Fwd: commentary of Jaimini Sutra - Beginning

[Guest guest]

, " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote:

 

Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

==>

> It is believed tat Jaimini was

> student of Vyasa and some therefore believe him to be shishya of

> Parashara who was father of Vyasa.

<==

This is news to me - but of not much use, because I believe based on

some available evidence, that the Parashara who wrote BPHS and

Parashara Samhita was not the Parshara of Mahabharata period, as

mentioned in some of my previous mails.

==>

> If we accept your translation " planets in 11th 9th and 6th

> destroys argala yoga " as the right interpretation of the shloka

> then we may, perhaps, have to redefine KaTaPaYaaDi interpretation

> rules. Most of the commentators, rightly, think they refer to 4, 2

> and 11 houses and indicating the argala cast from those houses.

> Could you throw some light on how you equated Dara Bhagya and

> Shoola with 11-9 and 6?

<==

The sutra is " Dara Bhagya Sulastha Argala Nidhyatu " . By common

knowledge Dara is wife and is 7th; Bhagya is luck and is 9th; Soola

is suffering and is 6th. The sutra says these houses distroys Argala

yoga, i.e. cause Virodhargala. Looking at the light of BPHS sloka

stating 4-2-11 houses causing Argala we find that this sloka speaks

about the combinations that obstruct the same; and a further scrutiny

of the logic applied behind reveals that the word " Dara " (wife) is

used to mean 11th house here. And thus the derivation-

" Planets in 11-9-6 cause Virodhargala to Argala caused by planets

in 4-2-11 respectively "

The logic behind is 11th is 8th from 4th, 9th is 8th from 2nd, 6th

is 8th from 11th - the pointing to 8th house being the common thread.

 

Now comming to reference to " KaTaPaYaaDi " -

I thought that " KaTaPaYaaDi " was system popular only in south

India. (Pradeep may have something to say about the same) Vararuchi

is thought to have introduced this system in 4th centrury AD. There

is no reference to this system prior to this period, as per my

current knowledge. Even though some refer to the use of the

word " jaya " in Maharbharata to argue that the system was in use even

at that time, neither Mahabharata nor any other text of the ancient

past provides us explicit proof that, " KaTaPaYaDi " system was in use

at that time. But it is clear that from vedic period " Bhoota Sankhya

system " and " Decimal system " was in use.

Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the words used in the above sloka

indicates -

Dara = 24

Bhagya = 12

Soola = 37

How do you want to interpret it to 04 - 02 - 11 ?!!! Can you

elaborate the " KaTaPaYaDi " rules you have in mind?

Further if somebody is finding " KaTaPaYaDi " rules in jaimini sutra,

it is clear that the text originated after 4th century AD, since

the " KaTaPaYaDi " system came to existance by that period only. I

don't think that you would like that argument. If clear use

of " KaTaPaYaDi " is present in Jaimini Sutra, then well and good. In

that case 2 possiblities exists-

* Jaimini sutra is a text originated after 4th century.

* " KaTaPaYaDi " system existed even prior to 4th century

But I am yet to find any sutra that support " KaTaPaYaDi " system in

Jaimini Sutra. Possibily I may or may not find some, as I am yet to

read or study the complete text.

 

==>

> Sanandan rishi that gave the Jyotish to Narada from whose shishyas

> like Garga and then Shaunaka even Parashara acknowledges having

> received the principles of Jyotish,

> is not mentioned among the Pravartakas.

<==

Sanadan Rishi?! The name is new to me - can you quote the sloka? I

am familiar with the names such as Skanda, Sanaka, Saunaka etc - but

yet to see a sloka stating that there was some Rishi called Sanadan

who imparted astrological knowledge to Narada.

The word meaning of the word " Sanadan " is something like " Ever

lasting " i think.

 

==>

> The fact of 8 adhyaayas of Jaimini being written is mentioned by

> many worthies like Suryanarain Rao, B.V. Raman and many other

> commentators of Jaimini sutras, if my memory serves me right. Do

> you have any reference that mentions exactly how many adhyaayas of

> Jaimini sutras were written?

> If you have that, it might benefit the astrological brotherhood at

large.

<==

Oh!! I am asking were it is said so, and you are asking me for

reference!! I am yet to see or read the commentaries of Jaimini

sutra by Suryanarain Rao or B.V. Raman. My be I may get some clue

from them, about where to find the reference. Thanks for the info.

 

==>

> Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe KaulakaanaaM phalaani rogaadayaH. "

> This is the reference to Kaulaka in Jaimini sutras. Of course it

> is possible you may have interpreted this in a different manner

> as in case of 4th sutra of 1st chapter,1st pada.

<==

ha ha.. It may happen, I don't know yet. I am yet to read that

portion of the book, I have just started my study of Jaimini sutra

only. When I complete studying though the book - many new revelations

and insights may come to me..

==>

> I mean why should he ignore

> the Graha drishti told by Parashara, if he was to advocate only

> Parashara's teaching.

<==

Jaimini " ignores " Graha Drishi?! I keep a watch on this point, while

continuing my study of Jaimini sutra and come back with supporting or

opposing evidance later.

==>

> I do not think Parashara supports Argala from 7th house to a bhava.

> The results given for argalas in BPHS are about argalas on the

> houses and not from the houses.

<==

Argalas on the houses and from the houses! Why this confusion and

complexity?! When Parasara is speaking about Argala caused by planets

in various houses, then the results told should also be attributed to

the same - right? This is normal simple logical path.

 

==>

> You have not responded to my request for the diagram indicated by

> Parashara as indicated by you. May I know why?

> I can send the file in .doc format as I drew it in that format.

