Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation

October 25, 2008

Om Gurave namahDear Ana,Since you mentioned some qualities of truth, there is one perfect saying/song/bhajan Satyam Shivam Sundaram ~ as some say Truth is God and God is beautiful.According to the theories of the ancient seers, God,evolution and

perfection equal satyam – truth, shivam – auspiciousness, and sundaram

– beauty. These are the three components that we need to attain in our

lives to complete the journey. Once you attain a nature which is full

of truthfulness, beauty and auspiciousness, then you only attain what is

known as realization, completeness in life and moksha or nirvana. Otherwise lacking of those atributes actually makes 'ralization' questanable at some point.The words sound nice but the process of attaining them is a sadhana.

Sadhana is a conscious, ongoing effort which one make to experience the

transformation of own nature and overcoming one's ego in order to percive truth is I guess really 'hard' part for sadhana/learning to fructify for all of us.Probably Sy BK would have the most serious issue with this ?adding above some serious Rh drsti & doubting Guru coming into picture could really spoil Satyam Shivam Sundaram in so called 'aweakining realizations'. Imagine in mentioned combination as well naisargika Bratri karaka Guru in trikona with Shakti yoga...wouldn't reallly add light of true creativity to above picture ?!Don't have atention to offend anyone,just searching for some true,in first place Guru respectful,creative jyotish arguments instead of 'aweakining jyotish visions' neither just making safe/suportive /blind affection bubbles around some figures.In quest for light Majasohamsa , 108ar <bona_mente wrote:>> Dear Michal,> > I know you are well-wisher and helpful to many, my appreciation.> Sorry about my mistake with your name.> > Ah, I understand- I am an Orthodox Christian! I've suffered most of my life from a prejudice /ingrained in my DNA ?/,> that 'hard' 'complicated' 'difficult' are valid qualifiers for 'real', 'true', 'truth' 'devotion'...> /despite all the evidence to the contrary/ NO they are NOT. /mho/> > Best wishes,> > Ana > > > --- On Fri, 10/24/08, Michal Dziwulski nearmichal wrote:> > Michal Dziwulski nearmichal Re: Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation> sohamsa > Friday, October 24, 2008, 10:03 PM> > > > > > > > > Hare Rama Krsna ||> > Dear Anna,> > Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. It was just the way you mentioned Amk that caught my attention. Perhaps I can use another example to explain myself better. In my database I have a folder for actors and actresses from Ben Afleck to Bruce Willis, from Paatricia Arquette to Sigorney Weaver. They all share a common focus as far as their careers are concerned - acting. However the AmK in all of these charts is not Mercury, but any one of the 8 possible grahas.> > I tend to disagree with your statement about the 'optimal' conditions for learning, and am reminded of a quote by Vivekananda - "Comfort" is no test of truth; on the contrary, truth is often far from being "comfortable."> > Respectfully,> Michal (not Michael:)> > > > > > 108ar bona_mente >> sohamsa@ .com> Saturday, October 25, 2008 1:32:29 PM> Re: Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation> > > > > > > > > > > You didn't get my point,> > dear Michael> > - it's not Ju Amk I spoke about specifically, it was just a metaphor for 'misfit', > > Let me use this opportunity to say that I honestly believe> > that exchange of views, knowledge, opinions /in respectful environment/ can only advance Jyotish cause-> can be and should be free of ego-political- brand- loyalty-hurt feelings-dominance- submissiveness- gains-uses- abuses...... list goes on and on....-issues-> > only than it is optimally beneficial to all. /as much as you, individually, can grasp, that is/> > Best wishes,> > Anna> > --- On Fri, 10/24/08, Michal Dziwulski nearmichal > wrote:> > Michal Dziwulski nearmichal >> Re: Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation> sohamsa@ .com> Friday, October 24, 2008, 7:07 PM> > > > > > > Hare Rama Krsna ||> > Dear Anna,> > Regarding the following:> > If you get construction worker and Ju AmK you would be suspicious, wouldn't you?> > There are some huge buildings that they construct where there are hundreds of construction workers involved. Do you think it is possible for not one of them to have Jupiter as AmK? Even statistically this is unlikely.> > Amatyakaraka does not necessarily show the environment we work in. For this you must see D10.> > Respectfully,> Michal> > > > > > 108ar bona_mente >> sohamsa@ .com> Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:33:27 AM> Re: Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation> > > > > > > > > > Dear Narasimha and Sundeep,> > Thank you for spelling out these clarifications- I settled down for less, though - trusting that if any portfolio results are to be judged based on shtira karaka- and that seems to be clear instruction/ Parashara- than Nararisimha' s interpretation on that higher-lower lever p., i.e. practical implementation of Parashara's 'instruction' , DOES FILL that 'void'.> > As I've written to some listers who asked me for the reasons why I accept this, although Narasimha didn't mention in the article what part was his interpretation, it is clear that just /clear/ direction is coming from Parashara. I've considered this from many angles, Narasimha's doesn't> violate this /precious/ direction in any way. It may not be the best interpretation, thanks Narasimha for mentioning that, but as 'working hypothesis' is seems still closer to the 'source' than others I've experimented with so far. CKDasa seems to work nicely, in dozen of charts I tested it on so far.> > In my own chart, this interpretation resolves one major issue that's been bothering me for long time- Saturn and Me are at the same degree, Sa more advanced in minutes, becomes AmK- with all overstretching, Ju, Me, Ve aspects, 'additional' influences etc...Sa as my AmK was unacceptable and had nothing to do with my real-life profession, so I set it aside for a long time, as some 'idiosyncrasy' - Neither was Me as BK! Now I have ME as STIRA k. holding higher portfolio of AmK, and SA as BK. That fits- totally.> > If you get construction worker and Ju AmK you would be suspicious, wouldn't you?- so was I. If Narasimha or whoever makes this interpretation more polished,> I'd go for it. But I feel this one is fundamentally correct. Intuitively as well.> 2)-What I have set aside here is CLEAR 'middle' karaka > interpretation, lack of it. /Is that addressing well known decreasing ck order, or smth else.../> 3/-I wasn't aware of 'second cycle' issue before, must admit. I assumed that would be just reasonable assumption?> 4/ Forgive me if I complicate this with Rahu- i somehow feel that 7 or 8 ck's must have some deeper meaning in defining individual differences- not god or bad, as Narasimha said in response to my 'confusing' q. before. But,> Is there something different btw 2 indivuduals, one having 7 cks, another having Rahu experience introduced in such a MAJOR way /as Chara karaka/. I'd say must be.> I am not quite sure I've explained this Q clearly, hope you'll understand.> > Looking forward to hearing more on this,> > Yours,> Anna> > --- On Fri, 1 0/24/08, Narasimha Rao pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net> wrote:> > Narasimha Rao pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net>> Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation> sohamsa@ .com> Friday, October 24, 2008, 3:57 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>

October 26, 2008

Dear Maja,

I appreciate your effort, thus cannot leave this unanswered.

I don't think I would do this again, though.

I trust that you are being honest. So am I. What I consider as my contribution to the List at this time in life, is certainly not explanation of verses and messing up with your religious and other beliefs which I don't share / but don't argue with/

It is my critical, open mind and good intentions on the top of my various skills accumulated during my life- I believe these are the most precious thin'gs one can give to friends. Be aware of the fact that an open mind always benefits from honest exchange of opinions: with those who agree and even more from those who don't.

Whether one appreciates that or not- I don't have problem with either- I don't really care, dear Maja. If you don't like, use 'delete', maintain your peace and affiliations.

I don't want to change anybody. I don't like 'sects' only when they try to police others.

Follow your heart and mind and don't bother being angry at 'infidels' who disagree. That's such a waste of mental faculties!

