Guest guest Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Dear Wendy, It is interesting how 'translators' tend to introduce their colourations into the text they translate! Even when translations are not involved oral transmission stands the risk of contamination (hence very strict rules existed when it was the sole mean of transfer of knowledge -- perhaps). This is what is demonstrated during the party game where a message is whispered into the ear of a person who then must convey the message to another and so on. By the time there have been 20 iterations or so, if the 20th message is compared with the original, it generally seems to have changed quite a bit even over the 30-40 minutes it takes to complete the game! So I am in agreement with ancient texts suffering from modifications and intrusions. I have given examples about the discrepancies about lunar noded in BPHS in the " astrotreasures that survived through time " article some years ago. While one would be understandably wary of using a text which is contaminated, if not corrupted as proof or evidence (I think that is akin to circular logic or something like that) but even here I will point out some interesting things! Firstly, you are probably using Santhanam's translation of BPHS, because in Sharma's translation Chapter 46 deals with Marakas (atha marakadhyaya). The dasha adhyaya is 48. There is an interesting difference in the translation by Sharma. Whereas your translation stated, " ...Sandhya, Pachak, Tara etc. But in our view all these Dashas are not appropriate.* " Sharma translates the same sloka as, " ... Panchaka dasa and other tara dasas and the like are the different form of dasas. However, out of these various Dasa forms, all are not acceptable by common consensus " The sloka itself goes, " Anyastaradassadhyascha na sarvah sarvasammatah " Even to someone not too familiar with sanskrit, the sloka would seem to be closer in meaning to what Sharma translated. Indicating a " lack of consensus " as opposed to your translator's, 'But in our view all these Dashas are not appropriate " . Very different statements! Maybe the sloka in the translation followed by you was quoted differently. In that case there is evidence in favour of tampering or modification. I would be very interested if you do not mind writing out the last few words of the sloka, like I did from the version I have. Thanks for your trouble. The jyotishi I was refering to later on made a slight modification in the statement and perhaps his position too by saying that he would not recommend that researchers mix Parashari and jaimini techniques in research projects. I can understand that position and need to keep things simple for most. What you label as " ridiculous " on my part about planets switching their hats was not my view! Just to help you understand, let me reiterate. This individual was saying that Jaimini factors must not be used with Parashari factors. Now since the same planets are involved as also houses etc in both systems, it would almost seem as the sun for instance cannot act or show its effects as lord of fifth house as well as being the atmakaraka or perhaps the planet placed in arudha lagna and participating in a Parashari rajyoga at the same time! That would be a ridiculous assumption because planets assume all of the roles which the two frameworks of astrology Parashara and Jaimini seem to have defined for ease of understanding. It is like two blind men examining the elephant, one feels the tusk, the other the ears and one calls the elephant hard and polished while the other calls the elephant soft, warm and rough and leathery! I personally do not care what individual astrologers or teachers use in their thinking or teaching or practice and it is not my mission to change their views or whatever. If they are getting good results with whatever they have in their hands, I am happy for them! Rohiniranjan jyotish-vidya , " Wendy Vasicek " <jyotishvidya wrote: > > Dear Rohini, > > I determined to 'make time' to read through some of your articles today, and > I can certainly see (now) why you would be in such disagreement with me. > > An extract from " Traps in Jyotish " (http://www.boloji.com/astro/00342.htm) > *Then a statement was made that rashi drishti should not be used for > research because it was Jaimini and not Parashari, although it prominently > appears in BPHS, the mammoth magnum opus attributed to Sage Parashara! This > kind of `logic' that one should not consider Parashari and Jaimini rules > together, as verbalized by this individual gets ridiculous because the same > planet probably does not switch its Parashari hat with its Jaimini hat when > it wants to express/indicate some astrological effects, or does it?* > > What seems ridiculous here is not the distinction between one technique and > another (put forward by 'this individual' you referred to somewhat > disdainfully) but rather your assumption that the different predictive > techniques i.e. Vimsottari dasa system (incorporating graha aspects, natural > karaka etc) and Rasi specific dasa system (incorporating rasi drishtis, > chara karakas etc) could, in any way, imply that a planet would (or could) > switch its Parashari hat with its Jaimini hat... > > Indeed you're correct when you say that both techniques are given in BPHS, > however, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that this classic was a > compilation of various techniques by who-knows-who...not actually written by > Parashara himself. Some say it was a compilation of the writings of > astrologers belonging to Parashara's lineage, probably evolving into its > present form a couple of thousand year after Parashara's time... Who knows? > Who could ever know? What we do know is that the Rasi specific dasa system > is associated with Maharshi Jaimini (as per Jaimini Sutram) whereas the > Vimsottari dasa system is associated with Maharshi Parashara as was made > clear in the following slokas. > > BPHS Ch.46 > *2-5. Maharishi Parashar replied. O Brahmin! Dashas are of many kinds. > Amongst them Vimshottari is the most appropriate for the general populace. > But the other Dashas, followed in special cases, are Astottari, > Shodshottari, Dwadashottari, Panchottari, Shatabdik, Chaturashiti- sama, > Dwisaptati-sama, Shastihayani, Shat-trimshat-sama. Our ancients have > described these different kinds of Dashas, based on Nakshatras. > > 6-11. O Brahmin! Some Maharishis have made a mention of Kala and Chakr > Dasha, but they have recognized the Kala Chakr Dasha, as supreme. The other > kinds of Dashas, propagated by the sages, are Char, Sthir, Kendr, Karak, > Brahma Grah, Manduk, Shul, Yogardh, Drig, Trikon, Rashi, Panchswara, Yogini, > Pind, Nausargik, Asht Varg, Sandhya, Pachak, Tara etc. But in our view all > these Dashas are not appropriate.* > > Best Wishes, > Mrs. Wendy > http://JyotishVidya.com > jyotish-vidya > ___ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Dear Rohini, ///Just to help you understand, let me reiterate. This individual was saying that Jaimini factors must not be used with Parashari factors./// I understood the context and I agree wholeheartedly that one should not mix and match the two very different techniques. This point is made clear on our group website (jyotish-vidya/) which members would (or should) have read before joining. ///Now since the same planets are involved as also houses etc in both systems, it would almost seem as the sun for instance cannot act or show its effects as lord of fifth house as well as being the atmakaraka or perhaps the planet placed in arudha lagna and participating in a Parashari rajyoga at the same time!/// Perhaps we can discuss the points you've raised in more depth later, when I have a little more time to spare than I do at the moment. ///That would be a ridiculous assumption because planets assume all of the roles which the two frameworks of astrology Parashara and Jaimini seem to have defined for ease of understanding./// The two frameworks of astrology have been defined because they are two very different/unique methods of prediction...not simply for ease of understanding as you would have it. ///It is like two blind men examining the elephant, one feels the tusk, the other the ears and one calls the elephant hard and polished while the other calls the elephant soft, warm and rough and leathery!/// Your analogy aptly describes the sorry state of jyotish today i.e., 'the blind leading the blind'. This only accentuates the importance of learning from a teacher with eyes/mind wide open... it's why they're called 'Seers'! ///I personally do not care what individual astrologers or teachers use in their thinking or teaching or practice and it is not my mission to change their views or whatever./// Based on the proliferance of your writings spread across the internet and astrological magazines over many year, I would say it is very much your mission to impose your view on others. Your writings remind me of some modern-day journalists who've adopted the attitude to never let the 'truth' get in the way of a good story. The truth is that your view is not supported by traditional teaching...no wonder you were so against the use of the term " false teaching " in earlier thread. I trust you will accept that my criticism of your articles is not a criticism of you personally. Once our work is put in the public domain it is subject to scrutiny... You know this as well as I do! Best Wishes, Mrs. Wendy http://JyotishVidya.com jyotish-vidya ___ - " Rohiniranjan " <rohini_ranjan <jyotish-vidya > Monday, February 18, 2008 6:26 AM Re: Different techniques Dear Wendy, It is interesting how 'translators' tend to introduce their colourations into the text they translate! Even when translations are not involved oral transmission stands the risk of contamination (hence very strict rules existed when it was the sole mean of transfer of knowledge -- perhaps). This is what is demonstrated during the party game where a message is whispered into the ear of a person who then must convey the message to another and so on. By the time there have been 20 iterations or so, if the 20th message is compared with the original, it generally seems to have changed quite a bit even over the 30-40 minutes it takes to complete the game! So I am in agreement with ancient texts suffering from modifications and intrusions. I have given examples about the discrepancies about lunar noded in BPHS in the " astrotreasures that survived through time " article some years ago. While one would be understandably wary of using a text which is contaminated, if not corrupted as proof or evidence (I think that is akin to circular logic or something like that) but even here I will point out some interesting things! Firstly, you are probably using Santhanam's translation of BPHS, because in Sharma's translation Chapter 46 deals with Marakas (atha marakadhyaya). The dasha adhyaya is 48. There is an interesting difference in the translation by Sharma. Whereas your translation stated, " ...Sandhya, Pachak, Tara etc. But in our view all these Dashas are not appropriate.