<==

If I haven't drawn any diagram how am I supposed to give it to

you? Please mail the doc you created in my mail id:

sreesog

 

Love and Hugs,

Sreenadh

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadh,

>

> I am sorry if that was not your intention when you said that

Jaimini was

> trying to further teachings of Parashara. It is believed tat

Jaimini was

> student of Vyasa and some therefore believe him to be shishya of

> Parashara who was father of Vyasa. If that is not so then the logic

of

> Jaimini wanting to elaborate on Parashara's teaching as advanced by

you

> becomes even more tenuous.

>

> I have read what you translated about the the sutra. I wanted to

keep

> the translation or interpretation of the sutras out of this

discussions.

> However as you think I have not read the pdf file, let me assure

you

> that I have and do not find any sutras of Jaimini quoted therein to

> support your contention that 11th house argala blocks that from the

4th

> bhava. If we accept your translation " planets in 11th 9th and 6th

> destroys argala yoga " as the right interpretation of the shloka

then we

> may, perhaps, have to redefine KaTaPaYaaDi interpretation rules.

Most of

> the commentators, rightly, think they refer to 4, 2 and 11 houses

and

> indicating the argala cast from those houses. Could you throw some

light

> on how you equated Dara Bhagya and Shoola with 11-9 and 6?

>

> I am sorry, if the portion about Jaimini being a Pravartaka

appeared in

> the mail. That was a slip on my part. I remember writing that his

being

> Pravartaka or not not being material as even Sanandan rishi that

gave

> the Jyotish to Narada from whose shishyas like Garga and then

Shaunaka

> even Parashara acknowledges having received the principles of

Jyotish,

> is not mentioned among the Pravartakas. Did that not appear in the

mail

> received by you?

>

> The fact of 8 adhyaayas of Jaimini being written is mentioned by

many

> worthies like Suryanarain Rao, B.V. Raman and many other

commentators of

> Jaimini sutras, if my memory serves me right. Do you have any

reference

> that mentions exactly how many adhyaayas of Jaimini sutras were

written?

> If you have that, it might benefit the astrological brotherhood at

large.

>

> Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe KaulakaanaaM phalaani rogaadayaH. " This is

the

> reference to Kaulaka in Jaimini sutras. Of course it is possible

you may

> have interpreted this in a different manner as in case of 4th sutra

of

> 1st chapter,1st pada.

>

> Does my mail mention that Jaimini ignored rasi drishti? If so that

is

> the sign of my age and health catching up. I mean why should he

ignore

> the Graha drishti told by Parashara, if he was to advocate only

> Parashara's teaching.

>

> It was perhaps wrong of me to ask for the name of the edition of

BPHS

> you were quoting from, not having gone through the entire document.

I

> find that you are referring to Sitaram Jha edition. I shall read

the

> relevant shloka, as translated by Sitaram Jha, and send my comments

on

> them tomorrow.

>

> I do not think Parashara supports Argala from 7th house to a bhava.

The

> results given for argalas in BPHS are about argalas on the houses

and

> not from the houses.

>

> You have not responded to my request for the diagram indicated by

> Parashara as indicated by you. May I know why?

>

> I can send the file in .doc format as I drew it in that format.

>

> Regards,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

> Sreenadh wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > Thanks for the comments.

> > ==>

> > > I can find that the entire thrust of the same

> > > is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of Vyaasa....?!!!

> > <==

> > From where Vyasa came in?! I haven't even mentioned the name of

Vyasa

> > in that document! And never argued so!

> >

> > ==>

> > > How ever the sutras to support

> > > your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala to the 4th

house

> > > argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file.

> > <==

> > Oh! The first sutra of Jaimini about Argala states the same! I

have

> > elaborated on the same in detail as well. Did you read that pdf

for sure?!

> >

> > ==>

> > > Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is totally

incorrect.

> > > Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18

Pravartakas,....

> > <==

> > Where is the sloka?! In your mail I couldn't find that, please

post

> > it in the next mail.

> >

> > ==>

> > > only 4 out of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are available

> > > till date.

> > <==

> > That is new knowledge to me, Thanks for the same. Can you pelase

> > elaborate, where it is mentioned that complete Jaimini sutra

contains

> > 8 adhyaayas?

> >

> > ==>

> > > Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is peculiar to

> > > Jaimini and not found in Parashara.

> > <==

> > Kauluka?! That also is new to me. Can you provide more info,

please?

> >

> > ==>

> > > It is also necessary to explain as to why Parashara has given

rasi

> > > drishtis which Jaimini ignores totally.

> > <==

> > Jaimini " ignores " Rasi Drishti?! In many slokas of the intial

> > chapter, Jaimini describes Rasi Drishti itself! Then how can you

say

> > that Jaimini ignores Rasi Drishti?!! That also " totally " ?!! One

should

> > think twise before stating so!

> >

> > ==>

> > > The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is interesting.

> > > can you give the edition of Parashari that it appears in

> > > and the shloka and adhyaaya number?

> > <==

> > The edition of BPHS I referred is mentioned in that pdf itself,

the

> > edition of Jaimini sutra I referred is also mentioned in the same.

> >

> > ==>

> > > The shloka could also be translated to mean that

> > > neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause obstruction of

the

> > > argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house receiving or

> > > casting argala can not cast argala or can not be taken into

> > > consideration for giving virodh argala. This could only have

been

> > > given by way of amplifying the concept of argalas.

> > <==

> > Argala results for 7th house is given in BPHS, thus it is clear

that

> > Parasara supports Argala caused by planets in 7th house.

> >

> > ==>

> > > I find you describing the way Parashara has asked to cast a rasi

> > > chakra and saying that this itself proves that signs can have

> > > aspects. It would have supported your arguments, if you had

drawn

> > > the chakra as described by Parashara and indicated how the

drishtis

> > > described in the sutras fit th Chakra drawn with Aries and

Taurus in

> > > east, etc. It would have been interesting to see this.