Wish you luck,

Ana--- On Sat, 10/25/08, Maja <vakelim wrote:

Maja <vakelim Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretationsohamsa Date: Saturday, October 25, 2008, 8:14 AM

Om Gurave namahDear Ana,Since you mentioned some qualities of truth, there is one perfect saying/song/ bhajan Satyam Shivam Sundaram ~ as some say Truth is God and God is beautiful.According to the theories of the ancient seers, God,evolution and perfection equal satyam – truth, shivam – auspiciousness, and sundaram – beauty. These are the three components that we need to attain in our lives to complete the journey. Once you attain a nature which is full of truthfulness, beauty and auspiciousness, then you only attain what is known as realization, completeness in life and moksha or nirvana. Otherwise lacking of those atributes actually makes 'ralization' questanable at some point.The words sound nice but the process of attaining them is a sadhana. Sadhana is a

conscious, ongoing effort which one make to experience the transformation of own nature and overcoming one's ego in order to percive truth is I guess really 'hard' part for sadhana/learning to fructify for all of us.Probably Sy BK would have the most serious issue with this ?adding above some serious Rh drsti & doubting Guru coming into picture could really spoil Satyam Shivam Sundaram in so called 'aweakining realizations' . Imagine in mentioned combination as well naisargika Bratri karaka Guru in trikona with Shakti yoga...wouldn' t reallly add light of true creativity to above picture ?!Don't have atention to offend anyone,just searching for some true,in first place Guru respectful,creative jyotish arguments instead of 'aweakining jyotish visions' neither just making safe/suportive /blind affection bubbles around some figures.In quest for light Majasohamsa , 108ar <bona_mente@. ..> wrote:>> Dear Michal,> > I know you are well-wisher and helpful to many, my appreciation.> Sorry about my mistake with your name.> > Ah, I understand- I am an Orthodox Christian! I've suffered most of my life from a prejudice /ingrained in my DNA ?/,> that 'hard' 'complicated' 'difficult' are valid qualifiers for 'real', 'true', 'truth' 'devotion'.. .> /despite all the evidence to the contrary/

NO they are NOT. /mho/> > Best wishes,> > Ana > > > --- On Fri, 10/24/08, Michal Dziwulski nearmichal@. .. wrote:> > Michal Dziwulski nearmichal@. ..> Re: Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation> sohamsa@ .com> Friday, October 24, 2008, 10:03 PM> > > > > > > > > Hare Rama Krsna ||> > Dear Anna,> > Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. It was just the way you mentioned Amk that caught my attention. Perhaps I can use another example to explain myself better. In my database I have a folder for actors and actresses from Ben Afleck to Bruce Willis, from Paatricia Arquette to Sigorney Weaver. They all share a common focus as far as their careers are concerned - acting.

However the AmK in all of these charts is not Mercury, but any one of the 8 possible grahas.> > I tend to disagree with your statement about the 'optimal' conditions for learning, and am reminded of a quote by Vivekananda - "Comfort" is no test of truth; on the contrary, truth is often far from being "comfortable. "> > Respectfully,> Michal (not Michael:)> > > > > > 108ar bona_mente >> sohamsa@ .com> Saturday, October 25, 2008 1:32:29 PM> Re: Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation> > > > > > > > > > > You didn't get my point,> > dear Michael> > - it's not Ju Amk I spoke about specifically, it was just a metaphor for 'misfit', >

> Let me use this opportunity to say that I honestly believe> > that exchange of views, knowledge, opinions /in respectful environment/ can only advance Jyotish cause-> can be and should be free of ego-political- brand- loyalty-hurt feelings-dominance- submissiveness- gains-uses- abuses...... list goes on and on....-issues-> > only than it is optimally beneficial to all. /as much as you, individually, can grasp, that is/> > Best wishes,> > Anna> > --- On Fri, 10/24/08, Michal Dziwulski nearmichal > wrote:> > Michal Dziwulski nearmichal >> Re: Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation> sohamsa@ .com> Friday, October 24, 2008, 7:07 PM> > > > > >

> Hare Rama Krsna ||> > Dear Anna,> > Regarding the following:> > If you get construction worker and Ju AmK you would be suspicious, wouldn't you?> > There are some huge buildings that they construct where there are hundreds of construction workers involved. Do you think it is possible for not one of them to have Jupiter as AmK? Even statistically this is unlikely.> > Amatyakaraka does not necessarily show the environment we work in. For this you must see D10.> > Respectfully,> Michal> > > > > > 108ar bona_mente >> sohamsa@ .com> Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:33:27 AM> Re: Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation> > > > > > > > > >

Dear Narasimha and Sundeep,> > Thank you for spelling out these clarifications- I settled down for less, though - trusting that if any portfolio results are to be judged based on shtira karaka- and that seems to be clear instruction/ Parashara- than Nararisimha' s interpretation on that higher-lower lever p., i.e. practical implementation of Parashara's 'instruction' , DOES FILL that 'void'.> > As I've written to some listers who asked me for the reasons why I accept this, although Narasimha didn't mention in the article what part was his interpretation, it is clear that just /clear/ direction is coming from Parashara. I've considered this from many angles, Narasimha's doesn't> violate this /precious/ direction in any way. It may not be the best interpretation, thanks Narasimha for mentioning that, but as 'working hypothesis' is seems still closer to the 'source' than others I've

experimented with so far. CKDasa seems to work nicely, in dozen of charts I tested it on so far.> > In my own chart, this interpretation resolves one major issue that's been bothering me for long time- Saturn and Me are at the same degree, Sa more advanced in minutes, becomes AmK- with all overstretching, Ju, Me, Ve aspects, 'additional' influences etc...Sa as my AmK was unacceptable and had nothing to do with my real-life profession, so I set it aside for a long time, as some 'idiosyncrasy' - Neither was Me as BK! Now I have ME as STIRA k. holding higher portfolio of AmK, and SA as BK. That fits- totally.> > If you get construction worker and Ju AmK you would be suspicious, wouldn't you?- so was I. If Narasimha or whoever makes this interpretation more polished,> I'd go for it. But I feel this one is fundamentally correct. Intuitively as well.> 2)-What I

have set aside here is CLEAR 'middle' karaka > interpretation, lack of it. /Is that addressing well known decreasing ck order, or smth else.../> 3/-I wasn't aware of 'second cycle' issue before, must admit. I assumed that would be just reasonable assumption?> 4/ Forgive me if I complicate this with Rahu- i somehow feel that 7 or 8 ck's must have some deeper meaning in defining individual differences- not god or bad, as Narasimha said in response to my 'confusing' q. before. But,> Is there something different btw 2 indivuduals, one having 7 cks, another having Rahu experience introduced in such a MAJOR way /as Chara karaka/. I'd say must be.> I am not quite sure I've explained this Q clearly, hope you'll understand.> > Looking forward to hearing more on this,> > Yours,> Anna> > --- On Fri, 1 0/24/08, Narasimha Rao

pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net> wrote:> > Narasimha Rao pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net>> Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation> sohamsa@ .com> Friday, October 24, 2008, 3:57 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>

October 26, 2008

Dear Narasimhaji,

sohamsa , " Narasimha Rao " <pvr wrote:

>

> Namaste Sundeep,

>

> > <Sundeep> If it isnt redundant, then what is the meaning of

Parasara

> > presenting this three fold division of higher, middle and lower,

> > when he has already indicated in the very next line that they

should

> > be arranged in decreasing order?

>

> Redundancy in explaining things is a subjective concept. We cannot

> objectively discuss it!

>

> The next line only says to arrange the planets in decreasing order

to

> find karakas. The first line says that first one gets first karaka,

> last one gets last karaka etc. Basically, second line tells what

order

> to arrange planets in and the first line tells what order to map

> karakas to these planets. I do not see redundancy.

>

If there are 3 objects, dividing them into at most 3 categories

makes instant sense. But when there are 7 or 8, then one wonders why

the 3 category division is emphasized. I have no idea why, but it

makes me think that there is something more to it.. Your explanation

does not depend specifically on this categorization into 3. Which is

why I say your interpretation makes this statement *look* redundant.

