To: Narashimha Ji,,,, Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation

[Guest guest]

Please give me your input....

 

--- On Fri, 24/10/08, Anup Khanna <khannaanup32 wrote:

 

Anup Khanna <khannaanup32

Narashimha Ji,,,, Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent

Interpretation

sohamsa

Friday, 24 October, 2008, 8:53 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Shri Narashimha Ji Namastay,

                                        \

          I am giving you 2 examples.

 

Please apply your chara-karakas theory (means with or with out taking Ra in

consideration in both charts) and predict.Only delineate what type of the

persons they could have been.

 

You have written in so much detail about 15 personalities now please take only 2

of mine and tell me your prediction related to Ra as in both case Ra is AK.I

know Rath Ji will give correct prediction according to his theory.

 

I want to see your views (Only you have to think about Ra,,means you want to

take or not as AK) :-

 

1) May 19,1910  (Thu)

08:29:17

Bombay

 

2) Aug 26,1910  (Fri)14:25:21

Skopje, Yugoslavia

 

Please take Ra in your consideration means if you want to leave then you can

leave,,if you want to take then you can take.

 

Regs,

Khanna

 

--- On Fri, 24/10/08, Narasimha Rao <pvr wrote:

 

Narasimha Rao <pvr

Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation

sohamsa

Friday, 24 October, 2008, 7:57 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

Namaste Sundeep,

 

Excellent questions! I am pleased.

 

The interpretation I shared is based on mulling over possible

interpretations and evaluating them practically. Luckily, karaka dasa

was there and served as a relatively objective test. I came to a

conclusion after considering various possibilities and fully

satisfying *myself* that this was the best.

 

* * *

 

1. :-) Even a literal translation would depend on some

contextualization in a language like Sanskrit. Unfortunately, most

Sanskrit scholars are not into astrology. Most astrologers out there

are not really Sanskrit scholars.

 

2. Depends on who you are talking about. Jaimini commentator Iranganti

Rangacharya quotes Vriddha karika and Nilakantha and does take 7

karakas in some charts and 8 in some, based on two planets being in

the same degree. Thus, there WERE some people before who considered

Rahu conditionally, based on two planets being in the same degree. I

am not the first one. I deviated from them in other aspects, but the

aspect of considering Rahu conditionally based on two planets being in

the same degree was there before. I think that particular verse of

Parasara is quite clear.

 

Why some paramparas ignored the verse is unclear to me. However,

please realize that a parampara is only as good as its weakest link.

People in a parampara can change knowledge or add things to it.

 

3. I don't see it as redundant. If you see it that way and think that

it has some extra meaning, please propose it! :-)

 

4. If you interpret it that way and go towards the theory of Sri KN

Rao, there is one problem. Parasara's later verse on the absence of

higher portfolio and judgment using sthira karaka when two planets are

in the same degree would be rendered meaningless. I had to balance

that directive with the specific directive regarding atma karaka.

 

As I said, I considered several possibilities and put them to test

with several charts.

 

5. The word in question means " absence " and the context strengthens

that meaning. Moreover, Parasara says " the results of that portfolio

should be learnt from sthira karaka " and does not qualify that further!

 

6. It was a logical deduction and one that can certainly be

questioned. I considered other possibilities, but this worked better

practically. This is one thing where I am not 100% sure.

 

7. Though you did not ask, I will add a question: " Did Parasara

specifically teach about the second cycle in karaka dasa? " Answer is

no. As far as the first cycle of karaka dasa is concerned, Parasara's

teachings are unambiguous and crystal clear. The second and third

cycles were a logical deduction of mine. But I am almost 100% sure

that I got it correct.

 

* * *

 

As I said, this is based on my best effort. Is it 100% correct? I

don't know. But I am pretty confident that this is far more correct

than anything else out there. Others may have other views. :-)

 

Best regards,

Narasimha

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homam

Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpana

Spirituality: http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdom

Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro. home.comcast. net

Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAst rologer.org

Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagan nath.org

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

 

sohamsa@ .com, " vedicastrostudent "

<vedicastrostudent@ ...> wrote:

>

> Dear Narasimhaji,

> Well written article, but it is hard to prematurely jump to the

> conclusion that yours is an unambiguous intepretation in totality.

> There are points that need to be addressed, and perhaps this is why

> parampara interpretations have reigned so far. Here are the points

> that I see:

>

> 1) First, is your literal translation agreed upon by all scholars?

>

> 2) Then, the translation " Now I am speaking of.... Thus, only seven

> significators [in some] and eight in some are considered " is pretty

> unambiguous, i.e. that Rahu should be considered when 2 planets are

> at equal degrees. There seems to be no room for any doubt here at

> all - which brings up the question for an uninformed observer like

> myself - did the parampara interpreters earlier disregard these

> statements completely?

>

> 3) Next, try as I might, the statement: " One with higher degrees

> becomes higher karaka, one with less degrees becomes lower karaka,

> and one in the middle becomes lower karaka " seems completely

> redundant, wouldnt you say? I mean if we accept your interpretation

> (not translation, but interpretation) , then the above statement

> seems completely redundant, because it is saying exactly the same

> thing as the immediately following one, i.e. " By arranging in the

> decreasing and decreasing order of degrees, chara karakas are to be

> found " . Note that you write " decreasing and decreasing " - do you

> mean increasing and decreasing? Why would Parasara throw in a

> completely redundant and useless statement i.e. the first one? It

> would seem logical to assume that the statement needed to convey

> some EXTRA meaning, but it doesnt according to your interpretation -

> you seem to give no weight to him distributing karakas in 3

> categories, lower, middle and higher? In fact, by your

> interpretation, the distributing into 3 categories seems totally

> illogical and unnecessary, then.. I mean I can as easily

> artificially create 5 categories by saying " One with extremely high

> degrees becomes extremely higher karaka, one with high degrees

> become higher karaka, one with middle degrees becomes middle karaka,

> one with lower degrees becomes lower karaka, and one with extremely

> low degrees become extremely lower karaka " . As you can see, my

> creation is simply meaningless verbiage - there is no meaningful use

> of the 5 categories, exactly as there appears to be no meaningful

> use of the 3 categories Parasara has created, according to your

> interpretation. So net result - in your interpretation, this triple

> categorization of Parasara seems to be a useless additional

> statement, which consequently brings a certain amount of doubt to

> your interpretation.

>

> 4) Next and very important, the use of " degrees " . Your

> interpretation is hinged tightly on the word " self " in " Learned men

> should not take SELF from only degrees [and use upto seconds] " . It

> is quite possible he means this in general as well i.e. to always

> use seconds when deciding the charakaraka. If so, the entire

> interpretation changes. Now, if you re-read the entire thing keeping

> in mind that by degrees, Parasara GENERALLY actually means

> degrees+minutes+ seconds (DMS) and not degrees only (DO). Because

> then Rahu would come in when two planets have the same DMS only (a

> very rare occurrence)! ! So this would lend a lot of credibility to

> KN Rao's thesis, that we should use 7 karakas. All I'm saying is:

> it is hard to accept your interpretation as totally unambiguous.

>

> 5) You have clearly interpreted one line as " If two planets are

> equal in degrees in one's birth chart, O excellent brahmin, the

> absence of higher significator only is to be learnt " . Again, the

> devil is in the details. Is it unambiguously " absence " or might it

> be " disappearance " ? The difference being: Disappearance, as you know

> implies something was present and THEN disappeared, whereas absence

> means " never present " . Does the Sanskrit word actually imply

> absence, and NOT disappearance? Because the entire CK replacement

> theory hinges on that minor detail.

>

> 6) I am missing the part where he says when two grahas have a

> conflict, who takes the lower karakatwa? Ok, the higher karakatwa

> gets absent, but why does the highest DMS planet take the lower

> karakatwa? I assume this is a logical deduction, motivated solely by

> the need to be able to complete the karaka assignment?

>

> Sorry for the pointed questioning, but in general I would love to

> see some deeper discussion before simply throwing everything out of

> the back door.. Would love to see what other Gurus, especially

> Sanjayji, have to say..

>

> Regards,

>

> Sundeep

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now.

 

 

Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to

http://messenger./invite/