> > <==

> > Please send the diagram (pdf file) you send to Pradeep to me as

> > well. I would be thankful. Possibly I may get some new insight

from

> > the same.

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > >

> > > I have read the pdf file. I can find that the entire thrust of

the same

> > > is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of Vyaasa and therefore he

wanted

> > > to spread the knowledge of Parashara. How ever the sutras to

support

> > > your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala to the 4th

house

> > > argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file. The statement that

name of

> > > Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is totally

incorrect.

> > > Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18 Pravartakas,

though

> > > right, does not in any way prove that Jaimini was elaborating

on what

> > > was taught by Parashara. Had that been the case Jaimini would

have

> > > referred the readers to Parashara's principles instead of

telling

> > > " horadaya siddhaaH " , in effect telling the readers to refer to

other

> > > texts (for what is not told in the sutras/ the basic concepts of

> > > astrology). Narada one of the Pravartakas of Jyotish and

through whose

> > > lineage, even Parashara accepts having got the knowledge of

Jyotish

> > > received his knowledge through rishi Sanandan, who is not named

amongst

> > > Pravartakas.

> > >

> > > Even the translation of " upadesham vyakhyasaam " as " I am

commenting on

> > > the advise of Jaimini " does not appear correct and even the

venerated

> > > Krishnaanand Saraswati the commentator on Jaimini sutras, nor

> > > Neelakantha interprets it that way.

> > >

> > > The logic that you have presented is that some shlokas

appearing in

> > BPHS

> > > elaborate upon what is said in Jaimini sutras and therefore it

is based

> > > on Parashara only. The argument appears to be attractive, at

first

> > > glance, but does not hold water. There are many Vriddha Karikas

that

> > > explain the rasi drishtis and it is also interesting to note

that

> > though

> > > Rasi drishti appear in BPHS, not much about their usage or any

thing

> > > that distinguishes their use from that of Graha drishti is

found in

> > that

> > > text.

> > >

> > > " ubhayaanubhayaH pashyeccaraan sthaasnuH sthiraaMshcaraH |

> > > samIpasaMsthitaM raashiM tyktwaa trIMstrInyathaakramam || " from

Vriddha

> > > Karikas and many other shlokas in many other texts can be

referred

> > to to

> > > understand the sutra of Jaimini to understand the sutras on rasi

> > > drishti. I have many other shlokas besides the one that you have

> > > indicated in the document. So that argument does not hold any

water.

> > >

> > > One could also say that the Jaimini concept of rasi drishti

appear in

> > > BPHS, if mere parallel shlokas means the test of borrowing from

other

> > > granthas. The argument that since the effects of argalas are

given in

> > > BPHS means that Jaimini borrowed the concept from BPHS, it not

having

> > > the info on that part is misleading as it is well known that

only 4 out

> > > of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are available till date.

> > >

> > > Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is peculiar to

Jaimini

> > > and not found in Parashara. If one were to accept your

argument. even

> > > this concept should have been in BPHS. It is also necessary to

explain

> > > as to why Parashara has given rasi drishtis which Jaimini

ignores

> > > totally. Surely, he would not do that if he was elaborating on

only

> > what

> > > Parashara said. He would also not have skipped Vimshottari and

> > > kalachakra dasha which Parashara opines are the most important

amongst

> > > dashas, in his sutras. Most of other arguments presented about

there

> > not

> > > being argala yogas in Jaimini and they appearing in Parashara,

on the

> > > face of it are good though there are only results of Argalas

that are

> > > given in BPHS and not argala yogas as claimed. That Jaimini

refers one

> > > to standard texts in the first chapter, only is totally ignored

in the

> > > argument presented. Sutras are rightly known for their brevity

and not

> > > even the brahma sutras can be interpreted by mere translation.

One has

> > > to interpret them taking help of basic principles given in other

> > > standard texts.

> > >

> > > The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is interesting.

can you

> > > give the edition of Parashari that it appears in and the shloka

and

> > > adhyaaya number? The shloka could also be translated to mean

that

> > > neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause obstruction of

the

> > > argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house receiving or

casting

> > > argala can not cast argala or can not be taken into

consideration for

> > > giving virodh argala. This could only have been given by way of

> > > amplifying the concept of argalas.

> > >

> > > I find you describing the way Parashara has asked to cast a

rasi chakra

> > > and saying that this itself proves that signs can have aspects.

It

> > would

> > > have supported your arguments, if you had drawn the chakra as

described

> > > by Parashara and indicated how the drishtis described in the

sutras fit

> > > th Chakra drawn with Aries and Taurus in east, etc. It would

have been

> > > interesting to see this.

> > >

> > > So while congratulating you on the efforts undertaken to create

a PDF

> > > document on Jaimini sutras, I must disagree with the

conclusions drawn

> > > there in.

> > >

> > > As I said earlier, let us agree to disagree on this issue.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear All,

> > > > The following document is a commentary for the beginning

portion of

> > > > Jaimini sutra. Currently it covers the portion upto Rasi

Drishti and

> > > > Argala.

> > > >

> > > > Link -1

> > > > -------

> > > >

> >

Sreenadh/

Jaimini

> >

<Sreenadh

/Jaimini>

> >

> > > >

> >

<Sreenadh

/Jaimini

> >

<Sreenadh

/Jaimini>>

> > > > Sutra - Beginning.pdf

> > > >

> > > > Link -2

> > > > --------

> > > > http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

_Beginning.pdf

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

_Beginning.pdf>

> > > >

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

_Beginning.pdf

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

_Beginning.pdf>>

> > > > (140 KB).

> > > >

> > > > Love,

> > > > Sreenadh

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > -------------------------

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date:

> > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

, " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote:

 

Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

==>

Dara = 28/12 =4

Bhagya = 14/12=2

Shoola = 35/12 = 11.