* " Sharma translates the same sloka as, " ... Panchaka dasa and other tara dasas and the like are the different form of dasas. However, out of these various Dasa forms, all are not acceptable by common consensus " The sloka itself goes, " Anyastaradassadhyascha na sarvah sarvasammatah " Even to someone not too familiar with sanskrit, the sloka would seem to be closer in meaning to what Sharma translated. Indicating a " lack of consensus " as opposed to your translator's, 'But in our view all these Dashas are not appropriate " . Very different statements! Maybe the sloka in the translation followed by you was quoted differently. In that case there is evidence in favour of tampering or modification. I would be very interested if you do not mind writing out the last few words of the sloka, like I did from the version I have. Thanks for your trouble. The jyotishi I was refering to later on made a slight modification in the statement and perhaps his position too by saying that he would not recommend that researchers mix Parashari and jaimini techniques in research projects. I can understand that position and need to keep things simple for most. What you label as " ridiculous " on my part about planets switching their hats was not my view! Just to help you understand, let me reiterate. This individual was saying that Jaimini factors must not be used with Parashari factors. Now since the same planets are involved as also houses etc in both systems, it would almost seem as the sun for instance cannot act or show its effects as lord of fifth house as well as being the atmakaraka or perhaps the planet placed in arudha lagna and participating in a Parashari rajyoga at the same time! That would be a ridiculous assumption because planets assume all of the roles which the two frameworks of astrology Parashara and Jaimini seem to have defined for ease of understanding. It is like two blind men examining the elephant, one feels the tusk, the other the ears and one calls the elephant hard and polished while the other calls the elephant soft, warm and rough and leathery! I personally do not care what individual astrologers or teachers use in their thinking or teaching or practice and it is not my mission to change their views or whatever. If they are getting good results with whatever they have in their hands, I am happy for them! Rohiniranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Dear Wendy, You are older than me and I have called you an elder sister. So, your criticism of me, my understanding of jyotish and my writings while rather harsh and uncalled for are taken in good faith and something you had to get off your chest, publicly -- I suppose. At least you were using civilized language and not the abusive tones that some of the modern afficianados of jyotish even coming from very traditional backgrounds and taught and led by so called clear-visioned teachers and seers as you choose to call them. As far as a good story and truth not getting in its way, again I bow to your great wisdom and state of knowing which allowed you to judge me and my writing over a week-end or two of reading and that too despite the million other things you need to do I am sure! And, please understand that I have no intention of challenging your or your forum's views about what should be used in Jyotish and how and so forth. Jyotish is greater than any of us individually or our lovingly-created writing or forums and lists, small or large! Whether TRUTH does or not, you can be assured that I for sure shall not get in the way of the *message* or teachings that you or anyone else are spreading or would like to spread! Best Regards, Rohiniranjan jyotish-vidya , " Wendy Vasicek " <jyotishvidya wrote: > > Dear Rohini, > > ///Just to help you understand, let me reiterate. This individual was saying > that Jaimini factors must not be used with Parashari factors./// > > I understood the context and I agree wholeheartedly that one should not mix > and match the two very different techniques. This point is made clear on our > group website (jyotish-vidya/) which members > would (or should) have read before joining. > > ///Now since the same planets are involved as also houses etc in both > systems, it would almost seem as the sun for instance cannot act or show its > effects as lord of fifth house as well as being the atmakaraka or perhaps > the planet placed in arudha lagna and participating in a Parashari rajyoga > at the same time!/// > > Perhaps we can discuss the points you've raised in more depth later, when I > have a little more time to spare than I do at the moment. > > ///That would be a ridiculous assumption because planets assume all of the > roles which the two frameworks of astrology Parashara and Jaimini seem to > have defined for ease of understanding./// > > The two frameworks of astrology have been defined because they are two very > different/unique methods of prediction...not simply for ease of > understanding as you would have it. > > ///It is like two blind men examining the elephant, one feels the tusk, > the other the ears and one calls the elephant hard and polished while > the other calls the elephant soft, warm and rough and leathery!/// > > Your analogy aptly describes the sorry state of jyotish today i.e., 'the > blind leading the blind'. This only accentuates the importance of learning > from a teacher with eyes/mind wide open... it's why they're called 'Seers'! > > ///I personally do not care what individual astrologers or teachers use > in their thinking or teaching or practice and it is not my mission to > change their views or whatever./// > > Based on the proliferance of your writings spread across the internet and > astrological magazines over many year, I would say it is very much your > mission to impose your view on others. Your writings remind me of some > modern-day journalists who've adopted the attitude to never let the 'truth' > get in the way of a good story. The truth is that your view is not supported > by traditional teaching...no wonder you were so against the use of the term > " false teaching " in earlier thread. > > I trust you will accept that my criticism of your articles is not a > criticism of you personally. Once our work is put in the public domain it is > subject to scrutiny... You know this as well as I do! > > Best Wishes, > Mrs. Wendy > http://JyotishVidya.com > jyotish-vidya > ___ > > > - > " Rohiniranjan " <rohini_ranjan > <jyotish-vidya > > Monday, February 18, 2008 6:26 AM > Re: Different techniques > > > Dear Wendy, > > It is interesting how 'translators' tend to introduce their > colourations into the text they translate! Even when translations are > not involved oral transmission stands the risk of contamination > (hence very strict rules existed when it was the sole mean of > transfer of knowledge -- perhaps). This is what is demonstrated > during the party game where a message is whispered into the ear of a > person who then must convey the message to another and so on. By the > time there have been 20 iterations or so, if the 20th message is > compared with the original, it generally seems to have changed quite > a bit even over the 30-40 minutes it takes to complete the game! So I > am in agreement with ancient texts suffering from modifications and > intrusions. I have given examples about the discrepancies about lunar > noded in BPHS in the " astrotreasures that survived through time " > article some years ago. > > While one would be understandably wary of using a text which is > contaminated, if not corrupted as proof or evidence (I think that is > akin to circular logic or something like that) but even here I will > point out some interesting things! > > Firstly, you are probably using Santhanam's translation of BPHS, > because in Sharma's translation Chapter 46 deals with Marakas (atha > marakadhyaya). The dasha adhyaya is 48. There is an interesting > difference in the translation by Sharma. Whereas your translation > stated, " ...Sandhya, Pachak, Tara etc. But in our view all these > Dashas are not appropriate.