commentary of Jaimini Sutra - Beginning

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadh,

 

Had I not been an idiot why would I go on asking simple questions that

you seem to be unable to answer.

 

By the way do not forget that it is you who referred to Brihat jataka

shlokas and then went on to indicate that this is the Bhoot sankhya

vidhi and that the samkhyas need to be read from right to left. So I was

just writing in your language. I asked you to read a sankhya using that

vidhi and you did not want to do that for reasons best known to you.

 

Since you obviously know about different systems of writing numbers and

are yet unable to read them when given in any of those formats, why not

just answer the original question? How do you read " Ekavimshat " , right

to left or left to right?

 

You have already exhibited your vastly superior intelligence (I can not

use the words that you do so freely) while interpreting the sutra

" Darabhagyasulasthargala nidhyatuh " . in a manner not accepted by any

authority (including Neelkanth, B.V. Raman, B. Suryanarainrao, I.

Rangachary, Krishnanand Saraswati, Krishna Mishra etc.) , using KaTa

PaYaadi format and interpreted the bhava indicated as 4th, 2nd and 11th

bhava, not so long ago.

 

I would have expected you to answer plain and simple questions, with all

that knowledge. sadly whenever a question is asked, you seem to divert

the topic to something else.

 

I am sure the learned on the group will recognize the way you dodge

simple questions and the language you use and assess for themselves what

is right and what is wrong.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

 

 

Sreenadh wrote:

>

> The problem not solved!!!

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji, I would advice you to first go and learn

> what " Bhoota Sankhya Vidhi " is!! What you are referring to is Decimal

> system numbers pronounced in Decimal system style itself! Don't be

> this much idotic. Even though Brihat Jataka uses " Bhoota Sankhya

> Vidhi at some places it is not the rule that is followed through out

> the book! It is elementary knowledge who know both " Bhoota Sakhya

> Vidhi " and " Decimal System " and also know how to differenciate

> Numbers notated using both of them!

> ==>

> > Brihat jataka type of writing of numbers.

> <==

> There is NO Brihat Jataka type of writing numbers! The statement is

> absurd man! The fundamental number notation systems used were-

> 1. Decimal System (From Vedic Period)

> 2. Bhoota Sakhya Vidhi (From Vedic Period)

> 3. Arya Bhateeya System (From the period of Aryabhatta)

> 4. KaTaPaYa System (The time of origin still in mystery, and not yet

> clarified by research)

> Know these facts and modify your arguments accordingly and

> the 'fact' mentioned in previous mail still hold - and makes me

> laugh. :=)

> P.S.: To see our own ignorance is a bliss, which only some rare

> individuals possess. What we know we know, what we don't we

> don't. Also, remember that error is human, and accepting it needs

> courage.

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sreenadh,

> >

> > Try to answer the questions asked, and not dodge them by diverting

> the

> > issue. If you are so fixed on other methods of writing numbers. It

> would

> > be interesting to see how you read

> > " shannavatyadhikanavashataadhikasahasramitaM " for me not using the

> > principle " AmkaaMaaM Vamato gatiH " Or " rasagraharandhrabhUmimitaM " ,

> if

> > you like Brihat jataka type of writing of numbers.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > Sreenadh wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > The correct answer is 'Drop your ego'.

> > >

> > > As far as the ancient number systems are concerned-

> > > * As you rightly mentioned KaTaPaYa system and Decimal system are

> > > from 'Right to Left' &

> > > * As I told Bhoota Sakhya system and Aryabhateeya system are

> > > from " Left to Right "

> > >

> > > If you are not getting the first point told (far) above then I

> > > don't have anything to say.

> > >

> > > Now coming to commentary on some beginning Jaimini sutra slokas

> are

> > > concerned -

> > > * I am totally new to the BPHS/Jaimini system, and came to this

> > > group asking a doubt " What is Argala? "

> > > * I think I made a good beginning in learning that system - as you

> > > too may agree.

> > > * That (start learning of BPHS/Jaimini system in a proper way) was

> > > the only thing intended. I have no wrong notions or claims on

> the

> > > same. What you told about Jaimini's approach and use of KaTaPaYa

> > > system is right and that was just a new info to me. Thanks for

> > > that.

> > >

> > > But see, I a vibrant childish individual with not much ego or much

> > > defense, so be beware :=). It could be dangerous, if you have same

> > > thing to protect.

> > >

> > > Love,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > >

> > > > You are good at dodging the original query. You do not indicate

> how

> > > the

> > > > plain numbers are read, how do you read " Ekavimshat " ? You may

> bring

> > > all

> > > > your knowledge of reading ankas from right to left, as you

> claim is

> > > > followed in Sanskrit, to bear upon on this two simple

> questions. If

> > > your

> > > > contention is right then it must be read as I said you probably

> > > read it.

> > > > Interpreting sutras on wrong parameters and claiming them to be

> > > right as

> > > > one is scholar of Sanskrit and thinking that knowledge of

> astrology

> > > is

> > > > not required, for translation of astrological texts, is of

> course

> > > your

> > > > privilege.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar,

> > > > > I always regard my self as none, nothing. I don't you

> comprehend

> > > it

> > > > > or not. We can be only students always - and the teacher is

> always

> > > > > within, and the learning too always happen from within - it

> can

> > > not

> > > > > be otherwise.