> > <Sundeep> Not really, it still has meaning. If you take the

> > alternate meaning that I considered, then if N planets have the

same

> > DMS (degree, minute, second), and they are all contesting for CK

> > positions P to P+N-1, then Parasara's sthira karaka verse would

mean

> > that you assign sthira karakas from P to P+N-2, and that at

position

> > P+N-1, you have this collection of N planets. This is why I

asked

>

> Well, Parasara used only degrees in that verse. He did not say

> degrees, minutes and seconds.

This is where I guess your expertise in interpreting Vedic text

comes into play. I have none so I can't give much weight to my own

opinion. But I will say this: For an uninformed observer who doesnt

know the writing style of scriptures, it is hard to say whether

Parasara was being very literal like you say he was, or whether he

was being a little loose in that he clearly defined it one place and

expected us to assume the same in the remaining places. If he was

being very literal, then even the " Due to reverse motion, degrees of

Rahu are to be subtracted from 30 " should be interpreted equally

literally. i.e. If Rahu is at 1 degree, 1 minute and 1 second, then

we should consider it's effective position as 29 degrees, 1 minute

and 1 second, not 28 degrees 58 minutes and 59 seconds. Because 30-1

is 29, and Parasara didnt literally say that the minutes and seconds

should be subtracted did he? But he implied it as seems obvious. So

what confidence can we have he didnt imply the same in all other

sentences as well?

In general, because of such possible ambiguities, I personally would

love to see some parampara experts weighing in on the issue as well

(e.g. Sanjayji). Hopefully you all can converge on some common

understanding. Another very personal anecdote from my own life:

Nothing has ever explained some events in my life as well as

Sanjayji's explanation of CK replacement did. I have AK Venus, AmK

Mars and BK Mercury at the same degree (I also have PK, GK, DK at

the same degree - 29June 1967, 23:00, 78E46, 22N12, +5:30GMT). In

2002-03 I felt a massive change happen in me that was not at the

mental level but a much deeper level. Mental level changes and

circumstance level changes are one thing and I have experienced many

of them in my life. They do not cataclysmically change one's core

nature or deepest motivations in life. Even arrival of AK dasa

simply brings AK issues to the fore, it doesnt actually powerfully

transform you (IMHO, in the few cases I have seen). But AK

replacement I feel is different and more powerful. Your hypothesis

at this point doesnt offer an explanation for such events. But maybe

you have a better explanation - I will wait and see..

Regards,

Sundeep

>

> Best regards,

> Narasimha

>

> Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam

> Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana

> Spirituality:

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

> Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

> Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

>

> sohamsa , " vedicastrostudent "

> <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Narasimhaji,

> > Thank you, I am glad you liked the questions. But I have

remaining

> > doubts which are inlined, prefixed with <Sundeep>:

> >

> > sohamsa , " Narasimha Rao " <pvr@> wrote:

> > >

> > > 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! :-)

> >

> > <Sundeep> If it isnt redundant, then what is the meaning of

Parasara

> > presenting this three fold division of higher, middle and lower,

> > when he has already indicated in the very next line that they

should

> > be arranged in decreasing order?

> >

> > >

> > > 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.

> > >

> >

> > <Sundeep> Not really, it still has meaning. If you take the

> > alternate meaning that I considered, then if N planets have the

same

> > DMS (degree, minute, second), and they are all contesting for CK

> > positions P to P+N-1, then Parasara's sthira karaka verse would

mean

> > that you assign sthira karakas from P to P+N-2, and that at

position

> > P+N-1, you have this collection of N planets. This is why I

asked

> > whether the idea of the " winner being the higher degree planet

at

> > P+N-1 " was explicitly advised and you agreed it wasnt, that it

was a

> > logical deduction. That deduction wouldnt be necessary if you

took

> > my above interpretation.

> >

> > In addition, both your interpretation AND mine suffer from one

flaw -

> > lets say 2 planets including the AK have the same DMS. You will

> > need to assign 8 CKs. 2 planets go to AK because there is no way

to

> > disambiguate them. 6 planets remaining (including Rahu), 7

positions

> > to fill. What to do with the last position? You may say sthira

> > karaka as a logical consequence, nevertheless it is not explicit.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Sundeep

> >

> > > 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.VedicAstrologer.org/homam

> > > Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself:

http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana

> > > Spirituality:

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

> > > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

> > > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

> > > ------------------------------

---

> > >

> > > sohamsa , " 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

> > >

> >

>

October 26, 2008

Namaste,

These calculations will be added to JHora in the next release.

Best regards,

Narasimha

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

Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana

Spirituality:

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

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

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

vedic astrology , " chandan486 " <wavelogix wrote:

>

> ||Aum namo bhagwate Rudraya||

>

> dear narasimha rao ji ,

>

> i have read your article on Chara karakas and completely agree on your

> views . however, just wanted to know , that the method that you have

> mentioed in the article , is it already used in JH 7.02? or will u

> incorporating this new calculation method in a newer edition of JH ?

>

> thanks and humble regards,

> Chandan S Sabarwal.

October 26, 2008

Om Gurave namah

Dear Ana,

Far from dwelling into discussing religious beliefs with you dear ! My attention was more to consider certain values and reasoning of 'truth' in light of applying/accepting some theory. Disrespect in addressing own Parampara Guru in public wouldn't make one 'truly great scholar' , more brings sad shadows of Kali yuga spoiling sacred Guru-shishya relatins, as I see it...

Again, personally I'm always open minded to learn and don't have any problem with different natures and

affections towards various teachings. As long it doesn't have simply

cheerleading nature as reason of aceptance and on other hand lack of attention toward deeper understanding of some principal groundings