* " > > Sharma translates the same sloka as, " ... Panchaka dasa and other > tara dasas and the like are the different form of dasas. However, out > of these various Dasa forms, all are not acceptable by common > consensus " > > The sloka itself goes, " Anyastaradassadhyascha na sarvah > sarvasammatah " > > Even to someone not too familiar with sanskrit, the sloka would seem > to be closer in meaning to what Sharma translated. Indicating a " lack > of consensus " as opposed to your translator's, 'But in our view all > these Dashas are not appropriate " . Very different statements! Maybe > the sloka in the translation followed by you was quoted differently. > In that case there is evidence in favour of tampering or > modification. I would be very interested if you do not mind writing > out the last few words of the sloka, like I did from the version I > have. Thanks for your trouble. > > The jyotishi I was refering to later on made a slight modification in > the statement and perhaps his position too by saying that he would > not recommend that researchers mix Parashari and jaimini techniques > in research projects. I can understand that position and need to keep > things simple for most. > > What you label as " ridiculous " on my part about planets switching > their hats was not my view! Just to help you understand, let me > reiterate. This individual was saying that Jaimini factors must not > be used with Parashari factors. Now since the same planets are > involved as also houses etc in both systems, it would almost seem as > the sun for instance cannot act or show its effects as lord of fifth > house as well as being the atmakaraka or perhaps the planet placed in > arudha lagna and participating in a Parashari rajyoga at the same > time! That would be a ridiculous assumption because planets assume > all of the roles which the two frameworks of astrology Parashara and > Jaimini seem to have defined for ease of understanding. > > It is like two blind men examining the elephant, one feels the tusk, > the other the ears and one calls the elephant hard and polished while > the other calls the elephant soft, warm and rough and leathery! > > I personally do not care what individual astrologers or teachers use > in their thinking or teaching or practice and it is not my mission to > change their views or whatever. If they are getting good results with > whatever they have in their hands, I am happy for them! > > Rohiniranjan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Whether TRUTH does or not, you can be assured that I for sure shall not get in the way of the *message* or teachings that you or anyone else are spreading or would like to spread Dear RR, in reference to the above statement, I would like to thank you for your magnificent idea. Sincerely Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan wrote: Dear Wendy, You are older than me and I have called you an elder sister. So, your criticism of me, my understanding of jyotish and my writings while rather harsh and uncalled for are taken in good faith and something you had to get off your chest, publicly -- I suppose. At least you were using civilized language and not the abusive tones that some of the modern afficianados of jyotish even coming from very traditional backgrounds and taught and led by so called clear-visioned teachers and seers as you choose to call them. As far as a good story and truth not getting in its way, again I bow to your great wisdom and state of knowing which allowed you to judge me and my writing over a week-end or two of reading and that too despite the million other things you need to do I am sure! And, please understand that I have no intention of challenging your or your forum's views about what should be used in Jyotish and how and so forth. Jyotish is greater than any of us individually or our lovingly-created writing or forums and lists, small or large! Whether TRUTH does or not, you can be assured that I for sure shall not get in the way of the *message* or teachings that you or anyone else are spreading or would like to spread! Best Regards, Rohiniranjan jyotish-vidya , " Wendy Vasicek " <jyotishvidya wrote: > > Dear Rohini, > > ///Just to help you understand, let me reiterate. This individual was saying > that Jaimini factors must not be used with Parashari factors./// > > I understood the context and I agree wholeheartedly that one should not mix > and match the two very different techniques. This point is made clear on our > group website (jyotish-vidya/) which members > would (or should) have read before joining. > > ///Now since the same planets are involved as also houses etc in both > systems, it would almost seem as the sun for instance cannot act or show its > effects as lord of fifth house as well as being the atmakaraka or perhaps > the planet placed in arudha lagna and participating in a Parashari rajyoga > at the same time!/// > > Perhaps we can discuss the points you've raised in more depth later, when I > have a little more time to spare than I do at the moment. > > ///That would be a ridiculous assumption because planets assume all of the > roles which the two frameworks of astrology Parashara and Jaimini seem to > have defined for ease of understanding./// > > The two frameworks of astrology have been defined because they are two very > different/unique methods of prediction...not simply for ease of > understanding as you would have it. > > ///It is like two blind men examining the elephant, one feels the tusk, > the other the ears and one calls the elephant hard and polished while > the other calls the elephant soft, warm and rough and leathery!/// > > Your analogy aptly describes the sorry state of jyotish today i.e., 'the > blind leading the blind'. This only accentuates the importance of learning > from a teacher with eyes/mind wide open... it's why they're called 'Seers'! > > ///I personally do not care what individual astrologers or teachers use > in their thinking or teaching or practice and it is not my mission to > change their views or whatever./// > > Based on the proliferance of your writings spread across the internet and > astrological magazines over many year, I would say it is very much your > mission to impose your view on others. Your writings remind me of some > modern-day journalists who've adopted the attitude to never let the 'truth' > get in the way of a good story. The truth is that your view is not supported > by traditional teaching...no wonder you were so against the use of the term > " false teaching " in earlier thread. > > I trust you will accept that my criticism of your articles is not a > criticism of you personally. Once our work is put in the public domain it is > subject to scrutiny... You know this as well as I do! > > Best Wishes, > Mrs. Wendy > http://JyotishVidya.com > jyotish-vidya > ___ > > > - > " Rohiniranjan " <rohini_ranjan > <jyotish-vidya > > Monday, February 18, 2008 6:26 AM > Re: Different techniques > > > Dear Wendy, > > It is interesting how 'translators' tend to introduce their > colourations into the text they translate! Even when translations are > not involved oral transmission stands the risk of contamination > (hence very strict rules existed when it was the sole mean of > transfer of knowledge -- perhaps). This is what is demonstrated > during the party game where a message is whispered into the ear of a > person who then must convey the message to another and so on. By the > time there have been 20 iterations or so, if the 20th message is > compared with the original, it generally seems to have changed quite > a bit even over the 30-40 minutes it takes to complete the game! So I > am in agreement with ancient texts suffering from modifications and > intrusions. I have given examples about the discrepancies about lunar > noded in BPHS in the " astrotreasures that survived through time " > article some years ago. > > While one would be understandably wary of using a text which is > contaminated, if not corrupted as proof or evidence (I think that is > akin to circular logic or something like that) but even here I will > point out some interesting things! > > Firstly, you are probably using Santhanam's translation of BPHS, > because in Sharma's translation Chapter 46 deals with Marakas (atha > marakadhyaya). The dasha adhyaya is 48. There is an interesting > difference in the translation by Sharma. Whereas your translation > stated, " ...Sandhya, Pachak, Tara etc. But in our view all these > Dashas are not appropriate.* " > > Sharma translates the same sloka as, " ... Panchaka dasa and other > tara dasas and the like are the different form of dasas. However, out > of these various Dasa forms, all are not acceptable by common > consensus " > > The sloka itself goes, " Anyastaradassadhyascha na sarvah > sarvasammatah " > > Even to someone not too familiar with sanskrit, the sloka would seem > to be closer in meaning to what Sharma translated. Indicating a " lack > of consensus " as opposed to your translator's, 'But in our view all > these Dashas are not appropriate " . Very different statements! Maybe > the sloka in the translation followed by you was quoted differently. > In that case there is evidence in favour of tampering or > modification. I would be very interested if you do not mind writing > out the last few words of the sloka, like I did from the version I > have. Thanks for your trouble. > > The jyotishi I was refering to later on made a slight modification in > the statement and perhaps his position too by saying that he would > not recommend that researchers mix Parashari and jaimini techniques > in research projects. I can understand that position and need to keep > things simple for most. > > What you label as " ridiculous " on my part about planets switching > their hats was not my view! Just to help you understand, let me > reiterate. This individual was saying that Jaimini factors must not > be used with Parashari factors. Now since the same planets are > involved as also houses etc in both systems, it would almost seem as > the sun for instance cannot act or show its effects as lord of fifth > house as well as being the atmakaraka or perhaps the planet placed in > arudha lagna and participating in a Parashari rajyoga at the same > time! That would be a ridiculous assumption because planets assume > all of the roles which the two frameworks of astrology Parashara and > Jaimini seem to have defined for ease of understanding. > > It is like two blind men examining the elephant, one feels the tusk, > the other the ears and one calls the elephant hard and polished while > the other calls the elephant soft, warm and rough and leathery! > > I personally do not care what individual astrologers or teachers use > in their thinking or teaching or practice and it is not my mission to > change their views or whatever. If they are getting good results with > whatever they have in their hands, I am happy for them! > > Rohiniranjan > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Dear Rohini, Please don't be disheartened by my criticism of your (published) articles. I understand you've presented your views with good intentions...believing them to be correct, according to your understanding. I do understand this! However, you also need to understand that the underlying principle of this group, stated clearly on website, does not support your views. This is a public forum, Rohini; and, since you've expressed your views publicly (here) as well as providing links to some of your articles, I had little option but to address this publicly. I'm mindful (always) of our many silent members trying to understand the basic principles of jyotish. My responses (always) are with them in mind. It's never to score points for myself personally or to take someone to task, but for the benefit of the group as a whole... As you, yourself, have stated: ///Jyotish is greater than any of us individually or our lovingly-created writing or forums and lists, small or large!