> > > > > Now coming back to the point of numbers. Even if roadside old

> book

> > > > > shops you may find a book called 'Brihat Jataka' which is

> > > considered

> > > > > as one of the foundation book of astrology. There is a soloka

> in

> > > > > it " Dasa Sikhi ManuYuk Thitheendiyamse... " which uses " Bhoota

> > > Sakhya

> > > > > Vidhi " popular from far past vedic civilization to notate

> numbers.

> > > > > ManuYuk means = 14 x 2 = 28 which is the exaltation degree for

> > > some

> > > > > planet, hope you may know which planet.

> > > > > If we look at Arya Bhateeyam we will find the sutras

> > > like " YugaRavi

> > > > > BhaganaH KhuKHru " where KhuKHru notates a number. KhUuKHru =

> > > (Kh+U)

> > > > > u+KH+ru = (2+30)100^2+4+100^3=4320000. If you are interested

> in

> > > > > teaching new way of mathametics to AryaBhatta; by saying

> > > that " ALWAYS

> > > > > numbers are written from right to left " - I would have stay

> amazed

> > > > > and away from such a person (persona = mask) who has got such

> a

> > > great

> > > > > knowledge! You should better discuss with those who possess

> the

> > > same

> > > > > kind knowledge like Professional astrologer Bhasker ji and

> > > continue

> > > > > appreciating each other.

> > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > I do not claim to be knowledgeable. That is your claim,

> hence I

> > > > > asked

> > > > > > the question, which is unanswered so far.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Mr. Chandrashekhar,

> > > > > > > Oh! You seem to be very knowlegeable! r u really?!!

> > > > > > > By the way, how many questions are remaining now?

> > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I see that you do not have any answer.

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar,

> > > > > > > > > Yap, it is really getting to be funny. :=) Especailly

> > > because

> > > > > I

> > > > > > > > > love teasing egos. Ha..Ha..

> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

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

> Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > If that be the case, please let me know how you

> > > > > read " ekavimshat "

> > > > > > > > > I hope

> > > > > > > > > > you do not read it as 120 or 12. This is really

> getting

> > > to

> > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > funny.

> > > > > > > > > > This is precisely the reason, I had said I withdraw

> > > from the

> > > > > > > > > discussion.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekar,

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sanskrit ankas are always read with vama gati,

> it is

> > > > > not the

> > > > > > > > > > > > proprietary right of KaTaPaYaadi system.

> > > > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for enlightening - Are you inventing a

> > > new " Bhoota

> > > > > Sankhya

> > > > > > > > > > > Vidhi " for Vedas and a new " Decimal system "

> > > > > and " Aryabhateeya

> > > > > > > > > > > System " ?!! Just refer it and know it is not so.

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, if that is not acceptable to you

> then you

> > > > > will have

> > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > read D-Charts as independent charts to apply

> Jaimini

> > > > > sutras.

> > > > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > > > Again, thanks for the second invention - hope it

> > > would be

> > > > > useful

> > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > you.

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Please answer a question I asked you long

> back...

> > > > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > > > Not much interested, since the total discussion

> could

> > > end

> > > > > up as a

> > > > > > > > > > > waste of for me.

> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

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

> > > Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sanskrit ankas are always read with vama gati,

> it is

> > > > > not the

> > > > > > > > > > > proprietary

> > > > > > > > > > > > right of KaTaPaYaadi system. The division by 12

> does

> > > > > not have

> > > > > > > > > > > anything

> > > > > > > > > > > > to do with Jaimini. The division by the

> variable is

> > > > > implied

> > > > > > > > > when

> > > > > > > > > > > > applying the system. Plain application of the

> > > numbers

> > > > > will give

> > > > > > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > > > > that do not exist. What is done in such a case

> in

> > > > > astrology is

> > > > > > > > > > > divided

> > > > > > > > > > > > by the maximum numbers possible hence the

> division

> > > by

> > > > > 12.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, if that is not acceptable to you

> then you

> > > > > will have

> > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > read

> > > > > > > > > > > > D-Charts as independent charts to apply Jaimini

> > > sutras.

> > > > > Please

> > > > > > > > > > > answer a

> > > > > > > > > > > > question I asked you long back. Interpret the

> > > > > Sutra " Svasthe

> > > > > > > > > dara " ,

> > > > > > > > > > > > using what you think is the correct way to apply

> > > > > KaTaPaYaaDi

> > > > > > > > > system

> > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > the sutras.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > No - the KaPaTaYa system ends with " ankanam

> vamato

> > > > > gati " and

> > > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is no division by 12 involved; as is evident

> from

> > > the

> > > > > many

> > > > > > > > > > > > > astronomical works available (Text bys

> Vararuchi,

> > > > > Sangama

> > > > > > > > > grama

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Madhava, Neelakandha etc are examples).

> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you say that this division by 12 is a

> Jaimini

> > > > > extension to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > KaPaTaYa system - i can understand and accept

> it.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > But for sure this " division by 12 rule " is not

> > > part of

> > > > > > > > > KaPaTaYa

> > > > > > > > > > > > > system.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

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

> > > > > Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is the basic Katapayaadi principle

> about

> > > > > identifying

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > variable.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh 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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

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

> > > > > 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>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > >

> <%40> <%

> 40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 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.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> ----

> > > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 -

> > > Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

Sorry for the term 'idiotic' used in the previous mail. May be I

was in the wrong mood yesterday.

Love,

Sreenadh

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadh,

>

> Had I not been an idiot why would I go on asking simple questions

that

> you seem to be unable to answer.

>

> By the way do not forget that it is you who referred to Brihat

jataka

> shlokas and then went on to indicate that this is the Bhoot sankhya

> vidhi and that the samkhyas need to be read from right to left. So

I was

> just writing in your language. I asked you to read a sankhya using

that

> vidhi and you did not want to do that for reasons best known to you.

