Kaala-chakra Dashaa : Scheme and Sub-periods

March 11, 2010

Chowkhamba Prakashan, by Pt. Devchandra Jha (nice to have BPHS in a single

volume with 672 pages). It has 99 chapters (GC Sharma has an additional one

making an even 100).

On another note, it is indeed saddening to see so much in-fighting going on in

the Jyotish domain. Some see in it signs of progress, I see speed-bumps! I hope

and pray that I am wrong...!

Rohiniranjan

, Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar

wrote:

>

> Dear chandrashekar ji

>

> If i recall right Vinay ji has a different version of BPHS than IN CIRCULATION

CALLE CHOWkam or so if ai m wrong Vinay ji pl correct me, no offence meant and

it is there in sanskrit,, Hindi so we r not on the same footing as he is

> and u r right in asking for the full sloka to present any point clearly

toreaders

>

> and Utkal,lalit is no ones friend he likes bashing any line that is not in

tune with his whims and fancies [at times calls it mothers direct channel to him

though] he has not spared any rishim or astrologer of any era so far so we r all

small fish/inscets to him

>

> and Vinay ji has some info and i hope he can present his case without geting

confused on being questioned we in this group want to know so ask questions

>

> we r not questioning him a such I've assured him manytimes on this as he has

been badly treated in many groups

>

> we have given all a fair chance and leave the judgement on their contrubition,

net worth to the public wer r all too small to judge anyone the subject is so

wide, and much more widely spread in the sub-continent so we must accept, test

any view that comes in a good manner than challange, abuses as utkal and th

elike do

>

> if they present all their cases with good samples, supporting info it will be

good for us. we r all open to know, learn, life is about learning till then end

for us. if we forget this surely we will be reduced to dust soon.

>

> G B Prashant Kumar Life Member ICAS.

>

/database?method=reportRows & tbl=6

>

> ________________________________

> Chandrashekhar <sharma.chandrashekhar

>

> Thu, March 11, 2010 11:17:35 PM

> Re: Re: Kaala-chakra Dashaa : Scheme and Sub-periods

>

> Dear Vinayji,

>

> I do not understand why you need others to defend you. When I ask something

you try to evade the question and do not give a direct answer. Someone named

Utkal then tells me to read Padmanaabha Sharma's Tika of BPHS.

>

> The 1000 chapters that are referred to in my post is a misprint. It is 100

chapters.

>

> Why not give both the shlokas that are said to indicate that the shloka you

refer to indeed refers to kalachakra dasha instead of giving only half part of a

shloka? That would better prove your point instead of giving half a shloka?

Since you are a scholar of Sanskrit (which I never claimed to be) you must know

the importance of both anvaya and sandarbha while interpreting Sanskrit shlokas.

I am sure it is referring to how to calculate the beginning of dasha based on

the degrees past in a nakshatra and not the order of Mahadasha as is being

suggested by you.

>

> But since till now you have never given a straight answer to a straight

question, I know it is futile to argue with you. You have passed comments like

me not having read books etc through your proxy Utkal and also your self many a

times. That is why I surmise you think yourself to be the greatest authority on

KCD.

>

> I will take G B Prashant's advise and stop responding as you have not yet

indicated how ashvinyaadi 2nd charana Karka rashi dasha order is the one that

you gave, even now. Please do not ask me to read some other (according to you)

text that only you or Utkal or whosoever you are have read. Writing voluminous

mails with wrong charges does not make your arguments right.

>

> I am sure the readers of this discussions who also possess many of the BPHS

editions will draw the right conclusions when they read their own editions.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> -

> VJha

>

> Thursday, March 11, 2010 12:17 AM

> Re: Kaala-chakra Dashaa : Scheme and Sub-periods

>

> To GB Prashant Ji and Chandrashekhar Ji :

>

> Mr Chandrashekhar Ji makes a fine statement : " people are more

> interested in maligning others than discussing finer points of jyotish " .

>

> But he says to me : " you seem to imply that you are the only authority

> on KCD and imply that others have not read any texts. "

>

> Where I said I am the only authority on KCD. When did I say others have

> not read any texts ? Why Mr Chandrashekhar is making false statements

> on my behalf ? Is his tyle of discussing " finer points of jyotish "

> ???

>

> I am surprised with his false claims : " I have many more editions of

> BPHS with me including even the Ganeshdatta Pathaka one, and one with

> all the 1000 chapters. " Why he does not name the publisher of such a

> non-existent edition of BPHS ??

>

> He also says : " the shloka you are quoting does not say that Kalachakra

> dasha should be deduced in accordance with Vimshottari dashas. At least

> the shloka you quote does not say so. He lacks the knowledge of

> Sanskrit, hence I am quoting the original Sanskrit verse as well as its

> Hindi translation in Chowkhamba edition :

>

> " Labdham bhukta-varshaadi bhogyam tasmaat prasaadhyet / Vimshottareeva

> raasheenaam navaanaamstat- mahaadashaa. "

>

> = " tasmaat (ie,remainder of computations mentioned in earlier verse)

> bhogya varshaadi laakar Vimshottari ki tarah agrim raasheeyon ki

> mahaadashaa lagaani chaahiye " .

>

> My translation : From the remainder of computations mentioned in

> earlier verse, find the remaining years from the elapsed years and like

> the Vimshottari find out the mahadashaa of coming nine raashis.

>

> Why Mr Chandrashekhar misleads this forum by deliberately

> mis-translating this verse ?? He can take the help of any Sanskrit or

> Hindi scholar if he does not know these languages. All editions of BPHS

> do not contain this verse, but it does not mean Mr Chandrashekhar should

> distort the meaning of this verse. The Hindi meaning given above was

> given by Pt Devachandra Jha, a reputed Sanskrit scholar, which is

> published by Chowkhamba, world's largest publisher of indological books.

>

> Above example shows Mr Chandrashekhar did not read this edition of

> BPHS. But the following example of his " erudition " proves Mr

> Chandrashekhar did not read any edition of BPHS carefully.

>

> I was told at the beginning of this thread by RCS : " BPHS has 56 Stanza

> describing results of AD alone. "

>

> It is a wrong statement which convinced me RCS had not properly read

> BPHS. The actual number of verses is 58 and not 56 which describe the

> results of KCD's AD alone. To test whether RCS actually read BPHS

> carefully or not, I posted the following message which was a trap (I

> laid this trap to test the depth of members in this thread because I was

> getting weird messages concerning this thread at my private email ID) :

>

> " Can you show me where BPHS has mentioned even the existence of AD in

> KCD ? The very idea of AD in KCD is a conjecture which may be right of

> wrong. BPHS has a separate chapter on KCD-phalaadhyaaya containing 37

> verse, besides 55 verses about Phala in initial chapter on KCD. These

> results are about MD. Since BPHS has clearly mentioned MD in KCD,we may

> assume the existence of AD, PD, SD and PrD as well. Their method of

> computation has been explained in my article which you have not read

> properly. "

>

> This passage did not mention that there are three chapters on KCD in

> BPHS, of which one (Kaalachakra- navaamsha- phalaadhyaaya) is present at

> different locations in some editions. In above para, I mentioned only

> two chapters of BPHS containing 55 and 37 verses about KCD (ie,

> dashaa-bhedaadhyaay a and Kaalachakra- navaamsha- phalaadhyaaya) . The third

> chapter Kaalachakra- antardashaa- phalaadhyaaya contains 58 verses which

> Mr RCS and Mr Chandrashekhar have certainly seen, but I was told by

> them that this chapter has only 56 stanzas. Stanza is a collection of

> verses. RCS ought to have written 56 verses and not 56 stanzas. Why he

> failed to count 58 and reported 56 only ?? Why Mr Chandrashekhar failed

> to report that Vinay Jha is ignorant of three chapters in BPHS and knows

> only two chapters ?? Thus, he failed the test. Did he not know how many

> chapters are in BPHS about KCD ??

>

> RCS is a good person. I have no grudge against him, or against Mr

> Chandrashekhar either. The only point is that Mr Chandrashekhar is a

> careless reader who hurries to conclusions without caring to read a

> thread or a book properly.