<==

That was good. Thanks for clarification. But one more doubt remains -

How come you (or anybody) interpret that the KaTaPaYa numbers provided

should be divided by 12 ? How can we argue that that the sloka asks us

to divide the numbers by 12 ?

 

==>

> I am sending the diagram to your private mail id as requested.

<==

I am yet to receive it - but thanks in advance. Please send it in

sreesog(at)

Love,

Sreenadh

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadh,

>

> That happens with all of us. I only thought it was my duty to point out

> as this could lead to distorting of principles. The variable here is

the

> number of rasis in the zodiac, which is 12. So Dara = 28/12 =4

> Bhagya = 14/12=2

> Shoola = 35/12 = 11.

>

> The word Nidhayaatu is interpreted as give or cast argala by most of

the

> commentators including Neelkantha and Krishnaananda Saraswati. Dhaya

> means sucking and nidhaaya means having fixed or layered upon etc.

So it

> being interpreted as obstruction/influence/argala appears to be

appropriate.

> ********

> Not being a scholar of Sanskrit (though I understand quite a bit

being a

> Brahmin by birth), I shall try to ascertain from my brother-in-law who

> was professor of Linguistics at Both Michigan and Bombay university and

> a Sanskrit scholar himself or the Vice Chancellor of the Sanskrit

> University here, when I meet them. On learning from them, I shall

> certainly write to you.

> ********

> I am sending the diagram to your private mail id as requested.

> **********

> Regards,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

> Sreenadh wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > Sorry for the mistake I made in haste about the KaTaPaYaDi numbers.

> > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

> > Ka Kha Ga Gha Ngha Ca Cha Ja Jha Nja

> > Ta Tha Da Dha Na Ta Tha Da Tha Na

> > Pa Pha Ba Bha Ma

> > Ya Ra La Va Sa Sha Sa Ha

> >

> > Da - Ra = 8-2 " Sankhyanam Vamato Gati " (The numbers should be counted

> > in reverse order); Thus it becomes 28. Thus DaRa = 28

> > Similarly,

> >

> > Bhag-Ya = 14

> > Soo-La = 35

> >

> > Sorry. It was not the understanding but the haste caused the

> > mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.

> > ==>

> > > Divide by variable and you get the answer.

> > <==

> >

> > DaRa = 28; BhagYa=14; SooLa = 35

> > The Variable (common multiple) here is 7.

> >

> > 28/7 = 04; 14/7 = 02 ; 35/7 = 5

> >

> > Thus my answers would be 4-2-5.

> > What is this? 4-2-5 ?!!

> >

> > Am I supposed to interpret that Planets in 4-2-5 will cause

> > Virodhargala? What is the trick you are using -

> > * To change 4-2-5 to 4-2-11 ?

> > * To change Virodhargala to Aargala?

> >

> > The sutra is " Dara Bhagya Sulastha Argala Nidhyatu " . " Argala

> > Nidhyatu " definitely means " Destroys/Oppose Argala " i hope; or is

> > there another interpretation?

> > Thanks for the info - but please clarify.

> >

> > P.S: Please send the diagram to my personal mail id, as I used to

> > read the group posts from the web (I used to select no-mail option in

> > all groups). Thanks for the doc in advance.

> >

> > * By the way, can you provide me any reference to use of KaTaPaYaDi

> > system in any other book prior to AD 4th century. I think a look back

> > is necessory at the history of this system.

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > >

> > > Read the shloka on Parijatamsha and let me know what you think

> > about the

> > > time Parashara lived or at least when the text was recited to

> > Maitreya.

> > > ********

> > > I do not agree with that logic as Katapayaadi is to be used for

> > > interpretation of the factors other than when grahas are mentioned.

> > Even

> > > if we accept your contention that common meaning of the words is to

> > be

> > > used and equate Dara with 7th, Bhagya with 9th and presumably

> > Shoola

> > > with 6th (though I would associate it with 11th). Where does the

> > 11th

> > > bhava enter the sutra? Equating 7th with 11th for the sake of

> > advancing

> > > an argument is fine, but is that right? I do not think so. If, as

> > you

> > > say, we have to bring in Parashara then why not the argalas that he

> > says

> > > blocks those from 2,4 and 11? I would like to know your

> > interpretation

> > > of the sutra " Svasthe Dara " .

> > >

> > > *******************

> > > You wrote:

> > > " Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the words used in the above sloka

> > > indicates -

> > > Dara = 24

> > > Bhagya = 12

> > > Soola = 37 "

> > >

> > > I see that you are interpreting katapayaadi in a novel manner. Da

> > is not

> > > the 4th letter in Ta varga, it is the 8th one. No wonder the

> > > interpretation has gone awry. Katapayaadi rules are almost standard

> > and

> > > as you insist that it is only used in south India ( Now coming to

> > > reference to " KaTaPaYaaDi " -I thought that " KaTaPaYaaDi " was system

> > > popular only in south India.), I am sure you must be familiar with

> > them.

> > > Dara is 28, Bhagya is 14 and Shoola is 35 (reversed values of the

> > > alphabets in Katapayaadi Vargas). Divide by variable and you get

> > the

> > > answer. By the way Sanskrit language is not limited to South India

> > so

> > > nor are the katapayaadi rules.

> > > ***********

> > > I am sure you must be familiar with the word Sanakaadi rishis. They

> > are

> > > the ones sitting in front of Dakshinamurti-Shiva. Sanandan is one

> > of

> > > them. Read Purva Bhaga 2nd pada shiksha prakarana of Narada Purana

> > and

> > > you will find the name.

> > > ***********

> > > The way you asked for the reference I thought you were certain that

> > > there are not more than x number of adhayaayas of Jaimini

> > available.