>

> Since you obviously know about different systems of writing numbers

and

> are yet unable to read them when given in any of those formats, why

not

> just answer the original question? How do you read " Ekavimshat " ,

right

> to left or left to right?

>

> You have already exhibited your vastly superior intelligence (I can

not

> use the words that you do so freely) while interpreting the sutra

> " Darabhagyasulasthargala nidhyatuh " . in a manner not accepted by

any

> authority (including Neelkanth, B.V. Raman, B. Suryanarainrao, I.

> Rangachary, Krishnanand Saraswati, Krishna Mishra etc.) , using

KaTa

> PaYaadi format and interpreted the bhava indicated as 4th, 2nd and

11th

> bhava, not so long ago.

>

> I would have expected you to answer plain and simple questions,

with all

> that knowledge. sadly whenever a question is asked, you seem to

divert

> the topic to something else.

>

> I am sure the learned on the group will recognize the way you dodge

> simple questions and the language you use and assess for themselves

what

> is right and what is wrong.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

>

> Sreenadh wrote:

> >

> > The problem not solved!!!

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, I would advice you to first go and learn

> > what " Bhoota Sankhya Vidhi " is!! What you are referring to is

Decimal

> > system numbers pronounced in Decimal system style itself! Don't be

> > this much idotic. Even though Brihat Jataka uses " Bhoota Sankhya

> > Vidhi at some places it is not the rule that is followed through

out

> > the book! It is elementary knowledge who know both " Bhoota Sakhya

> > Vidhi " and " Decimal System " and also know how to differenciate

> > Numbers notated using both of them!

> > ==>

> > > Brihat jataka type of writing of numbers.

> > <==

> > There is NO Brihat Jataka type of writing numbers! The statement

is

> > absurd man! The fundamental number notation systems used were-

> > 1. Decimal System (From Vedic Period)

> > 2. Bhoota Sakhya Vidhi (From Vedic Period)

> > 3. Arya Bhateeya System (From the period of Aryabhatta)

> > 4. KaTaPaYa System (The time of origin still in mystery, and not

yet

> > clarified by research)

> > Know these facts and modify your arguments accordingly and

> > the 'fact' mentioned in previous mail still hold - and makes me

> > laugh. :=)

> > P.S.: To see our own ignorance is a bliss, which only some rare

> > individuals possess. What we know we know, what we don't we

> > don't. Also, remember that error is human, and accepting it

needs

> > courage.

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > >

> > > Try to answer the questions asked, and not dodge them by

diverting

> > the

> > > issue. If you are so fixed on other methods of writing numbers.

It

> > would

> > > be interesting to see how you read

> > > " shannavatyadhikanavashataadhikasahasramitaM " for me not using

the

> > > principle " AmkaaMaaM Vamato gatiH "

Or " rasagraharandhrabhUmimitaM " ,

> > if

> > > you like Brihat jataka type of writing of numbers.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > The correct answer is 'Drop your ego'.

> > > >

> > > > As far as the ancient number systems are concerned-

> > > > * As you rightly mentioned KaTaPaYa system and Decimal system

are

> > > > from 'Right to Left' &

> > > > * As I told Bhoota Sakhya system and Aryabhateeya system are

> > > > from " Left to Right "

> > > >

> > > > If you are not getting the first point told (far) above

then I

> > > > don't have anything to say.

> > > >

> > > > Now coming to commentary on some beginning Jaimini sutra

slokas

> > are

> > > > concerned -

> > > > * I am totally new to the BPHS/Jaimini system, and came to

this

> > > > group asking a doubt " What is Argala? "

> > > > * I think I made a good beginning in learning that system -

as you

> > > > too may agree.

> > > > * That (start learning of BPHS/Jaimini system in a proper

way) was

> > > > the only thing intended. I have no wrong notions or claims

on

> > the

> > > > same. What you told about Jaimini's approach and use of

KaTaPaYa

> > > > system is right and that was just a new info to me. Thanks for

> > > > that.

> > > >

> > > > But see, I a vibrant childish individual with not much ego or

much

> > > > defense, so be beware :=). It could be dangerous, if you have

same

> > > > thing to protect.

> > > >

> > > > Love,

> > > > Sreenadh

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > >

> > > > > You are good at dodging the original query. You do not

indicate

> > how

> > > > the

> > > > > plain numbers are read, how do you read " Ekavimshat " ? You

may

> > bring

> > > > all

> > > > > your knowledge of reading ankas from right to left, as you

> > claim is

> > > > > followed in Sanskrit, to bear upon on this two simple

> > questions. If

> > > > your

> > > > > contention is right then it must be read as I said you

probably

> > > > read it.

> > > > > Interpreting sutras on wrong parameters and claiming them

to be

> > > > right as

> > > > > one is scholar of Sanskrit and thinking that knowledge of

> > astrology

> > > > is

> > > > > not required, for translation of astrological texts, is of

> > course

> > > > your

> > > > > privilege.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar,

> > > > > > I always regard my self as none, nothing. I don't you

> > comprehend

> > > > it

> > > > > > or not. We can be only students always - and the teacher

is

> > always

> > > > > > within, and the learning too always happen from within -

it

> > can

> > > > not

> > > > > > be otherwise.