>

> I said earlier that I am not going to describe KCD in detail at present,

> because I am going to deliver lectures at four conferences in two

> universities in UP, followed by Haridwar and Delhi. This statement

> does not mean I know everything. No one in this forum knows everything.

> It is not me but Mr Chandrashekhar who claims to have read all

> non-existent 1000 chapters of BPHS !! He cannot show proofs of even

> one-tenth of this number. This extravagant statement means all others in

> the world know only 97 or 98 or 99 chapters of BPHS, while Mr

> Chandrashekhar knows 1000 chapters !! Yet this person charges me to be

> " maligning others than discussing finer points of jyotish " . Mr

> Chandrashekhar is a person unable to understand a single line in BPHS

> ( " Vimshottareeva raasheenaam navaanaamstat- mahaadashaa " ), yet deems

> himself an authority on KCD because he writes books on KCD !! An

> authority on BPHS must learn, at least, how to read Sanskrit texts of

> Jyotisha, because reliance on translators leads to pitfalls.

>

> -VJ

> ============ ======= ===

> , " Chandrashekhar "

> <sharma.chandrashek har@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Prashant Kumar,

> >

> > Is that so? That is why I got mail from Utkal when I wrote a

> rejoinder to Vinayji. Seems like there are too many fake ids on the

> lists these days.

> >

> > That is so sad. it seems these days people are more interested in

> maligning others than discussing finer points of jyotish.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Chandrashekhar

> >

> > -

> > Prashant Kumar G B

> >

> > Tuesday, March 09, 2010 8:06 AM

> > Re: Re: Kaala-chakra Dashaa : Scheme and Sub-periods

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekar ji,Members

> >

> > u must know Lalit Misra alias Utkal panigrahi has one and only one

> goal that he is the only one in the universe be it from any bygone

> Yoga/era to now who knows all as he is in direct contact to a mother and

> who tells him what to do, rest of them r jukt to ro be mud slinged,

> maligned, abused by him again the only one who is empowered to do so....

> > and now he has been targeting PVN ji on several counts it is a pity

> that one can descend to such lows not all his messages r worthy of group

> reading hence this msg.

> > he wont spare any living or dead astrologer,scholar so no big deal

> if u read any abusive mails in any fake NAME. if they get approved it is

> a mistake but not a intention to malign any member here

> >

> > as all old members r free -unmoderated and every group has such

> parasites-using fake ID's so be prepared and also know we can deal with

> them with composure, poise as always

> >

> > .- G B Prashant Kumar Life Member ICAS.

> >

> http://groups. / group/Jyotish_ Remedies/ database? method=reportRow

\

> s & tbl=6

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > Chandrashekhar sharma.chandrashekh ar@

> >

> > Mon, March 8, 2010 10:37:58 PM

> > Re: Re: Kaala-chakra Dashaa : Scheme and Sub-periods

> >

> > Dear Vinayji,

> >

> > You seem to change the goal post every time some one comes near the

> goal. Was it not you who first said that there is no reference to

> Antardasha when I had given the title of Sitaram Jha or rather

> Kheladilal edition? So now why the sudden quote from the Devachandra Jha

> edition? Any way the shloka you are quoting does not say that Kalachakra

> dasha should be deduced in accordance with Vimshottari dashas. At least

> the shloka you quote does not say so.

> >

> > I have many more editions of BPHS with me including even the

> Ganeshdatta Pathaka one, and one with all the 1000 chapters. So please

> do not assume that everybody other than you is unaware of the different

> editions of BPHS in existence.

> >

> > You are again referring to the other threads on which you have

> written, whereas I have made it amply clear that my response was

> restricted to the original thread where you wrote that antar dashas of

> KCD are not mentioned but Sitaram Jha only deduced so.

> >

> > I can sense that you do not want to respond to direct question and

> are now attributing the dasha sequence to Narasimha where as it was in

> your mail. It is apparent you do not believe in answering a direct

> question and skirting it by writing voluminous mails. On the one hand

> you quote Devchandra Jha commentary in your support and then again say

> it is not complete. If that is so, why the insistence that one should

> only interpret the KCD on the basis of what is said there.

> >

> > I have read PhaladIpika and it is not the only text, besides BPHS,

> that gives Kalchakra dasha There are many more. But now that you have

> brought up that subject, do you draw KCD according to the Vakya system,

> as indicated by Mantreshvar and if so how? Why not give examples of why

> and how Vakya differs from normal panchanga calculations, since you seem

> to imply that you are the only authority on KCD and imply that others

> have not read any texts. That may help jyotish fraternity more than this

> jumping from one text to other.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Chandrashekhar

> >

> > -

> > VJha

> >

> > Monday, March 08, 2010 3:59 PM

> > Re: Kaala-chakra Dashaa : Scheme and Sub-periods

> >

> > Chandrashekhar Sharma Ji,

> >

> > You wrote :

> >

> > <<<

> > Now you are saying Parashara said that Kalachakra Mahadashas should

> > follow Vimshottari pattern. Your sentence is " In a previous chapter,

> > Sage Parashara says KCD's MD should be deduced according to

> Vimshottari.

> > " Why not give the shloka and chapter number and verse number to

> support

> > your argument? That would support what you are saying.

> > >>>

> >

> > You have not read the Chowkhamba edition by Pt Devachandra Jha which

> > says : " Vimshottariva raasheenaam navaanaam syaat-mahaadashaa "

> (verse 88

> > in the chapter Dashaabhedaadhyaaya ). Please read it.

> >

> > Your citation of the words " MeshaaMshe svaantare bhaume... " has

> again

> > convinced me that you are perhaps ignorant of differences in various

> > editions of BHPS. In many fora (mostly in another forum) including

> > this, I had started some discussed threads on various editions of

> BPHS,

> > and had announced my plan to collect all published editions and

> > available manuscripts of BPHS for publishing a critical edition of

> BPHS.

> > No internet user has helped in this plan so far, but I have not

> given up

> > this plan. In those threads, I said the Chowkhamba edition edited by

> Pt

> > Devachandra Jha is based on largest number on manuscripts and is

> > therefore most authentic, although it contains only 98 chapters and

> two

> > chapters and many verses in other chapters are missing or less than

> > satisfactory. Some other editions were also discussed in those

> threads.

> > Your verse " MeshaaMshe svaantare bhaume... " does not occur anywhere

> in

> > the edition I found to be most authentic. Pt Sitaram Jha was (ill-)

> > famous for inventing new meanings on unsound foundations. Some

> pandit

> > has rewritten many verses of BPHS during modern age and I am still

> at a

> > loss to identify that pandit/pandits.

> >

> > I do not believe that Chowkhamba edition by Pt Devachandra Jha is

> 100%

> > accurate. I want a critical edition taking help from all available

> > sources. Edition or translating is a small part, the main problem is

> > collection of various variants of BPHS.

> >

> > I had said that the article on KCD was not an independent article

> but

> > merely copied from my answer to PVR in another forum. I have not

> written

> > any comprehensive article or even a full summary of KCD. As for AD,

> I

> > did not give my own opinion on computing ADs because PVR also did

> not

> > explain his own ; he simply said his method is based on a Telugu

> book of

> > 1930 and he does not know the source of that book. Either PVR has

> not

> > read Phaladeepikaa or does not respect it and values a dubious

> Telugu

> > book more than traditionally respected texts. If you have not read

> > Phaladeepikaa, please read it , you will find it to be in harmony

> with

> > BPHS and it elaborates the missing points of BPHS as far as KCD AD

> is

> > concerned. I am not going to write any article on this point, even

> if

> > you repeat your charges of dishonesty on me.

> >

> > Asd far as " 4,5,3,10,11, 12,8,7,6 " is concerned, it was the sequence

> of

> > PVR against the wrong sequence given by Pt Sanjay Rath. I found

> PVR's

> > sequence to be in harmony with BPHS. If you are really interested in

> > knowing the sequences of KCD MD/Ad, read Phaladeepikaa. If not, you

> are

> > free to find additional sins in me.