> > > More so as you were insisting that Jaimini was only spreading the

> > > teaching of Parashara and so on. That is I asked you if you had

> > some

> > > reference about the number of adhyaayas from manuscripts. I have

> > many

> > > commentaries on Jaimini and some photocopies of manuscripts from

> > > Bhandarkar research institute (kindly sent to me by one of my

> > friends

> > > who has forgotten more Jaimini than, perhaps, what I have read) and

> > most

> > > of them agree that there are 8 adhayaayas written of which only 4

> > have

> > > been discovered till date. Some Pandits of Varanasi are said to

> > possess

> > > some more manuscripts but our attempts to procure them have been in

> > vain

> > > till now.

> > > ************

> > > Oh, is that so?

> > > ************

> > > Do that.

> > > ***********

> > > I do not to your views about how argalas are to be

> > viewed.

> > > Again I read Sitaram Jha's edition of BPHS, that is referred to in

> > the

> > > document, and do not find the shloka mentioned in your pdf file.

> > Will

> > > you quote the shloka and adhyaaya number?

> > > ***********

> > > I thought you must have drawn the diagram since you were talking

> > about

> > > the description of Parashara matching the south Indian chart in

> > earlier

> > > mail. I'm attaching the diagram I have with this mail for comments

> > of

> > > all those who are perhaps interested in Jaimini and rasi aspects. I

> > am

> > > sure you will pardon my poor skills with drawing and draftsmanship.

> > >

> > > Take care,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > ==>

> > > > > It is believed tat Jaimini was

> > > > > student of Vyasa and some therefore believe him to be shishya of

> > > > > Parashara who was father of Vyasa.

> > > > <==

> > > > This is news to me - but of not much use, because I believe based

> > on

> > > > some available evidence, that the Parashara who wrote BPHS and

> > > > Parashara Samhita was not the Parshara of Mahabharata period, as

> > > > mentioned in some of my previous mails.

> > > > ==>

> > > > > If we accept your translation " planets in 11th 9th and 6th

> > > > > destroys argala yoga " as the right interpretation of the shloka

> > > > > then we may, perhaps, have to redefine KaTaPaYaaDi

> > interpretation

> > > > > rules. Most of the commentators, rightly, think they refer to

> > 4, 2

> > > > > and 11 houses and indicating the argala cast from those houses.

> > > > > Could you throw some light on how you equated Dara Bhagya and

> > > > > Shoola with 11-9 and 6?

> > > > <==

> > > > The sutra is " Dara Bhagya Sulastha Argala Nidhyatu " . By common

> > > > knowledge Dara is wife and is 7th; Bhagya is luck and is 9th;

> > Soola

> > > > is suffering and is 6th. The sutra says these houses distroys

> > Argala

> > > > yoga, i.e. cause Virodhargala. Looking at the light of BPHS sloka

> > > > stating 4-2-11 houses causing Argala we find that this sloka

> > speaks

> > > > about the combinations that obstruct the same; and a further

> > scrutiny

> > > > of the logic applied behind reveals that the word " Dara " (wife) is

> > > > used to mean 11th house here. And thus the derivation-

> > > > " Planets in 11-9-6 cause Virodhargala to Argala caused by planets

> > > > in 4-2-11 respectively "

> > > > The logic behind is 11th is 8th from 4th, 9th is 8th from 2nd, 6th

> > > > is 8th from 11th - the pointing to 8th house being the common

> > thread.

> > > >

> > > > Now comming to reference to " KaTaPaYaaDi " -

> > > > I thought that " KaTaPaYaaDi " was system popular only in south

> > > > India. (Pradeep may have something to say about the same)

> > Vararuchi

> > > > is thought to have introduced this system in 4th centrury AD.

> > There

> > > > is no reference to this system prior to this period, as per my

> > > > current knowledge. Even though some refer to the use of the

> > > > word " jaya " in Maharbharata to argue that the system was in use

> > even

> > > > at that time, neither Mahabharata nor any other text of the

> > ancient

> > > > past provides us explicit proof that, " KaTaPaYaDi " system was in

> > use

> > > > at that time. But it is clear that from vedic period " Bhoota

> > Sankhya

> > > > system " and " Decimal system " was in use.

> > > > Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the words used in the above sloka

> > > > indicates -

> > > > Dara = 24

> > > > Bhagya = 12

> > > > Soola = 37

> > > > How do you want to interpret it to 04 - 02 - 11 ?!!! Can you

> > > > elaborate the " KaTaPaYaDi " rules you have in mind?

> > > > Further if somebody is finding " KaTaPaYaDi " rules in jaimini

> > sutra,

> > > > it is clear that the text originated after 4th century AD, since

> > > > the " KaTaPaYaDi " system came to existance by that period only. I

> > > > don't think that you would like that argument. If clear use

> > > > of " KaTaPaYaDi " is present in Jaimini Sutra, then well and good.

> > In

> > > > that case 2 possiblities exists-

> > > > * Jaimini sutra is a text originated after 4th century.

> > > > * " KaTaPaYaDi " system existed even prior to 4th century

> > > > But I am yet to find any sutra that support " KaTaPaYaDi " system in

> > > > Jaimini Sutra. Possibily I may or may not find some, as I am yet

> > to

> > > > read or study the complete text.

> > > >

> > > > ==>

> > > > > Sanandan rishi that gave the Jyotish to Narada from whose

> > shishyas

> > > > > like Garga and then Shaunaka even Parashara acknowledges having

> > > > > received the principles of Jyotish,

> > > > > is not mentioned among the Pravartakas.

> > > > <==

> > > > Sanadan Rishi?! The name is new to me - can you quote the sloka? I

> > > > am familiar with the names such as Skanda, Sanaka, Saunaka etc -

> > but

> > > > yet to see a sloka stating that there was some Rishi called

> > Sanadan

> > > > who imparted astrological knowledge to Narada.

