Guest guest Posted March 8, 2010 Report Share Posted March 8, 2010 Pranaam Sanjay, > Secondly the language used by him in the mails in the last 3-4 > years is definitely not acceptable in any teaching forum. *Barring* the last few days when I finally chose to step outside of technical matters and make judgments on a personality, can you quote one sentence I wrote in the last 3-4 years that fits the above description? * * * I may have been criticizing your teachings for the last 3-4 years, but I never wrote any untruth and stuck to technical points despite provocations. You would many times become emotional and/or dramatic and state fabrications to discredit me or cast aspersions on my knowledge and/or intentions. I patiently ignored those fabrications and stuck to technical points each time. Let me give a couple of specific examples to illustrate this. * * * You wrote in the middle of the debate on your principle that fasting on some days " angers " Vishnu and you have to do astrological analysis before fasting: " Is it because I did not share the Jaimni scholar lectures? I invited you and een was prepard to shift dates, but you were too busy filming about Krishna’s birth or something. " You also iterated a few times later that my attitude had " changed " ever since I was not a part of your " Jaimini scholar " program. Though you personally invited me for that Jaimini scholar program, I consciously chose to skip. I never discussed it with you later and it was never on my mind. Moreover, I never discussed " sharing the Jaimini scholar lectures " or " shifting dates " etc. When I and my spiritual guru were in Delhi, we were free for half a day and I tried calling the phone numbers you emailed before, to possibly meet you along with my guru. But I could not reach you. It was as simple as that. Where is this " sharing the Jaimini scholar lectures " coming from and " shifting dates " coming from? These accusations give readers false impression that there is a sub-text behind my disagreements. But that is so false. I simply thought that the idea of fasting on some days angering Vishnu is wrong and took it up. Is fabricating such specific details to cast aspersions an " appropriate " behavior? * * * As another example, you wrote when I questioned your interpretation of chara karakas: " Ayanamsha ...thank God that I stopped you from coming out with another Narasimha Ayanamsha ..but now you have come to some level of understanding with the Vishnu nabhi which makes the nodes retro all the time ...good. Thats your pace, but that ayanamsha is also wrong. " First of all, the above statement came just one month after I revealed my findings on ayanamsa publicly and you wrote: " THAT IS SOMETHING BRILLIANT I think you have finally cracked it " and " Your hard work is of great historical significance " . Secondly, I never proposed to come out with a " Narasimha ayanamsa " . In fact, I do not like to name anything after me. Even with drigdasa, I called it " Parasara's drigdasa " , while *you* insisted that I should call it " Narasimha's drigdasa " . The assertion that you " stopped me from coming out with another Narasimha Ayanamsha " is absolutely a fabrication. Thirdly, the new ayanamsa that I shared with the world was completely conceived, defined and refined by me and you were not at all involved in its conception, definition and refinement. Your only contribution, which came several months *after* the above comments were written by you and after it was already included in JHora as " Vishnunabhi ayanamsa " , was to suggest changing its name from " Vishnunabhi ayanamsa " to " Jagannatha ayanamsa " (which I readily agreed to). You neither " stopped " me from anything as mentioned above nor guided me in any way in my ayanamsa research, which the above statement suggests. * * * There were many such occasions during the last 3-4 years when you would become emotional and/or dramatic and state fabrications to discredit me or cast aspersions on my knowledge and/or intentions. I patiently ignored these fabrications and provocations and religiously focused on the technical points and kept the arguments technical. In addition to these fabrications that are partly personal and partly technical in nature, there were fabrications in strictly technical matters. For example, you *explicitly* acknowledged several years ago that the idea of taking 9th, 8th and 7th houses for drigdasa in dual sign rising charts was your own idea and not approved by your elders. Yet, you *explicitly* attributed it to " our tradition from Puri " in a Jyotish Digest editorial. Until recently, I have only subtly hinted at inconsistencies in your teachings and made my arguments fully technical. You, on the other hand, often left technical issues to get personal, condescending and falsely accusing. You proved on many occasions that you are capable of manipulating facts, fabricating things and lying, both in technical and personal issues. It is quite ironic that you should accuse me of bad behavior! Best regards, Narasimha - Free Jyotish Software, Free Jyotish Lessons, Jyotish Writings, " Do It Yourself " ritual manuals for short Homam and Pitri Tarpana: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org Films that make a difference: http://SaraswatiFilms.org Spirituality: Jyotish writings: JyotishWritings - vedic astrology , " Sanjay Rath " <sjrath wrote: > > Dear Mr Jha > You wrote - > ==== Point -1 ===== > Raashi-chakra has equal divisions at intervals of 30 degrees. > Bhaava-chalita is computed along the principles given in BPHS which are > based on Suryasiddhantic equations and has unequal divisions. In Medini > Jyotisha, Raashichakra is fixed on map and Bhaavachalita moves on it at > an average rate of one full cycle per day, that is why bhaavachakra is > named Chalita. It is the real bhaava chart because the first bhaava is > lagna which is a point on ecliptic and not on circular celestial orbit > which means bhaavachakra must be elliptical and not circular in sky. > > I have tested the efficacy of bhaavachalita in rainfall, earthquakes, > individual charts, national affairs like growth rates of national > income, etc. It is suicidal to write it off. Goel Ji is doing great > disservice to astrology by propounding wrong views about house > divisions. Raju Gupta was right. > > Rath: The Bhava Lagna is an important factor which all of you are also ignoring. What is the role of the Bhava Lagna which is specifically mentioned by Parashara? > Secondly, if you see the method of computation of Hora Lagna and Ghatika Lagna, is it not a circular path? Then on what basis are you suggesting that the bhava calculated from the Hora Lagna and Ghatika lagna should be elliptical? > > ==== Point 2 ==== > > PVR still regards Sanjay Ji as his guru and respects him, but if Sanjay > Ji gives a wrong definition of Kaalachakra dashaa (KCD) sequences, PVR > has a right to express his own opinions. Goel Ji should have judged the > merits and demerits of both on the issue under discussion (KCD). > Instead, he buried the issue and made it a personality clash between > guru and shishya, denouncing the shishya for opposing the guru. It is > not sincerity. The issue must be discussed and not the persons. Mr > Sanjay Rath and Mr PVR have both served Jyotisha. None of them should be > denounced. The matter is which of the KCD sequences is correct, which > Goel Ji happily forgets. > > Rath: PVR does not regard nor consider Sanjay Rath as his guru. He seems to have forgotten what was so painstakingly taught in so many years. That is kali Yuga. Secondly the language used by him in the mails in the last 3-4 years is definitely not acceptable in any teaching forum. I think you too have taught in the past and would not accept such behavior if your students talked in this fashion with you. When people cannot talk decently, it is best not to talk to them. > So, lets be clear on one thing. There is no debate. As and when I have time, I try to show the mess he is making of jyotish. Rest is his karma. > > You seem to have your own conclusions about right and wrong already. You talk of a debate where one person speaks and the other is not to be seen. > > Just getting the facts right > > Best Wishes > Sanjay Rath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2010 Report Share Posted March 8, 2010 Dear Narasimha Rao ji , cc Shri Pt, Rath Ji and all other members of the group, I was dragged in the debate on account of my fault as I mention something in my mail out of my personal love , respect and affection to Dear Mr. Narasimha ji. When two persons place themselves in adverse mode , others who intervene are likely to be misunderstood. Whole astrological fraternity feel highly inundated to Narasimha ji to provide such an excellent software that too free of cost. This good Karma is manifesting in him at sharp intellect and giving him ability to grasp ancient scriptures in depth. Who knows the truth? I only meant that you accepted Mr. Rath ,at a given time ,as your guru , why unnecessarily waste your time in unproductive lengthy arguments with him.Every body is also listening Narasimha ji.He may put forth his views without referring Mr. Rath. As regards two issues referred by you , I may like two submit most humbly as under: 1 Bhava division I have given five versions of house division.All are applicable and in use. According to my understanding ,the compartmental system of house division is propagated in BPHS and is best suited and workable with Varga charts.Shri N.C. Lahari had supported this system in his table of houses. Otherwise , there is hardly any difference in version 1 and 2 (version two is according JH Hora).KP System is also working and widely used in western world among astrologers. 