> >

> > You said : " I do not create any sort of astro software so I do not

> > have any reason to distort anyone's statements. " No software maker

> has

> > ever tried to distort my statements. Now I believe you are not

> > deliberately distorting my statements. The fault lies in your belief

> in

> > certain edition and ignorance of other editions of BPHS. It is not

> my

> > fault for which you are accusing me of falsehood and dishonesty. As

> for

> > RCS, I was not merely provoking him to study properly, because he

> was

> > citing BPHS's 56 non-existent verses on AD's phala !!!

> >

> > All your doubts will be answered in Phaladeepikaa.

> >

> > -VJ

> > ============ ==== ===

> > , " Chandrashekhar "

> > <sharma.chandrashek har@ wrote:

> > >

> > > Vinayji,

> > >

> > > I have read your voluminous response. Actually that is the very

> reason

> > I usually do not like to enter into arguments on the lists.

> > >

> > > I am sad that you think I am distorting your statement. There is

> no

> > need to do so. I pasted what you said in the mail, while attributing

> > quotes to you. That you choose to change your stand from mail to

> mail

> > makes it difficult to continue this argument. But for the record in

> the

> > mail to RC you also said

> > > " Can you show me where BPHS has mentioned even the existence of AD

> in

> > KCD ? The very idea of AD in KCD is a conjecture which may be right

> of

> > wrong. BPHS has a separate chapter on KCD-phalaadhyaaya containing

> 37

> > verse, besides 55 verses about Phala in initial chapter on KCD.

> These

> > results are about MD. "

> > >

> > > So you yourself said that BPHS does not mention antardashas. When

> I

> > give you shloka to show that antar dasha is mentioned in BPHS, you

> want

> > to go off on a tangent about PD,SD, and so on. Even now you insist

> on

> > your stand and say " I still repeat AD is nowhere " mentioed " in BPHS,

> but

> > Pt Sitaram Jha " rightly " guessed AD was implied. " Why not explain

> what

> > is meant by " MeshaaMshe svaantare bhaume... " if the word antar is

> not

> > mentioning antardasha, what does is it mentioning and where is the

> guess

> > work on part of Sitaram Jha?

> > >

> > > Now you are saying Parashara said that Kalachakra Mahadashas

> should

> > follow Vimshottari pattern. Your sentence is " In a previous chapter,

> > Sage Parashara says KCD's MD should be deduced according to

> Vimshottari.

> > " Why not give the shloka and chapter number and verse number to

> support

> > your argument? That would support what you are saying.

> > >

> > > I do not think what arguments are going on other forum are of any

> > relevance here.

> > >

> > > You have still not answered my original question of variation of

> > antardasha order for Karka. You say there more karka Mahadashas,

> with

> > different order, that I agree. So why not give a few with whom the

> order

> > of antardasha given by you matches and also indicate why it would

> not

> > match the Karka Mahadasha order for the nakshatra given and also

> what

> > Mahadasha order with Karka Mahadasha cycle follows the order that

> you

> > suggest where with antardasha following the same order would be

> > " 4,5,3,10,11, 12,8,7,6. " as claimed by you. That may allow all of

> us to

> > learn more than accusing me of deliberately distorting what you are

> > saying?

> > >

> > > I do not think merely saying people are not understanding you or

> that

> > they are quoting out of context or they are deliberately distorting

> > what you say and they do not read your article does not prove your

> point

> > at all. I do not create any sort of astro software so I do not have

> any

> > reason to distort anyone's statements.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > -

> > > VJha

> > >

> > > Sunday, March 07, 2010 9:42 AM

> > > Re: Kaala-chakra Dashaa : Scheme and Sub-periods

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar Sharma Ji,

> > >

> > > You are deliberately distorting my words to invert my meanings. I

> > wrote

> > > :

> > >

> > > <<<

> > > BPHS mentions " mahaadashaa " but does not mention the word

> > " antardashaa " .

> > > The title " kalachakraantardas haaphalaadhyaaya " is not a part of

> > verses

> > > written by Sage Parashara but the handiwork of editor who rightly

> > felt

> > > that the topic was on AD.

> > > >>>

> > >

> > > I said BPHS does not mention the word " antardasha " but the editor

> > > rightly felt that the topic was on AD. You overlooked the word

> > " rightly "

> > > and tried to distort my statement.

> > >

> > > Another mistake by you is that you read " editors " instead of

> > " editor " .

> > > Pt Sitaram Jha wrongly labeled that chapter as AD, but Chowkhamba

> > > edition by Pt Devachandra Jha correctly labels it as

> > > " Kaalachakra- dashaa-phalaadhy aaya " . Why you assume all editors

> are

> > > unanimous ? Pt Sitaram Jha was a good pandit but too enthusiastic

> at

> > > many places. The first verse in that chapter says it is on

> > > " Kaalachakra- dashaaphalam " . Hence, this chapter was wrongly

> labeled

> > as

> > > AD by Pt Sitaram Jha, because it is actually about AD, PD, SD and

> > PrD.

> > > In a previous chapter, Sage Parashara says KCD's MD should be

> > deduced

> > > according to Vimshottari. There too, the mention of MD implies

> there

> > > must be lower periods. In the chapter

> > " Kaalachakra- dashaa-phalaadhy aaya "

> > > which Pt Sitaram Jha wrongly labeled as

> > > " Kaalachakra- antardashaa- phalaadhyaaya " , nine sub-periods of

> all

> > twelve

> > > raashis are mentioned, which you construe as only for AD while I

> > take it

> > > for nine ADs for raashis of MD, nine PDs for raashis of AD, nine

> SDs

> > for

> > > raashis of PD, and nine PranDs for raashis of SD. Had it not been

> > so,

> > > the text would have mentioned AD instead of KCD in general at the

> > > beginning of this chapter.

> > >

> > > My reply to RCS was merely to induce him to read my article before

> > > discussing. I still repeat AD is nowhere " mentioed " in BPHS, but

> Pt

> > > Sitaram Jha " rightly " guessed AD was implied. You misunderstood my

> > > message because you brought my statements out of context and

> changed

> > > some words to distort my meanings. This type of dialogue is used

> > when

> > > you want to vanquish an opponent and understanding others is not

> > one's

> > > aim.

> > >

> > > Discussion on KCD was going on in another forum (vedic astrology)

> > > between other members and PVR Narasimha Rao. Concerning that

> thread,

> > I

> > > had some correspondences with PVR Narasimha Rao Ji at my private

> > email

> > > ID (I had complained about defects in default KCD in JHORA). He

> > > clarified that JHORA has many defaults according to Sanjay Rath's

> > > scheme which PVR does not deem fit, and PVR's own method is given

> > under

> > > the option " Raghavacharya Method " . After this correspondence, I

> > copied

> > > parts of my message to him and posted it at my own website. Then,

> I

> > > informed this forum about that webpage. I had no intention to

> start

> > any

> > > discussion thread in this forum. Since my article was merely a

> part

> > of

> > > my message to PVR, the AD mentioned in my article was merely an

> > > elucidation of that case which PVR had mentioned in his thread in

> > > vedic astrology (about which he has very heated differences with

> his

> > > Guru Pt Sanjay Rath). Mr Rath gives a wrong sequence of second

> pada

> > of

> > > Ashwinyaadi while PVR gave a correct sequence which I supported.

> > BPHS

> > > gives 15 sequences out of 16, and this Ashwinyaadi- 2 was missing

> in

> > > BPHS. In my article, I elaborated how this missing sequence should

> > be

> > > reconstructed along the scheme of BPHS. It is not my discovery.

> > Since

> > > the discussion was on Ashwinyaadi- 2 (10,11,12,8, 7,6,4,5,3) , I

> gave

> > an

> > > example of Karka MD's nine ADs from this sequence as

> > > 4,5,3,10,11, 12,8,7,6. This is not the only type of Karka MD in

> LCD.

> > > Karka navamsha is present in 12 out of 16 sequences, hence there

> > will be

> > > twelve types of Karka MD. I am giving the whole list at my webpage

> > to

> > > clear the confusion. I have too many tasks and I hardly find time

> to

> > > write articles now-a-days. My article on KCD is not even a summary

> > of

> > > all important aspects of KCD and much is wanting in it. Only the

> > basic

> > > scheme was outlined in it, and the sole purpose of this article

> was

> > to

> > > prove the validity of A-2 sequence (Ashwinyaadi- 2 :

> > > 10,11,12,8,7, 6,4,5,3) which PVR is holding against Pt Sanjay Rath

> > and

> > > against Sri Jyoti Star.

