Guest guest Posted June 18, 2007 Report Share Posted June 18, 2007 Well, Sree, My objective was to preserve the forum objective. First, Written Word: Oral tradition too can have a cast-iron bedrock as long as there is consensus. It is a silly fundamental that veda was originally oral in transmission; and later the written symbolically represented the aural (here speech sounds). The written word is not anathema to veda. POINT: "Direct presence of the teacher." COUNTERPOINT: We are operating in the virtual presence of learners. POINT: "If we go by textual reference, we may find none." COUNTERPOINT: Text is the locus of standardised, definitive version of a series of expositions. The written is a FORM. Substance (content) is something else. Content exists in an appropriation of language by a mind (or a number of minds). The text doesn't exist on the page. (If it did, granthhakrupa would be a particle of silly lexical myth.) Let me go back and then forward. Text exists (nay, lives) in language, say L1x. Language exists in mind, not RK's or Sreenadh's mind. But in the collective, inter-subjectively. It is operated severally and as well as individually. Now my dear Sreenadh, unfortunately we don't have the privilege, be it Kerala or Delhi, of looking up to The Text as far as astrology goes. We have accepted certain texts -- the vedicness of which is your splendorous headache, I know; and I'm with you to an extent -- as worthy of perusal and use in our practice (neither science nor art, I don't mind when you confute). For a discipline to remain integrated and effective, the available texts must be 'accessed'. For getting it (discipline) in the integrated shape we have to coallate, compare and critique and arrive at consensus to the end of concordance. The same applies to a text where it is fragmentary or there are differing versions. Achieving concordance is arduous. Most are unaware what it takes. We have differing versions of astrology, which you won't let me call art. Fine. Not even science. Fine. (I call it dscipline.) Astronomy cannot explain away the challenges before someone who has a chart before him and has to reel off what he has not seen or heard of or what even the subject is yet to see or experience. That is what I refer to when I say predictive curve. Indeed astrology is astrology because of the predictive curve, else it is khagola. If you do "agree", you would see by and by what I'm driving at. We are in the midst of a supersymbolic system with multi-disciplinary spread and with lots of supports from humanities, where langauge itself is a symbolic system. Verily, we are wandering in a mansion. Sadly it is decrepit. I may not have reached the mansion proper and be bemoaning (my) sight of ruins. If you set out to rebuild the great house, I might say you don't as yet command the tackles and tools. If it is there and you have sighted it (the whole mansion), you as yet lack the ability to report it the right way. Why, I will explain in another bunch of written words. Cheerio, RK Dash Sreenadh <sreesog wrote: Dear RK ji,Some handsome points expressed by your post really attracts my attention. ==>For a discipline like astrology (call it Vedic, Indian or Oriental), we haven't, as far as my understanding goes, a cast-iron bedrock of the Written Word -- veda (as also much of post-vedic expositions) being shruti, words of mouth; where the words are written down, the contents are destined to hold intutional afflatus.<==The Vedas flowed from mouth to ear. Sruti = (told and) heard = Taught (handed over to generations) through Guru-Sishya Tradition. Now we are at a juncture where everybody depends on written word. Alas! Vedas itself are attributed the authority on being the authority of "WRITTEN TEXT"!! What will happen to all other knowledge that is Sruti but not yet written down?! I have a cute example in my mind - In South India astrologers use Kavadi (shells) for doing astronomical and astrological calculations. It should have been the same throughout India since the same is mentioned in Leelavati as Pati Ganitam. They system is cute and the experts do the all the primary (addition, substation, division, multiplication) and complex (Astronomical) mathematics with the aid of these shells alone, and their method differ. For example multiplication is always done from left to right (Not from right to left as we practice today) using shells. (It does not matter whether we use shells or stones for doing the same - it is immaterial). Now the point is: THERE IS NO BOOK WRITTEN YET TO DESCRIBE THE SYSTEM IN DETAIL - But is the system is alive with its full beauty and is practiced and demonstrated widely by all the efficient astrologers in Kerala! Usually the expert ones defeat even a person with calculator in doing the same calculation with their speed of calculation and expertise! Should we discard such valuable knowledge telling that it is not mentioned in any text, or telling that till today no text mentioned the system and their for it must have came to existence recently?!! It is there well in place for ages - and it was the ONLY system that was used for mathematical calculation in the history of Kerala (possibly whole India) till (and after!) the advent of written mathematical calculation methods popularized by western education. But if we go by textual reference we may find NONE! Is it not absurd?! Is it not amazing?! The truth is when everybody knew it, when it is handed over to generations through mouth to ear by Guru-Sishya Parampara, when it is Sruti, why should it be written down? That should have been the general attitude. Further there should have been one more reason - it is very difficult to notate and explain the system on paper, but easy to teach and learn by teaching and doing, in the direct presence of the teacher, the direct example. OK. What ever it be to save the system - I am preparing a written document on the same - and that is possibly the FIRST document written on the same, even though the systems is well known (far better than me) to thousands of astrologers in Kerala! So the point is it would be a very big mistake, (a very very foolish blunder) to ignore or reject the traditional knowledge that is handed over from mouth to ear (taught through Guru-Sishya Parampara), but not yet written down, or for which no written proof is available. I hope Kaul ji will also make a note of this point.==>> However much astronomy is pressed to serve the underpinning of > astrology, the predictive curve of the discipline > (a disproportionately larger part of its overall corpus) escapes > the hard grip of mathematical coordinates.<==I agree.==>> The curve places much of the discipline in the province of art. The > spingboard for the art is always there, nevertheless. <==I disagree completely and the reason for my disagreement, I have already expressed in detail in "Base of Astrology.doc" present in the files section of the forum. The quote from that document, is given below-<SNIP>"When one understands this basic rationale of astrology, the unnecessary arguments and debates will stop. We must try to see astrology in its true theoretical foundation. Why should we argue whether astrology is an art or science? Astrology is nothing but Astrology. If somebody asks whether bat is bird or not, what would be the answer? It will only create an unending array of positive and negative arguments. If somebody asks whether history is science or not, even without my intervention, one will know that the result would be the same. Bat is bat, history is history and astrology is nothing but astrology, neither science nor an art. The fault lies in our view. Why should we try to cast something into a particular mould, or to limit subjects into some colored boxes? Man wants to classify everything. The truth would be always beyond all the classifications. It stays outside all the classification attempts. The fault lies fundamentally with the fragmented human brain that tries to classify everything, which ultimately leads to erroneous knowledge. This fundamental error remains unsolved and we are trying to limit the subjects in to predefined boxes. It is the second mistake. Will these repeated errors lead us to correct knowledge and view?"</SNIP>Let us forget the minor friction between Madhu ji and Kaul ji over Sanskrit and English - and let us be back on our discussions. By the way I would urge all (especially Pandit ji, Madhu ji and RK ji etc) to continue with the normal predictive astrological discussion in parallel threads - otherwise somebody many lose interest. The theoretical discussion are not of interest to all.At the same time let these other discussions on "Presence of astrology in Vedas" etc also go in parallel, I will handle the same (and let all who are interested in the same join), since that is the subject much interest to me as well. But if my energy is totally flowing in these lines, I may not be able to concentrate on the "Discussions on Predictive astrological techniques" or Case studies fully.Love,Sreenadh , rk dash <arkaydash wrote:>> Dear Nair Saab,> Welcome back. In fact you never went, your going away having been foreclosed by Friend Shreenadh. > > I read up the posts and counter-posts. Sad that the forum sees (sometimes, fortunately only sometimes) such attitude-throwing. We seem unable to keep the subject proper in the foreground. Clarity, consistency and quality insights should inform this foreground. All else should be secondary. > > And then scholarship. Indeed.> > Debates about the moorings of astrology will always be fraught with variances and dissents as indeed about many of its tenets and assumptions. For a discipline like astology (call it vedic, Indian or Oriental), we haven't, as far as my understanding goes, a cast-iron bedrock of the Written Word -- veda (as also much of post-vedic expositions) being shruti, words of mouth; where the words are written down, the contents are destined to hold intutional afflatus. However much astronomy is pressed to serve the underpinning of astrology, the predictive curve of the discipline (a disproportionately larger part of its overall corpus) escapes the hard grip of mathematical coordinates. The curve places much of the discipline in the province of art. The spingboard for the art is always there, nevertheless. > > But we have to be careful. That is my understanding.> > We in our efforts at 'mastering' the discipline are, in a way, at a disadvantage. Hence the need for patience, polite openness and wise humility can't be overemphasised. I'd urge you to bear with some of us. Your desire to leave (in distress perhaps) the group must have served its purpose -- that of highlighting the futility of pettiness (Yes, I would like to see who faults someone else's English and thereby deludes himslef he can detract from the good many of us bring to the forum.).> > Sreenadh has acted his part well. I expected Mr 'Bharat' to have given an even better account of himself.> > Let's make the most of our forum togetherness. > > RK Dash> > > Madhu Nair <balagurusurya wrote:> Dear Bharat,> At the outset , Thanks a lot , for your support and solidarity with me, for the cause of Nirayana Zodiac and to thwart the effort of pedants commited to denigrate it.> > I take note of your resplendent views on Nirayana Zodiac duly quoting Holy Vedas , for which , Sri Kishen Kaul alias Mohan Jyotishi ,has No answer. > > It is quite unfortunate, Sri Kaul, a Kashmiri Pandit by birth, in the guise of rational thinking , unwittingly is playing into the hands of detractors of Jyotish.> > Today , Sreenadh rang up and he broach the entire issue of different Zodiac and his views about it, with me..> > As desired by your good self and Sreenadh , I am back in the list.> > With Warm Personal Regards,> > Madhu Nair > > > > Bharat Hindu Astrology <hinduastrology wrote:> Namaste Sri Kaul> > A discussion takes place when:> > 1. I am a learner and a student of yours or you are a learner and student of mine> 2. Both of us are open to learning, exploring.> 3. If you are a knower of something that I seek or I am a knower of something that you seek and we ask the knower. > > You and I do not satisfy any of the criteria. You are pre-decided on most things. You have not answered close to 20 queries put up by me OR more than 50 by others. You cannot expect us to answer your misplaced contentions, especially when you have no attitude nor openness for learning. > > I am not busy for seeking knowledge or for sharing it, but, I would rather not waste time with another useless debate with you. > > Infact, if you notice, I was not even discussing with you. I was discussing with Sri Madhu and Sri Sreenadh. > > Thanks and Regards> Bharat> > > > On 6/16/07, Avtar Krishen Kaul <a_krishen wrote: Shri Bharat ji,> Namaskar!> > First of all I must congratulate Shri Sreemadhji for keeping the > posts on this forum unmoderated! It needs really an open mind to do > so!> Now coming to your points:> I have never asked anyone to agree with me or even disagree with me, > for that matter. In a democracy, anybody is at liberty to cherish > any system for being fleeced by charlatans or fleecing others! I am > no cop, please rest assured! The problem arises only when we say > that these gimmicks of predictions are based on the Vedas and have > been revealed by Rishis like Prashara and Brighu etc. etc. > Naturally, anybody making such claims will have to substantiate them > with chapter and verse and not just go on repeating "Jyotish is > Vedic", "Jyotish is based on what Maharshi Prashara has said" and so > on and so forth! > Kindly go through all the files that I have uploaded on this forum > and do give a point by point reply. If you take time out to peruse > them patiently (Koshur6), you will see that I was sailing in the > same boat as you are sailing today! In other words, I was a more > stauch "nirayana astrologer" for quite a few years than nyybody > else! Later on, with equal vehemence, I becamse a firm believer > in "Sayana Vedic astrology" for several years! Since nobody, > including the "Vedic jyotishis" themselves, whether sayana or > nirayana, has as yet been able to pinpoint the existence of Mesha, > Vrisha etc. astrological rashis, leave alone sayana or nirayana, in > any of the Vedas or the Vedanga Jyotisha or the Yajur Jyotisha or > even Atharva Jyotisha, obviously, we have been taken for a ride for > quite some time by such charlatans as claim that the Vedas talk of > nothing else but predictive gimmicks!> It may perhaps be a "revelation" to you that we do not find any > mention of the much dreaded Mangal and Shani either in any of the > Vedas or any of the Vedic astronomical works! I wonder whether you > know that except for Maya the mlechha's Surya Sidhanta, no other > sidhanta of even the Panchasidhantika refers to any Rashis or > Mangal, Shani etc. planets even by mistake! To crown it all, the > Surya Sidhanta of Panchasidhantika is the most inaccurate > astronomical work that could have been produced by anybody! > Ironically, Varahamihira found that very Surya Sidhanta to be the > most accurate - spashta taro savitrah! Varahamhira is supposed to > have been the greatest Indian astrologer of all times! Naturally, > if someone can make correct predictions from incorrect data, he > certainly is a charlatan than anything else! Thus you can say > that "Varahamihira was the greatest charlatan of Indian astrology of > all times". There was a genetleman in twentieth century also who > could make coorect predictions about "notable horoscopes" with > incorrect data. He was also known as the greatest Vedic astrologer > of the twentieth century! That much for Indian astrology!> Dhanyavad.> , "Bharat Hindu > Astrology" <hinduastrology@> wrote:> >> > Namaste Sri Sreenadh> > > > Forcing a concept down the throat is not the way of a Scholar. Nor > does a> > Scholar is one who has such a closed mind, who cannot accept that > views> > other than his own can exist. There a vast difference between a > true scholar> > who pursues knowledge knowing that Ignorance is so vast that he > better be> > humble.> > > > By giving useless logic and wrong translations and without > answering any> > queries, one does not become a Scholar.> > > > I reserve my judgment about this person and his "lookalikes" > > > > Thanks and Regards> > Bharat> > > > > On 6/15/07, Sreenadh <sreesog@> wrote:> > >> > > Dear Bharat ji,> > > "Sri Kaul and his belief system" => That is cute terminology. > > > ==>> > > > He uses sarcasm and calls names to those who does not agree to > his> > > > thinking.> > > <==> > > That is not good - if he does so.> > > ==>> > > > He is trying to force his way around in proving all> > > > others are wrong.> > > <==> > > That is quite natural for a scholar - and he is I assure.> > >> > > ==>> > > > Another such a character is Mohan Jyotishi.> > > <==> > > Are they two different characters; or just another id of Kaul > itself?> > >> > > ==>> > > > You need not leave group and help serve their purpose. Rather > stay> > > > and enjoy their mostly baseless contentions.> > > <==> > >> > > I agree to the first statement and stand by the same. But would> > > disagree to the second, since Kaul's arguments also has some> > > supportive evidence, like a person seeing a 2 colored kite from > only> > > one side. The truth is both Sayana and Nirayana system existed in> > > Vedic period, and also that Nirayana system of astrology is more > of> > > Tantric origin than of Vedic. But let us not fight over > terminology> > > but rather search the fruits of it, so that it would be of some > use> > > to us.> > > Love,> > > Sreenadh> > >> > > > > <%> 40>, > > > "Bharat Hindu> > > Astrology" <hinduastrology@> wrote:> > > >> > > > Namaste Sri Madhu> > > >> > > > I have had discussions with Sri Kaul and his belief system. I > did> > > not agree> > > > to it and still call Vedic Astrology as Vedic only. He uses > sarcasm> > > and> > > > calls names to those who does not agree to his thinking. He is> > > trying to> > > > force his way around in proving all others are wrong. He has > done> > > so in> > > > various lists. In fact, Sri Windhall wrote an excellent reply > to his> > > > contentions, to which he did not reply.> > > >> > > > Another such a character is Mohan Jyotishi. There is no point> > > discussing> > > > things with them. They are no one to determine whether > Astrology is> > > Vedic or> > > > not. I am born to the culture and shall call it Vedic, > including> > > astrology.> > > >> > > > You need not leave group and help serve their purpose. Rather > stay> > > and enjoy> > > > their mostly baseless contentions.> > > >> > > > Thanks and Regards> > > > Bharat> > > >> > > > On 6/15/07, Balagurusurya <balagurusurya@> wrote:> > > > >> > > > > Dear Sreenadh ,> > > > > When I wrote a reply to Kishen Kaul,I meant No offence to > him.> > > > > I just suggested to verify the meaning of " Parashara " with > a> > > > > learned Sanskrit scholar, since I understand that one meaning> > > > > attributed to "Parashara' is "The Liberated one" , that > means ,> > > > > Parashara can never be a single person & BPHS may be a> > > contribution> > > > > of several realised souls .> > > > > Unfortunately , he was finding fault with my English. I could> > > > > clearly make out his sarcastic note of my English.> > > > > I was under the presumption that the list was meant for > learning> > > > > Jyotish. Now I realise it is for learning flowery English> > > Language. I> > > > > know Kishen Kaul and his known hostility to Nirayana > Zodiac .If I> > > > > recollect correctly, VSK reviewed his ephemeris, years back .> > > > >> > > > > Anyway, I am sure , as Mohan or in some other alias he will> > > return to> > > > > vent his spite. I don't have the Time to fight neither I > wish to> > > > > be the target of someone in nomdeplume .> > > > >> > > > > Once I left your list but returned ,as desired by you, Kumar > and> > > > > some other members who are my friends.> > > > >> > > > > I don't want to be a disruptive influence in your list .> > > > > I am sure the list will progress to new horizon ,under your > able> > > > > guidance> > > > > All the Best> > > > > Signing off> > > > >> > > > > Madhu> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers > > > > > > Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers> The DELETE button on Mail is unhappy. Know why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2007 Report Share Posted June 19, 2007 Dear RK ji, Thanks. Good mail. ==> Text exists (nay, lives) in language. Wow! It resonates! ==> > If you set out to rebuild the great house, I might say you don't as > yet command the tackles and tools. If it is there and you have > sighted it (the whole mansion), you as yet lack the ability to > report it the right way. Why, I will explain in another bunch of > written words. <== Proceed! I bow to thee....! Welcome ideas! Love and Hugs, Sreenadh , rk dash <arkaydash wrote: > > Well, Sree, > My objective was to preserve the forum objective. > > First, Written Word: Oral tradition too can have a cast-iron bedrock as long as there is consensus. It is a silly fundamental that veda was originally oral in transmission; and later the written symbolically represented the aural (here speech sounds). The written word is not anathema to veda. > > POINT: " Direct presence of the teacher. " > COUNTERPOINT: We are operating in the virtual presence of learners. > > > POINT: " If we go by textual reference, we may find none. " > COUNTERPOINT: Text is the locus of standardised, definitive version of a series of expositions. The written is a FORM. Substance (content) is something else. Content exists in an appropriation of language by a mind (or a number of minds). The text doesn't exist on the page. (If it did, granthhakrupa would be a particle of silly lexical myth.) Let me go back and then forward. Text exists (nay, lives) in language, say L1x. Language exists in mind, not RK's or Sreenadh's mind. But in the collective, inter-subjectively. It is operated severally and as well as individually. > > Now my dear Sreenadh, unfortunately we don't have the privilege, be it Kerala or Delhi, of looking up to The Text as far as astrology goes. We have accepted certain texts -- the vedicness of which is your splendorous headache, I know; and I'm with you to an extent -- as worthy of perusal and use in our practice (neither science nor art, I don't mind when you confute). For a discipline to remain integrated and effective, the available texts must be 'accessed'. For getting it (discipline) in the integrated shape we have to coallate, compare and critique and arrive at consensus to the end of concordance. The same applies to a text where it is fragmentary or there are differing versions. > > Achieving concordance is arduous. Most are unaware what it takes. > > We have differing versions of astrology, which you won't let me call art. Fine. Not even science. Fine. (I call it dscipline.) > > Astronomy cannot explain away the challenges before someone who has a chart before him and has to reel off what he has not seen or heard of or what even the subject is yet to see or experience. That is what I refer to when I say predictive curve. Indeed astrology is astrology because of the predictive curve, else it is khagola. > > If you do " agree " , you would see by and by what I'm driving at. We are in the midst of a supersymbolic system with multi-disciplinary spread and with lots of supports from humanities, where langauge itself is a symbolic system. Verily, we are wandering in a mansion. Sadly it is decrepit. I may not have reached the mansion proper and be bemoaning (my) sight of ruins. > > If you set out to rebuild the great house, I might say you don't as yet command the tackles and tools. If it is there and you have sighted it (the whole mansion), you as yet lack the ability to report it the right way. Why, I will explain in another bunch of written words. > > Cheerio, > RK Dash > > > > Sreenadh <sreesog wrote: > Dear RK ji, > Some handsome points expressed by your post really attracts my > attention. > ==> > For a discipline like astrology (call it Vedic, Indian or Oriental), > we haven't, as far as my understanding goes, a cast-iron bedrock of > the Written Word -- veda (as also much of post-vedic expositions) > being shruti, words of mouth; where the words are written down, the > contents are destined to hold intutional afflatus. > <== > The Vedas flowed from mouth to ear. Sruti = (told and) heard = > Taught (handed over to generations) through Guru-Sishya Tradition. > Now we are at a juncture where everybody depends on written word. > Alas! Vedas itself are attributed the authority on being the > authority of " WRITTEN TEXT " !! What will happen to all other knowledge > that is Sruti but not yet written down?! > I have a cute example in my mind - In South India astrologers use > Kavadi (shells) for doing astronomical and astrological calculations. > It should have been the same throughout India since the same is > mentioned in Leelavati as Pati Ganitam. They system is cute and the > experts do the all the primary (addition, substation, division, > multiplication) and complex (Astronomical) mathematics with the aid > of these shells alone, and their method differ. For example > multiplication is always done from left to right (Not from right to > left as we practice today) using shells. (It does not matter whether > we use shells or stones for doing the same - it is immaterial). Now > the point is: THERE IS NO BOOK WRITTEN YET TO DESCRIBE THE SYSTEM IN > DETAIL - But is the system is alive with its full beauty and is > practiced and demonstrated widely by all the efficient astrologers in > Kerala! Usually the expert ones defeat even a person with calculator > in doing the same calculation with their speed of calculation and > expertise! Should we discard such valuable knowledge telling that it > is not mentioned in any text, or telling that till today no text > mentioned the system and their for it must have came to existence > recently?!! It is there well in place for ages - and it was the ONLY > system that was used for mathematical calculation in the history of > Kerala (possibly whole India) till (and after!) the advent of written > mathematical calculation methods popularized by western education. > But if we go by textual reference we may find NONE! Is it not > absurd?! Is it not amazing?! The truth is when everybody knew it, > when it is handed over to generations through mouth to ear by Guru- > Sishya Parampara, when it is Sruti, why should it be written down? > That should have been the general attitude. Further there should have > been one more reason - it is very difficult to notate and explain the > system on paper, but easy to teach and learn by teaching and doing, > in the direct presence of the teacher, the direct example. OK. What > ever it be to save the system - I am preparing a written document on > the same - and that is possibly the FIRST document written on the > same, even though the systems is well known (far better than me) to > thousands of astrologers in Kerala! > So the point is it would be a very big mistake, (a very very > foolish blunder) to ignore or reject the traditional knowledge that > is handed over from mouth to ear (taught through Guru-Sishya > Parampara), but not yet written down, or for which no written proof > is available. I hope Kaul ji will also make a note of this point. > ==> > > However much astronomy is pressed to serve the underpinning of > > astrology, the predictive curve of the discipline > > (a disproportionately larger part of its overall corpus) escapes > > the hard grip of mathematical coordinates. > <== > I agree. > ==> > > The curve places much of the discipline in the province of art. The > > spingboard for the art is always there, nevertheless. > <== > I disagree completely and the reason for my disagreement, I have > already expressed in detail in " Base of Astrology.doc " present in the > files section of the forum. The quote from that document, is given > below- > <SNIP> > " When one understands this basic rationale of astrology, the > unnecessary arguments and debates will stop. We must try to see > astrology in its true theoretical foundation. Why should we argue > whether astrology is an art or science? Astrology is nothing but > Astrology. If somebody asks whether bat is bird or not, what would > be the answer? It will only create an unending array of positive and > negative arguments. If somebody asks whether history is science or > not, even without my intervention, one will know that the result > would be the same. Bat is bat, history is history and astrology is > nothing but astrology, neither science nor an art. > > The fault lies in our view. Why should we try to cast something into > a particular mould, or to limit subjects into some colored boxes? > Man wants to classify everything. The truth would be always beyond > all the classifications. It stays outside all the classification > attempts. The fault lies fundamentally with the fragmented human > brain that tries to classify everything, which ultimately leads to > erroneous knowledge. This fundamental error remains unsolved and we > are trying to limit the subjects in to predefined boxes. It is the > second mistake. Will these repeated errors lead us to correct > knowledge and view? " > </SNIP> > > Let us forget the minor friction between Madhu ji and Kaul ji over > Sanskrit and English - and let us be back on our discussions. By the > way I would urge all (especially Pandit ji, Madhu ji and RK ji etc) > to continue with the normal predictive astrological discussion in > parallel threads - otherwise somebody many lose interest. The > theoretical discussion are not of interest to all. > At the same time let these other discussions on " Presence of > astrology in Vedas " etc also go in parallel, I will handle the same > (and let all who are interested in the same join), since that is the > subject much interest to me as well. But if my energy is totally > flowing in these lines, I may not be able to concentrate on > the " Discussions on Predictive astrological techniques " or Case > studies fully. > Love, > Sreenadh > > , rk dash > <arkaydash@> wrote: > > > > Dear Nair Saab, > > Welcome back. In fact you never went, your going away having been > foreclosed by Friend Shreenadh. > > > > I read up the posts and counter-posts. Sad that the forum sees > (sometimes, fortunately only sometimes) such attitude-throwing. We > seem unable to keep the subject proper in the foreground. Clarity, > consistency and quality insights should inform this foreground. All > else should be secondary. > > > > And then scholarship. Indeed. > > > > Debates about the moorings of astrology will always be fraught > with variances and dissents as indeed about many of its tenets and > assumptions. For a discipline like astology (call it vedic, Indian or > Oriental), we haven't, as far as my understanding goes, a cast-iron > bedrock of the Written Word -- veda (as also much of post-vedic > expositions) being shruti, words of mouth; where the words are > written down, the contents are destined to hold intutional afflatus. > However much astronomy is pressed to serve the underpinning of > astrology, the predictive curve of the discipline (a > disproportionately larger part of its overall corpus) escapes the > hard grip of mathematical coordinates. The curve places much of the > discipline in the province of art. The spingboard for the art is > always there, nevertheless. > > > > But we have to be careful. That is my understanding. > > > > We in our efforts at 'mastering' the discipline are, in a way, at > a disadvantage. Hence the need for patience, polite openness and wise > humility can't be overemphasised. I'd urge you to bear with some of > us. Your desire to leave (in distress perhaps) the group must have > served its purpose -- that of highlighting the futility of pettiness > (Yes, I would like to see who faults someone else's English and > thereby deludes himslef he can detract from the good many of us bring > to the forum.). > > > > Sreenadh has acted his part well. I expected Mr 'Bharat' to have > given an even better account of himself. > > > > Let's make the most of our forum togetherness. > > > > RK Dash > > > > > > Madhu Nair <balagurusurya@> wrote: > > Dear Bharat, > > At the outset , Thanks a lot , for your support and solidarity > with me, for the cause of Nirayana Zodiac and to thwart the > effort of pedants commited to denigrate it. > > > > I take note of your resplendent views on Nirayana Zodiac duly > quoting Holy Vedas , for which , Sri Kishen Kaul alias Mohan > Jyotishi ,has No answer. > > > > It is quite unfortunate, Sri Kaul, a Kashmiri Pandit by birth, > in the guise of rational thinking , unwittingly is playing into the > hands of detractors of Jyotish. > > > > Today , Sreenadh rang up and he broach the entire issue of > different Zodiac and his views about it, with me.. > > > > As desired by your good self and Sreenadh , I am back in the list. > > > > With Warm Personal Regards, > > > > Madhu Nair > > > > > > > > Bharat Hindu Astrology <hinduastrology@> wrote: > > Namaste Sri Kaul > > > > A discussion takes place when: > > > > 1. I am a learner and a student of yours or you are a learner and > student of mine > > 2. Both of us are open to learning, exploring. > > 3. If you are a knower of something that I seek or I am a knower of > something that you seek and we ask the knower. > > > > You and I do not satisfy any of the criteria. You are pre-decided > on most things. You have not answered close to 20 queries put up by > me OR more than 50 by others. You cannot expect us to answer your > misplaced contentions, especially when you have no attitude nor > openness for learning. > > > > I am not busy for seeking knowledge or for sharing it, but, I > would rather not waste time with another useless debate with you. > > > > Infact, if you notice, I was not even discussing with you. I was > discussing with Sri Madhu and Sri Sreenadh. > > > > Thanks and Regards > > Bharat > > > > > > > > On 6/16/07, Avtar Krishen Kaul <a_krishen@> wrote: > Shri Bharat ji, > > Namaskar! > > > > First of all I must congratulate Shri Sreemadhji for keeping the > > posts on this forum unmoderated! It needs really an open mind to do > > so! > > Now coming to your points: > > I have never asked anyone to agree with me or even disagree with > me, > > for that matter. In a democracy, anybody is at liberty to cherish > > any system for being fleeced by charlatans or fleecing others! I am > > no cop, please rest assured! The problem arises only when we say > > that these gimmicks of predictions are based on the Vedas and have > > been revealed by Rishis like Prashara and Brighu etc. etc. > > Naturally, anybody making such claims will have to substantiate > them > > with chapter and verse and not just go on repeating " Jyotish is > > Vedic " , " Jyotish is based on what Maharshi Prashara has said " and > so > > on and so forth! > > Kindly go through all the files that I have uploaded on this forum > > and do give a point by point reply. If you take time out to peruse > > them patiently (Koshur6), you will see that I was sailing in the > > same boat as you are sailing today! In other words, I was a more > > stauch " nirayana astrologer " for quite a few years than nyybody > > else! Later on, with equal vehemence, I becamse a firm believer > > in " Sayana Vedic astrology " for several years! Since nobody, > > including the " Vedic jyotishis " themselves, whether sayana or > > nirayana, has as yet been able to pinpoint the existence of Mesha, > > Vrisha etc. astrological rashis, leave alone sayana or nirayana, in > > any of the Vedas or the Vedanga Jyotisha or the Yajur Jyotisha or > > even Atharva Jyotisha, obviously, we have been taken for a ride for > > quite some time by such charlatans as claim that the Vedas talk of > > nothing else but predictive gimmicks! > > It may perhaps be a " revelation " to you that we do not find any > > mention of the much dreaded Mangal and Shani either in any of the > > Vedas or any of the Vedic astronomical works! I wonder whether you > > know that except for Maya the mlechha's Surya Sidhanta, no other > > sidhanta of even the Panchasidhantika refers to any Rashis or > > Mangal, Shani etc. planets even by mistake! To crown it all, the > > Surya Sidhanta of Panchasidhantika is the most inaccurate > > astronomical work that could have been produced by anybody! > > Ironically, Varahamihira found that very Surya Sidhanta to be the > > most accurate - spashta taro savitrah! Varahamhira is supposed to > > have been the greatest Indian astrologer of all times! Naturally, > > if someone can make correct predictions from incorrect data, he > > certainly is a charlatan than anything else! Thus you can say > > that " Varahamihira was the greatest charlatan of Indian astrology > of > > all times " . There was a genetleman in twentieth century also who > > could make coorect predictions about " notable horoscopes " with > > incorrect data. He was also known as the greatest Vedic astrologer > > of the twentieth century! That much for Indian astrology! > > Dhanyavad. > > , " Bharat Hindu > > Astrology " <hinduastrology@> wrote: > > > > > > Namaste Sri Sreenadh > > > > > > Forcing a concept down the throat is not the way of a Scholar. > Nor > > does a > > > Scholar is one who has such a closed mind, who cannot accept that > > views > > > other than his own can exist. There a vast difference between a > > true scholar > > > who pursues knowledge knowing that Ignorance is so vast that he > > better be > > > humble. > > > > > > By giving useless logic and wrong translations and without > > answering any > > > queries, one does not become a Scholar. > > > > > > I reserve my judgment about this person and his " lookalikes " > > > > > > Thanks and Regards > > > Bharat > > > > > > > > On 6/15/07, Sreenadh <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Bharat ji, > > > > " Sri Kaul and his belief system " => That is cute terminology. > > > > ==> > > > > > He uses sarcasm and calls names to those who does not agree > to > > his > > > > > thinking. > > > > <== > > > > That is not good - if he does so. > > > > ==> > > > > > He is trying to force his way around in proving all > > > > > others are wrong. > > > > <== > > > > That is quite natural for a scholar - and he is I assure. > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > Another such a character is Mohan Jyotishi. > > > > <== > > > > Are they two different characters; or just another id of Kaul > > itself? > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > You need not leave group and help serve their purpose. Rather > > stay > > > > > and enjoy their mostly baseless contentions. > > > > <== > > > > > > > > I agree to the first statement and stand by the same. But would > > > > disagree to the second, since Kaul's arguments also has some > > > > supportive evidence, like a person seeing a 2 colored kite from > > only > > > > one side. The truth is both Sayana and Nirayana system existed > in > > > > Vedic period, and also that Nirayana system of astrology is > more > > of > > > > Tantric origin than of Vedic. But let us not fight over > > terminology > > > > but rather search the fruits of it, so that it would be of some > > use > > > > to us. > > > > Love, > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > <% > > 40>, > > > > " Bharat Hindu > > > > Astrology " <hinduastrology@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Sri Madhu > > > > > > > > > > I have had discussions with Sri Kaul and his belief system. I > > did > > > > not agree > > > > > to it and still call Vedic Astrology as Vedic only. He uses > > sarcasm > > > > and > > > > > calls names to those who does not agree to his thinking. He is > > > > trying to > > > > > force his way around in proving all others are wrong. He has > > done > > > > so in > > > > > various lists. In fact, Sri Windhall wrote an excellent reply > > to his > > > > > contentions, to which he did not reply. > > > > > > > > > > Another such a character is Mohan Jyotishi. There is no point > > > > discussing > > > > > things with them. They are no one to determine whether > > Astrology is > > > > Vedic or > > > > > not. I am born to the culture and shall call it Vedic, > > including > > > > astrology. > > > > > > > > > > You need not leave group and help serve their purpose. Rather > > stay > > > > and enjoy > > > > > their mostly baseless contentions. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards > > > > > Bharat > > > > > > > > > > On 6/15/07, Balagurusurya <balagurusurya@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh , > > > > > > When I wrote a reply to Kishen Kaul,I meant No offence to > > him. > > > > > > I just suggested to verify the meaning of " Parashara " > with > > a > > > > > > learned Sanskrit scholar, since I understand that one > meaning > > > > > > attributed to " Parashara' is " The Liberated one " , that > > means , > > > > > > Parashara can never be a single person & BPHS may be a > > > > contribution > > > > > > of several realised souls . > > > > > > Unfortunately , he was finding fault with my English. I > could > > > > > > clearly make out his sarcastic note of my English. > > > > > > I was under the presumption that the list was meant for > > learning > > > > > > Jyotish. Now I realise it is for learning flowery English > > > > Language. I > > > > > > know Kishen Kaul and his known hostility to Nirayana > > Zodiac .If I > > > > > > recollect correctly, VSK reviewed his ephemeris, years > back . > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I am sure , as Mohan or in some other alias he will > > > > return to > > > > > > vent his spite. I don't have the Time to fight neither I > > wish to > > > > > > be the target of someone in nomdeplume . > > > > > > > > > > > > Once I left your list but returned ,as desired by you, > Kumar > > and > > > > > > some other members who are my friends. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't want to be a disruptive influence in your list . > > > > > > I am sure the list will progress to new horizon ,under your > > able > > > > > > guidance > > > > > > All the Best > > > > > > Signing off > > > > > > > > > > > > Madhu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - > Answers > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers > > > The DELETE button on Mail is unhappy. Know why? > 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.