> > > > > > Now coming back to the point of numbers. Even if roadside

old

> > book

> > > > > > shops you may find a book called 'Brihat Jataka' which is

> > > > considered

> > > > > > as one of the foundation book of astrology. There is a

soloka

> > in

> > > > > > it " Dasa Sikhi ManuYuk Thitheendiyamse... " which

uses " Bhoota

> > > > Sakhya

> > > > > > Vidhi " popular from far past vedic civilization to notate

> > numbers.

> > > > > > ManuYuk means = 14 x 2 = 28 which is the exaltation

degree for

> > > > some

> > > > > > planet, hope you may know which planet.

> > > > > > If we look at Arya Bhateeyam we will find the sutras

> > > > like " YugaRavi

> > > > > > BhaganaH KhuKHru " where KhuKHru notates a number.

KhUuKHru =

> > > > (Kh+U)

> > > > > > u+KH+ru = (2+30)100^2+4+100^3=4320000. If you are

interested

> > in

> > > > > > teaching new way of mathametics to AryaBhatta; by saying

> > > > that " ALWAYS

> > > > > > numbers are written from right to left " - I would have

stay

> > amazed

> > > > > > and away from such a person (persona = mask) who has got

such

> > a

> > > > great

> > > > > > knowledge! You should better discuss with those who

possess

> > the

> > > > same

> > > > > > kind knowledge like Professional astrologer Bhasker ji and

> > > > continue

> > > > > > appreciating each other.

> > > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > I do not claim to be knowledgeable. That is your claim,

> > hence I

> > > > > > asked

> > > > > > > the question, which is unanswered so far.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Mr. Chandrashekhar,

> > > > > > > > Oh! You seem to be very knowlegeable! r u really?!!

> > > > > > > > By the way, how many questions are remaining now?

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I see that you do not have any answer.

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar,

> > > > > > > > > > Yap, it is really getting to be funny. :=)

Especailly

> > > > because

> > > > > > I

> > > > > > > > > > love teasing egos. Ha..Ha..

> > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

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

> > Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > If that be the case, please let me know how you

> > > > > > read " ekavimshat "

> > > > > > > > > > I hope

> > > > > > > > > > > you do not read it as 120 or 12. This is really

> > getting

> > > > to

> > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > funny.

> > > > > > > > > > > This is precisely the reason, I had said I

withdraw

> > > > from the

> > > > > > > > > > discussion.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekar,

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sanskrit ankas are always read with vama

gati,

> > it is

> > > > > > not the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > proprietary right of KaTaPaYaadi system.

> > > > > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for enlightening - Are you inventing a

> > > > new " Bhoota

> > > > > > Sankhya

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vidhi " for Vedas and a new " Decimal system "

> > > > > > and " Aryabhateeya

> > > > > > > > > > > > System " ?!! Just refer it and know it is not

so.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, if that is not acceptable to you

> > then you

> > > > > > will have

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > read D-Charts as independent charts to apply

> > Jaimini

> > > > > > sutras.

> > > > > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > > > > Again, thanks for the second invention - hope

it

> > > > would be

> > > > > > useful

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > you.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please answer a question I asked you long

> > back...

> > > > > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > > > > Not much interested, since the total

discussion

> > could

> > > > end

> > > > > > up as a

> > > > > > > > > > > > waste of for me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

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

> > > > Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sanskrit ankas are always read with vama

gati,

> > it is

> > > > > > not the

> > > > > > > > > > > > proprietary

> > > > > > > > > > > > > right of KaTaPaYaadi system. The division

by 12

> > does

> > > > > > not have

> > > > > > > > > > > > anything

> > > > > > > > > > > > > to do with Jaimini. The division by the

> > variable is

> > > > > > implied

> > > > > > > > > > when

> > > > > > > > > > > > > applying the system. Plain application of

the

> > > > numbers

> > > > > > will give

> > > > > > > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that do not exist. What is done in such a

case

> > in

> > > > > > astrology is

> > > > > > > > > > > > divided

> > > > > > > > > > > > > by the maximum numbers possible hence the

> > division

> > > > by

> > > > > > 12.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, if that is not acceptable to you

> > then you

> > > > > > will have

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > read

> > > > > > > > > > > > > D-Charts as independent charts to apply

Jaimini

> > > > sutras.

> > > > > > Please

> > > > > > > > > > > > answer a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > question I asked you long back. Interpret

the

> > > > > > Sutra " Svasthe

> > > > > > > > > > dara " ,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > using what you think is the correct way to

apply

> > > > > > KaTaPaYaaDi

> > > > > > > > > > system

> > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the sutras.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > No - the KaPaTaYa system ends

with " ankanam

> > vamato

> > > > > > gati " and

> > > > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is no division by 12 involved; as is

evident

> > from

> > > > the

> > > > > > many

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > astronomical works available (Text bys

> > Vararuchi,

> > > > > > Sangama

> > > > > > > > > > grama

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Madhava, Neelakandha etc are examples).