/// Your words; " our lovingly-created writing " , opens my heart to the fact that individuals (also) deserve some tender care by recognising the writer behind the writing. In my zeal to protect the intention of the group I failed to recognise how my harsh criticism of the writings could be hurtful to the writer. I apologise for that! Best Wishes, Mrs. Wendy http://JyotishVidya.com jyotish-vidya ___ - " Rohiniranjan " <rohini_ranjan <jyotish-vidya > Monday, February 18, 2008 11:07 AM Re: Different techniques Dear Wendy, You are older than me and I have called you an elder sister. So, your criticism of me, my understanding of jyotish and my writings while rather harsh and uncalled for are taken in good faith and something you had to get off your chest, publicly -- I suppose. At least you were using civilized language and not the abusive tones that some of the modern afficianados of jyotish even coming from very traditional backgrounds and taught and led by so called clear-visioned teachers and seers as you choose to call them. As far as a good story and truth not getting in its way, again I bow to your great wisdom and state of knowing which allowed you to judge me and my writing over a week-end or two of reading and that too despite the million other things you need to do I am sure! And, please understand that I have no intention of challenging your or your forum's views about what should be used in Jyotish and how and so forth. Jyotish is greater than any of us individually or our lovingly-created writing or forums and lists, small or large! Whether TRUTH does or not, you can be assured that I for sure shall not get in the way of the *message* or teachings that you or anyone else are spreading or would like to spread! Best Regards, Rohiniranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Dear Wendy, Spoken like a true sister with a heart full of love and compassion! But please do understand that I have been hardened by decades of life which included editorial responses (and not just astrological or jyotish rags, by the way), as well as many other hasty, judgmental and critical verbiage over the many years which led me to write the article on the Silicon Snake Oil in astrology that was published several months ago in Express Star Teller Magazine (I am sure you will get the " Silicon " reference as it pertains to the computer Kali Awataar = Internet!). I am glad that you got a chance to say what you had to say and to reiterate your forum rules and boundaries for the benefit of the silent majority. I hope they are listening/reading! Best regards, RR jyotish-vidya , " Wendy Vasicek " <jyotishvidya wrote: > > Dear Rohini, > > Please don't be disheartened by my criticism of your (published) articles. I > understand you've presented your views with good intentions...believing them > to be correct, according to your understanding. I do understand this! > > However, you also need to understand that the underlying principle of this > group, stated clearly on website, does not support your views. This is a > public forum, Rohini; and, since you've expressed your views publicly (here) > as well as providing links to some of your articles, I had little option but > to address this publicly. > > I'm mindful (always) of our many silent members trying to understand the > basic principles of jyotish. My responses (always) are with them in mind. > It's never to score points for myself personally or to take someone to task, > but for the benefit of the group as a whole... > > As you, yourself, have stated: > ///Jyotish is greater than any of us individually or our lovingly- created > writing or forums and lists, small or large!/// > > Your words; " our lovingly-created writing " , opens my heart to the fact that > individuals (also) deserve some tender care by recognising the writer behind > the writing. In my zeal to protect the intention of the group I failed to > recognise how my harsh criticism of the writings could be hurtful to the > writer. I apologise for that! > > Best Wishes, > Mrs. Wendy > http://JyotishVidya.com > jyotish-vidya > ___ > > > - > " Rohiniranjan " <rohini_ranjan > <jyotish-vidya > > Monday, February 18, 2008 11:07 AM > Re: Different techniques > > > Dear Wendy, > > You are older than me and I have called you an elder sister. So, your > criticism of me, my understanding of jyotish and my writings while > rather harsh and uncalled for are taken in good faith and something > you had to get off your chest, publicly -- I suppose. At least you > were using civilized language and not the abusive tones that some of > the modern afficianados of jyotish even coming from very traditional > backgrounds and taught and led by so called clear-visioned teachers > and seers as you choose to call them. > > As far as a good story and truth not getting in its way, again I bow > to your great wisdom and state of knowing which allowed you to judge > me and my writing over a week-end or two of reading and that too > despite the million other things you need to do I am sure! > > And, please understand that I have no intention of challenging your > or your forum's views about what should be used in Jyotish and how > and so forth. Jyotish is greater than any of us individually or our > lovingly-created writing or forums and lists, small or large! > > Whether TRUTH does or not, you can be assured that I for sure shall > not get in the way of the *message* or teachings that you or anyone > else are spreading or would like to spread! > > Best Regards, > > Rohiniranjan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Dear Rohini, If I might just add a little here...objectively I hope :-) In the articles I've read so far, you do tend to criticise those who hold different views (to yours). It would be logical therefore to expect a critical response from those you so readily disparage... The Bible says: " Judge not lest ye yourself be judged " ___________ Dear Rohini, Please don't be disheartened by my criticism of your (published) articles. I understand you've presented your views with good intentions...believing them to be correct, according to your understanding. I do understand this! However, you also need to understand that the underlying principle of this group, stated clearly on website, does not support your views. This is a public forum, Rohini; and, since you've expressed your views publicly (here) as well as providing links to some of your articles, I had little option but to address this publicly. I'm mindful (always) of our many silent members trying to understand the basic principles of jyotish. My responses (always) are with them in mind. It's never to score points for myself personally or to take someone to task, but for the benefit of the group as a whole... As you, yourself, have stated: ///Jyotish is greater than any of us individually or our lovingly-created writing or forums and lists, small or large!/// Your words; " our lovingly-created writing " , opens my heart to the fact that individuals (also) deserve some tender care by recognising the writer behind the writing. In my zeal to protect the intention of the group I failed to recognise how my harsh criticism of the writings could be hurtful to the writer. I apologise for that! Best Wishes, Mrs. Wendy http://JyotishVidya.com jyotish-vidya ___ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Dear Wendy, I shall follow your footsteps like a good anuj and only selectively quote the following, so as not to clutter minds with too much information should that be the case for some of the silent majority: jyotish-vidya , " Wendy Vasicek " <jyotishvidya wrote: > However, you also need to understand that the underlying principle of this > group, stated clearly on website, does not support your views. This is a > public forum, Rohini; and, since you've expressed your views publicly (here) > as well as providing links to some of your articles, I had little option but > to address this publicly. Wendy, I am a bit taken aback by this statement of yours! Most of what I write about and practice is this so called " traditional jyotish " as accepted by other jyotishis! I do not include transsaturnines or create strange roles and ideas about functional benefics or malefics or create neo-jyotish! In what way am I so different from the mainstream or standard jyotish? In evidence of that claim, I submit the following article: http://www.boloji.com/astro/00308.htm This was written for beginners and I would very much like to request you and others who know jyotish on this forum to PLEASE read this and inform and educate me how or how much I have departed from " traditional " jyotish and please let me know which tradition have I violated. And how?? Rohiniranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Dear Rohini, ///Most of what I write about and practice is this so called " traditional jyotish " as accepted by other jyotishis! I do not include transsaturnines or create strange roles and ideas about functional benefics or malefics or create neo-jyotish! In what way am I so different from the mainstream or standard jyotish? In evidence of that claim, I submit the following article:/// http://www.boloji.com/astro/00308.htm I have (speed read) through the article (due to lack of time at the moment) and cannot find fault. It's an excellent