> > >

> > > -VJ

> > > ============ ===== ====

> > > , " Chandrashekhar "

> > > sharma.chandrashekh ar@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Vinay,

> > > >

> > > > I generally do not like to get into an argument match,

> especially

> > on

> > > lists. Yet, I do not understand how you presumed that I have not

> > read

> > > out what you wrote. I merely said that antardashas of

> Kalchakradasha

> > are

> > > mentioned in BPHS and gave you the page number since you

> > specifically

> > > said that BPHS does not have them.

> > > >

> > > > You are saying that the adhyaaya on antardashas is assumed to be

> > of

> > > antardasha by the editors and claim that Parashara did not write

> any

> > > verses that can lead the editors to it. You may like to read the

> > verse

> > > at page 380 of the same edition where " MeshaMshe svaantare

> > bhaume---- "

> > > is written and the mention of antardasha is there beyond any

> doubt.

> > > >

> > > > Parashara has given the method of calculating Aantardashas

> pretty

> > > unambiguously and anyone who reads the BPHS properly can make out

> > what

> > > he is saying. I too think that un necessary complications are

> sought

> > to

> > > be brought in about drawing of antardashas especially in the KCD

> > scheme.

> > > But then I see you have given something called Karka mahadasha of

> > KCD'S

> > > Antardasha order as 4,5,3,10,11, 12,8,7,6.

> > > >

> > > > Your statement is the article is- " Antardashaas (AD) should be

> > deduced

> > > likewise according to Vimshottari scheme, ie Karka mahadasha will

> > have

> > > Karka AD as the first AD producing following sequence of AD in

> Karka

> > :

> > > 4,5,3,10,11, 12,8,7,6. Pratyantara & c may be deduced likewise. "

> > > >

> > > > May I ask you whether this is the order of antardashas if the

> > dasha

> > > order begins from BharaNi 4th pada where the order of KCD is

> > > 4,5,3,2,1,12, 11,10 and 9, that is it begins with Karka? If it

> > follows

> > > the order given by you , how does it fit in with the manner

> > Parashara

> > > told to look at the Antardasha in Vimshottari scheme?

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > VJha

> > > >

> > > > Saturday, March 06, 2010 11:39 PM

> > > > Re: Kaala-chakra Dashaa : Scheme and Sub-periods

> > > >

> > > > Mr Chandrashekhar,

> > > >

> > > > Without reading my article in which I described the method of

> > > working

> > > > out MD, AD, PD, etc of KCD besides elucidating the correct

> method

> > of

> > > > making sequences, RCS was asking questions I had already

> answered.

> > > >

> > > > RCS said he read my article, yet he asked two wrong question s :

> > > " Please

> > > > educate how you work out AD and How you move to next Sequence of

> > > dasa

> > > > once native has reached to end of ABC OR D IN a Pada. " To it, I

> > > > replied : " The very purpose of writing this article was

> > elucidation

> > > of

> > > > those very topics which you are asking " . Yet you failed to see

> the

> > > > point and intruded, like RCS, without reading the thread and my

> > > article

> > > > properly.

> > > >

> > > > BPHS mentions " mahaadashaa " but does not mention the word

> > > " antardashaa " .

> > > > The title " kalachakraantardas haaphalaadhyaaya " is not a part

> of

> > > verses

> > > > written by Sage Parashara but the handiwork of editor who

> rightly

> > > felt

> > > > that the topic was on AD. I was sure RCS would have failed to

> pick

> > > up

> > > > this point, but you helped him out.

> > > >

> > > > Now-a-days there are various innovations being introduced into

> > KCD.

> > > PVR

> > > > Narasimha Rao recently described this state of confusion, after

> > > which I

> > > > provided the link to my article in two fora. I tried to bring

> out

> > > the

> > > > original scheme of Sage Parashara which no member has cared to

> > > notice,

> > > > including you and RCS. This scheme has already been worked out

> in

> > > > Kundalee Software.

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > > ============ ==== ===

> > > > , " Chandrashekhar "

> > > > sharma.chandrashekh ar@ wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Vinay,

> > > > >

> > > > > I would not interject but for your statement that BPHS does

> not

> > > > mention antardashas in KCD. You have said " Can you show me where

> > > BPHS

> > > > has mentioned even the existence of AD in KCD ? "

> > > > >

> > > > > Please read page number 358 which has an adhyaaya called

> > > > kalachakraantardash aaphalaadhyaaya, in Sitaram Jha edition. I

> am

> > > sure

> > > > you will find the results of KCD antardasha phalas there.

> > > > >

> > > > > So RC ji is right.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > -

> > > > > VJha

> > > > >

> > > > > Saturday, March 06, 2010 8:28 PM

> > > > > Re: Kaala-chakra Dashaa : Scheme and Sub-periods

> > > > >

> > > > > To RCS :

> > > > >

> > > > > The very purpose of writing this article was elucidation of

> > those

> > > > very topics which you are asking : " how you work out AD and How

> > you

> > > move

> > > > to next Sequence " .

> > > > >

> > > > > It seems you have not read this article fully. The method of

> AD

> > > has

> > > > already been described with example. Those who know how to

> deduce

> > > > Vimshottari AD or PD will find no difficulty in understanding my

> > > > comments. Some modern astrologers are spreading confusion about

> > > > Shashthaashta- gati motion (6 to 11, 3 to 10 and vice versa)

> which

> > is

> > > > seen in Savya sequences (A, B) of pada-2.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am surprised with your statement " Apart from Gati, Deha and

> > > Jeeva

> > > > and KCD NAVAMSA BPHS has 56 Stanza describing results of AD

> > alone. "

> > > > >

> > > > > Can you show me where BPHS has mentioned even the existence of

> > AD

> > > in

> > > > KCD ? The very idea of AD in KCD is a conjecture which may be

> > right

> > > of

> > > > wrong. BPHS has a separate chapter on KCD-phalaadhyaaya

> containing

> > > 37

> > > > verse, besides 55 verses about Phala in initial chapter on KCD.

> > > These

> > > > results are about MD. Since BPHS has clearly mentioned MD in

> KCD,

> > we

> > > may

> > > > assume the existence of AD, PD, SD and PrD as well. Their method

> > of

> > > > computation has been explained in my article which you have not

> > read

> > > > properly.

> > > > >

> > > > > -VJ

> > > > > ============ ========= ===

> > > > > > of dasa once native has reached to end of ABC OR D IN a

> Pada.

> > > > >

> > > > > , " R C Srivastava "

> > > swami.rcs@

> > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear VJ,

> > > > > > Excellent summary OF KCD for those who have studied it .

> > > > > > Please educate how you work out AD and How you move to next

> > > > Sequence

> > > > > > of dasa once native has reached to end of ABC OR D IN a

> Pada.

> > > > > > Apart from Gati, Deha and Jeeva and KCD NAVAMSA BPHS has 56

> > > Stanza

> > > > > > describing results of AD alone. Therefore correct working of

> > AD

> > > is

> > > > very important.

> > > > > > With regards.

> > > > > > RCS

> > > > > >

> > > > > > . Kaala-chakra Dashaa : Scheme and Sub-periods

> > > > > > Posted by: " VJha " vinayjhaa16@ vinayjhaa16

> > > > > > Fri Mar 5, 2010 10:16 pm ((PST))

> > > > > >

> > > > > > To All :

> > > > > >

> > > > > > See the following webpage for elucidation of KCD :

> > > > > >

> > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Kalachakra- dashaa

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -VJ

> > > > > >

> > > > >

March 12, 2010

Dear G B Prashant kumar,

After reading Utkal's mail today, it is obvious that he, Lalit and perhaps even

VJha are the same person. The pattern of not responding to a direct question and

trying to name different texts, to deviate attention is also common.

I have also read Rohini Ranjan's mail. I only asked to justify the order of

Karka ashivinyaadi Mahadasha and where Parashara said that Kalachakra Mahadasha

order should follow Vimshottari Mahadasha.

