Wrong teachings - no!

[Guest guest]

Om Gurave namah

Pranaam Sanjaya,

 

You wrote:

 

> Please read this: By the way, I would like to know what are

> the wrong things that I have been teaching. After K.N.Rao

> & gang, you are the second person to have accused me of

> this. It is important that I correct myself first before I go

> on to teach further. Yesterday, I did not go to teach at the

> Salwan School, Karol Bagh and instead Sarajit and others

> came over and requested me to teach them the Udu dasa.

> I think all my teachings can be wrong and request all of

> you to review it for yourself and reject it if you are not

> satisfied. The list of teachings (which were not known

> before my entry to the public eye) are as follows: "

 

Please forgive me for hurting you. I had many arguments with you before.

Many of them were purely on Jyotish and you were right. I remember atleast

one non-Jyotish argument (pronunciation of Brihaspati) in which you accepted

my view graciously, after an argument.

 

But your attutide and reaction this time have been markedly different. I am

honestly surprised. Perhaps this reflects the fact that these are

different - and difficult - times. Our navamsa lagnas are in Ta and Sc and

these signs are strained by current rasi transits. Especially your navamsa

has Mars and Rahu in Ta. We perhaps need to meditate more.

 

I never meant that your Jyotish teachings were wrong. Even without you

reminding us, we are always aware of how much you taught us (and how much

you still have to teach us!!!) and are eternally grateful. There is no

question about that. If you reflect on it in a calm moment, you will know

it. You know how devoted we are to your teachings and to spreading them. You

know it. We are not at all in a position to point out faults in your Jyotish

teachings (though we may sometimes question your teachings in the spirit of

open discussion so encouraged by you, in order to understand them deeper).

 

In a statement labelled " pathetic " by you, I clearly said " You are a great

Jyotish teacher and I am grateful that I am your student and grateful for

the special kindness you always showered on me. I accept your Jyotish

teachings with gratitude. But I cannot accept wrong teachings in other

subjects. "

 

> Almost everyone I have met at Delhi used to say 'om namo

> narayanay' and that does not change the goodnes of

> Vishnu in coming to save him.

 

Sure. But the point is that it becomes a 7-syllabled mantra instead of 8.

You yourself said in the lesson that incorrect pronunciation changes the

number of phonemes. I only gave a practical example of what YOU said.

 

I did not say a 7-syllable version will not work!! It will only work

differently. Am I wrong?

 

After all, why are we discussing the number of aksharas in mantras in the

first place? It is because it does have an impact, as you clearly showed in

your remedies book.

 

> Rath: Phat is a beejakshara and is an astra.

 

I am glad you see phat as one akshara (a beejakshara at that). If phat is

one akshara, so is phil.

 

We are now converging to one view. The difference seems to be that you are

perhaps looking at the " intended name " and not the actual name

written/pronounced (e.g. Sanjaya instead of Sanjay).

 

This is a totally different topic and one that opens a can of worms. For

example, what is the intended name behind Phyl or Brendan? Why? Please read

the short exchange between Sanjay Prabhakaran and me.

 

We should perhaps not open the topic of " intended name " at this time (feel

free to open though, if you must).

 

Again, I am sorry for hurting you. Please don't stop teaching others because

of me.

 

Your sishya,

Narasimha