article which I strongly recommend all to read. It seems the articles that had (previously) been brought to my attention dealt with controversial issues that demanded a particular response from me. I'm pleased I've read this one and am more than happy to give it my full endorsement...credit where credit is due! Of course speed reading is speed reading, I know; but it was enough for me to absorb the important elements. Hopefully I will be able to find more time later today to read it thoroughly from beginning to end. For now though, I really must get away from this computer for awhile and tend to some things off-list before I run out of time. Thank you for sending this Rohini, I appreciate (very much) getting away from the controversial topics...at my age they can be quite exhausting, believe me. Best Wishes, Mrs. Wendy http://JyotishVidya.com jyotish-vidya ___ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Thank you didi! Controversy arises only when we assume that we absolutely and definitively KNOW the truth, the ONLY truth and sadly in that acceptance we risk closing our minds! And it can be even worse, as the WORLD WE LIVE IN HAS BEEN WITNESSING, we human brothers and sisters could end up closing our hearts! At least one Messiha would be very SAD, if we all children were to do that, in our stupidity and ignorance, as immature children often do! Rohiniranjan jyotish-vidya , " Wendy Vasicek " <jyotishvidya wrote: > > Dear Rohini, > > ///Most of what I write about and practice is this so called " traditional > jyotish " as accepted by other jyotishis! I do not include > transsaturnines or create strange roles and ideas about functional > benefics or malefics or create neo-jyotish! In what way am I so > different from the mainstream or standard jyotish? > > In evidence of that claim, I submit the following article:/// > http://www.boloji.com/astro/00308.htm > > I have (speed read) through the article (due to lack of time at the moment) > and cannot find fault. It's an excellent article which I strongly recommend > all to read. > > It seems the articles that had (previously) been brought to my attention > dealt with controversial issues that demanded a particular response from me. > I'm pleased I've read this one and am more than happy to give it my full > endorsement...credit where credit is due! > Of course speed reading is speed reading, I know; but it was enough for me > to absorb the important elements. Hopefully I will be able to find more time > later today to read it thoroughly from beginning to end. For now though, I > really must get away from this computer for awhile and tend to some things > off-list before I run out of time. > > Thank you for sending this Rohini, I appreciate (very much) getting away > from the controversial topics...at my age they can be quite exhausting, > believe me. > > Best Wishes, > Mrs. Wendy > http://JyotishVidya.com > jyotish-vidya > ___ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2008 Report Share Posted February 26, 2008 Wendy, Thanks for taking the trouble to scan your copy of BPHS. However, that was not the sloka we were discussing (vide infra). The sloka we were discussing was in the Dasa Adhyaya and in GC Sharma's BPHS the sloke is the 11th one in that chapter. Santhanam and Sharma's translations were so different in meaning that I was wondering if Santhanam was translating the identical sloka or did his version had a different but related sloka. That question unfortunately still remains unanswered! RR jyotish-vidya , " Rohiniranjan " <rohini_ranjan wrote: > > Dear Wendy, > > It is interesting how 'translators' tend to introduce their > colourations into the text they translate! Even when translations are > not involved oral transmission stands the risk of contamination > (hence very strict rules existed when it was the sole mean of > transfer of knowledge -- perhaps). This is what is demonstrated > during the party game where a message is whispered into the ear of a > person who then must convey the message to another and so on. By the > time there have been 20 iterations or so, if the 20th message is > compared with the original, it generally seems to have changed quite > a bit even over the 30-40 minutes it takes to complete the game! So I > am in agreement with ancient texts suffering from modifications and > intrusions. I have given examples about the discrepancies about lunar > noded in BPHS in the " astrotreasures that survived through time " > article some years ago. > > While one would be understandably wary of using a text which is > contaminated, if not corrupted as proof or evidence (I think that is > akin to circular logic or something like that) but even here I will > point out some interesting things! > > Firstly, you are probably using Santhanam's translation of BPHS, > because in Sharma's translation Chapter 46 deals with Marakas (atha > marakadhyaya). The dasha adhyaya is 48. There is an interesting > difference in the translation by Sharma. Whereas your translation > stated, " ...Sandhya, Pachak, Tara etc. But in our view all these > Dashas are not appropriate.* " > > Sharma translates the same sloka as, " ... Panchaka dasa and other > tara dasas and the like are the different form of dasas. However, out > of these various Dasa forms, all are not acceptable by common > consensus " > > The sloka itself goes, " Anyastaradassadhyascha na sarvah > sarvasammatah " > > Even to someone not too familiar with sanskrit, the sloka would seem > to be closer in meaning to what Sharma translated. Indicating a " lack > of consensus " as opposed to your translator's, 'But in our view all > these Dashas are not appropriate " . Very different statements! Maybe > the sloka in the translation followed by you was quoted differently. > In that case there is evidence in favour of tampering or > modification. I would be very interested if you do not mind writing > out the last few words of the sloka, like I did from the version I > have. Thanks for your trouble. > > The jyotishi I was refering to later on made a slight modification in > the statement and perhaps his position too by saying that he would > not recommend that researchers mix Parashari and jaimini techniques > in research projects. I can understand that position and need to keep > things simple for most. > > What you label as " ridiculous " on my part about planets switching > their hats was not my view! Just to help you understand, let me > reiterate. This individual was saying that Jaimini factors must not > be used with Parashari factors. Now since the same planets are > involved as also houses etc in both systems, it would almost seem as > the sun for instance cannot act or show its effects as lord of fifth > house as well as being the atmakaraka or perhaps the planet placed in > arudha lagna and participating in a Parashari rajyoga at the same > time! That would be a ridiculous assumption because planets assume > all of the roles which the two frameworks of astrology Parashara and > Jaimini seem to have defined for ease of understanding. > > It is like two blind men examining the elephant, one feels the tusk, > the other the ears and one calls the elephant hard and polished while > the other calls the elephant soft, warm and rough and leathery! > > I personally do not care what individual astrologers or teachers use > in their thinking or teaching or practice and it is not my mission to > change their views or whatever. If they are getting good results with > whatever they have in their hands, I am happy for them! > > Rohiniranjan > > jyotish-vidya , " Wendy Vasicek " > <jyotishvidya@> wrote: > > > > Dear Rohini, > > > > I determined to 'make time' to read through some of your articles > today, and > > I can certainly see (now) why you would be in such disagreement > with me. > > > > An extract from " Traps in Jyotish " > (http://www.boloji.com/astro/00342.htm) > > *Then a statement was made that rashi drishti should not be used > for > > research because it was Jaimini and not Parashari, although it > prominently > > appears in BPHS, the mammoth magnum opus attributed to Sage > Parashara! This > > kind of `logic' that one should not consider Parashari and Jaimini > rules > > together, as verbalized by this individual gets ridiculous because > the same > > planet probably does not switch its Parashari hat with its Jaimini > hat when > > it wants to express/indicate some astrological effects, or does it?* > > > > What seems ridiculous here is not the distinction between one > technique and > > another (put forward by 'this individual' you referred to somewhat > > disdainfully) but rather your assumption that the different > predictive > > techniques i.e. Vimsottari dasa system (incorporating graha > aspects, natural > > karaka etc) and Rasi specific dasa system (incorporating rasi > drishtis, > > chara karakas etc) could, in any way, imply that a planet would (or > could) > > switch its Parashari hat with its Jaimini hat... > > > > Indeed you're correct when you say that both techniques are given > in BPHS, > > however, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that this classic was a > > compilation of various techniques by who-knows-who...not actually > written by > > Parashara himself. Some say it was a compilation of the writings of > > astrologers belonging to Parashara's lineage, probably evolving > into its > > present form a couple of thousand year after Parashara's time... > Who knows? > > Who could ever know? What we do know is that the Rasi specific dasa > system > > is associated with Maharshi Jaimini (as per Jaimini Sutram) whereas > the > > Vimsottari dasa system is associated with Maharshi Parashara as was > made > > clear in the following slokas. > > > > BPHS Ch.46 > > *2-5. Maharishi Parashar replied. O Brahmin! Dashas are of many > kinds. > > Amongst them Vimshottari is the most appropriate for the general > populace. > > But the other Dashas, followed in special cases, are Astottari, > > Shodshottari, Dwadashottari, Panchottari, Shatabdik, Chaturashiti- > sama, > > Dwisaptati-sama, Shastihayani, Shat-trimshat-sama. Our ancients > have > > described these different kinds of Dashas, based on Nakshatras. > > > > 6-11. O Brahmin! Some Maharishis have made a mention of Kala and > Chakr > > Dasha, but they have recognized the Kala Chakr Dasha, as supreme. > The other > > kinds of Dashas, propagated by the sages, are Char, Sthir, Kendr, > Karak, > > Brahma Grah, Manduk, Shul, Yogardh, Drig, Trikon, Rashi, > Panchswara, Yogini, > > Pind, Nausargik, Asht Varg, Sandhya, Pachak, Tara etc. But in our > view all > > these Dashas are not appropriate.* > > > > Best Wishes, > > Mrs. Wendy > > http://JyotishVidya.com > > jyotish-vidya > > ___ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2008 Report Share Posted February 26, 2008 Dear Rohiniranjan, Actually, I scanned that particular page as it was one that had previously come loose...my books are many years old, well-used and falling apart, I'm afraid. I simply wanted to show that the slokas in Santhanam's edition are given in the original Sanskrit...not as in your version i.e. " Anyastaradassadhyascha na sarvah sarvasammatah " In my opinion the differences in the various translations are slight in regards to the actual intention of the sloka to convey the importance of Vimsottari over other dasas. Whether one interprets a particular sloka as meaning... a) all are not acceptable by common consensus (or) b) but in our view all these dashas are not appropriate. ....the intention is fairly clear, wouldn't you say? No doubt one can go on infinitum arguing the finer points behind the different translations or one can come to the understanding that the classics are intended as a guide to awaken our own awareness (understanding/discernment). Best Wishes, Mrs. Wendy http://JyotishVidya.com jyotish-vidya ___ - " Rohiniranjan " <rohini_ranjan <jyotish-vidya > Wednesday, February 27, 2008 2:53 AM Re: Different techniques Wendy, Thanks for taking the trouble to scan your copy of BPHS. However, that was not the sloka we were discussing (vide infra). The sloka we were discussing was in the Dasa Adhyaya and in GC Sharma's BPHS the sloke is the 11th one in that chapter. Santhanam and Sharma's translations were so different in meaning that I was wondering if Santhanam was translating the identical sloka or did his version had a different but related sloka. That question unfortunately still remains unanswered! RR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2008 Report Share Posted February 26, 2008 Lest you create confusions in some minds, GC Sharma's BPHS gives slokas in devnagri script. I do not have that script in my browser hence had to use the alphabet available :-) If you call several chapters missing in the version you learned from as slight differences, what more is there to say! RR jyotish-vidya , " Wendy Vasicek " <jyotishvidya wrote: > > Dear Rohiniranjan, > > Actually, I scanned that particular page as it was one that had previously > come loose...my books are many years old, well-used and falling apart, I'm > afraid. I simply wanted to show that the slokas in Santhanam's edition are > given in the original Sanskrit...not as in your version i.e. > " Anyastaradassadhyascha na sarvah sarvasammatah " > > In my opinion the differences in the various translations are slight in > regards to the actual intention of the sloka to convey the importance of > Vimsottari over other dasas. Whether one interprets a particular sloka as > meaning... > a) all are not acceptable by common consensus (or) > b) but in our view all these dashas are not appropriate. > ...the intention is fairly clear, wouldn't you say? > > No doubt one can go on infinitum arguing the finer points behind the > different translations or one can come to the understanding that the > classics are intended as a guide to awaken our own awareness > (understanding/discernment). > > Best Wishes, > Mrs. Wendy > http://JyotishVidya.com > jyotish-vidya > ___ > > > - > " Rohiniranjan " <rohini_ranjan > <jyotish-vidya > > Wednesday, February 27, 2008 2:53 AM > Re: Different techniques > > > Wendy, > > Thanks for taking the trouble to scan your copy of BPHS. However, > that was not the sloka we were discussing (vide infra). The sloka we > were discussing was in the Dasa Adhyaya and in GC Sharma's BPHS the > sloke is the 11th one in that chapter. > > Santhanam and Sharma's translations were so different in meaning that > I was wondering if Santhanam was translating the identical sloka or > did his version had a different but related sloka. > > That question unfortunately still remains unanswered! > > RR > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2008 Report Share Posted February 26, 2008 Dear Rohiniranjan, ///Lest you create confusions in some minds,/// Oh! Heaven forbid! ///GC Sharma's BPHS gives slokas in devnagri script. I do not have that script in my browser hence had to use the alphabet available :-)/// Well done :-) ///If you call several chapters missing in the version you learned from as slight differences, what more is there to say!/// If I'm not mistaken we were discussing a particular sloka... NOT so-called missing chapters. However, be that as it may; the later Girish Chand Sharma version (1994-5), as opposed to the earlier Santhanam edition which I purchased in the late 1980's, has another three chapters inserted expanding on... Vol 1. 1) Planetary positions. 2) Surroundings at time of birth. Vol 2. 3) More on Horary system. Others might (please) correct me if I'm in error here. Best Wishes, Mrs. Wendy http://JyotishVidya.com jyotish-vidya ___ - " Rohiniranjan " <rohini_ranjan <jyotish-vidya > Wednesday, February 27, 2008 11:55 AM Re: Different techniques Lest you create confusions in some minds, GC Sharma's BPHS gives slokas in devnagri script. I do not have that script in my browser hence had to use the alphabet available :-) If you call several chapters missing in the version you learned from as slight differences, what more is there to say! RR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2008 Report Share Posted February 26, 2008 Dear Rohiniranjan and All, This perpetual argument about different versions of BPHS reminds me of the same argument in regards to different versions of the Bible. Catholic and Protestant Bibles both include 27 books in the New Testament. However, Protestant Bibles have only 39 books in the Old Testament whilst Catholic Bibles have 46. The seven additional books included in Catholic Bibles are Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch. Catholic Bibles also include additions to the Books of Esther and Daniel which are not found in Protestant Bibles. The argument regarding these differences go on infinitum with supporters of one version using it to denounce the validity of the other... HOW RIDICULOUS!! For those with eyes to see, the essential message of the Bible remains the same whichever version is used... For others, the argument itself far outweighs the message. (which they're blinded to) Best Wishes, Mrs. Wendy http://JyotishVidya.com jyotish-vidya ___ - " Wendy Vasicek " <jyotishvidya <jyotish-vidya > Wednesday, February 27, 2008 12:49 PM Re: Re: Different techniques Dear Rohiniranjan, ///Lest you create confusions in some minds,/// Oh! Heaven forbid! ///GC Sharma's BPHS gives slokas in devnagri script. I do not have that script in my browser hence had to use the alphabet available :-)/// Well done :-) ///If you call several chapters missing in the version you learned from as slight differences, what more is there to say!/// If I'm not mistaken we were discussing a particular sloka... NOT so-called missing chapters. However, be that as it may; the later Girish Chand Sharma version (1994-5), as opposed to the earlier Santhanam edition which I purchased in the late 1980's, has another three chapters inserted expanding on... Vol 1. 1) Planetary positions. 2) Surroundings at time of birth. Vol 2. 3) More on Horary system. Others might (please) correct me if I'm in error here. Best Wishes, Mrs. Wendy http://JyotishVidya.com jyotish-vidya ___ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2008 Report Share Posted February 26, 2008 The basic idea of any text book is to give guidance to a student. There are number of teachers who wrote books on each discipline of study and so is the case with astrology. So is the case of translations on any subject. I think, a student should follow a text book for quite some time to learn the subject satisfactorily. After a sufficient time of testing those instructions, in actual practice, which one really works, he would find out well by himself. It is a waste of time to go on arguing which translation is good or better or the best. Every serious member of these astrological forums knows, these arguments never produce any fruitful results and this kind of threads keep surfacing time and again in various lists. Once upon a time, the same topic was endlessly discussed in Ben's list also. Was there a final pronouncement on this? In every forum so is the case. Now it is the turn of this list …. Will these arguments yield any fruitful result? I think the astrologers are the most egoistic persons in the world. Regards, C.S. Ravindramani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 jyotish-vidya , " ravindramani " <ravindramani wrote: >... I think the astrologers are the most egoistic > persons in the world. > Dear Ravindramani, You are right! And they tend to be judgmental too, perhaps from judging all those charts day in and day out ;-) Hence individuals may be seen to argue about the purity of this vs that system and that Parashara and Jaimini siddhantas should not be mixed or this dasha is better than that dasha. The list grows as the population of this world does ... But really, it is not just jyotishis but most human beings. Sorry for wasting your *precious* time, though ... Rohiniranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 Dear Rohiniranjan, Ravindramani and All, I know I've spoken of this before and, at the time, some were in disagreement with what I said. However, given the current mood, I do feel it deserves repeating. Whether one is arguing (putting forward) a case in regards to