Guest guest Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Dear Chandrashekhar ji, You said: ==> > The reference is very clear about anapha/sunapha > Yogain navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha overruling > Kemadruma yoga in rasi chart. If the learned commentator of > dashaadhaayi has interpreted otherwise, > it is an unfortunate mistake. <== If you say so you are committing the same mistake you have asked me not to commit! You words given below: ==> > I think it is better to think whether one's own understanding is > deficient in the matter of whether there are exceptions to drishti > being seen in navamsha and Dwadashamsha charts, instead of assuming > Bhattotpala making a mistake. <== Should I comment the same about your observation of Dasadhyayi? Remember that Dashadhyayi, Chaturasudari etc falls in the uncorrupted Astrology Tradition. Dashadhyayi was written in a period when the Rishi horas such as Skanda Hora, Brihat Prajapatya etc where available. (Those texts were available in Kerala at that period. Those books were available to even to Kaikulangala who lived about 250 years back in Kerala. ChatraSundari is written by the Son of Madhavacharya who wrote Madhaveeya, another valuable astrological classic) Remember that unlike commentaries that usually provide only the meaning of the slokas and the discussion based on the same, Dasadhyayi and Chaturasundari were books to teach astrology to the learners - rather than commentaries. So they layout the principle in clear Sanskrit prose in detail, without ambiguity and scope for doubt. Love, Sreenadh , " vijayadas_pradeep " <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > Sorry for replying in seperate mails,causing difficulty.Will take > care in future. > > You can very well say it is an unfortunate translation. > Dashadhyayi karaka was humble enough to accept the greatness of > Varahamihira and express his limitations.For me that shows his > humility and greatness.Because Dashadhyayi is extolled beyond par for > quality- for eg Prashna marga. > > Dashadhyayi kara falls in line of uncorrupted parampara.Inspite of > all these,he compares his views with other scholars of past,before > arriving at conclusions. > > There are there proofs - > > 1)The very shloka,Ke chit Kendra NavamshaKEshu Vadanthee - is > pointing to navamshaKA rashi. > 2)He quotes views of Shruthakeerthi - ''Chandrakrantha Navamsha RASHE > Dwiteeya rashi gathai sunabhathra ----- vakthubhaye dhurudhura > 3)He quotes Jeeva sharma - Thatha cha jeevasharama - Yad RASHI Samjhe > sheethamshur navamshe janmani sthitha ..Thad dwiteeya sthithairyoga > sunabhakhya......'' > > Then he says '' kechit ....vadanthee'' thyanena cha > vyakhyathoyamartha ithi Vyaktham Bhavathi. > > So he says considering the above two views and the Navamshakeshu > found in original shloka it means it is the RASHIS that forms the > basis. > > Unless you want to say all the three are wrong,i feel the translation > is clear enough.Moreover shri Sanjay Rath too had expressed how > Amshaka is to be understood -as it is very evident from the text. > > Ofcourse you can hold your own views and you may be better > learned.For me there is no doubt. > > For the other 2 shlokas reply has already been sent. > > Respect > Pradeep > > oup , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > I do not think so. The reference is very clear about anapha/sunapha > Yoga > > in navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha overruling > Kemadruma > > yoga in rasi chart. If the learned commentator of dashaadhaayi has > > interpreted otherwise, it is an unfortunate mistake. > > > > I think you must have already received the shloka where reference > to > > only navamsh ruled by Surya or Chandra is considered for health > related > > yogas. It is better if you allow my reply to remain in the mail you > > reply to as it makes it easy for me to reply instead of trying to > find > > the mail that I have sent and reference what you are replying to. > > Take care, > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > ''He as well as the author of Dashaadhyaayi is talking about > Chandra > > > navamsha being considered in the same manner as Chandra rasi for > > > Sunapha/anapha/Durudhara yoga (or rather cancellation of > Kemadruma) as > > > indicated by you.'' > > > > > > It is mentioned that for cancellation either a planet should be in > > > kendra to chandra or in the Navamshaka rashi of chandra.Thus it is > > > very clear. > > > > > > Similarly for the other yoga - 2 and 12th from Navamshaka Rashi of > > > Chandra.Dashadhyayi karaka also says - As per Varahamihiracharya > these > > > are views of Jeevasharma and all and Acharya does not fully > support > > > this cancellation etc.At the same time Acharya says,such results > may > > > also come if the said planets are strong. > > > > > > Respect > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- -- > ------ > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Dear Sreenadh, I am surprised at the double standards. If it is alright to question the translation of Bhattotpala whom the Dashaadhyayi author extols, as to correctness of Sanskrit and that of Sitaram Jha who was professor emeritus of Kashi Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyaalaya and a learned astrologer who brought to light many rare astrological manuscripts, why should it not be other way round? After all apparently Bhattotpala predates Dashaadhyaayi. And you may mark that I did not say he was wrong I said it is unfortunate. I used those words as I do not have Dashaadhyaayi with me to check whether what is being said is right or not. My understanding is that it was written in Malayalam, which I do not understand, and the words attributed to the author appear to be Sanskrit ones. It is not a crime to question a wrong translation but it certainly is odd to criticize only if the commentator is translating in a way that goes against your own pet theories. I do not think even the author of Dashaadhyaayi would claim to be the final authority as a commentator of what ever Varaha Mihira has said in Brihatjataka, knowing full well that he has commented on only 10 Adhyaayas of the 28 or so adhyaayas of that text. Regards, Chandrashekhar. Sreenadh wrote: > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > You said: > ==> > > The reference is very clear about anapha/sunapha > > Yogain navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha overruling > > Kemadruma yoga in rasi chart. If the learned commentator of > > dashaadhaayi has interpreted otherwise, > > it is an unfortunate mistake. > <== > > If you say so you are committing the same mistake you have asked me > not to commit! > > You words given below: > ==> > > I think it is better to think whether one's own understanding is > > deficient in the matter of whether there are exceptions to drishti > > being seen in navamsha and Dwadashamsha charts, instead of assuming > > Bhattotpala making a mistake. > <== > Should I comment the same about your observation of Dasadhyayi? > Remember that Dashadhyayi, Chaturasudari etc falls in the uncorrupted > Astrology Tradition. Dashadhyayi was written in a period when the > Rishi horas such as Skanda Hora, Brihat Prajapatya etc where > available. > (Those texts were available in Kerala at that period. Those books > were available to even to Kaikulangala who lived about 250 years back > in Kerala. ChatraSundari is written by the Son of Madhavacharya who > wrote Madhaveeya, another valuable astrological classic) > Remember that unlike commentaries that usually provide only the > meaning of the slokas and the discussion based on the same, > Dasadhyayi and Chaturasundari were books to teach astrology to the > learners - rather than commentaries. So they layout the principle in > clear Sanskrit prose in detail, without ambiguity and scope for > doubt. > Love, > Sreenadh > > > <%40>, " vijayadas_pradeep " > <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > Sorry for replying in seperate mails,causing difficulty.Will take > > care in future. > > > > You can very well say it is an unfortunate translation. > > Dashadhyayi karaka was humble enough to accept the greatness of > > Varahamihira and express his limitations.For me that shows his > > humility and greatness.Because Dashadhyayi is extolled beyond par > for > > quality- for eg Prashna marga. > > > > Dashadhyayi kara falls in line of uncorrupted parampara.Inspite of > > all these,he compares his views with other scholars of past,before > > arriving at conclusions. > > > > There are there proofs - > > > > 1)The very shloka,Ke chit Kendra NavamshaKEshu Vadanthee - is > > pointing to navamshaKA rashi. > > 2)He quotes views of Shruthakeerthi - ''Chandrakrantha Navamsha > RASHE > > Dwiteeya rashi gathai sunabhathra ----- vakthubhaye dhurudhura > > 3)He quotes Jeeva sharma - Thatha cha jeevasharama - Yad RASHI > Samjhe > > sheethamshur navamshe janmani sthitha ..Thad dwiteeya sthithairyoga > > sunabhakhya......'' > > > > Then he says '' kechit ....vadanthee'' thyanena cha > > vyakhyathoyamartha ithi Vyaktham Bhavathi. > > > > So he says considering the above two views and the Navamshakeshu > > found in original shloka it means it is the RASHIS that forms the > > basis. > > > > Unless you want to say all the three are wrong,i feel the > translation > > is clear enough.Moreover shri Sanjay Rath too had expressed how > > Amshaka is to be understood -as it is very evident from the text. > > > > Ofcourse you can hold your own views and you may be better > > learned.For me there is no doubt. > > > > For the other 2 shlokas reply has already been sent. > > > > Respect > > Pradeep > > > > oup <oup%40>, Chandrashekhar > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > I do not think so. The reference is very clear about > anapha/sunapha > > Yoga > > > in navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha overruling > > Kemadruma > > > yoga in rasi chart. If the learned commentator of dashaadhaayi > has > > > interpreted otherwise, it is an unfortunate mistake. > > > > > > I think you must have already received the shloka where > reference > > to > > > only navamsh ruled by Surya or Chandra is considered for health > > related > > > yogas. It is better if you allow my reply to remain in the mail > you > > > reply to as it makes it easy for me to reply instead of trying to > > find > > > the mail that I have sent and reference what you are replying to. > > > Take care, > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > ''He as well as the author of Dashaadhyaayi is talking about > > Chandra > > > > navamsha being considered in the same manner as Chandra rasi for > > > > Sunapha/anapha/Durudhara yoga (or rather cancellation of > > Kemadruma) as > > > > indicated by you.'' > > > > > > > > It is mentioned that for cancellation either a planet should be > in > > > > kendra to chandra or in the Navamshaka rashi of chandra.Thus it > is > > > > very clear. > > > > > > > > Similarly for the other yoga - 2 and 12th from Navamshaka Rashi > of > > > > Chandra.Dashadhyayi karaka also says - As per > Varahamihiracharya > > these > > > > are views of Jeevasharma and all and Acharya does not fully > > support > > > > this cancellation etc.At the same time Acharya says,such > results > > may > > > > also come if the said planets are strong. > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------- > -- > > ------ > > > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Dear Chandrashekhar ji, We can in no way compare Sitaram Jha and the auther of Dasadhayai. Thalakkulattu Bhattatiri is an par excellance personality, similar to Balabhadra who wrote Hora Ratna or Bhattolpala. If you want to compare, please put - * Bhattolpala (Author of Bhattolpali - commentary for Brihat Jataka) * Talakkulattu Bhattatiri (Author of Dasadhyayi commentary for Brihat Jataka) * Vishnu (Author of Chatura Sundari commentary Krishneeya) * Achrya Balabhadra (Author of Hora Ratna) * Edakkattu Nambootiri (Author of Prasnamarga) * Kaikulangara (Author of Hridyapadha commentry for Brihat Jataka) - in same category; and not others. They are scholers par excellance and please put small names (even though big among smaller names) among them. If you read those books you will surely agree with me - I reckon. By the way - all the above books except Hridyapadha by Kaikulangara is written in Sanskrit and not in Malayalam. P.S. Chatura Sundari Vyakhya of of Krishneeyam in Sanskrit I can provide you as a pdf file, even though some typing mistakes would be there since I typed it. Love, Sreenadh , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > Dear Sreenadh, > > I am surprised at the double standards. If it is alright to question the > translation of Bhattotpala whom the Dashaadhyayi author extols, as to > correctness of Sanskrit and that of Sitaram Jha who was professor > emeritus of Kashi Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyaalaya and a learned astrologer > who brought to light many rare astrological manuscripts, why should it > not be other way round? After all apparently Bhattotpala predates > Dashaadhyaayi. And you may mark that I did not say he was wrong I said > it is unfortunate. I used those words as I do not have Dashaadhyaayi > with me to check whether what is being said is right or not. My > understanding is that it was written in Malayalam, which I do not > understand, and the words attributed to the author appear to be Sanskrit > ones. > > It is not a crime to question a wrong translation but it certainly is > odd to criticize only if the commentator is translating in a way that > goes against your own pet theories. I do not think even the author of > Dashaadhyaayi would claim to be the final authority as a commentator of > what ever Varaha Mihira has said in Brihatjataka, knowing full well that > he has commented on only 10 Adhyaayas of the 28 or so adhyaayas of that > text. > > Regards, > Chandrashekhar. > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > You said: > > ==> > > > The reference is very clear about anapha/sunapha > > > Yogain navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha overruling > > > Kemadruma yoga in rasi chart. If the learned commentator of > > > dashaadhaayi has interpreted otherwise, > > > it is an unfortunate mistake. > > <== > > > > If you say so you are committing the same mistake you have asked me > > not to commit! > > > > You words given below: > > ==> > > > I think it is better to think whether one's own understanding is > > > deficient in the matter of whether there are exceptions to drishti > > > being seen in navamsha and Dwadashamsha charts, instead of assuming > > > Bhattotpala making a mistake. > > <== > > Should I comment the same about your observation of Dasadhyayi? > > Remember that Dashadhyayi, Chaturasudari etc falls in the uncorrupted > > Astrology Tradition. Dashadhyayi was written in a period when the > > Rishi horas such as Skanda Hora, Brihat Prajapatya etc where > > available. > > (Those texts were available in Kerala at that period. Those books > > were available to even to Kaikulangala who lived about 250 years back > > in Kerala. ChatraSundari is written by