Anyway,regarding basing subject of this mail - the astadala padma (eight-petal lotus) - the foundation of Hindu philosophy,based on the Kälacakra or the wheel of time,and it's 8 spokes in corelation to 8 chara karaka scheme is far more deeper ground of elaborating issue than simply some 'need for independence' interpretation of Parashara's slokas.But again that's just sharing my simple view vithout bothering to change anyone's mind or affectins...With best wishesMajasohamsa , 108ar <bona_mente wrote:>> Dear Maja,> > I appreciate your effort, thus cannot leave this unanswered.> I don't think I would do this again, though.> > I trust that you are being honest. So am I. > What I consider as my contribution to the List at this time in life, is certainly not explanation of verses and messing up with your religious and other beliefs which I don't share / but don't argue with/> > It is my critical, open mind and good intentions on the top of my various skills accumulated during my life- I believe these are the most precious thin'gs one can give to friends. Be aware of the fact that an open mind always benefits from honest exchange of opinions: with those who agree and even more from those who don't.> > Whether one appreciates that or not- I don't have problem with either- I don't really care, dear Maja. If you don't like, use 'delete', maintain your peace and affiliations. > > I don't want to change anybody. I don't like 'sects' only when they try to police others. > > Follow your heart and mind and don't bother being angry at 'infidels' who disagree. That's such a waste of mental faculties!> > Wish you luck,> Ana> > > > --- On Sat, 10/25/08, Maja vakelim wrote:> > Maja vakelim Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation> sohamsa > Saturday, October 25, 2008, 8:14 AM> > > > > > > Om Gurave namah> Dear Ana,> Since you mentioned some qualities of truth, there is one perfect saying/song/ bhajan Satyam Shivam Sundaram ~ as some say Truth is God and God is beautiful.> According to the theories of the ancient seers, God,evolution and perfection equal satyam – truth, shivam – auspiciousness, and sundaram – beauty. These are the three components that we need to attain in our lives to complete the journey. Once you attain a nature which is full of truthfulness, beauty and auspiciousness, then you only attain what is known as realization, completeness in life and moksha or nirvana. Otherwise lacking of those atributes actually makes 'ralization' questanable at some point.> The words sound nice but the process of attaining them is a sadhana. Sadhana is a conscious, ongoing effort which one make to experience the transformation of own nature and overcoming one's ego in order to percive truth is I guess really 'hard' part for sadhana/learning to fructify for all of us.> Probably Sy BK would have the most serious issue with this ?adding above some serious Rh drsti & doubting Guru coming into picture could really spoil Satyam Shivam Sundaram in so called 'aweakining realizations' . Imagine in mentioned combination as well naisargika Bratri karaka Guru in trikona with Shakti yoga...wouldn' t reallly add light of true creativity to above picture ?!> Don't have atention to offend anyone,just searching for some true,in first place Guru respectful,creative jyotish arguments instead of 'aweakining jyotish visions' neither just making safe/suportive /blind affection bubbles around some figures.> In quest for light > Maja> > > > > sohamsa@yaho> ogroups.com, 108ar bona_mente@ ..> wrote:> >> > Dear Michal,> > > > I know you are well-wisher and helpful to many, my appreciation.> > Sorry about my mistake with your name.> > > > Ah, I understand- I am an Orthodox Christian! I've suffered most of my life from a prejudice /ingrained in my DNA ?/,> > that 'hard' 'complicated' 'difficult' are valid qualifiers for 'real', 'true', 'truth' 'devotion'.. .> > /despite all the evidence to the contrary/ NO they are NOT. /mho/> > > > Best wishes,> > > > Ana > > > > > > --- On Fri, 10/24/08, Michal Dziwulski nearmichal@ .. wrote:> > > > Michal Dziwulski nearmichal@ ..> > Re: Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation> > sohamsa@ .com> > Friday, October 24, 2008, 10:03 PM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hare Rama Krsna ||> > > > Dear Anna,> > > > Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. It was just the way you mentioned Amk that caught my attention. Perhaps I can use another example to explain myself better. In my database I have a folder for actors and actresses from Ben Afleck to Bruce Willis, from Paatricia Arquette to Sigorney Weaver. They all share a common focus as far as their careers are concerned - acting. However the AmK in all of these charts is not Mercury, but any one of the 8 possible grahas.> > > > I tend to disagree with your statement about the 'optimal' conditions for learning, and am reminded of a quote by Vivekananda - "Comfort" is no test of truth; on the contrary, truth is often far from being "comfortable. "> > > > Respectfully,> > Michal (not Michael:)> > > > > > > > > > > > 108ar bona_mente >> > sohamsa@ .com> > Saturday, October 25, 2008 1:32:29 PM> > Re: Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You didn't get my point,> > > > dear Michael> > > > - it's not Ju Amk I spoke about specifically, it was just a metaphor for 'misfit', > > > > Let me use this opportunity to say that I honestly believe> > > > that exchange of views, knowledge, opinions /in respectful environment/ can only advance Jyotish cause-> > can be and should be free of ego-political- brand- loyalty-hurt feelings-dominance- submissiveness- gains-uses- abuses...... list goes on and on....-issues-> > > > only than it is optimally beneficial to all. /as much as you, individually, can grasp, that is/> > > > Best wishes,> > > > Anna> > > > --- On Fri, 10/24/08, Michal Dziwulski nearmichal > wrote:> > > > Michal Dziwulski nearmichal >> > Re: Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation> > sohamsa@ .com> > Friday, October 24, 2008, 7:07 PM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hare Rama Krsna ||> > > > Dear Anna,> > > > Regarding the following:> > > > If you get construction worker and Ju AmK you would be suspicious, wouldn't you?> > > > There are some huge buildings that they construct where there are hundreds of construction workers involved. Do you think it is possible for not one of them to have Jupiter as AmK? Even statistically this is unlikely.> > > > Amatyakaraka does not necessarily show the environment we work in. For this you must see D10.> > > > Respectfully,> > Michal> > > > > > > > > > > > 108ar bona_mente >> > sohamsa@ .com> > Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:33:27 AM> > Re: Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Narasimha and Sundeep,> > > > Thank you for spelling out these clarifications- I settled down for less, though - trusting that if any portfolio results are to be judged based on shtira karaka- and that seems to be clear instruction/ Parashara- than Nararisimha' s interpretation on that higher-lower lever p., i.e. practical implementation of Parashara's 'instruction' , DOES FILL that 'void'.> > > > As I've written to some listers who asked me for the reasons why I accept this, although Narasimha didn't mention in the article what part was his interpretation, it is clear that just /clear/ direction is coming from Parashara. I've considered this from many angles, Narasimha's doesn't> > violate this /precious/ direction in any way. It may not be the best interpretation, thanks Narasimha for mentioning that, but as 'working hypothesis' is seems still closer to the 'source' than others I've experimented with so far. CKDasa seems to work nicely, in dozen of charts I tested it on so far.> > > > In my own chart, this interpretation resolves one major issue that's been bothering me for long time- Saturn and Me are at the same degree, Sa more advanced in minutes, becomes AmK- with all overstretching, Ju, Me, Ve aspects, 'additional' influences etc...Sa as my AmK was unacceptable and had nothing to do with my real-life profession, so I set it aside for a long time, as some 'idiosyncrasy' - Neither was Me as BK! Now I have ME as STIRA k. holding higher portfolio of AmK, and SA as BK. That fits- totally.> > > > If you get construction worker and Ju AmK you would be suspicious, wouldn't you?- so was I. If Narasimha or whoever makes this interpretation more polished,> > I'd go for it. But I feel this one is fundamentally correct. Intuitively as well.> > 2)-What I have set aside here is CLEAR 'middle' karaka > > interpretation, lack of it. /Is that addressing well known decreasing ck order, or smth else.../> > 3/-I wasn't aware of 'second cycle' issue before, must admit. I assumed that would be just reasonable assumption?> > 4/ Forgive me if I complicate this with Rahu- i somehow feel that 7 or 8 ck's must have some deeper meaning in defining individual differences- not god or bad, as Narasimha said in response to my 'confusing' q. before. But,> > Is there something different btw 2 indivuduals, one having 7 cks, another having Rahu experience introduced in such a MAJOR way /as Chara karaka/. I'd say must be.> > I am not quite sure I've explained this Q clearly, hope you'll understand.> > > > Looking forward to hearing more on this,> > > > Yours,> > Anna> > > > --- On Fri, 1 0/24/08, Narasimha Rao pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net> wrote:> > > > Narasimha Rao pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net>> > Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation> > sohamsa@ .com> > Friday, October 24, 2008, 3:57 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> >>

October 26, 2008

Dear Maja,

In the phase of life when one has little knowledge and even less experience one tends to see black/while only- that helps him/her grasp the complexity of world easier. I understand that, have been there myself personally, and as a mother of a teenager again.

I don't have that much patience in that respect now, so please forgive me for not being milder, I just want to tell you what I think, and get rid of this cheap politics,

do whatever you want/can with that.

Put : 'I believe' in front of every statement bellow:

1/ It is dirty style to attack anybody's character on astrological-base, like Sy BK,

Rahu argala, BS..whatever.

Don't do that, it's immoral.

If you need to hide yourself, be aware of that, don't use Jyotish to cover your weakness/ lack of understanding

2/...of difference btw. 'free thinking' and 'disrespect',

confusing schmoozing and respect.

Narasimha loves and respects Sanjay more than you can ever imagine,

more than most of you there in fact.

That sleazy, servile, false humility...behaviour is not uncommon occurrence among nations with long history of slavery, foreign rules, dictatorship /Serbian, Indian.../

I do count on Sanjay's capacity for tolerance, self-confidence, and ability to distinguish healthy exchange of opinions from disrespect- eventually. Without schmoozers, profiteers, who undermine his innate goodness , he would be happier and more productive Guru /MHO/

Narasimha offered his knowledge unconditionally, what else can we ask for? If that's 'throwing pearls...' so be it.

Insights Narasimha has achieved in his young age, many /me included/ won't experience in entire life. He may not be right, neither does he want to prove he is. So what, let's research what such a great mind offers for free!!! I am much older.., but still/always 'cheering'... knowledge with enthusiasm. Coming from ALL sources.

3/ let me remind you, this is supposed to be Jyotish forum, not provincial box competition.

Forgive me, I couldn't be more patient with you. .

