Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Dear Sanjay P This farce will continue until Shankara is translated and posted here. Now we have a confirmation that the Veda is Aparavidya!! What is the meaning of the word 'veda'? How can Veda be divided and who can divide this Veda, under what authority? What is Para and what is Aparaa and what is Vidya? These and many other questions do not get answered in a jiffy nor can we start using one statement which means something to imply something else. In that quote Shankaracharya is simply saying that the Karmakanda (by the way Karmakanda is not the Veda but is derived from other texts that get their authority from the Veda) is not God realisation ad is meant to support it. Para Vidya is OM and unless we realise this OM or are going near to it by doing the Karmakanda, then it is useless. One more point - is Sri Jayendra Saraswati saying that Karmakanda is Apara vidya or is he saying that the Veda itself is Apara vidya? Best wishes, Sanjay Rath PS I don't think that HH Jayendra ji would be saying anything which is contrary to what Adi Shankara says in the Bhasya to the Upanishad... varahamihira , sanjaychettiar@g... wrote: > > || Om Gurave Namah || > Dear Chandrashekarji, > Thank you for the quotes. It's very clear from this that even the > Vedas and Vedangas are Apara vidya. Somehow I was under the impression > that Vedas are Para vidya and hence I thought the Vedanga should also > be under the same category. I was wrong. > > Warm Regards > Sanjay P. > > Hari Om Tat Sat > > > > varahamihira , Chandrashekhar > <chandrashekhar46> wrote: > > Dear Sanjay, > > If I may intervene. It appears everybody is hammering Saaji, without > > verifying what is said in the scriptures. Various interpretations about > > what consists of Para and Apara Vidya are being given. Normally > stickler > > about meaning of Sanskrit words, it appears no body is paying attention > > of what is meant by Para and Apara. I think none would deny > authority of > > Shankaracharya on what constitutes Para and Apara Vidya. This is what > > H.H. Jayendra Saraswati of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetha says about Mundaka > > Upanishad and Para and Apara Vidya. > > > > " If you do not realise that the karmakanda is a means to take you to > the > > " paravidya > > <http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/referp5b.htm#PARAVIDYA> " > that > > is constituted by the Upanisads, then the Vedas (that is their > > karmakanda) is an apara vidya > > > <http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/referp5b.htm#APARA%20VIDYA>like > > > any other subject such as history or geography that is learned at > > school. It is for this reason that the /Mundaka Upanisad/ includes the > > Vedas in the category of apara-vidya. > > <http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/referp5b.htm#APARAVIDYA>This > > Upanisad describes a person who performs Vedic rites for ephemeral > > enjoyments, mundane benefits, as a mere beast (pasu). " > > > > How Theosophical society interpretation of what is the essence of Hindu > > Dharma is to be held to be higher than Upanishads escapes me. Even they > > seem to accept what is said in Manduka Upanishad as: > > " Let us turn our attention to the pair of Para and Apara Vidyas of > which > > the /Mundakopanishad /[/Mundakopanishad,/ I, 4-5.]/ /speaks. Apara > Vidya > > or the Lower Knowledge contains " the four Vedas, the Sciences of > > phonetics, ritual, grammar, philosophy, metrics and astrology. " The > > Higher Knowledge is " that by which the Imperishable Akshara is > > realized. " Akshara is the syllable Aum - the Pranava - the Sacred Word; > > " by taking refuge in it the Gods became immortal and fearless. " > > [/Chhandogyopanishad,/ I, 4-4.] > > > > From this it will become clear that Para Vidya, the Higher Knowledge, > > is the Noumenal aspect of the Absolute Knowledge about which we have > > been writing. The Apara Vidya, the lower, is the relative knowledge. > > Remains Gupta Vidya - the secret or esoteric Knowledge - that is the > > Archetypal aspect of Absolute Knowledge or Wisdom-Religion which we > call > > Theosophy. " > > > > The authority of Theosophical society to prove a point in Hindu > > Scriputures is a bit difficult to understand, especially when in the > > studies it proudly proclaims: > > " Theosophy is neither the Vedanta of the Hindus, nor the teachings of > > the /Upanishads /and other writings of the six schools of Indian > > philosophy. " > > at the link provided. > > > > Let Us be fair to Saaji, instead of deriding him. I am sorry if I am > > hurting anyone's feelings, but truth must prevail. There are many > > references to what constitutes Para Vidya and Apara Vidya in Scriptures > > and it would be better to give these references to put across a point > > instead of trying to brush it off, especially when quote of > Upanishad is > > given. The translation is correct ( I hope no one doubts even H.H. > > Shankaracharya's Translation), so no point in trying to doubt it. > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > Sanjay Rath wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaya Jagannatha > > > Dear Saaji > > > Looks like you have been reading a lot of trash in the internet. One > > > such trash at > > > http://www.teosofiskakompaniet.net/BPWadiaSecretDoctrineStudies5.htm > > > states the following - > > > > ---------- > > > Noumenal Knowledge is Atma - Para Vidya. > > > > > > Archetypal Knowledge is Buddhi - Gupta Vidya. > > > > > > Typal Knowledge is Manas - Apara Vidya. > > > > > > Nescience or No-Knowledge is the lower Quaternary - Avidya. > > > > > > Here, too, " mind is the slayer of the Real. " It is the fall of Apara > > > Vidya into the abyss of separation, instead of remaining faithful to > > > its parent-source of Absolute Knowledge. > > > > > > Four Vedas and six Vedangas (limbs of the Vedas) make the perfect > > > number ten, and they constitute Apara-Vidya, the Lower Knowledge, as > > > shown by the above quotation of the Mundakopanishad. These ten are > > > organized orifices in the body of Akshara -- the Imperishable Aum; the > > > substance composing that body is manasic or mahatic. > > > > > > > ----------- > > > > > > See how this stupid interpretation is now saying that the four Vedas > > > itself are Apara vidya!!! Don't believe such fools. Their excessive > > > thinking has caused their brains to rot. Stick to the Vedas and the > > > Seers...go back to the vedas. Get a copy and try to read it for > yourself. > > > > > > With best wishes and warm regards, > > > Sanjay Rath > > > * * * > > > Sri Jagannath Center® > > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road > > > New Delhi 110060, India > > > http://srath.com, +91-11-25717162 > > > * * * > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > saaji kulangara [saajik] > > > Tuesday, March 15, 2005 11:58 PM > > > varahamihira > > > |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc > > > > > > > > > > > > Mundakopanishad, Mundakam 1.6 > > > > > > > > > > > > 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...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Dear Sanjay P. It is actually how one uses the Vidya that would determine whether it is treated as Para Vidya or Apara Vidya, is perhaps what the Acharya is conveying. There are many who recite Vedas to earn only money, and that is what this could be a reference to. If we think about it, Vedanga also includes Vyakarana, now only by studying Vyakarana could one achieve the knowledge of the Parabrahman, is something that one should think about. At the same time if one uses his knowledge of Vyakarana to delve into deeper meaning of Vedas, understand the Karma Kanda for pursuit of the goal of understanding the Parabrahman, the same study of Vyakarana would be a means of learning Para Vidya. So it is the use that a particular Vidya is put to that would decide, perhaps, whether it is Para or Apara Vidya. Or at least this is how I understand it. Others could have a different understanding. I generally avoid discussing things religious on list as understanding of religion changes from person to person. Chandrashekhar. sanjaychettiar wrote: || Om Gurave Namah || Dear Chandrashekarji, Thank you for the quotes. It's very clear from this that even the Vedas and Vedangas are Apara vidya. Somehow I was under the impression that Vedas are Para vidya and hence I thought the Vedanga should also be under the same category. I was wrong. Warm Regards Sanjay P. Hari Om Tat Sat varahamihira , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46> wrote: > Dear Sanjay, > If I may intervene. It appears everybody is hammering Saaji, without > verifying what is said in the scriptures. Various interpretations about > what consists of Para and Apara Vidya are being given. Normally stickler > about meaning of Sanskrit words, it appears no body is paying attention > of what is meant by Para and Apara. I think none would deny authority of > Shankaracharya on what constitutes Para and Apara Vidya. This is what > H.H. Jayendra Saraswati of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetha says about Mundaka > Upanishad and Para and Apara Vidya. > > "If you do not realise that the karmakanda is a means to take you to the > "paravidya > <http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/referp5b.htm#PARAVIDYA>" that > is constituted by the Upanisads, then the Vedas (that is their > karmakanda) is an apara vidya > <http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/referp5b.htm#APARA%20VIDYA>like > any other subject such as history or geography that is learned at > school. It is for this reason that the /Mundaka Upanisad/ includes the > Vedas in the category of apara-vidya. > <http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/referp5b.htm#APARAVIDYA>This > Upanisad describes a person who performs Vedic rites for ephemeral > enjoyments, mundane benefits, as a mere beast (pasu)." > > How Theosophical society interpretation of what is the essence of Hindu > Dharma is to be held to be higher than Upanishads escapes me. Even they > seem to accept what is said in Manduka Upanishad as: > "Let us turn our attention to the pair of Para and Apara Vidyas of which > the /Mundakopanishad /[/Mundakopanishad,/ I, 4-5.]/ /speaks. Apara Vidya > or the Lower Knowledge contains "the four Vedas, the Sciences of > phonetics, ritual, grammar, philosophy, metrics and astrology." The > Higher Knowledge is "that by which the Imperishable Akshara is > realized." Akshara is the syllable Aum - the Pranava - the Sacred Word; > "by taking refuge in it the Gods became immortal and fearless." > [/Chhandogyopanishad,/ I, 4-4.] > > From this it will become clear that Para Vidya, the Higher Knowledge, > is the Noumenal aspect of the Absolute Knowledge about which we have > been writing. The Apara Vidya, the lower, is the relative knowledge. > Remains Gupta Vidya - the secret or esoteric Knowledge - that is the > Archetypal aspect of Absolute Knowledge or Wisdom-Religion which we call > Theosophy." > > The authority of Theosophical society to prove a point in Hindu > Scriputures is a bit difficult to understand, especially when in the > studies it proudly proclaims: > "Theosophy is neither the Vedanta of the Hindus, nor the teachings of > the /Upanishads /and other writings of the six schools of Indian > philosophy." > at the link provided. > > Let Us be fair to Saaji, instead of deriding him. I am sorry if I am > hurting anyone's feelings, but truth must prevail. There are many > references to what constitutes Para Vidya and Apara Vidya in Scriptures > and it would be better to give these references to put across a point > instead of trying to brush it off, especially when quote of Upanishad is > given. The translation is correct ( I hope no one doubts even H.H. > Shankaracharya's Translation), so no point in trying to doubt it. > > Chandrashekhar. > > > Sanjay Rath wrote: > > > > > > > > > Jaya Jagannatha > > Dear Saaji > > Looks like you have been reading a lot of trash in the internet. One > > such trash at > > http://www.teosofiskakompaniet.net/BPWadiaSecretDoctrineStudies5.htm > > states the following - > > ---------- > > Noumenal Knowledge is Atma - Para Vidya. > > > > Archetypal Knowledge is Buddhi - Gupta Vidya. > > > > Typal Knowledge is Manas - Apara Vidya. > > > > Nescience or No-Knowledge is the lower Quaternary - Avidya. > > > > Here, too, "mind is the slayer of the Real." It is the fall of Apara > > Vidya into the abyss of separation, instead of remaining faithful to > > its parent-source of Absolute Knowledge. > > > > Four Vedas and six Vedangas (limbs of the Vedas) make the perfect > > number ten, and they constitute Apara-Vidya, the Lower Knowledge, as > > shown by the above quotation of the Mundakopanishad. These ten are > > organized orifices in the body of Akshara -- the Imperishable Aum; the > > substance composing that body is manasic or mahatic. > > > > ----------- > > > > See how this stupid interpretation is now saying that the four Vedas > > itself are Apara vidya!!! Don't believe such fools. Their excessive > > thinking has caused their brains to rot. Stick to the Vedas and the > > Seers...go back to the vedas. Get a copy and try to read it for yourself. > > > > With best wishes and warm regards, > > Sanjay Rath > > * * * > > Sri Jagannath Center® > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road > > New Delhi 110060, India > > http://srath.com, +91-11-25717162 > > * * * > > > > > > > > > > -- > > saaji kulangara [saajik] > > Tuesday, March 15, 2005 11:58 PM > > varahamihira > > |Sri Varaha| Re: Atmakaraka 52 page doc > > > > > > > > Mundakopanishad, Mundakam 1.6 > > > > > > > > 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.