> > > > The word meaning of the word " Sanadan " is something like " Ever

> > > > lasting " i think.

> > > >

> > > > ==>

> > > > > The fact of 8 adhyaayas of Jaimini being written is mentioned by

> > > > > many worthies like Suryanarain Rao, B.V. Raman and many other

> > > > > commentators of Jaimini sutras, if my memory serves me right. Do

> > > > > you have any reference that mentions exactly how many adhyaayas

> > of

> > > > > Jaimini sutras were written?

> > > > > If you have that, it might benefit the astrological brotherhood

> > at

> > > > large.

> > > > <==

> > > > Oh!! I am asking were it is said so, and you are asking me for

> > > > reference!! I am yet to see or read the commentaries of Jaimini

> > > > sutra by Suryanarain Rao or B.V. Raman. My be I may get some clue

> > > > from them, about where to find the reference. Thanks for the info.

> > > >

> > > > ==>

> > > > > Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe KaulakaanaaM phalaani rogaadayaH. "

> > > > > This is the reference to Kaulaka in Jaimini sutras. Of course it

> > > > > is possible you may have interpreted this in a different manner

> > > > > as in case of 4th sutra of 1st chapter,1st pada.

> > > > <==

> > > > ha ha.. It may happen, I don't know yet. I am yet to read that

> > > > portion of the book, I have just started my study of Jaimini sutra

> > > > only. When I complete studying though the book - many new

> > revelations

> > > > and insights may come to me..

> > > > ==>

> > > > > I mean why should he ignore

> > > > > the Graha drishti told by Parashara, if he was to advocate only

> > > > > Parashara's teaching.

> > > > <==

> > > > Jaimini " ignores " Graha Drishi?! I keep a watch on this point,

> > while

> > > > continuing my study of Jaimini sutra and come back with

> > supporting or

> > > > opposing evidance later.

> > > > ==>

> > > > > I do not think Parashara supports Argala from 7th house to a

> > bhava.

> > > > > The results given for argalas in BPHS are about argalas on the

> > > > > houses and not from the houses.

> > > > <==

> > > > Argalas on the houses and from the houses! Why this confusion and

> > > > complexity?! When Parasara is speaking about Argala caused by

> > planets

> > > > in various houses, then the results told should also be

> > attributed to

> > > > the same - right? This is normal simple logical path.

> > > >

> > > > ==>

> > > > > You have not responded to my request for the diagram indicated

> > by

> > > > > Parashara as indicated by you. May I know why?

> > > > > I can send the file in .doc format as I drew it in that format.

> > > > <==

> > > > If I haven't drawn any diagram how am I supposed to give it to

> > > > you? Please mail the doc you created in my mail id:

> > > > sreesog@ <sreesog%40yhoo.com>

> > > >

> > > > Love and Hugs,

> > > > Sreenadh

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > >

> > > > > I am sorry if that was not your intention when you said that

> > > > Jaimini was

> > > > > trying to further teachings of Parashara. It is believed tat

> > > > Jaimini was

> > > > > student of Vyasa and some therefore believe him to be shishya of

> > > > > Parashara who was father of Vyasa. If that is not so then the

> > logic

> > > > of

> > > > > Jaimini wanting to elaborate on Parashara's teaching as

> > advanced by

> > > > you

> > > > > becomes even more tenuous.

> > > > >

> > > > > I have read what you translated about the the sutra. I wanted to

> > > > keep

> > > > > the translation or interpretation of the sutras out of this

> > > > discussions.

> > > > > However as you think I have not read the pdf file, let me assure

> > > > you

> > > > > that I have and do not find any sutras of Jaimini quoted

> > therein to

> > > > > support your contention that 11th house argala blocks that from

> > the

> > > > 4th

> > > > > bhava. If we accept your translation " planets in 11th 9th and

> > 6th

> > > > > destroys argala yoga " as the right interpretation of the shloka

> > > > then we

> > > > > may, perhaps, have to redefine KaTaPaYaaDi interpretation rules.

> > > > Most of

> > > > > the commentators, rightly, think they refer to 4, 2 and 11

> > houses

> > > > and

> > > > > indicating the argala cast from those houses. Could you throw

> > some

> > > > light

> > > > > on how you equated Dara Bhagya and Shoola with 11-9 and 6?

> > > > >

> > > > > I am sorry, if the portion about Jaimini being a Pravartaka

> > > > appeared in

> > > > > the mail. That was a slip on my part. I remember writing that

> > his

> > > > being

> > > > > Pravartaka or not not being material as even Sanandan rishi that

> > > > gave

> > > > > the Jyotish to Narada from whose shishyas like Garga and then

> > > > Shaunaka

> > > > > even Parashara acknowledges having received the principles of

> > > > Jyotish,

> > > > > is not mentioned among the Pravartakas. Did that not appear in

> > the

> > > > mail

> > > > > received by you?

> > > > >

> > > > > The fact of 8 adhyaayas of Jaimini being written is mentioned by

> > > > many

> > > > > worthies like Suryanarain Rao, B.V. Raman and many other

> > > > commentators of

> > > > > Jaimini sutras, if my memory serves me right. Do you have any

> > > > reference

> > > > > that mentions exactly how many adhyaayas of Jaimini sutras were

> > > > written?

> > > > > If you have that, it might benefit the astrological brotherhood

> > at

> > > > large.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe KaulakaanaaM phalaani rogaadayaH. " This

> > is

> > > > the

> > > > > reference to Kaulaka in Jaimini sutras. Of course it is possible

> > > > you may

> > > > > have interpreted this in a different manner as in case of 4th

> > sutra

> > > > of

> > > > > 1st chapter,1st pada.