Best Wishes,

Anna

--- On Sun, 10/26/08, Maja <vakelim wrote:

Maja <vakelim Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretationsohamsa Date: Sunday, October 26, 2008, 4:05 PM

Om Gurave namahDear Ana,Far from dwelling into discussing religious beliefs with you dear ! My attention was more to consider certain values and reasoning of 'truth' in light of applying/accepting some theory. Disrespect in addressing own Parampara Guru in public wouldn't make one 'truly great scholar' , more brings sad shadows of Kali yuga spoiling sacred Guru-shishya relatins, as I see it...Again, personally I'm always open minded to learn and don't have any problem with different natures and affections towards various teachings. As long it doesn't have simply cheerleading nature as reason of aceptance and on other hand lack of attention toward deeper understanding of some principal groundings Anyway,regarding basing subject of this mail - the astadala padma (eight-petal lotus) - the foundation of Hindu philosophy,based on the Kälacakra or the wheel of time,and it's 8 spokes in corelation to 8 chara karaka scheme is far more deeper ground of elaborating issue than simply some 'need for independence' interpretation of Parashara's slokas.But again that's just sharing my simple view vithout bothering to change anyone's mind or affectins...With best wishesMajasohamsa@ .com, 108ar <bona_mente@. ..> wrote:>> Dear Maja,> > I appreciate your effort, thus cannot leave this unanswered.> I don't think I would do this again, though.> > I

trust that you are being honest. So am I. > What I consider as my contribution to the List at this time in life, is certainly not explanation of verses and messing up with your religious and other beliefs which I don't share / but don't argue with/> > It is my critical, open mind and good intentions on the top of my various skills accumulated during my life- I believe these are the most precious thin'gs one can give to friends. Be aware of the fact that an open mind always benefits from honest exchange of opinions: with those who agree and even more from those who don't.> > Whether one appreciates that or not- I don't have problem with either- I don't really care, dear Maja. If you don't like, use 'delete', maintain your peace and affiliations. > > I don't want to change anybody. I don't like

'sects' only when they try to police others. > > Follow your heart and mind and don't bother being angry at 'infidels' who disagree. That's such a waste of mental faculties!> > Wish you luck,> Ana> > > > --- On Sat, 10/25/08, Maja vakelim wrote:> > Maja vakelim Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation> sohamsa@ .com> Saturday, October 25, 2008, 8:14 AM> > > > > > > Om Gurave namah> Dear Ana,> Since you mentioned some qualities of truth, there is one perfect saying/song/ bhajan Satyam Shivam Sundaram ~ as some say Truth is God and God is beautiful.> According to the theories of the ancient seers, God,evolution and perfection equal satyam – truth, shivam – auspiciousness,

and sundaram – beauty. These are the three components that we need to attain in our lives to complete the journey. Once you attain a nature which is full of truthfulness, beauty and auspiciousness, then you only attain what is known as realization, completeness in life and moksha or nirvana. Otherwise lacking of those atributes actually makes 'ralization' questanable at some point.> The words sound nice but the process of attaining them is a sadhana. Sadhana is a conscious, ongoing effort which one make to experience the transformation of own nature and overcoming one's ego in order to percive truth is I guess really 'hard' part for sadhana/learning to fructify for all of us.> Probably Sy BK would have the most serious issue with this ?adding above some serious Rh drsti & doubting Guru coming into picture could really spoil Satyam Shivam Sundaram in so called 'aweakining realizations' . Imagine in mentioned combination as

well naisargika Bratri karaka Guru in trikona with Shakti yoga...wouldn' t reallly add light of true creativity to above picture ?!> Don't have atention to offend anyone,just searching for some true,in first place Guru respectful,creative jyotish arguments instead of 'aweakining jyotish visions' neither just making safe/suportive /blind affection bubbles around some figures.> In quest for light > Maja> > > > > sohamsa@yaho> ogroups.com, 108ar bona_mente@ ..> wrote:> >> > Dear Michal,> > > > I know you are well-wisher and helpful to many, my appreciation.> > Sorry about my mistake with your name.> > > > Ah, I understand- I am an Orthodox Christian! I've suffered most of my life from a prejudice /ingrained in my DNA ?/,> > that

'hard' 'complicated' 'difficult' are valid qualifiers for 'real', 'true', 'truth' 'devotion'.. .> > /despite all the evidence to the contrary/ NO they are NOT. /mho/> > > > Best wishes,> > > > Ana > > > > > > --- On Fri, 10/24/08, Michal Dziwulski nearmichal@ .. wrote:> > > > Michal Dziwulski nearmichal@ ..> > Re: Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation> > sohamsa@ .com> > Friday, October 24, 2008, 10:03 PM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hare Rama Krsna ||> > > > Dear Anna,> > > > Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. It was just the way you mentioned Amk that caught my attention.

Perhaps I can use another example to explain myself better. In my database I have a folder for actors and actresses from Ben Afleck to Bruce Willis, from Paatricia Arquette to Sigorney Weaver. They all share a common focus as far as their careers are concerned - acting. However the AmK in all of these charts is not Mercury, but any one of the 8 possible grahas.> > > > I tend to disagree with your statement about the 'optimal' conditions for learning, and am reminded of a quote by Vivekananda - "Comfort" is no test of truth; on the contrary, truth is often far from being "comfortable. "> > > > Respectfully,> > Michal (not Michael:)> > > > > > > > > > > > 108ar bona_mente >> > sohamsa@ .com> > Saturday, October 25, 2008 1:32:29 PM> > Re: Re:

Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You didn't get my point,> > > > dear Michael> > > > - it's not Ju Amk I spoke about specifically, it was just a metaphor for 'misfit', > > > > Let me use this opportunity to say that I honestly believe> > > > that exchange of views, knowledge, opinions /in respectful environment/ can only advance Jyotish cause-> > can be and should be free of ego-political- brand- loyalty-hurt feelings-dominance- submissiveness- gains-uses- abuses...... list goes on and on....-issues-> > > > only than it is optimally beneficial to all. /as much as you, individually, can

grasp, that is/> > > > Best wishes,> > > > Anna> > > > --- On Fri, 10/24/08, Michal Dziwulski nearmichal > wrote:> > > > Michal Dziwulski nearmichal >> > Re: Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation> > sohamsa@ .com> > Friday, October 24, 2008, 7:07 PM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hare Rama Krsna ||> > > > Dear Anna,> > > > Regarding the following:> > > > If you get construction worker and Ju AmK you would be suspicious, wouldn't you?> > > > There are some huge buildings that they construct where there are hundreds of construction workers involved. Do you think it is possible for not one of

them to have Jupiter as AmK? Even statistically this is unlikely.> > > > Amatyakaraka does not necessarily show the environment we work in. For this you must see D10.> > > > Respectfully,> > Michal> > > > > > > > > > > > 108ar bona_mente >> > sohamsa@ .com> > Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:33:27 AM> > Re: Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Narasimha and Sundeep,> > > > Thank you for spelling out these clarifications- I settled down for less, though - trusting that if any portfolio results are to be judged based on shtira karaka- and that seems to be clear

instruction/ Parashara- than Nararisimha' s interpretation on that higher-lower lever p., i.e. practical implementation of Parashara's 'instruction' , DOES FILL that 'void'.> > > > As I've written to some listers who asked me for the reasons why I accept this, although Narasimha didn't mention in the article what part was his interpretation, it is clear that just /clear/ direction is coming from Parashara. I've considered this from many angles, Narasimha's doesn't> > violate this /precious/ direction in any way. It may not be the best interpretation, thanks Narasimha for mentioning that, but as 'working hypothesis' is seems still closer to the 'source' than others I've experimented with so far. CKDasa seems to work nicely, in dozen of charts I tested it on so far.> > > > In my own chart, this interpretation resolves one major issue that's been bothering me