2. You said that I kept silent on' KCD'. I do not agree either with dasa sequence suggested by you or sanjay Rath. I follow BPHS translated by Pt Sitaram jha and supported by PT, Gopesh Ojha ,one another astrologer from Varanasi ( who had completed his extensive work and study of KCD much before 1960) and famous Pt Mukunand Daivagya (his original works are in sanskrit). At present you are a little bit disturbed , this is reason you do not remember that I extended full support to your arguments on Nada Navamsa. Dear Narsahima ji , life is short , why not work together for the benefit of this branch of knowledge together and unitedly. With respect and regards to all, G. K. Goel address: L-409 Sarita Vihar, New Delhi - 110076 tel: 011-26943689, 011-41403352, mobile: 09350311433 vedic astrology ; ; JyotishWritings pvr Mon, 8 Mar 2010 00:09:00 -0500 Reply to Sanjay ji Pranaam Sanjay, > Secondly the language used by him in the mails in the last 3-4 > years is definitely not acceptable in any teaching forum. *Barring* the last few days when I finally chose to step outside of technical matters and make judgments on a personality, can you quote one sentence I wrote in the last 3-4 years that fits the above description? * * * I may have been criticizing your teachings for the last 3-4 years, but I never wrote any untruth and stuck to technical points despite provocations. You would many times become emotional and/or dramatic and state fabrications to discredit me or cast aspersions on my knowledge and/or intentions. I patiently ignored those fabrications and stuck to technical points each time. Let me give a couple of specific examples to illustrate this. * * * You wrote in the middle of the debate on your principle that fasting on some days " angers " Vishnu and you have to do astrological analysis before fasting: " Is it because I did not share the Jaimni scholar lectures? I invited you and een was prepard to shift dates, but you were too busy filming about Krishna’s birth or something. " You also iterated a few times later that my attitude had " changed " ever since I was not a part of your " Jaimini scholar " program. Though you personally invited me for that Jaimini scholar program, I consciously chose to skip. I never discussed it with you later and it was never on my mind. Moreover, I never discussed " sharing the Jaimini scholar lectures " or " shifting dates " etc. When I and my spiritual guru were in Delhi, we were free for half a day and I tried calling the phone numbers you emailed before, to possibly meet you along with my guru. But I could not reach you. It was as simple as that. Where is this " sharing the Jaimini scholar lectures " coming from and " shifting dates " coming from? These accusations give readers false impression that there is a sub-text behind my disagreements. But that is so false. I simply thought that the idea of fasting on some days angering Vishnu is wrong and took it up. Is fabricating such specific details to cast aspersions an " appropriate " behavior? * * * As another example, you wrote when I questioned your interpretation of chara karakas: " Ayanamsha ...thank God that I stopped you from coming out with another Narasimha Ayanamsha ..but now you have come to some level of understanding with the Vishnu nabhi which makes the nodes retro all the time ...good. Thats your pace, but that ayanamsha is also wrong. " First of all, the above statement came just one month after I revealed my findings on ayanamsa publicly and you wrote: " THAT IS SOMETHING BRILLIANT I think you have finally cracked it " and " Your hard work is of great historical significance " . Secondly, I never proposed to come out with a " Narasimha ayanamsa " . In fact, I do not like to name anything after me. Even with drigdasa, I called it " Parasara's drigdasa " , while *you* insisted that I should call it " Narasimha's drigdasa " . The assertion that you " stopped me from coming out with another Narasimha Ayanamsha " is absolutely a fabrication. Thirdly, the new ayanamsa that I shared with the world was completely conceived, defined and refined by me and you were not at all involved in its conception, definition and refinement. Your only contribution, which came several months *after* the above comments were written by you and after it was already included in JHora as " Vishnunabhi ayanamsa " , was to suggest changing its name from " Vishnunabhi ayanamsa " to " Jagannatha ayanamsa " (which I readily agreed to). You neither " stopped " me from anything as mentioned above nor guided me in any way in my ayanamsa research, which the above statement suggests. * * * There were many such occasions during the last 3-4 years when you would become emotional and/or dramatic and state fabrications to discredit me or cast aspersions on my knowledge and/or intentions. I patiently ignored these fabrications and provocations and religiously focused on the technical points and kept the arguments technical. In addition to these fabrications that are partly personal and partly technical in nature, there were fabrications in strictly technical matters. For example, you *explicitly* acknowledged several years ago that the idea of taking 9th, 8th and 7th houses for drigdasa in dual sign rising charts was your own idea and not approved by your elders. Yet, you *explicitly* attributed it to " our tradition from Puri " in a Jyotish Digest editorial. Until recently, I have only subtly hinted at inconsistencies in your teachings and made my arguments fully technical. You, on the other hand, often left technical issues to get personal, condescending and falsely accusing. You proved on many occasions that you are capable of manipulating facts, fabricating things and lying, both in technical and personal issues. It is quite ironic that you should accuse me of bad behavior! Best regards, Narasimha ------------------------- Free Jyotish Software, Free Jyotish Lessons, Jyotish Writings, " Do It Yourself " ritual manuals for short Homam and Pitri Tarpana: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org Films that make a difference: http://SaraswatiFilms.org Spirituality: Jyotish writings: JyotishWritings ------------------------- vedic astrology , " Sanjay Rath " <sjrath wrote: > > Dear Mr Jha > You wrote - > ==== Point -1 ===== > Raashi-chakra has equal divisions at intervals of 30 degrees. > Bhaava-chalita is computed along the principles given in BPHS which are > based on Suryasiddhantic equations and has unequal divisions. In Medini > Jyotisha, Raashichakra is fixed on map and Bhaavachalita moves on it at > an average rate of one full cycle per day, that is why bhaavachakra is > named Chalita. It is the real bhaava chart because the first bhaava is > lagna which is a point on ecliptic and not on circular celestial orbit > which means bhaavachakra must be elliptical and not circular in sky. > > I have tested the efficacy of bhaavachalita in rainfall, earthquakes, > individual charts, national affairs like growth rates of national > income, etc. It is suicidal to write it off. Goel Ji is doing great > disservice to astrology by propounding wrong views about house > divisions. Raju Gupta was right. > > Rath: The Bhava Lagna is an important factor which all of you are also ignoring. What is the role of the Bhava Lagna which is specifically mentioned by Parashara? > Secondly, if you see the method of computation of Hora Lagna and Ghatika Lagna, is it not a circular path? Then on what basis are you suggesting that the bhava calculated from the Hora Lagna and Ghatika lagna should be elliptical? > > ==== Point 2 ==== > > PVR still regards Sanjay Ji as his guru and respects him, but if Sanjay > Ji gives a wrong definition of Kaalachakra dashaa (KCD) sequences, PVR > has a right to express his own opinions. Goel Ji should have judged the > merits and demerits of both on the issue under discussion (KCD). > Instead, he buried the issue and made it a personality clash between > guru and shishya, denouncing the shishya for opposing the guru. It is > not sincerity. The issue must be discussed and not the persons. Mr > Sanjay Rath and Mr PVR have both served Jyotisha. None of them should be > denounced. The matter is which of the KCD sequences is correct, which > Goel Ji happily forgets. > > Rath: PVR does not regard nor consider Sanjay Rath as his guru. He seems to have forgotten what was so painstakingly taught in so many years. That is kali Yuga. Secondly the language used by him in the mails in the last 3-4 years is definitely not acceptable in any teaching forum. I think you too have taught in the past and would not accept such behavior if your students talked in this fashion with you. When people cannot talk decently, it is best not to talk to them. > So, lets be clear on one thing. There is no debate. As and when I have time, I try to show the mess he is making of jyotish. Rest is his karma. > > You seem to have your own conclusions about right and wrong already. You talk of a debate where one person speaks and the other is not to be seen. > > Just getting the facts right > > Best Wishes > Sanjay Rath _______________ What does Budget 2010 mean for you? Catch all the latest news, updates and analysis on MSN Budget Special http://news.in.msn.com/moneyspecial/budget2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 Namaste, > why unnecessarily waste your time in unproductive lengthy > arguments with him.Every body is also listening Narasimha > ji. He may put forth his views without referring Mr. Rath. I have put forth my views on technical matters impersonally for a long time now and continue to do it (some more research articles are in the pipeline, apart from JHora 7.4 software release with several important new features). Just to be clear, what I have done in the last few days in this thread is different. I was NOT engaged in technical arguments with Pt Rath or anybody. I am simply giving my own personal *judgment* on a *public figure* in the Jyotish world, based on the insights gained from my close interaction with him for a long time. * * * > Dear Narsahima ji , life is short , why not work together for the benefit of this > branch of knowledge together and unitedly. You are right. Life is short. Amount of knowledge available in the Jyotish world is limited and there is more confusion than genuine knowledge. There are very few talented students who can work on refining this knowledge. Given the paucity of resources and people, we should not waste them in order to pursue our own name, fame, money etc. I have seen irresponsible behavior on this count for a long time: (1) There have been things that were obviously made up in a hurry and not researched at all, but were presented along with tall claims. For example, nadi navamsa was revealed with fanfare and Sanjay ji claimed it overrides all other charts when it comes to death. He also put forward some vague notions of internal vs external and claimed this chart gives clarity. On digging, there was no consistent methodology and even the chart itself is an illogical chart and in all likelihood an invalid chart. Why make things up hurriedly and make tall claims? (2) How do I know he made up in a hurry? Apart from guessing it based on the shallowness of what was presented, I have seen it live in other cases! For example, he would tell one of us the night before a seminar in US to " figure out " something (e.g. Sudasa) to teach the next morning. For example, he would give a few possibilities for Sudasa and ask us to figure out using a couple of examples what is working better. When there is something interesting in one example, he exclaims, " that's it " and jumps to conclusions. Next morning, students would drink it up thinking that it is nectar coming from parampara. When your memory of what your elders taught is vague, either do a thorough research and teach or present various possibilities and be honest about what you know and what you don't. Do not present it to the world with dishonest confidence. The pressure felt by him to keep revealing secrets and fascinating knowledge is quite sad. It is not conducive to the growth of correct knowledge. In cases like nadi navamsa, it is not even based on vague memory of what elders taught. It is something he is trying to construct based on reading books and thinking. If a chart itself is fake and you are making tall claims about the results seen in it, what does it say about the quality of your work? (3) In the early days, there was more honesty in what he knew and what he didn't, atleast privately. In later days, with more people coming in, the behavior changed. He would portray as though he knew a lot and had many secrets but was revealing only part of it. An air of enigma conveniently developed around him and his knowledge. (4) When I saw inconsistencies in his logic at seminars, I would sometimes ask. He would brush it off saying, " Narasimha, you are too advanced. These people won't understand. We will discuss later. " That would be the end of it. In the beginning, he had the spirit of finding truth. Later, he was happy if his audiences bought what he said. By remaining enigmatic, by vaguely tying in high philosophy and keeping the logic flexible, one can maximize the chance of audiences buying what one says (and thinking that they have to study more to understand fully!). (5) There have been things that Sanjay ji privately confessed long back, in explicit terms, to be his ideas not approved by elders, but later explicitly attributed the same to parampara (e.g. drigdasa exception for dual sign rising charts). Why abuse the security given by parampara? (6) There were things where Sanjay ji confessed to me long back where there were multiple versions and he was not sure which version was correct and asked me to research (e.g. solar vs soli-lunar months in TP, sign-based/longitude-based arudha padas and varnadas). However, in the following years, only one simple version was pushed by SJC and given in the software. Now, when I speak in favor of the other version after research, he seems to feel threatened and is so intolerant and dismissive (e.g. reaction to my findings on solar/soli-lunar months issue in TP). (7) As I showed in the mail enclosed below, there is unscrupulous behavior in fabricating and manipulating things (scroll down for specific examples). He can fabricate things and write them publicly to discredit his rival in a debate and cast aspersions on his knowledge and intentions. Is that the way to " work together for the benefit of this branch of knowledge " ? In fact, is Sanjay ji of today truly capable of " working together for the benefit of this branch of knowledge " ? I know that the original Sanjay ji I met seemed capable. (8) I will not name names, but I do know some talented students with good capability for research, who immersed themselves in SJC knowledge, got disillusioned later and reduced their Jyotish activities after a promising start. If there was honesty about what we knew and what we did not know and if new confusions were not thrust upon the existing confusions of Jyotish by adding a lot of hurriedly manufactured fake knowledge to the public discourse, these people could have made good contributions to Jyotish, instead of getting disillusioned. If I can stop a few talented students from getting disillusioned after investing a lot of their time, money and energy on fake knowledge, this whistleblowing of mine would've served its purpose!! I don't know if that will happen, but I will take my chance.. * * * > You said that I kept silent on' KCD'. There is some confusion and misunderstanding here. I did not say any such thing about you. * * * Goel ji, you have intervened when I finally decided to go all out on this. You may have misunderstood some words that were not directed you. I have no hard feelings against you. In fact, I am not angry at anyone. As long as traces of anger and frustration at the state of affairs were still present in my heart, I kept this to myself. Only after I overcame it fully did I go all out. I see it as my dharma to blow the whistle and stand up for truth. I must say that I have been observing you for a while and I have nothing but admiration for you and your conduct. I am sorry that we are on different sides in this particular thread, but I do appreciate your commitment to gurus and elders. It is quite admirable. But loyalty to the subject itself and to Truth can sometimes be larger than loyalty to one's guru! Best regards, Narasimha - Free Jyotish Software, Free Jyotish Lessons, Jyotish Writings, " Do It Yourself " ritual manuals for short Homam and Pitri Tarpana: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org Films that make a difference: http://SaraswatiFilms.org Spirituality: Jyotish writings: JyotishWritings - , gopal krishna goel <g.k.goel wrote: > Dear Narasimha Rao ji , > cc Shri Pt, Rath Ji > and all other members of the group, > > I was dragged in the debate on account of my fault as I mention > something in my mail out of my personal love , respect and affection > to Dear Mr. Narasimha ji. When two persons place themselves in adverse > mode , others who intervene are likely to be misunderstood. > > Whole astrological fraternity feel highly inundated to Narasimha ji to > provide such an excellent software that too free of cost. This good Karma is > manifesting in him at sharp intellect and giving him ability to grasp ancient scriptures > in depth. Who knows the truth? > I only meant that you accepted Mr. Rath ,at a given time ,as your guru , why unnecessarily > waste your time in unproductive lengthy arguments with him.Every body is also listening > Narasimha ji.He may put forth his views without referring Mr. Rath. > > As regards two issues referred by you , I may like two submit most humbly > as under: > 1 Bhava division > I have given five versions of house division.All are applicable and in use. > According to my understanding ,the compartmental system of house division is > propagated in BPHS and is best suited and workable with Varga charts.Shri > N.C. Lahari had supported this system in his table of houses. Otherwise , > there is hardly any difference in version 1 and 2 (version two is according JH > Hora).KP System is also working and widely used in western world among astrologers. > 2. You said that I kept silent on' KCD'. I do not agree either with dasa > sequence suggested by you or sanjay Rath. I follow BPHS translated by > Pt Sitaram jha and supported by PT, Gopesh Ojha ,one another > astrologer from Varanasi ( who had completed his extensive work and study of > KCD much before 1960) and famous Pt Mukunand Daivagya (his original works are in > sanskrit). > At present you are a little bit disturbed , this is reason you do not remember that I > extended full support to your arguments on Nada Navamsa. > Dear Narsahima ji , life is short , why not work together for the benefit of this > branch of knowledge together and unitedly. > With respect and regards to all, > > G. K. Goel > Namaste friends, > > > He is free to peruse his own independent path with out > > abusing or blaming his guru , and earning and accumulating > > bad Karma for himself.) > > If what I wrote is false, then it counts as an " abuse " . But, if what I wrote is true, it is a serious and relevant issue to the Jyotish world. Whistleblowing and abuse are different. > > Let me illustrate my point using the example of so-called " Nadi navamsa " . A few months back, Pt Rath taught " Nadi Navamsa " and shared a multimedia presentation. He tried to differentiate it from regular navamsa saying one is for " internal " matters and the other for " external " matters. He said, " until now, you were seeing everything in one chart and did not have clarity. That is because you did not have a tool. Now I am giving you a tool. " He even made very serious claims (e.g. when this chart shows death, it overrides other charts and one has to be very careful). > > I wrote a detailed critique showing how there was no consistent methodology of what is internal and what is external. I showed how he mixed up everything and how his teachings were all over the place and filled with contradictions and confusions. Above all, I showed that the chart he defined itself was an *illogical* chart and suggested a more logical alternative definition, which renders his teachings on this meaningless. Mr Goel, the person who wrote the mail below, said about my definition: " I am convinced that you are right " ! > > * * * > > Sanjay ji's response to my detailed critique was short in a mail addressed to Mr Goel: > > " It is not the critique that I question, it is the intention. As I told Narasimha earlier - it is bhakti that is under doubt and question, and that is the heart. He has no bhakti for Jagannath and there is no truth in his heart. > > Note that he did not have any response to the technical points in my critique! When it comes to my " bhakti " , it is a matter between me, my spiritual master and my Mother. > > * * * > > Bottomline: Sanjay ji taught an illogical chart and what seems on a superficial observation like a sophisticated and nuanced methodology around it but which is in fact a facade. Unfortunately, he did it so many times in so many matters, after his ran out of his true parampara secrets such as Narayana dasa and TP in the early years. > > After my critique, this Nadi navamsa thing fizzled out. Otherwise, it would've become part of standard terminology on lists. People would wonder " why are you using regular navamsa? Shouldn't we use nadi navamsa in this case because of so and so reason? " Like this, so much fake knowledge got into public discourse and corrupted it in the last several years. This is very bad for the growth of correct Jyotish knowledge. > > When his ill-researched " hunches " are shared with pomp, fanfare and an air of great importance, people take it to be either a parampara secret or an important research that is inspired by the wisdom of parampara. But, as I said, Sanjay ji is a very bad researcher (his USP is parampara secrets. He is good at coming up with ideas in a hunch, but terrible at researching them) and jumps to conclusions at the drop of a hat. So much fake knowledge enetered public discourse like this and corrupted the field. > Pranaam Sanjay, > > > Secondly the language used by him in the mails in the last 3-4 > > years is definitely not acceptable in any teaching forum. > > *Barring* the last few days when I finally chose to step outside of technical matters and make judgments on a personality, can you quote one sentence I wrote in the last 3-4 years that fits the above description? > > * * * > > I may have been criticizing your teachings for the last 3-4 years, but I never wrote any untruth and stuck to technical points despite provocations. You would many times become emotional and/or dramatic and state fabrications to discredit me or cast aspersions on my knowledge and/or intentions. I patiently ignored those fabrications and stuck to technical points each time. Let me give a couple of specific examples to illustrate this. > > * * * > > You wrote in the middle of the debate on your principle that fasting on some days " angers " Vishnu and you have to do astrological analysis before fasting: " Is it because I did not share the Jaimni scholar lectures? I invited you and een was prepard to shift dates, but you were too busy filming about Krishna’s birth or something. " You also iterated a few times later that my attitude had " changed " ever since I was not a part of your " Jaimini scholar " program. > > Though you personally invited me for that Jaimini scholar program, I consciously chose to skip. I never discussed it with you later and it was never on my mind. Moreover, I never discussed " sharing the Jaimini scholar lectures " or " shifting dates " etc. > > When I and my spiritual guru were in Delhi, we were free for half a day and I tried calling the phone numbers you emailed before, to possibly meet you along with my guru. But I could not reach you. It was as simple as that. Where is this " sharing the Jaimini scholar lectures " coming from and " shifting dates " coming from? > > These accusations give readers false impression that there is a sub-text behind my disagreements. But that is so false. I simply thought that the idea of fasting on some days angering Vishnu is wrong and took it up. > > Is fabricating such specific details to cast aspersions an " appropriate " behavior? > > * * * > > As another example, you wrote when I questioned your interpretation of chara karakas: " Ayanamsha ...thank God that I stopped you from coming out with another Narasimha Ayanamsha ..but now you have come to some level of understanding with the Vishnu nabhi which makes the nodes retro all the time ...good. Thats your pace, but that ayanamsha is also wrong. " > > First of all, the above statement came just one month after I revealed my findings on ayanamsa publicly and you wrote: " THAT IS SOMETHING BRILLIANT I think you have finally cracked it " and " Your hard work is of great historical significance " . > > Secondly, I never proposed to come out with a " Narasimha ayanamsa " . In fact, I do not like to name anything after me. Even with drigdasa, I called it " Parasara's drigdasa " , while *you* insisted that I should call it " Narasimha's drigdasa " . The assertion that you " stopped me from coming out with another Narasimha Ayanamsha " is absolutely a fabrication. > > Thirdly, the new ayanamsa that I shared with the world was completely conceived, defined and refined by me and you were not at all involved in its conception, definition and refinement. Your only contribution, which came several months *after* the above comments were written by you and after it was already included in JHora as " Vishnunabhi ayanamsa " , was to suggest changing its name from " Vishnunabhi ayanamsa " to " Jagannatha ayanamsa " (which I readily agreed to). You neither " stopped " me from anything as mentioned above nor guided me in any way in my ayanamsa research, which the above statement suggests. > > * * * > > There were many such occasions during the last 3-4 years when you would become emotional and/or dramatic and state fabrications to discredit me or cast aspersions on my knowledge and/or intentions. I patiently ignored these fabrications and provocations and religiously focused on the technical points and kept the arguments technical. > > In addition to these fabrications that are partly personal and partly technical in nature, there were fabrications in strictly technical matters. For example, you *explicitly* acknowledged several years ago that the idea of taking 9th, 8th and 7th houses for drigdasa in dual sign rising charts was your own idea and not approved by your elders. Yet, you *explicitly* attributed it to " our tradition from Puri " in a Jyotish Digest editorial. > > Until recently, I have only subtly hinted at inconsistencies in your teachings and made my arguments fully technical. You, on the other hand, often left technical issues to get personal, condescending and falsely accusing. You proved on many occasions that you are capable of manipulating facts, fabricating things and lying, both in technical and personal issues. It is quite ironic that you should accuse me of bad behavior! > > Best regards, > Narasimha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 Namaste, > why unnecessarily waste your time in unproductive lengthy > arguments with him.Every body is also listening Narasimha > ji. He may put forth his views without referring Mr. Rath. I have put forth my views on technical matters impersonally for a long time now and continue to do it (some more research articles are in the pipeline, apart from JHora 7.4 software release with several important new features). Just to be clear, what I have done in the last few days in this thread is different. I was NOT engaged in technical arguments with Pt Rath or anybody. I am simply giving my own personal *judgment* on a *public figure* in the Jyotish world, based on the insights gained from my close interaction with him for a long time. * * * > Dear Narsahima ji , life is short , why not work together for the benefit of this > branch of knowledge together and unitedly. You are right. Life is short. Amount of knowledge available in the Jyotish world is limited and there is more confusion than genuine knowledge. There are very few talented students who can work on refining this knowledge. Given the paucity of resources and people, we should not waste them in order to pursue our own name, fame, money etc. I have seen irresponsible behavior on this count for a long time: (1) There have been things that were obviously made up in a hurry and not researched at all, but were presented along with tall claims. For example, nadi navamsa was revealed with fanfare and Sanjay ji claimed it overrides all other charts when it comes to death. He also put forward some vague notions of internal vs external and claimed this chart gives clarity. On digging, there was no consistent methodology and even the chart itself is an illogical chart and in all likelihood an invalid chart. Why make things up hurriedly and make tall claims? (2) How do I know he made up in a hurry? Apart from guessing it based on the shallowness of what was presented, I have seen it live in other cases! For example, he would tell one of us the night before a seminar in US to " figure out " something (e.g. Sudasa) to teach the next morning. For example, he would give a few possibilities for Sudasa and ask us to figure out using a couple of examples what is working better. When there is something interesting in one example, he exclaims, " that's it " and jumps to conclusions. Next morning, students would drink it up thinking that it is nectar coming from parampara. When your memory of what your elders taught is vague, either do a thorough research and teach or present various possibilities and be honest about what you know and what you don't. Do not present it to the world with dishonest confidence. The pressure felt by him to keep revealing secrets and fascinating knowledge is quite sad. It is not conducive to the growth of correct knowledge. In cases like nadi navamsa, it is not even based on vague memory of what elders taught. It is something he is trying to construct based on reading books and thinking. If a chart itself is fake and you are making tall claims about the results seen in it, what does it say about the quality of your work? (3) In the early days, there was more honesty in what he knew and what he didn't, atleast privately. In later days, with more people coming in, the behavior changed. He would portray as though he knew a lot and had many secrets but was revealing only part of it. An air of enigma conveniently developed around him and his knowledge. (4) When I saw inconsistencies in his logic at seminars, I would sometimes ask. He would brush it off saying, " Narasimha, you are too advanced. These people won't understand. We will discuss later. " That would be the end of it. In the beginning, he had the spirit of finding truth. Later, he was happy if his audiences bought what he said. By remaining enigmatic, by vaguely tying in high philosophy and keeping the logic flexible, one can maximize the chance of audiences buying what one says (and thinking that they have to study more to understand fully!). (5) There have been things that Sanjay ji privately confessed long back, in explicit terms, to be his ideas not approved by elders, but later explicitly attributed the same to parampara (e.g. drigdasa exception for dual sign rising charts). Why abuse the security given by parampara? (6) There were things where Sanjay ji confessed to me long back where there were multiple versions and he was not sure which version was correct and asked me to research (e.g. solar vs soli-lunar months in TP, sign-based/longitude-based arudha padas and varnadas). However, in the following years, only one simple version was pushed by SJC and given in the software. Now, when I speak in favor of the other version after research, he seems to feel threatened and is so intolerant and dismissive (e.g. reaction to my findings on solar/soli-lunar months issue in TP). (7) As I showed in the mail enclosed below, there is unscrupulous behavior in fabricating and manipulating things (scroll down for specific examples). He can fabricate things and write them publicly to discredit his rival in a debate and cast aspersions on his knowledge and intentions. Is that the way to " work together for the benefit of this branch of knowledge " ? In fact, is Sanjay ji of today truly capable of " working together for the benefit of this branch of knowledge " ? I know that the original Sanjay ji I met seemed capable. (8) I will not name names, but I do know some talented students with good capability for research, who immersed themselves in SJC knowledge, got disillusioned later and reduced their Jyotish activities after a promising start. If there was honesty about what we knew and what we did not know and if new confusions were not thrust upon the existing confusions of Jyotish by adding a lot of hurriedly manufactured fake knowledge to the public discourse, these people could have made good contributions to Jyotish, instead of getting disillusioned. If I can stop a few talented students from getting disillusioned after investing a lot of their time, money and energy on fake knowledge, this whistleblowing of mine would've served its purpose!! I don't know if that will happen, but I will take my chance.. * * * > You said that I kept silent on' KCD'. There is some confusion and misunderstanding here. I did not say any such thing about you. * * * Goel ji, you have intervened when I finally decided to go all out on this. You may have misunderstood some words that were not directed you. I have no hard feelings against you. In fact, I am not angry at anyone. As long as traces of anger and frustration at the state of affairs were still present in my heart, I kept this to myself. Only after I overcame it fully did I go all out. I see it as my dharma to blow the whistle and stand up for truth. I must say that I have been observing you for a while and I have nothing but admiration for you and your conduct. I am sorry that we are on different sides in this particular thread, but I do appreciate your commitment to gurus and elders. It is quite admirable. But loyalty to the subject itself and to Truth can sometimes be larger than loyalty to one's guru! Best regards, Narasimha - Free Jyotish Software, Free Jyotish Lessons, Jyotish Writings, " Do It Yourself " ritual manuals for short Homam and Pitri Tarpana: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org Films that make a difference: http://SaraswatiFilms.org Spirituality: Jyotish writings: JyotishWritings - , gopal krishna goel <g.k.goel wrote: > Dear Narasimha Rao ji , > cc Shri Pt, Rath Ji > and all other members of the group, > > I was dragged in the debate on account of my fault as I mention > something in my mail out of my personal love , respect and affection > to Dear Mr. Narasimha ji. When two persons place themselves in adverse > mode , others who intervene are likely to be misunderstood. > > Whole astrological fraternity feel highly inundated to Narasimha ji to > provide such an excellent software that too free of cost. This good Karma is > manifesting in him at sharp intellect and giving him ability to grasp ancient scriptures > in depth. Who knows the truth? > I only meant that you accepted Mr. Rath ,at a given time ,as your guru , why unnecessarily > waste your time in unproductive lengthy arguments with him.Every body is also listening > Narasimha ji.He may put forth his views without referring Mr. Rath. > > As regards two issues referred by you , I may like two submit most humbly > as under: > 1 Bhava division > I have given five versions of house division.All are applicable and in use. > According to my understanding ,the compartmental system of house division is > propagated in BPHS and is best suited and workable with Varga charts.Shri > N.C. Lahari had supported this system in his table of houses. Otherwise , > there is hardly any difference in version 1 and 2 (version two is according JH > Hora).KP System is also working and widely used in western world among astrologers. > 2. You said that I kept silent on' KCD'. I do not agree either with dasa > sequence suggested by you or sanjay Rath. I follow BPHS translated by > Pt Sitaram jha and supported by PT, Gopesh Ojha ,one another > astrologer from Varanasi ( who had completed his extensive work and study of > KCD much before 1960) and famous Pt Mukunand Daivagya (his original works are in > sanskrit). > At present you are a little bit disturbed , this is reason you do not remember that I > extended full support to your arguments on Nada Navamsa. > Dear Narsahima ji , life is short , why not work together for the benefit of this > branch of knowledge together and unitedly. > With respect and regards to all, > > G. K. Goel > Namaste friends, > > > He is free to peruse his own independent path with out > > abusing or blaming his guru , and earning and accumulating > > bad Karma for himself.) > > If what I wrote is false, then it counts as an " abuse " . But, if what I wrote is true, it is a serious and relevant issue to the Jyotish world. Whistleblowing and abuse are different. > > Let me illustrate my point using the example of so-called " Nadi navamsa " . A few months back, Pt Rath taught " Nadi Navamsa " and shared a multimedia presentation. He tried to differentiate it from regular navamsa saying one is for " internal " matters and the other for " external " matters. He said, " until now, you were seeing everything in one chart and did not have clarity. That is because you did not have a tool. Now I am giving you a tool. " He even made very serious claims (e.g. when this chart shows death, it overrides other charts and one has to be very careful). > > I wrote a detailed critique showing how there was no consistent methodology of what is internal and what is external. I showed how he mixed up everything and how his teachings were all over the place and filled with contradictions and confusions. Above all, I showed that the chart he defined itself was an *illogical* chart and suggested a more logical alternative definition, which renders his teachings on this meaningless. Mr Goel, the person who wrote the mail below, said about my definition: " I am convinced that you are right " ! > > * * * > > Sanjay ji's response to my detailed critique was short in a mail addressed to Mr Goel: > > " It is not the critique that I question, it is the intention. As I told Narasimha earlier - it is bhakti that is under doubt and question, and that is the heart. He has no bhakti for Jagannath and there is no truth in his heart. > > Note that he did not have any response to the technical points in my critique! When it comes to my " bhakti " , it is a matter between me, my spiritual master and my Mother. > > * * * > > Bottomline: Sanjay ji taught an illogical chart and what seems on a superficial observation like a sophisticated and nuanced methodology around it but which is in fact a facade. Unfortunately, he did it so many times in so many matters, after his ran out of his true parampara secrets such as Narayana dasa and TP in the early years. > > After my critique, this Nadi navamsa thing fizzled out. Otherwise, it would've become part of standard terminology on lists. People would wonder " why are you using regular navamsa? Shouldn't we use nadi navamsa in this case because of so and so reason? " Like this, so much fake knowledge got into public discourse and corrupted it in the last several years. This is very bad for the growth of correct Jyotish knowledge. > > When his ill-researched " hunches " are shared with pomp, fanfare and an air of great importance, people take it to be either a parampara secret or an important research that is inspired by the wisdom of parampara. But, as I said, Sanjay ji is a very bad researcher (his USP is parampara secrets. He is good at coming up with ideas in a hunch, but terrible at researching them) and jumps to conclusions at the drop of a hat. So much fake knowledge enetered public discourse like this and corrupted the field. > Pranaam Sanjay, > > > Secondly the language used by him in the mails in the last 3-4 > > years is definitely not acceptable in any teaching forum. > > *Barring* the last few days when I finally chose to step outside of technical matters and make judgments on a personality, can you quote one sentence I wrote in the last 3-4 years that fits the above description? > > * * * > > I may have been criticizing your teachings for the last 3-4 years, but I never wrote any untruth and stuck to technical points despite provocations. You would many times become emotional and/or dramatic and state fabrications to discredit me or cast aspersions on my knowledge and/or intentions. I patiently ignored those fabrications and stuck to technical points each time. Let me give a couple of specific examples to illustrate this. > > * * * > > You wrote in the middle of the debate on your principle that fasting on some days " angers " Vishnu and you have to do astrological analysis before fasting: " Is it because I did not share the Jaimni scholar lectures? I invited you and een was prepard to shift dates, but you were too busy filming about Krishna’s birth or something. " You also iterated a few times later that my attitude had " changed " ever since I was not a part of your " Jaimini scholar " program. > > Though you personally invited me for that Jaimini scholar program, I consciously chose to skip. I never discussed it with you later and it was never on my mind. Moreover, I never discussed " sharing the Jaimini scholar lectures " or " shifting dates " etc. > > When I and my spiritual guru were in Delhi, we were free for half a day and I tried calling the phone numbers you emailed before, to possibly meet you along with my guru. But I could not reach you. It was as simple as that. Where is this " sharing the Jaimini scholar lectures " coming from and " shifting dates " coming from? > > These accusations give readers false impression that there is a sub-text behind my disagreements. But that is so false. I simply thought that the idea of fasting on some days angering Vishnu is wrong and took it up. > > Is fabricating such specific details to cast aspersions an " appropriate " behavior? > > * * * > > As another example, you wrote when I questioned your interpretation of chara karakas: " Ayanamsha ...thank God that I stopped you from coming out with another Narasimha Ayanamsha ..but now you have come to some level of understanding with the Vishnu nabhi which makes the nodes retro all the time ...good. Thats your pace, but that ayanamsha is also wrong. " > > First of all, the above statement came just one month after I revealed my findings on ayanamsa publicly and you wrote: " THAT IS SOMETHING BRILLIANT I think you have finally cracked it " and " Your hard work is of great historical significance " . > > Secondly, I never proposed to come out with a " Narasimha ayanamsa " . In fact, I do not like to name anything after me. Even with drigdasa, I called it " Parasara's drigdasa " , while *you* insisted that I should call it " Narasimha's drigdasa " . The assertion that you " stopped me from coming out with another Narasimha Ayanamsha " is absolutely a fabrication. > > Thirdly, the new ayanamsa that I shared with the world was completely conceived, defined and refined by me and you were not at all involved in its conception, definition and refinement. Your only contribution, which came several months *after* the above comments were written by you and after it was already included in JHora as " Vishnunabhi ayanamsa " , was to suggest changing its name from " Vishnunabhi ayanamsa " to " Jagannatha ayanamsa " (which I readily agreed to). You neither " stopped " me from anything as mentioned above nor guided me in any way in my ayanamsa research, which the above statement suggests. > > * * * > > There were many such occasions during the last 3-4 years when you would become emotional and/or dramatic and state fabrications to discredit me or cast aspersions on my knowledge and/or intentions. I patiently ignored these fabrications and provocations and religiously focused on the technical points and kept the arguments technical. > > In addition to these fabrications that are partly personal and partly technical in nature, there were fabrications in strictly technical matters. For example, you *explicitly* acknowledged several years ago that the idea of taking 9th, 8th and 7th houses for drigdasa in dual sign rising charts was your own idea and not approved by your elders. Yet, you *explicitly* attributed it to " our tradition from Puri " in a Jyotish Digest editorial. > > Until recently, I have only subtly hinted at inconsistencies in your teachings and made my arguments fully technical. You, on the other hand, often left technical issues to get personal, condescending and falsely accusing. You proved on many occasions that you are capable of manipulating facts, fabricating things and lying, both in technical and personal issues. It is quite ironic that you should accuse me of bad behavior! > > Best regards, > Narasimha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 Dearest Sanjayji, P.V.R.ji and All, The sort of arguments transpiring between the Astrological maestros are probably a confirmation that Kali Yuga is certainly on. Right and Wrong, about This and That,etc etc is there... but it is no proof of the REAL. P.V.R.ji and Sanjayji, and their posts about whatever is transpiring reminds me of the word 'Logic' and its better meaning. We are all aware of the Logic in Mathematics...True, Perfect, Clear Cut.... Nothing could be better Logic than this. Unfortunately or Fortunately, the highest form of Logic (even above Maths) is ....'Philosophy'. Mind you, Philosophy may or may not be Mathematically Logical; but Real Logic after All. Regarding we astrologer, even Stalwarts, changing our views Is like...'EVOLVING'. Views better with time. I am sure all our past Guru's did too with/over time, which we would have no clue of. Taking a good look at charts make us realise what the native through right now. Maybe what I am saying right now will make me unpopular. But I just feel like saying what I fell right now, while I listen to the song..'Where the angels fear to tread...by Brian Adams:= The Narayan Dasa of D20 would be a good pointer. As both Sanjaji and Narasimhaji are having the mahadasa of Narayan Dasa of D20 of the tenth house of Vimsamsa. 4 planets in one house, without being combust or in grahayuddha is a sign of good spirituality; and also they are benefics and malefics in the 6th from Al, betraying a good blend of swaying from spirituality to materiality; in the house of positive Mars, also betraying domineering tendencies. Ideally, too many planets in a house is a source of disbalance in life/living/personality. But this is possible in many evolved souls too. Rahu conjunct moon shows very good power, but the moon is not beyond greed. Ketu well posited in the 10th house shows a healthy secretiveness. Ketu in Al can aid to tarnish image, but not the spirituality in the proper sense. If it was debilitated or bad, it could mean a liar. The Meen lagna with Jupiter in Lagna opposing Mars is mentally very healthy. Real learning in jyotish is seen fro the position of Jupiter in D10. Ketu in the 12th. show spirituality and spiritualness affecting the whole life, but not dealing with it well would lead to problems, unless Narayan dasa of D20, D10 and D1 is good in later life. Let us not fight and not affect mental healths. But Kudos to both the Stalwarts in doing Great Service to The World of Jyotish. Pranam, RishiRahul Considering that we are mostly in age group of 40 to 50, our spirituality is not yet fully evolved (barring exceptions. vedic astrology , Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr wrote: > > Pranaam Sanjay, > > > Secondly the language used by him in the mails in the last 3-4 > > years is definitely not acceptable in any teaching forum. > > *Barring* the last few days when I finally chose to step outside of technical matters and make judgments on a personality, can you quote one sentence I wrote in the last 3-4 years that fits the above description? > > * * * > > I may have been criticizing your teachings for the last 3-4 years, but I never wrote any untruth and stuck to technical points despite provocations. You would many times become emotional and/or dramatic and state fabrications to discredit me or cast aspersions on my knowledge and/or intentions. I patiently ignored those fabrications and stuck to technical points each time. Let me give a couple of specific examples to illustrate this. > > * * * > > You wrote in the middle of the debate on your principle that fasting on some days " angers " Vishnu and you have to do astrological analysis before fasting: " Is it because I did not share the Jaimni scholar lectures? I invited you and een was prepard to shift dates, but you were too busy filming about Krishna’s birth or something. " You also iterated a few times later that my attitude had " changed " ever since I was not a part of your " Jaimini scholar " program. > > Though you personally invited me for that Jaimini scholar program, I consciously chose to skip. I never discussed it with you later and it was never on my mind. Moreover, I never discussed " sharing the Jaimini scholar lectures " or " shifting dates " etc. > > When I and my spiritual guru were in Delhi, we were free for half a day and I tried calling the phone numbers you emailed before, to possibly meet you along with my guru. But I could not reach you. It was as simple as that. Where is this " sharing the Jaimini scholar lectures " coming from and " shifting dates " coming from? > > These accusations give readers false impression that there is a sub-text behind my disagreements. But that is so false. I simply thought that the idea of fasting on some days angering Vishnu is wrong and took it up. > > Is fabricating such specific details to cast aspersions an " appropriate " behavior? > > * * * > > As another example, you wrote when I questioned your interpretation of chara karakas: " Ayanamsha ...thank God that I stopped you from coming out with another Narasimha Ayanamsha ..but now you have come to some level of understanding with the Vishnu nabhi which makes the nodes retro all the time ...good. Thats your pace, but that ayanamsha is also wrong. " > > First of all, the above statement came just one month after I revealed my findings on ayanamsa publicly and you wrote: " THAT IS SOMETHING BRILLIANT I think you have finally cracked it " and " Your hard work is of great historical significance " . > > Secondly, I never proposed to come out with a " Narasimha ayanamsa " . In fact, I do not like to name anything after me. Even with drigdasa, I called it " Parasara's drigdasa " , while *you* insisted that I should call it " Narasimha's drigdasa " . The assertion that you " stopped me from coming out with another Narasimha Ayanamsha " is absolutely a fabrication. > > Thirdly, the new ayanamsa that I shared with the world was completely conceived, defined and refined by me and you were not at all involved in its conception, definition and refinement. Your only contribution, which came several months *after* the above comments were written by you and after it was already included in JHora as " Vishnunabhi ayanamsa " , was to suggest changing its name from " Vishnunabhi ayanamsa " to " Jagannatha ayanamsa " (which I readily agreed to). You neither " stopped " me from anything as mentioned above nor guided me in any way in my ayanamsa research, which the above statement suggests. > > * * * > > There were many such occasions during the last 3-4 years when you would become emotional and/or dramatic and state fabrications to discredit me or cast aspersions on my knowledge and/or intentions. I patiently ignored these fabrications and provocations and religiously focused on the technical points and kept the arguments technical. > > In addition to these fabrications that are partly personal and partly technical in nature, there were fabrications in strictly technical matters. For example, you *explicitly* acknowledged several years ago that the idea of taking 9th, 8th and 7th houses for drigdasa in dual sign rising charts was your own idea and not approved by your elders. Yet, you *explicitly* attributed it to " our tradition from Puri " in a Jyotish Digest editorial. > > Until recently, I have only subtly hinted at inconsistencies in your teachings and made my arguments fully technical. You, on the other hand, often left technical issues to get personal, condescending and falsely accusing. You proved on many occasions that you are capable of manipulating facts, fabricating things and lying, both in technical and personal issues. It is quite ironic that you should accuse me of bad behavior! > > Best regards, > Narasimha > - > Free Jyotish Software, Free Jyotish Lessons, Jyotish Writings, > " Do It Yourself " ritual manuals for short Homam and Pitri Tarpana: > http://www.VedicAstrologer.org > Films that make a difference: http://SaraswatiFilms.org > Spirituality: > Jyotish writings: JyotishWritings > - > > vedic astrology , " Sanjay Rath " <sjrath@> wrote: > > > > Dear Mr Jha > > You wrote - > > ==== Point -1 ===== > > Raashi-chakra has equal divisions at intervals of 30 degrees. > > Bhaava-chalita is computed along the principles given in BPHS which are > > based on Suryasiddhantic equations and has unequal divisions. In Medini > > Jyotisha, Raashichakra is fixed on map and Bhaavachalita moves on it at > > an average rate of one full cycle per day, that is why bhaavachakra is > > named Chalita. It is the real bhaava chart because the first bhaava is > > lagna which is a point on ecliptic and not on circular celestial orbit > > which means bhaavachakra must be elliptical and not circular in sky. > > > > I have tested the efficacy of bhaavachalita in rainfall, earthquakes, > > individual charts, national affairs like growth rates of national > > income, etc. It is suicidal to write it off. Goel Ji is doing great > > disservice to astrology by propounding wrong views about house > > divisions. Raju Gupta was right. > > > > Rath: The Bhava Lagna is an important factor which all of you are also ignoring. What is the role of the Bhava Lagna which is specifically mentioned by Parashara? > > Secondly, if you see the method of computation of Hora Lagna and Ghatika Lagna, is it not a circular path? Then on what basis are you suggesting that the bhava calculated from the Hora Lagna and Ghatika lagna should be elliptical? > > > > ==== Point 2 ==== > > > > PVR still regards Sanjay Ji as his guru and respects him, but if Sanjay > > Ji gives a wrong definition of Kaalachakra dashaa (KCD) sequences, PVR > > has a right to express his own opinions. Goel Ji should have judged the > > merits and demerits of both on the issue under discussion (KCD). > > Instead, he buried the issue and made it a personality clash between > > guru and shishya, denouncing the shishya for opposing the guru. It is > > not sincerity. The issue must be discussed and not the persons. Mr > > Sanjay Rath and Mr PVR have both served Jyotisha. None of them should be > > denounced. The matter is which of the KCD sequences is correct, which > > Goel Ji happily forgets. > > > > Rath: PVR does not regard nor consider Sanjay Rath as his guru. He seems to have forgotten what was so painstakingly taught in so many years. That is kali Yuga. Secondly the language used by him in the mails in the last 3-4 years is definitely not acceptable in any teaching forum. I think you too have taught in the past and would not accept such behavior if your students talked in this fashion with you. When people cannot talk decently, it is best not to talk to them. > > So, lets be clear on one thing. There is no debate. As and when I have time, I try to show the mess he is making of jyotish. Rest is his karma. > > > > You seem to have your own conclusions about right and wrong already. You talk of a debate where one person speaks and the other is not to be seen. > > > > Just getting the facts right > > > > Best Wishes > > Sanjay Rath > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 Dear RR1961, Or simply after-effects of jupiter in debility? I recall reading Sanjay_ji's article posted just before or in early phase of when Jupiter was in capricorn and he had very clearly indicated something about Gurus and Shishyas that came to pass. Unfortunately, I did not capture the links etc but perhaps the article may still be if one Googles it. RR_, vedic astrology , " rishirahul1961 " <rishirahul1961 wrote: > > > Dearest Sanjayji, P.V.R.ji and All, > > The sort of arguments transpiring between the Astrological maestros are probably a confirmation that Kali Yuga is certainly on. > > Right and Wrong, about This and That,etc etc is there... but it is no proof of the REAL. > > P.V.R.ji and Sanjayji, and their posts about whatever is transpiring reminds me of the word 'Logic' and its better meaning. > > We are all aware of the Logic in Mathematics...True, Perfect, Clear Cut.... Nothing could be better Logic than this. > > Unfortunately or Fortunately, the highest form of Logic (even above Maths) is ....'Philosophy'. > > Mind you, Philosophy may or may not be Mathematically Logical; but Real Logic after All. > > Regarding we astrologer, even Stalwarts, changing our views Is like...'EVOLVING'. Views better with time. > I am sure all our past Guru's did too with/over time, which we would have no clue of. > > Taking a good look at charts make us realise what the native through right now. > > Maybe what I am saying right now will make me unpopular. But I just feel like saying what I fell right now, while I listen to the song..'Where the angels fear to tread...by Brian Adams:= > > The Narayan Dasa of D20 would be a good pointer. As both Sanjaji and Narasimhaji are having the mahadasa of Narayan Dasa of D20 of the tenth house of Vimsamsa. > > 4 planets in one house, without being combust or in grahayuddha is a sign of good spirituality; and also they are benefics and malefics in the 6th from Al, betraying a good blend of swaying from spirituality to materiality; in the house of positive Mars, also betraying domineering tendencies. > Ideally, too many planets in a house is a source of disbalance in life/living/personality. But this is possible in many evolved souls too. > > Rahu conjunct moon shows very good power, but the moon is not beyond greed. > > Ketu well posited in the 10th house shows a healthy secretiveness. Ketu in Al can aid to tarnish image, but not the spirituality in the proper sense. If it was debilitated or bad, it could mean a liar. > > The Meen lagna with Jupiter in Lagna opposing Mars is mentally very healthy. > > Real learning in jyotish is seen fro the position of Jupiter in D10. > > Ketu in the 12th. show spirituality and spiritualness affecting the whole life, but not dealing with it well would lead to problems, unless Narayan dasa of D20, D10 and D1 is good in later life. > > > Let us not fight and not affect mental healths. > > But Kudos to both the Stalwarts in doing Great Service to The World of Jyotish. > > Pranam, > > RishiRahul > > > Considering that we are mostly in age group of 40 to 50, our spirituality is not yet fully evolved (barring exceptions. > vedic astrology , Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr@> wrote: > > > > Pranaam Sanjay, > > > > > Secondly the language used by him in the mails in the last 3-4 > > > years is definitely not acceptable in any teaching forum. > > > > *Barring* the last few days when I finally chose to step outside of technical matters and make judgments on a personality, can you quote one sentence I wrote in the last 3-4 years that fits the above description? > > > > * * * > > > > I may have been criticizing your teachings for the last 3-4 years, but I never wrote any untruth and stuck to technical points despite provocations. You would many times become emotional and/or dramatic and state fabrications to discredit me or cast aspersions on my knowledge and/or intentions. I patiently ignored those fabrications and stuck to technical points each time. Let me give a couple of specific examples to illustrate this. > > > > * * * > > > > You wrote in the middle of the debate on your principle that fasting on some days " angers " Vishnu and you have to do astrological analysis before fasting: " Is it because I did not share the Jaimni scholar lectures? I invited you and een was prepard to shift dates, but you were too busy filming about Krishna’s birth or something. " You also iterated a few times later that my attitude had " changed " ever since I was not a part of your " Jaimini scholar " program. > > > > Though you personally invited me for that Jaimini scholar program, I consciously chose to skip. I never discussed it with you later and it was never on my mind. Moreover, I never discussed " sharing the Jaimini scholar lectures " or " shifting dates " etc. > > > > When I and my spiritual guru were in Delhi, we were free for half a day and I tried calling the phone numbers you emailed before, to possibly meet you along with my guru. But I could not reach you. It was as simple as that. Where is this " sharing the Jaimini scholar lectures " coming from and " shifting dates " coming from? > > > > These accusations give readers false impression that there is a sub-text behind my disagreements. But that is so false. I simply thought that the idea of fasting on some days angering Vishnu is wrong and took it up. > > > > Is fabricating such specific details to cast aspersions an " appropriate " behavior? > > > > * * * > > > > As another example, you wrote when I questioned your interpretation of chara karakas: " Ayanamsha ...thank God that I stopped you from coming out with another Narasimha Ayanamsha ..but now you have come to some level of understanding with the Vishnu nabhi which makes the nodes retro all the time ...good. Thats your pace, but that ayanamsha is also wrong. " > > > > First of all, the above statement came just one month after I revealed my findings on ayanamsa publicly and you wrote: " THAT IS SOMETHING BRILLIANT I think you have finally cracked it " and " Your hard work is of great historical significance " . > > > > Secondly, I never proposed to come out with a " Narasimha ayanamsa " . In fact, I do not like to name anything after me. Even with drigdasa, I called it " Parasara's drigdasa " , while *you* insisted that I should call it " Narasimha's drigdasa " . The assertion that you " stopped me from coming out with another Narasimha Ayanamsha " is absolutely a fabrication. > > > > Thirdly, the new ayanamsa that I shared with the world was completely conceived, defined and refined by me and you were not at all involved in its conception, definition and refinement. Your only contribution, which came several months *after* the above comments were written by you and after it was already included in JHora as " Vishnunabhi ayanamsa " , was to suggest changing its name from " Vishnunabhi ayanamsa " to " Jagannatha ayanamsa " (which I readily agreed to). You neither " stopped " me from anything as mentioned above nor guided me in any way in my ayanamsa research, which the above statement suggests. > > > > * * * > > > > There were many such occasions during the last 3-4 years when you would become emotional and/or dramatic and state fabrications to discredit me or cast aspersions on my knowledge and/or intentions. I patiently ignored these fabrications and provocations and religiously focused on the technical points and kept the arguments technical. > > > > In addition to these fabrications that are partly personal and partly technical in nature, there were fabrications in strictly technical matters. For example, you *explicitly* acknowledged several years ago that the idea of taking 9th, 8th and 7th houses for drigdasa in dual sign rising charts was your own idea and not approved by your elders. Yet, you *explicitly* attributed it to " our tradition from Puri " in a Jyotish Digest editorial. > > > > Until recently, I have only subtly hinted at inconsistencies in your teachings and made my arguments fully technical. You, on the other hand, often left technical issues to get personal, condescending and falsely accusing. You proved on many occasions that you are capable of manipulating facts, fabricating things and lying, both in technical and personal issues. It is quite ironic that you should accuse me of bad behavior! > > > > Best regards, > > Narasimha > > - > > Free Jyotish Software, Free Jyotish Lessons, Jyotish Writings, > > " Do It Yourself " ritual manuals for short Homam and Pitri Tarpana: > > http://www.VedicAstrologer.org > > Films that make a difference: http://SaraswatiFilms.org > > Spirituality: > > Jyotish writings: JyotishWritings > > - > > > > vedic astrology , " Sanjay Rath " <sjrath@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Mr Jha > > > You wrote - > > > ==== Point -1 ===== > > > Raashi-chakra has equal divisions at intervals of 30 degrees. > > > Bhaava-chalita is computed along the principles given in BPHS which are > > > based on Suryasiddhantic equations and has unequal divisions. In Medini > > > Jyotisha, Raashichakra is fixed on map and Bhaavachalita moves on it at > > > an average rate of one full cycle per day, that is why bhaavachakra is > > > named Chalita. It is the real bhaava chart because the first bhaava is > > > lagna which is a point on ecliptic and not on circular celestial orbit > > > which means bhaavachakra must be elliptical and not circular in sky. > > > > > > I have tested the efficacy of bhaavachalita in rainfall, earthquakes, > > > individual charts, national affairs like growth rates of national > > > income, etc. It is suicidal to write it off. Goel Ji is doing great > > > disservice to astrology by propounding wrong views about house > > > divisions. Raju Gupta was right. > > > > > > Rath: The Bhava Lagna is an important factor which all of you are also ignoring. What is the role of the Bhava Lagna which is specifically mentioned by Parashara? > > > Secondly, if you see the method of computation of Hora Lagna and Ghatika Lagna, is it not a circular path? Then on what basis are you suggesting that the bhava calculated from the Hora Lagna and Ghatika lagna should be elliptical? > > > > > > ==== Point 2 ==== > > > > > > PVR still regards Sanjay Ji as his guru and respects him, but if Sanjay > > > Ji gives a wrong definition of Kaalachakra dashaa (KCD) sequences, PVR > > > has a right to express his own opinions. Goel Ji should have judged the > > > merits and demerits of both on the issue under discussion (KCD). > > > Instead, he buried the issue and made it a personality clash between > > > guru and shishya, denouncing the shishya for opposing the guru. It is > > > not sincerity. The issue must be discussed and not the persons. Mr > > > Sanjay Rath and Mr PVR have both served Jyotisha. None of them should be > > > denounced. The matter is which of the KCD sequences is correct, which > > > Goel Ji happily forgets. > > > > > > Rath: PVR does not regard nor consider Sanjay Rath as his guru. He seems to have forgotten what was so painstakingly taught in so many years. That is kali Yuga. Secondly the language used by him in the mails in the last 3-4 years is definitely not acceptable in any teaching forum. I think you too have taught in the past and would not accept such behavior if your students talked in this fashion with you. When people cannot talk decently, it is best not to talk to them. > > > So, lets be clear on one thing. There is no debate. As and when I have time, I try to show the mess he is making of jyotish. Rest is his karma. > > > > > > You seem to have your own conclusions about right and wrong already. You talk of a debate where one person speaks and the other is not to be seen. > > > > > > Just getting the facts right > > > > > > Best Wishes > > > Sanjay Rath > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2010 Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 Hi Dada, Yes, I remember Sanjayji mentioning this as general effects of Jupiter in debility. I doubt if he was refering to his chart! RishiRahul vedic astrology , " rohinicrystal " <jyotish_vani wrote: > > Dear RR1961, > > Or simply after-effects of jupiter in debility? I recall reading Sanjay_ji's article posted just before or in early phase of when Jupiter was in capricorn and he had very clearly indicated something about Gurus and Shishyas that came to pass. > > Unfortunately, I did not capture the links etc but perhaps the article may still be if one Googles it. > > RR_, > > vedic astrology , " rishirahul1961 " <rishirahul1961@> wrote: > > > > > > Dearest Sanjayji, P.V.R.ji and All, > > > > The sort of arguments transpiring between the Astrological maestros are probably a confirmation that Kali Yuga is certainly on. > > > > Right and Wrong, about This and That,etc etc is there... but it is no proof of the REAL. > > > > P.V.R.ji and Sanjayji, and their posts about whatever is transpiring reminds me of the word 'Logic' and its better meaning. > > > > We are all aware of the Logic in Mathematics...True, Perfect, Clear Cut.... Nothing could be better Logic than this. > > > > Unfortunately or Fortunately, the highest form of Logic (even above Maths) is ...'Philosophy'. > > > > Mind you, Philosophy may or may not be Mathematically Logical; but Real Logic after All. > > > > Regarding we astrologer, even Stalwarts, changing our views Is like...'EVOLVING'. Views better with time. > > I am sure all our past Guru's did too with/over time, which we would have no clue of. > > > > Taking a good look at charts make us realise what the native through right now. > > > > Maybe what I am saying right now will make me unpopular. But I just feel like saying what I fell right now, while I listen to the song..'Where the angels fear to tread...by Brian Adams:= > > > > The Narayan Dasa of D20 would be a good pointer. As both Sanjaji and Narasimhaji are having the mahadasa of Narayan Dasa of D20 of the tenth house of Vimsamsa. > > > > 4 planets in one house, without being combust or in grahayuddha is a sign of good spirituality; and also they are benefics and malefics in the 6th from Al, betraying a good blend of swaying from spirituality to materiality; in the house of positive Mars, also betraying domineering tendencies. > > Ideally, too many planets in a house is a source of disbalance in life/living/personality. But this is possible in many evolved souls too. > > > > Rahu conjunct moon shows very good power, but the moon is not beyond greed. > > > > Ketu well posited in the 10th house shows a healthy secretiveness. Ketu in Al can aid to tarnish image, but not the spirituality in the proper sense. If it was debilitated or bad, it could mean a liar. > > > > The Meen lagna with Jupiter in Lagna opposing Mars is mentally very healthy. > > > > Real learning in jyotish is seen fro the position of Jupiter in D10. > > > > Ketu in the 12th. show spirituality and spiritualness affecting the whole life, but not dealing with it well would lead to problems, unless Narayan dasa of D20, D10 and D1 is good in later life. > > > > > > Let us not fight and not affect mental healths. > > > > But Kudos to both the Stalwarts in doing Great Service to The World of Jyotish. > > > > Pranam, > > > > RishiRahul > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Considering that we are mostly in age group of 40 to 50, our spirituality is not yet fully evolved (barring exceptions. > > vedic astrology , Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr@> wrote: > > > > > > Pranaam Sanjay, > > > > > > > Secondly the language used by him in the mails in the last 3-4 > > > > years is definitely not acceptable in any teaching forum. > > > > > > *Barring* the last few days when I finally chose to step outside of technical matters and make judgments on a personality, can you quote one sentence I wrote in the last 3-4 years that fits the above description? > > > > > > * * * > > > > > > I may have been criticizing your teachings for the last 3-4 years, but I never wrote any untruth and stuck to technical points despite provocations. You would many times become emotional and/or dramatic and state fabrications to discredit me or cast aspersions on my knowledge and/or intentions. I patiently ignored those fabrications and stuck to technical points each time. Let me give a couple of specific examples to illustrate this. > > > > > > * * * > > > > > > You wrote in the middle of the debate on your principle that fasting on some days " angers " Vishnu and you have to do astrological analysis before fasting: " Is it because I did not share the Jaimni scholar lectures? I invited you and een was prepard to shift dates, but you were too busy filming about Krishna’s birth or something. " You also iterated a few times later that my attitude had " changed " ever since I was not a part of your " Jaimini scholar " program. > > > > > > Though you personally invited me for that Jaimini scholar program, I consciously chose to skip. I never discussed it with you later and it was never on my mind. Moreover, I never discussed " sharing the Jaimini scholar lectures " or " shifting dates " etc. > > > > > > When I and my spiritual guru were in Delhi, we were free for half a day and I tried calling the phone numbers you emailed before, to possibly meet you along with my guru. But I could not reach you. It was as simple as that. Where is this " sharing the Jaimini scholar lectures " coming from and " shifting dates " coming from? > > > > > > These accusations give readers false impression that there is a sub-text behind my disagreements. But that is so false. I simply thought that the idea of fasting on some days angering Vishnu is wrong and took it up. > > > > > > Is fabricating such specific details to cast aspersions an " appropriate " behavior? > > > > > > * * * > > > > > > As another example, you wrote when I questioned your interpretation of chara karakas: " Ayanamsha ...thank God that I stopped you from coming out with another Narasimha Ayanamsha ..but now you have come to some level of understanding with the Vishnu nabhi which makes the nodes retro all the time ....good. Thats your pace, but that ayanamsha is also wrong. " > > > > > > First of all, the above statement came just one month after I revealed my findings on ayanamsa publicly and you wrote: " THAT IS SOMETHING BRILLIANT I think you have finally cracked it " and " Your hard work is of great historical significance " . > > > > > > Secondly, I never proposed to come out with a " Narasimha ayanamsa " . In fact, I do not like to name anything after me. Even with drigdasa, I called it " Parasara's drigdasa " , while *you* insisted that I should call it " Narasimha's drigdasa " . The assertion that you " stopped me from coming out with another Narasimha Ayanamsha " is absolutely a fabrication. > > > > > > Thirdly, the new ayanamsa that I shared with the world was completely conceived, defined and refined by me and you were not at all involved in its conception, definition and refinement. Your only contribution, which came several months *after* the above comments were written by you and after it was already included in JHora as " Vishnunabhi ayanamsa " , was to suggest changing its name from " Vishnunabhi ayanamsa " to " Jagannatha ayanamsa " (which I readily agreed to). You neither " stopped " me from anything as mentioned above nor guided me in any way in my ayanamsa research, which the above statement suggests. > > > > > > * * * > > > > > > There were many such occasions during the last 3-4 years when you would become emotional and/or dramatic and state fabrications to discredit me or cast aspersions on my knowledge and/or intentions. I patiently ignored these fabrications and provocations and religiously focused on the technical points and kept the arguments technical. > > > > > > In addition to these fabrications that are partly personal and partly technical in nature, there were fabrications in strictly technical matters. For example, you *explicitly* acknowledged several years ago that the idea of taking 9th, 8th and 7th houses for drigdasa in dual sign rising charts was your own idea and not approved by your elders. Yet, you *explicitly* attributed it to " our tradition from Puri " in a Jyotish Digest editorial. > > > > > > Until recently, I have only subtly hinted at inconsistencies in your teachings and made my arguments fully technical. You, on the other hand, often left technical issues to get personal, condescending and falsely accusing. You proved on many occasions that you are capable of manipulating facts, fabricating things and lying, both in technical and personal issues. It is quite ironic that you should accuse me of bad behavior! > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Narasimha > > > - > > > Free Jyotish Software, Free Jyotish Lessons, Jyotish Writings, > > > " Do It Yourself " ritual manuals for short Homam and Pitri Tarpana: > > > http://www.VedicAstrologer.org > > > Films that make a difference: http://SaraswatiFilms.org > > > Spirituality: > > > Jyotish writings: JyotishWritings > > > - > > > > > > vedic astrology , " Sanjay Rath " <sjrath@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Mr Jha > > > > You wrote - > > > > ==== Point -1 ===== > > > > Raashi-chakra has equal divisions at intervals of 30 degrees. > > > > Bhaava-chalita is computed along the principles given in BPHS which are > > > > based on Suryasiddhantic equations and has unequal divisions. In Medini > > > > Jyotisha, Raashichakra is fixed on map and Bhaavachalita moves on it at > > > > an average rate of one full cycle per day, that is why bhaavachakra is > > > > named Chalita. It is the real bhaava chart because the first bhaava is > > > > lagna which is a point on ecliptic and not on circular celestial orbit > > > > which means bhaavachakra must be elliptical and not circular in sky. > > > > > > > > I have tested the efficacy of bhaavachalita in rainfall, earthquakes, > > > > individual charts, national affairs like growth rates of national > > > > income, etc. It is suicidal to write it off. Goel Ji is doing great > > > > disservice to astrology by propounding wrong views about house > > > > divisions. Raju Gupta was right. > > > > > > > > Rath: The Bhava Lagna is an important factor which all of you are also ignoring. What is the role of the Bhava Lagna which is specifically mentioned by Parashara? > > > > Secondly, if you see the method of computation of Hora Lagna and Ghatika Lagna, is it not a circular path? Then on what basis are you suggesting that the bhava calculated from the Hora Lagna and Ghatika lagna should be elliptical? > > > > > > > > ==== Point 2 ==== > > > > > > > > PVR still regards Sanjay Ji as his guru and respects him, but if Sanjay > > > > Ji gives a wrong definition of Kaalachakra dashaa (KCD) sequences, PVR > > > > has a right to express his own opinions. Goel Ji should have judged the > > > > merits and demerits of both on the issue under discussion (KCD). > > > > Instead, he buried the issue and made it a personality clash between > > > > guru and shishya, denouncing the shishya for opposing the guru. It is > > > > not sincerity. The issue must be discussed and not the persons. Mr > > > > Sanjay Rath and Mr PVR have both served Jyotisha. None of them should be > > > > denounced. The matter is which of the KCD sequences is correct, which > > > > Goel Ji happily forgets. > > > > > > > > Rath: PVR does not regard nor consider Sanjay Rath as his guru. He seems to have forgotten what was so painstakingly taught in so many years. That is kali Yuga. Secondly the language used by him in the mails in the last 3-4 years is definitely not acceptable in any teaching forum. I think you too have taught in the past and would not accept such behavior if your students talked in this fashion with you. When people cannot talk decently, it is best not to talk to them. > > > > So, lets be clear on one thing. There is no debate. As and when I have time, I try to show the mess he is making of jyotish. Rest is his karma. > > > > > > > > You seem to have your own conclusions about right and wrong already. You talk of a debate where one person speaks and the other is not to be seen. > > > > > > > > Just getting the facts right > > > > > > > > Best Wishes > > > > Sanjay Rath > > > > > > 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.