Temporal (man-made) law or whether the argument is regarding the laws governing jyotish (Cosmic law), the advocates (generally) speak with conviction. This is the nature of the activity (the work) we find ourselves in... A lawyer presenting his argument in court would not be very convincing if he, himself, lacked conviction...I certainly wouldn't want such a lawyer defending my case! However, away from the courtroom (or in our case, the Forum), the persona of advocate would (or should) naturally drop away... We all wear many hats! I think Astrologers are no more egotistical than any other group that has taken on the role of advocate. The big difference, as I see it, is that lawyers present their arguments in a courtroom which is bound by certain etiquettes; which, if breached, can result in a 'contempt of court' conviction. The same etiquette is not (generally) exercised on these forums which leads often to an uncontrolled free-for-all creating ill-feelings and bringing disrepute to jyotish and all who practice it. Best Wishes, Mrs. Wendy http://JyotishVidya.com jyotish-vidya ___ jyotish-vidya , " ravindramani " <ravindramani wrote: >... I think the astrologers are the most egoistic > persons in the world. Dear Ravindramani, You are right! And they tend to be judgmental too, perhaps from judging all those charts day in and day out ;-) Hence individuals may be seen to argue about the purity of this vs that system and that Parashara and Jaimini siddhantas should not be mixed or this dasha is better than that dasha. The list grows as the population of this world does ... But really, it is not just jyotishis but most human beings. Sorry for wasting your *precious* time, though ... Rohiniranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 At the risk of inviting 'contempt of court' Wendy Didi, why should Jyotish be brought to blame and shame just because an individual, Ravindramani in this case initially chose to pass a judgment ( " Astrologers are egoistic...! " ) and another individual (me) chose to remind that egoism and judgmentality are human traits/behaviours and not specific to astrologers. And, I think that is what you said too! I think that whatever Ravindra, you or I or the rest of us think or say here or elsewhere, does not afflict or affect JYOTISH one wee bit. It was there way before we even chose to be born and will be there for long after we three will forget all remembrances of our current lifetime! The gavel of this forum may be in your hand but this is not a court or the only court! Best regards, Rohiniranjan jyotish-vidya , " Wendy Vasicek " <jyotishvidya wrote: > > Dear Rohiniranjan, Ravindramani and All, > > I know I've spoken of this before and, at the time, some were in > disagreement with what I said. However, given the current mood, I do feel it > deserves repeating. > > Whether one is arguing (putting forward) a case in regards to Temporal > (man-made) law or whether the argument is regarding the laws governing > jyotish (Cosmic law), the advocates (generally) speak with conviction. This > is the nature of the activity (the work) we find ourselves in... > > A lawyer presenting his argument in court would not be very convincing if > he, himself, lacked conviction...I certainly wouldn't want such a lawyer > defending my case! > However, away from the courtroom (or in our case, the Forum), the persona of > advocate would (or should) naturally drop away... We all wear many hats! > > I think Astrologers are no more egotistical than any other group that has > taken on the role of advocate. The big difference, as I see it, is that > lawyers present their arguments in a courtroom which is bound by certain > etiquettes; which, if breached, can result in a 'contempt of court' > conviction. > > The same etiquette is not (generally) exercised on these forums which leads > often to an uncontrolled free-for-all creating ill-feelings and bringing > disrepute to jyotish and all who practice it. > > Best Wishes, > Mrs. Wendy > http://JyotishVidya.com > jyotish-vidya > ___ > > > jyotish-vidya , " ravindramani " > <ravindramani@> wrote: > >... I think the astrologers are the most egoistic > > persons in the world. > > Dear Ravindramani, > > You are right! And they tend to be judgmental too, perhaps from > judging all those charts day in and day out ;-) > > Hence individuals may be seen to argue about the purity of this vs > that system and that Parashara and Jaimini siddhantas should not be > mixed or this dasha is better than that dasha. The list grows as the > population of this world does ... > > But really, it is not just jyotishis but most human beings. Sorry for > wasting your *precious* time, though ... > > Rohiniranjan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 Dear Rohiniranjan, ///At the risk of inviting 'contempt of court'/// Now you really are being facetious! Whatever the reason, you've chosen to misinterpret my intention from day one. It matters not what I speak of, sure as eggs are eggs, you'll be there to contradict? Of course this is not a court of law! The comparison was intended simply to point out: 1) The convincing (some would say egotistical) mode adopted when putting forward an argument, and... 2) The dignity in which these arguments are presented in one instance and the oftentimes lack of dignity in the other... You cannot deny the appalling behaviour that has become the norm on many groups and, with this in mind, the example I gave regarding the decorum (that should be voluntary but, sadly, only seems to work when enforced) should be self-evident, surely? ///I think that whatever Ravindra, you or I or the rest of us think or say here or elsewhere, does not afflict or affect JYOTISH one wee bit./// What is said on the forums has a very definite impact on the budding astrologers, the silent lurkers, reading the posts. This is something experienced jyotishi should be mindful of and this is why I devote so much of my time to providing correct information. There are many groups providing misinformation in bucket loads, some balance is needed. This is my opinion! and I hope (for once) you will respect my right to have this opinion and not respond negatively... Thank You, Mrs. Wendy http://JyotishVidya.com jyotish-vidya ___ - " Rohiniranjan " <rohini_ranjan <jyotish-vidya > Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:49 AM Re: Different techniques At the risk of inviting 'contempt of court' Wendy Didi, why should Jyotish be brought to blame and shame just because an individual, Ravindramani in this case initially chose to pass a judgment ( " Astrologers are egoistic...! " ) and another individual (me) chose to remind that egoism and judgmentality are human traits/behaviours and not specific to astrologers. And, I think that is what you said too! I think that whatever Ravindra, you or I or the rest of us think or say here or elsewhere, does not afflict or affect JYOTISH one wee bit. It was there way before we even chose to be born and will be there for long after we three will forget all remembrances of our current lifetime! The gavel of this forum may be in your hand but this is not a court or the only court! Best regards, Rohiniranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 Thanks for all the " illustrations! " I have not known you from day one, Didi! Remember I am many years younger! ;-) RR jyotish-vidya , " Wendy Vasicek " <jyotishvidya wrote: > > Dear Rohiniranjan, > > ///At the risk of inviting 'contempt of court'/// > > Now you really are being facetious! > > Whatever the reason, you've chosen to misinterpret my intention from day > one. It matters not what I speak of, sure as eggs are eggs, you'll be there > to contradict? Of course this is not a court of law! The comparison was > intended simply to point out: > 1) The convincing (some would say egotistical) mode adopted when putting > forward an argument, and... > 2) The dignity in which these arguments are presented in one instance and > the oftentimes lack of dignity in the other... > > You cannot deny the appalling behaviour that has become the norm on many > groups and, with this in mind, the example I gave regarding the decorum > (that should be voluntary but, sadly, only seems to work when enforced) > should be self-evident, surely? > > ///I think that whatever Ravindra, you or I or the rest of us think or say > here or elsewhere, does not afflict or affect JYOTISH one wee bit./// > > What is said on the forums has a very definite impact on the budding > astrologers, the silent lurkers, reading the posts. This is something > experienced jyotishi should be mindful of and this is why I devote so much > of my time to providing correct information. There are many groups providing > misinformation in bucket loads, some balance is needed. > > This is my opinion! and I hope (for once) you will respect my right to have > this opinion and not respond negatively... > > Thank You, > Mrs. Wendy > http://JyotishVidya.com > jyotish-vidya > ___ > > > > - > " Rohiniranjan " <rohini_ranjan > <jyotish-vidya > > Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:49 AM > Re: Different techniques > > > At the risk of inviting 'contempt of court' Wendy Didi, why should > Jyotish be brought to blame and shame just because an individual, > Ravindramani in this case initially chose to pass a judgment > ( " Astrologers are egoistic...! " ) and another individual (me) chose to > remind that egoism and judgmentality are human traits/behaviours and > not specific to astrologers. And, I think that is what you said too! > > I think that whatever Ravindra, you or I or the rest of us think or > say here or elsewhere, does not afflict or affect JYOTISH one wee > bit. It was there way before we even chose to be born and will be > there for long after we three will forget all remembrances of our > current lifetime! > > The gavel of this forum may be in your hand but this is not a court > or the only court! > > Best regards, > > Rohiniranjan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 Dear Fellow Members, I think, that i had had enough of this member (rr) arrogance, and statements. !!!enough