for long time- Saturn and Me are at the same degree, Sa more advanced in minutes, becomes AmK- with all overstretching, Ju, Me, Ve aspects, 'additional' influences etc...Sa as my AmK was unacceptable and had nothing to do with my real-life profession, so I set it aside for a long time, as some 'idiosyncrasy' - Neither was Me as BK! Now I have ME as STIRA k. holding higher portfolio of AmK, and SA as BK. That fits- totally.> > > > If you get construction worker and Ju AmK you would be suspicious, wouldn't you?- so was I. If Narasimha or whoever makes this interpretation more polished,> > I'd go for it. But I feel this one is fundamentally correct. Intuitively as well.> > 2)-What I have set aside here is CLEAR 'middle' karaka > > interpretation, lack of it. /Is that addressing well known decreasing ck order, or smth else.../> > 3/-I wasn't

aware of 'second cycle' issue before, must admit. I assumed that would be just reasonable assumption?> > 4/ Forgive me if I complicate this with Rahu- i somehow feel that 7 or 8 ck's must have some deeper meaning in defining individual differences- not god or bad, as Narasimha said in response to my 'confusing' q. before. But,> > Is there something different btw 2 indivuduals, one having 7 cks, another having Rahu experience introduced in such a MAJOR way /as Chara karaka/. I'd say must be.> > I am not quite sure I've explained this Q clearly, hope you'll understand.> > > > Looking forward to hearing more on this,> > > > Yours,> > Anna> > > > --- On Fri, 1 0/24/08, Narasimha Rao pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net> wrote:> > > > Narasimha Rao pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net>> > Re: Parasara on

Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation> > sohamsa@ .com> > Friday, October 24, 2008, 3:57 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> >>

October 27, 2008

Namaste Sundeep,

> In general, because of such possible ambiguities, I personally would > love to see some parampara experts weighing in on the issue as well > (e.g. Sanjayji). Hopefully you all can converge on some common > understanding.

The views of "parampara experts" have deviated from Parasara in a much bigger way and deviated even where there is no ambiguity!

Where there is ambiguity and scope for multiple interpretations, I have acknowledged it. As I said, I experimented and came to a conclusion in those cases based on karaka dasa taught by Parasara. I am actually quite surprised that those who advanced theories on chara karaka determination did not use karaka dasa taught by Parasara. In my view, that is a key dasa in arriving at the correct interpretation of Parasara's teaching on chara karaka determination. Without karaka dasa, I would not have been able to come to a conclusion on a couple of ambiguous issues in the chara karaka determination.

Best regards,NarasimhaDo a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homamDo Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpanaSpirituality: Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

sohamsa , "vedicastrostudent" <vedicastrostudent wrote:>> Dear Narasimhaji,> > sohamsa , "Narasimha Rao" <pvr@> wrote:> >> > Namaste Sundeep,> > > > > <Sundeep> If it isnt redundant, then what is the meaning of > Parasara > > > presenting this three fold division of higher, middle and lower, > > > when he has already indicated in the very next line that they > should > > > be arranged in decreasing order? > > > > Redundancy in explaining things is a subjective concept. We cannot> > objectively discuss it!> > > > The next line only says to arrange the planets in decreasing order > to> > find karakas. The first line says that first one gets first karaka,> > last one gets last karaka etc. Basically, second line tells what > order> > to arrange planets in and the first line tells what order to map> > karakas to these planets. I do not see redundancy.> > > > If there are 3 objects, dividing them into at most 3 categories > makes instant sense. But when there are 7 or 8, then one wonders why > the 3 category division is emphasized. I have no idea why, but it > makes me think that there is something more to it.. Your explanation > does not depend specifically on this categorization into 3. Which is > why I say your interpretation makes this statement *look* redundant.> > > > > <Sundeep> Not really, it still has meaning. If you take the > > > alternate meaning that I considered, then if N planets have the > same > > > DMS (degree, minute, second), and they are all contesting for CK > > > positions P to P+N-1, then Parasara's sthira karaka verse would > mean > > > that you assign sthira karakas from P to P+N-2, and that at > position > > > P+N-1, you have this collection of N planets. This is why I > asked > > > > Well, Parasara used only degrees in that verse. He did not say> > degrees, minutes and seconds.> > This is where I guess your expertise in interpreting Vedic text > comes into play. I have none so I can't give much weight to my own > opinion. But I will say this: For an uninformed observer who doesnt > know the writing style of scriptures, it is hard to say whether > Parasara was being very literal like you say he was, or whether he > was being a little loose in that he clearly defined it one place and > expected us to assume the same in the remaining places. If he was > being very literal, then even the "Due to reverse motion, degrees of > Rahu are to be subtracted from 30" should be interpreted equally > literally. i.e. If Rahu is at 1 degree, 1 minute and 1 second, then > we should consider it's effective position as 29 degrees, 1 minute > and 1 second, not 28 degrees 58 minutes and 59 seconds. Because 30-1 > is 29, and Parasara didnt literally say that the minutes and seconds > should be subtracted did he? But he implied it as seems obvious. So > what confidence can we have he didnt imply the same in all other > sentences as well?> > In general, because of such possible ambiguities, I personally would > love to see some parampara experts weighing in on the issue as well > (e.g. Sanjayji). Hopefully you all can converge on some common > understanding. Another very personal anecdote from my own life: > Nothing has ever explained some events in my life as well as > Sanjayji's explanation of CK replacement did. I have AK Venus, AmK > Mars and BK Mercury at the same degree (I also have PK, GK, DK at > the same degree - 29June 1967, 23:00, 78E46, 22N12, +5:30GMT). In > 2002-03 I felt a massive change happen in me that was not at the > mental level but a much deeper level. Mental level changes and > circumstance level changes are one thing and I have experienced many > of them in my life. They do not cataclysmically change one's core > nature or deepest motivations in life. Even arrival of AK dasa > simply brings AK issues to the fore, it doesnt actually powerfully > transform you (IMHO, in the few cases I have seen). But AK > replacement I feel is different and more powerful. Your hypothesis > at this point doesnt offer an explanation for such events. But maybe > you have a better explanation - I will wait and see..> > Regards,> > Sundeep> > > > > > > Best regards,> > Narasimha> > > > Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam> > Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana> > Spirituality: > > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net> > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org> > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org> > > > > > sohamsa , "vedicastrostudent"> > <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:> > >> > > Dear Narasimhaji,> > > Thank you, I am glad you liked the questions. But I have > remaining > > > doubts which are inlined, prefixed with <Sundeep>:> > > > > > sohamsa , "Narasimha Rao" <pvr@> wrote:> > > >> > > > 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! :-)> > > > > > <Sundeep> If it isnt redundant, then what is the meaning of > Parasara > > > presenting this three fold division of higher, middle and lower, > > > when he has already indicated in the very next line that they > should > > > be arranged in decreasing order? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.> > > >> > > > > > <Sundeep> Not really, it still has meaning. If you take the > > > alternate meaning that I considered, then if N planets have the > same > > > DMS (degree, minute, second), and they are all contesting for CK > > > positions P to P+N-1, then Parasara's sthira karaka verse would > mean > > > that you assign sthira karakas from P to P+N-2, and that at > position > > > P+N-1, you have this collection of N planets. This is why I > asked > > > whether the idea of the "winner being the higher degree planet > at > > > P+N-1" was explicitly advised and you agreed it wasnt, that it > was a > > > logical deduction. That deduction wouldnt be necessary if you > took > > > my above interpretation. > > > > > > In addition, both your interpretation AND mine suffer from one > flaw -> > > lets say 2 planets including the AK have the same DMS. You will > > > need to assign 8 CKs. 2 planets go to AK because there is no way > to > > > disambiguate them. 6 planets remaining (including Rahu), 7 > positions > > > to fill. What to do with the last position? You may say sthira > > > karaka as a logical consequence, nevertheless it is not explicit.> > > > > > Regards,> > > > > > Sundeep> > > > > > > > > > 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.VedicAstrologer.org/homam> > > > Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: > http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana> > > > Spirituality: > > > > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net> > > > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org> > > > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org> > > > ------------------------------> --- > > > > > > > > sohamsa , "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

October 28, 2008

Dear Sanjay,

Hope you are doing well. Happy Deepavali! It is always nice to hear from you.

Maharshi Parasara said " We use 7 or 8 planets. When X happens, THEN we use 8

planets. THUS, we use 7 in some and 8 in some " .

As you said, it is obvious when X happens that 8 are to be used. However, it is

also fair to conclude that 7 are used when X does not happen.

This would be a fair conclusion normally. Moreover, the use of the word " evam "

seals it here.

The word " evam " means " thus " or " in this manner " or " like this " . By using this

word, he is indicating that what he has said before is sufficient to see when to

use 7 and when to use 8. It implies that there is no other guideline and *this

is how* we figure out. If there is some additional guideline to choose between 7

vs 8, the word " evam " would not have been used. Thus, one can reject the notion

that there are more unspoken crtiteria.

Best regards,

Narasimha

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

Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana

Spirituality:

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

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

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

-

Sanjay Prabhakaran

sjc-guru

Cc: sohamsa ; vedic astrology ;

; sjcBoston

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:20 AM

Re: [sjc-guru] Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent

Interpretation

|| Om Gurave Namah ||

Dear Narasimhaji,

I had a thought about the first few stanzas,

Ch. 32. Karakatwas of the Grahas

athA.ahaM sampravaxyAmi grahAnAtmAdikArakAn.h |

saptaravyAdishanyantAn.h rAhvantAn.h vA.ashhTasaMkhyakAn.h || 1||

aMshaiH samaugnahau dvau ched.hrAhvantan.h chintayet.h tadA |

saptaiva kArakAnevaM kechidashhTau prachaxate || 2||

This can be translated literally as: " Now I am speaking about seven planets

from Sun to Saturn or eight planets upto Rahu,

acting as the significators of self etc. If two planets are equal by degrees,

then planets upto Rahu should be thought of.

Thus, only seven significators [in some] and eight in some are considered. "

This may also mean that

USE Rahu IF there is two planets in same degrees, " aMshaiH samaugnahau dvau

ched.hrAhvantan.h chintayet.h tadA | "

But this may not mean that NOT TO USE EIGHT Kaarakas when there is no grahas

in same Degress

Let me put it this way

SET 1 : USE Rahu when grahas in same degress 8 Kaaraka systems.

THE REMAINING SET : YOU can still use both 7 and 8 kaarakas.

I hope I am bringing out my thoughts accurately. The stanza never says " FOR

THE REMAINING " USE ONLY 7 KAARAKAS.

Warm Regards

Sanjay P

2008/10/23 Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr

Namaste friends,

Here is the promised article on chara karakas. I have no pretensions that I

got it correct. But this is based on an honest attempt to purge all preconceived

notions from the mind and approach Parasara's verses with a fresh and unbiased

mind.

In my view, neither the 7 chara karaka school nor the 8 chara karaka school

got Parasara correct. Parasara taught that 7 chara karakas should be used in

some charts and 8 chara karakas in some charts and clearly described when to use

what.

I am trying to share whatever I was able to understand by reading Parasara's

exposition on chara karakas with an open mind and then experimenting. If you

think my interpretation has some worth in it, please use it, experiment, benefit

and spread the knowledge. If not, just leave it.

I have uploaded a detailed article on chara karakas on my website. It

describes the calculation with 16 examples, covering various cases. Apart from

defining chara karaka calculation, this article also defines and uses a dasa

called " Karaka dasa " that was taught by Parasara for the purpose of timing

events using chara karakas. Please download the following PDF file if

interested:

http://VedicAstrologer.org/articles/c_karaka.pdf

If you find the article useful, please feel free to forward this link to

those who may be interested.

Krishnaarpanamastu,

Narasimha

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

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

Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana

Spirituality:

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

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

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

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

October 28, 2008

ï»¿

Dear Sanjay,

Hope you are doing well. Happy Deepavali! It is always nice to hear from you.

Maharshi Parasara said "We use 7 or 8 planets. When X happens, THEN we use 8 planets. THUS, we use 7 in some and 8 in some".

As you said, it is obvious when X happens that 8 are to be used. However, it is also fair to conclude that 7 are used when X does not happen.

This would be a fair conclusion normally. Moreover, the use of the word "evam" seals it here.

The word "evam" means "thus" or "in this manner" or "like this". By using this word, he is indicating that what he has said before is sufficient to see when to use 7 and when to use 8. It implies that there is no other guideline and *this is how* we figure out. If there is some additional guideline to choose between 7 vs 8, the word "evam" would not have been used. Thus, one can reject the notion that there are more unspoken crtiteria.

Best regards,NarasimhaDo a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homamDo Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpanaSpirituality: Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

-

Sanjay Prabhakaran

sjc-guru

Cc: sohamsa ; vedic astrology ; ; sjcBoston

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:20 AM

Re: [sjc-guru] Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation

|| Om Gurave Namah ||Dear Narasimhaji, I had a thought about the first few stanzas,

Ch. 32. Karakatwas of the Grahas

athA.ahaM sampravaxyAmi grahAnAtmAdikArakAn.h |

saptaravyAdishanyantAn.h rAhvantAn.h vA.ashhTasaMkhyakAn.h || 1||

aMshaiH samaugnahau dvau ched.hrAhvantan.h chintayet.h tadA |

saptaiva kArakAnevaM kechidashhTau prachaxate || 2||

This can be translated literally as: "Now I am speaking about seven planets from Sun to Saturn or eight planets upto Rahu,acting as the significators of self etc. If two planets are equal by degrees, then planets upto Rahu should be thought of.Thus, only seven significators [in some] and eight in some are considered."This may also mean that USE Rahu IF there is two planets in same degrees, "aMshaiH samaugnahau dvau ched.hrAhvantan.h chintayet.h tadA |"But this may not mean that NOT TO USE EIGHT Kaarakas when there is no grahas in same DegressLet me put it this waySET 1 : USE Rahu when grahas in same degress 8 Kaaraka systems.THE REMAINING SET : YOU can still use both 7 and 8 kaarakas.I hope I am bringing out my thoughts accurately. The stanza never says "FOR THE REMAINING" USE ONLY 7 KAARAKAS.Warm RegardsSanjay P

2008/10/23 Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr

Namaste friends,Here is the promised article on chara karakas. I have no pretensions that I got it correct. But this is based on an honest attempt to purge all preconceived notions from the mind and approach Parasara's verses with a fresh and unbiased mind.In my view, neither the 7 chara karaka school nor the 8 chara karaka school got Parasara correct. Parasara taught that 7 chara karakas should be used in some charts and 8 chara karakas in some charts and clearly described when to use what.I am trying to share whatever I was able to understand by reading Parasara's exposition on chara karakas with an open mind and then experimenting. If you think my interpretation has some worth in it, please use it, experiment, benefit and spread the knowledge. If not, just leave it.I have uploaded a detailed article on chara karakas on my website. It describes the calculation with 16 examples, covering various cases. Apart from defining chara karaka calculation, this article also defines and uses a dasa called "Karaka dasa" that was taught by Parasara for the purpose of timing events using chara karakas. Please download the following PDF file if interested:http://VedicAstrologer.org/articles/c_karaka.pdfIf you find the article useful, please feel free to forward this link to those who may be interested.Krishnaarpanamastu,Narasimha-------------------------Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homamDo Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpanaSpirituality: Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org-------------------------

October 30, 2008

Dear All Namste

Although I am not a Sanskrit scholar like many present here but

wanted to read again first two verses of the Sanskrit text provided

by Narshimha.

athähaà sampravakñyämi grahänätmädikärakän |

saptaravyädiçanyantän rähvantän väñöasaìkhyakän || 1||

First Line words are like this.

atha= Now,aham=Me/I, sampravakshami=speak out or tell, Grahan=of

planets, Atmadikarakan=Self

Significators etc.

SO first line can be translated as

" Now I will tell you Atamadikarak of planets "

Second Line goes like this

Sapta=Seven, RavyaAadi=start with The Sun, Shani=Saturn,

Antyan=ending with, Rahu=Rahu, Antyan=ending with ,Vashta= Eight,

Sankhyan=Number.

Second can be translated as

Starting with the Sun and ending with Shani seven planets can be

karak or/and staring with the Sun and ending with Rahu eight planets

can be karak.

Putting together it means

Now I will tell you Atamadi karaks of planets.There can be seven

starting from Ravi and ending with Satrun or eight karaks with Ravi

to Rahu.

I think Parashara has clearly said that karaks(w.r.t Grahas) can be 7

(Ravi to Shani) or 8 (Ravi to Rahu) in the first verse itself. This

is where Parashara has made it clear that Rahu can be consided as

charakarak i.e It can be Atmakara etc as well. But in 7 scheme Rahu

can not be Charakarak.

Now lets go the next verse

aàçaiù samau grahau dvau cet rähvantän cintayet tadä |

saptaiva kärakänevaà kecidañöau pracakñate || 2||

First line goes like this

Amshehye=Degrees,Samou=Equal/Same, Grahou Daou chet=Two planets,

Rahu=Rahu, Antyan=ending with, chintayet=remember,think tada=when

So translation will be

When two planets have same degrees think Ravi to Rahu[include Rahu in

Charakaraks]

Second line goes like this

Sapta=Seven, Eva=only Karakaneva=Significators, Kechid=Some times,

Asthou=Eight Prachakshate=seen

Summing up second verse

When two planets have same degrees think Ravi to Rahu in Seven

karaks only. But some times eight karaks are taken is also seen.

So in the first verse Parashara makes it clear that there can be 7

karaks or 8 karaks i.e with Rahu or with out Rahu. Then he gives the

specific condition when to essentially use Rahu. That is when two

grahas have same degrees one must use Rahu. But in how many karaks?

Essentially 7 karkas only but can be in 8 as well. So what Parashara

possibly wants to say is that

1) There can be Rahu as chara karak or Rahu can be excluded from the

chara karak along with the Sun to Saturn.

2) There can be 7 protfolios or 8 protfolios. This can be with or

without Rahu.

3) When two grahs have same degrees Rahu must be chara karak with

essentialy 7 karaks but some times 8 karaks can also be seen.

It is important to remember that, When not to use Rahu, Parashara has

not commented but categorically said when to use!

Parashara has not made it clear when to use 8 karaks when two planets

have same degrees. As far as which 7 karaks should be used Parashara

has made it clear later in the shloka number 16/17.

mätåkärakamevänye vadanti sutakärakam |

Martrukarakm= Significator of Mother, evam=only Anye=some others,

vadanti=say,speak, sutakarakam=significator of putra

Some others say that only significator of mother should be considered

as significator of Putra.

dvau grahau bhägatulyau cejjäyetäà yasya janmani

dvau=two, Grahau=planets(two), bhagatulyau chet=in same degrees,

jayetam yasya janmani=who is born with

The one who is born with two grahas in same degrees.

tadagrakärakasyaivaà lopo jïeyo dvijottama

tad=that,agre karakasya=one comes first karaka,evam=only

lopo=disappears, jneyo=understand, dwija=Brahmana Shreshtam=the best.

Understand O excellent Brahmin, the one whose karaktva comes first

[when two grahas have same amsha] disappears

Putting together

The one who is born with two grahas in same degrees[in such cases]

the one whose karkatva comes first disappears [next one to take his

karakatva] but others say that Matru karak only should be treated as

Putrakarak.

Here Parashara has again not made it clear and hinted about possible

charakarak replacement. He as well adds that others simply say that

MK and Pk are to be treated same.

So we see that if we try to read and translate without any baised, we

can try to understand what Parashara and others(including Shree

Sanjay) have said about this.

The translation given by Narsimha is not complete as he has ignored

some of the verses quoted by him. May be he did not find them worth

enough to prove his point.

So in summary we can say that

1)Sanjay is justified in using Rahu in Charakaras that is how making

it 8 charakaraks scheme.

2) If anybody is excluding Rahu, that will also be in accordance with

Parashara.

3) But Rahu must be used when two grahas have same degrees(Sanjay

possibly ignored this as he always takes Rahu in living beings chats.

On the other hand those who do not include Rahu now should prove why

did they ignore Rahu when two grahas degrees matched?).This can be

with 7 karaks( So making AK,AmK,Bk,Mk,Pik,Gk,Dk. Mk plays the

additional role of Pk. ignored by Sanjay) or in some conditions(not

disclosed by Parashara) 8 karaks(AK,AmK,Bk,Mk,Pik,Pk,Gk,Dk considred

by Sanjay)can be used.

4) When two grahas have same amsha and Pk is included, charakarak

replacement will happen and lower one will take the upper one as

upper one will disappear. In that case Shira karaka will decide good

or bad results of that.

We see that Shree Sanjay's teaching seems to be matching in totality

with Parashara at least with respect to living beings chatrs. Why

Sanjay considers Mundane charts differently vis-a-vis charakarkas is

not clear and certainly Parashara has not recommended any thing like

that.May be he will let us know now!

This is also an independent interpretation of Parasara's teachings

on chara karakas. I have no pretensions that I got it correct.On the

other hand will be glad to be corrected if you find any flaw in the

interpretations. For the clarity sake I have given word by word

translation of the verses so that any body can understand and re-

interprete it. I am trying to share whatever I was able to understand

by reading Parasara's exposition on chara karakas with an open mind.

If you think my interpretation has some worth in it, please use it,

experiment, benefit and spread the knowledge. If not, just leave it.

Thanks a lot for your Time and SPace.

Prabodh Vekhande

Jai Jai Shankar

Har Har Shankar

sohamsa , " Narasimha P.V.R. Rao " <pvr

wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> First check the degrees of 7 planets. If any two are in the same

degree, then Rahu also gets in. Once Rahu is in, he is like all other

planets. You take his degrees and see where he fits. He may have a

tie with a planet and the same rules apply in resolving his tie as

that of other planets.

>

> If all the seven planets are in different degrees, you do not

include Rahu. His degrees do not matter then, even if they match some

other planet's degrees.

>

> Best regards,

> Narasimha

>

> Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam

> Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana

> Spirituality:

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

> Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

> Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

>

> sohamsa , 108ar <bona_mente@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Narasimha,

> >

> > If pl. degrees require that we use Rahu,

> > would it be of any effect if Rahu himself happened to be on the

same degree as one of the planets?

> >

> > If I missed that info, please disregard my Q.

> >

> > Thanks,

> > Anna

> >

> > --- On Thu, 10/23/08, Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr@> wrote:

> >

> > Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr@>

> > Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent

Interpretation

> > sohamsa , vedic astrology ,

, sjc-guru ,

sjcBoston

> > Thursday, October 23, 2008, 12:59 PM

> >

> > Namaste friends,

> >

> > Here is the promised article on chara karakas. I have no

pretensions that I got it correct. But this is based on an honest

attempt to purge all preconceived notions from the mind and approach

Parasara's verses with a fresh and unbiased mind.

> >

> > In my view, neither the 7 chara karaka school nor the 8 chara

karaka school got Parasara correct. Parasara taught that 7 chara

karakas should be used in some charts and 8 chara karakas in some

charts and clearly described when to use what.

> >

> > I am trying to share whatever I was able to understand by reading

Parasara's exposition on chara karakas with an open mind and then

experimenting. If you think my interpretation has some worth in it,

please use it, experiment, benefit and spread the knowledge. If not,

just leave it.

> >

> > I have uploaded a detailed article on chara karakas on my

website. It describes the calculation with 16 examples, covering

various cases. Apart from defining chara karaka calculation, this

article also defines and uses a dasa called " Karaka dasa " that was

taught by Parasara for the purpose of timing events using chara

karakas. Please download the following PDF file if interested:

> >

> > http://VedicAstrologer.org/articles/c_karaka.pdf

> >

> > If you find the article useful, please feel free to forward this

link to those who may be interested.

> >

> > Krishnaarpanamastu,

> > 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

> > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

>

Sign In

Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads