Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 Dear SanjayP, Separating it from religion is one thing, but spirituality is another matter altogether. As you will very well know it is the very breath of jyotish. How many have decided to address jyotish at that high level. Raman did, but he chose not to disclose it. Fortunately, there are other traditions in India which are replete with it. Every single texbook of jyotish that I have read in Bengali, is steeped in spiritual source, in the same manner that we have learnt it here. BTW, try to get held of a book by Ananda K. Coomaraswamy called What is psychology. Read the first chapter where he descibes how and why most ancient scriptural and knowledge based texts in India have a spiritual starting point and why none of it can be 'non-spiritual'. Of course it is rooted in the basic premise of brahmagyan...the brahmagyana of shabda and not bairagya...more on that tomorrow for Saaji... Best reagrds, Sarbani 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://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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 Dear Sarbaniji, Please don't tempt me to use the same language you use. Incase you want to say something, please quote it by quotations and explain it carefully instead of saying all these things. You are also reaching a different state, which I can understand clearly. Incase you feel that I shouldn't stay in Varahamihira please express it clearly, I wont mind leaving the list at once. I express my views with quotations and it's you all to rate that. To tell you, I also come from a Brahmin family and my grand father was a great Sanskrit scholar whose Guru brahmashri Punnasseri Nambi Neelakanta Sarma was the legendary scholar of Jyotish, Ayurveda, Sanskrit and what not. He wrote a Sanskrit commentary for Prashna Marga which was rated as the best commentary for the text and Dr Raman used this text only to translate the text to English. I never get egoistic over these and other matters. And I never quote these things too, as I know my position. I was very unfortunate that I couldn't use their knowledge as at that time I had other priorities. I like convincing arguments. That's enough to satisfy me. If you are saying about Partha or Visti, I'm sure that they are advanced in knowledge in many matters, but in many matters they are yet to advance. If knowledge has reached the highest level, then things could have been easy, is it not? I see the Gurus also come with wrong ideas and then others correct them. You also get many things wrong. And Sanjay Ji also though rarely. What all these things mean? I have a copy of the Upanishads written by a great Scholar and I am not relying on any internet scripts. It's also based on Sankaracharya's bhashya. But I don't want to go into these matters now. I leave SJC. I hope Chandrashekharji will forgive me. Regards, Saaji varahamihira , " Sarbani Sarkar " <sarbani@s...> wrote: > > Dear Saaji, > > Your understanding and reading of the scriptures is quik, non- > contemplative and superficial to say the least. You surprise me > Saaji. Yet such confidence. I decided to give you Shankara's > commentary on this, as he is more hardhitting than I can be.And he > has precisely answered or rather commented for people like you who > take such a literary and superficial kind of meaning of the > Upanishads, which are laden with layers of meanings and hints. Of > course, that is if you consider Shankara's bhashya to be an > authority that you can trust? I see that Sanjayji has also referred > to it in his mail. But I will do so only tomorrow as it is past one > in the night, although I am very tempted. I have mentioned to you > earlier, reflect, and read carefully. You seem to write before you > read and even before you think. Do you know how young Visti and > Partha is? And they are far, far advanced...so it has nothing to do > with age...I have learnt from them what I have not from people twice > my age. I was implying that this sort of explanation is reserved for > the VA list; I thought the Varahamihira group had moved much beyond > that...obviously I am wrong... > > Best regards, > > Sarbani > > > > > varahamihira , " saaji kulangara " <saajik> > wrote: > > > > 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://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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 Dear Sarbaniji, Please don't tempt me to use the same language you use. Incase you want to say something, please quote it by quotations and explain it carefully instead of saying all these things. You are also reaching a different state, which I can understand clearly. Incase you feel that I shouldn't stay in Varahamihira please express it clearly, I wont mind leaving the list at once. I express my views with quotations and it's you all to rate that. To tell you, I also come from a Brahmin family and my grand father was a great Sanskrit scholar whose Guru brahmashri Punnasseri Nambi Neelakanta Sarma was the legendary scholar of Jyotish, Ayurveda, Sanskrit and what not. He wrote a Sanskrit commentary for Prashna Marga which was rated as the best commentary for the text and Dr Raman used this text only to translate the text to English. I never get egoistic over these and other matters. And I never quote these things too, as I know my position. I was very unfortunate that I couldn't use their knowledge as at that time I had other priorities. I like convincing arguments. That's enough to satisfy me. If you are saying about Partha or Visti, I'm sure that they are advanced in knowledge in many matters, but in many matters they are yet to advance. If knowledge has reached the highest level, then things could have been easy, is it not? I see the Gurus also come with wrong ideas and then others correct them. You also get many things wrong. And Sanjay Ji also though rarely. What all these things mean? I have a copy of the Upanishads written by a great Scholar and I am not relying on any internet scripts. It's also based on Sankaracharya's bhashya. But I don't want to go into these matters now. I leave SJC. I hope Chandrashekharji will forgive me. Regards, Saaji varahamihira , " Sarbani Sarkar " <sarbani@s...> wrote: > > Dear Saaji, > > Your understanding and reading of the scriptures is quik, non- > contemplative and superficial to say the least. You surprise me > Saaji. Yet such confidence. I decided to give you Shankara's > commentary on this, as he is more hardhitting than I can be.And he > has precisely answered or rather commented for people like you who > take such a literary and superficial kind of meaning of the > Upanishads, which are laden with layers of meanings and hints. Of > course, that is if you consider Shankara's bhashya to be an > authority that you can trust? I see that Sanjayji has also referred > to it in his mail. But I will do so only tomorrow as it is past one > in the night, although I am very tempted. I have mentioned to you > earlier, reflect, and read carefully. You seem to write before you > read and even before you think. Do you know how young Visti and > Partha is? And they are far, far advanced...so it has nothing to do > with age...I have learnt from them what I have not from people twice > my age. I was implying that this sort of explanation is reserved for > the VA list; I thought the Varahamihira group had moved much beyond > that...obviously I am wrong... > > Best regards, > > Sarbani > > > > > varahamihira , " saaji kulangara " <saajik> > wrote: > > > > 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://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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2005 Report Share Posted March 16, 2005 Dear Sanjay P Yes, the path is to integrate all, rather than create more differences. A knowledge that can help everyone, and not be exclusive. When we speak of dieties etc, probably the future scholars should emphasise why the particular Hindu dieties were discussed in the first place. A detailed scientific explanation on forms, energy, potential, and meditating on particular forms with a bhava( Krishna- meaning God personified, Shiva-the Master yogi) etc has to be emphasised. So say a Muslim or a christian wants to study jyotish without the words shiva, rama, krishna etc, probably can be given an edition that talks of the different energy forms, the powerful meaning of particular symbols that can create abundance of harmonious energy flow best wishes partha 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://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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2005 Report Share Posted March 16, 2005 Om Gurave Namah Namaste Saaji and Prabodh, I have followed your arguments with great interest and though late,( as usual !), I hasten to submit my humble thoughts in the matter. Prabodh, I think the term “Sadhana” is essentially non-religious and as Sanjay ji pointed out refers to any continuous, right effort. The term Sadhana is equally applicable to the out-pouring of Vaalmiki, the experiments of Madame Curie, the purity reflected in the paintings of Raja Ravi Varma, evolution of Mocrosoft or the sublimity in the voice of MS Subbulakshmi. It is the passion and perfection, which when brought to any chore, elevates both the person and his contribution. Sadhana is a very positive and non-sectarian term and I think it is unfair to limit it. Saaji, if the term “Para vidya” is applied to knowledge about Brahman, can you tell me any thing, place, time, or knowledge where Brahman is not pervasive? I feel that all branches of knowledge can be treated both as apara vidya and para vidya. At lower levels all vidya is apara vidya, whereas at higher levels all knowledge is para vidya. While “pindanda” is central to apara vidya, “brahmanda” is central to para vidya. For example, yoga can be mere physical exercise to many, but for some it can also be a threshold to epiphanic experiences. A carpenter might fashion a utilitarian stool, whereas another carpenter might sculpt an exquisitely carved figurine. The tools and the knowledge are the same, but the vision and passion are different. Thus, I feel that when any knowledge is elevated to the Universal level, it becomes para vidya. It happened when Einstein found out relativity theory, when Archimedes ran out naked from his bath shouting Eureka… Eureka… or when Newton saw the celebrated apple fall! It also happened when Keats sang about Beauty and Truth. These are no less momentous events for the mankind than.. say…the illuminating hours spent by Vivekananda on the rock in Kanyakumari. The focus is the same, the meditative process is the same and the “enlightenment” when they breached the boundary between the brahmanda and pindanda is the same. They were all yogis of the highest order and They all touched the Infinite…now would you call Physics, Chemistry or Literature para vidya ? Jyotish is a science which constantly seeks to elevate a person, to erase those unseen lines between the pindanda and brahmanda, by pointing out the essential unity, both in matter and spirit, in all creation. I would definitely call it a Para Vidya. Prabodh, Rahu is not merely a species found in charts, we can find him within us all the time, as is the case with other planets. The Great Lord Himself was not averse to taking Varahaavatara, which represents Rahu! Remember, Parasara calls Varahavatara a Poorna Avatara and of total Paramatmamsa alongside Nrisimha, Rama and Krishna Avataras. Why? Regards, Lakshmi > > varahamihira , "saaji kulangara" <saajik> > wrote:> > > > 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...] > > > > > Sent: 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.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2005 Report Share Posted March 16, 2005 Hare Rama Krishna Dear Saaji, You have proved my point beyond doubt. Thanks. I wrote in my mail that it is past 0ne in the night and I will write about Shankara's bhashya in the morning. But once again you did not read properly. Here is what you write: Incase you want to say something, please quote it by quotations and explain it carefully instead of saying all these things. I was going to reply to your mail this morning during the course of the day after finishing other work, but it appears not so. Anyway I will reply for the benefit of other members. Saaji, I have several translations of the Upanishads written by various scholars, and one needs to study them year after year to absorb and understand their true meaning. I don't think I understand anything compared to you who appears to be master in the field. Hence I resort to Shankara and`others for clarifying my doubts. Your attitude right from the beginning was aggressive although we tried to overlook it. It is obvious that debate on pure knowledge does not motivate you, and when confronted with a debate you start backing out, talk of leaving the group and quoting your ancestral pedigree. Your father's stature is inconsequential here, what you are and what you know, is what matters. Your birth as a Brahmin in unimportant. Frankly, nobody here cares whether you are a Brahmin or a shudra. But whether your karma is that of Brahmin, is what matters. Frankly, maybe I should leave Varahamihira now that caste and parental pedigree is being bandied around. I mentioned Visti and Partha's name (I could have also added SanjayP, Sarajit, Katti, Hari etc. etc) as you talked about age being equated with knowledge. I am not saying that they have more knowledge than you, only that they are young and yet very knowledgeable...so age has nothing to with it. I do take this tone with you, not because I am older in years to you, but because I thought it was my duty as a teacher to guide students. Obviously students resent this, as was obvious with Prabodh's reaction to Partha. Maybe we teachers need to rethink this and not assume roles of the teacher to all in SJC, but only to our own specific students. Best regards, Sarbani saaji kulangara [saajik] Wednesday, March 16, 2005 2:22 AMvarahamihira Subject: |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc Dear Sarbaniji,Please don't tempt me to use the same language you use. Incase you want to say something, please quote it by quotations and explain it carefully instead of saying all these things. You are also reaching a different state, which I can understand clearly.Incase you feel that I shouldn't stay in Varahamihira please express it clearly, I wont mind leaving the list at once. I express my views with quotations and it's you all to rate that. To tell you, I also come from a Brahmin family and my grand father was a great Sanskrit scholar whose Guru brahmashri Punnasseri Nambi Neelakanta Sarma was the legendary scholar of Jyotish, Ayurveda, Sanskrit and what not. He wrote a Sanskrit commentary for Prashna Marga which was rated as the best commentary for the text and Dr Raman used this text only to translate the text to English. I never get egoistic over these and other matters. And I never quote these things too, as I know my position. I was very unfortunate that I couldn't use their knowledge as at that time I had other priorities. I like convincing arguments. That's enough to satisfy me. If you are saying about Partha or Visti, I'm sure that they are advanced in knowledge in many matters, but in many matters they are yet to advance. If knowledge has reached the highest level, then things could have been easy, is it not? I see the Gurus also come with wrong ideas and then others correct them. You also get many things wrong. And Sanjay Ji also though rarely. What all these things mean?I have a copy of the Upanishads written by a great Scholar and I am not relying on any internet scripts. It's also based on Sankaracharya's bhashya. But I don't want to go into these matters now.I leave SJC. I hope Chandrashekharji will forgive me. Regards,Saajivarahamihira , "Sarbani Sarkar" <sarbani@s...