> > > > >

> > > > > Does my mail mention that Jaimini ignored rasi drishti? If so

> > that

> > > > is

> > > > > the sign of my age and health catching up. I mean why should he

> > > > ignore

> > > > > the Graha drishti told by Parashara, if he was to advocate only

> > > > > Parashara's teaching.

> > > > >

> > > > > It was perhaps wrong of me to ask for the name of the edition of

> > > > BPHS

> > > > > you were quoting from, not having gone through the entire

> > document.

> > > > I

> > > > > find that you are referring to Sitaram Jha edition. I shall read

> > > > the

> > > > > relevant shloka, as translated by Sitaram Jha, and send my

> > comments

> > > > on

> > > > > them tomorrow.

> > > > >

> > > > > I do not think Parashara supports Argala from 7th house to a

> > bhava.

> > > > The

> > > > > results given for argalas in BPHS are about argalas on the

> > houses

> > > > and

> > > > > not from the houses.

> > > > >

> > > > > You have not responded to my request for the diagram indicated

> > by

> > > > > Parashara as indicated by you. May I know why?

> > > > >

> > > > > I can send the file in .doc format as I drew it in that format.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > > > Thanks for the comments.

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > I can find that the entire thrust of the same

> > > > > > > is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of Vyaasa....?!!!

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > From where Vyasa came in?! I haven't even mentioned the name

> > of

> > > > Vyasa

> > > > > > in that document! And never argued so!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > How ever the sutras to support

> > > > > > > your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala to the

> > 4th

> > > > house

> > > > > > > argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > Oh! The first sutra of Jaimini about Argala states the same! I

> > > > have

> > > > > > elaborated on the same in detail as well. Did you read that

> > pdf

> > > > for sure?!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is totally

> > > > incorrect.

> > > > > > > Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18

> > > > Pravartakas,....

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > Where is the sloka?! In your mail I couldn't find that, please

> > > > post

> > > > > > it in the next mail.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > only 4 out of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are available

> > > > > > > till date.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > That is new knowledge to me, Thanks for the same. Can you

> > pelase

> > > > > > elaborate, where it is mentioned that complete Jaimini sutra

> > > > contains

> > > > > > 8 adhyaayas?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is peculiar

> > to

> > > > > > > Jaimini and not found in Parashara.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > Kauluka?! That also is new to me. Can you provide more info,

> > > > please?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > It is also necessary to explain as to why Parashara has

> > given

> > > > rasi

> > > > > > > drishtis which Jaimini ignores totally.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > Jaimini " ignores " Rasi Drishti?! In many slokas of the intial

> > > > > > chapter, Jaimini describes Rasi Drishti itself! Then how can

> > you

> > > > say

> > > > > > that Jaimini ignores Rasi Drishti?!! That also " totally " ?!!

> > One

> > > > should

> > > > > > think twise before stating so!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is

> > interesting.

> > > > > > > can you give the edition of Parashari that it appears in

> > > > > > > and the shloka and adhyaaya number?

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > The edition of BPHS I referred is mentioned in that pdf

> > itself,

> > > > the

> > > > > > edition of Jaimini sutra I referred is also mentioned in the

> > same.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > The shloka could also be translated to mean that

> > > > > > > neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause obstruction

> > of

> > > > the

> > > > > > > argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house receiving

> > or

> > > > > > > casting argala can not cast argala or can not be taken into

> > > > > > > consideration for giving virodh argala. This could only have

> > > > been

> > > > > > > given by way of amplifying the concept of argalas.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > Argala results for 7th house is given in BPHS, thus it is

> > clear

> > > > that

> > > > > > Parasara supports Argala caused by planets in 7th house.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > I find you describing the way Parashara has asked to cast a

> > rasi

> > > > > > > chakra and saying that this itself proves that signs can

> > have

> > > > > > > aspects. It would have supported your arguments, if you had

> > > > drawn

> > > > > > > the chakra as described by Parashara and indicated how the

> > > > drishtis

> > > > > > > described in the sutras fit th Chakra drawn with Aries and

> > > > Taurus in

> > > > > > > east, etc. It would have been interesting to see this.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > Please send the diagram (pdf file) you send to Pradeep to me

> > as

> > > > > > well. I would be thankful. Possibly I may get some new insight

> > > > from

> > > > > > the same.

> > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have read the pdf file. I can find that the entire thrust

> > of

> > > > the same

> > > > > > > is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of Vyaasa and

> > therefore he

> > > > wanted

> > > > > > > to spread the knowledge of Parashara. How ever the sutras to

> > > > support

> > > > > > > your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala to the

> > 4th

> > > > house

> > > > > > > argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file. The statement

> > that

> > > > name of

> > > > > > > Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is totally

> > > > incorrect.

> > > > > > > Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18

> > Pravartakas,

> > > > though

> > > > > > > right, does not in any way prove that Jaimini was

> > elaborating

> > > > on what

> > > > > > > was taught by Parashara. Had that been the case Jaimini

> > would

> > > > have

> > > > > > > referred the readers to Parashara's principles instead of

> > > > telling

> > > > > > > " horadaya siddhaaH " , in effect telling the readers to refer

> > to

> > > > other

> > > > > > > texts (for what is not told in the sutras/ the basic

> > concepts of

> > > > > > > astrology). Narada one of the Pravartakas of Jyotish and

> > > > through whose

> > > > > > > lineage, even Parashara accepts having got the knowledge of

> > > > Jyotish

> > > > > > > received his knowledge through rishi Sanandan, who is not

> > named

> > > > amongst

> > > > > > > Pravartakas.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Even the translation of " upadesham vyakhyasaam " as " I am

> > > > commenting on

> > > > > > > the advise of Jaimini " does not appear correct and even the

> > > > venerated

> > > > > > > Krishnaanand Saraswati the commentator on Jaimini sutras,

> > nor

> > > > > > > Neelakantha interprets it that way.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The logic that you have presented is that some shlokas

> > > > appearing in

> > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > elaborate upon what is said in Jaimini sutras and therefore

> > it

> > > > is based

> > > > > > > on Parashara only. The argument appears to be attractive, at

> > > > first

> > > > > > > glance, but does not hold water. There are many Vriddha

> > Karikas

> > > > that

> > > > > > > explain the rasi drishtis and it is also interesting to note

> > > > that

> > > > > > though

> > > > > > > Rasi drishti appear in BPHS, not much about their usage or

> > any

> > > > thing

> > > > > > > that distinguishes their use from that of Graha drishti is

> > > > found in

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > text.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > " ubhayaanubhayaH pashyeccaraan sthaasnuH sthiraaMshcaraH |

> > > > > > > samIpasaMsthitaM raashiM tyktwaa trIMstrInyathaakramam || "

> > from

> > > > Vriddha

> > > > > > > Karikas and many other shlokas in many other texts can be

> > > > referred

> > > > > > to to

> > > > > > > understand the sutra of Jaimini to understand the sutras on

> > rasi

> > > > > > > drishti. I have many other shlokas besides the one that you

> > have

> > > > > > > indicated in the document. So that argument does not hold

> > any

> > > > water.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > One could also say that the Jaimini concept of rasi drishti

> > > > appear in

> > > > > > > BPHS, if mere parallel shlokas means the test of borrowing

> > from

> > > > other

> > > > > > > granthas. The argument that since the effects of argalas are

> > > > given in

> > > > > > > BPHS means that Jaimini borrowed the concept from BPHS, it

> > not

> > > > having

> > > > > > > the info on that part is misleading as it is well known that

> > > > only 4 out

> > > > > > > of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are available till date.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is peculiar

> > to

> > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > and not found in Parashara. If one were to accept your

> > > > argument. even

> > > > > > > this concept should have been in BPHS. It is also necessary

> > to

> > > > explain

> > > > > > > as to why Parashara has given rasi drishtis which Jaimini

> > > > ignores

> > > > > > > totally. Surely, he would not do that if he was elaborating

> > on

> > > > only

> > > > > > what

> > > > > > > Parashara said. He would also not have skipped Vimshottari

> > and

> > > > > > > kalachakra dasha which Parashara opines are the most

> > important

> > > > amongst

> > > > > > > dashas, in his sutras. Most of other arguments presented

> > about

> > > > there

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > being argala yogas in Jaimini and they appearing in

> > Parashara,

> > > > on the

> > > > > > > face of it are good though there are only results of Argalas

> > > > that are

> > > > > > > given in BPHS and not argala yogas as claimed. That Jaimini

> > > > refers one

> > > > > > > to standard texts in the first chapter, only is totally

> > ignored

> > > > in the

> > > > > > > argument presented. Sutras are rightly known for their

> > brevity

> > > > and not

> > > > > > > even the brahma sutras can be interpreted by mere

> > translation.

> > > > One has

> > > > > > > to interpret them taking help of basic principles given in

> > other

> > > > > > > standard texts.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is

> > interesting.

> > > > can you

> > > > > > > give the edition of Parashari that it appears in and the

> > shloka

> > > > and

> > > > > > > adhyaaya number? The shloka could also be translated to mean

> > > > that

> > > > > > > neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause obstruction

> > of

> > > > the

> > > > > > > argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house receiving

> > or

> > > > casting

> > > > > > > argala can not cast argala or can not be taken into

> > > > consideration for

> > > > > > > giving virodh argala. This could only have been given by

> > way of

> > > > > > > amplifying the concept of argalas.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I find you describing the way Parashara has asked to cast a

> > > > rasi chakra

> > > > > > > and saying that this itself proves that signs can have

> > aspects.

> > > > It

> > > > > > would

> > > > > > > have supported your arguments, if you had drawn the chakra

> > as

> > > > described

> > > > > > > by Parashara and indicated how the drishtis described in the

> > > > sutras fit

> > > > > > > th Chakra drawn with Aries and Taurus in east, etc. It would

> > > > have been

> > > > > > > interesting to see this.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So while congratulating you on the efforts undertaken to

> > create

> > > > a PDF

> > > > > > > document on Jaimini sutras, I must disagree with the

> > > > conclusions drawn

> > > > > > > there in.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As I said earlier, let us agree to disagree on this issue.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > The following document is a commentary for the beginning

> > > > portion of

> > > > > > > > Jaimini sutra. Currently it covers the portion upto Rasi

> > > > Drishti and

> > > > > > > > Argala.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Link -1

> > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> >

Sreenadh/

> >

<Sreenadh/>

> >

> > > >

> >

<Sreenadh

> >

<Sreenadh>

> > />

> > > > Jaimini

> > > > > >

> > > >

> >

<Sreenadh

> >

<Sreenadh>

> >

> > > >

> >

<Sreenadh

> >

<Sreenadh>

> > >

> > > > /Jaimini>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> >

<Sreenadh

> >

<Sreenadh>

> >

> > > >

> >

<Sreenadh

> >

<Sreenadh>

> > >

> > > > /Jaimini

> > > > > >

> > > >

> >

<Sreenadh

> >

<Sreenadh>

> >

> > > >

> >

<Sreenadh

> >

<Sreenadh>

> > >

> > > > /Jaimini>>

> > > > > > > > Sutra - Beginning.pdf

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Link -2

> > > > > > > > --------

> > > > > > > > http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->

> > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>

> > > > _Beginning.pdf

> > > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->

> > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>

> > > > _Beginning.pdf>

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->

> > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>

> > > > _Beginning.pdf

> > > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->

> > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>

> > > > _Beginning.pdf>>

> > > > > > > > (140 KB).

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > -------------------------

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release

> > Date:

> > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >