I was very inspired by SJC and that's why I joined SJC. I

> wrote this to Sanjay Ji in one of our personal mails then. Sri

> Chandrashekhar Sharma is my Guru. I'm grateful to God in this

regard.

>

> My family background etc; I don't want to write, I'm sure that you

> are not looking for that information.(This also you will get from

my

> previous posts) I have no expectations from Jyotish(fame, name,

money

> whatever) but I become very happy when some one finds my post

useful.

> This time I posted my views, first I was amused by the way the

posts

> went in Probodh's case. And I hope so long as they are posted in

> groups others can give their opinion. (Sarbaniji, Jyotish is not a

> Para Vidya, so long as my reading in Upanishads go, only

brahmagyana

> is para vidya. I've a text of 110 Upanishads translated) and

another

> time, Sanjay Ji wanted to have the opinion after going through the

> article. I think the post was not liked by you and probably by

Sanjay

> Ji also, and I would take care of this in future.

>

> Any further mails in this regard, please send to my personal id.

>

> Best Regards,

>

> Saaji

>

> varahamihira , " Sarbani Sarkar "

<sarbani@s...>

> wrote:

> > Dear Visti,

> >

> > I checked up the Guru Shishya list at the office today and asked

> Mr. Guha

> > Roy. Saaji is Chandrashekharji's shishya.

> >

> > Best regards,

> >

> > Sarbani

> >

> > _____

> >

> > Visti Larsen [visti@s...]

> > Tuesday, March 15, 2005 4:00 PM

> > varahamihira

> > RE: |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

> >

> > ||Hare Rama Krsna||

> >

> > Dear Saaji, Namaskar

> >

> > I've read some of your past emails.. now i have to guess; is PVR

> Narasimha

> > Rao your Guru?

> >

> > If you followed the mails on list, i've requested

> someone to

> > give their biography when they presented contradicting views.

> Please present

> > yours. That way we know the person behind the email-id, and can

> better

> > understand why you say the things you say.

> >

> > Best wishes,

> >

> > Visti Larsen

> >

> >

> > <visti@s...> visti@s...

> >

> > _____

> >

> > saaji kulangara [saajik]

> > 15 March 2005 05:32

> > varahamihira

> > |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc

> >

> > Vistiji, I understand what you want to prove : ) Please see

> archives,

> > you will get all information.

> >

> > varahamihira , " Visti Larsen " <visti@s...>

> > wrote:

> > > ||Hare Rama Krsna||

> > >

> > > Dear Saaji, Namaskar

> > >

> > > You wrote:

> > >

> > > Personally, I hold the view that whenever acharyas hold

different

> > > views, one should follow one's Guru.

> > >

> > > Who is your Guru?

> > >

> > > Best wishes,

> > >

> > > Visti Larsen

> > >