> wrote:> > Dear Saaji,> > Your understanding and reading of the scriptures is quik, non-> contemplative and superficial to say the least. You surprise me > Saaji. Yet such confidence. I decided to give you Shankara's > commentary on this, as he is more hardhitting than I can be.And he > has precisely answered or rather commented for people like you who > take such a literary and superficial kind of meaning of the > Upanishads, which are laden with layers of meanings and hints. Of > course, that is if you consider Shankara's bhashya to be an > authority that you can trust? I see that Sanjayji has also referred > to it in his mail. But I will do so only tomorrow as it is past one > in the night, although I am very tempted. I have mentioned to you > earlier, reflect, and read carefully. You seem to write before you > read and even before you think. Do you know how young Visti and > Partha is? And they are far, far advanced...so it has nothing to do > with age...I have learnt from them what I have not from people twice > my age. I was implying that this sort of explanation is reserved for > the VA list; I thought the Varahamihira group had moved much beyond > that...obviously I am wrong... > > Best regards,> > Sarbani> > > > > varahamihira , "saaji kulangara" <saajik> > wrote:> > > > 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://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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2005 Report Share Posted March 16, 2005 Dear Partha, Well said! Best regards, Sarbani V.Partha sarathy [partvinu] Wednesday, March 16, 2005 12:47 PMvedic astrology Subject: [vedic astrology] Re: |Sri Varaha| Atmakaraka 52 page doc Dear HariThanks for sharing your thoughts. The thread started when i said that sadhana is required to understand rahu as AK , which logically extend to the fact that sadhana is required to understand the subtle concepts of astrology.Now Shri Prabodh says that it is not necessary. I agreed to it. But he also talks of medieval brahminisim, parampara, exclusivity etc.What was originally given as an opinion has been turned to a big war of words. i am really at loss to understand how two different things can be said on the same issue.This is all the more surprising as he admits that he does pooja etc for the overall bettrement in Jyotish learning(these is exactly his statement), but denies the role of sadhana in understanding the specific aspects.Now what does he mean by "overall betterment in jyotish?"He says that he did Saraswati puja before starting classes, but denies its utility in understanding maths. I am again at loss to understand what does this exactly mean.This could mean that people do pooja, read mantras, but can deny the role of mantras/sadhanan in understanding the subjects?? Then why the heck do the poojas, mantras, simply start the learning without giving any respect to any diety, and start learning. Why this double standards? Every literate person can read books of Shri Sanjay rath, but to understand the layer of meanings in some important aspects of Jyotish, i wonder how many can without any sadhana, without any guru mantra.best wishesparthavedic astrology , "onlyhari" <onlyhari> wrote:> > ||Om Brihaspataye Namah||> > Dear Prabodh,> > Namaste. You are saying:> > (1) To study Jyotisa sastra, sadhana is not necessary.> (2) To make predictions, sadhana is necessary.> > Have I understood you correctly? Are you saying these are two> different aspects and is to be understood in the sense that one need> not have knowledge to predict correctly?> > I recently read a book on karma by Robert Svoboda, in which Svoboda's> guru, when asked a question on what is required to predict correctly,> replied "85% knowledge, 15% intuition". > > If I combine your statement that sadhana is necessary for prediction> along with this, does it not follow that sadhana is also necessary to> obtain the correct knowledge i.e., knowledge to predict correctly?> > kind regards> Hari> > vedic astrology , "Prabodh Vekhande"> <amolmandar> wrote:> > > > Guruji Pranam> > > > Actually I knew that you will be laughing at me! I am sorry that I got> > into this discussions in this fashion. May be my RMPY makes me to do> > that! But you will see that I never said that performing Sadhana for> > correct prediction should not be done. Aap ke sath raha ke Itana to> > maine sikh hi liya hai. Pahale maine jab aap ke Sadhana ke bare me> > kaha tha it was on your predictive ability. It is under stress> > because of your frequent travelling. You dont get Time to do your> > Sadhana and that is why your prediction may go worng. I still say that> > you must get more time to perform your Sadhana(for more and more> > correct prediction and become undisputed HERO of Vedic Astrology). > > > > But I still do not understand why Sadhana of some kind is required in> > learning Jyotish. On the other hand learning regularly should be a> > Sadhana.I learn from you when I am with you and every day I learn from> > you(from your books no sadhana involved!) but what sort of Sadhana is> > required for that. My basic objection was on to understand Ak as rahu> > you require Sadhana. Yane Jyotisha nahi huaa koi Bhuta vidya hui. Sir> > dont take me otherwise but there are more and more people getting into> > this kind of spiritual aspect which is not required in my opinion for> > learning jyotish. > > Now a days with your blessings,knowledge and permissions, I am> > teaching Jyotisha at SJC Nagpur. We have now good collections of 25+> > students and almost every body is very happy to learn(from me!). We> > have people from every walk of life and most of them are 40+. I was> > just thinking what will they think if I tell them that to learn(not> > predict) some kind of Sadhana is required! > > > > I know that Partha is Dhan Lagna which you like most! and hence may> > find his opinion nearer to your heart! Pur Hamare taraf bhi Kripa> > drishti rakhana. Atleast I require it most. Guru he nahi raha to mera> > RMPY kya kam ka???> > > > Thanks a lot for your Time and Astrology.> > > > Prabodh Vekhande> > Jai Jai Shankar> > Har Har ShankarArchives: vedic astrologyGroup info: vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2005 Report Share Posted March 16, 2005 Dear Sanjay, I have not understood the need to kick out Pitrukaraka for facilitating operation of Maharaja Yoga. Putrakaraka merges with Matru Karaka in 7 Chara Karaka scheme of things, as told by sage Parashara. So it is not as if it vanishes. What is there fore the need to give Pitru karaka a go by even in 7 Chara Karaka scheme? Maharaja Yoga would still be shown to operate by taking the 7th Chara Karaka. After all that is the planet which is 7th in descending order of degrees, this fact does not change. Chandrashekhar. Sanjay Rath 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 Center® 15B Gangaram Hospital Road New Delhi 110060, India 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 > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2005 Report Share Posted March 16, 2005 Dear Sanjay, If I may intervene. It appears everybody is hammering Saaji, without verifying what is said in the scriptures. Various interpretations about what consists of Para and Apara Vidya are being given. Normally stickler about meaning of Sanskrit words, it appears no body is paying attention of what is meant by Para and Apara. I think none would deny authority of Shankaracharya on what constitutes Para and Apara Vidya. This is what H.H. Jayendra Saraswati of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetha says about Mundaka Upanishad and Para and Apara Vidya. "If you do not realise that the karmakanda is a means to take you to the "paravidya" that is constituted by the Upanisads, then the Vedas (that is their karmakanda) is an apara vidya like any other subject such as history or geography that is learned at school. It is for this reason that the Mundaka Upanisad includes the Vedas in the category of apara-vidya. This Upanisad describes a person who performs Vedic rites for ephemeral enjoyments, mundane benefits, as a mere beast (pasu)." How Theosophical society interpretation of what is the essence of Hindu Dharma is to be held to be higher than Upanishads escapes me. Even they seem to accept what is said in Manduka Upanishad as: "Let us turn our attention to the pair of Para and Apara Vidyas of which the Mundakopanishad [Mundakopanishad, I, 4-5.] speaks. Apara Vidya or the Lower Knowledge contains "the four Vedas, the Sciences of phonetics, ritual, grammar, philosophy, metrics and astrology." The Higher Knowledge is "that by which the Imperishable Akshara is realized." Akshara is the syllable Aum – the Pranava – the Sacred Word; "by taking refuge in it the Gods became immortal and fearless." [Chhandogyopanishad, I, 4-4.] From this it will become clear that Para Vidya, the Higher Knowledge, is the Noumenal aspect of the Absolute Knowledge about which we have been writing. The Apara Vidya, the lower, is the relative knowledge. Remains Gupta Vidya – the secret or esoteric Knowledge – that is the Archetypal aspect of Absolute Knowledge or Wisdom-Religion which we call Theosophy." The authority of Theosophical society to prove a point in Hindu Scriputures is a bit difficult to understand, especially when in the studies it proudly proclaims: "Theosophy is neither the Vedanta of the Hindus, nor the teachings of the Upanishads and other writings of the six schools of Indian philosophy." at the link provided. Let Us be fair to Saaji, instead of deriding him. I am sorry if I am hurting anyone's feelings, but truth must prevail. There are many references to what constitutes Para Vidya and Apara Vidya in Scriptures and it would be better to give these references to put across a point instead of trying to brush it off, especially when quote of Upanishad is given. The translation is correct ( I hope no one doubts even H.H. Shankaracharya's Translation), so no point in trying to doubt it. Chandrashekhar. Sanjay Rath wrote: Jaya Jagannatha Dear Saaji Looks like you have been reading a lot of trash in the internet. One such trash at http://www.teosofiskakompaniet.net/BPWadiaSecretDoctrineStudies5.htm 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 > > > > <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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2005 Report Share Posted March 16, 2005 Dear Saaji, I wish you do not leave Varahamihira List. You have not done anything wrong. One must have courage of one's conviction and you have demonstrated that you do have it. I understand your feeling and I also support your stand. As a matter of fact, I have just sent a mail and given what H.H. Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti has said about this, including his translation of the same portion of Mundaka Upanishad. I do not see why you should leave the list for making statements supported by quotes from scriptures. I have always held that when talking about matter religious, in case of controversy, statements must be supported by quotes from same authorities on whom one is banking. Instead of leaving the list, I wish you find other scriptural references to Para and Apara Vidya, and there are many even in Puranas and quote them. Chandrashekhar. saaji kulangara wrote: Dear Sarbaniji, Please don't tempt me to use the same language you use. Incase you want to say something, please quote it by quotations and explain it carefully instead of saying all these things. You are also reaching a different state, which I can understand clearly. Incase you feel that I shouldn't stay in Varahamihira please express it clearly, I wont mind leaving the list at once. I express my views with quotations and it's you all to rate that. To tell you, I also come from a Brahmin family and my grand father was a great Sanskrit scholar whose Guru brahmashri Punnasseri Nambi Neelakanta Sarma was the legendary scholar of Jyotish, Ayurveda, Sanskrit and what not. He wrote a Sanskrit commentary for Prashna Marga which was rated as the best commentary for the text and Dr Raman used this text only to translate the text to English. I never get egoistic over these and other matters. And I never quote these things too, as I know my position. I was very unfortunate that I couldn't use their knowledge as at that time I had other priorities. I like convincing arguments. That's enough to satisfy me. If you are saying about Partha or Visti, I'm sure that they are advanced in knowledge in many matters, but in many matters they are yet to advance. If knowledge has reached the highest level, then things could have been easy, is it not? I see the Gurus also come with wrong ideas and then others correct them. You also get many things wrong. And Sanjay Ji also though rarely. What all these things mean? I have a copy of the Upanishads written by a great Scholar and I am not relying on any internet scripts. It's also based on Sankaracharya's bhashya. But I don't want to go into these matters now. I leave SJC. I hope Chandrashekharji will forgive me. Regards, Saaji varahamihira , "Sarbani Sarkar" <sarbani@s...> wrote: > > Dear Saaji, > > Your understanding and reading of the scriptures is quik, non- > contemplative and superficial to say the least. You surprise me > Saaji. Yet such confidence. I decided to give you Shankara's > commentary on this, as he is more hardhitting than I can be.And he > has precisely answered or rather commented for people like you who > take such a literary and superficial kind of meaning of the > Upanishads, which are laden with layers of meanings and hints. Of > course, that is if you consider Shankara's bhashya to be an > authority that you can trust? I see that Sanjayji has also referred > to it in his mail. But I will do so only tomorrow as it is past one > in the night, although I am very tempted. I have mentioned to you > earlier, reflect, and read carefully. You seem to write before you > read and even before you think. Do you know how young Visti and > Partha is? And they are far, far advanced...so it has nothing to do > with age...I have learnt from them what I have not from people twice > my age. I was implying that this sort of explanation is reserved for > the VA list; I thought the Varahamihira group had moved much beyond > that...obviously I am wrong... > > Best regards, > > Sarbani > > > > > varahamihira , "saaji kulangara" <saajik> > wrote: > > > > 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://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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2005 Report Share Posted March 16, 2005 Dear Sarbani, How does Partha or Visti (both of whom I respect for their Jyotish knowledge) having more or less knowledge prove that the quote from Mundaka Upanishad is wrong? Please look at Shankaracharya H.H. Jayendra Saraswati's opinion on Para and Apara Vidya that I have posted today. Chandrashekhar. Sarbani Sarkar wrote: Dear Saaji, Your understanding and reading of the scriptures is quik, non- contemplative and superficial to say the least. You surprise me Saaji. Yet such confidence. I decided to give you Shankara's commentary on this, as he is more hardhitting than I can be.And he has precisely answered or rather commented for people like you who take such a literary and superficial kind of meaning of the Upanishads, which are laden with layers of meanings and hints. Of course, that is if you consider Shankara's bhashya to be an authority that you can trust? I see that Sanjayji has also referred to it in his mail. But I will do so only tomorrow as it is past one in the night, although I am very tempted. I have mentioned to you earlier, reflect, and read carefully. You seem to write before you read and even before you think. Do you know how young Visti and Partha is? And they are far, far advanced...so it has nothing to do with age...I have learnt from them what I have not from people twice my age. I was implying that this sort of explanation is reserved for the VA list; I thought the Varahamihira group had moved much beyond that...obviously I am wrong... Best regards, Sarbani varahamihira , "saaji kulangara" <saajik> wrote: > > 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://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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 My mails are not downloading for some reason..so I am replying from the web. Chandrasekarji noone is deriding Saaji.This is a debate and he should be prepared to face the others, even if they are Jyotish Gurus. Instead of giving sound arguments countering the authority of Adi Shankaraka or accepting the authorit of Shankara he is keeping quiet. I am yet to find a message from him on this. I think the learned have explained their points very well and there is no doubt on the authority of Adi Shankara and his brilliant explanation.I don;t think anyone else can explain this better. In fatc the full version of Shankara has not been posted. Had it been translated and posted here, the arguments would end immediately...after allthat is Shankara. Regards and love to Saaji Sanjay Rath PS At least Saaji had the courage to speak his mind and only those who speak their minds can hope to have a transformation. Saaji see if you can get to read Shankara for yourself. ---- varahamihira , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46> wrote: > Dear Sanjay, > If I may intervene. It appears everybody is hammering Saaji, without > verifying what is said in the scriptures. Various interpretations about > what consists of Para and Apara Vidya are being given. Normally stickler > about meaning of Sanskrit words, it appears no body is paying attention > of what is meant by Para and Apara. I think none would deny authority of > Shankaracharya on what constitutes Para and Apara Vidya. This is what > H.H. Jayendra Saraswati of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetha says about Mundaka > Upanishad and Para and Apara Vidya. > > " If you do not realise that the karmakanda is a means to take you to the > " paravidya > <http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/referp5b.htm#PARAVIDYA> " that > is constituted by the Upanisads, then the Vedas (that is their > karmakanda) is an apara vidya > <http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/referp5b.htm#APARA%20VIDYA>like > any other subject such as history or geography that is learned at > school. It is for this reason that the /Mundaka Upanisad/ includes the > Vedas in the category of apara-vidya. > <http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/referp5b.htm#APARAVIDYA>This > Upanisad describes a person who performs Vedic rites for ephemeral > enjoyments, mundane benefits, as a mere beast (pasu). " > > How Theosophical society interpretation of what is the essence of Hindu > Dharma is to be held to be higher than Upanishads escapes me. Even they > seem to accept what is said in Manduka Upanishad as: > " Let us turn our attention to the pair of Para and Apara Vidyas of which > the /Mundakopanishad /[/Mundakopanishad,/ I, 4-5.]/ /speaks. Apara Vidya > or the Lower Knowledge contains " the four Vedas, the Sciences of > phonetics, ritual, grammar, philosophy, metrics and astrology. " The > Higher Knowledge is " that by which the Imperishable Akshara is > realized. " Akshara is the syllable Aum - the Pranava - the Sacred Word; > " by taking refuge in it the Gods became immortal and fearless. " > [/Chhandogyopanishad,/ I, 4-4.] > > From this it will become clear that Para Vidya, the Higher Knowledge, > is the Noumenal aspect of the Absolute Knowledge about which we have > been writing. The Apara Vidya, the lower, is the relative knowledge. > Remains Gupta Vidya - the secret or esoteric Knowledge - that is the > Archetypal aspect of Absolute Knowledge or Wisdom-Religion which we call > Theosophy. " > > The authority of Theosophical society to prove a point in Hindu > Scriputures is a bit difficult to understand, especially when in the > studies it proudly proclaims: > " Theosophy is neither the Vedanta of the Hindus, nor the teachings of > the /Upanishads /and other writings of the six schools of Indian > philosophy. " > at the link provided. > > Let Us be fair to Saaji, instead of deriding him. I am sorry if I am > hurting anyone's feelings, but truth must prevail. There are many > references to what constitutes Para Vidya and Apara Vidya in Scriptures > and it would be better to give these references to put across a point > instead of trying to brush it off, especially when quote of Upanishad is > given. The translation is correct ( I hope no one doubts even H.H. > Shankaracharya's Translation), so no point in trying to doubt it. > > Chandrashekhar. > > > Sanjay Rath wrote: > > > > > > > > > Jaya Jagannatha > > Dear Saaji > > Looks like you have been reading a lot of trash in the internet. One > > such trash at > > http://www.teosofiskakompaniet.net/BPWadiaSecretDoctrineStudies5.htm > > 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 > > > > > > > > <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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Dear Chandrashekharji, Courage of what conviction? He does not have any stand, he has not discussed anything...only flung wild accusations, contrary to the atmosphere of Varahamihira...and then stalked of when confronted with debate and conversation. Thanks to him the atmosphere in this group...which was supposed to be a haven away from other lists...have become sullied. Whereas, if his doubts (if he had any doubts in the first place) were genuine, it would have given us ample opportunity to discuss and learn, not only about the chara karakas but also about the Mundakya, however little we may. But I don't blame Saaji; a student is admitted in Varahamihira only if he has a guru just for this very reason, that his guru may guide him how to conduct himself. Throwing accusations are for the VA list. This has made me rethink a lot of things...about teaching and shisyas. Buyt more later in the night... Best regards, Sarbani Chandrashekhar [chandrashekhar46] Thursday, March 17, 2005 3:04 AMvarahamihira Subject: Re: |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc Dear Saaji,I wish you do not leave Varahamihira List. You have not done anything wrong. One must have courage of one's conviction and you have demonstrated that you do have it. I understand your feeling and I also support your stand. As a matter of fact, I have just sent a mail and given what H.H. Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti has said about this, including his translation of the same portion of Mundaka Upanishad. I do not see why you should leave the list for making statements supported by quotes from scriptures. I have always held that when talking about matter religious, in case of controversy, statements must be supported by quotes from same authorities on whom one is banking. Instead of leaving the list, I wish you find other scriptural references to Para and Apara Vidya, and there are many even in Puranas and quote them.Chandrashekhar.saaji kulangara wrote: Dear Sarbaniji,Please don't tempt me to use the same language you use. Incase you want to say something, please quote it by quotations and explain it carefully instead of saying all these things. You are also reaching a different state, which I can understand clearly.Incase you feel that I shouldn't stay in Varahamihira please express it clearly, I wont mind leaving the list at once. I express my views with quotations and it's you all to rate that. To tell you, I also come from a Brahmin family and my grand father was a great Sanskrit scholar whose Guru brahmashri Punnasseri Nambi Neelakanta Sarma was the legendary scholar of Jyotish, Ayurveda, Sanskrit and what not. He wrote a Sanskrit commentary for Prashna Marga which was rated as the best commentary for the text and Dr Raman used this text only to translate the text to English. I never get egoistic over these and other matters. And I never quote these things too, as I know my position. I was very unfortunate that I couldn't use their knowledge as at that time I had other priorities. I like convincing arguments. That's enough to satisfy me. If you are saying about Partha or Visti, I'm sure that they are advanced in knowledge in many matters, but in many matters they are yet to advance. If knowledge has reached the highest level, then things could have been easy, is it not? I see the Gurus also come with wrong ideas and then others correct them. You also get many things wrong. And Sanjay Ji also though rarely. What all these things mean?I have a copy of the Upanishads written by a great Scholar and I am not relying on any internet scripts. It's also based on Sankaracharya's bhashya. But I don't want to go into these matters now.I leave SJC. I hope Chandrashekharji will forgive me. Regards,Saajivarahamihira , "Sarbani Sarkar" <sarbani@s...> wrote:> > Dear Saaji,> > Your understanding and reading of the scriptures is quik, non-> contemplative and superficial to say the least. You surprise me > Saaji. Yet such confidence. I decided to give you Shankara's > commentary on this, as he is more hardhitting than I can be.And he > has precisely answered or rather commented for people like you who > take such a literary and superficial kind of meaning of the > Upanishads, which are laden with layers of meanings and hints. Of > course, that is if you consider Shankara's bhashya to be an > authority that you can trust? I see that Sanjayji has also referred > to it in his mail. But I will do so only tomorrow as it is past one > in the night, although I am very tempted. I have mentioned to you > earlier, reflect, and read carefully. You seem to write before you > read and even before you think. Do you know how young Visti and > Partha is? And they are far, far advanced...so it has nothing to do > with age...I have learnt from them what I have not from people twice > my age. I was implying that this sort of explanation is reserved for > the VA list; I thought the Varahamihira group had moved much beyond > that...obviously I am wrong... > > Best regards,> > Sarbani> > > > > varahamihira , "saaji kulangara" <saajik> > wrote:> > > > 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://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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Dear Sajji Namste I just wanted to write something as you are thinking of going away from list. Please dont take my mail otherwise. I dont want to prove or teach you anything. I dont want to judgemental about your writtings as I feel that I am public limited person with private limited knowledge! The Real Problem The sanskrit parallel of ego is 'jiva-bhava'. In vedantic scriptures the word jiva is described as that conscious entity which has a definite sense of individuality, it has a definite identity-which is a sum total of the properties of its various upadhis blessed by the ever-existing & self-effulgent substratum. When we hear that ego is the root cause of all problems then we want to eliminate it lock, stock & barrel. But it is better if we first try to understand as to what is the 'real problem'. That I am a conscious thinking subject is no problem, it is in fact one the greatest blessings. That I can react to a situation is no problem again;every body does that. Even Gurus react. If I have a sense of self-esteem then also it should be no problems, and individuality by itself too is no problem as such. The only problem is that the moment we define ourselves as so & so then along with this identity we also impose limitations on us. It is this intrinsic sense of limitation which doesn't seem to be natural & acceptable. The mind naturally reacts to all limitations. Moksha implies freedom from all sense of limitations. A man of knowledge also has his own definite identity on every stage of life, each & everyone is unique, yet the beauty of Self-knowledge is that he has no sense of limitation whatsoever. So what some are trying to address with you is this sense of limitation alone. SJC Manthan Discussions in SJC are indeed like manthan. In this churning not only the very vichara has its own joy & kicks, but also brings amruta in the end. But as the story goes, more often than not it is the visha which comes out first. (Many feel here that I play that role!) Those who do not get deterred by this painful phase alone get the prasad of divine elixir of right appreciation - the amruta. It is a joy to witness some very good discussions in the Vrahamihir or VA list. At times I do jump in (which many dont like!)but then resolve to wait a little bit more. When the amruta is just round the corner(Sanjay ji is expected to give it again!) then why deny the joy of its discovery to the person discussing the issue. The discussion on the current topic has now taken an interesting turn. So rethink and if possible start writting. Thanks a lot for your Time and Sapce. Prabodh Vekhande Jai Jai Shankar Har Har Shankar varahamihira , " saaji kulangara " <saajik> wrote: > > Dear Sarbaniji, > > Please don't tempt me to use the same language you use. Incase you > want to say something, please quote it by quotations and explain it > carefully instead of saying all these things. You are also reaching a > different state, which I can understand clearly. > > Incase you feel that I shouldn't stay in Varahamihira please express > it clearly, I wont mind leaving the list at once. I express my views > with quotations and it's you all to rate that. To tell you, I also > come from a Brahmin family and my grand father was a great Sanskrit > scholar whose Guru brahmashri Punnasseri Nambi Neelakanta Sarma was > the legendary scholar of Jyotish, Ayurveda, Sanskrit and what not. He > wrote a Sanskrit commentary for Prashna Marga which was rated as the > best commentary for the text and Dr Raman used this text only to > translate the text to English. I never get egoistic over these and > other matters. And I never quote these things too, as I know my > position. I was very unfortunate that I couldn't use their knowledge > as at that time I had other priorities. > > I like convincing arguments. That's enough to satisfy me. If you are > saying about Partha or Visti, I'm sure that they are advanced in > knowledge in many matters, but in many matters they are yet to > advance. If knowledge has reached the highest level, then things > could have been easy, is it not? I see the Gurus also come with wrong > ideas and then others correct them. You also get many things wrong. > And Sanjay Ji also though rarely. What all these things mean? > > I have a copy of the Upanishads written by a great Scholar and I am > not relying on any internet scripts. It's also based on > Sankaracharya's bhashya. But I don't want to go into these matters > now. > > I leave SJC. I hope Chandrashekharji will forgive me. > > Regards, > > Saaji > > > > > varahamihira , " Sarbani Sarkar " <sarbani@s...> > wrote: > > > > Dear Saaji, > > > > Your understanding and reading of the scriptures is quik, non- > > contemplative and superficial to say the least. You surprise me > > Saaji. Yet such confidence. I decided to give you Shankara's > > commentary on this, as he is more hardhitting than I can be.And he > > has precisely answered or rather commented for people like you who > > take such a literary and superficial kind of meaning of the > > Upanishads, which are laden with layers of meanings and hints. Of > > course, that is if you consider Shankara's bhashya to be an > > authority that you can trust? I see that Sanjayji has also referred > > to it in his mail. But I will do so only tomorrow as it is past one > > in the night, although I am very tempted. I have mentioned to you > > earlier, reflect, and read carefully. You seem to write before you > > read and even before you think. Do you know how young Visti and > > Partha is? And they are far, far advanced...so it has nothing to do > > with age...I have learnt from them what I have not from people > twice > > my age. I was implying that this sort of explanation is reserved > for > > the VA list; I thought the Varahamihira group had moved much beyond > > that...obviously I am wrong... > > > > Best regards, > > > > Sarbani > > > > > > > > > > varahamihira , " saaji kulangara " > <saajik> > > wrote: > > > > > > 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://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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Dear Sarbani, May I know where are the accusations you are reffereing to? Chandrashekhar. Sarbani Sarkar wrote: Dear Chandrashekharji, Firstly read post that I just mailed to Sanjay P, where I have given a detailed explanation. As for the rest of your accusations, they are so trivial, that I will only answer them in the night. Narasimha's JHora has arrived for the past two days, and my priority is to hunt around and get the cheapest options necessary for duplications and labels. Secondly, I am starting a class for beginners, that is for those who do not know that there are 12 signs and houses but want to read the whole of bPHS immediately. Thirdly, SJC is starting a publications unit...there are a lot of legal formalities to that which I have to attend to. Next, there is a young author waiting patiently for me to finish proofing his book. If you read a mail I wrote to Saaji later...the young astrologers have nothing to do with the Mundakya. Best regards, Sarbani Chandrashekhar [chandrashekhar46] Thursday, March 17, 2005 3:08 AM varahamihira Re: |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc Dear Sarbani, How does Partha or Visti (both of whom I respect for their Jyotish knowledge) having more or less knowledge prove that the quote from Mundaka Upanishad is wrong? Please look at Shankaracharya H.H. Jayendra Saraswati's opinion on Para and Apara Vidya that I have posted today. Chandrashekhar. Sarbani Sarkar wrote: Dear Saaji, Your understanding and reading of the scriptures is quik, non- contemplative and superficial to say the least. You surprise me Saaji. Yet such confidence. I decided to give you Shankara's commentary on this, as he is more hardhitting than I can be.And he has precisely answered or rather commented for people like you who take such a literary and superficial kind of meaning of the Upanishads, which are laden with layers of meanings and hints. Of course, that is if you consider Shankara's bhashya to be an authority that you can trust? I see that Sanjayji has also referred to it in his mail. But I will do so only tomorrow as it is past one in the night, although I am very tempted. I have mentioned to you earlier, reflect, and read carefully. You seem to write before you read and even before you think. Do you know how young Visti and Partha is? And they are far, far advanced...so it has nothing to do with age...I have learnt from them what I have not from people twice my age. I was implying that this sort of explanation is reserved for the VA list; I thought the Varahamihira group had moved much beyond that...obviously I am wrong... Best regards, Sarbani varahamihira , "saaji kulangara" <saajik> wrote: > > 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://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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Dear Sarbani, Why fixation for Gurus in case of Saaji? I remember Visti asking him whether he is Shishya of Narasimha. And by the way he was referring to Mundaka and not Mundakya. I would like to know Sanjay's opinion on this aspersion on Gurus. Chandrashekhar. Sarbani Sarkar wrote: Dear Chandrashekharji, Courage of what conviction? He does not have any stand, he has not discussed anything...only flung wild accusations, contrary to the atmosphere of Varahamihira...and then stalked of when confronted with debate and conversation. Thanks to him the atmosphere in this group...which was supposed to be a haven away from other lists...have become sullied. Whereas, if his doubts (if he had any doubts in the first place) were genuine, it would have given us ample opportunity to discuss and learn, not only about the chara karakas but also about the Mundakya, however little we may. But I don't blame Saaji; a student is admitted in Varahamihira only if he has a guru just for this very reason, that his guru may guide him how to conduct himself. Throwing accusations are for the VA list. This has made me rethink a lot of things...about teaching and shisyas. Buyt more later in the night... Best regards, Sarbani Chandrashekhar [chandrashekhar46] Thursday, March 17, 2005 3:04 AM varahamihira Re: |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc Dear Saaji, I wish you do not leave Varahamihira List. You have not done anything wrong. One must have courage of one's conviction and you have demonstrated that you do have it. I understand your feeling and I also support your stand. As a matter of fact, I have just sent a mail and given what H.H. Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti has said about this, including his translation of the same portion of Mundaka Upanishad. I do not see why you should leave the list for making statements supported by quotes from scriptures. I have always held that when talking about matter religious, in case of controversy, statements must be supported by quotes from same authorities on whom one is banking. Instead of leaving the list, I wish you find other scriptural references to Para and Apara Vidya, and there are many even in Puranas and quote them. Chandrashekhar. saaji kulangara wrote: Dear Sarbaniji, Please don't tempt me to use the same language you use. Incase you want to say something, please quote it by quotations and explain it carefully instead of saying all these things. You are also reaching a different state, which I can understand clearly. Incase you feel that I shouldn't stay in Varahamihira please express it clearly, I wont mind leaving the list at once. I express my views with quotations and it's you all to rate that. To tell you, I also come from a Brahmin family and my grand father was a great Sanskrit scholar whose Guru brahmashri Punnasseri Nambi Neelakanta Sarma was the legendary scholar of Jyotish, Ayurveda, Sanskrit and what not. He wrote a Sanskrit commentary for Prashna Marga which was rated as the best commentary for the text and Dr Raman used this text only to translate the text to English. I never get egoistic over these and other matters. And I never quote these things too, as I know my position. I was very unfortunate that I couldn't use their knowledge as at that time I had other priorities. I like convincing arguments. That's enough to satisfy me. If you are saying about Partha or Visti, I'm sure that they are advanced in knowledge in many matters, but in many matters they are yet to advance. If knowledge has reached the highest level, then things could have been easy, is it not? I see the Gurus also come with wrong ideas and then others correct them. You also get many things wrong. And Sanjay Ji also though rarely. What all these things mean? I have a copy of the Upanishads written by a great Scholar and I am not relying on any internet scripts. It's also based on Sankaracharya's bhashya. But I don't want to go into these matters now. I leave SJC. I hope Chandrashekharji will forgive me. Regards, Saaji varahamihira , "Sarbani Sarkar" <sarbani@s...> wrote: > > Dear Saaji, > > Your understanding and reading of the scriptures is quik, non- > contemplative and superficial to say the least. You surprise me > Saaji. Yet such confidence. I decided to give you Shankara's > commentary on this, as he is more hardhitting than I can be.And he > has precisely answered or rather commented for people like you who > take such a literary and superficial kind of meaning of the > Upanishads, which are laden with layers of meanings and hints. Of > course, that is if you consider Shankara's bhashya to be an > authority that you can trust? I see that Sanjayji has also referred > to it in his mail. But I will do so only tomorrow as it is past one > in the night, although I am very tempted. I have mentioned to you > earlier, reflect, and read carefully. You seem to write before you > read and even before you think. Do you know how young Visti and > Partha is? And they are far, far advanced...so it has nothing to do > with age...I have learnt from them what I have not from people twice > my age. I was implying that this sort of explanation is reserved for > the VA list; I thought the Varahamihira group had moved much beyond > that...obviously I am wrong... > > Best regards, > > Sarbani > > > > > varahamihira , "saaji kulangara" <saajik> > wrote: > > > > 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://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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Dear Sanjay, I am not sure you have read all the mails addressed to him. For records, he has not written to me or asked my intervention. If you read today's mail by Sarbani, you will find aspersions being cast on me indirectly. Similarly some time back he was asked whether Narasimha is his Guru, instead of replying to him. Does this mean mine or Narasimha's shishyas should not ask questions on the list? I remember something that perhaps needs to be pondered over by everyone, before trying to dismiss any query by rude language and without giving scriptural reference in support on an argument on religion. b & ht s<ihta båhata saàhitä nàitbÏ< gmyit vi´ n c àîmekmip p & ò>, napratibaddhaà gamayati vakti na ca praçnamekamapi påñöaù| ingdit n c iz:ye_y> s kw<zaôawRivÁ}ey>.13. nigadati na ca çiñyebhyaù sa kathaàçästrärthaviïjïeyaù||13|| I will not translate this as I would not like to create any discord. About facing others, I wish everybody does that. Sanjay Rath wrote: My mails are not downloading for some reason..so I am replying from the web. Chandrasekarji noone is deriding Saaji.This is a debate and he should be prepared to face the others, even if they are Jyotish Gurus. Instead of giving sound arguments countering the authority of Adi Shankaraka or accepting the authorit of Shankara he is keeping quiet. I am yet to find a message from him on this. I think the learned have explained their points very well and there is no doubt on the authority of Adi Shankara and his brilliant explanation.I don;t think anyone else can explain this better. In fatc the full version of Shankara has not been posted. Had it been translated and posted here, the arguments would end immediately...after allthat is Shankara. Regards and love to Saaji Sanjay Rath PS At least Saaji had the courage to speak his mind and only those who speak their minds can hope to have a transformation. Saaji see if you can get to read Shankara for yourself. ---- varahamihira , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46> wrote: > Dear Sanjay, > If I may intervene. It appears everybody is hammering Saaji, without > verifying what is said in the scriptures. Various interpretations about > what consists of Para and Apara Vidya are being given. Normally stickler > about meaning of Sanskrit words, it appears no body is paying attention > of what is meant by Para and Apara. I think none would deny authority of > Shankaracharya on what constitutes Para and Apara Vidya. This is what > H.H. Jayendra Saraswati of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetha says about Mundaka > Upanishad and Para and Apara Vidya. > > "If you do not realise that the karmakanda is a means to take you to the > "paravidya > <http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/referp5b.htm#PARAVIDYA>" that > is constituted by the Upanisads, then the Vedas (that is their > karmakanda) is an apara vidya > <http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/referp5b.htm#APARA%20VIDYA>like > any other subject such as history or geography that is learned at > school. It is for this reason that the /Mundaka Upanisad/ includes the > Vedas in the category of apara-vidya. > <http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/referp5b.htm#APARAVIDYA>This > Upanisad describes a person who performs Vedic rites for ephemeral > enjoyments, mundane benefits, as a mere beast (pasu)." > > How Theosophical society interpretation of what is the essence of Hindu > Dharma is to be held to be higher than Upanishads escapes me. Even they > seem to accept what is said in Manduka Upanishad as: > "Let us turn our attention to the pair of Para and Apara Vidyas of which > the /Mundakopanishad /[/Mundakopanishad,/ I, 4-5.]/ /speaks. Apara Vidya > or the Lower Knowledge contains "the four Vedas, the Sciences of > phonetics, ritual, grammar, philosophy, metrics and astrology." The > Higher Knowledge is "that by which the Imperishable Akshara is > realized." Akshara is the syllable Aum - the Pranava - the Sacred Word; > "by taking refuge in it the Gods became immortal and fearless." > [/Chhandogyopanishad,/ I, 4-4.] > > From this it will become clear that Para Vidya, the Higher Knowledge, > is the Noumenal aspect of the Absolute Knowledge about which we have > been writing. The Apara Vidya, the lower, is the relative knowledge. > Remains Gupta Vidya - the secret or esoteric Knowledge - that is the > Archetypal aspect of Absolute Knowledge or Wisdom-Religion which we call > Theosophy." > > The authority of Theosophical society to prove a point in Hindu > Scriputures is a bit difficult to understand, especially when in the > studies it proudly proclaims: > "Theosophy is neither the Vedanta of the Hindus, nor the teachings of > the /Upanishads /and other writings of the six schools of Indian > philosophy." > at the link provided. > > Let Us be fair to Saaji, instead of deriding him. I am sorry if I am > hurting anyone's feelings, but truth must prevail. There are many > references to what constitutes Para Vidya and Apara Vidya in Scriptures > and it would be better to give these references to put across a point > instead of trying to brush it off, especially when quote of Upanishad is > given. The translation is correct ( I hope no one doubts even H.H. > Shankaracharya's Translation), so no point in trying to doubt it. > > Chandrashekhar. > > > Sanjay Rath wrote: > > > > > > > > > Jaya Jagannatha > > Dear Saaji > > Looks like you have been reading a lot of trash in the internet. One > > such trash at > > http://www.teosofiskakompaniet.net/BPWadiaSecretDoctrineStudies5.htm > > 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 > > > > > > > > <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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.