Guest guest Posted March 16, 2005 Report Share Posted March 16, 2005 Dear Sarbani This debate whether Jyotish is para vidya or not was raged in other group(). Many scholars quoted profusely from Upanishads and said that Jyotish is not a para vidya, only the knowledge of Brahman is para vidya etc. In my humble opinino, What they say is meant for the context of " distinguishing " between the real and the unreal. As we all have understood or atleast acknowledge that the manifested world is the dream world and hence also the unreal world. The illusory energy that allows us to believe that this world is unreal is Maya. Jyotish, and many such higher vidyas belong to " our relative worlds " and hence not para is the contention of those scholars. Whereas Knowledge of the absolute world, which dispells any kind of doubts about the real and unreal, the doer and did, the object and subject etc is the paravidya. " This kind of extreme stand again in my opinion suits well for philosohpical discussion among those who had already realised the Brahman " . We are yet to realise the absolute truth, we do not even know how far we have gone. Jyotish is one tool that helps us to understand karmic signatures, life after death, where we go, what we do etc. This knowledge is beyong the ordinary knowledge of the planet earth that only talks of the mechanical aspects of our functioning(physics , chemistry etc). Jyotish whereas talks of purpose of atma, the experience of atma etc. Thus in " this particular context " we have equated it to para vidya (which means the higher knowledge, the knowledge beyond the five senses, and not to be meant as knowledge of Brahman.) May be we should use some other word the describe this knowledge, as there are many scholars who have read sanskrita and also the various treatesies who get offended by simple words. This would settle lot of heart burn. we always get into semantics and keep on arguing about certain labels/words/names . This is the reason why may be my atma simply doesnot want to open the a,b,c,d of Sanskrit. Because if i start learning sanskrit, probably i would aslo start arguing about what that meant, what this meant, instead of catching the main point. best wishes partha varahamihira , " Sarbani Sarkar " <sarbani@s...> wrote: > Jaya > Jagannath > > Dear Saaji, > > Jyotish is NOT a para vidya? Now you are talking exactly like Prabodh! Do > you accept jyotish is a Vedanga? Swami Vigyanananda in his translation of > the Brhat Jataka has said that jyotish is one of the six angas of the Vedas > " that every Brahmana must study for his welfare in this and in the other > world... " . He has called it " the eye of the Vedas " . So has Sitaram Jha, in > his translation of the same text: " vedasya nirmalam > chakshurjyotishastramakalmasham " . Do brush up your reading of Parashara at > the same time. I think 'all' versions of Parsara will have this, chapter 1 > shloka 2: > > Bhagavan paramam punyam guhyam vedangamuttamam > triskandham jyotisham hora ganitam sanheti cha > > Parasara thinks that jyotish is the most superior among all vedangas. Read > on after that, he immediately proceeds to describe the tatvadarshan of > Bhagavan Vishnu and the beginning of creation, ending with the statement > that grahas predominantly have paramatamsa. Why does he begin the hora > shastra in this manner? (Read the opening shloka of Braht Jatakam. When you > next talk about the Sun, remember what Varahamihira said). Read about the > Sisumara Chakra in the Vishnu Purana as a starter. Do spend a little more > time reflecting. > > The Vedas, Vedangas and Vedantas (the last includes the Upanishads) all > teach Brahmagyana. That is the ultimate aim of jyotish, as it is a vedanga. > I know both you and Prabodh will have problems in accepting this, but I can > at least request you to reflect. > > It is strange that one is writing a mail in Varahamihira on this subject. I > thought this was a forum for advanced students! > > Best regards, > > Sarbani > > > _____ > > saaji kulangara [saajik] > Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:45 PM > varahamihira > |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc > > > > Vistiji, > > Well, you got the mail fm Sarbaniji. > > I was offlist for sometime, hence I didn't see your post. I joined > SJC 9 months back, but I was learning astrology for quite sometime > before. I was very inspired by SJC and that's why I joined SJC. I > wrote this to Sanjay Ji in one of our personal mails then. Sri > Chandrashekhar Sharma is my Guru. I'm grateful to God in this regard. > > My family background etc; I don't want to write, I'm sure that you > are not looking for that information.(This also you will get from my > previous posts) I have no expectations from Jyotish(fame, name, money > whatever) but I become very happy when some one finds my post useful. > This time I posted my views, first I was amused by the way the posts > went in Probodh's case. And I hope so long as they are posted in > groups others can give their opinion. (Sarbaniji, Jyotish is not a > Para Vidya, so long as my reading in Upanishads go, only brahmagyana > is para vidya. I've a text of 110 Upanishads translated) and another > time, Sanjay Ji wanted to have the opinion after going through the > article. I think the post was not liked by you and probably by Sanjay > Ji also, and I would take care of this in future. > > Any further mails in this regard, please send to my personal id. > > Best Regards, > > Saaji > > > > varahamihira , " Sarbani Sarkar " <sarbani@s...> > wrote: > > Dear Visti, > > > > I checked up the Guru Shishya list at the office today and asked > Mr. Guha > > Roy. Saaji is Chandrashekharji's shishya. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Sarbani > > > > > > _____ > > > > Visti Larsen [visti@s...] > > Tuesday, March 15, 2005 4:00 PM > > varahamihira > > RE: |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc > > > > > > > > ||Hare Rama Krsna|| > > > > Dear Saaji, Namaskar > > > > I've read some of your past emails.. now i have to guess; is PVR > Narasimha > > Rao your Guru? > > > > If you followed the mails on list, i've requested > someone to > > give their biography when they presented contradicting views. > Please present > > yours. That way we know the person behind the email-id, and can > better > > understand why you say the things you say. > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > Visti Larsen > > > > <http://srigaruda.com> http://srigaruda.com > > > > <visti@s...> visti@s... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > saaji kulangara [saajik] > > 15 March 2005 05:32 > > varahamihira > > |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc > > > > > > > > > > Vistiji, I understand what you want to prove : ) Please see > archives, > > you will get all information. > > > > > > varahamihira , " Visti Larsen " <visti@s...> > > wrote: > > > ||Hare Rama Krsna|| > > > > > > Dear Saaji, Namaskar > > > > > > You wrote: > > > > > > Personally, I hold the view that whenever acharyas hold different > > > views, one should follow one's Guru. > > > > > > > > > > > > Who is your Guru? > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Visti Larsen > > > > > > <http://srigaruda.com> http://srigaruda.com > > > > > > <visti@s...> visti@s... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > saaji kulangara [saajik] > > > 14 March 2005 17:42 > > > varahamihira > > > |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sanjay Ji, > > > > > > Personally, I hold the view that whenever acharyas hold different > > > views, one should follow one's Guru. Here in this case, I'd say > > that > > > Maharshi Parasara also only quotes the views. This is the same as > > > what the great Varahamihira says, that he doesn't formulate > > anything > > > but only quotes the different views of great rishis and authors. > > The > > > different schemes might work in different times (acharyas do > their > > > work considering the combinations for all times) and also as per > > the > > > advise of Gurus, hence they used to only quote the different > views. > > > Maharshi Parasara is only one of the 18 acharyas though he is the > > > acharya of Jyotish in Kaliyuga. Though Sanskrit is flexible, in > the > > > shlokas quoted by you, in 34.1 He first mentions seven karaka > > scheme > > > then eight. Being a great Rishi He could have specified what's > > right > > > and what's wrong or what's his opinion, he doesn't seem to > specify > > > that. Since he specifies both schemes, can't that be, His > courtesy > > to > > > speak about the yoga of 8 karaka scheme also in the same way? > > > > > > This is the shloka quoted by Dr Raman which he says is from BPHS: > > > > > > ravyadi Sani paryanta bhavanti saptakarakaha > > > Amsaih Samyam grahaih dwou cha Rahum tangunayodwijaha > > > > > > This is a very simple sholka which I can also understand. BPHS is > > > said to have many editions and interpolations. > > > > > > In Jaimini Sutras, Jaimini mentions both schemes. Here also why > > > should a Maharshi quote both schemes when He could have specified > > > something? In a " Sutra " I don't think Maharshi will add something > > > which is not important. > > > > > > Acharyas of recent times have only quoted those of earlier times. > > > Whenever they got two opinions, they quoted both as it was > > difficult > > > to specify which one is correct. ** Rishi proktams should have to > > be > > > correct evenif they contradict.** As such saying one is correct > is > > > not correct. > > > > > > Since Mahadeva is of Kaliyuga, 8 karaka scheme may be important > in > > > Kaliyuga for living beings. My conclusion is that I cant specify > > > which one is correct, as I can only quote these things. > Thereafter > > > I'll say that I use this Scheme. > > > > > > I don't know why I am writing this when I am not an expert > > > of " Parasari " or Jaimini. I've just started Jaimini Sutras that > too > > I > > > still to complete the shlokas of Brihat Jataka. Sri Narasimha > > always > > > quotes that you are very kind and considers all opinion. Hope you > > > will consider this * my opinion *. I always pray to Goddess > > > Mookambika to help me restrain from doing something incorrect. > May > > > Goddess bless me, and you. > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > Saaji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varahamihira , " Sanjay Rath " <guruji@s...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Jaya Jagannatha > > > > Dear Jyotisa > > > > Forgot to mention...those of you who do not believe in Sadhana > > can > > > skip the > > > > first chapter of that work and go straight to 'Understanding > > > Parasara'. I > > > > have given arguments that 'PARASARA USES 8 CHARA KARAKA himself' > > > > With best wishes and warm regards, > > > > Sanjay Rath > > > > * * * > > > > Sri Jagannath CenterR > > > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road > > > > New Delhi 110060, India > > > > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162 > > > > * * * > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > > > Sanjay Rath [guruji@s...] > > > > Monday, March 14, 2005 8:33 PM > > > > vedic astrology ; > varahamihira > > > > |Sri Varaha| Atmakaraka 52 page doc > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaya Jagannatha > > > > Dear Jyotisa > > > > I have seen many arguments in these lists about the seven and > > eight > > > chara > > > > karaka. I have uploaded a 52 page document titled Atmakaraka > > which > > > was the > > > > handout for the SJC West Coast conference in 2003. Please go > > > through this > > > > first and hen get into debates. All I am requesting is - > > > > PLEASE READ THIS DOCUMENT FIRST and then give your opinion. If > > > there is any > > > > portion thereof which cannot be understood, please the West > coast > > > CD and I > > > > am always there to answer. > > > > There are references to > > > > 1. Parasara > > > > 2. Jaimini > > > > 3. Mahadeva Jataka Tatva > > > > other documents and works. Please read the references for > > yourself. > > > > The link is at http://srath.com/lectures/ak.pdf > > > > > > > > With best wishes and warm regards, > > > > Sanjay Rath > > > > * * * > > > > Sri Jagannath CenterR > > > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road > > > > New Delhi 110060, India > > > > http://srath.com <http://srath.com/> , +91-11-25717162 > > > > * * * > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |Om Tat Sat| > > > > http://www.varahamihira > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.