Instead of replying half shloka from Chaukhamba edition is given. That shloka

gives how to calculate balance of mahadasha period at birth. But then comes the

accusation that I do not understand the shlokas and do not read books. I do not

mind if any one thinks that, but to evade answers and ask some one else (or the

same person answering under another name) to answer with name of some other text

(Padmanabha Sharma Tika) is not going to change the fact of the matter.

However as this pursuit of truth is leading nowhere, I shall not write on this

matter again. I would only state that the proposition made By Vinayji are not

supported his arguments. I am sure the learned shall draw their own conclusions.

Chandrashekhar.

-

Prashant Kumar G B

Thursday, March 11, 2010 11:45 PM

Re: Re: Kaala-chakra Dashaa : Scheme and Sub-periods

Dear chandrashekar ji

If i recall right Vinay ji has a different version of BPHS than IN CIRCULATION

CALLE CHOWkam or so if ai m wrong Vinay ji pl correct me, no offence meant and

it is there in sanskrit,, Hindi so we r not on the same footing as he is

and u r right in asking for the full sloka to present any point clearly

toreaders

and Utkal,lalit is no ones friend he likes bashing any line that is not in

tune with his whims and fancies [at times calls it mothers direct channel to him

though] he has not spared any rishim or astrologer of any era so far so we r all

small fish/inscets to him

and Vinay ji has some info and i hope he can present his case without geting

confused on being questioned we in this group want to know so ask questions

we r not questioning him a such I've assured him manytimes on this as he has

been badly treated in many groups

we have given all a fair chance and leave the judgement on their contrubition,

net worth to the public wer r all too small to judge anyone the subject is so

wide, and much more widely spread in the sub-continent so we must accept, test

any view that comes in a good manner than challange, abuses as utkal and th

elike do

if they present all their cases with good samples, supporting info it will be

good for us. we r all open to know, learn, life is about learning till then end

for us. if we forget this surely we will be reduced to dust soon.

G B Prashant Kumar Life Member ICAS.

/database?method=reportRows & tbl=6

________________________________

Chandrashekhar <sharma.chandrashekhar

Thu, March 11, 2010 11:17:35 PM

Re: Re: Kaala-chakra Dashaa : Scheme and Sub-periods

Dear Vinayji,

I do not understand why you need others to defend you. When I ask something

you try to evade the question and do not give a direct answer. Someone named

Utkal then tells me to read Padmanaabha Sharma's Tika of BPHS.

The 1000 chapters that are referred to in my post is a misprint. It is 100

chapters.

Why not give both the shlokas that are said to indicate that the shloka you

refer to indeed refers to kalachakra dasha instead of giving only half part of a

shloka? That would better prove your point instead of giving half a shloka?

Since you are a scholar of Sanskrit (which I never claimed to be) you must know

the importance of both anvaya and sandarbha while interpreting Sanskrit shlokas.

I am sure it is referring to how to calculate the beginning of dasha based on

the degrees past in a nakshatra and not the order of Mahadasha as is being

suggested by you.

But since till now you have never given a straight answer to a straight

question, I know it is futile to argue with you. You have passed comments like

me not having read books etc through your proxy Utkal and also your self many a

times. That is why I surmise you think yourself to be the greatest authority on

KCD.

I will take G B Prashant's advise and stop responding as you have not yet

indicated how ashvinyaadi 2nd charana Karka rashi dasha order is the one that

you gave, even now. Please do not ask me to read some other (according to you)

text that only you or Utkal or whosoever you are have read. Writing voluminous

mails with wrong charges does not make your arguments right.

I am sure the readers of this discussions who also possess many of the BPHS

editions will draw the right conclusions when they read their own editions.

Chandrashekhar.

-

VJha

Thursday, March 11, 2010 12:17 AM

Re: Kaala-chakra Dashaa : Scheme and Sub-periods

To GB Prashant Ji and Chandrashekhar Ji :

Mr Chandrashekhar Ji makes a fine statement : " people are more

interested in maligning others than discussing finer points of jyotish " .

But he says to me : " you seem to imply that you are the only authority

on KCD and imply that others have not read any texts. "

Where I said I am the only authority on KCD. When did I say others have

not read any texts ? Why Mr Chandrashekhar is making false statements

on my behalf ? Is his tyle of discussing " finer points of jyotish "

???

I am surprised with his false claims : " I have many more editions of

BPHS with me including even the Ganeshdatta Pathaka one, and one with

all the 1000 chapters. " Why he does not name the publisher of such a

non-existent edition of BPHS ??

He also says : " the shloka you are quoting does not say that Kalachakra

dasha should be deduced in accordance with Vimshottari dashas. At least

the shloka you quote does not say so. He lacks the knowledge of

Sanskrit, hence I am quoting the original Sanskrit verse as well as its

Hindi translation in Chowkhamba edition :

" Labdham bhukta-varshaadi bhogyam tasmaat prasaadhyet / Vimshottareeva

raasheenaam navaanaamstat- mahaadashaa. "

= " tasmaat (ie,remainder of computations mentioned in earlier verse)

bhogya varshaadi laakar Vimshottari ki tarah agrim raasheeyon ki

mahaadashaa lagaani chaahiye " .

My translation : From the remainder of computations mentioned in

earlier verse, find the remaining years from the elapsed years and like

the Vimshottari find out the mahadashaa of coming nine raashis.

Why Mr Chandrashekhar misleads this forum by deliberately

mis-translating this verse ?? He can take the help of any Sanskrit or

Hindi scholar if he does not know these languages. All editions of BPHS

do not contain this verse, but it does not mean Mr Chandrashekhar should

distort the meaning of this verse. The Hindi meaning given above was

given by Pt Devachandra Jha, a reputed Sanskrit scholar, which is

published by Chowkhamba, world's largest publisher of indological books.

Above example shows Mr Chandrashekhar did not read this edition of

BPHS. But the following example of his " erudition " proves Mr

Chandrashekhar did not read any edition of BPHS carefully.

I was told at the beginning of this thread by RCS : " BPHS has 56 Stanza

describing results of AD alone. "

It is a wrong statement which convinced me RCS had not properly read

BPHS. The actual number of verses is 58 and not 56 which describe the

results of KCD's AD alone. To test whether RCS actually read BPHS

carefully or not, I posted the following message which was a trap (I

laid this trap to test the depth of members in this thread because I was

getting weird messages concerning this thread at my private email ID) :

" Can you show me where BPHS has mentioned even the existence of AD in

KCD ? The very idea of AD in KCD is a conjecture which may be right of

wrong. BPHS has a separate chapter on KCD-phalaadhyaaya containing 37

verse, besides 55 verses about Phala in initial chapter on KCD. These

results are about MD. Since BPHS has clearly mentioned MD in KCD,we may

assume the existence of AD, PD, SD and PrD as well. Their method of

computation has been explained in my article which you have not read

properly. "

This passage did not mention that there are three chapters on KCD in

BPHS, of which one (Kaalachakra- navaamsha- phalaadhyaaya) is present at

different locations in some editions. In above para, I mentioned only

two chapters of BPHS containing 55 and 37 verses about KCD (ie,

dashaa-bhedaadhyaay a and Kaalachakra- navaamsha- phalaadhyaaya) . The third

chapter Kaalachakra- antardashaa- phalaadhyaaya contains 58 verses which

Mr RCS and Mr Chandrashekhar have certainly seen, but I was told by

them that this chapter has only 56 stanzas. Stanza is a collection of

verses. RCS ought to have written 56 verses and not 56 stanzas. Why he

failed to count 58 and reported 56 only ?? Why Mr Chandrashekhar failed

to report that Vinay Jha is ignorant of three chapters in BPHS and knows

only two chapters ?? Thus, he failed the test. Did he not know how many

chapters are in BPHS about KCD ??

RCS is a good person. I have no grudge against him, or against Mr

Chandrashekhar either. The only point is that Mr Chandrashekhar is a

careless reader who hurries to conclusions without caring to read a

thread or a book properly.

I said earlier that I am not going to describe KCD in detail at present,

because I am going to deliver lectures at four conferences in two

universities in UP, followed by Haridwar and Delhi. This statement

does not mean I know everything. No one in this forum knows everything.

It is not me but Mr Chandrashekhar who claims to have read all

non-existent 1000 chapters of BPHS !! He cannot show proofs of even

one-tenth of this number. This extravagant statement means all others in

the world know only 97 or 98 or 99 chapters of BPHS, while Mr

Chandrashekhar knows 1000 chapters !! Yet this person charges me to be

" maligning others than discussing finer points of jyotish " . Mr

Chandrashekhar is a person unable to understand a single line in BPHS

( " Vimshottareeva raasheenaam navaanaamstat- mahaadashaa " ), yet deems

himself an authority on KCD because he writes books on KCD !! An

authority on BPHS must learn, at least, how to read Sanskrit texts of

Jyotisha, because reliance on translators leads to pitfalls.

-VJ

============ ======= ===

, " Chandrashekhar "

<sharma.chandrashek har wrote:

>

> Dear Prashant Kumar,

>

> Is that so? That is why I got mail from Utkal when I wrote a

rejoinder to Vinayji. Seems like there are too many fake ids on the

lists these days.

>

> That is so sad. it seems these days people are more interested in

maligning others than discussing finer points of jyotish.

>

> Regards,

> Chandrashekhar

>

> -

> Prashant Kumar G B

>

> Tuesday, March 09, 2010 8:06 AM

> Re: Re: Kaala-chakra Dashaa : Scheme and Sub-periods

>

> Dear Chandrashekar ji,Members

>

> u must know Lalit Misra alias Utkal panigrahi has one and only one

goal that he is the only one in the universe be it from any bygone

Yoga/era to now who knows all as he is in direct contact to a mother and

who tells him what to do, rest of them r jukt to ro be mud slinged,

maligned, abused by him again the only one who is empowered to do so....

> and now he has been targeting PVN ji on several counts it is a pity

that one can descend to such lows not all his messages r worthy of group

reading hence this msg.

> he wont spare any living or dead astrologer,scholar so no big deal

if u read any abusive mails in any fake NAME. if they get approved it is

a mistake but not a intention to malign any member here

>

> as all old members r free -unmoderated and every group has such

parasites-using fake ID's so be prepared and also know we can deal with

them with composure, poise as always

>

> .- G B Prashant Kumar Life Member ICAS.

>

http://groups. / group/Jyotish_ Remedies/ database? method=reportRow

\

s & tbl=6

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> Chandrashekhar sharma.chandrashekh ar

>

> Mon, March 8, 2010 10:37:58 PM

> Re: Re: Kaala-chakra Dashaa : Scheme and Sub-periods

>

> Dear Vinayji,

>

> You seem to change the goal post every time some one comes near the

goal. Was it not you who first said that there is no reference to

Antardasha when I had given the title of Sitaram Jha or rather

Kheladilal edition? So now why the sudden quote from the Devachandra Jha

edition? Any way the shloka you are quoting does not say that Kalachakra

dasha should be deduced in accordance with Vimshottari dashas. At least

the shloka you quote does not say so.

>

> I have many more editions of BPHS with me including even the

Ganeshdatta Pathaka one, and one with all the 1000 chapters. So please

do not assume that everybody other than you is unaware of the different

editions of BPHS in existence.

>

> You are again referring to the other threads on which you have

written, whereas I have made it amply clear that my response was

restricted to the original thread where you wrote that antar dashas of

KCD are not mentioned but Sitaram Jha only deduced so.

>

> I can sense that you do not want to respond to direct question and

are now attributing the dasha sequence to Narasimha where as it was in

your mail. It is apparent you do not believe in answering a direct

question and skirting it by writing voluminous mails. On the one hand

you quote Devchandra Jha commentary in your support and then again say

it is not complete. If that is so, why the insistence that one should

only interpret the KCD on the basis of what is said there.

>

> I have read PhaladIpika and it is not the only text, besides BPHS,

that gives Kalchakra dasha There are many more. But now that you have

brought up that subject, do you draw KCD according to the Vakya system,

as indicated by Mantreshvar and if so how? Why not give examples of why

and how Vakya differs from normal panchanga calculations, since you seem

to imply that you are the only authority on KCD and imply that others

have not read any texts. That may help jyotish fraternity more than this

jumping from one text to other.

>

> Regards,

> Chandrashekhar

>

> -

> VJha

>

> Monday, March 08, 2010 3:59 PM

> Re: Kaala-chakra Dashaa : Scheme and Sub-periods

>

> Chandrashekhar Sharma Ji,

>

> You wrote :

>

> <<<

> Now you are saying Parashara said that Kalachakra Mahadashas should

> follow Vimshottari pattern. Your sentence is " In a previous chapter,

> Sage Parashara says KCD's MD should be deduced according to

Vimshottari.

> " Why not give the shloka and chapter number and verse number to

support

> your argument? That would support what you are saying.

> >>>

>

> You have not read the Chowkhamba edition by Pt Devachandra Jha which

> says : " Vimshottariva raasheenaam navaanaam syaat-mahaadashaa "

(verse 88

> in the chapter Dashaabhedaadhyaaya ). Please read it.

>

> Your citation of the words " MeshaaMshe svaantare bhaume... " has

again

> convinced me that you are perhaps ignorant of differences in various

> editions of BHPS. In many fora (mostly in another forum) including

> this, I had started some discussed threads on various editions of

BPHS,

> and had announced my plan to collect all published editions and

> available manuscripts of BPHS for publishing a critical edition of

BPHS.

> No internet user has helped in this plan so far, but I have not

given up

> this plan. In those threads, I said the Chowkhamba edition edited by

Pt

> Devachandra Jha is based on largest number on manuscripts and is

> therefore most authentic, although it contains only 98 chapters and

two

> chapters and many verses in other chapters are missing or less than

> satisfactory. Some other editions were also discussed in those

threads.

> Your verse " MeshaaMshe svaantare bhaume... " does not occur anywhere

in

> the edition I found to be most authentic. Pt Sitaram Jha was (ill-)

> famous for inventing new meanings on unsound foundations. Some

pandit

> has rewritten many verses of BPHS during modern age and I am still

at a

> loss to identify that pandit/pandits.

>

> I do not believe that Chowkhamba edition by Pt Devachandra Jha is

100%

> accurate. I want a critical edition taking help from all available

> sources. Edition or translating is a small part, the main problem is

> collection of various variants of BPHS.

>

> I had said that the article on KCD was not an independent article

but

> merely copied from my answer to PVR in another forum. I have not

written

> any comprehensive article or even a full summary of KCD. As for AD,

I

> did not give my own opinion on computing ADs because PVR also did

not

> explain his own ; he simply said his method is based on a Telugu

book of

> 1930 and he does not know the source of that book. Either PVR has

not

> read Phaladeepikaa or does not respect it and values a dubious

Telugu

> book more than traditionally respected texts. If you have not read

> Phaladeepikaa, please read it , you will find it to be in harmony

with

> BPHS and it elaborates the missing points of BPHS as far as KCD AD

is

> concerned. I am not going to write any article on this point, even

if

> you repeat your charges of dishonesty on me.

>

> Asd far as " 4,5,3,10,11, 12,8,7,6 " is concerned, it was the sequence

of

> PVR against the wrong sequence given by Pt Sanjay Rath. I found

PVR's

> sequence to be in harmony with BPHS. If you are really interested in

> knowing the sequences of KCD MD/Ad, read Phaladeepikaa. If not, you

are

> free to find additional sins in me.

>

> You said : " I do not create any sort of astro software so I do not

> have any reason to distort anyone's statements. " No software maker

has

> ever tried to distort my statements. Now I believe you are not

> deliberately distorting my statements. The fault lies in your belief

in

> certain edition and ignorance of other editions of BPHS. It is not

my

> fault for which you are accusing me of falsehood and dishonesty. As

for

> RCS, I was not merely provoking him to study properly, because he

was

> citing BPHS's 56 non-existent verses on AD's phala !!!

>

> All your doubts will be answered in Phaladeepikaa.

>

> -VJ

> ============ ==== ===

> , " Chandrashekhar "

> <sharma.chandrashek har@ wrote:

> >

> > Vinayji,

> >

> > I have read your voluminous response. Actually that is the very

reason

> I usually do not like to enter into arguments on the lists.

> >

> > I am sad that you think I am distorting your statement. There is

no

> need to do so. I pasted what you said in the mail, while attributing

> quotes to you. That you choose to change your stand from mail to

mail

> makes it difficult to continue this argument. But for the record in

the

> mail to RC you also said

> > " Can you show me where BPHS has mentioned even the existence of AD

in

> KCD ? The very idea of AD in KCD is a conjecture which may be right

of

> wrong. BPHS has a separate chapter on KCD-phalaadhyaaya containing

37

> verse, besides 55 verses about Phala in initial chapter on KCD.

These

> results are about MD. "

> >

> > So you yourself said that BPHS does not mention antardashas. When

I

> give you shloka to show that antar dasha is mentioned in BPHS, you

want

> to go off on a tangent about PD,SD, and so on. Even now you insist

on

> your stand and say " I still repeat AD is nowhere " mentioed " in BPHS,

but

> Pt Sitaram Jha " rightly " guessed AD was implied. " Why not explain

what

> is meant by " MeshaaMshe svaantare bhaume... " if the word antar is

not

> mentioning antardasha, what does is it mentioning and where is the

guess

> work on part of Sitaram Jha?

> >

> > Now you are saying Parashara said that Kalachakra Mahadashas

should

> follow Vimshottari pattern. Your sentence is " In a previous chapter,

> Sage Parashara says KCD's MD should be deduced according to

Vimshottari.

> " Why not give the shloka and chapter number and verse number to

support

> your argument? That would support what you are saying.

> >

> > I do not think what arguments are going on other forum are of any

> relevance here.

> >

> > You have still not answered my original question of variation of

> antardasha order for Karka. You say there more karka Mahadashas,

with

> different order, that I agree. So why not give a few with whom the

order

> of antardasha given by you matches and also indicate why it would

not

> match the Karka Mahadasha order for the nakshatra given and also

what

> Mahadasha order with Karka Mahadasha cycle follows the order that

you

> suggest where with antardasha following the same order would be

> " 4,5,3,10,11, 12,8,7,6. " as claimed by you. That may allow all of

us to

> learn more than accusing me of deliberately distorting what you are

> saying?

> >

> > I do not think merely saying people are not understanding you or

that

> they are quoting out of context or they are deliberately distorting

> what you say and they do not read your article does not prove your

point

> at all. I do not create any sort of astro software so I do not have

any

> reason to distort anyone's statements.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > -

> > VJha

> >

> > Sunday, March 07, 2010 9:42 AM

> > Re: Kaala-chakra Dashaa : Scheme and Sub-periods

> >

> > Chandrashekhar Sharma Ji,

> >

> > You are deliberately distorting my words to invert my meanings. I

> wrote

> > :

> >

> > <<<

> > BPHS mentions " mahaadashaa " but does not mention the word

> " antardashaa " .

> > The title " kalachakraantardas haaphalaadhyaaya " is not a part of

> verses

> > written by Sage Parashara but the handiwork of editor who rightly

> felt

> > that the topic was on AD.

> > >>>

> >

> > I said BPHS does not mention the word " antardasha " but the editor

> > rightly felt that the topic was on AD. You overlooked the word

> " rightly "

> > and tried to distort my statement.

> >

> > Another mistake by you is that you read " editors " instead of

> " editor " .

> > Pt Sitaram Jha wrongly labeled that chapter as AD, but Chowkhamba

> > edition by Pt Devachandra Jha correctly labels it as

> > " Kaalachakra- dashaa-phalaadhy aaya " . Why you assume all editors

are

> > unanimous ? Pt Sitaram Jha was a good pandit but too enthusiastic

at

> > many places. The first verse in that chapter says it is on

> > " Kaalachakra- dashaaphalam " . Hence, this chapter was wrongly

labeled

> as

> > AD by Pt Sitaram Jha, because it is actually about AD, PD, SD and

> PrD.

> > In a previous chapter, Sage Parashara says KCD's MD should be

> deduced

> > according to Vimshottari. There too, the mention of MD implies

there

> > must be lower periods. In the chapter

> " Kaalachakra- dashaa-phalaadhy aaya "

> > which Pt Sitaram Jha wrongly labeled as

> > " Kaalachakra- antardashaa- phalaadhyaaya " , nine sub-periods of

all

> twelve

> > raashis are mentioned, which you construe as only for AD while I

> take it

> > for nine ADs for raashis of MD, nine PDs for raashis of AD, nine

SDs

> for

> > raashis of PD, and nine PranDs for raashis of SD. Had it not been

> so,

> > the text would have mentioned AD instead of KCD in general at the

> > beginning of this chapter.

> >

> > My reply to RCS was merely to induce him to read my article before

> > discussing. I still repeat AD is nowhere " mentioed " in BPHS, but

Pt

> > Sitaram Jha " rightly " guessed AD was implied. You misunderstood my

> > message because you brought my statements out of context and

changed

> > some words to distort my meanings. This type of dialogue is used

> when

> > you want to vanquish an opponent and understanding others is not

> one's

> > aim.

> >

> > Discussion on KCD was going on in another forum (vedic astrology)

> > between other members and PVR Narasimha Rao. Concerning that

thread,

> I

> > had some correspondences with PVR Narasimha Rao Ji at my private

> email

> > ID (I had complained about defects in default KCD in JHORA). He

> > clarified that JHORA has many defaults according to Sanjay Rath's

> > scheme which PVR does not deem fit, and PVR's own method is given

> under

> > the option " Raghavacharya Method " . After this correspondence, I

> copied

> > parts of my message to him and posted it at my own website. Then,

I

> > informed this forum about that webpage. I had no intention to

start

> any

> > discussion thread in this forum. Since my article was merely a

part

> of

> > my message to PVR, the AD mentioned in my article was merely an

> > elucidation of that case which PVR had mentioned in his thread in

> > vedic astrology (about which he has very heated differences with

his

> > Guru Pt Sanjay Rath). Mr Rath gives a wrong sequence of second

pada

> of

> > Ashwinyaadi while PVR gave a correct sequence which I supported.

> BPHS

> > gives 15 sequences out of 16, and this Ashwinyaadi- 2 was missing

in

> > BPHS. In my article, I elaborated how this missing sequence should

> be

> > reconstructed along the scheme of BPHS. It is not my discovery.

> Since

> > the discussion was on Ashwinyaadi- 2 (10,11,12,8, 7,6,4,5,3) , I

gave

> an

> > example of Karka MD's nine ADs from this sequence as

> > 4,5,3,10,11, 12,8,7,6. This is not the only type of Karka MD in

LCD.

> > Karka navamsha is present in 12 out of 16 sequences, hence there

> will be

> > twelve types of Karka MD. I am giving the whole list at my webpage

> to

> > clear the confusion. I have too many tasks and I hardly find time

to

> > write articles now-a-days. My article on KCD is not even a summary

> of

> > all important aspects of KCD and much is wanting in it. Only the

> basic

> > scheme was outlined in it, and the sole purpose of this article

was

> to

> > prove the validity of A-2 sequence (Ashwinyaadi- 2 :

> > 10,11,12,8,7, 6,4,5,3) which PVR is holding against Pt Sanjay Rath

> and

> > against Sri Jyoti Star.

> >

> > -VJ

> > ============ ===== ====

> > , " Chandrashekhar "

> > sharma.chandrashekh ar@ wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Vinay,

> > >

> > > I generally do not like to get into an argument match,

especially

> on

> > lists. Yet, I do not understand how you presumed that I have not

> read

> > out what you wrote. I merely said that antardashas of

Kalchakradasha

> are

> > mentioned in BPHS and gave you the page number since you

> specifically

> > said that BPHS does not have them.

> > >

> > > You are saying that the adhyaaya on antardashas is assumed to be

> of

> > antardasha by the editors and claim that Parashara did not write

any

> > verses that can lead the editors to it. You may like to read the

> verse

> > at page 380 of the same edition where " MeshaMshe svaantare

> bhaume---- "

> > is written and the mention of antardasha is there beyond any

doubt.

> > >

> > > Parashara has given the method of calculating Aantardashas

pretty

> > unambiguously and anyone who reads the BPHS properly can make out

> what

> > he is saying. I too think that un necessary complications are

sought

> to

> > be brought in about drawing of antardashas especially in the KCD

> scheme.

> > But then I see you have given something called Karka mahadasha of

> KCD'S

> > Antardasha order as 4,5,3,10,11, 12,8,7,6.

> > >

> > > Your statement is the article is- " Antardashaas (AD) should be

> deduced

> > likewise according to Vimshottari scheme, ie Karka mahadasha will

> have

> > Karka AD as the first AD producing following sequence of AD in

Karka

> :

> > 4,5,3,10,11, 12,8,7,6. Pratyantara & c may be deduced likewise. "

> > >

> > > May I ask you whether this is the order of antardashas if the

> dasha

> > order begins from BharaNi 4th pada where the order of KCD is

> > 4,5,3,2,1,12, 11,10 and 9, that is it begins with Karka? If it

> follows

> > the order given by you , how does it fit in with the manner

> Parashara

> > told to look at the Antardasha in Vimshottari scheme?

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > -

> > > VJha

> > >

> > > Saturday, March 06, 2010 11:39 PM

> > > Re: Kaala-chakra Dashaa : Scheme and Sub-periods

> > >

> > > Mr Chandrashekhar,

> > >

> > > Without reading my article in which I described the method of

> > working

> > > out MD, AD, PD, etc of KCD besides elucidating the correct

method

> of

> > > making sequences, RCS was asking questions I had already

answered.

> > >

> > > RCS said he read my article, yet he asked two wrong question s :

> > " Please

> > > educate how you work out AD and How you move to next Sequence of

> > dasa

> > > once native has reached to end of ABC OR D IN a Pada. " To it, I

> > > replied : " The very purpose of writing this article was

> elucidation

> > of

> > > those very topics which you are asking " . Yet you failed to see

the

> > > point and intruded, like RCS, without reading the thread and my

> > article

> > > properly.

> > >

> > > BPHS mentions " mahaadashaa " but does not mention the word

> > " antardashaa " .

> > > The title " kalachakraantardas haaphalaadhyaaya " is not a part

of

> > verses

> > > written by Sage Parashara but the handiwork of editor who

rightly

> > felt

> > > that the topic was on AD. I was sure RCS would have failed to

pick

> > up

> > > this point, but you helped him out.

> > >

> > > Now-a-days there are various innovations being introduced into

> KCD.

> > PVR

> > > Narasimha Rao recently described this state of confusion, after

> > which I

> > > provided the link to my article in two fora. I tried to bring

out

> > the

> > > original scheme of Sage Parashara which no member has cared to

> > notice,

> > > including you and RCS. This scheme has already been worked out

in

> > > Kundalee Software.

> > >

> > > -VJ

> > > ============ ==== ===

> > > , " Chandrashekhar "

> > > sharma.chandrashekh ar@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Vinay,

> > > >

> > > > I would not interject but for your statement that BPHS does

not

> > > mention antardashas in KCD. You have said " Can you show me where

> > BPHS

> > > has mentioned even the existence of AD in KCD ? "

> > > >

> > > > Please read page number 358 which has an adhyaaya called

> > > kalachakraantardash aaphalaadhyaaya, in Sitaram Jha edition. I

am

> > sure

> > > you will find the results of KCD antardasha phalas there.

> > > >

> > > > So RC ji is right.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > -

> > > > VJha

> > > >

> > > > Saturday, March 06, 2010 8:28 PM

> > > > Re: Kaala-chakra Dashaa : Scheme and Sub-periods

> > > >

> > > > To RCS :

> > > >

> > > > The very purpose of writing this article was elucidation of

> those

> > > very topics which you are asking : " how you work out AD and How

> you

> > move

> > > to next Sequence " .

> > > >

> > > > It seems you have not read this article fully. The method of

AD

> > has

> > > already been described with example. Those who know how to

deduce

> > > Vimshottari AD or PD will find no difficulty in understanding my

> > > comments. Some modern astrologers are spreading confusion about

> > > Shashthaashta- gati motion (6 to 11, 3 to 10 and vice versa)

which

> is

> > > seen in Savya sequences (A, B) of pada-2.

> > > >

> > > > I am surprised with your statement " Apart from Gati, Deha and

> > Jeeva

> > > and KCD NAVAMSA BPHS has 56 Stanza describing results of AD

> alone. "

> > > >

> > > > Can you show me where BPHS has mentioned even the existence of

> AD

> > in

> > > KCD ? The very idea of AD in KCD is a conjecture which may be

> right

> > of

> > > wrong. BPHS has a separate chapter on KCD-phalaadhyaaya

containing

> > 37

> > > verse, besides 55 verses about Phala in initial chapter on KCD.

> > These

> > > results are about MD. Since BPHS has clearly mentioned MD in

KCD,

> we

> > may

> > > assume the existence of AD, PD, SD and PrD as well. Their method

> of

> > > computation has been explained in my article which you have not

> read

> > > properly.

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > > ============ ========= ===

> > > > > of dasa once native has reached to end of ABC OR D IN a

Pada.

> > > >

> > > > , " R C Srivastava "

> > swami.rcs@

> > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear VJ,

> > > > > Excellent summary OF KCD for those who have studied it .

> > > > > Please educate how you work out AD and How you move to next

> > > Sequence

> > > > > of dasa once native has reached to end of ABC OR D IN a

Pada.

> > > > > Apart from Gati, Deha and Jeeva and KCD NAVAMSA BPHS has 56

> > Stanza

> > > > > describing results of AD alone. Therefore correct working of

> AD

> > is

> > > very important.

> > > > > With regards.

> > > > > RCS

> > > > >

> > > > > . Kaala-chakra Dashaa : Scheme and Sub-periods

> > > > > Posted by: " VJha " vinayjhaa16@ vinayjhaa16

> > > > > Fri Mar 5, 2010 10:16 pm ((PST))

> > > > >

> > > > > To All :

> > > > >

> > > > > See the following webpage for elucidation of KCD :

> > > > >

> > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Kalachakra- dashaa

> > > > >

> > > > > -VJ

> > > > >

> > > >

March 12, 2010

Dear Rohini Ranjan,

You should not be sad. I have decided to withdraw from further discussions. My

father had told me that discretion is the better form of wisdom.

Chandrashekhar.

-

rohinicrystal

Friday, March 12, 2010 12:00 AM

Re: Kaala-chakra Dashaa : Scheme and Sub-periods

Chowkhamba Prakashan, by Pt. Devchandra Jha (nice to have BPHS in a single

volume with 672 pages). It has 99 chapters (GC Sharma has an additional one

making an even 100).

On another note, it is indeed saddening to see so much in-fighting going on in

the Jyotish domain. Some see in it signs of progress, I see speed-bumps! I hope

and pray that I am wrong...!

Rohiniranjan

, Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar

wrote:

>

> Dear chandrashekar ji

>

> If i recall right Vinay ji has a different version of BPHS than IN

CIRCULATION CALLE CHOWkam or so if ai m wrong Vinay ji pl correct me, no offence

meant and it is there in sanskrit,, Hindi so we r not on the same footing as he

is

> and u r right in asking for the full sloka to present any point clearly

toreaders

>

> and Utkal,lalit is no ones friend he likes bashing any line that is not in

tune with his whims and fancies [at times calls it mothers direct channel to him

though] he has not spared any rishim or astrologer of any era so far so we r all

small fish/inscets to him

>

> and Vinay ji has some info and i hope he can present his case without geting

confused on being questioned we in this group want to know so ask questions

>

> we r not questioning him a such I've assured him manytimes on this as he has

been badly treated in many groups

>

> we have given all a fair chance and leave the judgement on their

contrubition, net worth to the public wer r all too small to judge anyone the

subject is so wide, and much more widely spread in the sub-continent so we must

accept, test any view that comes in a good manner than challange, abuses as

utkal and th elike do

>

> if they present all their cases with good samples, supporting info it will

be good for us. we r all open to know, learn, life is about learning till then

end for us. if we forget this surely we will be reduced to dust soon.