the Son of Madhavacharya who > > wrote Madhaveeya, another valuable astrological classic) > > Remember that unlike commentaries that usually provide only the > > meaning of the slokas and the discussion based on the same, > > Dasadhyayi and Chaturasundari were books to teach astrology to the > > learners - rather than commentaries. So they layout the principle in > > clear Sanskrit prose in detail, without ambiguity and scope for > > doubt. > > Love, > > Sreenadh > > > > > > <%40>, " vijayadas_pradeep " > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > Sorry for replying in seperate mails,causing difficulty.Will take > > > care in future. > > > > > > You can very well say it is an unfortunate translation. > > > Dashadhyayi karaka was humble enough to accept the greatness of > > > Varahamihira and express his limitations.For me that shows his > > > humility and greatness.Because Dashadhyayi is extolled beyond par > > for > > > quality- for eg Prashna marga. > > > > > > Dashadhyayi kara falls in line of uncorrupted parampara.Inspite of > > > all these,he compares his views with other scholars of past,before > > > arriving at conclusions. > > > > > > There are there proofs - > > > > > > 1)The very shloka,Ke chit Kendra NavamshaKEshu Vadanthee - is > > > pointing to navamshaKA rashi. > > > 2)He quotes views of Shruthakeerthi - ''Chandrakrantha Navamsha > > RASHE > > > Dwiteeya rashi gathai sunabhathra ----- vakthubhaye dhurudhura > > > 3)He quotes Jeeva sharma - Thatha cha jeevasharama - Yad RASHI > > Samjhe > > > sheethamshur navamshe janmani sthitha ..Thad dwiteeya sthithairyoga > > > sunabhakhya......'' > > > > > > Then he says '' kechit ....vadanthee'' thyanena cha > > > vyakhyathoyamartha ithi Vyaktham Bhavathi. > > > > > > So he says considering the above two views and the Navamshakeshu > > > found in original shloka it means it is the RASHIS that forms the > > > basis. > > > > > > Unless you want to say all the three are wrong,i feel the > > translation > > > is clear enough.Moreover shri Sanjay Rath too had expressed how > > > Amshaka is to be understood -as it is very evident from the text. > > > > > > Ofcourse you can hold your own views and you may be better > > > learned.For me there is no doubt. > > > > > > For the other 2 shlokas reply has already been sent. > > > > > > Respect > > > Pradeep > > > > > > oup <oup%40>, Chandrashekhar > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > I do not think so. The reference is very clear about > > anapha/sunapha > > > Yoga > > > > in navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha overruling > > > Kemadruma > > > > yoga in rasi chart. If the learned commentator of dashaadhaayi > > has > > > > interpreted otherwise, it is an unfortunate mistake. > > > > > > > > I think you must have already received the shloka where > > reference > > > to > > > > only navamsh ruled by Surya or Chandra is considered for health > > > related > > > > yogas. It is better if you allow my reply to remain in the mail > > you > > > > reply to as it makes it easy for me to reply instead of trying to > > > find > > > > the mail that I have sent and reference what you are replying to. > > > > Take care, > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > ''He as well as the author of Dashaadhyaayi is talking about > > > Chandra > > > > > navamsha being considered in the same manner as Chandra rasi for > > > > > Sunapha/anapha/Durudhara yoga (or rather cancellation of > > > Kemadruma) as > > > > > indicated by you.'' > > > > > > > > > > It is mentioned that for cancellation either a planet should be > > in > > > > > kendra to chandra or in the Navamshaka rashi of chandra.Thus it > > is > > > > > very clear. > > > > > > > > > > Similarly for the other yoga - 2 and 12th from Navamshaka Rashi > > of > > > > > Chandra.Dashadhyayi karaka also says - As per > > Varahamihiracharya > > > these > > > > > are views of Jeevasharma and all and Acharya does not fully > > > support > > > > > this cancellation etc.At the same time Acharya says,such > > results > > > may > > > > > also come if the said planets are strong. > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------- > > -- > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Dear Sreenadh, The reference to Bhattotpala was with reference to Dashaadhyaayi author and Sitaram Jha with very learned Sanskrit Scholar and a well respected astrologer of yesteryears. As to the comparison of authors you have devised, I do not think they compare with the likes of Parashara, Jaimini, Varaha Mihira, Narada, Garga etc. Neither is such comparison fair. So let us not compare the sages who gave the divine science and the original authors of texts, with the commentators and translators. My personal opinion is that every author and commentator of stature is good in his own place and championing one over the other is not very fair, especially if one has not read the others. So barring Bhattotpala, whose commentary I have read, I can not comment on others. Chandrashekhar. Sreenadh wrote: > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > We can in no way compare Sitaram Jha and the auther of Dasadhayai. > Thalakkulattu Bhattatiri is an par excellance personality, similar to > Balabhadra who wrote Hora Ratna or Bhattolpala. If you want to > compare, please put - > * Bhattolpala (Author of Bhattolpali - commentary for Brihat Jataka) > * Talakkulattu Bhattatiri (Author of Dasadhyayi commentary for Brihat > Jataka) > * Vishnu (Author of Chatura Sundari commentary Krishneeya) > * Achrya Balabhadra (Author of Hora Ratna) > * Edakkattu Nambootiri (Author of Prasnamarga) > * Kaikulangara (Author of Hridyapadha commentry for Brihat Jataka) > - in same category; and not others. They are scholers par excellance > and please put small names (even though big among smaller names) among > them. If you read those books you will surely agree with me - I reckon. > By the way - all the above books except Hridyapadha by Kaikulangara > is written in Sanskrit and not in Malayalam. > > P.S. Chatura Sundari Vyakhya of of Krishneeyam in Sanskrit I can > provide you as a pdf file, even though some typing mistakes would be > there since I typed it. > Love, > Sreenadh > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > I am surprised at the double standards. If it is alright to question > the > > translation of Bhattotpala whom the Dashaadhyayi author extols, as to > > correctness of Sanskrit and that of Sitaram Jha who was professor > > emeritus of Kashi Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyaalaya and a learned astrologer > > who brought to light many rare astrological manuscripts, why should it > > not be other way round? After all apparently Bhattotpala predates > > Dashaadhyaayi. And you may mark that I did not say he was wrong I said > > it is unfortunate. I used those words as I do not have Dashaadhyaayi > > with me to check whether what is being said is right or not. My > > understanding is that it was written in Malayalam, which I do not > > understand, and the words attributed to the author appear to be > Sanskrit > > ones. > > > > It is not a crime to question a wrong translation but it certainly is > > odd to criticize only if the commentator is translating in a way that > > goes against your own pet theories. I do not think even the author of > > Dashaadhyaayi would claim to be the final authority as a commentator of > > what ever Varaha Mihira has said in Brihatjataka, knowing full well > that > > he has commented on only 10 Adhyaayas of the 28 or so adhyaayas of that > > text. > > > > Regards, > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > > You said: > > > ==> > > > > The reference is very clear about anapha/sunapha > > > > Yogain navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha overruling > > > > Kemadruma yoga in rasi chart. If the learned commentator of > > > > dashaadhaayi has interpreted otherwise, > > > > it is an unfortunate mistake. > > > <== > > > > > > If you say so you are committing the same mistake you have asked me > > > not to commit! > > > > > > You words given below: > > > ==> > > > > I think it is better to think whether one's own understanding is > > > > deficient in the matter of whether there are exceptions to drishti > > > > being seen in navamsha and Dwadashamsha charts, instead of assuming > > > > Bhattotpala making a mistake. > > > <== > > > Should I comment the same about your observation of Dasadhyayi? > > > Remember that Dashadhyayi, Chaturasudari etc falls in the uncorrupted > > > Astrology Tradition. Dashadhyayi was written in a period when the > > > Rishi horas such as Skanda Hora, Brihat Prajapatya etc where > > > available. > > > (Those texts were available in Kerala at that period. Those books > > > were available to even to Kaikulangala who lived about 250 years back > > > in Kerala. ChatraSundari is written by the Son of Madhavacharya who > > > wrote Madhaveeya, another valuable astrological classic) > > > Remember that unlike commentaries that usually provide only the > > > meaning of the slokas and the discussion based on the same, > > > Dasadhyayi and Chaturasundari were books to teach astrology to the > > > learners - rather than commentaries. So they layout the principle in > > > clear Sanskrit prose in detail, without ambiguity and scope for > > > doubt. > > > Love, > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40>, " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > Sorry for replying in seperate mails,causing difficulty.Will take > > > > care in future. > > > > > > > > You can very well say it is an unfortunate translation. > > > > Dashadhyayi karaka was humble enough to accept the greatness of > > > > Varahamihira and express his limitations.For me that shows his > > > > humility and greatness.Because Dashadhyayi is extolled beyond par > > > for > > > > quality- for eg Prashna marga. > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi kara falls in line of uncorrupted parampara.Inspite of > > > > all these,he compares his views with other scholars of past,before > > > > arriving at conclusions. > > > > > > > > There are there proofs - > > > > > > > > 1)The very shloka,Ke chit Kendra NavamshaKEshu Vadanthee - is > > > > pointing to navamshaKA rashi. > > > > 2)He quotes views of Shruthakeerthi - ''Chandrakrantha Navamsha > > > RASHE > > > > Dwiteeya rashi gathai sunabhathra ----- vakthubhaye dhurudhura > > > > 3)He quotes Jeeva sharma - Thatha cha jeevasharama - Yad RASHI > > > Samjhe > > > > sheethamshur navamshe janmani sthitha ..Thad dwiteeya sthithairyoga > > > > sunabhakhya......'' > > > > > > > > Then he says '' kechit ....vadanthee'' thyanena cha > > > > vyakhyathoyamartha ithi Vyaktham Bhavathi. > > > > > > > > So he says considering the above two views and the Navamshakeshu > > > > found in original shloka it means it is the RASHIS that forms the > > > > basis. > > > > > > > > Unless you want to say all the three are wrong,i feel the > > > translation > > > > is clear enough.Moreover shri Sanjay Rath too had expressed how > > > > Amshaka is to be understood -as it is very evident from the text. > > > > > > > > Ofcourse you can hold your own views and you may be better > > > > learned.For me there is no doubt. > > > > > > > > For the other 2 shlokas reply has already been sent. > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > oup <oup%40> > <oup%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > I do not think so. The reference is very clear about > > > anapha/sunapha > > > > Yoga > > > > > in navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha overruling > > > > Kemadruma > > > > > yoga in rasi chart. If the learned commentator of dashaadhaayi > > > has > > > > > interpreted otherwise, it is an unfortunate mistake. > > > > > > > > > > I think you must have already received the shloka where > > > reference > > > > to > > > > > only navamsh ruled by Surya or Chandra is considered for health > > > > related > > > > > yogas. It is better if you allow my reply to remain in the mail > > > you > > > > > reply to as it makes it easy for me to reply instead of trying to > > > > find > > > > > the mail that I have sent and reference what you are replying to. > > > > > Take care, > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > ''He as well as the author of Dashaadhyaayi is talking about > > > > Chandra > > > > > > navamsha being considered in the same manner as Chandra rasi for > > > > > > Sunapha/anapha/Durudhara yoga (or rather cancellation of > > > > Kemadruma) as > > > > > > indicated by you.'' > > > > > > > > > > > > It is mentioned that for cancellation either a planet should be > > > in > > > > > > kendra to chandra or in the Navamshaka rashi of chandra.Thus it > > > is > > > > > > very clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly for the other yoga - 2 and 12th from Navamshaka Rashi > > > of > > > > > > Chandra.Dashadhyayi karaka also says - As per > > > Varahamihiracharya > > > > these > > > > > > are views of Jeevasharma and all and Acharya does not fully > > > > support > > > > > > this cancellation etc.At the same time Acharya says,such > > > results > > > > may > > > > > > also come if the said planets are strong. > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------- > > > -- > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2007 Report Share Posted June 14, 2007 Dear Chandrasekhar ji, We don't dispute - Mihira much because the copy of text we have is authentic and there is not much version confict. But we dispute - BPHS and Jaimini (not doubt Parasara and Jaimini were great sages) because of the inconsistency and incompleteness of the books we have; and also because of the existence of a thousand versions - which makes us doubt the authenticity of the slokas. We are forced to doubt how many of these slokas are actually part of BPHS and Jaimini sutra? We are forced to doubt taking every sloka or sutra - Is it of Parasara (or is it of Jaimini) or an interpolated one? Was this sloka (sutra) part of the original work, or is it contradicts the already laid out concepts? Should we depend on it or not? If it is really told by Parasara or Jaimini we can depend on it with a pinch of doubt – But is this sloka/sutra is told by him? This is the actual situation. Of course as you rightly said, we cannot compare the authors of Dashadhayi, or of Bhattolpali with masters like - Mihira, Vasishta, Parashara, or Jaimini. But please do consider and understand the above situation; which causes Brihat Jataka, Dashadhyayi etc to be more authentic that BPHS or Jaimini Sutra. Here the situation is the culprit and not the sages. Scrutiny is of the doubtable (is it authentic?) slokas and sutras and there is not even a pinch of disregard towards the great sages. Please understand this. Love, Sreenadh , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > Dear Sreenadh, > > The reference to Bhattotpala was with reference to Dashaadhyaayi author > and Sitaram Jha with very learned Sanskrit Scholar and a well respected > astrologer of yesteryears. > > As to the comparison of authors you have devised, I do not think they > compare with the likes of Parashara, Jaimini, Varaha Mihira, Narada, > Garga etc. Neither is such comparison fair. So let us not compare the > sages who gave the divine science and the original authors of texts, > with the commentators and translators. > > My personal opinion is that every author and commentator of stature is > good in his own place and championing one over the other is not very > fair, especially if one has not read the others. So barring Bhattotpala, > whose commentary I have read, I can not comment on others. > > Chandrashekhar. > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > We can in no way compare Sitaram Jha and the auther of Dasadhayai. > > Thalakkulattu Bhattatiri is an par excellance personality, similar to > > Balabhadra who wrote Hora Ratna or Bhattolpala. If you want to > > compare, please put - > > * Bhattolpala (Author of Bhattolpali - commentary for Brihat Jataka) > > * Talakkulattu Bhattatiri (Author of Dasadhyayi commentary for Brihat > > Jataka) > > * Vishnu (Author of Chatura Sundari commentary Krishneeya) > > * Achrya Balabhadra (Author of Hora Ratna) > > * Edakkattu Nambootiri (Author of Prasnamarga) > > * Kaikulangara (Author of Hridyapadha commentry for Brihat Jataka) > > - in same category; and not others. They are scholers par excellance > > and please put small names (even though big among smaller names) among > > them. If you read those books you will surely agree with me - I reckon. > > By the way - all the above books except Hridyapadha by Kaikulangara > > is written in Sanskrit and not in Malayalam. > > > > P.S. Chatura Sundari Vyakhya of of Krishneeyam in Sanskrit I can > > provide you as a pdf file, even though some typing mistakes would be > > there since I typed it. > > Love, > > Sreenadh > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > I am surprised at the double standards. If it is alright to question > > the > > > translation of Bhattotpala whom the Dashaadhyayi author extols, as to > > > correctness of Sanskrit and that of Sitaram Jha who was professor > > > emeritus of Kashi Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyaalaya and a learned astrologer > > > who brought to light many rare astrological manuscripts, why should it > > > not be other way round? After all apparently Bhattotpala predates > > > Dashaadhyaayi. And you may mark that I did not say he was wrong I said > > > it is unfortunate. I used those words as I do not have Dashaadhyaayi > > > with me to check whether what is being said is right or not. My > > > understanding is that it was written in Malayalam, which I do not > > > understand, and the words attributed to the author appear to be > > Sanskrit > > > ones. > > > > > > It is not a crime to question a wrong translation but it certainly is > > > odd to criticize only if the commentator is translating in a way that > > > goes against your own pet theories. I do not think even the author of > > > Dashaadhyaayi would claim to be the final authority as a commentator of > > > what ever Varaha Mihira has said in Brihatjataka, knowing full well > > that > > > he has commented on only 10 Adhyaayas of the 28 or so adhyaayas of that > > > text. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > > > You said: > > > > ==> > > > > > The reference is very clear about anapha/sunapha > > > > > Yogain navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha overruling > > > > > Kemadruma yoga in rasi chart. If the learned commentator of > > > > > dashaadhaayi has interpreted otherwise, > > > > > it is an unfortunate mistake. > > > > <== > > > > > > > > If you say so you are committing the same mistake you have asked me > > > > not to commit! > > > > > > > > You words given below: > > > > ==> > > > > > I think it is better to think whether one's own understanding is > > > > > deficient in the matter of whether there are exceptions to drishti > > > > > being seen in navamsha and Dwadashamsha charts, instead of assuming > > > > > Bhattotpala making a mistake. > > > > <== > > > > Should I comment the same about your observation of Dasadhyayi? > > > > Remember that Dashadhyayi, Chaturasudari etc falls in the uncorrupted > > > > Astrology Tradition. Dashadhyayi was written in a period when the > > > > Rishi horas such as Skanda Hora, Brihat Prajapatya etc where > > > > available. > > > > (Those texts were available in Kerala at that period. Those books > > > > were available to even to Kaikulangala who lived about 250 years back > > > > in Kerala. ChatraSundari is written by the Son of Madhavacharya who > > > > wrote Madhaveeya, another valuable astrological classic) > > > > Remember that unlike commentaries that usually provide only the > > > > meaning of the slokas and the discussion based on the same, > > > > Dasadhyayi and Chaturasundari were books to teach astrology to the > > > > learners - rather than commentaries. So they layout the principle in > > > > clear Sanskrit prose in detail, without ambiguity and scope for > > > > doubt. > > > > Love, > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > <%40>, " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for replying in seperate mails,causing difficulty.Will take > > > > > care in future. > > > > > > > > > > You can very well say it is an unfortunate translation. > > > > > Dashadhyayi karaka was humble enough to accept the greatness of > > > > > Varahamihira and express his limitations.For me that shows his > > > > > humility and greatness.Because Dashadhyayi is extolled beyond par > > > > for > > > > > quality- for eg Prashna marga. > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi kara falls in line of uncorrupted parampara.Inspite of > > > > > all these,he compares his views with other scholars of past,before > > > > > arriving at conclusions. > > > > > > > > > > There are there proofs - > > > > > > > > > > 1)The very shloka,Ke chit Kendra NavamshaKEshu Vadanthee - is > > > > > pointing to navamshaKA rashi. > > > > > 2)He quotes views of Shruthakeerthi - ''Chandrakrantha Navamsha > > > > RASHE > > > > > Dwiteeya rashi gathai sunabhathra ----- vakthubhaye dhurudhura > > > > > 3)He quotes Jeeva sharma - Thatha cha jeevasharama - Yad RASHI > > > > Samjhe > > > > > sheethamshur navamshe janmani sthitha ..Thad dwiteeya sthithairyoga > > > > > sunabhakhya......'' > > > > > > > > > > Then he says '' kechit ....vadanthee'' thyanena cha > > > > > vyakhyathoyamartha ithi Vyaktham Bhavathi. > > > > > > > > > > So he says considering the above two views and the Navamshakeshu > > > > > found in original shloka it means it is the RASHIS that forms the > > > > > basis. > > > > > > > > > > Unless you want to say all the three are wrong,i feel the > > > > translation > > > > > is clear enough.Moreover shri Sanjay Rath too had expressed how > > > > > Amshaka is to be understood -as it is very evident from the text. > > > > > > > > > > Ofcourse you can hold your own views and you may be better > > > > > learned.For me there is no doubt. > > > > > > > > > > For the other 2 shlokas reply has already been sent. > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > oup <oup%40> > > <oup%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not think so. The reference is very clear about > > > > anapha/sunapha > > > > > Yoga > > > > > > in navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha overruling > > > > > Kemadruma > > > > > > yoga in rasi chart. If the learned commentator of dashaadhaayi > > > > has > > > > > > interpreted otherwise, it is an unfortunate mistake. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you must have already received the shloka where > > > > reference > > > > > to > > > > > > only navamsh ruled by Surya or Chandra is considered for health > > > > > related > > > > > > yogas. It is better if you allow my reply to remain in the mail > > > > you > > > > > > reply to as it makes it easy for me to reply instead of trying to > > > > > find > > > > > > the mail that I have sent and reference what you are replying to. > > > > > > Take care, > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ''He as well as the author of Dashaadhyaayi is talking about > > > > > Chandra > > > > > > > navamsha being considered in the same manner as Chandra rasi for > > > > > > > Sunapha/anapha/Durudhara yoga (or rather cancellation of > > > > > Kemadruma) as > > > > > > > indicated by you.'' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is mentioned that for cancellation either a planet should be > > > > in > > > > > > > kendra to chandra or in the Navamshaka rashi of chandra.Thus it > > > > is > > > > > > > very clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly for the other yoga - 2 and 12th from Navamshaka Rashi > > > > of > > > > > > > Chandra.Dashadhyayi karaka also says - As per > > > > Varahamihiracharya > > > > > these > > > > > > > are views of Jeevasharma and all and Acharya does not fully > > > > > support > > > > > > > this cancellation etc.At the same time Acharya says,such > > > > results > > > > > may > > > > > > > also come if the said planets are strong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------- -- > > > > -- > > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2007 Report Share Posted June 14, 2007 Dear Sreenadh, But as with Varaha Mihira, manuscripts of Parashari Hora shastra and Jaimini sutras were found and then there are other classics like Jataka Paarijata, Phala Deepika, Sarvartha Chintamani, Chamatkar Chintamani, Laghu Parashari-Ududaaya Pradeep, Mayur Chitrak, Jatakaalankar, Jyotish phalaratnamala and many others that pass the same test as Brihat jataka. There is Bhadrabahu Samhita, Ravana samhita and so on. The list is limitless. Most of them are original writers of the texts and not commentators. So there are many original authors whose works are available in uncorrupted forms. Chandrashekhar. Sreenadh wrote: > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji, > We don't dispute - Mihira much because the copy of text we have is > authentic and there is not much version confict. > But we dispute - BPHS and Jaimini (not doubt Parasara and Jaimini > were great sages) because of the inconsistency and incompleteness of > the books we have; and also because of the existence of a thousand > versions - which makes us doubt the authenticity of the slokas. We > are forced to doubt how many of these slokas are actually part of > BPHS and Jaimini sutra? We are forced to doubt taking every sloka or > sutra - Is it of Parasara (or is it of Jaimini) or an interpolated > one? Was this sloka (sutra) part of the original work, or is it > contradicts the already laid out concepts? Should we depend on it or > not? If it is really told by Parasara or Jaimini we can depend on it > with a pinch of doubt -- But is this sloka/sutra is told by him? This > is the actual situation. > Of course as you rightly said, we cannot compare the authors of > Dashadhayi, or of Bhattolpali with masters like - Mihira, Vasishta, > Parashara, or Jaimini. But please do consider and understand the > above situation; which causes Brihat Jataka, Dashadhyayi etc to be > more authentic that BPHS or Jaimini Sutra. Here the situation is the > culprit and not the sages. Scrutiny is of the doubtable (is it > authentic?) slokas and sutras and there is not even a pinch of > disregard towards the great sages. Please understand this. > Love, > Sreenadh > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > The reference to Bhattotpala was with reference to Dashaadhyaayi > author > > and Sitaram Jha with very learned Sanskrit Scholar and a well > respected > > astrologer of yesteryears. > > > > As to the comparison of authors you have devised, I do not think > they > > compare with the likes of Parashara, Jaimini, Varaha Mihira, > Narada, > > Garga etc. Neither is such comparison fair. So let us not compare > the > > sages who gave the divine science and the original authors of > texts, > > with the commentators and translators. > > > > My personal opinion is that every author and commentator of stature > is > > good in his own place and championing one over the other is not > very > > fair, especially if one has not read the others. So barring > Bhattotpala, > > whose commentary I have read, I can not comment on others. > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > > We can in no way compare Sitaram Jha and the auther of Dasadhayai. > > > Thalakkulattu Bhattatiri is an par excellance personality, > similar to > > > Balabhadra who wrote Hora Ratna or Bhattolpala. If you want to > > > compare, please put - > > > * Bhattolpala (Author of Bhattolpali - commentary for Brihat > Jataka) > > > * Talakkulattu Bhattatiri (Author of Dasadhyayi commentary for > Brihat > > > Jataka) > > > * Vishnu (Author of Chatura Sundari commentary Krishneeya) > > > * Achrya Balabhadra (Author of Hora Ratna) > > > * Edakkattu Nambootiri (Author of Prasnamarga) > > > * Kaikulangara (Author of Hridyapadha commentry for Brihat Jataka) > > > - in same category; and not others. They are scholers par > excellance > > > and please put small names (even though big among smaller names) > among > > > them. If you read those books you will surely agree with me - I > reckon. > > > By the way - all the above books except Hridyapadha by > Kaikulangara > > > is written in Sanskrit and not in Malayalam. > > > > > > P.S. Chatura Sundari Vyakhya of of Krishneeyam in Sanskrit I can > > > provide you as a pdf file, even though some typing mistakes would > be > > > there since I typed it. > > > Love, > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > > > I am surprised at the double standards. If it is alright to > question > > > the > > > > translation of Bhattotpala whom the Dashaadhyayi author extols, > as to > > > > correctness of Sanskrit and that of Sitaram Jha who was > professor > > > > emeritus of Kashi Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyaalaya and a learned > astrologer > > > > who brought to light many rare astrological manuscripts, why > should it > > > > not be other way round? After all apparently Bhattotpala > predates > > > > Dashaadhyaayi. And you may mark that I did not say he was wrong > I said > > > > it is unfortunate. I used those words as I do not have > Dashaadhyaayi > > > > with me to check whether what is being said is right or not. My > > > > understanding is that it was written in Malayalam, which I do > not > > > > understand, and the words attributed to the author appear to be > > > Sanskrit > > > > ones. > > > > > > > > It is not a crime to question a wrong translation but it > certainly is > > > > odd to criticize only if the commentator is translating in a > way that > > > > goes against your own pet theories. I do not think even the > author of > > > > Dashaadhyaayi would claim to be the final authority as a > commentator of > > > > what ever Varaha Mihira has said in Brihatjataka, knowing full > well > > > that > > > > he has commented on only 10 Adhyaayas of the 28 or so adhyaayas > of that > > > > text. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > > > > You said: > > > > > ==> > > > > > > The reference is very clear about anapha/sunapha > > > > > > Yogain navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha > overruling > > > > > > Kemadruma yoga in rasi chart. If the learned commentator of > > > > > > dashaadhaayi has interpreted otherwise, > > > > > > it is an unfortunate mistake. > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > If you say so you are committing the same mistake you have > asked me > > > > > not to commit! > > > > > > > > > > You words given below: > > > > > ==> > > > > > > I think it is better to think whether one's own > understanding is > > > > > > deficient in the matter of whether there are exceptions to > drishti > > > > > > being seen in navamsha and Dwadashamsha charts, instead of > assuming > > > > > > Bhattotpala making a mistake. > > > > > <== > > > > > Should I comment the same about your observation of > Dasadhyayi? > > > > > Remember that Dashadhyayi, Chaturasudari etc falls in the > uncorrupted > > > > > Astrology Tradition. Dashadhyayi was written in a period when > the > > > > > Rishi horas such as Skanda Hora, Brihat Prajapatya etc where > > > > > available. > > > > > (Those texts were available in Kerala at that period. Those > books > > > > > were available to even to Kaikulangala who lived about 250 > years back > > > > > in Kerala. ChatraSundari is written by the Son of > Madhavacharya who > > > > > wrote Madhaveeya, another valuable astrological classic) > > > > > Remember that unlike commentaries that usually provide only > the > > > > > meaning of the slokas and the discussion based on the same, > > > > > Dasadhyayi and Chaturasundari were books to teach astrology > to the > > > > > learners - rather than commentaries. So they layout the > principle in > > > > > clear Sanskrit prose in detail, without ambiguity and scope > for > > > > > doubt. > > > > > Love, > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40> > > > > > <%40>, " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for replying in seperate mails,causing > difficulty.Will take > > > > > > care in future. > > > > > > > > > > > > You can very well say it is an unfortunate translation. > > > > > > Dashadhyayi karaka was humble enough to accept the > greatness of > > > > > > Varahamihira and express his limitations.For me that shows > his > > > > > > humility and greatness.Because Dashadhyayi is extolled > beyond par > > > > > for > > > > > > quality- for eg Prashna marga. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi kara falls in line of uncorrupted > parampara.Inspite of > > > > > > all these,he compares his views with other scholars of > past,before > > > > > > arriving at conclusions. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are there proofs - > > > > > > > > > > > > 1)The very shloka,Ke chit Kendra NavamshaKEshu Vadanthee - > is > > > > > > pointing to navamshaKA rashi. > > > > > > 2)He quotes views of Shruthakeerthi - ''Chandrakrantha > Navamsha > > > > > RASHE > > > > > > Dwiteeya rashi gathai sunabhathra ----- vakthubhaye > dhurudhura > > > > > > 3)He quotes Jeeva sharma - Thatha cha jeevasharama - Yad > RASHI > > > > > Samjhe > > > > > > sheethamshur navamshe janmani sthitha ..Thad dwiteeya > sthithairyoga > > > > > > sunabhakhya......'' > > > > > > > > > > > > Then he says '' kechit ....vadanthee'' thyanena cha > > > > > > vyakhyathoyamartha ithi Vyaktham Bhavathi. > > > > > > > > > > > > So he says considering the above two views and the > Navamshakeshu > > > > > > found in original shloka it means it is the RASHIS that > forms the > > > > > > basis. > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless you want to say all the three are wrong,i feel the > > > > > translation > > > > > > is clear enough.Moreover shri Sanjay Rath too had expressed > how > > > > > > Amshaka is to be understood -as it is very evident from the > text. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ofcourse you can hold your own views and you may be better > > > > > > learned.For me there is no doubt. > > > > > > > > > > > > For the other 2 shlokas reply has already been sent. > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > oup <oup%40> > <oup%40> > > > <oup%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not think so. The reference is very clear about > > > > > anapha/sunapha > > > > > > Yoga > > > > > > > in navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha overruling > > > > > > Kemadruma > > > > > > > yoga in rasi chart. If the learned commentator of > dashaadhaayi > > > > > has > > > > > > > interpreted otherwise, it is an unfortunate mistake. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you must have already received the shloka where > > > > > reference > > > > > > to > > > > > > > only navamsh ruled by Surya or Chandra is considered for > health > > > > > > related > > > > > > > yogas. It is better if you allow my reply to remain in > the mail > > > > > you > > > > > > > reply to as it makes it easy for me to reply instead of > trying to > > > > > > find > > > > > > > the mail that I have sent and reference what you are > replying to. > > > > > > > Take care, > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ''He as well as the author of Dashaadhyaayi is talking > about > > > > > > Chandra > > > > > > > > navamsha being considered in the same manner as Chandra > rasi for > > > > > > > > Sunapha/anapha/Durudhara yoga (or rather cancellation of > > > > > > Kemadruma) as > > > > > > > > indicated by you.'' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is mentioned that for cancellation either a planet > should be > > > > > in > > > > > > > > kendra to chandra or in the Navamshaka rashi of > chandra.Thus it > > > > > is > > > > > > > > very clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly for the other yoga - 2 and 12th from > Navamshaka Rashi > > > > > of > > > > > > > > Chandra.Dashadhyayi karaka also says - As per > > > > > Varahamihiracharya > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > are views of Jeevasharma and all and Acharya does not > fully > > > > > > support > > > > > > > > this cancellation etc.At the same time Acharya says,such > > > > > results > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > also come if the said planets are strong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------- > -- > > > > > -- > > > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - > Release Date: > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2007 Report Share Posted June 15, 2007 Dear Chandrashekhar ji, ==> > But as with Varaha Mihira, manuscripts of Parashari Hora shastra > and Jaimini sutras were found <== There is no need I should tell you difference between the availability and authenticity of those manuscripts - since you are well aware of the varied versions. ==> > there are other classics like Jataka Paarijata, Phala Deepika, > Sarvartha Chintamani, Chamatkar Chintamani, Laghu Parashari- > Ududaaya Pradeep, Mayur Chitrak, Jatakaalankar, Jyotish > phalaratnamala and many others <== I don't think I am necessory to intiate you on the difference between Rishi horas (By Skanda, Vasishtra, Kousika, Garga, Sounaka, Sukracharya etc) and the medivial texts. ==> > many others that pass the same test as Brihat jataka. > There is Bhadrabahu Samhita, Ravana samhita and so on <== Yes, but the only thing is that the passing texts are not yet in print. Why you forgot to add the other Samhitas, like Lomasa Samhita, Samasa Samhita etc? Thanks - At least these texts are Rishi told and not of the medivial category. :=) ==> > Most of them are original writers of the texts and not > commentators. So there are many original authors whose works are > available in uncorrupted forms. <== Please don't comment on things in which you can not be authentic - and make a fun of it. " uncorrupted forms " - how can you say that? Are you present there when they wrote it? Please limit the statement to the level up to which we can be sincere. Why can't you see the simple fact that - it was the unavailability of Rishi Horas that made the North Indian pundits to come up with made-up/modified texts based on some ancient fragmented versions of BPHS? Even if they were authentic enough in milking the essentials, texts like HoraSara and Muhurta Chintamani must have got more weightage; and authentic commentaries (like that of Bhattolpala) must have came up. But look at the history - the path was lost for many centuries; and even now after availing many ancient classics in print; stumbling after the D-charts!! It pathetic - and disrespectful towards the Rishi's who created this system. With all respect, dear Chandrasekhar ji, I don't find any usefulness in continuing this discussion with you. It seems to be totally useless. Thanks, Sreenadh , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > Dear Sreenadh, > > But as with Varaha Mihira, manuscripts of Parashari Hora shastra and > Jaimini sutras were found and then there are other classics like Jataka > Paarijata, Phala Deepika, Sarvartha Chintamani, Chamatkar Chintamani, > Laghu Parashari-Ududaaya Pradeep, Mayur Chitrak, Jatakaalankar, Jyotish > phalaratnamala and many others that pass the same test as Brihat jataka. > There is Bhadrabahu Samhita, Ravana samhita and so on. The list is > limitless. Most of them are original writers of the texts and not > commentators. So there are many original authors whose works are > available in uncorrupted forms. > > Chandrashekhar. > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji, > > We don't dispute - Mihira much because the copy of text we have is > > authentic and there is not much version confict. > > But we dispute - BPHS and Jaimini (not doubt Parasara and Jaimini > > were great sages) because of the inconsistency and incompleteness of > > the books we have; and also because of the existence of a thousand > > versions - which makes us doubt the authenticity of the slokas. We > > are forced to doubt how many of these slokas are actually part of > > BPHS and Jaimini sutra? We are forced to doubt taking every sloka or > > sutra - Is it of Parasara (or is it of Jaimini) or an interpolated > > one? Was this sloka (sutra) part of the original work, or is it > > contradicts the already laid out concepts? Should we depend on it or > > not? If it is really told by Parasara or Jaimini we can depend on it > > with a pinch of doubt -- But is this sloka/sutra is told by him? This > > is the actual situation. > > Of course as you rightly said, we cannot compare the authors of > > Dashadhayi, or of Bhattolpali with masters like - Mihira, Vasishta, > > Parashara, or Jaimini. But please do consider and understand the > > above situation; which causes Brihat Jataka, Dashadhyayi etc to be > > more authentic that BPHS or Jaimini Sutra. Here the situation is the > > culprit and not the sages. Scrutiny is of the doubtable (is it > > authentic?) slokas and sutras and there is not even a pinch of > > disregard towards the great sages. Please understand this. > > Love, > > Sreenadh > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > The reference to Bhattotpala was with reference to Dashaadhyaayi > > author > > > and Sitaram Jha with very learned Sanskrit Scholar and a well > > respected > > > astrologer of yesteryears. > > > > > > As to the comparison of authors you have devised, I do not think > > they > > > compare with the likes of Parashara, Jaimini, Varaha Mihira, > > Narada, > > > Garga etc. Neither is such comparison fair. So let us not compare > > the > > > sages who gave the divine science and the original authors of > > texts, > > > with the commentators and translators. > > > > > > My personal opinion is that every author and commentator of stature > > is > > > good in his own place and championing one over the other is not > > very > > > fair, especially if one has not read the others. So barring > > Bhattotpala, > > > whose commentary I have read, I can not comment on others. > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > > > We can in no way compare Sitaram Jha and the auther of Dasadhayai. > > > > Thalakkulattu Bhattatiri is an par excellance personality, > > similar to > > > > Balabhadra who wrote Hora Ratna or Bhattolpala. If you want to > > > > compare, please put - > > > > * Bhattolpala (Author of Bhattolpali - commentary for Brihat > > Jataka) > > > > * Talakkulattu Bhattatiri (Author of Dasadhyayi commentary for > > Brihat > > > > Jataka) > > > > * Vishnu (Author of Chatura Sundari commentary Krishneeya) > > > > * Achrya Balabhadra (Author of Hora Ratna) > > > > * Edakkattu Nambootiri (Author of Prasnamarga) > > > > * Kaikulangara (Author of Hridyapadha commentry for Brihat Jataka) > > > > - in same category; and not others. They are scholers par > > excellance > > > > and please put small names (even though big among smaller names) > > among > > > > them. If you read those books you will surely agree with me - I > > reckon. > > > > By the way - all the above books except Hridyapadha by > > Kaikulangara > > > > is written in Sanskrit and not in Malayalam. > > > > > > > > P.S. Chatura Sundari Vyakhya of of Krishneeyam in Sanskrit I can > > > > provide you as a pdf file, even though some typing mistakes would > > be > > > > there since I typed it. > > > > Love, > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised at the double standards. If it is alright to > > question > > > > the > > > > > translation of Bhattotpala whom the Dashaadhyayi author extols, > > as to > > > > > correctness of Sanskrit and that of Sitaram Jha who was > > professor > > > > > emeritus of Kashi Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyaalaya and a learned > > astrologer > > > > > who brought to light many rare astrological manuscripts, why > > should it > > > > > not be other way round? After all apparently Bhattotpala > > predates > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi. And you may mark that I did not say he was wrong > > I said > > > > > it is unfortunate. I used those words as I do not have > > Dashaadhyaayi > > > > > with me to check whether what is being said is right or not. My > > > > > understanding is that it was written in Malayalam, which I do > > not > > > > > understand, and the words attributed to the author appear to be > > > > Sanskrit > > > > > ones. > > > > > > > > > > It is not a crime to question a wrong translation but it > > certainly is > > > > > odd to criticize only if the commentator is translating in a > > way that > > > > > goes against your own pet theories. I do not think even the > > author of > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi would claim to be the final authority as a > > commentator of > > > > > what ever Varaha Mihira has said in Brihatjataka, knowing full > > well > > > > that > > > > > he has commented on only 10 Adhyaayas of the 28 or so adhyaayas > > of that > > > > > text. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > The reference is very clear about anapha/sunapha > > > > > > > Yogain navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha > > overruling > > > > > > > Kemadruma yoga in rasi chart. If the learned commentator of > > > > > > > dashaadhaayi has interpreted otherwise, > > > > > > > it is an unfortunate mistake. > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > If you say so you are committing the same mistake you have > > asked me > > > > > > not to commit! > > > > > > > > > > > > You words given below: > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > I think it is better to think whether one's own > > understanding is > > > > > > > deficient in the matter of whether there are exceptions to > > drishti > > > > > > > being seen in navamsha and Dwadashamsha charts, instead of > > assuming > > > > > > > Bhattotpala making a mistake. > > > > > > <== > > > > > > Should I comment the same about your observation of > > Dasadhyayi? > > > > > > Remember that Dashadhyayi, Chaturasudari etc falls in the > > uncorrupted > > > > > > Astrology Tradition. Dashadhyayi was written in a period when > > the > > > > > > Rishi horas such as Skanda Hora, Brihat Prajapatya etc where > > > > > > available. > > > > > > (Those texts were available in Kerala at that period. Those > > books > > > > > > were available to even to Kaikulangala who lived about 250 > > years back > > > > > > in Kerala. ChatraSundari is written by the Son of > > Madhavacharya who > > > > > > wrote Madhaveeya, another valuable astrological classic) > > > > > > Remember that unlike commentaries that usually provide only > > the > > > > > > meaning of the slokas and the discussion based on the same, > > > > > > Dasadhyayi and Chaturasundari were books to teach astrology > > to the > > > > > > learners - rather than commentaries. So they layout the > > principle in > > > > > > clear Sanskrit prose in detail, without ambiguity and scope > > for > > > > > > doubt. > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > <%40> > > > > > > <% 40>, " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for replying in seperate mails,causing > > difficulty.Will take > > > > > > > care in future. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can very well say it is an unfortunate translation. > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi karaka was humble enough to accept the > > greatness of > > > > > > > Varahamihira and express his limitations.For me that shows > > his > > > > > > > humility and greatness.Because Dashadhyayi is extolled > > beyond par > > > > > > for > > > > > > > quality- for eg Prashna marga. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi kara falls in line of uncorrupted > > parampara.Inspite of > > > > > > > all these,he compares his views with other scholars of > > past,before > > > > > > > arriving at conclusions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are there proofs - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1)The very shloka,Ke chit Kendra NavamshaKEshu Vadanthee - > > is > > > > > > > pointing to navamshaKA rashi. > > > > > > > 2)He quotes views of Shruthakeerthi - ''Chandrakrantha > > Navamsha > > > > > > RASHE > > > > > > > Dwiteeya rashi gathai sunabhathra ----- vakthubhaye > > dhurudhura > > > > > > > 3)He quotes Jeeva sharma - Thatha cha jeevasharama - Yad > > RASHI > > > > > > Samjhe > > > > > > > sheethamshur navamshe janmani sthitha ..Thad dwiteeya > > sthithairyoga > > > > > > > sunabhakhya......'' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then he says '' kechit ....vadanthee'' thyanena cha > > > > > > > vyakhyathoyamartha ithi Vyaktham Bhavathi. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So he says considering the above two views and the > > Navamshakeshu > > > > > > > found in original shloka it means it is the RASHIS that > > forms the > > > > > > > basis. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless you want to say all the three are wrong,i feel the > > > > > > translation > > > > > > > is clear enough.Moreover shri Sanjay Rath too had expressed > > how > > > > > > > Amshaka is to be understood -as it is very evident from the > > text. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ofcourse you can hold your own views and you may be better > > > > > > > learned.For me there is no doubt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the other 2 shlokas reply has already been sent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oup <oup%40> > > <oup%40> > > > > <oup%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not think so. The reference is very clear about > > > > > > anapha/sunapha > > > > > > > Yoga > > > > > > > > in navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha overruling > > > > > > > Kemadruma > > > > > > > > yoga in rasi chart. If the learned commentator of > > dashaadhaayi > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > interpreted otherwise, it is an unfortunate mistake. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you must have already received the shloka where > > > > > > reference > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > only navamsh ruled by Surya or Chandra is considered for > > health > > > > > > > related > > > > > > > > yogas. It is better if you allow my reply to remain in > > the mail > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > reply to as it makes it easy for me to reply instead of > > trying to > > > > > > > find > > > > > > > > the mail that I have sent and reference what you are > > replying to. > > > > > > > > Take care, > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ''He as well as the author of Dashaadhyaayi is talking > > about > > > > > > > Chandra > > > > > > > > > navamsha being considered in the same manner as Chandra > > rasi for > > > > > > > > > Sunapha/anapha/Durudhara yoga (or rather cancellation of > > > > > > > Kemadruma) as > > > > > > > > > indicated by you.'' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is mentioned that for cancellation either a planet > > should be > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > kendra to chandra or in the Navamshaka rashi of > > chandra.Thus it > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > very clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly for the other yoga - 2 and 12th from > > Navamshaka Rashi > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > Chandra.Dashadhyayi karaka also says - As per > > > > > > Varahamihiracharya > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > are views of Jeevasharma and all and Acharya does not > > fully > > > > > > > support > > > > > > > > > this cancellation etc.At the same time Acharya says,such > > > > > > results > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > also come if the said planets are strong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------- ---- > > -- > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - > > Release Date: > > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2007 Report Share Posted June 15, 2007 Dear Sreenadh, Since you think none of the later day texts were available in uncorrupted form, how do you know that Brihat Jataka and Dashaadhyaayi texts that are available today are in uncorrupted form? Or many other texts that you mention as the only standards worth understanding? How do you authenticate the umpteen horas that you have quoted in support of your arguments. If they were not in manuscript form then how do know their antiquity and if they were in manuscript by your own logic they must necessarily be corrupted. If one has to apply your logic then nothing that is not printed in modern times, and for which copyright is available, should be used to study Vedic astrology. I for one can not agree with your logic. Chandrashekhar. Sreenadh wrote: > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > ==> > > But as with Varaha Mihira, manuscripts of Parashari Hora shastra > > and Jaimini sutras were found > <== > There is no need I should tell you difference between the > availability and authenticity of those manuscripts - since you are > well aware of the varied versions. > > ==> > > there are other classics like Jataka Paarijata, Phala Deepika, > > Sarvartha Chintamani, Chamatkar Chintamani, Laghu Parashari- > > Ududaaya Pradeep, Mayur Chitrak, Jatakaalankar, Jyotish > > phalaratnamala and many others > <== > I don't think I am necessory to intiate you on the difference > between Rishi horas (By Skanda, Vasishtra, Kousika, Garga, Sounaka, > Sukracharya etc) and the medivial texts. > > ==> > > many others that pass the same test as Brihat jataka. > > There is Bhadrabahu Samhita, Ravana samhita and so on > <== > Yes, but the only thing is that the passing texts are not yet in > print. Why you forgot to add the other Samhitas, like Lomasa > Samhita, Samasa Samhita etc? Thanks - At least these texts are Rishi > told and not of the medivial category. :=) > ==> > > Most of them are original writers of the texts and not > > commentators. So there are many original authors whose works are > > available in uncorrupted forms. > <== > Please don't comment on things in which you can not be authentic - > and make a fun of it. " uncorrupted forms " - how can you say that? Are > you present there when they wrote it? Please limit the statement to > the level up to which we can be sincere. > Why can't you see the simple fact that - it was the unavailability > of Rishi Horas that made the North Indian pundits to come up with > made-up/modified texts based on some ancient fragmented versions of > BPHS? Even if they were authentic enough in milking the essentials, > texts like HoraSara and Muhurta Chintamani must have got more > weightage; and authentic commentaries (like that of Bhattolpala) must > have came up. But look at the history - the path was lost for many > centuries; and even now after availing many ancient classics in > print; stumbling after the D-charts!! It pathetic - and disrespectful > towards the Rishi's who created this system. > > With all respect, dear Chandrasekhar ji, I don't find any usefulness > in continuing this discussion with you. It seems to be totally > useless. > > Thanks, > Sreenadh > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > But as with Varaha Mihira, manuscripts of Parashari Hora shastra > and > > Jaimini sutras were found and then there are other classics like > Jataka > > Paarijata, Phala Deepika, Sarvartha Chintamani, Chamatkar > Chintamani, > > Laghu Parashari-Ududaaya Pradeep, Mayur Chitrak, Jatakaalankar, > Jyotish > > phalaratnamala and many others that pass the same test as Brihat > jataka. > > There is Bhadrabahu Samhita, Ravana samhita and so on. The list is > > limitless. Most of them are original writers of the texts and not > > commentators. So there are many original authors whose works are > > available in uncorrupted forms. > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji, > > > We don't dispute - Mihira much because the copy of text we have is > > > authentic and there is not much version confict. > > > But we dispute - BPHS and Jaimini (not doubt Parasara and Jaimini > > > were great sages) because of the inconsistency and incompleteness > of > > > the books we have; and also because of the existence of a thousand > > > versions - which makes us doubt the authenticity of the slokas. We > > > are forced to doubt how many of these slokas are actually part of > > > BPHS and Jaimini sutra? We are forced to doubt taking every sloka > or > > > sutra - Is it of Parasara (or is it of Jaimini) or an interpolated > > > one? Was this sloka (sutra) part of the original work, or is it > > > contradicts the already laid out concepts? Should we depend on it > or > > > not? If it is really told by Parasara or Jaimini we can depend on > it > > > with a pinch of doubt -- But is this sloka/sutra is told by him? > This > > > is the actual situation. > > > Of course as you rightly said, we cannot compare the authors of > > > Dashadhayi, or of Bhattolpali with masters like - Mihira, > Vasishta, > > > Parashara, or Jaimini. But please do consider and understand the > > > above situation; which causes Brihat Jataka, Dashadhyayi etc to be > > > more authentic that BPHS or Jaimini Sutra. Here the situation is > the > > > culprit and not the sages. Scrutiny is of the doubtable (is it > > > authentic?) slokas and sutras and there is not even a pinch of > > > disregard towards the great sages. Please understand this. > > > Love, > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > > > The reference to Bhattotpala was with reference to Dashaadhyaayi > > > author > > > > and Sitaram Jha with very learned Sanskrit Scholar and a well > > > respected > > > > astrologer of yesteryears. > > > > > > > > As to the comparison of authors you have devised, I do not think > > > they > > > > compare with the likes of Parashara, Jaimini, Varaha Mihira, > > > Narada, > > > > Garga etc. Neither is such comparison fair. So let us not > compare > > > the > > > > sages who gave the divine science and the original authors of > > > texts, > > > > with the commentators and translators. > > > > > > > > My personal opinion is that every author and commentator of > stature > > > is > > > > good in his own place and championing one over the other is not > > > very > > > > fair, especially if one has not read the others. So barring > > > Bhattotpala, > > > > whose commentary I have read, I can not comment on others. > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > > > > We can in no way compare Sitaram Jha and the auther of > Dasadhayai. > > > > > Thalakkulattu Bhattatiri is an par excellance personality, > > > similar to > > > > > Balabhadra who wrote Hora Ratna or Bhattolpala. If you want to > > > > > compare, please put - > > > > > * Bhattolpala (Author of Bhattolpali - commentary for Brihat > > > Jataka) > > > > > * Talakkulattu Bhattatiri (Author of Dasadhyayi commentary for > > > Brihat > > > > > Jataka) > > > > > * Vishnu (Author of Chatura Sundari commentary Krishneeya) > > > > > * Achrya Balabhadra (Author of Hora Ratna) > > > > > * Edakkattu Nambootiri (Author of Prasnamarga) > > > > > * Kaikulangara (Author of Hridyapadha commentry for Brihat > Jataka) > > > > > - in same category; and not others. They are scholers par > > > excellance > > > > > and please put small names (even though big among smaller > names) > > > among > > > > > them. If you read those books you will surely agree with me - > I > > > reckon. > > > > > By the way - all the above books except Hridyapadha by > > > Kaikulangara > > > > > is written in Sanskrit and not in Malayalam. > > > > > > > > > > P.S. Chatura Sundari Vyakhya of of Krishneeyam in Sanskrit I > can > > > > > provide you as a pdf file, even though some typing mistakes > would > > > be > > > > > there since I typed it. > > > > > Love, > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised at the double standards. If it is alright to > > > question > > > > > the > > > > > > translation of Bhattotpala whom the Dashaadhyayi author > extols, > > > as to > > > > > > correctness of Sanskrit and that of Sitaram Jha who was > > > professor > > > > > > emeritus of Kashi Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyaalaya and a learned > > > astrologer > > > > > > who brought to light many rare astrological manuscripts, why > > > should it > > > > > > not be other way round? After all apparently Bhattotpala > > > predates > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi. And you may mark that I did not say he was > wrong > > > I said > > > > > > it is unfortunate. I used those words as I do not have > > > Dashaadhyaayi > > > > > > with me to check whether what is being said is right or > not. My > > > > > > understanding is that it was written in Malayalam, which I > do > > > not > > > > > > understand, and the words attributed to the author appear > to be > > > > > Sanskrit > > > > > > ones. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not a crime to question a wrong translation but it > > > certainly is > > > > > > odd to criticize only if the commentator is translating in a > > > way that > > > > > > goes against your own pet theories. I do not think even the > > > author of > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi would claim to be the final authority as a > > > commentator of > > > > > > what ever Varaha Mihira has said in Brihatjataka, knowing > full > > > well > > > > > that > > > > > > he has commented on only 10 Adhyaayas of the 28 or so > adhyaayas > > > of that > > > > > > text. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > The reference is very clear about anapha/sunapha > > > > > > > > Yogain navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha > > > overruling > > > > > > > > Kemadruma yoga in rasi chart. If the learned > commentator of > > > > > > > > dashaadhaayi has interpreted otherwise, > > > > > > > > it is an unfortunate mistake. > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you say so you are committing the same mistake you have > > > asked me > > > > > > > not to commit! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You words given below: > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > I think it is better to think whether one's own > > > understanding is > > > > > > > > deficient in the matter of whether there are exceptions > to > > > drishti > > > > > > > > being seen in navamsha and Dwadashamsha charts, instead > of > > > assuming > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala making a mistake. > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > Should I comment the same about your observation of > > > Dasadhyayi? > > > > > > > Remember that Dashadhyayi, Chaturasudari etc falls in the > > > uncorrupted > > > > > > > Astrology Tradition. Dashadhyayi was written in a period > when > > > the > > > > > > > Rishi horas such as Skanda Hora, Brihat Prajapatya etc > where > > > > > > > available. > > > > > > > (Those texts were available in Kerala at that period. > Those > > > books > > > > > > > were available to even to Kaikulangala who lived about 250 > > > years back > > > > > > > in Kerala. ChatraSundari is written by the Son of > > > Madhavacharya who > > > > > > > wrote Madhaveeya, another valuable astrological classic) > > > > > > > Remember that unlike commentaries that usually provide > only > > > the > > > > > > > meaning of the slokas and the discussion based on the > same, > > > > > > > Dasadhyayi and Chaturasundari were books to teach > astrology > > > to the > > > > > > > learners - rather than commentaries. So they layout the > > > principle in > > > > > > > clear Sanskrit prose in detail, without ambiguity and > scope > > > for > > > > > > > doubt. > > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40> > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > <% > 40>, " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for replying in seperate mails,causing > > > difficulty.Will take > > > > > > > > care in future. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can very well say it is an unfortunate translation. > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi karaka was humble enough to accept the > > > greatness of > > > > > > > > Varahamihira and express his limitations.For me that > shows > > > his > > > > > > > > humility and greatness.Because Dashadhyayi is extolled > > > beyond par > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > quality- for eg Prashna marga. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi kara falls in line of uncorrupted > > > parampara.Inspite of > > > > > > > > all these,he compares his views with other scholars of > > > past,before > > > > > > > > arriving at conclusions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are there proofs - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1)The very shloka,Ke chit Kendra NavamshaKEshu > Vadanthee - > > > is > > > > > > > > pointing to navamshaKA rashi. > > > > > > > > 2)He quotes views of Shruthakeerthi - ''Chandrakrantha > > > Navamsha > > > > > > > RASHE > > > > > > > > Dwiteeya rashi gathai sunabhathra ----- vakthubhaye > > > dhurudhura > > > > > > > > 3)He quotes Jeeva sharma - Thatha cha jeevasharama - Yad > > > RASHI > > > > > > > Samjhe > > > > > > > > sheethamshur navamshe janmani sthitha ..Thad dwiteeya > > > sthithairyoga > > > > > > > > sunabhakhya......'' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then he says '' kechit ....vadanthee'' thyanena cha > > > > > > > > vyakhyathoyamartha ithi Vyaktham Bhavathi. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So he says considering the above two views and the > > > Navamshakeshu > > > > > > > > found in original shloka it means it is the RASHIS that > > > forms the > > > > > > > > basis. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless you want to say all the three are wrong,i feel > the > > > > > > > translation > > > > > > > > is clear enough.Moreover shri Sanjay Rath too had > expressed > > > how > > > > > > > > Amshaka is to be understood -as it is very evident from > the > > > text. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ofcourse you can hold your own views and you may be > better > > > > > > > > learned.For me there is no doubt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the other 2 shlokas reply has already been sent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oup <oup%40> > <oup%40> > > > <oup%40> > > > > > <oup%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not think so. The reference is very clear about > > > > > > > anapha/sunapha > > > > > > > > Yoga > > > > > > > > > in navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha > overruling > > > > > > > > Kemadruma > > > > > > > > > yoga in rasi chart. If the learned commentator of > > > dashaadhaayi > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > interpreted otherwise, it is an unfortunate mistake. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you must have already received the shloka > where > > > > > > > reference > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > only navamsh ruled by Surya or Chandra is considered > for > > > health > > > > > > > > related > > > > > > > > > yogas. It is better if you allow my reply to remain in > > > the mail > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > reply to as it makes it easy for me to reply instead > of > > > trying to > > > > > > > > find > > > > > > > > > the mail that I have sent and reference what you are > > > replying to. > > > > > > > > > Take care, > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ''He as well as the author of Dashaadhyaayi is > talking > > > about > > > > > > > > Chandra > > > > > > > > > > navamsha being considered in the same manner as > Chandra > > > rasi for > > > > > > > > > > Sunapha/anapha/Durudhara yoga (or rather > cancellation of > > > > > > > > Kemadruma) as > > > > > > > > > > indicated by you.'' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is mentioned that for cancellation either a > planet > > > should be > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > kendra to chandra or in the Navamshaka rashi of > > > chandra.Thus it > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > very clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly for the other yoga - 2 and 12th from > > > Navamshaka Rashi > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > Chandra.Dashadhyayi karaka also says - As per > > > > > > > Varahamihiracharya > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > are views of Jeevasharma and all and Acharya does > not > > > fully > > > > > > > > support > > > > > > > > > > this cancellation etc.At the same time Acharya > says,such > > > > > > > results > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > also come if the said planets are strong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------- > ---- > > > -- > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - > > > Release Date: > > > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2007 Report Share Posted June 16, 2007 Dear Chandrashekhar, Sorry to say.. but your post is not worth the comment; It it was posted some days back I might have answered. Thanks, Sreenadh , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > Dear Sreenadh, > > Since you think none of the later day texts were available in > uncorrupted form, how do you know that Brihat Jataka and Dashaadhyaayi > texts that are available today are in uncorrupted form? Or many other > texts that you mention as the only standards worth understanding? How do > you authenticate the umpteen horas that you have quoted in support of > your arguments. If they were not in manuscript form then how do know > their antiquity and if they were in manuscript by your own logic they > must necessarily be corrupted. > If one has to apply your logic then nothing that is not printed in > modern times, and for which copyright is available, should be used to > study Vedic astrology. > > I for one can not agree with your logic. > > Chandrashekhar. > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > ==> > > > But as with Varaha Mihira, manuscripts of Parashari Hora shastra > > > and Jaimini sutras were found > > <== > > There is no need I should tell you difference between the > > availability and authenticity of those manuscripts - since you are > > well aware of the varied versions. > > > > ==> > > > there are other classics like Jataka Paarijata, Phala Deepika, > > > Sarvartha Chintamani, Chamatkar Chintamani, Laghu Parashari- > > > Ududaaya Pradeep, Mayur Chitrak, Jatakaalankar, Jyotish > > > phalaratnamala and many others > > <== > > I don't think I am necessory to intiate you on the difference > > between Rishi horas (By Skanda, Vasishtra, Kousika, Garga, Sounaka, > > Sukracharya etc) and the medivial texts. > > > > ==> > > > many others that pass the same test as Brihat jataka. > > > There is Bhadrabahu Samhita, Ravana samhita and so on > > <== > > Yes, but the only thing is that the passing texts are not yet in > > print. Why you forgot to add the other Samhitas, like Lomasa > > Samhita, Samasa Samhita etc? Thanks - At least these texts are Rishi > > told and not of the medivial category. :=) > > ==> > > > Most of them are original writers of the texts and not > > > commentators. So there are many original authors whose works are > > > available in uncorrupted forms. > > <== > > Please don't comment on things in which you can not be authentic - > > and make a fun of it. " uncorrupted forms " - how can you say that? Are > > you present there when they wrote it? Please limit the statement to > > the level up to which we can be sincere. > > Why can't you see the simple fact that - it was the unavailability > > of Rishi Horas that made the North Indian pundits to come up with > > made-up/modified texts based on some ancient fragmented versions of > > BPHS? Even if they were authentic enough in milking the essentials, > > texts like HoraSara and Muhurta Chintamani must have got more > > weightage; and authentic commentaries (like that of Bhattolpala) must > > have came up. But look at the history - the path was lost for many > > centuries; and even now after availing many ancient classics in > > print; stumbling after the D-charts!! It pathetic - and disrespectful > > towards the Rishi's who created this system. > > > > With all respect, dear Chandrasekhar ji, I don't find any usefulness > > in continuing this discussion with you. It seems to be totally > > useless. > > > > Thanks, > > Sreenadh > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > But as with Varaha Mihira, manuscripts of Parashari Hora shastra > > and > > > Jaimini sutras were found and then there are other classics like > > Jataka > > > Paarijata, Phala Deepika, Sarvartha Chintamani, Chamatkar > > Chintamani, > > > Laghu Parashari-Ududaaya Pradeep, Mayur Chitrak, Jatakaalankar, > > Jyotish > > > phalaratnamala and many others that pass the same test as Brihat > > jataka. > > > There is Bhadrabahu Samhita, Ravana samhita and so on. The list is > > > limitless. Most of them are original writers of the texts and not > > > commentators. So there are many original authors whose works are > > > available in uncorrupted forms. > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji, > > > > We don't dispute - Mihira much because the copy of text we have is > > > > authentic and there is not much version confict. > > > > But we dispute - BPHS and Jaimini (not doubt Parasara and Jaimini > > > > were great sages) because of the inconsistency and incompleteness > > of > > > > the books we have; and also because of the existence of a thousand > > > > versions - which makes us doubt the authenticity of the slokas. We > > > > are forced to doubt how many of these slokas are actually part of > > > > BPHS and Jaimini sutra? We are forced to doubt taking every sloka > > or > > > > sutra - Is it of Parasara (or is it of Jaimini) or an interpolated > > > > one? Was this sloka (sutra) part of the original work, or is it > > > > contradicts the already laid out concepts? Should we depend on it > > or > > > > not? If it is really told by Parasara or Jaimini we can depend on > > it > > > > with a pinch of doubt -- But is this sloka/sutra is told by him? > > This > > > > is the actual situation. > > > > Of course as you rightly said, we cannot compare the authors of > > > > Dashadhayi, or of Bhattolpali with masters like - Mihira, > > Vasishta, > > > > Parashara, or Jaimini. But please do consider and understand the > > > > above situation; which causes Brihat Jataka, Dashadhyayi etc to be > > > > more authentic that BPHS or Jaimini Sutra. Here the situation is > > the > > > > culprit and not the sages. Scrutiny is of the doubtable (is it > > > > authentic?) slokas and sutras and there is not even a pinch of > > > > disregard towards the great sages. Please understand this. > > > > Love, > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > > > > > The reference to Bhattotpala was with reference to Dashaadhyaayi > > > > author > > > > > and Sitaram Jha with very learned Sanskrit Scholar and a well > > > > respected > > > > > astrologer of yesteryears. > > > > > > > > > > As to the comparison of authors you have devised, I do not think > > > > they > > > > > compare with the likes of Parashara, Jaimini, Varaha Mihira, > > > > Narada, > > > > > Garga etc. Neither is such comparison fair. So let us not > > compare > > > > the > > > > > sages who gave the divine science and the original authors of > > > > texts, > > > > > with the commentators and translators. > > > > > > > > > > My personal opinion is that every author and commentator of > > stature > > > > is > > > > > good in his own place and championing one over the other is not > > > > very > > > > > fair, especially if one has not read the others. So