Guest guest Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Namaste All Vedanta is a Sabda Pramana. It is available in Book form. It is sabda pramana of the Truth. Therefore, Atma jnana is obtained from this sabda pramana. Today, a person is refuting this. It is silly that one has to converse or discuss matters with a person who changes the meaning of Shastra every now and then, just to prove that he is right. This person has misquoted, misrepresented many facts, statements of many people, just to argue and argue. If Vedanta isn't being adhered too what kind of Jyotish will the said person adhere too? If someone knows for sure that divisional charts cannot be used separately, let him not use it. If someone does not know for sure that divisional charts can be used separately, let him become a student and ask the knowers (Sri Pradeep had a major discussion with Sri PVR Narasimha Rao and Sri Sanjay Rath and both gave him proofs and shastric references. He did not agree to them and kept on arguing - this shows he is convinced of this as a fact). Once he is convinced, it is sure that he will not understand any Tarka or Pramana (as such he does not consider Veda as pramana since it is a book). In this view, his role on this group is only to propagate what he is convinced about, whether or not it is the True. If such is the role, why is it being portrayed that there is a discussion going on? Cleverness has its limits. Thanks and Regards Bharat On 7/11/07, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear shri Bharath > > Ofcourse i repeat what i have said.Context is important. > > Atma gyan is not obtained from any books.This was the guidance i got > from my Gurus and i trust them. > > On the other hand six divsions of a rashi,rules for aspect etc are > defined as Pramanas.Ofcourse the mahamunis who have written this,got > their knowledge through inner self.But miles and miles to go atleast > for me. > > If one can get self realization by **just** reading books,all those > who could afford those books would have been realized by now. > > If the below paragraph written by me,were personal ,then what would > be the ones you have written !!!.I don't want to refer back to yor > usages and insulting comments.Neither had i reacted then nor i would > now. > > It was you who had written that,when shri Finn Wandahl was present > (along with many others) the list was interesting,knowledge comes to > blessed etc. > > I have my impressions on shri wandahl and it is not based on your > inputs. > > You can keep off or keep on as and when you like.Let Lord bless you. > > Regds > Pradeep > > <%40>, > " Bharat - Hindu Astrology " > <astrologyhindu wrote: > > > > Namaste Sri Pradeep > > > > ON 31/08/2006 You made the first remark suggesting my explanations > are from > > books. You had said this directly once before. ON our first > discussion > > regarding Bhagavad Gita, it was you who was writing directly from > books. > > Moreover your sarcasm was more than evident then. So do not try > to behave > > as if you are innocent. > > > > * " Kindly do not give long explanations present in Vedantic text > books > > or Quotations as i can read them as well.i am interested in small > > answers,which you were revealed with ,during your slef seeking > > procedure.Say 2 or max 3 sentences per question.Kindly share your > > wisdom as gems of brevity.* > > > > > > I can also provide more references where you had turned personal. > My action > > was to stop discussions with you on any matter. I gave you the > benefit of > > the doubt only to learn that you are the same still. In this > regard, it is > > best you and I stay out of each other's way. I made a mistake once > but > > wouldn't make once again. > > > > You are giving names of Sri Finn Windhall as talking of Pramana. > Do you even > > know what Sri Windhall thinks of BPHS? He has mentioned on his > website as > > well as on this group that he does not think BPHS as a pramana > authored by > > the father of Sri Veda Vyasa. He says it is an amalgamation of all > Jyotish > > material and dates around 800 AD. You have consistently used bits > and pieces > > of information and are trying to show as if you are right. I guess > this is > > the level one has to stoop to, to " win " arguments and discussions. > Btw, > > before you have another misconception, I do not hold that against > Sri > > Windhall's fabulous experience and knowledge of Jyotish. Unlike > others, I > > let him hold on to his views. > > > > Without having adequate knowledge of Sanskrit, without any Sankara > Bhashya > > for reference in Jyotish, without having cross reference texts, > after having > > lost possibly thousands of Astrological works, how can be so sure > about > > something that might not be so? Don't bother answering this > question. It is > > just a repeat. > > > > So please keep off limits me and I shall do the same for you. > > > > Thanks and Regards > > Bharat > > > > > > > > > > On 7/11/07, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > Dear Baharat ji > > > > > > Any member of this group can go and see the archives,if i had > made > > > any personal remarks,during our discussions on atma etc.On the > other > > > hand you had made some personal remarks,as you have done > below.This > > > time it is a gentle one as compared to previous. > > > > > > Thus i would say,i can see an improvement in your > style.Similarly i > > > will try to improve myself. > > > > > > Regds > > > Pradeep > > > > > > <%40><% > 40>, > > > " Bharat - Hindu Astrology " > > > <astrologyhindu@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Namaste Sri Pradeep > > > > > > > > Tarka and Pramana is something you did not understand in our > > > previous > > > > discussions and made them personal. Today again, you are using > > > these words > > > > to be suggest that you discuss only with people having it. I > have > > > big doubts > > > > on the same. > > > > > > > > I retire from this useless discussion. Every time I think there > > > has been an > > > > improvement in you, I am proven wrong. > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards > > > > Bharat > > > > > > > > On 7/11/07, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bharat ji > > > > > > > > > > I understand your views fully.Also regarding previous > philosoical > > > > > discussions myslef and chandrashekhar ji had our own reasons > > > while > > > > > you had your own. > > > > > > > > > > You are also free to use any method you wants.I am > interested in > > > this > > > > > thread as long as some one is participating using Tarka and > > > Pramana. > > > > > > > > > > Regds > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > --- In <%40><% > 40><% > > > 40>, > > > > > " Bharat - Hindu Astrology " > > > > > <astrologyhindu@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Sri Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > As you are already aware, I try to discuss with you at a > > > minimum. > > > > > The > > > > > > reasons can be well known through our previous discussions. > > > Again, > > > > > you are > > > > > > free to draw whatever conclusions you want from my > posting. I > > > will > > > > > not > > > > > > correct them. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have already made it clear that I use Kaal Sarp yoga as > well > > > as > > > > > Kaal > > > > > > Amrita Yoga in charts and some of the well known faces in > > > India have > > > > > > understood me and gotten help from its remedies. I have > already > > > > > made it > > > > > > clear that my respect for Sri K N Rao does not stop me from > > > forming > > > > > my own > > > > > > opinions and knowledge base. > > > > > > > > > > > > By not following some of his principles or of others, I do > not > > > > > disrespect > > > > > > them. Since my desire is for knowledge and not gain extra > > > > > somethings by > > > > > > attaching big names in Astrology to my resume. > > > > > > > > > > > > In any case by not following KSY, I would be going against > Sri > > > B V > > > > > Raman and > > > > > > by following it against Sri K N Rao. I understand the > working > > > of it > > > > > and use > > > > > > it. Btw, the way many people scare living daylights out of > > > people > > > > > is not the > > > > > > meaning of KSY. > > > > > > > > > > > > My post is amply clear on what I mean, however, you choose > to > > > > > misunderstand > > > > > > it. Continue doing so if you so wish. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards > > > > > > Bharat > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/11/07, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bharat ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if i hide it from you,i cannot hide it from my own > > > > > conscience,on > > > > > > > whether i am doing it for ego satisfaction or as a fight > for > > > > > justice. > > > > > > > Thus it is clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nowhere it is mentioned that Kalasarpa yoga should not be > > > used - > > > > > Then > > > > > > > as per your logic,any one can use them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok .Fine.Now Raoji have been fighting against this since > > > long.We > > > > > > > cannot say for sure ,whether it i egotitical or > not.Similar > > > was > > > > > the > > > > > > > case with Karakamsha. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus wehave to see the merits in the points discussed in > an > > > > > objective > > > > > > > fashion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand your views fully. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In <%40> > <% > 40><% > > > 40><% > > > > > 40>, > > > > > > > " Bharat - Hindu Astrology " > > > > > > > <astrologyhindu@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Sri Pradeep > > > > > > > > I am not stopping you from debating or discussing. > Again > > > you are > > > > > > > free to do > > > > > > > > so. Whether or not you do it egoistically or devotedly > is > > > also > > > > > your > > > > > > > own > > > > > > > > choice. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I mentioned what I mentioned as per my own thinking, > in my > > > > > previous > > > > > > > post. It > > > > > > > > is quite clear. You are free to draw wrong or right > > > conclusions > > > > > > > from what I > > > > > > > > said. I do not wish to correct your conclusions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards > > > > > > > > Bharat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/10/07, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Bharat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with your views.I cannot stop anyone from > seeing > > > > > things as > > > > > > > > > they want.Even if i want i cannot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Most importantly i should not.What is my role then.I > am > > > > > > > > > participating in debates.Through Vaada -Prathivaada > > > (healthy- > > > > > > > > > Tarka/Pramana) we are enhancing each others > knowledge. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When some one produce reference,we debate, whether > the > > > intent > > > > > was > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If some one thinks that,they already know what has be > > > done > > > > > and is > > > > > > > > > not interested in looking at basics ,they are free > to do > > > so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But those who are interested will debate and let them > > > decide > > > > > based > > > > > > > > > on the points raised.Are you saying there should not > be > > > any > > > > > > > debate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you say,sage has not prevented us from seeing > amshas > > > as > > > > > > > > > charts,and hence we can see,then we can do anything > as we > > > > > want.Who > > > > > > > > > is against it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as i am concerned the debate is only valid ,if > > > some one > > > > > > > wants > > > > > > > > > to study Jyotish based on the rules set by > Maharishi.For > > > eg > > > > > Late > > > > > > > > > Santhanam has said aspects are not possible as per > the > > > rules. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If some one wants to use let them use.My debate is > never > > > with > > > > > > > > > them.It is only with those who are interested in > Tarka > > > and > > > > > > > Pramana. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regds > > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In <%40> > <% > 40> > > > <% > > > 40><% > > > > > 40><% > > > > > > > 40>, > > > > > > > > > " Sateesh Batas " <makaras@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bharat, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Excellent post - I concur with all of it, and do > not > > > take > > > > > > > anything > > > > > > > > > at face value, even from respected authorities - > until > > > and > > > > > unless > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > am convinced of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Especially this part is apt - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ***The difference is, I do not tell people what to > do > > > and > > > > > what > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > to. The freedom of choice is a God gift. You and I > are > > > no one > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > take it from anyone.*** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best - Sateesh. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ======== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > Bharat - Hindu Astrology > > > > > > > > > > To: <%40> > <% > 40> > > > <% > > > 40><% > > > > > 40><% > > > > > > > 40> > > > > > > > > > > Monday, July 09, 2007 6:10 PM > > > > > > > > > > Re: Why Navamsa Chart - Shri > > > Finn > > > > > Wandahl > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Sri Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The question is not whether a person gave support > or > > > not. > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > question is > > > > > > > > > > whether something is true or not. In Vedanta, I was > > > taught > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > question and > > > > > > > > > > question and not accept just because someone > important > > > had > > > > > said > > > > > > > > > it. Sri > > > > > > > > > > Krishna, in Bhagavad Gita, in 2nd chapter, first > verse > > > he > > > > > spoke, > > > > > > > > > said that > > > > > > > > > > there isn't a cause for sorrow. Did Arjuna accept > the > > > > > statement? > > > > > > > > > He did not > > > > > > > > > > but questioned till he understood something. Did > Lord > > > > > Krishna > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > egoistic problem with questioning? No! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem that can be seen in the group today is > > > > > nonacceptance > > > > > > > > > of an idea > > > > > > > > > > which may be. There isn't a single proof that > > > explicitly > > > > > says > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > amshas > > > > > > > > > > cannot be used separately. There is no debate on > their > > > > > usage in > > > > > > > > > tandem with > > > > > > > > > > Rashi chart. Couple that with limited knowledge of > > > Sanskrit, > > > > > > > > > limited text > > > > > > > > > > availability of Jyotish, limited explanations > > > available, we > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > trying to > > > > > > > > > > stop a mass of people from researching and using a > > > > > particular > > > > > > > > > concept. If > > > > > > > > > > this isn't egoistic intervention than what is? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I am concerned, my respect for Sri Finn > > > Windhall > > > > > or > > > > > > > Sri > > > > > > > > > K.N. Rao > > > > > > > > > > would not deter me from not following something > that I > > > feel > > > > > > > ain't > > > > > > > > > so. This > > > > > > > > > > is the reason despite Sri K N Rao's many writings > > > against > > > > > usage > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > Gems, I > > > > > > > > > > continue to write about them, use them successfully > > > with > > > > > many of > > > > > > > > > clients and > > > > > > > > > > now beginning to write a book on them. Despite the > > > same, I > > > > > > > follow > > > > > > > > > his > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha technique in Rashi chart whole heartedly > > > with > > > > > > > excellent > > > > > > > > > results. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The difference is, I do not tell people what to do > and > > > what > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > to. The > > > > > > > > > > freedom of choice is a God gift. You and I are no > one > > > to > > > > > take it > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > anyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards > > > > > > > > > > Bharat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Dear Shri Bharat ji, A very thought provoking mail. > Vedanta is a Sabda Pramana. It is available in Book form. It is sabda > pramana of the Truth. Therefore, Atma jnana is obtained from this sabda > pramana. Today, a person is refuting this. It is silly that one has to > converse or discuss matters with a person who changes the meaning of > Shastra > every now and then, just to prove that he is right. This person has > misquoted, misrepresented many facts, statements of many people, just to > argue and argue. [Prafulla] yes - on the thread - I too observed misquotes and selective references to suit convenience and then U turn. At some stage - it was mentioned that Late Santhanam did not use aspects - implying his agreement with what Late Santhanam has referred on Navamsa chart - next mail - completely disagreeing with late Santhanam in totality ab initio. So the perspective of the whole set of mails on Late Santhanam is waste of time ? Same about Shri KN rao - at one thread - his Karkamasha theory is put to debate, while at the same time - we are refuting his research / predictive model on D charts itself. At some stage - we are referring gayatri Vasudev - but also say - that since parashar does not accept D charts - so it does not exist. Well, I did not want to comment on origin and compleness of parashari Jyotish, as it will be just endless debate and avoidable diversion. When