is enough!!!, Rohini why? -just go and form your own web site some place. your negative and arrogant attitude is very negative.You ma be many years younger than Wendy but stop acting like a eight years old brat. ohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan wrote: Thanks for all the " illustrations! " I have not known you from day one, Didi! Remember I am many years younger! ;-) RR jyotish-vidya , " Wendy Vasicek " <jyotishvidya wrote: > > Dear Rohiniranjan, > > ///At the risk of inviting 'contempt of court'/// > > Now you really are being facetious! > > Whatever the reason, you've chosen to misinterpret my intention from day > one. It matters not what I speak of, sure as eggs are eggs, you'll be there > to contradict? Of course this is not a court of law! The comparison was > intended simply to point out: > 1) The convincing (some would say egotistical) mode adopted when putting > forward an argument, and... > 2) The dignity in which these arguments are presented in one instance and > the oftentimes lack of dignity in the other... > > You cannot deny the appalling behaviour that has become the norm on many > groups and, with this in mind, the example I gave regarding the decorum > (that should be voluntary but, sadly, only seems to work when enforced) > should be self-evident, surely? > > ///I think that whatever Ravindra, you or I or the rest of us think or say > here or elsewhere, does not afflict or affect JYOTISH one wee bit./// > > What is said on the forums has a very definite impact on the budding > astrologers, the silent lurkers, reading the posts. This is something > experienced jyotishi should be mindful of and this is why I devote so much > of my time to providing correct information. There are many groups providing > misinformation in bucket loads, some balance is needed. > > This is my opinion! and I hope (for once) you will respect my right to have > this opinion and not respond negatively... > > Thank You, > Mrs. Wendy > http://JyotishVidya.com > jyotish-vidya > ___ > > > > - > " Rohiniranjan " <rohini_ranjan > <jyotish-vidya > > Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:49 AM > Re: Different techniques > > > At the risk of inviting 'contempt of court' Wendy Didi, why should > Jyotish be brought to blame and shame just because an individual, > Ravindramani in this case initially chose to pass a judgment > ( " Astrologers are egoistic...! " ) and another individual (me) chose to > remind that egoism and judgmentality are human traits/behaviours and > not specific to astrologers. And, I think that is what you said too! > > I think that whatever Ravindra, you or I or the rest of us think or > say here or elsewhere, does not afflict or affect JYOTISH one wee > bit. It was there way before we even chose to be born and will be > there for long after we three will forget all remembrances of our > current lifetime! > > The gavel of this forum may be in your hand but this is not a court > or the only court! > > Best regards, > > Rohiniranjan > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 Wendy, jyotish-vidya , " Wendy Vasicek " <jyotishvidya wrote: > > You cannot deny the appalling behaviour that has become the norm on many > groups ... Wendy, please explain! Whose appalling behaviour that has become the norm on many groups? Specifics and details of this allegation would be appreciated. Hopefully this is not too much to ask? Thanks! Rohiniranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 Dear Eligio, Your consternation at what you perceive as my immature behaviour and the language you used to express your angst is not shocking or surprising! Internet allows for such venting and I am happy for you that you feel relieved! But I do not understand the anger that motivated you to attack me, dear Eligio! ===================================== WENDY and any other Moderators, members and owners of this group: Please compare the tone of messages and level of maturity of the message from Eligio I am responding to and what I have used on this forum despite several direct and indirect attacks on me by a few here ...! RR jyotish-vidya , ELIGIO MARIN <tio_eligio wrote: > > Dear Fellow Members, I think, that i had had enough of this member (rr) arrogance, and statements. !!!enough is enough!!!, Rohini why? - just go and form your own web site some place. your negative and arrogant attitude is very negative.You ma be many years younger than Wendy but stop acting like a eight years old brat. > > > ohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan wrote: > Thanks for all the " illustrations! " > > I have not known you from day one, Didi! Remember I am many years > younger! ;-) > > RR > > jyotish-vidya , " Wendy Vasicek " > <jyotishvidya@> wrote: > > > > Dear Rohiniranjan, > > > > ///At the risk of inviting 'contempt of court'/// > > > > Now you really are being facetious! > > > > Whatever the reason, you've chosen to misinterpret my intention > from day > > one. It matters not what I speak of, sure as eggs are eggs, you'll > be there > > to contradict? Of course this is not a court of law! The comparison > was > > intended simply to point out: > > 1) The convincing (some would say egotistical) mode adopted when > putting > > forward an argument, and... > > 2) The dignity in which these arguments are presented in one > instance and > > the oftentimes lack of dignity in the other... > > > > You cannot deny the appalling behaviour that has become the norm on > many > > groups and, with this in mind, the example I gave regarding the > decorum > > (that should be voluntary but, sadly, only seems to work when > enforced) > > should be self-evident, surely? > > > > ///I think that whatever Ravindra, you or I or the rest of us think > or say > > here or elsewhere, does not afflict or affect JYOTISH one wee > bit./// > > > > What is said on the forums has a very definite impact on the budding > > astrologers, the silent lurkers, reading the posts. This is > something > > experienced jyotishi should be mindful of and this is why I devote > so much > > of my time to providing correct information. There are many groups > providing > > misinformation in bucket loads, some balance is needed. > > > > This is my opinion! and I hope (for once) you will respect my right > to have > > this opinion and not respond negatively... > > > > Thank You, > > Mrs. Wendy > > http://JyotishVidya.com > > jyotish-vidya > > ___ > > > > > > > > - > > " Rohiniranjan " <rohini_ranjan@> > > <jyotish-vidya > > > Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:49 AM > > Re: Different techniques > > > > > > At the risk of inviting 'contempt of court' Wendy Didi, why should > > Jyotish be brought to blame and shame just because an individual, > > Ravindramani in this case initially chose to pass a judgment > > ( " Astrologers are egoistic...! " ) and another individual (me) chose > to > > remind that egoism and judgmentality are human traits/behaviours and > > not specific to astrologers. And, I think that is what you said too! > > > > I think that whatever Ravindra, you or I or the rest of us think or > > say here or elsewhere, does not afflict or affect JYOTISH one wee > > bit. It was there way before we even chose to be born and will be > > there for long after we three will forget all remembrances of our > > current lifetime! > > > > The gavel of this forum may be in your hand but this is not a court > > or the only court! > > > > Best regards, > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Search. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 Dear Rohiniranjan, ///I have not known you from day one, Didi!/// You know perfectly well that 'day one' refers to the day you joined this forum. Why on earth do you insist on being so objectional? ///Remember I am many years younger! ;-)/// As you keep bringing this to my attention, perhaps you should try to respect the fact! I'm really not in the mood to play games with you at the moment so will 'switch off' and settle down with a nice hot cup of chocolate as soon as I send this. But, before I do, I'd like to draw your attention to the point you raised regarding the wording of a particular sloka which, in my opinion, has similar meaning in both editions... GC Sharma = all are not acceptable by common consensus (or) R Santhanam: = but in our view all these dashas are not appropriate. You also quoted something from the Bible that definately conveyed a meaning other than what was intended. I chose not to initiate another argument by bringing attention to it so I just let it slip by. However, in light of our recent discussions, I think I should point out your error whilst stressing the necessity of putting forward the correct information when quoting scripture...whether it be biblical or BPHS etc.. You Wrote (Feb 16): ///Bible said: Only those shall enter Heaven who can pass through the eye of a needle!/// The actual verse reads: *It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.* Meaning of course that a rich man can find it quite difficult to break his attachment to worldly riches... This may prove as difficult for him as it would for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle... The phrase 'eye of a needle' referred to the small gate that was opened in the great gate of an Oriental city when the latter was closed for the night. They say it is difficult, but, not impossible, for a camel to pass through such a gate. Likewise it can be difficult, but not impossible, for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. It's one thing to speak with authority Rohiniranjan, but we should first be absolutely sure that what we say is correct, don't you agree? Now, can we please stop all this bickering and wipe the slate clean :-) Best Wishes, Mrs. Wendy http://JyotishVidya.com jyotish-vidya ___ - " Rohiniranjan " <rohini_ranjan <jyotish-vidya > Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:12 PM Re: Different techniques Thanks for all the " illustrations! " I have not known you from day one, Didi! Remember I am many years younger! ;-) RR 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.