barring > > > > Bhattotpala, > > > > > whose commentary I have read, I can not comment on others. > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > > > > > We can in no way compare Sitaram Jha and the auther of > > Dasadhayai. > > > > > > Thalakkulattu Bhattatiri is an par excellance personality, > > > > similar to > > > > > > Balabhadra who wrote Hora Ratna or Bhattolpala. If you want to > > > > > > compare, please put - > > > > > > * Bhattolpala (Author of Bhattolpali - commentary for Brihat > > > > Jataka) > > > > > > * Talakkulattu Bhattatiri (Author of Dasadhyayi commentary for > > > > Brihat > > > > > > Jataka) > > > > > > * Vishnu (Author of Chatura Sundari commentary Krishneeya) > > > > > > * Achrya Balabhadra (Author of Hora Ratna) > > > > > > * Edakkattu Nambootiri (Author of Prasnamarga) > > > > > > * Kaikulangara (Author of Hridyapadha commentry for Brihat > > Jataka) > > > > > > - in same category; and not others. They are scholers par > > > > excellance > > > > > > and please put small names (even though big among smaller > > names) > > > > among > > > > > > them. If you read those books you will surely agree with me - > > I > > > > reckon. > > > > > > By the way - all the above books except Hridyapadha by > > > > Kaikulangara > > > > > > is written in Sanskrit and not in Malayalam. > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S. Chatura Sundari Vyakhya of of Krishneeyam in Sanskrit I > > can > > > > > > provide you as a pdf file, even though some typing mistakes > > would > > > > be > > > > > > there since I typed it. > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > <%40> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised at the double standards. If it is alright to > > > > question > > > > > > the > > > > > > > translation of Bhattotpala whom the Dashaadhyayi author > > extols, > > > > as to > > > > > > > correctness of Sanskrit and that of Sitaram Jha who was > > > > professor > > > > > > > emeritus of Kashi Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyaalaya and a learned > > > > astrologer > > > > > > > who brought to light many rare astrological manuscripts, why > > > > should it > > > > > > > not be other way round? After all apparently Bhattotpala > > > > predates > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi. And you may mark that I did not say he was > > wrong > > > > I said > > > > > > > it is unfortunate. I used those words as I do not have > > > > Dashaadhyaayi > > > > > > > with me to check whether what is being said is right or > > not. My > > > > > > > understanding is that it was written in Malayalam, which I > > do > > > > not > > > > > > > understand, and the words attributed to the author appear > > to be > > > > > > Sanskrit > > > > > > > ones. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not a crime to question a wrong translation but it > > > > certainly is > > > > > > > odd to criticize only if the commentator is translating in a > > > > way that > > > > > > > goes against your own pet theories. I do not think even the > > > > author of > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi would claim to be the final authority as a > > > > commentator of > > > > > > > what ever Varaha Mihira has said in Brihatjataka, knowing > > full > > > > well > > > > > > that > > > > > > > he has commented on only 10 Adhyaayas of the 28 or so > > adhyaayas > > > > of that > > > > > > > text. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > The reference is very clear about anapha/sunapha > > > > > > > > > Yogain navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha > > > > overruling > > > > > > > > > Kemadruma yoga in rasi chart. If the learned > > commentator of > > > > > > > > > dashaadhaayi has interpreted otherwise, > > > > > > > > > it is an unfortunate mistake. > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you say so you are committing the same mistake you have > > > > asked me > > > > > > > > not to commit! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You words given below: > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > I think it is better to think whether one's own > > > > understanding is > > > > > > > > > deficient in the matter of whether there are exceptions > > to > > > > drishti > > > > > > > > > being seen in navamsha and Dwadashamsha charts, instead > > of > > > > assuming > > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala making a mistake. > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > Should I comment the same about your observation of > > > > Dasadhyayi? > > > > > > > > Remember that Dashadhyayi, Chaturasudari etc falls in the > > > > uncorrupted > > > > > > > > Astrology Tradition. Dashadhyayi was written in a period > > when > > > > the > > > > > > > > Rishi horas such as Skanda Hora, Brihat Prajapatya etc > > where > > > > > > > > available. > > > > > > > > (Those texts were available in Kerala at that period. > > Those > > > > books > > > > > > > > were available to even to Kaikulangala who lived about 250 > > > > years back > > > > > > > > in Kerala. ChatraSundari is written by the Son of > > > > Madhavacharya who > > > > > > > > wrote Madhaveeya, another valuable astrological classic) > > > > > > > > Remember that unlike commentaries that usually provide > > only > > > > the > > > > > > > > meaning of the slokas and the discussion based on the > > same, > > > > > > > > Dasadhyayi and Chaturasundari were books to teach > > astrology > > > > to the > > > > > > > > learners - rather than commentaries. So they layout the > > > > principle in > > > > > > > > clear Sanskrit prose in detail, without ambiguity and > > scope > > > > for > > > > > > > > doubt. > > > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > <%40> > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > <% > > 40>, " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for replying in seperate mails,causing > > > > difficulty.Will take > > > > > > > > > care in future. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can very well say it is an unfortunate translation. > > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi karaka was humble enough to accept the > > > > greatness of > > > > > > > > > Varahamihira and express his limitations.For me that > > shows > > > > his > > > > > > > > > humility and greatness.Because Dashadhyayi is extolled > > > > beyond par > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > quality- for eg Prashna marga. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi kara falls in line of uncorrupted > > > > parampara.Inspite of > > > > > > > > > all these,he compares his views with other scholars of > > > > past,before > > > > > > > > > arriving at conclusions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are there proofs - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1)The very shloka,Ke chit Kendra NavamshaKEshu > > Vadanthee - > > > > is > > > > > > > > > pointing to navamshaKA rashi. > > > > > > > > > 2)He quotes views of Shruthakeerthi - ''Chandrakrantha > > > > Navamsha > > > > > > > > RASHE > > > > > > > > > Dwiteeya rashi gathai sunabhathra ----- vakthubhaye > > > > dhurudhura > > > > > > > > > 3)He quotes Jeeva sharma - Thatha cha jeevasharama - Yad > > > > RASHI > > > > > > > > Samjhe > > > > > > > > > sheethamshur navamshe janmani sthitha ..Thad dwiteeya > > > > sthithairyoga > > > > > > > > > sunabhakhya......'' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then he says '' kechit ....vadanthee'' thyanena cha > > > > > > > > > vyakhyathoyamartha ithi Vyaktham Bhavathi. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So he says considering the above two views and the > > > > Navamshakeshu > > > > > > > > > found in original shloka it means it is the RASHIS that > > > > forms the > > > > > > > > > basis. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless you want to say all the three are wrong,i feel > > the > > > > > > > > translation > > > > > > > > > is clear enough.Moreover shri Sanjay Rath too had > > expressed > > > > how > > > > > > > > > Amshaka is to be understood -as it is very evident from > > the > > > > text. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ofcourse you can hold your own views and you may be > > better > > > > > > > > > learned.For me there is no doubt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the other 2 shlokas reply has already been sent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oup <oup%40> > > <oup%40> > > > > <oup%40> > > > > > > <oup%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not think so. The reference is very clear about > > > > > > > > anapha/sunapha > > > > > > > > > Yoga > > > > > > > > > > in navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha > > overruling > > > > > > > > > Kemadruma > > > > > > > > > > yoga in rasi chart. If the learned commentator of > > > > dashaadhaayi > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > interpreted otherwise, it is an unfortunate mistake. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you must have already received the shloka > > where > > > > > > > > reference > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > only navamsh ruled by Surya or Chandra is considered > > for > > > > health > > > > > > > > > related > > > > > > > > > > yogas. It is better if you allow my reply to remain in > > > > the mail > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > reply to as it makes it easy for me to reply instead > > of > > > > trying to > > > > > > > > > find > > > > > > > > > > the mail that I have sent and reference what you are > > > > replying to. > > > > > > > > > > Take care, > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ''He as well as the author of Dashaadhyaayi is > > talking > > > > about > > > > > > > > > Chandra > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha being considered in the same manner as > > Chandra > > > > rasi for > > > > > > > > > > > Sunapha/anapha/Durudhara yoga (or rather > > cancellation of > > > > > > > > > Kemadruma) as > > > > > > > > > > > indicated by you.'' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is mentioned that for cancellation either a > > planet > > > > should be > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > kendra to chandra or in the Navamshaka rashi of > > > > chandra.Thus it > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > very clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly for the other yoga - 2 and 12th from > > > > Navamshaka Rashi > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra.Dashadhyayi karaka also says - As per > > > > > > > > Varahamihiracharya > > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > > are views of Jeevasharma and all and Acharya does > > not > > > > fully > > > > > > > > > support > > > > > > > > > > > this cancellation etc.At the same time Acharya > > says,such > > > > > > > > results > > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > > also come if the said planets are strong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- ----- > > ---- > > > > -- > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - > > > > Release Date: > > > > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2007 Report Share Posted June 16, 2007 Dear Sreenadh, I did not expect any other answer. Chandrashekhar. Sreenadh wrote: > > Dear Chandrashekhar, > Sorry to say.. but your post is not worth the comment; It it was > posted some days back I might have answered. > Thanks, > Sreenadh > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > Since you think none of the later day texts were available in > > uncorrupted form, how do you know that Brihat Jataka and > Dashaadhyaayi > > texts that are available today are in uncorrupted form? Or many > other > > texts that you mention as the only standards worth understanding? > How do > > you authenticate the umpteen horas that you have quoted in > support of > > your arguments. If they were not in manuscript form then how do > know > > their antiquity and if they were in manuscript by your own logic > they > > must necessarily be corrupted. > > If one has to apply your logic then nothing that is not printed in > > modern times, and for which copyright is available, should be used > to > > study Vedic astrology. > > > > I for one can not agree with your logic. > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > > ==> > > > > But as with Varaha Mihira, manuscripts of Parashari Hora > shastra > > > > and Jaimini sutras were found > > > <== > > > There is no need I should tell you difference between the > > > availability and authenticity of those manuscripts - since you > are > > > well aware of the varied versions. > > > > > > ==> > > > > there are other classics like Jataka Paarijata, Phala Deepika, > > > > Sarvartha Chintamani, Chamatkar Chintamani, Laghu Parashari- > > > > Ududaaya Pradeep, Mayur Chitrak, Jatakaalankar, Jyotish > > > > phalaratnamala and many others > > > <== > > > I don't think I am necessory to intiate you on the difference > > > between Rishi horas (By Skanda, Vasishtra, Kousika, Garga, > Sounaka, > > > Sukracharya etc) and the medivial texts. > > > > > > ==> > > > > many others that pass the same test as Brihat jataka. > > > > There is Bhadrabahu Samhita, Ravana samhita and so on > > > <== > > > Yes, but the only thing is that the passing texts are not yet in > > > print. Why you forgot to add the other Samhitas, like Lomasa > > > Samhita, Samasa Samhita etc? Thanks - At least these texts are > Rishi > > > told and not of the medivial category. :=) > > > ==> > > > > Most of them are original writers of the texts and not > > > > commentators. So there are many original authors whose works > are > > > > available in uncorrupted forms. > > > <== > > > Please don't comment on things in which you can not be > authentic - > > > and make a fun of it. " uncorrupted forms " - how can you say > that? Are > > > you present there when they wrote it? Please limit the statement > to > > > the level up to which we can be sincere. > > > Why can't you see the simple fact that - it was the > unavailability > > > of Rishi Horas that made the North Indian pundits to come up with > > > made-up/modified texts based on some ancient fragmented versions > of > > > BPHS? Even if they were authentic enough in milking the > essentials, > > > texts like HoraSara and Muhurta Chintamani must have got more > > > weightage; and authentic commentaries (like that of Bhattolpala) > must > > > have came up. But look at the history - the path was lost for > many > > > centuries; and even now after availing many ancient classics in > > > print; stumbling after the D-charts!! It pathetic - and > disrespectful > > > towards the Rishi's who created this system. > > > > > > With all respect, dear Chandrasekhar ji, I don't find any > usefulness > > > in continuing this discussion with you. It seems to be totally > > > useless. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > > > But as with Varaha Mihira, manuscripts of Parashari Hora > shastra > > > and > > > > Jaimini sutras were found and then there are other classics > like > > > Jataka > > > > Paarijata, Phala Deepika, Sarvartha Chintamani, Chamatkar > > > Chintamani, > > > > Laghu Parashari-Ududaaya Pradeep, Mayur Chitrak, Jatakaalankar, > > > Jyotish > > > > phalaratnamala and many others that pass the same test as > Brihat > > > jataka. > > > > There is Bhadrabahu Samhita, Ravana samhita and so on. The > list is > > > > limitless. Most of them are original writers of the texts and > not > > > > commentators. So there are many original authors whose works > are > > > > available in uncorrupted forms. > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji, > > > > > We don't dispute - Mihira much because the copy of text we > have is > > > > > authentic and there is not much version confict. > > > > > But we dispute - BPHS and Jaimini (not doubt Parasara and > Jaimini > > > > > were great sages) because of the inconsistency and > incompleteness > > > of > > > > > the books we have; and also because of the existence of a > thousand > > > > > versions - which makes us doubt the authenticity of the > slokas. We > > > > > are forced to doubt how many of these slokas are actually > part of > > > > > BPHS and Jaimini sutra? We are forced to doubt taking every > sloka > > > or > > > > > sutra - Is it of Parasara (or is it of Jaimini) or an > interpolated > > > > > one? Was this sloka (sutra) part of the original work, or is > it > > > > > contradicts the already laid out concepts? Should we depend > on it > > > or > > > > > not? If it is really told by Parasara or Jaimini we can > depend on > > > it > > > > > with a pinch of doubt -- But is this sloka/sutra is told by > him? > > > This > > > > > is the actual situation. > > > > > Of course as you rightly said, we cannot compare the authors > of > > > > > Dashadhayi, or of Bhattolpali with masters like - Mihira, > > > Vasishta, > > > > > Parashara, or Jaimini. But please do consider and understand > the > > > > > above situation; which causes Brihat Jataka, Dashadhyayi etc > to be > > > > > more authentic that BPHS or Jaimini Sutra. Here the > situation is > > > the > > > > > culprit and not the sages. Scrutiny is of the doubtable (is > it > > > > > authentic?) slokas and sutras and there is not even a pinch > of > > > > > disregard towards the great sages. Please understand this. > > > > > Love, > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > > > > > > > The reference to Bhattotpala was with reference to > Dashaadhyaayi > > > > > author > > > > > > and Sitaram Jha with very learned Sanskrit Scholar and a > well > > > > > respected > > > > > > astrologer of yesteryears. > > > > > > > > > > > > As to the comparison of authors you have devised, I do not > think > > > > > they > > > > > > compare with the likes of Parashara, Jaimini, Varaha > Mihira, > > > > > Narada, > > > > > > Garga etc. Neither is such comparison fair. So let us not > > > compare > > > > > the > > > > > > sages who gave the divine science and the original authors > of > > > > > texts, > > > > > > with the commentators and translators. > > > > > > > > > > > > My personal opinion is that every author and commentator of > > > stature > > > > > is > > > > > > good in his own place and championing one over the other > is not > > > > > very > > > > > > fair, especially if one has not read the others. So barring > > > > > Bhattotpala, > > > > > > whose commentary I have read, I can not comment on others. > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > > > > > > We can in no way compare Sitaram Jha and the auther of > > > Dasadhayai. > > > > > > > Thalakkulattu Bhattatiri is an par excellance > personality, > > > > > similar to > > > > > > > Balabhadra who wrote Hora Ratna or Bhattolpala. If you > want to > > > > > > > compare, please put - > > > > > > > * Bhattolpala (Author of Bhattolpali - commentary for > Brihat > > > > > Jataka) > > > > > > > * Talakkulattu Bhattatiri (Author of Dasadhyayi > commentary for > > > > > Brihat > > > > > > > Jataka) > > > > > > > * Vishnu (Author of Chatura Sundari commentary > Krishneeya) > > > > > > > * Achrya Balabhadra (Author of Hora Ratna) > > > > > > > * Edakkattu Nambootiri (Author of Prasnamarga) > > > > > > > * Kaikulangara (Author of Hridyapadha commentry for > Brihat > > > Jataka) > > > > > > > - in same category; and not others. They are scholers par > > > > > excellance > > > > > > > and please put small names (even though big among smaller > > > names) > > > > > among > > > > > > > them. If you read those books you will surely agree with > me - > > > I > > > > > reckon. > > > > > > > By the way - all the above books except Hridyapadha by > > > > > Kaikulangara > > > > > > > is written in Sanskrit and not in Malayalam. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S. Chatura Sundari Vyakhya of of Krishneeyam in > Sanskrit I > > > can > > > > > > > provide you as a pdf file, even though some typing > mistakes > > > would > > > > > be > > > > > > > there since I typed it. > > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40> > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised at the double standards. If it is > alright to > > > > > question > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > translation of Bhattotpala whom the Dashaadhyayi author > > > extols, > > > > > as to > > > > > > > > correctness of Sanskrit and that of Sitaram Jha who was > > > > > professor > > > > > > > > emeritus of Kashi Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyaalaya and a > learned > > > > > astrologer > > > > > > > > who brought to light many rare astrological > manuscripts, why > > > > > should it > > > > > > > > not be other way round? After all apparently > Bhattotpala > > > > > predates > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi. And you may mark that I did not say he > was > > > wrong > > > > > I said > > > > > > > > it is unfortunate. I used those words as I do not have > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi > > > > > > > > with me to check whether what is being said is right or > > > not. My > > > > > > > > understanding is that it was written in Malayalam, > which I > > > do > > > > > not > > > > > > > > understand, and the words attributed to the author > appear > > > to be > > > > > > > Sanskrit > > > > > > > > ones. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not a crime to question a wrong translation but > it > > > > > certainly is > > > > > > > > odd to criticize only if the commentator is > translating in a > > > > > way that > > > > > > > > goes against your own pet theories. I do not think > even the > > > > > author of > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi would claim to be the final authority as > a > > > > > commentator of > > > > > > > > what ever Varaha Mihira has said in Brihatjataka, > knowing > > > full > > > > > well > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > he has commented on only 10 Adhyaayas of the 28 or so > > > adhyaayas > > > > > of that > > > > > > > > text. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > The reference is very clear about anapha/sunapha > > > > > > > > > > Yogain navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha > > > > > overruling > > > > > > > > > > Kemadruma yoga in rasi chart. If the learned > > > commentator of > > > > > > > > > > dashaadhaayi has interpreted otherwise, > > > > > > > > > > it is an unfortunate mistake. > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you say so you are committing the same mistake > you have > > > > > asked me > > > > > > > > > not to commit! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You words given below: > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > > I think it is better to think whether one's own > > > > > understanding is > > > > > > > > > > deficient in the matter of whether there are > exceptions > > > to > > > > > drishti > > > > > > > > > > being seen in navamsha and Dwadashamsha charts, > instead > > > of > > > > > assuming > > > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala making a mistake. > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > Should I comment the same about your observation of > > > > > Dasadhyayi? > > > > > > > > > Remember that Dashadhyayi, Chaturasudari etc falls > in the > > > > > uncorrupted > > > > > > > > > Astrology Tradition. Dashadhyayi was written in a > period > > > when > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > Rishi horas such as Skanda Hora, Brihat Prajapatya > etc > > > where > > > > > > > > > available. > > > > > > > > > (Those texts were available in Kerala at that period. > > > Those > > > > > books > > > > > > > > > were available to even to Kaikulangala who lived > about 250 > > > > > years back > > > > > > > > > in Kerala. ChatraSundari is written by the Son of > > > > > Madhavacharya who > > > > > > > > > wrote Madhaveeya, another valuable astrological > classic) > > > > > > > > > Remember that unlike commentaries that usually > provide > > > only > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > meaning of the slokas and the discussion based on the > > > same, > > > > > > > > > Dasadhyayi and Chaturasundari were books to teach > > > astrology > > > > > to the > > > > > > > > > learners - rather than commentaries. So they layout > the > > > > > principle in > > > > > > > > > clear Sanskrit prose in detail, without ambiguity and > > > scope > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > doubt. > > > > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40> > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > <% > > > 40>, " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for replying in seperate mails,causing > > > > > difficulty.Will take > > > > > > > > > > care in future. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can very well say it is an unfortunate > translation. > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi karaka was humble enough to accept the > > > > > greatness of > > > > > > > > > > Varahamihira and express his limitations.For me > that > > > shows > > > > > his > > > > > > > > > > humility and greatness.Because Dashadhyayi is > extolled > > > > > beyond par > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > quality- for eg Prashna marga. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi kara falls in line of uncorrupted > > > > > parampara.Inspite of > > > > > > > > > > all these,he compares his views with other > scholars of > > > > > past,before > > > > > > > > > > arriving at conclusions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are there proofs - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1)The very shloka,Ke chit Kendra NavamshaKEshu > > > Vadanthee - > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > pointing to navamshaKA rashi. > > > > > > > > > > 2)He quotes views of Shruthakeerthi - > ''Chandrakrantha > > > > > Navamsha > > > > > > > > > RASHE > > > > > > > > > > Dwiteeya rashi gathai sunabhathra ----- vakthubhaye > > > > > dhurudhura > > > > > > > > > > 3)He quotes Jeeva sharma - Thatha cha > jeevasharama - Yad > > > > > RASHI > > > > > > > > > Samjhe > > > > > > > > > > sheethamshur navamshe janmani sthitha ..Thad > dwiteeya > > > > > sthithairyoga > > > > > > > > > > sunabhakhya......'' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then he says '' kechit ....vadanthee'' thyanena cha > > > > > > > > > > vyakhyathoyamartha ithi Vyaktham Bhavathi. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So he says considering the above two views and the > > > > > Navamshakeshu > > > > > > > > > > found in original shloka it means it is the RASHIS > that > > > > > forms the > > > > > > > > > > basis. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless you want to say all the three are wrong,i > feel > > > the > > > > > > > > > translation > > > > > > > > > > is clear enough.Moreover shri Sanjay Rath too had > > > expressed > > > > > how > > > > > > > > > > Amshaka is to be understood -as it is very evident > from > > > the > > > > > text. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ofcourse you can hold your own views and you may be > > > better > > > > > > > > > > learned.For me there is no doubt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the other 2 shlokas reply has already been > sent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oup <oup%40> > <oup%40> > > > <oup%40> > > > > > <oup%40> > > > > > > > <oup%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not think so. The reference is very clear > about > > > > > > > > > anapha/sunapha > > > > > > > > > > Yoga > > > > > > > > > > > in navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha > > > overruling > > > > > > > > > > Kemadruma > > > > > > > > > > > yoga in rasi chart. If the learned commentator of > > > > > dashaadhaayi > > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > > interpreted otherwise, it is an unfortunate > mistake. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you must have already received the shloka > > > where > > > > > > > > > reference > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > only navamsh ruled by Surya or Chandra is > considered > > > for > > > > > health > > > > > > > > > > related > > > > > > > > > > > yogas. It is better if you allow my reply to > remain in > > > > > the mail > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > reply to as it makes it easy for me to reply > instead > > > of > > > > > trying to > > > > > > > > > > find > > > > > > > > > > > the mail that I have sent and reference what you > are > > > > > replying to. > > > > > > > > > > > Take care, > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ''He as well as the author of Dashaadhyaayi is > > > talking > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > Chandra > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha being considered in the same manner as > > > Chandra > > > > > rasi for > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunapha/anapha/Durudhara yoga (or rather > > > cancellation of > > > > > > > > > > Kemadruma) as > > > > > > > > > > > > indicated by you.'' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is mentioned that for cancellation either a > > > planet > > > > > should be > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > kendra to chandra or in the Navamshaka rashi of > > > > > chandra.Thus it > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > very clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly for the other yoga - 2 and 12th from > > > > > Navamshaka Rashi > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra.Dashadhyayi karaka also says - As per > > > > > > > > > Varahamihiracharya > > > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > > > are views of Jeevasharma and all and Acharya > does > > > not > > > > > fully > > > > > > > > > > support > > > > > > > > > > > > this cancellation etc.At the same time Acharya > > > says,such > > > > > > > > > results > > > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > > > also come if the said planets are strong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- > ----- > > > ---- > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: > 269.8.9/832 - > > > > > Release Date: > > > > > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.