we talk about Kalyan Varma - partial aspects are referred his reference point; but so far use of partial aspects - I have yet to see in anyone's interpretation model. I really do not know, if partial aspects can be really applied in 2/12 placements in rasi. When one participant enquired about Vimsamsa and/or other D charts - there was no contributing reply as yet. I am certainly keen to know - how can these other D charts also be interpreted in Shri Pradeep's model. So - arguments involved lots of convenient " fixes " or selective reference (when the entire model is rejected ab initio). > > If Vedanta isn't being adhered too what kind of Jyotish will the said > person > adhere too? > > If someone knows for sure that divisional charts cannot be used > separately, > let him not use it. [Prafulla] Very well said. >If someone does not know for sure that divisional > charts > can be used separately, let him become a student and ask the knowers (Sri > Pradeep had a major discussion with Sri PVR Narasimha Rao and Sri Sanjay > Rath and both gave him proofs and shastric references. He did not agree > to > them and kept on arguing - this shows he is convinced of this as a fact). > Once he is convinced, it is sure that he will not understand any Tarka or > Pramana (as such he does not consider Veda as pramana since it is a > book). > [Prafulla] yes - I also made mistake in extending discussion, when the whole debate lacked any predictive application on his model - but just an interpretation of shloka. > In this view, his role on this group is only to propagate what he is > convinced about, whether or not it is the True. If such is the role, why > is > it being portrayed that there is a discussion going on? > [Prafulla] The best statement of the entire thread. The thread is one just sided on his own interpretation of a shloka - without any contrary proof or without pointing at predictive fallacy of other mentioned authors. I realized and concur with the opinion of Shri Satya / Shri Bhaskar - that, if someone is not willing to look at the rationale explained by Shri PVR / Shri Sanjay / Shri KN Rao / Late Shri Santhanam / Late Shri BV Raman / Shri CS Patel / Shri VK Choudhry / Shri Krushna ji (KAS) etc and assuming that they have not read the few books like Dashadhyayi etc. it is really a far fetched opinion on someone's credentials. But can a group be highjacked to propogate his own throughts - without proving the fallacy of others. But going by the history - it has happened..and this thread over few years have wasted lots of collective time and forum audience's energy. > Cleverness has its limits. Yes - and Stupidity has no limits. and perhaps - I also acted like stupid. But I had selfish motive of understanding if all other authors quoted - made blunder in their such long astro journey. regards / Prafulla Gang http://www.prafulla.net Diplomacy - n. the patriotic act of lying for one's country / community. ************************************************ > > > > > > On 7/11/07, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: >> >> Dear shri Bharath >> >> Ofcourse i repeat what i have said.Context is important. >> >> Atma gyan is not obtained from any books.This was the guidance i got >> from my Gurus and i trust them. >> >> On the other hand six divsions of a rashi,rules for aspect etc are >> defined as Pramanas.Ofcourse the mahamunis who have written this,got >> their knowledge through inner self.But miles and miles to go atleast >> for me. >> >> If one can get self realization by **just** reading books,all those >> who could afford those books would have been realized by now. >> >> If the below paragraph written by me,were personal ,then what would >> be the ones you have written !!!.I don't want to refer back to yor >> usages and insulting comments.Neither had i reacted then nor i would >> now. >> >> It was you who had written that,when shri Finn Wandahl was present >> (along with many others) the list was interesting,knowledge comes to >> blessed etc. >> >> I have my impressions on shri wandahl and it is not based on your >> inputs. >> >> You can keep off or keep on as and when you like.Let Lord bless you. >> >> Regds >> Pradeep >> >> <%40>, >> " Bharat - Hindu Astrology " >> <astrologyhindu wrote: >>> >>> Namaste Sri Pradeep >>> >>> ON 31/08/2006 You made the first remark suggesting my explanations >> are from >>> books. You had said this directly once before. ON our first >> discussion >>> regarding Bhagavad Gita, it was you who was writing directly from >> books. >>> Moreover your sarcasm was more than evident then. So do not try >> to behave >>> as if you are innocent. >>> >>> * " Kindly do not give long explanations present in Vedantic text >> books >>> or Quotations as i can read them as well.i am interested in small >>> answers,which you were revealed with ,during your slef seeking >>> procedure.Say 2 or max 3 sentences per question.Kindly share your >>> wisdom as gems of brevity.* >>> >>> >>> I can also provide more references where you had turned personal. >> My action >>> was to stop discussions with you on any matter. I gave you the >> benefit of >>> the doubt only to learn that you are the same still. In this >> regard, it is >>> best you and I stay out of each other's way. I made a mistake once >> but >>> wouldn't make once again. >>> >>> You are giving names of Sri Finn Windhall as talking of Pramana. >> Do you even >>> know what Sri Windhall thinks of BPHS? He has mentioned on his >> website as >>> well as on this group that he does not think BPHS as a pramana >> authored by >>> the father of Sri Veda Vyasa. He says it is an amalgamation of all >> Jyotish >>> material and dates around 800 AD. You have consistently used bits >> and pieces >>> of information and are trying to show as if you are right. I guess >> this is >>> the level one has to stoop to, to " win " arguments and discussions. >> Btw, >>> before you have another misconception, I do not hold that against >> Sri >>> Windhall's fabulous experience and knowledge of Jyotish. Unlike >> others, I >>> let him hold on to his views. >>> >>> Without having adequate knowledge of Sanskrit, without any Sankara >> Bhashya >>> for reference in Jyotish, without having cross reference texts, >> after having >>> lost possibly thousands of Astrological works, how can be so sure >> about >>> something that might not be so? Don't bother answering this >> question. It is >>> just a repeat. >>> >>> So please keep off limits me and I shall do the same for you. >>> >>> Thanks and Regards >>> Bharat >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/11/07, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Baharat ji >>>> >>>> Any member of this group can go and see the archives,if i had >> made >>>> any personal remarks,during our discussions on atma etc.On the >> other >>>> hand you had made some personal remarks,as you have done >> below.This >>>> time it is a gentle one as compared to previous. >>>> >>>> Thus i would say,i can see an improvement in your >> style.Similarly i >>>> will try to improve myself. >>>> >>>> Regds >>>> Pradeep >>>> >>>> >>>> <%40><% >> 40>, >>>> " Bharat - Hindu Astrology " >>>> <astrologyhindu@> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Namaste Sri Pradeep >>>>> >>>>> Tarka and Pramana is something you did not understand in our >>>> previous >>>>> discussions and made them personal. Today again, you are using >>>> these words >>>>> to be suggest that you discuss only with people having it. I >> have >>>> big doubts >>>>> on the same. >>>>> >>>>> I retire from this useless discussion. Every time I think there >>>> has been an >>>>> improvement in you, I am proven wrong. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks and Regards >>>>> Bharat >>>>> >>>>> On 7/11/07, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Bharat ji >>>>>> >>>>>> I understand your views fully.Also regarding previous >> philosoical >>>>>> discussions myslef and chandrashekhar ji had our own reasons >>>> while >>>>>> you had your own. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are also free to use any method you wants.I am >> interested in >>>> this >>>>>> thread as long as some one is participating using Tarka and >>>> Pramana. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regds >>>>>> Pradeep >>>>>> >>>>>> --- In >>>>>> <%40><% >> 40><% >>>> 40>, >>>>>> " Bharat - Hindu Astrology " >>>>>> <astrologyhindu@> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Namaste Sri Pradeep >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As you are already aware, I try to discuss with you at a >>>> minimum. >>>>>> The >>>>>>> reasons can be well known through our previous discussions. >>>> Again, >>>>>> you are >>>>>>> free to draw whatever conclusions you want from my >> posting. I >>>> will >>>>>> not >>>>>>> correct them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have already made it clear that I use Kaal Sarp yoga as >> well >>>> as >>>>>> Kaal >>>>>>> Amrita Yoga in charts and some of the well known faces in >>>> India have >>>>>>> understood me and gotten help from its remedies. I have >> already >>>>>> made it >>>>>>> clear that my respect for Sri K N Rao does not stop me from >>>> forming >>>>>> my own >>>>>>> opinions and knowledge base. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By not following some of his principles or of others, I do >> not >>>>>> disrespect >>>>>>> them. Since my desire is for knowledge and not gain extra >>>>>> somethings by >>>>>>> attaching big names in Astrology to my resume. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In any case by not following KSY, I would be going against >> Sri >>>> B V >>>>>> Raman and >>>>>>> by following it against Sri K N Rao. I understand the >> working >>>> of it >>>>>> and use >>>>>>> it. Btw, the way many people scare living daylights out of >>>> people >>>>>> is not the >>>>>>> meaning of KSY. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My post is amply clear on what I mean, however, you choose >> to >>>>>> misunderstand >>>>>>> it. Continue doing so if you so wish. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks and Regards >>>>>>> Bharat >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/11/07, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear Bharat ji >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Even if i hide it from you,i cannot hide it from my own >>>>>> conscience,on >>>>>>>> whether i am doing it for ego satisfaction or as a fight >> for >>>>>> justice. >>>>>>>> Thus it is clear. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nowhere it is mentioned that Kalasarpa yoga should not be >>>> used - >>>>>> Then >>>>>>>> as per your logic,any one can use them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ok .Fine.Now Raoji have been fighting against this since >>>> long.We >>>>>>>> cannot say for sure ,whether it i egotitical or >> not.Similar >>>> was >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> case with Karakamsha. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thus wehave to see the merits in the points discussed in >> an >>>>>> objective >>>>>>>> fashion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I understand your views fully. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>> Pradeep >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- In >>>>>>>> <%40> >> <% >> 40><% >>>> 40><% >>>>>> 40>, >>>>>>>> " Bharat - Hindu Astrology " >>>>>>>> <astrologyhindu@> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Namaste Sri Pradeep >>>>>>>>> I am not stopping you from debating or discussing. >> Again >>>> you are >>>>>>>> free to do >>>>>>>>> so. Whether or not you do it egoistically or devotedly >> is >>>> also >>>>>> your >>>>>>>> own >>>>>>>>> choice. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I mentioned what I mentioned as per my own thinking, >> in my >>>>>> previous >>>>>>>> post. It >>>>>>>>> is quite clear. You are free to draw wrong or right >>>> conclusions >>>>>>>> from what I >>>>>>>>> said. I do not wish to correct your conclusions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks and Regards >>>>>>>>> Bharat >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 7/10/07, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@> >> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear Shri Bharat >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I agree with your views.I cannot stop anyone from >> seeing >>>>>> things as >>>>>>>>>> they want.Even if i want i cannot. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Most importantly i should not.What is my role then.I >> am >>>>>>>>>> participating in debates.Through Vaada -Prathivaada >>>> (healthy- >>>>>>>>>> Tarka/Pramana) we are enhancing each others >> knowledge. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When some one produce reference,we debate, whether >> the >>>> intent >>>>>> was >>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>>> or not. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If some one thinks that,they already know what has be >>>> done >>>>>> and is >>>>>>>>>> not interested in looking at basics ,they are free >> to do >>>> so. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But those who are interested will debate and let them >>>> decide >>>>>> based >>>>>>>>>> on the points raised.Are you saying there should not >> be >>>> any >>>>>>>> debate. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you say,sage has not prevented us from seeing >> amshas >>>> as >>>>>>>>>> charts,and hence we can see,then we can do anything >> as we >>>>>> want.Who >>>>>>>>>> is against it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As far as i am concerned the debate is only valid ,if >>>> some one >>>>>>>> wants >>>>>>>>>> to study Jyotish based on the rules set by >> Maharishi.For >>>> eg >>>>>> Late >>>>>>>>>> Santhanam has said aspects are not possible as per >> the >>>> rules. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If some one wants to use let them use.My debate is >> never >>>> with >>>>>>>>>> them.It is only with those who are interested in >> Tarka >>>> and >>>>>>>> Pramana. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regds >>>>>>>>>> Pradeep >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- In >>>>>>>>>> <%40> >> <% >> 40> >>>> <% >>>> 40><% >>>>>> 40><% >>>>>>>> 40>, >>>>>>>>>> " Sateesh Batas " <makaras@> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear Bharat, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Excellent post - I concur with all of it, and do >> not >>>> take >>>>>>>> anything >>>>>>>>>> at face value, even from respected authorities - >> until >>>> and >>>>>> unless >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> am convinced of it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Especially this part is apt - >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ***The difference is, I do not tell people what to >> do >>>> and >>>>>> what >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> to. The freedom of choice is a God gift. You and I >> are >>>> no one >>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> take it from anyone.*** >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best - Sateesh. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ======== >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>> Bharat - Hindu Astrology >>>>>>>>>>> To: >>>>>>>>>>> <%40> >> <% >> 40> >>>> <% >>>> 40><% >>>>>> 40><% >>>>>>>> 40> >>>>>>>>>>> Monday, July 09, 2007 6:10 PM >>>>>>>>>>> Re: Why Navamsa Chart - Shri >>>> Finn >>>>>> Wandahl >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Namaste Sri Pradeep >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The question is not whether a person gave support >> or >>>> not. >>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>> question is >>>>>>>>>>> whether something is true or not. In Vedanta, I was >>>> taught >>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> question and >>>>>>>>>>> question and not accept just because someone >> important >>>> had >>>>>> said >>>>>>>>>> it. Sri >>>>>>>>>>> Krishna, in Bhagavad Gita, in 2nd chapter, first >> verse >>>> he >>>>>> spoke, >>>>>>>>>> said that >>>>>>>>>>> there isn't a cause for sorrow. Did Arjuna accept >> the >>>>>> statement? >>>>>>>>>> He did not >>>>>>>>>>> but questioned till he understood something. Did >> Lord >>>>>> Krishna >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>>> egoistic problem with questioning? No! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The problem that can be seen in the group today is >>>>>> nonacceptance >>>>>>>>>> of an idea >>>>>>>>>>> which may be. There isn't a single proof that >>>> explicitly >>>>>> says >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> amshas >>>>>>>>>>> cannot be used separately. There is no debate on >> their >>>>>> usage in >>>>>>>>>> tandem with >>>>>>>>>>> Rashi chart. Couple that with limited knowledge of >>>> Sanskrit, >>>>>>>>>> limited text >>>>>>>>>>> availability of Jyotish, limited explanations >>>> available, we >>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> trying to >>>>>>>>>>> stop a mass of people from researching and using a >>>>>> particular >>>>>>>>>> concept. If >>>>>>>>>>> this isn't egoistic intervention than what is? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As far as I am concerned, my respect for Sri Finn >>>> Windhall >>>>>> or >>>>>>>> Sri >>>>>>>>>> K.N. Rao >>>>>>>>>>> would not deter me from not following something >> that I >>>> feel >>>>>>>> ain't >>>>>>>>>> so. This >>>>>>>>>>> is the reason despite Sri K N Rao's many writings >>>> against >>>>>> usage >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> Gems, I >>>>>>>>>>> continue to write about them, use them successfully >>>> with >>>>>> many of >>>>>>>>>> clients and >>>>>>>>>>> now beginning to write a book on them. Despite the >>>> same, I >>>>>>>> follow >>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>> Karakamsha technique in Rashi chart whole heartedly >>>> with >>>>>>>> excellent >>>>>>>>>> results. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The difference is, I do not tell people what to do >> and >>>> what >>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> to. The >>>>>>>>>>> freedom of choice is a God gift. You and I are no >> one >>>> to >>>>>> take it >>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>> anyone. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks and Regards >>>>>>>>>>> Bharat >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been >> removed] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Dear Friends, Lot of words have flown on these issues which need to be put to rest somehow. Someday it would happen. But when that day will come? Astrology is full for contradictions and misconceptions and in these days of internet, these distortions are far too many and far too placed. Divisional charts should and must be used for all predictive purposes but only as a sub-servient chart to the birth chart. Once long ago, and I think, that debate must be there in the archives, when one particular member said he would decipher the sex of children from the divisional chart and that the divisional chart should be used singularly. I gave him a chart and he failed. He was a teacher of some group, I dont remember exactly. But then, I still did not chide him because he failed. Many times it happens with all the astrologers, they give predictions on wrong horoscopes and it turns right. Later they wonder how did they give such a prediction. Regarding Karkamsha and Swamsha, I use the method prescribed by Shri K.N. Rao and I know for myself that it gives result to me. Similarly I use the seven Karaka Scheme and not the eight. Some groups and some teachers propagate astrology without actually experiencing it or researching on the subject. I personally know that Shri K.N. Rao has put in so many years of research and has always acknowledged the contribution of anyone who helped him in his astrological growth. This honesty of his has perhpas helped him and given him the divine blessings. May his guidance be there with us for years to come. Many places in the published books you find discrepancies. If you read the same shloka on the fifth house in the Brihat Parashar Hora Shastra translated by different authors, you would find it giving different meaning at all places. Some things are cardinal truths and should be accepted as it is and then worked upon to improve it. Since I am privy to all the names being mentioned in this thread, I know a majority of them personally but do not want to comment on anyone as I still consider myself a novice. I read the book by Shri C.S. Patel on ashtakvarga but since I do not to his bhava method, I use the principles on the normal horoscope and it works for me. After spending some time doing astrology, I have realised that if you are genuinely interested in astrology, do your researches and then publish them for critical appraisal of astrological fraternity. But please for God's sake, do not do something just for the sake of being different. Pardon me, if this mail of mine is unpalatable for some because that is not the intention. regards, Manoj Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Dear Prafulla ji I have promised Bhaskar ji and i will keep the promise on vimshamsha.There is a bhava mentioned by parashara for such matters and as bhava and rashi are synonyms ,i will see the planetary placements and vimshamsha of planets in the that bhvaa in rashi chakra.Moreover there are dieties defined by parashara.I could find that sun and mars re having vimshamsha in the 9th bhava in rashi chakra whic are strong. Thus as i am not replying ,pls ont think i have no answer.I want to study the matter well as it is Jyotish. Also i am pretty sure on what the effects can be if i misquote dashadhyayi or any other person or text.I have so far not done and will never do.Thisyou will find from my next mail to chandrashekharji. Now regarding other points ,i will notgive a reply now as advised by shri sundeep.I will have to reply to Chandrashekhar ji on something that is pending. Now regarding the allegations and certain words used,i am pretty sure that this is just a beginning,and i will have to face more and more stiff opposition as the matters become clear. I am just supposed to concentrate on my task and i assure that i will not misrepresent or misquote. I may not be responding on all the queries in this regard as i need time for the main work. Thanks Pradeep Thus kindly wait. , Prafulla Gang <jyotish wrote: > > Dear Shri Bharat ji, > > A very thought provoking mail. > > > Vedanta is a Sabda Pramana. It is available in Book form. It is sabda > > pramana of the Truth. Therefore, Atma jnana is obtained from this sabda > > pramana. Today, a person is refuting this. It is silly that one has to > > converse or discuss matters with a person who changes the meaning of > > Shastra > > every now and then, just to prove that he is right. This person has > > misquoted, misrepresented many facts, statements of many people, just to > > argue and argue. > > [Prafulla] yes - on the thread - I too observed misquotes and selective references to suit convenience and then U turn. At some stage - it was mentioned that Late Santhanam did not use aspects - implying his agreement with what Late Santhanam has referred on Navamsa chart - next mail - completely disagreeing with late Santhanam in totality ab initio. So the perspective of the whole set of mails on Late Santhanam is waste of time ? > > Same about Shri KN rao - at one thread - his Karkamasha theory is put to debate, while at the same time - we are refuting his research / predictive model on D charts itself. > > At some stage - we are referring gayatri Vasudev - but also say - that since parashar does not accept D charts - so it does not exist. Well, I did not want to comment on origin and compleness of parashari Jyotish, as it will be just endless debate and avoidable diversion. > > When we talk about Kalyan Varma - partial aspects are referred his reference point; but so far use of partial aspects - I have yet to see in anyone's interpretation model. I really do not know, if partial aspects can be really applied in 2/12 placements in rasi. > > When one participant enquired about Vimsamsa and/or other D charts - there was no contributing reply as yet. I am certainly keen to know - how can these other D charts also be interpreted in Shri Pradeep's model. > > So - arguments involved lots of convenient " fixes " or selective reference (when the entire model is rejected ab initio). > > > > > If Vedanta isn't being adhered too what kind of Jyotish will the said > > person > > adhere too? > > > > If someone knows for sure that divisional charts cannot be used > > separately, > > let him not use it. > > [Prafulla] Very well said. > > >If someone does not know for sure that divisional > > charts > > can be used separately, let him become a student and ask the knowers (Sri > > Pradeep had a major discussion with Sri PVR Narasimha Rao and Sri Sanjay > > Rath and both gave him proofs and shastric references. He did not agree > > to > > them and kept on arguing - this shows he is convinced of this as a fact). > > Once he is convinced, it is sure that he will not understand any Tarka or > > Pramana (as such he does not consider Veda as pramana since it is a > > book). > > > > > [Prafulla] yes - I also made mistake in extending discussion, when the whole debate lacked any predictive application on his model - but just an interpretation of shloka. > > > In this view, his role on this group is only to propagate what he is > > convinced about, whether or not it is the True. If such is the role, why > > is > > it being portrayed that there is a discussion going on? > > > > [Prafulla] The best statement of the entire thread. The thread is one just sided on his own interpretation of a shloka - without any contrary proof or without pointing at predictive fallacy of other mentioned authors. > > I realized and concur with the opinion of Shri Satya / Shri Bhaskar - that, if someone is not willing to look at the rationale explained by Shri PVR / Shri Sanjay / Shri KN Rao / Late Shri Santhanam / Late Shri BV Raman / Shri CS Patel / Shri VK Choudhry / Shri Krushna ji (KAS) etc and assuming that they have not read the few books like Dashadhyayi etc. it is really a far fetched opinion on someone's credentials. > > But can a group be highjacked to propogate his own throughts - without proving the fallacy of others. But going by the history - it has happened..and this thread over few years have wasted lots of collective time and forum audience's energy. > > > Cleverness has its limits. > > Yes - and Stupidity has no limits. and perhaps - I also acted like stupid. But I had selfish motive of understanding if all other authors quoted - made blunder in their such long astro journey. > > regards / Prafulla Gang > http://www.prafulla.net > > Diplomacy - n. the patriotic act of lying for one's country / community. > ************************************************ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/11/07, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > >> > >> Dear shri Bharath > >> > >> Ofcourse i repeat what i have said.Context is important. > >> > >> Atma gyan is not obtained from any books.This was the guidance i got > >> from my Gurus and i trust them. > >> > >> On the other hand six divsions of a rashi,rules for aspect etc are > >> defined as Pramanas.Ofcourse the mahamunis who have written this,got > >> their knowledge through inner self.But miles and miles to go atleast > >> for me. > >> > >> If one can get self realization by **just** reading books,all those > >> who could afford those books would have been realized by now. > >> > >> If the below paragraph written by me,were personal ,then what would > >> be the ones you have written !!!.I don't want to refer back to yor > >> usages and insulting comments.Neither had i reacted then nor i would > >> now. > >> > >> It was you who had written that,when shri Finn Wandahl was present > >> (along with many others) the list was interesting,knowledge comes to > >> blessed etc. > >> > >> I have my impressions on shri wandahl and it is not based on your > >> inputs. > >> > >> You can keep off or keep on as and when you like.Let Lord bless you. > >> > >> Regds > >> Pradeep > >> > >> <% 40>, > >> " Bharat - Hindu Astrology " > >> <astrologyhindu@> wrote: > >>> > >>> Namaste Sri Pradeep > >>> > >>> ON 31/08/2006 You made the first remark suggesting my explanations > >> are from > >>> books. You had said this directly once before. ON our first > >> discussion > >>> regarding Bhagavad Gita, it was you who was writing directly from > >> books. > >>> Moreover your sarcasm was more than evident then. So do not try > >> to behave > >>> as if you are innocent. > >>> > >>> * " Kindly do not give long explanations present in Vedantic text > >> books > >>> or Quotations as i can read them as well.i am interested in small > >>> answers,which you were revealed with ,during your slef seeking > >>> procedure.Say 2 or max 3 sentences per question.Kindly share your > >>> wisdom as gems of brevity.* > >>> > >>> > >>> I can also provide more references where you had turned personal. > >> My action > >>> was to stop discussions with you on any matter. I gave you the > >> benefit of > >>> the doubt only to learn that you are the same still. In this > >> regard, it is > >>> best you and I stay out of each other's way. I made a mistake once > >> but > >>> wouldn't make once again. > >>> > >>> You are giving names of Sri Finn Windhall as talking of Pramana. > >> Do you even > >>> know what Sri Windhall thinks of BPHS? He has mentioned on his > >> website as > >>> well as on this group that he does not think BPHS as a pramana > >> authored by > >>> the father of Sri Veda Vyasa. He says it is an amalgamation of all > >> Jyotish > >>> material and dates around 800 AD. You have consistently used bits > >> and pieces > >>> of information and are trying to show as if you are right. I guess > >> this is > >>> the level one has to stoop to, to " win " arguments and discussions. > >> Btw, > >>> before you have another misconception, I do not hold that against > >> Sri > >>> Windhall's fabulous experience and knowledge of Jyotish. Unlike > >> others, I > >>> let him hold on to his views. > >>> > >>> Without having adequate knowledge of Sanskrit, without any Sankara > >> Bhashya > >>> for reference in Jyotish, without having cross reference texts, > >> after having > >>> lost possibly thousands of Astrological works, how can be so sure > >> about > >>> something that might not be so? Don't bother answering this > >> question. It is > >>> just a repeat. > >>> > >>> So please keep off limits me and I shall do the same for you. > >>> > >>> Thanks and Regards > >>> Bharat > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 7/11/07, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dear Baharat ji > >>>> > >>>> Any member of this group can go and see the archives,if i had > >> made > >>>> any personal remarks,during our discussions on atma etc.On the > >> other > >>>> hand you had made some personal remarks,as you have done > >> below.This > >>>> time it is a gentle one as compared to previous. > >>>> > >>>> Thus i would say,i can see an improvement in your > >> style.Similarly i > >>>> will try to improve myself. > >>>> > >>>> Regds > >>>> Pradeep > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> <%40><% > >> 40>, > >>>> " Bharat - Hindu Astrology " > >>>> <astrologyhindu@> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Namaste Sri Pradeep > >>>>> > >>>>> Tarka and Pramana is something you did not understand in our > >>>> previous > >>>>> discussions and made them personal. Today again, you are using > >>>> these words > >>>>> to be suggest that you discuss only with people having it. I > >> have > >>>> big doubts > >>>>> on the same. > >>>>> > >>>>> I retire from this useless discussion. Every time I think there > >>>> has been an > >>>>> improvement in you, I am proven wrong. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks and Regards > >>>>> Bharat > >>>>> > >>>>> On 7/11/07, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dear Bharat ji > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I understand your views fully.Also regarding previous > >> philosoical > >>>>>> discussions myslef and chandrashekhar ji had our own reasons > >>>> while > >>>>>> you had your own. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You are also free to use any method you wants.I am > >> interested in > >>>> this > >>>>>> thread as long as some one is participating using Tarka and > >>>> Pramana. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regds > >>>>>> Pradeep > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --- In > >>>>>> <% 40><% > >> 40><% > >>>> 40>, > >>>>>> " Bharat - Hindu Astrology " > >>>>>> <astrologyhindu@> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Namaste Sri Pradeep > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> As you are already aware, I try to discuss with you at a > >>>> minimum. > >>>>>> The > >>>>>>> reasons can be well known through our previous discussions. > >>>> Again, > >>>>>> you are > >>>>>>> free to draw whatever conclusions you want from my > >> posting. I > >>>> will > >>>>>> not > >>>>>>> correct them. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I have already made it clear that I use Kaal Sarp yoga as > >> well > >>>> as > >>>>>> Kaal > >>>>>>> Amrita Yoga in charts and some of the well known faces in > >>>> India have > >>>>>>> understood me and gotten help from its remedies. I have > >> already > >>>>>> made it > >>>>>>> clear that my respect for Sri K N Rao does not stop me from > >>>> forming > >>>>>> my own > >>>>>>> opinions and knowledge base. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> By not following some of his principles or of others, I do > >> not > >>>>>> disrespect > >>>>>>> them. Since my desire is for knowledge and not gain extra > >>>>>> somethings by > >>>>>>> attaching big names in Astrology to my resume. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In any case by not following KSY, I would be going against > >> Sri > >>>> B V > >>>>>> Raman and > >>>>>>> by following it against Sri K N Rao. I understand the > >> working > >>>> of it > >>>>>> and use > >>>>>>> it. Btw, the way many people scare living daylights out of > >>>> people > >>>>>> is not the > >>>>>>> meaning of KSY. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> My post is amply clear on what I mean, however, you choose > >> to > >>>>>> misunderstand > >>>>>>> it. Continue doing so if you so wish. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks and Regards > >>>>>>> Bharat > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 7/11/07, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Dear Bharat ji > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Even if i hide it from you,i cannot hide it from my own > >>>>>> conscience,on > >>>>>>>> whether i am doing it for ego satisfaction or as a fight > >> for > >>>>>> justice. > >>>>>>>> Thus it is clear. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Nowhere it is mentioned that Kalasarpa yoga should not be > >>>> used - > >>>>>> Then > >>>>>>>> as per your logic,any one can use them. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ok .Fine.Now Raoji have been fighting against this since > >>>> long.We > >>>>>>>> cannot say for sure ,whether it i egotitical or > >> not.Similar > >>>> was > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> case with Karakamsha. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thus wehave to see the merits in the points discussed in > >> an > >>>>>> objective > >>>>>>>> fashion. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I understand your views fully. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>> Pradeep > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> --- In > >>>>>>>> <% 40> > >> <% > >> 40><% > >>>> 40><% > >>>>>> 40>, > >>>>>>>> " Bharat - Hindu Astrology " > >>>>>>>> <astrologyhindu@> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Namaste Sri Pradeep > >>>>>>>>> I am not stopping you from debating or discussing. > >> Again > >>>> you are > >>>>>>>> free to do > >>>>>>>>> so. Whether or not you do it egoistically or devotedly > >> is > >>>> also > >>>>>> your > >>>>>>>> own > >>>>>>>>> choice. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I mentioned what I mentioned as per my own thinking, > >> in my > >>>>>> previous > >>>>>>>> post. It > >>>>>>>>> is quite clear. You are free to draw wrong or right > >>>> conclusions > >>>>>>>> from what I > >>>>>>>>> said. I do not wish to correct your conclusions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks and Regards > >>>>>>>>> Bharat > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 7/10/07, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@> > >> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Dear Shri Bharat > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I agree with your views.I cannot stop anyone from > >> seeing > >>>>>> things as > >>>>>>>>>> they want.Even if i want i cannot. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Most importantly i should not.What is my role then.I > >> am > >>>>>>>>>> participating in debates.Through Vaada -Prathivaada > >>>> (healthy- > >>>>>>>>>> Tarka/Pramana) we are enhancing each others > >> knowledge. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> When some one produce reference,we debate, whether > >> the > >>>> intent > >>>>>> was > >>>>>>>> so > >>>>>>>>>> or not. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> If some one thinks that,they already know what has be > >>>> done > >>>>>> and is > >>>>>>>>>> not interested in looking at basics ,they are free > >> to do > >>>> so. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> But those who are interested will debate and let them > >>>> decide > >>>>>> based > >>>>>>>>>> on the points raised.Are you saying there should not > >> be > >>>> any > >>>>>>>> debate. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> If you say,sage has not prevented us from seeing > >> amshas > >>>> as > >>>>>>>>>> charts,and hence we can see,then we can do anything > >> as we > >>>>>> want.Who > >>>>>>>>>> is against it. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> As far as i am concerned the debate is only valid ,if > >>>> some one > >>>>>>>> wants > >>>>>>>>>> to study Jyotish based on the rules set by > >> Maharishi.For > >>>> eg > >>>>>> Late > >>>>>>>>>> Santhanam has said aspects are not possible as per > >> the > >>>> rules. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> If some one wants to use let them use.My debate is > >> never > >>>> with > >>>>>>>>>> them.It is only with those who are interested in > >> Tarka > >>>> and > >>>>>>>> Pramana. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Regds > >>>>>>>>>> Pradeep > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> --- In > >>>>>>>>>> <% 40> > >> <% > >> 40> > >>>> <% > >>>> 40><% > >>>>>> 40><% > >>>>>>>> 40>, > >>>>>>>>>> " Sateesh Batas " <makaras@> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Dear Bharat, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Excellent post - I concur with all of it, and do > >> not > >>>> take > >>>>>>>> anything > >>>>>>>>>> at face value, even from respected authorities - > >> until > >>>> and > >>>>>> unless > >>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>> am convinced of it. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Especially this part is apt - > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> ***The difference is, I do not tell people what to > >> do > >>>> and > >>>>>> what > >>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>> to. The freedom of choice is a God gift. You and I > >> are > >>>> no one > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>> take it from anyone.*** > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Best - Sateesh. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> ======== > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> - > >>>>>>>>>>> Bharat - Hindu Astrology > >>>>>>>>>>> To: > >>>>>>>>>>> <% 40> > >> <% > >> 40> > >>>> <% > >>>> 40><% > >>>>>> 40><% > >>>>>>>> 40> > >>>>>>>>>>> Monday, July 09, 2007 6:10 PM > >>>>>>>>>>> Re: Why Navamsa Chart - Shri > >>>> Finn > >>>>>> Wandahl > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Namaste Sri Pradeep > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The question is not whether a person gave support > >> or > >>>> not. > >>>>>> The > >>>>>>>>>> question is > >>>>>>>>>>> whether something is true or not. In Vedanta, I was > >>>> taught > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>> question and > >>>>>>>>>>> question and not accept just because someone > >> important > >>>> had > >>>>>> said > >>>>>>>>>> it. Sri > >>>>>>>>>>> Krishna, in Bhagavad Gita, in 2nd chapter, first > >> verse > >>>> he > >>>>>> spoke, > >>>>>>>>>> said that > >>>>>>>>>>> there isn't a cause for sorrow. Did Arjuna accept > >> the > >>>>>> statement? > >>>>>>>>>> He did not > >>>>>>>>>>> but questioned till he understood something. Did > >> Lord > >>>>>> Krishna > >>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>> an > >>>>>>>>>>> egoistic problem with questioning? No! > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The problem that can be seen in the group today is > >>>>>> nonacceptance > >>>>>>>>>> of an idea > >>>>>>>>>>> which may be. There isn't a single proof that > >>>> explicitly > >>>>>> says > >>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>> amshas > >>>>>>>>>>> cannot be used separately. There is no debate on > >> their > >>>>>> usage in > >>>>>>>>>> tandem with > >>>>>>>>>>> Rashi chart. Couple that with limited knowledge of > >>>> Sanskrit, > >>>>>>>>>> limited text > >>>>>>>>>>> availability of Jyotish, limited explanations > >>>> available, we > >>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>> trying to > >>>>>>>>>>> stop a mass of people from researching and using a > >>>>>> particular > >>>>>>>>>> concept. If > >>>>>>>>>>> this isn't egoistic intervention than what is? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> As far as I am concerned, my respect for Sri Finn > >>>> Windhall > >>>>>> or > >>>>>>>> Sri > >>>>>>>>>> K.N. Rao > >>>>>>>>>>> would not deter me from not following something > >> that I > >>>> feel > >>>>>>>> ain't > >>>>>>>>>> so. This > >>>>>>>>>>> is the reason despite Sri K N Rao's many writings > >>>> against > >>>>>> usage > >>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>> Gems, I > >>>>>>>>>>> continue to write about them, use them successfully > >>>> with > >>>>>> many of > >>>>>>>>>> clients and > >>>>>>>>>>> now beginning to write a book on them. Despite the > >>>> same, I > >>>>>>>> follow > >>>>>>>>>> his > >>>>>>>>>>> Karakamsha technique in Rashi chart whole heartedly > >>>> with > >>>>>>>> excellent > >>>>>>>>>> results. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The difference is, I do not tell people what to do > >> and > >>>> what > >>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>> to. The > >>>>>>>>>>> freedom of choice is a God gift. You and I are no > >> one > >>>> to > >>>>>> take it > >>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>> anyone. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks and Regards > >>>>>>>>>>> Bharat > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been > >> removed] > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Dear shri Manoj K.N.Raoji is an astrologer who is having a scientific bend of mind and has proved his abilities time and again. If you read his articles,he will not write essays on ''varga chakras''. Thus there is only a small difference that i am having with Raoji. Vargamshas can explain a lot of things as seen prashnamarga and lots of texts. Only time can prove,if i am doing something for the sake of being different.I know the divinity of astrology. Regds Pradeep -- In , Manoj Kumar <mouji99 wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > Lot of words have flown on these issues which need to be put to rest somehow. Someday it would happen. But when that day will come? Astrology is full for contradictions and misconceptions and in these days of internet, these distortions are far too many and far too placed. > > Divisional charts should and must be used for all predictive purposes but only as a sub-servient chart to the birth chart. Once long ago, and I think, that debate must be there in the archives, when one particular member said he would decipher the sex of children from the divisional chart and that the divisional chart should be used singularly. I gave him a chart and he failed. He was a teacher of some group, I dont remember exactly. But then, I still did not chide him because he failed. Many times it happens with all the astrologers, they give predictions on wrong horoscopes and it turns right. Later they wonder how did they give such a prediction. > > Regarding Karkamsha and Swamsha, I use the method prescribed by Shri K.N. Rao and I know for myself that it gives result to me. Similarly I use the seven Karaka Scheme and not the eight. > > Some groups and some teachers propagate astrology without actually experiencing it or researching on the subject. I personally know that Shri K.N. Rao has put in so many years of research and has always acknowledged the contribution of anyone who helped him in his astrological growth. This honesty of his has perhpas helped him and given him the divine blessings. May his guidance be there with us for years to come. > > Many places in the published books you find discrepancies. If you read the same shloka on the fifth house in the Brihat Parashar Hora Shastra translated by different authors, you would find it giving different meaning at all places. Some things are cardinal truths and should be accepted as it is and then worked upon to improve it. Since I am privy to all the names being mentioned in this thread, I know a majority of them personally but do not want to comment on anyone as I still consider myself a novice. > > I read the book by Shri C.S. Patel on ashtakvarga but since I do not to his bhava method, I use the principles on the normal horoscope and it works for me. After spending some time doing astrology, I have realised that if you are genuinely interested in astrology, do your researches and then publish them for critical appraisal of astrological fraternity. But please for God's sake, do not do something just for the sake of being different. Pardon me, if this mail of mine is unpalatable for some because that is not the intention. > > regards, > > Manoj > > > > Got a little couch potato? > Check out fun summer activities for kids. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Dear Pradeep ji, Nice. Please carry on your work and do apprise us of the findings. I shall be glad to receive them. Because I never reject anything without testing it. regards, Manoj vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: Dear shri Manoj K.N.Raoji is an astrologer who is having a scientific bend of mind and has proved his abilities time and again. If you read his articles,he will not write essays on ''varga chakras''. Thus there is only a small difference that i am having with Raoji. Vargamshas can explain a lot of things as seen prashnamarga and lots of texts. Only time can prove,if i am doing something for the sake of being different.I know the divinity of astrology. Regds Pradeep -- In , Manoj Kumar <mouji99 wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > Lot of words have flown on these issues which need to be put to rest somehow. Someday it would happen. But when that day will come? Astrology is full for contradictions and misconceptions and in these days of internet, these distortions are far too many and far too placed. > > Divisional charts should and must be used for all predictive purposes but only as a sub-servient chart to the birth chart. Once long ago, and I think, that debate must be there in the archives, when one particular member said he would decipher the sex of children from the divisional chart and that the divisional chart should be used singularly. I gave him a chart and he failed. He was a teacher of some group, I dont remember exactly. But then, I still did not chide him because he failed. Many times it happens with all the astrologers, they give predictions on wrong horoscopes and it turns right. Later they wonder how did they give such a prediction. > > Regarding Karkamsha and Swamsha, I use the method prescribed by Shri K.N. Rao and I know for myself that it gives result to me. Similarly I use the seven Karaka Scheme and not the eight. > > Some groups and some teachers propagate astrology without actually experiencing it or researching on the subject. I personally know that Shri K.N. Rao has put in so many years of research and has always acknowledged the contribution of anyone who helped him in his astrological growth. This honesty of his has perhpas helped him and given him the divine blessings. May his guidance be there with us for years to come. > > Many places in the published books you find discrepancies. If you read the same shloka on the fifth house in the Brihat Parashar Hora Shastra translated by different authors, you would find it giving different meaning at all places. Some things are cardinal truths and should be accepted as it is and then worked upon to improve it. Since I am privy to all the names being mentioned in this thread, I know a majority of them personally but do not want to comment on anyone as I still consider myself a novice. > > I read the book by Shri C.S. Patel on ashtakvarga but since I do not to his bhava method, I use the principles on the normal horoscope and it works for me. After spending some time doing astrology, I have realised that if you are genuinely interested in astrology, do your researches and then publish them for critical appraisal of astrological fraternity. But please for God's sake, do not do something just for the sake of being different. Pardon me, if this mail of mine is unpalatable for some because that is not the intention. > > regards, > > Manoj > > > > Got a little couch potato? > Check out fun summer activities for kids. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Dear Sri Pradeepji, //I have promised Bhaskar ji and i will keep the promise on vimshamsha. // Please be very clear in my case. I am not here to test anyones knowledge.With many holes in my own clothes,I have no right to comment on others clothes. And I have never doubted your knowledge nor thirst for rsearch based authentic approach to matters. (differnce of Opinion will always remain even between father and son, so what to speak of people from same fraternity). You may only answer me if the willingness is there, and the time is available with You. It should not be a bother, and neither troublesome to You. Since I never found a reliable source for predicting through amsas, and observing some promise in You (Whatever may be your approach is no concern), I took the liberty of taking advantage from You. And also note I have asked you a query not related to material,so the query is spiritual in nature, which You may not receive often. Hope this would put matters in proper perspective. best wishes, Bhaskar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Dear Shri Manoj Thanks for your kind understanding. Regds Pradeep , Manoj Kumar <mouji99 wrote: > > Dear Pradeep ji, > > Nice. Please carry on your work and do apprise us of the findings. I shall be glad to receive them. Because I never reject anything without testing it. > > regards, > > Manoj > > vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > Dear shri Manoj > > K.N.Raoji is an astrologer who is having a scientific bend of mind > and has proved his abilities time and again. > > If you read his articles,he will not write essays on ''varga > chakras''. > > Thus there is only a small difference that i am having with Raoji. > > Vargamshas can explain a lot of things as seen prashnamarga and lots > of texts. > > Only time can prove,if i am doing something for the sake of being > different.I know the divinity of astrology. > > Regds > Pradeep > > -- In , Manoj Kumar <mouji99@> wrote: > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > Lot of words have flown on these issues which need to be put to > rest somehow. Someday it would happen. But when that day will come? > Astrology is full for contradictions and misconceptions and in these > days of internet, these distortions are far too many and far too > placed. > > > > Divisional charts should and must be used for all predictive > purposes but only as a sub-servient chart to the birth chart. Once > long ago, and I think, that debate must be there in the archives, > when one particular member said he would decipher the sex of children > from the divisional chart and that the divisional chart should be > used singularly. I gave him a chart and he failed. He was a teacher > of some group, I dont remember exactly. But then, I still did not > chide him because he failed. Many times it happens with all the > astrologers, they give predictions on wrong horoscopes and it turns > right. Later they wonder how did they give such a prediction. > > > > Regarding Karkamsha and Swamsha, I use the method prescribed by > Shri K.N. Rao and I know for myself that it gives result to me. > Similarly I use the seven Karaka Scheme and not the eight. > > > > Some groups and some teachers propagate astrology without > actually experiencing it or researching on the subject. I personally > know that Shri K.N. Rao has put in so many years of research and has > always acknowledged the contribution of anyone who helped him in his > astrological growth. This honesty of his has perhpas helped him and > given him the divine blessings. May his guidance be there with us for > years to come. > > > > Many places in the published books you find discrepancies. If you > read the same shloka on the fifth house in the Brihat Parashar Hora > Shastra translated by different authors, you would find it giving > different meaning at all places. Some things are cardinal truths and > should be accepted as it is and then worked upon to improve it. Since > I am privy to all the names being mentioned in this thread, I know a > majority of them personally but do not want to comment on anyone as I > still consider myself a novice. > > > > I read the book by Shri C.S. Patel on ashtakvarga but since I do > not to his bhava method, I use the principles on the normal > horoscope and it works for me. After spending some time doing > astrology, I have realised that if you are genuinely interested in > astrology, do your researches and then publish them for critical > appraisal of astrological fraternity. But please for God's sake, do > not do something just for the sake of being different. Pardon me, if > this mail of mine is unpalatable for some because that is not the > intention. > > > > regards, > > > > Manoj > > > > > > > > Got a little couch potato? > > Check out fun summer activities for kids. > > > > 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.