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you say that this division by 12 is a

> > Jaimini

> > > > > > extension to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > KaPaTaYa system - i can understand and

accept

> > it.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But for sure this " division by 12 rule "

is not

> > > > part of

> > > > > > > > > > KaPaTaYa

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > system.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

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

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is the basic Katapayaadi principle

> > about

> > > > > > identifying

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > variable.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh 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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>,

> > > > > > 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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

 

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > 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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > <%

40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > 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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > > >

> > <%40> <%

> > 40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > 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.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.8.13/844 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 -

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

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

----

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

sreenadh ji,

hope you recognise me ,we are colleagues on another group and

probably that group is owned by you,perhaps you also remember the

long lecture given in context to conduct with people who are

knoeledgeable,elderly and have devoted their life for some cause.

then why is this use of indecent language for a person who is very

knowledgeable and perhaps elder to you as well.

i respect you for all the knowledge you have,it is definitely more

than me and perhaps more than a lot of other astrologers that i

know,i am your well wisher so i will be blunt enough to tell you

that i feel you have a habit of showcasing your knowledge

unneccessarily,giving references where they are not needed,quoting

left right and centre again unneccessarily,creating topics from

nowhere these are traits which should not be there in a person as

well read as you.sometimes it looks as if you are trying to bombard

lesser people like us with your knowledge.but sometimes you are

bound to get people like chandrashekhar ji who would cross question

you.you should have ideally let the matter cool down but you have

just blown it out of proportions by calling names to a very

knowledgeable and elderly person.

coming back to the original matter why this duality of giving long

lectures to people on conduct on your own group but misbehaving with

good people on another,is it because this group is not owned by you?

regards..mukesh

 

, " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote:

>

> The problem not solved!!!

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji, I would advice you to first go and learn

> what " Bhoota Sankhya Vidhi " is!! What you are referring to is

Decimal

> system numbers pronounced in Decimal system style itself! Don't be

> this much idotic. Even though Brihat Jataka uses " Bhoota Sankhya

> Vidhi at some places it is not the rule that is followed through

out

> the book! It is elementary knowledge who know both " Bhoota Sakhya

> Vidhi " and " Decimal System " and also know how to differenciate

> Numbers notated using both of them!

> ==>

> > Brihat jataka type of writing of numbers.

> <==

> There is NO Brihat Jataka type of writing numbers! The statement

is

> absurd man! The fundamental number notation systems used were-

> 1. Decimal System (From Vedic Period)

> 2. Bhoota Sakhya Vidhi (From Vedic Period)

> 3. Arya Bhateeya System (From the period of Aryabhatta)

> 4. KaTaPaYa System (The time of origin still in mystery, and not

yet

> clarified by research)

> Know these facts and modify your arguments accordingly and

> the 'fact' mentioned in previous mail still hold - and makes me

> laugh. :=)

> P.S.: To see our own ignorance is a bliss, which only some rare

> individuals possess. What we know we know, what we don't we

> don't. Also, remember that error is human, and accepting it

needs

> courage.

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> , Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sreenadh,

> >

> > Try to answer the questions asked, and not dodge them by

diverting

> the

> > issue. If you are so fixed on other methods of writing numbers.

It

> would

> > be interesting to see how you read

> > " shannavatyadhikanavashataadhikasahasramitaM " for me not using

the

> > principle " AmkaaMaaM Vamato gatiH "

Or " rasagraharandhrabhUmimitaM " ,

> if

> > you like Brihat jataka type of writing of numbers.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > Sreenadh wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > The correct answer is 'Drop your ego'.

> > >

> > > As far as the ancient number systems are concerned-

> > > * As you rightly mentioned KaTaPaYa system and Decimal system

are

> > > from 'Right to Left' &

> > > * As I told Bhoota Sakhya system and Aryabhateeya system are

> > > from " Left to Right "

> > >

> > > If you are not getting the first point told (far) above

then I

> > > don't have anything to say.

> > >

> > > Now coming to commentary on some beginning Jaimini sutra

slokas

> are

> > > concerned -

> > > * I am totally new to the BPHS/Jaimini system, and came to this

> > > group asking a doubt " What is Argala? "

> > > * I think I made a good beginning in learning that system - as

you

> > > too may agree.

> > > * That (start learning of BPHS/Jaimini system in a proper way)

was

> > > the only thing intended. I have no wrong notions or claims

on

> the

> > > same. What you told about Jaimini's approach and use of

KaTaPaYa

> > > system is right and that was just a new info to me. Thanks for

> > > that.

> > >

> > > But see, I a vibrant childish individual with not much ego or

much

> > > defense, so be beware :=). It could be dangerous, if you have

same

> > > thing to protect.

> > >

> > > Love,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> > >

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > >

> > > > You are good at dodging the original query. You do not

indicate

> how

> > > the

> > > > plain numbers are read, how do you read " Ekavimshat " ? You

may

> bring

> > > all

> > > > your knowledge of reading ankas from right to left, as you

> claim is

> > > > followed in Sanskrit, to bear upon on this two simple

> questions. If

> > > your

> > > > contention is right then it must be read as I said you

probably

> > > read it.

> > > > Interpreting sutras on wrong parameters and claiming them to

be

> > > right as

> > > > one is scholar of Sanskrit and thinking that knowledge of

> astrology

> > > is

> > > > not required, for translation of astrological texts, is of

> course

> > > your

> > > > privilege.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar,

> > > > > I always regard my self as none, nothing. I don't you

> comprehend

> > > it

> > > > > or not. We can be only students always - and the teacher

is

> always

> > > > > within, and the learning too always happen from within -

it

> can

> > > not

> > > > > be otherwise.

> > > > > Now coming back to the point of numbers. Even if roadside

old

> book

> > > > > shops you may find a book called 'Brihat Jataka' which is

> > > considered

> > > > > as one of the foundation book of astrology. There is a

soloka

> in

> > > > > it " Dasa Sikhi ManuYuk Thitheendiyamse... " which

uses " Bhoota

> > > Sakhya

> > > > > Vidhi " popular from far past vedic civilization to notate

> numbers.

> > > > > ManuYuk means = 14 x 2 = 28 which is the exaltation degree

for

> > > some

> > > > > planet, hope you may know which planet.

> > > > > If we look at Arya Bhateeyam we will find the sutras

> > > like " YugaRavi

> > > > > BhaganaH KhuKHru " where KhuKHru notates a number. KhUuKHru

=

> > > (Kh+U)

> > > > > u+KH+ru = (2+30)100^2+4+100^3=4320000. If you are

interested

> in

> > > > > teaching new way of mathametics to AryaBhatta; by saying

> > > that " ALWAYS

> > > > > numbers are written from right to left " - I would have

stay

> amazed

> > > > > and away from such a person (persona = mask) who has got

such

> a

> > > great

> > > > > knowledge! You should better discuss with those who

possess

> the

> > > same

> > > > > kind knowledge like Professional astrologer Bhasker ji and

> > > continue

> > > > > appreciating each other.

> > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > I do not claim to be knowledgeable. That is your claim,

> hence I

> > > > > asked

> > > > > > the question, which is unanswered so far.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Mr. Chandrashekhar,

> > > > > > > Oh! You seem to be very knowlegeable! r u really?!!

> > > > > > > By the way, how many questions are remaining now?

> > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I see that you do not have any answer.

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar,

> > > > > > > > > Yap, it is really getting to be funny. :=)

Especailly

> > > because

> > > > > I

> > > > > > > > > love teasing egos. Ha..Ha..

> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

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

> Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > If that be the case, please let me know how you

> > > > > read " ekavimshat "

> > > > > > > > > I hope

> > > > > > > > > > you do not read it as 120 or 12. This is really

> getting

> > > to

> > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > funny.

> > > > > > > > > > This is precisely the reason, I had said I

withdraw

> > > from the

> > > > > > > > > discussion.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekar,

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sanskrit ankas are always read with vama

gati,

> it is

> > > > > not the

> > > > > > > > > > > > proprietary right of KaTaPaYaadi system.

> > > > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for enlightening - Are you inventing a

> > > new " Bhoota

> > > > > Sankhya

> > > > > > > > > > > Vidhi " for Vedas and a new " Decimal system "

> > > > > and " Aryabhateeya

> > > > > > > > > > > System " ?!! Just refer it and know it is not so.

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, if that is not acceptable to you

> then you

> > > > > will have

> > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > read D-Charts as independent charts to apply

> Jaimini

> > > > > sutras.

> > > > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > > > Again, thanks for the second invention - hope

it

> > > would be

> > > > > useful

> > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > you.

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Please answer a question I asked you long

> back...

> > > > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > > > Not much interested, since the total

discussion

> could

> > > end

> > > > > up as a

> > > > > > > > > > > waste of for me.

> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

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

> > > Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sanskrit ankas are always read with vama

gati,

> it is

> > > > > not the

> > > > > > > > > > > proprietary

> > > > > > > > > > > > right of KaTaPaYaadi system. The division by

12

> does

> > > > > not have

> > > > > > > > > > > anything

> > > > > > > > > > > > to do with Jaimini. The division by the

> variable is

> > > > > implied

> > > > > > > > > when

> > > > > > > > > > > > applying the system. Plain application of the

> > > numbers

> > > > > will give

> > > > > > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > > > > that do not exist. What is done in such a

case

> in

> > > > > astrology is

> > > > > > > > > > > divided

> > > > > > > > > > > > by the maximum numbers possible hence the

> division

> > > by

> > > > > 12.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, if that is not acceptable to you

> then you

> > > > > will have

> > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > read

> > > > > > > > > > > > D-Charts as independent charts to apply

Jaimini

> > > sutras.

> > > > > Please

> > > > > > > > > > > answer a

> > > > > > > > > > > > question I asked you long back. Interpret the

> > > > > Sutra " Svasthe

> > > > > > > > > dara " ,

> > > > > > > > > > > > using what you think is the correct way to

apply

> > > > > KaTaPaYaaDi

> > > > > > > > > system

> > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > the sutras.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > No - the KaPaTaYa system ends

with " ankanam

> vamato

> > > > > gati " and

> > > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is no division by 12 involved; as is

evident

> from

> > > the

> > > > > many

> > > > > > > > > > > > > astronomical works available (Text bys

> Vararuchi,

> > > > > Sangama

> > > > > > > > > grama

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Madhava, Neelakandha etc are examples).

> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you say that this division by 12 is a

> Jaimini

> > > > > extension to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > KaPaTaYa system - i can understand and

accept

> it.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > But for sure this " division by 12 rule " is

not

> > > part of

> > > > > > > > > KaPaTaYa

> > > > > > > > > > > > > system.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

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

> > > > > Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is the basic Katapayaadi principle

> about

> > > > > identifying

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > variable.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh 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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>,

> > > > > 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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

 

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > > <%

> 40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 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.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

---

> ----

> > > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.8.13/844 -

> > > Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

---

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji and Sreenadh ji

 

Let us forgive each other and may Lord guide us towards light.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

, " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> Sorry for the term 'idiotic' used in the previous mail. May be I

> was in the wrong mood yesterday.

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> , Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sreenadh,

> >

> > Had I not been an idiot why would I go on asking simple questions

> that

> > you seem to be unable to answer.

> >

> > By the way do not forget that it is you who referred to Brihat

> jataka

> > shlokas and then went on to indicate that this is the Bhoot

sankhya

> > vidhi and that the samkhyas need to be read from right to left.

So

> I was

> > just writing in your language. I asked you to read a sankhya

using

> that

> > vidhi and you did not want to do that for reasons best known to

you.

> >

> > Since you obviously know about different systems of writing

numbers

> and

> > are yet unable to read them when given in any of those formats,

why

> not

> > just answer the original question? How do you read " Ekavimshat " ,

> right

> > to left or left to right?

> >

> > You have already exhibited your vastly superior intelligence (I

can

> not

> > use the words that you do so freely) while interpreting the

sutra

> > " Darabhagyasulasthargala nidhyatuh " . in a manner not accepted by

> any

> > authority (including Neelkanth, B.V. Raman, B. Suryanarainrao, I.

> > Rangachary, Krishnanand Saraswati, Krishna Mishra etc.) , using

> KaTa

> > PaYaadi format and interpreted the bhava indicated as 4th, 2nd

and

> 11th

> > bhava, not so long ago.

> >

> > I would have expected you to answer plain and simple questions,

> with all

> > that knowledge. sadly whenever a question is asked, you seem to

> divert

> > the topic to something else.

> >

> > I am sure the learned on the group will recognize the way you

dodge

> > simple questions and the language you use and assess for

themselves

> what

> > is right and what is wrong.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> >

> > Sreenadh wrote:

> > >

> > > The problem not solved!!!

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, I would advice you to first go and learn

> > > what " Bhoota Sankhya Vidhi " is!! What you are referring to is

> Decimal

> > > system numbers pronounced in Decimal system style itself! Don't

be

> > > this much idotic. Even though Brihat Jataka uses " Bhoota Sankhya

> > > Vidhi at some places it is not the rule that is followed

through

> out

> > > the book! It is elementary knowledge who know both " Bhoota

Sakhya

> > > Vidhi " and " Decimal System " and also know how to differenciate

> > > Numbers notated using both of them!

> > > ==>

> > > > Brihat jataka type of writing of numbers.

> > > <==

> > > There is NO Brihat Jataka type of writing numbers! The

statement

> is

> > > absurd man! The fundamental number notation systems used were-

> > > 1. Decimal System (From Vedic Period)

> > > 2. Bhoota Sakhya Vidhi (From Vedic Period)

> > > 3. Arya Bhateeya System (From the period of Aryabhatta)

> > > 4. KaTaPaYa System (The time of origin still in mystery, and

not

> yet

> > > clarified by research)

> > > Know these facts and modify your arguments accordingly and

> > > the 'fact' mentioned in previous mail still hold - and makes me

> > > laugh. :=)

> > > P.S.: To see our own ignorance is a bliss, which only some rare

> > > individuals possess. What we know we know, what we don't we

> > > don't. Also, remember that error is human, and accepting it

> needs

> > > courage.

> > > Love,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> > >

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > >

> > > > Try to answer the questions asked, and not dodge them by

> diverting

> > > the

> > > > issue. If you are so fixed on other methods of writing

numbers.

> It

> > > would

> > > > be interesting to see how you read

> > > > " shannavatyadhikanavashataadhikasahasramitaM " for me not

using

> the

> > > > principle " AmkaaMaaM Vamato gatiH "

> Or " rasagraharandhrabhUmimitaM " ,

> > > if

> > > > you like Brihat jataka type of writing of numbers.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > The correct answer is 'Drop your ego'.

> > > > >

> > > > > As far as the ancient number systems are concerned-

> > > > > * As you rightly mentioned KaTaPaYa system and Decimal

system

> are

> > > > > from 'Right to Left' &

> > > > > * As I told Bhoota Sakhya system and Aryabhateeya system are

> > > > > from " Left to Right "

> > > > >

> > > > > If you are not getting the first point told (far) above

> then I

> > > > > don't have anything to say.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now coming to commentary on some beginning Jaimini sutra

> slokas

> > > are

> > > > > concerned -

> > > > > * I am totally new to the BPHS/Jaimini system, and came to

> this

> > > > > group asking a doubt " What is Argala? "

> > > > > * I think I made a good beginning in learning that system -

> as you

> > > > > too may agree.

> > > > > * That (start learning of BPHS/Jaimini system in a proper

> way) was

> > > > > the only thing intended. I have no wrong notions or

claims

> on

> > > the

> > > > > same. What you told about Jaimini's approach and use of

> KaTaPaYa

> > > > > system is right and that was just a new info to me. Thanks

for

> > > > > that.

> > > > >

> > > > > But see, I a vibrant childish individual with not much ego

or

> much

> > > > > defense, so be beware :=). It could be dangerous, if you

have

> same

> > > > > thing to protect.

> > > > >

> > > > > Love,

> > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You are good at dodging the original query. You do not

> indicate

> > > how

> > > > > the

> > > > > > plain numbers are read, how do you read " Ekavimshat " ? You

> may

> > > bring

> > > > > all

> > > > > > your knowledge of reading ankas from right to left, as you

> > > claim is

> > > > > > followed in Sanskrit, to bear upon on this two simple

> > > questions. If

> > > > > your

> > > > > > contention is right then it must be read as I said you

> probably

> > > > > read it.

> > > > > > Interpreting sutras on wrong parameters and claiming them

> to be

> > > > > right as

> > > > > > one is scholar of Sanskrit and thinking that knowledge of

> > > astrology

> > > > > is

> > > > > > not required, for translation of astrological texts, is of

> > > course

> > > > > your

> > > > > > privilege.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar,

> > > > > > > I always regard my self as none, nothing. I don't you

> > > comprehend

> > > > > it

> > > > > > > or not. We can be only students always - and the

teacher

> is

> > > always

> > > > > > > within, and the learning too always happen from within -

 

> it

> > > can

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > be otherwise.

> > > > > > > Now coming back to the point of numbers. Even if

roadside

> old

> > > book

> > > > > > > shops you may find a book called 'Brihat Jataka' which

is

> > > > > considered

> > > > > > > as one of the foundation book of astrology. There is a

> soloka

> > > in

> > > > > > > it " Dasa Sikhi ManuYuk Thitheendiyamse... " which

> uses " Bhoota

> > > > > Sakhya

> > > > > > > Vidhi " popular from far past vedic civilization to

notate

> > > numbers.

> > > > > > > ManuYuk means = 14 x 2 = 28 which is the exaltation

> degree for

> > > > > some

> > > > > > > planet, hope you may know which planet.

> > > > > > > If we look at Arya Bhateeyam we will find the sutras

> > > > > like " YugaRavi

> > > > > > > BhaganaH KhuKHru " where KhuKHru notates a number.

> KhUuKHru =

> > > > > (Kh+U)

> > > > > > > u+KH+ru = (2+30)100^2+4+100^3=4320000. If you are

> interested

> > > in

> > > > > > > teaching new way of mathametics to AryaBhatta; by saying

> > > > > that " ALWAYS

> > > > > > > numbers are written from right to left " - I would have

> stay

> > > amazed

> > > > > > > and away from such a person (persona = mask) who has

got

> such

> > > a

> > > > > great

> > > > > > > knowledge! You should better discuss with those who

> possess

> > > the

> > > > > same

> > > > > > > kind knowledge like Professional astrologer Bhasker ji

and

> > > > > continue

> > > > > > > appreciating each other.

> > > > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > > I do not claim to be knowledgeable. That is your

claim,

> > > hence I

> > > > > > > asked

> > > > > > > > the question, which is unanswered so far.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Mr. Chandrashekhar,

> > > > > > > > > Oh! You seem to be very knowlegeable! r u really?!!

> > > > > > > > > By the way, how many questions are remaining now?

> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

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

> Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I see that you do not have any answer.

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar,

> > > > > > > > > > > Yap, it is really getting to be funny. :=)

> Especailly

> > > > > because

> > > > > > > I

> > > > > > > > > > > love teasing egos. Ha..Ha..

> > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

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

> > > Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > If that be the case, please let me know how

you

> > > > > > > read " ekavimshat "

> > > > > > > > > > > I hope

> > > > > > > > > > > > you do not read it as 120 or 12. This is

really

> > > getting

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > funny.

> > > > > > > > > > > > This is precisely the reason, I had said I

> withdraw

> > > > > from the

> > > > > > > > > > > discussion.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekar,

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sanskrit ankas are always read with vama

> gati,

> > > it is

> > > > > > > not the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > proprietary right of KaTaPaYaadi system.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for enlightening - Are you inventing

a

> > > > > new " Bhoota

> > > > > > > Sankhya

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vidhi " for Vedas and a new " Decimal system "

> > > > > > > and " Aryabhateeya

> > > > > > > > > > > > > System " ?!! Just refer it and know it is not

> so.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, if that is not acceptable to

you

> > > then you

> > > > > > > will have

> > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > read D-Charts as independent charts to

apply

> > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > sutras.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, thanks for the second invention -

hope

> it

> > > > > would be

> > > > > > > useful

> > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > you.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please answer a question I asked you long

> > > back...

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Not much interested, since the total

> discussion

> > > could

> > > > > end

> > > > > > > up as a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > waste of for me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

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

> > > > > Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sanskrit ankas are always read with vama

> gati,

> > > it is

> > > > > > > not the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > proprietary

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > right of KaTaPaYaadi system. The division

> by 12

> > > does

> > > > > > > not have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > anything

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to do with Jaimini. The division by the

> > > variable is

> > > > > > > implied

> > > > > > > > > > > when

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > applying the system. Plain application of

> the

> > > > > numbers

> > > > > > > will give

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that do not exist. What is done in such a

> case

> > > in

> > > > > > > astrology is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > divided

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > by the maximum numbers possible hence the

> > > division

> > > > > by

> > > > > > > 12.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, if that is not acceptable to

you

> > > then you

> > > > > > > will have

> > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > read

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > D-Charts as independent charts to apply

> Jaimini

> > > > > sutras.

> > > > > > > Please

> > > > > > > > > > > > > answer a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > question I asked you long back. Interpret

> the

> > > > > > > Sutra " Svasthe

> > > > > > > > > > > dara " ,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > using what you think is the correct way

to

> apply

> > > > > > > KaTaPaYaaDi

> > > > > > > > > > > system

> > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the sutras.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No - the KaPaTaYa system ends

> with " ankanam

> > > vamato

> > > > > > > gati " and

> > > > > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is no division by 12 involved; as is

> evident

> > > from

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > many

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > astronomical works available (Text bys

> > > Vararuchi,

> > > > > > > Sangama

> > > > > > > > > > > grama

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Madhava, Neelakandha etc are examples).

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you say that this division by 12 is a

> > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > extension to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KaPaTaYa system - i can understand and

> accept

> > > it.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But for sure this " division by 12 rule "

> is not

> > > > > part of

> > > > > > > > > > > KaPaTaYa

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > system.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

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

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is the basic Katapayaadi

principle

> > > about

> > > > > > > identifying

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > variable.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh 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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>,

> > > > > > > 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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > 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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > > <%

> 40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > 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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > > > >

> > > <%40> <%

> > > 40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > 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.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

--

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.8.13/844 -

> > > > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

--

> ----

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.8.13/844 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

--

> ----

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >