Guest guest Posted November 1, 2008 Report Share Posted November 1, 2008 हरे राम कृषà¥à¤£ Dear Narasimha, Namaskar. Honestly, I had predicted 4 days back to my students that when Moon entered Jyestha you would 'surrender' in this discussion. Here is my last point regarding this exchange: Your entire translation rests on the translation of the word: raahvantan. Based on the idea that raahu+antan is a repetition of an earlier statement in which Maharishi Parasara describes the two schemes of shanyantan and rähvantan as the basis of the seven and eight Karaka schemes.  This is not the first time that you have questioned the use of the word anta by Maharishi Parasara, with reference to the Parampara's teachings. Note for other readers that anta means: end, boundary, border, limit, etc. like in the word gandaanta.  So to justify that Maharishi Parasara uses the word anta in a different way than that you have described do note the same use when he describes the calculation of Upagrahas in chapter 3, sloka 66: ravi-vaaraadi-shanyantaM gulikaadi niruupyate| In the past Sanjayji has explained wrt. to this sloka on Upagrahas, that the word anta used in shanyantaM refers to the Upagrahas rising in the positions at the END of the kala of the specific graha. Just as you have done now, you believed back then that the word anta merely referred to the scheme from Sun to Saturn, and you believed that this by no means clarified the exact position in the kala to be calculated for the Upagraha. To clarify this I have referred to the words of Kali Dasa (Uttara Kalamrita, Chapter 1, Sloka 8) who states clearly that Gulika rises at the end of the portions of the Kala. He leaves no doubt in his statement about this calculation. This indicates that Maharishi Parasara was indeed clarifying that the Upagraha rise in the END of the kala of the specific Graha. Therefore the use of the word anta in raahvantan need not exclusively indicate the scheme of Sun-to-Raahu, but can ALSO imply that rahu is placed in the anta, i.e. the last most among the two grahas mentioned.  To further clarify this I have used your citation from Vrddha Karika: ravyaadi shani paryantaaH bhavanti sapta kaarakaaH | aMsha saamye grahau dvau ca raahvantaan gaNayet dvija  You used this to confirm the sloka of Maharishi Parasara, but NOWHERE is it indicated that there is talk of eight chara karakas here! In fact the sloka only speaks of sapta kaaraka (7). Still based on your interpretation of anta you assumed that there was talk of eight chara karakas! You must admit that there is no mention of that here!  Therefore, the interpretation of the tradition that sloka 2 of the Karaka Chapter actually refers solely to the rider of Rähu entering the last most among the Chara Karakas in the seven chara karaka scheme, and not the eight-chara karaka scheme, is legit and justified. Therefore also sloka 16 is an independant sutra which refers solely to the eight chara karaka scheme wherein which the sthira karaka can enter, and therefore is listed only after listing all eight chara karaka. This is further in line with the entire principles and philosophy of seven and eight chara karakas which has been taught in the Parampara so far in a very exhaustive manner, and further is perfectly in tune with the teaching of the Rishis with regards to the nature of the Atma and its bondage.  If you tally that with the Sutras of Maharishi Jaimini, slokas of Sri Mahadeva and those of Kali Dasa and all other authors, you will see that the interpretation of the Parampara is not only justified, but is also the one followed by all the classical authors… after all those classical authors also came from a Parampara!  Now a personal point: This proves that no matter how much Sanskrit you may know, to learn Jyotish you still need the guidance of a Guru or Parampara. I am glad that you have surrendered to Sri Krishna, now will you surrender to the Parampara also? If so maybe we will both gain from each others knowledge instead of having to fight over each word and sloka. Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen ---------- www: http://srigaruda.com @: visti Narasimha PVR Rao skrev: Namaste friends, > But the point is, is he ready and open enough to get disproved? This one sentence made me realize that the time has come to disengage from this one and move on to the next task. When one argues something as a scholar, one stays put for the questions and arguments. That is the dharma of a scholar. But I believe I have addressed all valid concerns and criticism expressed on sohamsa and other lists to the best of my ability. I believe I fulfilled my dharma in this matter and there is no productive purpose to be served by remaining in this thread further. There is no point in repeating things. Continuing with something after the purpose is served only creates/increases attachment and possessiveness. I do not want that. This knowledge or argument is not really MINE. I do not want it to BECOME mine. In order to not be bound, the one who sows a seed should leave it to the Nature to decide whether the seed gives rise to a tree and whether people enjoy the fruits from that tree in future. I have neither any rights nor any responsibilities regarding the knowledge and argument I advanced and defended shortly. My job with it is done. I leave the rest to Nature. Whether other scholars are able to judge all arguments correctly or not, what conclusion they come to and whether people benefit from this or not is not MY business. It is for my Mother to take care of. I did what She inspired me to do and now I should surrender the action and move on to the next action. I respectfully and humbly surrender this effort to Lord Krishna and wait for the next inspiration for action. If I was unable to answer your questions, I am sorry. Please realize that I am not the only one who can answer. Nature used me merely as an instrument to put some knowledge and argument out there. They are not mine. If you have a strong desire to know something more about them, Nature WILL somehow send someone to help you. 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 ------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2008 Report Share Posted November 1, 2008 Visti, There is not much I wanna mention, you are sick. Please get some help at the earliest. Sincerely, Raj--- On Fri, 10/31/08, Visti Larsen <visti wrote: Visti Larsen <vistiRe: Final Word: Chara Karaka Issuesohamsa Date: Friday, October 31, 2008, 6:04 PM हरे राम कृषà¥à¤£Dear Narasimha, Namaskar.Honestly, I had predicted 4 days back to my students that when Moon entered Jyestha you would 'surrender' in this discussion.Here is my last point regarding this exchange: Your entire translation rests on the translation of the word: raahvantan. Based on the idea that raahu+antan is a repetition of an earlier statement in which Maharishi Parasara describes the two schemes of shanyantan and rähvantan as the basis of the seven and eight Karaka schemes. This is not the first time that you have questioned the use of the word anta by Maharishi Parasara, with reference to the Parampara's teachings. Note for other readers that anta means: end, boundary, border, limit, etc. like in the word gandaanta. So to justify that Maharishi Parasara uses the word anta in a different way than that you have described do note the same use when he describes the calculation of Upagrahas in chapter 3, sloka 66: ravi-vaaraadi- shanyantaM gulikaadi niruupyate| In the past Sanjayji has explained wrt. to this sloka on Upagrahas, that the word anta used in shanyantaM refers to the Upagrahas rising in the positions at the END of the kala of the specific graha. Just as you have done now, you believed back then that the word anta merely referred to the scheme from Sun to Saturn, and you believed that this by no means clarified the exact position in the kala to be calculated for the Upagraha. To clarify this I have referred to the words of Kali Dasa (Uttara Kalamrita, Chapter 1, Sloka 8) who states clearly that Gulika rises at the end of the portions of the Kala. He leaves no doubt in his statement about this calculation. This indicates that Maharishi Parasara was indeed clarifying that the Upagraha rise in the END of the kala of the specific Graha. Therefore the use of the word anta in raahvantan need not exclusively indicate the scheme of Sun-to-Raahu, but can ALSO imply that rahu is placed in the anta, i.e. the last most among the two grahas mentioned. To further clarify this I have used your citation from Vrddha Karika: ravyaadi shani paryantaaH bhavanti sapta kaarakaaH | aMsha saamye grahau dvau ca raahvantaan gaNayet dvija You used this to confirm the sloka of Maharishi Parasara, but NOWHERE is it indicated that there is talk of eight chara karakas here! In fact the sloka only speaks of sapta kaaraka (7). Still based on your interpretation of anta you assumed that there was talk of eight chara karakas! You must admit that there is no mention of that here! Therefore, the interpretation of the tradition that sloka 2 of the Karaka Chapter actually refers solely to the rider of Rähu entering the last most among the Chara Karakas in the seven chara karaka scheme, and not the eight-chara karaka scheme, is legit and justified. Therefore also sloka 16 is an independant sutra which refers solely to the eight chara karaka scheme wherein which the sthira karaka can enter, and therefore is listed only after listing all eight chara karaka. This is further in line with the entire principles and philosophy of seven and eight chara karakas which has been taught in the Parampara so far in a very exhaustive manner, and further is perfectly in tune with the teaching of the Rishis with regards to the nature of the Atma and its bondage. If you tally that with the Sutras of Maharishi Jaimini, slokas of Sri Mahadeva and those of Kali Dasa and all other authors, you will see that the interpretation of the Parampara is not only justified, but is also the one followed by all the classical authors… after all those classical authors also came from a Parampara! Now a personal point: This proves that no matter how much Sanskrit you may know, to learn Jyotish you still need the guidance of a Guru or Parampara. I am glad that you have surrendered to Sri Krishna, now will you surrender to the Parampara also? If so maybe we will both gain from each others knowledge instead of having to fight over each word and sloka.Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen------------ --------- --------- --------- ----www: http://srigaruda. com@: visti (AT) srigaruda (DOT) com Narasimha PVR Rao skrev: Namaste friends,> But the point is, is he ready and open enough to get disproved?This one sentence made me realize that the time has come to disengage from this one and move on to the next task.When one argues something as a scholar, one stays put for the questions and arguments. That is the dharma of a scholar.But I believe I have addressed all valid concerns and criticism expressed on sohamsa and other lists to the best of my ability. I believe I fulfilled my dharma in this matter and there is no productive purpose to be served by remaining in this thread further. There is no point in repeating things.Continuing with something after the purpose is served only creates/increases attachment and possessiveness. I do not want that. This knowledge or argument is not really MINE. I do not want it to BECOME mine. In order to not be bound, the one who sows a seed should leave it to the Nature to decide whether the seed gives rise to a tree and whether people enjoy the fruits from that tree in future. I have neither any rights nor any responsibilities regarding the knowledge and argument I advanced and defended shortly. My job with it is done. I leave the rest to Nature.Whether other scholars are able to judge all arguments correctly or not, what conclusion they come to and whether people benefit from this or not is not MY business. It is for my Mother to take care of. I did what She inspired me to do and now I should surrender the action and move on to the next action.I respectfully and humbly surrender this effort to Lord Krishna and wait for the next inspiration for action.If I was unable to answer your questions, I am sorry. Please realize that I am not the only one who can answer. Nature used me merely as an instrument to put some knowledge and argument out there. They are not mine. If you have a strong desire to know something more about them, Nature WILL somehow send someone to help you.Krishnaarpanamastu,Narasimha------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homamDo Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpanaSpirituality: http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdomFree Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro. home.comcast. netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAst rologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagan nath.org------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2008 Report Share Posted November 1, 2008 One typo was there in the mail.  " I had talk with some great astrologers who are in remote places they were saying that only 7 char-karakas are there in scripture and were asking who are those fake astrologers who say that 7 char-karakas, , just to make money. "  Inplace of above please read the following:-  " I had talk with some great astrologers who are in remote places they were saying that only 7 char-karakas are there in scripture and were asking who are those fake astrologers who say that 8 char-karakas are there, , just to make money. " --- On Sat, 1/11/08, Anup Khanna <khannaanup32 wrote: Anup Khanna <khannaanup32 [vedic astrology] Final Word: Chara Karaka Issue vedic astrology Saturday, 1 November, 2008, 6:51 PM Dear Narashimha Ji Namastay,                                         \      It looks that you are saying right.  Now we all should correct ourself even we should immediately trash the articles which are on net and on any site evenwhich are on scribd.com.  If we talk to be in line of scripture then we should.We should also abandone those person who are spreading wrong teachings just to rise rapidly.  I had talk with some great astrologers who are in remote places they were saying that only 7 char-karakas are there in scripture and were asking who are those fake astrologers who say that 7 char-karakas, , just to make money..  Even you see in parashar-lite software they have not taken Ra as char-karaka and it comes as char-karaka in calculation when there is replacement.  Thanks for your research and please continue with it to just tell that what wrong things are between us,, many fake person are spreading wrong teachings.  Good Job, Shri Narashimha Ji !!!!! Well done !!!!  Regs, Khanna --- On Fri, 31/10/08, Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net> wrote: Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net> Final Word: Chara Karaka Issue sohamsa@ .com, vedic astrology, @ . com Friday, 31 October, 2008, 8:45 PM Namaste friends, > But the point is, is he ready and open enough to get disproved? This one sentence made me realize that the time has come to disengage from this one and move on to the next task. When one argues something as a scholar, one stays put for the questions and arguments. That is the dharma of a scholar. But I believe I have addressed all valid concerns and criticism expressed on sohamsa and other lists to the best of my ability. I believe I fulfilled my dharma in this matter and there is no productive purpose to be served by remaining in this thread further. There is no point in repeating things. Continuing with something after the purpose is served only creates/increases attachment and possessiveness. I do not want that. This knowledge or argument is not really MINE. I do not want it to BECOME mine. In order to not be bound, the one who sows a seed should leave it to the Nature to decide whether the seed gives rise to a tree and whether people enjoy the fruits from that tree in future. I have neither any rights nor any responsibilities regarding the knowledge and argument I advanced and defended shortly. My job with it is done. I leave the rest to Nature. Whether other scholars are able to judge all arguments correctly or not, what conclusion they come to and whether people benefit from this or not is not MY business. It is for my Mother to take care of. I did what She inspired me to do and now I should surrender the action and move on to the next action. I respectfully and humbly surrender this effort to Lord Krishna and wait for the next inspiration for action. If I was unable to answer your questions, I am sorry. Please realize that I am not the only one who can answer. Nature used me merely as an instrument to put some knowledge and argument out there. They are not mine. If you have a strong desire to know something more about them, Nature WILL somehow send someone to help you. 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 ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to http://messenger. ..com/ invite/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2008 Report Share Posted November 1, 2008 Dear Narsimha Namaste > > But the point is, is he ready and open enough to get disproved? > > This one sentence made me realize that the time has come to disengage from this one and move on to the next task. My mail was not intended to put things to an unnatural end. To be honest i had no intentions of hurting. I also firmly believe that the very same Nature also used me as an instrument to respond to the initial notes. I reiterate that I have no claims for scholarships of any kind. I also humbly and respectfully surrender all my efforts to the feet of lord. Thanks a lot for your Time and Space. Prabodh Vekhande Jai Jai Shankar Har Har Shankar sohamsa , Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr wrote: > > Namaste friends, > > > But the point is, is he ready and open enough to get disproved? > > This one sentence made me realize that the time has come to disengage from this one and move on to the next task. > > When one argues something as a scholar, one stays put for the questions and arguments. That is the dharma of a scholar. > > But I believe I have addressed all valid concerns and criticism expressed on sohamsa and other lists to the best of my ability. I believe I fulfilled my dharma in this matter and there is no productive purpose to be served by remaining in this thread further. There is no point in repeating things. > > Continuing with something after the purpose is served only creates/increases attachment and possessiveness. I do not want that. This knowledge or argument is not really MINE. I do not want it to BECOME mine. In order to not be bound, the one who sows a seed should leave it to the Nature to decide whether the seed gives rise to a tree and whether people enjoy the fruits from that tree in future. I have neither any rights nor any responsibilities regarding the knowledge and argument I advanced and defended shortly. My job with it is done. I leave the rest to Nature. > > Whether other scholars are able to judge all arguments correctly or not, what conclusion they come to and whether people benefit from this or not is not MY business. It is for my Mother to take care of. I did what She inspired me to do and now I should surrender the action and move on to the next action. > > I respectfully and humbly surrender this effort to Lord Krishna and wait for the next inspiration for action. > > If I was unable to answer your questions, I am sorry. Please realize that I am not the only one who can answer. Nature used me merely as an instrument to put some knowledge and argument out there. They are not mine. If you have a strong desire to know something more about them, Nature WILL somehow send someone to help you. > > 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 > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2008 Report Share Posted November 1, 2008 Namaste Prabodh ji, This is a private mail. I am not hurt at all. I knew your intentions quite well. The only reason I had not replied to your issues was that I thought I already covered them, e.g. reply to SanjayP. This is not an unnatural end. Fight for Truth and Dharma does not end in one day. Through your mail, Mother reminded me what I am here for. I am here not to drive various issues to closure and get consensus, but to plant several seeds, protect them until saplings come out and then move on. Ramakrishna Paramahamsa trained Naren and a few other youngsters and left before they actually started the work and when they were still in confusion and turmoil. It was he knew because HIS job was done. Swami Vivekananda started the math, left it to Brahmananda, Premananda, Shivananda etc and left. It was because he knew HIS job was done. These people knew when their job was done and did not worry about whether others would continue the job started by them well or not. I am a very petty person compared to them, but I can also try to learn from them and try to listen to the inner voice regarding what my job is. Please realize that I am not hurt with you, but actually quite grateful. Best regards, Narasimha > Dear Narsimha Namaste > > > > But the point is, is he ready and open enough to get disproved? > > > > This one sentence made me realize that the time has come to > disengage from this one and move on to the next task. > > My mail was not intended to put things to an unnatural end. To be > honest i had no intentions of hurting. I also firmly believe that the > very same Nature also used me as an instrument to respond to the > initial notes. I reiterate that I have no claims for scholarships of > any kind. > > I also humbly and respectfully surrender all my efforts to the feet > of lord. > > Thanks a lot for your Time and Space. > > Prabodh Vekhande > Jai Jai Shankar > Har Har Shankar > > > > sohamsa , Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr@> wrote: > > > > Namaste friends, > > > > > But the point is, is he ready and open enough to get disproved? > > > > This one sentence made me realize that the time has come to > disengage from this one and move on to the next task. > > > > When one argues something as a scholar, one stays put for the > questions and arguments. That is the dharma of a scholar. > > > > But I believe I have addressed all valid concerns and criticism > expressed on sohamsa and other lists to the best of my ability. I > believe I fulfilled my dharma in this matter and there is no > productive purpose to be served by remaining in this thread further. > There is no point in repeating things. > > > > Continuing with something after the purpose is served only > creates/increases attachment and possessiveness. I do not want that. > This knowledge or argument is not really MINE. I do not want it to > BECOME mine. In order to not be bound, the one who sows a seed should > leave it to the Nature to decide whether the seed gives rise to a > tree and whether people enjoy the fruits from that tree in future. I > have neither any rights nor any responsibilities regarding the > knowledge and argument I advanced and defended shortly. My job with > it is done. I leave the rest to Nature. > > > > Whether other scholars are able to judge all arguments correctly or > not, what conclusion they come to and whether people benefit from > this or not is not MY business. It is for my Mother to take care of. > I did what She inspired me to do and now I should surrender the > action and move on to the next action. > > > > I respectfully and humbly surrender this effort to Lord Krishna and > wait for the next inspiration for action. > > > > If I was unable to answer your questions, I am sorry. Please > realize that I am not the only one who can answer. Nature used me > merely as an instrument to put some knowledge and argument out there. > They are not mine. If you have a strong desire to know something more > about them, Nature WILL somehow send someone to help you. > > > > 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 > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2008 Report Share Posted November 1, 2008 || Om Sri Gurubhyo Namah ||Namaskaar Narasimha Ji,I have read the entire chain on Chara Kaaraka. And, the reason I am writing this post is not to discuss Jyotisha content therein but rather to let you know how thoroughly you have impressed me as a saadhaka. There have been numerous verbal attacks on you on so many counts, be it your intentions, your skills as a Jyotisha, your skills of the Samskrita bhasha, your ingratitude towards your siksha Guru, and all that. These scathing remarks have been made by Gurus and Shishyas alike; by those so called spiritualists who didn't have the humility to use impersonal language to counter-argue your understanding of the Maharishi. It was so disappointing, reading that sermon about surrendering to Parampara, made with reckless arrogance of equating Parampara with the Supreme (Mother)!And, you stood the test of your spiritual strength in spite of everything. You could have lost it, too. But you did not. You stayed focused, and stoically kept away from making it about you. Whatever your spiritual practice is, it is working. I could feel it. You wear true humility, not its facade. You seem to be living for the truth, not for ahamkara. It is not about whether you are right or wrong. In fact, at this point in this discussion, I couldn't care less about whether there are 7 or 8 CKs; what I care more about is how abominably some of us behaved when faced with your uncomfortable hypothesis.I think that you, amongst all of us here, seem to know what surrendering to Vishnu - the only ONE worth surrendering to - means, the best.Krishnaarpanamastu, in true deed.Reema.sohamsa , "Narasimha Rao" <pvr wrote:>> Namaste Prabodh ji,> > This is a private mail.> > I am not hurt at all. I knew your intentions quite well. The only> reason I had not replied to your issues was that I thought I already> covered them, e.g. reply to SanjayP.> > This is not an unnatural end. Fight for Truth and Dharma does not end> in one day. Through your mail, Mother reminded me what I am here for.> I am here not to drive various issues to closure and get consensus,> but to plant several seeds, protect them until saplings come out and> then move on.> > Ramakrishna Paramahamsa trained Naren and a few other youngsters and> left before they actually started the work and when they were still in> confusion and turmoil. It was he knew because HIS job was done. Swami> Vivekananda started the math, left it to Brahmananda, Premananda,> Shivananda etc and left. It was because he knew HIS job was done.> These people knew when their job was done and did not worry about> whether others would continue the job started by them well or not. I> am a very petty person compared to them, but I can also try to learn> from them and try to listen to the inner voice regarding what my job is.> > Please realize that I am not hurt with you, but actually quite grateful.> > Best regards,> Narasimha> > > Dear Narsimha Namaste> > > > > > But the point is, is he ready and open enough to get disproved?> > > > > > This one sentence made me realize that the time has come to > > disengage from this one and move on to the next task.> > > > My mail was not intended to put things to an unnatural end. To be > > honest i had no intentions of hurting. I also firmly believe that the > > very same Nature also used me as an instrument to respond to the > > initial notes. I reiterate that I have no claims for scholarships of > > any kind. > > > > I also humbly and respectfully surrender all my efforts to the feet > > of lord.> > > > Thanks a lot for your Time and Space.> > > > Prabodh Vekhande> > Jai Jai Shankar> > Har Har Shankar> > > > > > > > sohamsa , Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr@> wrote:> > >> > > Namaste friends,> > > > > > > But the point is, is he ready and open enough to get disproved?> > > > > > This one sentence made me realize that the time has come to > > disengage from this one and move on to the next task.> > > > > > When one argues something as a scholar, one stays put for the > > questions and arguments. That is the dharma of a scholar.> > > > > > But I believe I have addressed all valid concerns and criticism > > expressed on sohamsa and other lists to the best of my ability. I > > believe I fulfilled my dharma in this matter and there is no > > productive purpose to be served by remaining in this thread further. > > There is no point in repeating things.> > > > > > Continuing with something after the purpose is served only > > creates/increases attachment and possessiveness. I do not want that. > > This knowledge or argument is not really MINE. I do not want it to > > BECOME mine. In order to not be bound, the one who sows a seed should > > leave it to the Nature to decide whether the seed gives rise to a > > tree and whether people enjoy the fruits from that tree in future. I > > have neither any rights nor any responsibilities regarding the > > knowledge and argument I advanced and defended shortly. My job with > > it is done. I leave the rest to Nature.> > > > > > Whether other scholars are able to judge all arguments correctly or > > not, what conclusion they come to and whether people benefit from > > this or not is not MY business. It is for my Mother to take care of. > > I did what She inspired me to do and now I should surrender the > > action and move on to the next action.> > > > > > I respectfully and humbly surrender this effort to Lord Krishna and > > wait for the next inspiration for action.> > > > > > If I was unable to answer your questions, I am sorry. Please > > realize that I am not the only one who can answer. Nature used me > > merely as an instrument to put some knowledge and argument out there. > > They are not mine. If you have a strong desire to know something more > > about them, Nature WILL somehow send someone to help you.> > > > > > 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> > > > > >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2008 Report Share Posted November 1, 2008 Hare Rama Krsna ||Dear Reema,In Jyotish there is a concept of truth versus arudha or Maya. Without Jyotish it is impossible for common people (I would include all of us here) to tell the difference. If you are going to put Jyotish aside, then please refrain from making judgements. By praising anyone on this list whilst critising another you are not serving the purpose of 'krishnaarpanamastu'. There are many personalities and histories, let us not turn this in to a fanclub. If you want to post your sentiments for someone I suggest you go to facebook.This is a Jyotish forum. Your subjective feeling of who is 'true' and who has 'facade' should not enter the discussion.As for Narasimha's paper. If he feels he has answered questions adequately so be it. Let us wait and see. If his system works then his predictions should work too. Time will tell.Respectfully,MichalReema Patel Sriganesh <reema_sriganeshsohamsa Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2008 8:26:09 AM Re: Final Word: Chara Karaka Issue || Om Sri Gurubhyo Namah ||Namaskaar Narasimha Ji,I have read the entire chain on Chara Kaaraka. And, the reason I am writing this post is not to discuss Jyotisha content therein but rather to let you know how thoroughly you have impressed me as a saadhaka. There have been numerous verbal attacks on you on so many counts, be it your intentions, your skills as a Jyotisha, your skills of the Samskrita bhasha, your ingratitude towards your siksha Guru, and all that. These scathing remarks have been made by Gurus and Shishyas alike; by those so called spiritualists who didn't have the humility to use impersonal language to counter-argue your understanding of the Maharishi. It was so disappointing, reading that sermon about surrendering to Parampara, made with reckless arrogance of equating Parampara with the Supreme (Mother)!And, you stood the test of your spiritual strength in spite of everything. You could have lost it, too. But you did not. You stayed focused, and stoically kept away from making it about you. Whatever your spiritual practice is, it is working. I could feel it. You wear true humility, not its facade. You seem to be living for the truth, not for ahamkara. It is not about whether you are right or wrong. In fact, at this point in this discussion, I couldn't care less about whether there are 7 or 8 CKs; what I care more about is how abominably some of us behaved when faced with your uncomfortable hypothesis.I think that you, amongst all of us here, seem to know what surrendering to Vishnu - the only ONE worth surrendering to - means, the best.Krishnaarpanamastu, in true deed.Reema.sohamsa@ .com, "Narasimha Rao" <pvr wrote:>> Namaste Prabodh ji,> > This is a private mail.> > I am not hurt at all. I knew your intentions quite well. The only> reason I had not replied to your issues was that I thought I already> covered them, e.g. reply to SanjayP.> > This is not an unnatural end. Fight for Truth and Dharma does not end> in one day. Through your mail, Mother reminded me what I am here for.> I am here not to drive various issues to closure and get consensus,> but to plant several seeds, protect them until saplings come out and> then move on.> > Ramakrishna Paramahamsa trained Naren and a few other youngsters and> left before they actually started the work and when they were still in> confusion and turmoil. It was he knew because HIS job was done. Swami> Vivekananda started the math, left it to Brahmananda, Premananda,> Shivananda etc and left. It was because he knew HIS job was done.> These people knew when their job was done and did not worry about> whether others would continue the job started by them well or not. I> am a very petty person compared to them, but I can also try to learn> from them and try to listen to the inner voice regarding what my job is.> > Please realize that I am not hurt with you, but actually quite grateful.> > Best regards,> Narasimha> > > Dear Narsimha Namaste> > > > > > But the point is, is he ready and open enough to get disproved?> > > > > > This one sentence made me realize that the time has come to > > disengage from this one and move on to the next task.> > > > My mail was not intended to put things to an unnatural end. To be > > honest i had no intentions of hurting. I also firmly believe that the > > very same Nature also used me as an instrument to respond to the > > initial notes. I reiterate that I have no claims for scholarships of > > any kind. > > > > I also humbly and respectfully surrender all my efforts to the feet > > of lord.> > > > Thanks a lot for your Time and Space.> > > > Prabodh Vekhande> > Jai Jai Shankar> > Har Har Shankar> > > > > > > > sohamsa@ .com, Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr@> wrote:> > >> > > Namaste friends,> > > > > > > But the point is, is he ready and open enough to get disproved?> > > > > > This one sentence made me realize that the time has come to > > disengage from this one and move on to the next task.> > > > > > When one argues something as a scholar, one stays put for the > > questions and arguments. That is the dharma of a scholar.> > > > > > But I believe I have addressed all valid concerns and criticism > > expressed on sohamsa and other lists to the best of my ability. I > > believe I fulfilled my dharma in this matter and there is no > > productive purpose to be served by remaining in this thread further. > > There is no point in repeating things.> > > > > > Continuing with something after the purpose is served only > > creates/increases attachment and possessiveness. I do not want that. > > This knowledge or argument is not really MINE. I do not want it to > > BECOME mine. In order to not be bound, the one who sows a seed should > > leave it to the Nature to decide whether the seed gives rise to a > > tree and whether people enjoy the fruits from that tree in future. I > > have neither any rights nor any responsibilities regarding the > > knowledge and argument I advanced and defended shortly. My job with > > it is done. I leave the rest to Nature.> > > > > > Whether other scholars are able to judge all arguments correctly or > > not, what conclusion they come to and whether people benefit from > > this or not is not MY business. It is for my Mother to take care of. > > I did what She inspired me to do and now I should surrender the > > action and move on to the next action.> > > > > > I respectfully and humbly surrender this effort to Lord Krishna and > > wait for the next inspiration for action.> > > > > > If I was unable to answer your questions, I am sorry. Please > > realize that I am not the only one who can answer. Nature used me > > merely as an instrument to put some knowledge and argument out there. > > They are not mine. If you have a strong desire to know something more > > about them, Nature WILL somehow send someone to help you.> > > > > > 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> > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------> > >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 sohamsa , Michal Dziwulski <nearmichal wrote: There are many personalities and histories, let us not turn this in to a fanclub. If you want to post your sentiments for someone I suggest you go to facebook. Michal, why don't you also take your own advice. Your behaviour hasn't exactly stainless either. I guess when gurus like Rath and Rao can hurl abuse at each other when discussing astrological verses, I should not expect much better from their students [see /message/276] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 kleem namah narasimhaaya Dear Members, Namaskar Let us not escape into correction of behaviours when we dont have anything to say. Vistis arguments are very strong and if we cant continue in this line of arguing and putting principles of Jyotish lets at least change the topic of posts for those who seek real Jyotish discussion. To my knowledge there was no counterargument yet. Regards, Rafal Gendarz / SJC Teacher www: http://rohinaa.com / email: rafal dharmesh_s_s pisze: sohamsa@ .com, Michal Dziwulski <nearmichal@ ...> wrote: There are many personalities and histories, let us not turn this in to a fanclub. If you want to post your sentiments for someone I suggest you go to facebook. Michal, why don't you also take your own advice. Your behaviour hasn't exactly stainless either. I guess when gurus like Rath and Rao can hurl abuse at each other when discussing astrological verses, I should not expect much better from their students [see http://groups. / group/srijaganna th/message/ 276] Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1760 - Release 2008-11-01 09:36 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 Hare Rama Krsna ||My dear dharmesh_s_s,I don't remember having 'hurled abuse at anyone'.If you feel my behaviour has been in some way inappropriate then please email me the details privately or contact my facebook page.Warm regards,Michaldharmesh_s_s <dharmesh_s_ssohamsa Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2008 12:14:42 PM Re: Final Word: Chara Karaka Issue sohamsa@ .com, Michal Dziwulski <nearmichal@ ...> wrote: There are many personalities and histories, let us not turn this in to a fanclub. If you want to post your sentiments for someone I suggest you go to facebook. Michal, why don't you also take your own advice. Your behaviour hasn't exactly stainless either. I guess when gurus like Rath and Rao can hurl abuse at each other when discussing astrological verses, I should not expect much better from their students [see http://groups. / group/srijaganna th/message/ 276] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 Namaste Visti, One leaving the ring voluntarily can come back anytime. When Arjuna did not want to fight, did astra sannyasa and surrendered at the feet of Lord Krishna, his opponents did not engage in a victory dance. And the warrior was back after his Guru enlightened him! Though I thought there was no productive purpose served by remaining further, I realize that there is one important point left to be made. * * * Before I counter your " argument " , I want to point out one thing. When I translated " brahmaNaa " as " by Brahma " , you wondered whether it should be " by Brahma " or " by Brahmana " . In a scholarly debate involving Sanskrit verses, one making such a comment and thus demonstrating a lack of Sanskrit knowledge would not have been allowed to continue to sit in the debate in the old days! Now, let me look at your *new* " final " argument. One not knowing Sanskrit will naturally not know what " -antam " and " -antaan " mean and how they are different and how to factor in the context in addition. There is actually no point worth commenting on in your argument. Still let me counter the crux of your argument: > Therefore the use of the word anta in raahvantan need not exclusively > indicate the scheme of Sun-to-Raahu > > ravyaadi shani paryantaaH bhavanti sapta kaarakaaH | > aMsha saamye grahau dvau ca raahvantaan gaNayet dvija > > You used this to confirm the sloka of Maharishi Parasara, but NOWHERE is > it indicated that there is talk of eight chara karakas here! In fact the > sloka only speaks of sapta kaaraka (7). Still based on your > interpretation of anta you assumed that there was talk of eight chara > karakas! You must admit that there is no mention of that here! You are simply forgetting that Parasara's corresponding lines explicitly said: athaahaM sampravakShyaami grahaanaatmaadi kaarakaan sapta ravyaadi shanyantaan raahvantaan ==> vaaShTasaMkhyakaan <== amshaiH samau grahau dvau ched raahvantaan chintayed dvija The word " aShTasaMkhyakaan " explicitly means " [those that are] eight in number " . The middle line of Parasara above means " seven starting from Sun and ending with Saturn, or eight in number ending with Rahu " . The fact that both " raahvantaan " and " aShTasaMkhyakaan " are in bahu vachana and dwitiya vibhakti clearly shows that the latter is qualifying the former and " raahvantaan " and " [those that are] eight in number " go together. This is quite explicit and hence there IS a mention of " eight " chara karakas in this verse contrary to what you thought. I did not " assume " anything. Visti, your " argument " has no substance in it whatsoever. You are drifting off on a tangent based on something (upagrahas) that has nothing to do with this, simply because there is a common word used, and ignoring a clear directive from Parasara. There is absolutely no ambiguity regarding what " raahvantaan " means. Parasara is clearly talking about 7 and 8 chara karaka schemes here, one using Sun-Saturn and the other Sun-Rahu. * * * Before I put this to rest from my side, I guess there is one additional point to be made. While I want to in general stay away from " negative campaigning " :-), this is a critical point actually. People who knew Sanskrit and the subject at hand well participated in scholarly debates in old days. In today's times, people who do not know Sanskrit, Sanskrit grammar and Sanskrit writing style can simply look up key words in online Sanskrit dictionaries and concoct convoluted arguments that sound fancy but are really absurd and frivolous and have no substance. Querying is fine, but confidently declaring things when one has no Sanskrit scholarship is problematic and irresponsible and creates unneeded confusion in the minds of genuinely interested people watching the debate from the sidelines. There may also be some people who have a conflict of interest with their other activites and not really interested in a genuine debate on what Parasara taught. When those of you who are genuinely interested in Truth read various mails on this debate or any debates in future, please bear this in mind. I will have to try to ignore comments from people of this nature of their supporters. OK, Jupiter has just risen in the east. I will send out this mail now. 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 sohamsa , Visti Larsen <visti wrote: > > Dear Narasimha, Namaskar. > Honestly, I had predicted 4 days back to my students that when Moon > entered Jyestha you would 'surrender' in this discussion. > > Here is my last point regarding this exchange: > > Your entire translation rests on the translation of the word: > raahvantan. Based on the idea that raahu+antan is a repetition of an > earlier statement in which Maharishi Parasara describes the two schemes > of shanyantan and rähvantan as the basis of the seven and eight Karaka > schemes. > > > > This is not the first time that you have questioned the use of the word > anta by Maharishi Parasara, with reference to the Parampara's teachings. > Note for other readers that anta means: end, boundary, border, limit, > etc. like in the word gandaanta. > > > > So to justify that Maharishi Parasara uses the word anta in a different > way than that you have described do note the same use when he describes > the calculation of Upagrahas in chapter 3, sloka 66: > ravi-vaaraadi-shanyantaM gulikaadi niruupyate| In the past Sanjayji has > explained wrt. to this sloka on Upagrahas, that the word anta used in > shanyantaM refers to the Upagrahas rising in the positions at the END of > the kala of the specific graha. > > Just as you have done now, you believed back then that the word anta > merely referred to the scheme from Sun to Saturn, and you believed that > this by no means clarified the exact position in the kala to be > calculated for the Upagraha. > > To clarify this I have referred to the words of Kali Dasa (Uttara > Kalamrita, Chapter 1, Sloka 8) who states clearly that Gulika rises at > the end of the portions of the Kala. He leaves no doubt in his statement > about this calculation. > > This indicates that Maharishi Parasara was indeed clarifying that the > Upagraha rise in the END of the kala of the specific Graha. > > Therefore the use of the word anta in raahvantan need not exclusively > indicate the scheme of Sun-to-Raahu, but can ALSO imply that rahu is > placed in the anta, i.e. the last most among the two grahas mentioned. > > > > To further clarify this I have used your citation from Vrddha Karika: > > ravyaadi shani paryantaaH bhavanti sapta kaarakaaH | > > aMsha saamye grahau dvau ca raahvantaan gaNayet dvija > > > > You used this to confirm the sloka of Maharishi Parasara, but NOWHERE is > it indicated that there is talk of eight chara karakas here! In fact the > sloka only speaks of sapta kaaraka (7). Still based on your > interpretation of anta you assumed that there was talk of eight chara > karakas! You must admit that there is no mention of that here! > > > > Therefore, the interpretation of the tradition that sloka 2 of the > Karaka Chapter actually refers solely to the rider of Rähu entering the > last most among the Chara Karakas in the seven chara karaka scheme, and > not the eight-chara karaka scheme, is legit and justified. Therefore > also sloka 16 is an independant sutra which refers solely to the eight > chara karaka scheme wherein which the sthira karaka can enter, and > therefore is listed only after listing all eight chara karaka. This is > further in line with the entire principles and philosophy of seven and > eight chara karakas which has been taught in the Parampara so far in a > very exhaustive manner, and further is perfectly in tune with the > teaching of the Rishis with regards to the nature of the Atma and its > bondage. > > > > If you tally that with the Sutras of Maharishi Jaimini, slokas of Sri > Mahadeva and those of Kali Dasa and all other authors, you will see that > the interpretation of the Parampara is not only justified, but is also > the one followed by all the classical authors… after all those classical > authors also came from a Parampara! > > > > Now a personal point: This proves that no matter how much Sanskrit you > may know, to learn Jyotish you still need the guidance of a Guru or > Parampara. I am glad that you have surrendered to Sri Krishna, now will > you surrender to the Parampara also? If so maybe we will both gain from > each others knowledge instead of having to fight over each word and sloka. > > > Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen > ---------- > www: http://srigaruda.com > > Narasimha PVR Rao skrev: > > > > Namaste friends, > > > > > But the point is, is he ready and open enough to get disproved? > > > > This one sentence made me realize that the time has come to disengage > > from this one and move on to the next task. > > > > When one argues something as a scholar, one stays put for the > > questions and arguments. That is the dharma of a scholar. > > > > But I believe I have addressed all valid concerns and criticism > > expressed on sohamsa and other lists to the best of my ability. I > > believe I fulfilled my dharma in this matter and there is no > > productive purpose to be served by remaining in this thread further. > > There is no point in repeating things. > > > > Continuing with something after the purpose is served only > > creates/increases attachment and possessiveness. I do not want that. > > This knowledge or argument is not really MINE. I do not want it to > > BECOME mine. In order to not be bound, the one who sows a seed should > > leave it to the Nature to decide whether the seed gives rise to a tree > > and whether people enjoy the fruits from that tree in future. I have > > neither any rights nor any responsibilities regarding the knowledge > > and argument I advanced and defended shortly. My job with it is done. > > I leave the rest to Nature. > > > > Whether other scholars are able to judge all arguments correctly or > > not, what conclusion they come to and whether people benefit from this > > or not is not MY business. It is for my Mother to take care of. I did > > what She inspired me to do and now I should surrender the action and > > move on to the next action. > > > > I respectfully and humbly surrender this effort to Lord Krishna and > > wait for the next inspiration for action. > > > > If I was unable to answer your questions, I am sorry. Please realize > > that I am not the only one who can answer. Nature used me merely as an > > instrument to put some knowledge and argument out there. They are not > > mine. If you have a strong desire to know something more about them, > > Nature WILL somehow send someone to help you. > > > > Krishnaarpanamastu, > > Narasimha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 Namaste Visti, One leaving the ring voluntarily can come back anytime. When Arjuna did not want to fight, did astra sannyasa and surrendered at the feet of Lord Krishna, his opponents did not engage in a victory dance. And the warrior was back after his Guru enlightened him! Though I thought there was no productive purpose served by remaining further, I realize that there is one important point left to be made. * * * Before I counter your "argument", I want to point out one thing. When I translated "brahmaNaa" as "by Brahma", you wondered whether it should be "by Brahma" or "by Brahmana". In a scholarly debate involving Sanskrit verses, one making such a comment and thus demonstrating a lack of Sanskrit knowledge would not have been allowed to continue to sit in the debate in the old days! Now, let me look at your *new* "final" argument. One not knowing Sanskrit will naturally not know what "-antam" and "-antaan" mean and how they are different and how to factor in the context in addition. There is actually no point worth commenting on in your argument. Still let me counter the crux of your argument: > Therefore the use of the word anta in raahvantan need not exclusively > indicate the scheme of Sun-to-Raahu > > ravyaadi shani paryantaaH bhavanti sapta kaarakaaH |> aMsha saamye grahau dvau ca raahvantaan gaNayet dvija> > You used this to confirm the sloka of Maharishi Parasara, but NOWHERE is > it indicated that there is talk of eight chara karakas here! In fact the > sloka only speaks of sapta kaaraka (7). Still based on your > interpretation of anta you assumed that there was talk of eight chara > karakas! You must admit that there is no mention of that here! You are simply forgetting that Parasara's corresponding lines explicitly said: athaahaM sampravakShyaami grahaanaatmaadi kaarakaan sapta ravyaadi shanyantaan raahvantaan ==> vaaShTasaMkhyakaan <== amshaiH samau grahau dvau ched raahvantaan chintayed dvija The word "aShTasaMkhyakaan" explicitly means "[those that are] eight in number". The middle line of Parasara above means "seven starting from Sun and ending with Saturn, or eight in number ending with Rahu". The fact that both "raahvantaan" and "aShTasaMkhyakaan" are in bahu vachana and dwitiya vibhakti clearly shows that the latter is qualifying the former and "raahvantaan" and "[those that are] eight in number" go together. This is quite explicit and hence there IS a mention of "eight" chara karakas in this verse contrary to what you thought. I did not "assume" anything. Visti, your "argument" has no substance in it whatsoever. You are drifting off on a tangent based on something (upagrahas) that has nothing to do with this, simply because there is a common word used, and ignoring a clear directive from Parasara. There is absolutely no ambiguity regarding what "raahvantaan" means. Parasara is clearly talking about 7 and 8 chara karaka schemes here, one using Sun-Saturn and the other Sun-Rahu. * * * Before I put this to rest from my side, I guess there is one additional point to be made. While I want to in general stay away from "negative campaigning" :-), this is a critical point actually. People who knew Sanskrit and the subject at hand well participated in scholarly debates in old days. In today's times, people who do not know Sanskrit, Sanskrit grammar and Sanskrit writing style can simply look up key words in online Sanskrit dictionaries and concoct convoluted arguments that sound fancy but are really absurd and frivolous and have no substance. Querying is fine, but confidently declaring things when one has no Sanskrit scholarship is problematic and irresponsible and creates unneeded confusion in the minds of genuinely interested people watching the debate from the sidelines. There may also be some people who have a conflict of interest with their other activites and not really interested in a genuine debate on what Parasara taught. When those of you who are genuinely interested in Truth read various mails on this debate or any debates in future, please bear this in mind. I will have to try to ignore comments from people of this nature of their supporters. OK, Jupiter has just risen in the east. I will send out this mail now. Krishnaarpanamastu,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 , Visti Larsen <visti wrote:>> Dear Narasimha, Namaskar.> Honestly, I had predicted 4 days back to my students that when Moon > entered Jyestha you would 'surrender' in this discussion.> > Here is my last point regarding this exchange:> > Your entire translation rests on the translation of the word: > raahvantan. Based on the idea that raahu+antan is a repetition of an > earlier statement in which Maharishi Parasara describes the two schemes > of shanyantan and rähvantan as the basis of the seven and eight Karaka > schemes.> > > > This is not the first time that you have questioned the use of the word > anta by Maharishi Parasara, with reference to the Parampara's teachings. > Note for other readers that anta means: end, boundary, border, limit, > etc. like in the word gandaanta.> > > > So to justify that Maharishi Parasara uses the word anta in a different > way than that you have described do note the same use when he describes > the calculation of Upagrahas in chapter 3, sloka 66: > ravi-vaaraadi-shanyantaM gulikaadi niruupyate| In the past Sanjayji has > explained wrt. to this sloka on Upagrahas, that the word anta used in > shanyantaM refers to the Upagrahas rising in the positions at the END of > the kala of the specific graha.> > Just as you have done now, you believed back then that the word anta > merely referred to the scheme from Sun to Saturn, and you believed that > this by no means clarified the exact position in the kala to be > calculated for the Upagraha.> > To clarify this I have referred to the words of Kali Dasa (Uttara > Kalamrita, Chapter 1, Sloka 8) who states clearly that Gulika rises at > the end of the portions of the Kala. He leaves no doubt in his statement > about this calculation.> > This indicates that Maharishi Parasara was indeed clarifying that the > Upagraha rise in the END of the kala of the specific Graha.> > Therefore the use of the word anta in raahvantan need not exclusively > indicate the scheme of Sun-to-Raahu, but can ALSO imply that rahu is > placed in the anta, i.e. the last most among the two grahas mentioned.> > > > To further clarify this I have used your citation from Vrddha Karika:> > ravyaadi shani paryantaaH bhavanti sapta kaarakaaH |> > aMsha saamye grahau dvau ca raahvantaan gaNayet dvija> > > > You used this to confirm the sloka of Maharishi Parasara, but NOWHERE is > it indicated that there is talk of eight chara karakas here! In fact the > sloka only speaks of sapta kaaraka (7). Still based on your > interpretation of anta you assumed that there was talk of eight chara > karakas! You must admit that there is no mention of that here!> > > > Therefore, the interpretation of the tradition that sloka 2 of the > Karaka Chapter actually refers solely to the rider of Rähu entering the > last most among the Chara Karakas in the seven chara karaka scheme, and > not the eight-chara karaka scheme, is legit and justified. Therefore > also sloka 16 is an independant sutra which refers solely to the eight > chara karaka scheme wherein which the sthira karaka can enter, and > therefore is listed only after listing all eight chara karaka. This is > further in line with the entire principles and philosophy of seven and > eight chara karakas which has been taught in the Parampara so far in a > very exhaustive manner, and further is perfectly in tune with the > teaching of the Rishis with regards to the nature of the Atma and its > bondage.> > > > If you tally that with the Sutras of Maharishi Jaimini, slokas of Sri > Mahadeva and those of Kali Dasa and all other authors, you will see that > the interpretation of the Parampara is not only justified, but is also > the one followed by all the classical authors… after all those classical > authors also came from a Parampara!> > > > Now a personal point: This proves that no matter how much Sanskrit you > may know, to learn Jyotish you still need the guidance of a Guru or > Parampara. I am glad that you have surrendered to Sri Krishna, now will > you surrender to the Parampara also? If so maybe we will both gain from > each others knowledge instead of having to fight over each word and sloka.> > > Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen> ----------> www: http://srigaruda.com> > Narasimha PVR Rao skrev:> >> > Namaste friends,> >> > > But the point is, is he ready and open enough to get disproved?> >> > This one sentence made me realize that the time has come to disengage > > from this one and move on to the next task.> >> > When one argues something as a scholar, one stays put for the > > questions and arguments. That is the dharma of a scholar.> >> > But I believe I have addressed all valid concerns and criticism > > expressed on sohamsa and other lists to the best of my ability. I > > believe I fulfilled my dharma in this matter and there is no > > productive purpose to be served by remaining in this thread further. > > There is no point in repeating things.> >> > Continuing with something after the purpose is served only > > creates/increases attachment and possessiveness. I do not want that. > > This knowledge or argument is not really MINE. I do not want it to > > BECOME mine. In order to not be bound, the one who sows a seed should > > leave it to the Nature to decide whether the seed gives rise to a tree > > and whether people enjoy the fruits from that tree in future. I have > > neither any rights nor any responsibilities regarding the knowledge > > and argument I advanced and defended shortly. My job with it is done. > > I leave the rest to Nature.> >> > Whether other scholars are able to judge all arguments correctly or > > not, what conclusion they come to and whether people benefit from this > > or not is not MY business. It is for my Mother to take care of. I did > > what She inspired me to do and now I should surrender the action and > > move on to the next action.> >> > I respectfully and humbly surrender this effort to Lord Krishna and > > wait for the next inspiration for action.> >> > If I was unable to answer your questions, I am sorry. Please realize > > that I am not the only one who can answer. Nature used me merely as an > > instrument to put some knowledge and argument out there. They are not > > mine. If you have a strong desire to know something more about them, > > Nature WILL somehow send someone to help you.> >> > Krishnaarpanamastu,> > Narasimha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 हरे राम कृष्ण Dear Narasimha, Namaskar. I don't think we understand each other. You are certainly right that my sanskrit acumen is far from up to par with yours, and I have never indicated that it was, but this is more than just a debate about sanskrit verses. I wish to put a very clear message across to you and those who are reading: If you think that knowledge of Sanskrit alone will help you understand the writing of Maharishi Parasara, then you are reducing the Parampara to being a mere translator for you. Which value do you give 'Upadesa', or do you think that this is merely something discussed over the coffee table? My example on Upagrahas was a CLEAR exposition of this, where your Sanskrit knowledge was not able to ascertain the means to calculate the Upagrahas position. I then clarified that the calculation is indeed given by Maharishi Parasara, as per Parampara teachings, you just didn't possess the knowledge to ascertain this from his work. To DOUBLE confirm it, as you didn't accept the UPADESA back then, I quoted Uttara Kalamrita. Similarly, there are secrets hidden in Maharishi Parasaras verses which can give atleast THREE additional interpretations to the slokas, which are much more potent than the literal translations of those slokas. If we were to rely solely on your Sanskrit knowledge, then the Maharishi Jaimini Krta Upadesa Sutras would be hodgepodge for us. With your knowledge of Sanskrit you would not be able to discern that Maharishi Jaimini has 1) praised his Ishta Devata, 2) praised his Guru and 3) indicated the mantra to recite to learn his work, ALL in the FIRST sutra of his work?.. afterall thats what Parampara is for. So, therefore when you taught Sudarshana Chakra Dasa in your Boston classes, instead of finding it necessary to mention the tri-linga chakra, Kundalini and your OWN translation/interpretation of the verses from Maharishi Parasara's work on this dasa, had you learned the same through the Parampara, you would maybe have taught 1) what Sanjayji showed Narayan and yourself in the Autumn of 2004, wherein which the students would have had one of the most accurate methods of predicting events, as well as 2) teach that the Sudarshana Chakra is a means towards Mukti and thus teach the three debts/rinas of the Rishi, Pitri and Deva and how they are seen in the charts as well as 3) how to overcome these debts through specific meditation on specific chakras with bijas, and thus show a means attain Moksha! .... Instead they got some 'other' Hora Shastra... that was their karma then. Really, which value do you give Guru Upadesa if you never accept the same? Its ok to doubt, but you can either work towards a) proving your Guru right, or b) searching to prove your Guru wrong. Most in your shoes would have done (a), because they VALUE the Upadesa. If you don't value the Upadesa given to you then why did you need a Guru to begin with? Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen ---------- www: http://srigaruda.com @: visti Narasimha P.V.R. Rao skrev: Namaste Visti, One leaving the ring voluntarily can come back anytime. When Arjuna did not want to fight, did astra sannyasa and surrendered at the feet of Lord Krishna, his opponents did not engage in a victory dance. And the warrior was back after his Guru enlightened him! Though I thought there was no productive purpose served by remaining further, I realize that there is one important point left to be made. * * * Before I counter your "argument", I want to point out one thing. When I translated "brahmaNaa" as "by Brahma", you wondered whether it should be "by Brahma" or "by Brahmana". In a scholarly debate involving Sanskrit verses, one making such a comment and thus demonstrating a lack of Sanskrit knowledge would not have been allowed to continue to sit in the debate in the old days! Now, let me look at your *new* "final" argument. One not knowing Sanskrit will naturally not know what "-antam" and "-antaan" mean and how they are different and how to factor in the context in addition. There is actually no point worth commenting on in your argument. Still let me counter the crux of your argument: > Therefore the use of the word anta in raahvantan need not exclusively > indicate the scheme of Sun-to-Raahu > > ravyaadi shani paryantaaH bhavanti sapta kaarakaaH | > aMsha saamye grahau dvau ca raahvantaan gaNayet dvija > > You used this to confirm the sloka of Maharishi Parasara, but NOWHERE is > it indicated that there is talk of eight chara karakas here! In fact the > sloka only speaks of sapta kaaraka (7). Still based on your > interpretation of anta you assumed that there was talk of eight chara > karakas! You must admit that there is no mention of that here! You are simply forgetting that Parasara's corresponding lines explicitly said: athaahaM sampravakShyaami grahaanaatmaadi kaarakaan sapta ravyaadi shanyantaan raahvantaan ==> vaaShTasaMkhyakaan <== amshaiH samau grahau dvau ched raahvantaan chintayed dvija The word "aShTasaMkhyakaan" explicitly means "[those that are] eight in number". The middle line of Parasara above means "seven starting from Sun and ending with Saturn, or eight in number ending with Rahu". The fact that both "raahvantaan" and "aShTasaMkhyakaan" are in bahu vachana and dwitiya vibhakti clearly shows that the latter is qualifying the former and "raahvantaan" and "[those that are] eight in number" go together. This is quite explicit and hence there IS a mention of "eight" chara karakas in this verse contrary to what you thought. I did not "assume" anything. Visti, your "argument" has no substance in it whatsoever. You are drifting off on a tangent based on something (upagrahas) that has nothing to do with this, simply because there is a common word used, and ignoring a clear directive from Parasara. There is absolutely no ambiguity regarding what "raahvantaan" means. Parasara is clearly talking about 7 and 8 chara karaka schemes here, one using Sun-Saturn and the other Sun-Rahu. * * * Before I put this to rest from my side, I guess there is one additional point to be made. While I want to in general stay away from "negative campaigning" :-), this is a critical point actually. People who knew Sanskrit and the subject at hand well participated in scholarly debates in old days. In today's times, people who do not know Sanskrit, Sanskrit grammar and Sanskrit writing style can simply look up key words in online Sanskrit dictionaries and concoct convoluted arguments that sound fancy but are really absurd and frivolous and have no substance. Querying is fine, but confidently declaring things when one has no Sanskrit scholarship is problematic and irresponsible and creates unneeded confusion in the minds of genuinely interested people watching the debate from the sidelines. There may also be some people who have a conflict of interest with their other activites and not really interested in a genuine debate on what Parasara taught. When those of you who are genuinely interested in Truth read various mails on this debate or any debates in future, please bear this in mind. I will have to try to ignore comments from people of this nature of their supporters. OK, Jupiter has just risen in the east. I will send out this mail now. 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 sohamsa , Visti Larsen <visti wrote: > > Dear Narasimha, Namaskar. > Honestly, I had predicted 4 days back to my students that when Moon > entered Jyestha you would 'surrender' in this discussion. > > Here is my last point regarding this exchange: > > Your entire translation rests on the translation of the word: > raahvantan. Based on the idea that raahu+antan is a repetition of an > earlier statement in which Maharishi Parasara describes the two schemes > of shanyantan and rähvantan as the basis of the seven and eight Karaka > schemes. > > > > This is not the first time that you have questioned the use of the word > anta by Maharishi Parasara, with reference to the Parampara's teachings. > Note for other readers that anta means: end, boundary, border, limit, > etc. like in the word gandaanta. > > > > So to justify that Maharishi Parasara uses the word anta in a different > way than that you have described do note the same use when he describes > the calculation of Upagrahas in chapter 3, sloka 66: > ravi-vaaraadi-shanyantaM gulikaadi niruupyate| In the past Sanjayji has > explained wrt. to this sloka on Upagrahas, that the word anta used in > shanyantaM refers to the Upagrahas rising in the positions at the END of > the kala of the specific graha. > > Just as you have done now, you believed back then that the word anta > merely referred to the scheme from Sun to Saturn, and you believed that > this by no means clarified the exact position in the kala to be > calculated for the Upagraha. > > To clarify this I have referred to the words of Kali Dasa (Uttara > Kalamrita, Chapter 1, Sloka 8) who states clearly that Gulika rises at > the end of the portions of the Kala. He leaves no doubt in his statement > about this calculation. > > This indicates that Maharishi Parasara was indeed clarifying that the > Upagraha rise in the END of the kala of the specific Graha. > > Therefore the use of the word anta in raahvantan need not exclusively > indicate the scheme of Sun-to-Raahu, but can ALSO imply that rahu is > placed in the anta, i.e. the last most among the two grahas mentioned. > > > > To further clarify this I have used your citation from Vrddha Karika: > > ravyaadi shani paryantaaH bhavanti sapta kaarakaaH | > > aMsha saamye grahau dvau ca raahvantaan gaNayet dvija > > > > You used this to confirm the sloka of Maharishi Parasara, but NOWHERE is > it indicated that there is talk of eight chara karakas here! In fact the > sloka only speaks of sapta kaaraka (7). Still based on your > interpretation of anta you assumed that there was talk of eight chara > karakas! You must admit that there is no mention of that here! > > > > Therefore, the interpretation of the tradition that sloka 2 of the > Karaka Chapter actually refers solely to the rider of Rähu entering the > last most among the Chara Karakas in the seven chara karaka scheme, and > not the eight-chara karaka scheme, is legit and justified. Therefore > also sloka 16 is an independant sutra which refers solely to the eight > chara karaka scheme wherein which the sthira karaka can enter, and > therefore is listed only after listing all eight chara karaka. This is > further in line with the entire principles and philosophy of seven and > eight chara karakas which has been taught in the Parampara so far in a > very exhaustive manner, and further is perfectly in tune with the > teaching of the Rishis with regards to the nature of the Atma and its > bondage. > > > > If you tally that with the Sutras of Maharishi Jaimini, slokas of Sri > Mahadeva and those of Kali Dasa and all other authors, you will see that > the interpretation of the Parampara is not only justified, but is also > the one followed by all the classical authors… after all those classical > authors also came from a Parampara! > > > > Now a personal point: This proves that no matter how much Sanskrit you > may know, to learn Jyotish you still need the guidance of a Guru or > Parampara. I am glad that you have surrendered to Sri Krishna, now will > you surrender to the Parampara also? If so maybe we will both gain from > each others knowledge instead of having to fight over each word and sloka. > > > Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen > ---------- > www: http://srigaruda.com > > Narasimha PVR Rao skrev: > > > > Namaste friends, > > > > > But the point is, is he ready and open enough to get disproved? > > > > This one sentence made me realize that the time has come to disengage > > from this one and move on to the next task. > > > > When one argues something as a scholar, one stays put for the > > questions and arguments. That is the dharma of a scholar. > > > > But I believe I have addressed all valid concerns and criticism > > expressed on sohamsa and other lists to the best of my ability. I > > believe I fulfilled my dharma in this matter and there is no > > productive purpose to be served by remaining in this thread further. > > There is no point in repeating things. > > > > Continuing with something after the purpose is served only > > creates/increases attachment and possessiveness. I do not want that. > > This knowledge or argument is not really MINE. I do not want it to > > BECOME mine. In order to not be bound, the one who sows a seed should > > leave it to the Nature to decide whether the seed gives rise to a tree > > and whether people enjoy the fruits from that tree in future. I have > > neither any rights nor any responsibilities regarding the knowledge > > and argument I advanced and defended shortly. My job with it is done. > > I leave the rest to Nature. > > > > Whether other scholars are able to judge all arguments correctly or > > not, what conclusion they come to and whether people benefit from this > > or not is not MY business. It is for my Mother to take care of. I did > > what She inspired me to do and now I should surrender the action and > > move on to the next action. > > > > I respectfully and humbly surrender this effort to Lord Krishna and > > wait for the next inspiration for action. > > > > If I was unable to answer your questions, I am sorry. Please realize > > that I am not the only one who can answer. Nature used me merely as an > > instrument to put some knowledge and argument out there. They are not > > mine. If you have a strong desire to know something more about them, > > Nature WILL somehow send someone to help you. > > > > Krishnaarpanamastu, > > Narasimha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 Dear Visti, Namaskar With all due respect to all gurus and scholars You are absolutely right. "A calculator cannot make the one mathematician." Sanskrit is a language and jyotish is a applied knowledge. I truly understand that without understanding of principals and more than that application of those principles, it is difficult to decode the true essence of rishis words. Sanskrit is a means to make us understand the mind behinds those words of rishis. I also acknowledge the importance of understanding Sanskrit as it is the first step. But that is not sufficient. It is here the Updeshas from traditions (Shruti) come into play. We should understand the minds of rishis not just the words. Sooner the hundreds of students who are studying Jaimini Upadesha Sutras from prampara will open their eye to the fact that the very first upedesha from the Jaimini Sutra "Upadesha Vyakhyasyaamah" have the entire different dimensions in it. If one mearly just translate this sutra then one will not reach far then just one line of translation. The understanding of this very first sutra will make them realise the depth of knowledge and what to expect when they will finish studying all four adhyayas as taught by Pt.Sanjay Rath and further by jaimini Scholars. Fortunate are those who are associated with the parampara and following the updesha of the guru. Hari Om Tat Sat With Respect Naresh Mamgain --- On Tue, 4/11/08, Visti Larsen <visti wrote: Visti Larsen <vistiRe: Re: Final Word: Chara Karaka Issuesohamsa Date: Tuesday, 4 November, 2008, 4:16 AM हरे राम कृषà¥à¤£Dear Narasimha, Namaskar.I don't think we understand each other.You are certainly right that my sanskrit acumen is far from up to par with yours, and I have never indicated that it was, but this is more than just a debate about sanskrit verses.I wish to put a very clear message across to you and those who are reading:If you think that knowledge of Sanskrit alone will help you understand the writing of Maharishi Parasara, then you are reducing the Parampara to being a mere translator for you.Which value do you give 'Upadesa', or do you think that this is merely something discussed over the coffee table?My example on Upagrahas was a CLEAR exposition of this, where your Sanskrit knowledge was not able to ascertain the means to calculate the Upagrahas position. I then clarified that the calculation is indeed given by Maharishi Parasara, as per Parampara teachings, you just didn't possess the knowledge to ascertain this from his work. To DOUBLE confirm it, as you didn't accept the UPADESA back then, I quoted Uttara Kalamrita.Similarly, there are secrets hidden in Maharishi Parasaras verses which can give atleast THREE additional interpretations to the slokas, which are much more potent than the literal translations of those slokas.If we were to rely solely on your Sanskrit knowledge, then the Maharishi Jaimini Krta Upadesa Sutras would be hodgepodge for us. With your knowledge of Sanskrit you would not be able to discern that Maharishi Jaimini has 1) praised his Ishta Devata, 2) praised his Guru and 3) indicated the mantra to recite to learn his work, ALL in the FIRST sutra of his work?.. afterall thats what Parampara is for.So, therefore when you taught Sudarshana Chakra Dasa in your Boston classes, instead of finding it necessary to mention the tri-linga chakra, Kundalini and your OWN translation/ interpretation of the verses from Maharishi Parasara's work on this dasa, had you learned the same through the Parampara, you would maybe have taught 1) what Sanjayji showed Narayan and yourself in the Autumn of 2004, wherein which the students would have had one of the most accurate methods of predicting events, as well as 2) teach that the Sudarshana Chakra is a means towards Mukti and thus teach the three debts/rinas of the Rishi, Pitri and Deva and how they are seen in the charts as well as 3) how to overcome these debts through specific meditation on specific chakras with bijas, and thus show a means attain Moksha!... Instead they got some 'other' Hora Shastra... that was their karma then.Really, which value do you give Guru Upadesa if you never accept the same? Its ok to doubt, but you can either work towards a) proving your Guru right, or b) searching to prove your Guru wrong.Most in your shoes would have done (a), because they VALUE the Upadesa. If you don't value the Upadesa given to you then why did you need a Guru to begin with?Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen------------ --------- --------- --------- ----www: http://srigaruda. com@: visti (AT) srigaruda (DOT) com Narasimha P.V.R. Rao skrev: Namaste Visti, One leaving the ring voluntarily can come back anytime. When Arjuna did not want to fight, did astra sannyasa and surrendered at the feet of Lord Krishna, his opponents did not engage in a victory dance. And the warrior was back after his Guru enlightened him! Though I thought there was no productive purpose served by remaining further, I realize that there is one important point left to be made. * * * Before I counter your "argument", I want to point out one thing. When I translated "brahmaNaa" as "by Brahma", you wondered whether it should be "by Brahma" or "by Brahmana". In a scholarly debate involving Sanskrit verses, one making such a comment and thus demonstrating a lack of Sanskrit knowledge would not have been allowed to continue to sit in the debate in the old days! Now, let me look at your *new* "final" argument. One not knowing Sanskrit will naturally not know what "-antam" and "-antaan" mean and how they are different and how to factor in the context in addition. There is actually no point worth commenting on in your argument. Still let me counter the crux of your argument: > Therefore the use of the word anta in raahvantan need not exclusively > indicate the scheme of Sun-to-Raahu > > ravyaadi shani paryantaaH bhavanti sapta kaarakaaH |> aMsha saamye grahau dvau ca raahvantaan gaNayet dvija> > You used this to confirm the sloka of Maharishi Parasara, but NOWHERE is > it indicated that there is talk of eight chara karakas here! In fact the > sloka only speaks of sapta kaaraka (7). Still based on your > interpretation of anta you assumed that there was talk of eight chara > karakas! You must admit that there is no mention of that here! You are simply forgetting that Parasara's corresponding lines explicitly said: athaahaM sampravakShyaami grahaanaatmaadi kaarakaan sapta ravyaadi shanyantaan raahvantaan ==> vaaShTasaMkhyakaan <== amshaiH samau grahau dvau ched raahvantaan chintayed dvija The word "aShTasaMkhyakaan" explicitly means "[those that are] eight in number". The middle line of Parasara above means "seven starting from Sun and ending with Saturn, or eight in number ending with Rahu". The fact that both "raahvantaan" and "aShTasaMkhyakaan" are in bahu vachana and dwitiya vibhakti clearly shows that the latter is qualifying the former and "raahvantaan" and "[those that are] eight in number" go together. This is quite explicit and hence there IS a mention of "eight" chara karakas in this verse contrary to what you thought. I did not "assume" anything. Visti, your "argument" has no substance in it whatsoever. You are drifting off on a tangent based on something (upagrahas) that has nothing to do with this, simply because there is a common word used, and ignoring a clear directive from Parasara. There is absolutely no ambiguity regarding what "raahvantaan" means. Parasara is clearly talking about 7 and 8 chara karaka schemes here, one using Sun-Saturn and the other Sun-Rahu. * * * Before I put this to rest from my side, I guess there is one additional point to be made. While I want to in general stay away from "negative campaigning" :-), this is a critical point actually. People who knew Sanskrit and the subject at hand well participated in scholarly debates in old days. In today's times, people who do not know Sanskrit, Sanskrit grammar and Sanskrit writing style can simply look up key words in online Sanskrit dictionaries and concoct convoluted arguments that sound fancy but are really absurd and frivolous and have no substance. Querying is fine, but confidently declaring things when one has no Sanskrit scholarship is problematic and irresponsible and creates unneeded confusion in the minds of genuinely interested people watching the debate from the sidelines. There may also be some people who have a conflict of interest with their other activites and not really interested in a genuine debate on what Parasara taught. When those of you who are genuinely interested in Truth read various mails on this debate or any debates in future, please bear this in mind. I will have to try to ignore comments from people of this nature of their supporters. OK, Jupiter has just risen in the east. I will send out this mail now. Krishnaarpanamastu,Narasimha------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homamDo Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpanaSpirituality: http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdomFree Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro. home.comcast. netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAst rologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagan nath.org------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- sohamsa@ .com, Visti Larsen <visti wrote:>> Dear Narasimha, Namaskar.> Honestly, I had predicted 4 days back to my students that when Moon > entered Jyestha you would 'surrender' in this discussion.> > Here is my last point regarding this exchange:> > Your entire translation rests on the translation of the word: > raahvantan. Based on the idea that raahu+antan is a repetition of an > earlier statement in which Maharishi Parasara describes the two schemes > of shanyantan and rähvantan as the basis of the seven and eight Karaka > schemes.> > > > This is not the first time that you have questioned the use of the word > anta by Maharishi Parasara, with reference to the Parampara's teachings. > Note for other readers that anta means: end, boundary, border, limit, > etc. like in the word gandaanta.> > > > So to justify that Maharishi Parasara uses the word anta in a different > way than that you have described do note the same use when he describes > the calculation of Upagrahas in chapter 3, sloka 66: > ravi-vaaraadi- shanyantaM gulikaadi niruupyate| In the past Sanjayji has > explained wrt. to this sloka on Upagrahas, that the word anta used in > shanyantaM refers to the Upagrahas rising in the positions at the END of > the kala of the specific graha.> > Just as you have done now, you believed back then that the word anta > merely referred to the scheme from Sun to Saturn, and you believed that > this by no means clarified the exact position in the kala to be > calculated for the Upagraha.> > To clarify this I have referred to the words of Kali Dasa (Uttara > Kalamrita, Chapter 1, Sloka 8) who states clearly that Gulika rises at > the end of the portions of the Kala. He leaves no doubt in his statement > about this calculation.> > This indicates that Maharishi Parasara was indeed clarifying that the > Upagraha rise in the END of the kala of the specific Graha.> > Therefore the use of the word anta in raahvantan need not exclusively > indicate the scheme of Sun-to-Raahu, but can ALSO imply that rahu is > placed in the anta, i.e. the last most among the two grahas mentioned.> > > > To further clarify this I have used your citation from Vrddha Karika:> > ravyaadi shani paryantaaH bhavanti sapta kaarakaaH |> > aMsha saamye grahau dvau ca raahvantaan gaNayet dvija> > > > You used this to confirm the sloka of Maharishi Parasara, but NOWHERE is > it indicated that there is talk of eight chara karakas here! In fact the > sloka only speaks of sapta kaaraka (7). Still based on your > interpretation of anta you assumed that there was talk of eight chara > karakas! You must admit that there is no mention of that here!> > > > Therefore, the interpretation of the tradition that sloka 2 of the > Karaka Chapter actually refers solely to the rider of Rähu entering the > last most among the Chara Karakas in the seven chara karaka scheme, and > not the eight-chara karaka scheme, is legit and justified. Therefore > also sloka 16 is an independant sutra which refers solely to the eight > chara karaka scheme wherein which the sthira karaka can enter, and > therefore is listed only after listing all eight chara karaka. This is > further in line with the entire principles and philosophy of seven and > eight chara karakas which has been taught in the Parampara so far in a > very exhaustive manner, and further is perfectly in tune with the > teaching of the Rishis with regards to the nature of the Atma and its > bondage.> > > > If you tally that with the Sutras of Maharishi Jaimini, slokas of Sri > Mahadeva and those of Kali Dasa and all other authors, you will see that > the interpretation of the Parampara is not only justified, but is also > the one followed by all the classical authors… after all those classical > authors also came from a Parampara!> > > > Now a personal point: This proves that no matter how much Sanskrit you > may know, to learn Jyotish you still need the guidance of a Guru or > Parampara. I am glad that you have surrendered to Sri Krishna, now will > you surrender to the Parampara also? If so maybe we will both gain from > each others knowledge instead of having to fight over each word and sloka.> > > Yours sincerely, Visti Larsen> ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----> www: http://srigaruda. com> > Narasimha PVR Rao skrev:> >> > Namaste friends,> >> > > But the point is, is he ready and open enough to get disproved?> >> > This one sentence made me realize that the time has come to disengage > > from this one and move on to the next task.> >> > When one argues something as a scholar, one stays put for the > > questions and arguments. That is the dharma of a scholar.> >> > But I believe I have addressed all valid concerns and criticism > > expressed on sohamsa and other lists to the best of my ability. I > > believe I fulfilled my dharma in this matter and there is no > > productive purpose to be served by remaining in this thread further. > > There is no point in repeating things.> >> > Continuing with something after the purpose is served only > > creates/increases attachment and possessiveness. I do not want that. > > This knowledge or argument is not really MINE. I do not want it to > > BECOME mine. In order to not be bound, the one who sows a seed should > > leave it to the Nature to decide whether the seed gives rise to a tree > > and whether people enjoy the fruits from that tree in future. I have > > neither any rights nor any responsibilities regarding the knowledge > > and argument I advanced and defended shortly. My job with it is done. > > I leave the rest to Nature.> >> > Whether other scholars are able to judge all arguments correctly or > > not, what conclusion they come to and whether people benefit from this > > or not is not MY business. It is for my Mother to take care of. I did > > what She inspired me to do and now I should surrender the action and > > move on to the next action.> >> > I respectfully and humbly surrender this effort to Lord Krishna and > > wait for the next inspiration for action.> >> > If I was unable to answer your questions, I am sorry. Please realize > > that I am not the only one who can answer. Nature used me merely as an > > instrument to put some knowledge and argument out there. They are not > > mine. If you have a strong desire to know something more about them, > > Nature WILL somehow send someone to help you.> >> > Krishnaarpanamastu,> > Narasimha Did you know? You can CHAT without downloading messenger. Click here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 Dear Narsimha ji Namaste I am relieved to read that you are not hurt. I still feel that there are many things which are not sorted out in your translation. I hope you wont mind I write more about it! I am sure you will as well have shishyas like Naren and your work will not be a vain attempt. There are indication already that people have really accepted you in Jyotish and Adhyatama. I know that they are not wrong. I must congratulate you for the excercise you are into. It has given us the chance to know excatly what Parashara has said and consequently know how close Parampara is to Parashara. Pl. do not write Ji with my name. I dont like old friends to be addresed as Ji! Thanks a lot for your Time and Space. Prabodh Vekhande Jai Jai Shankar Har Har Shankar sohamsa , " Narasimha Rao " <pvr wrote: > > Namaste Prabodh ji, > > This is a private mail. > > I am not hurt at all. I knew your intentions quite well. The only > reason I had not replied to your issues was that I thought I already > covered them, e.g. reply to SanjayP. > > This is not an unnatural end. Fight for Truth and Dharma does not end > in one day. Through your mail, Mother reminded me what I am here for. > I am here not to drive various issues to closure and get consensus, > but to plant several seeds, protect them until saplings come out and > then move on. > > Ramakrishna Paramahamsa trained Naren and a few other youngsters and > left before they actually started the work and when they were still in > confusion and turmoil. It was he knew because HIS job was done. Swami > Vivekananda started the math, left it to Brahmananda, Premananda, > Shivananda etc and left. It was because he knew HIS job was done. > These people knew when their job was done and did not worry about > whether others would continue the job started by them well or not. I > am a very petty person compared to them, but I can also try to learn > from them and try to listen to the inner voice regarding what my job is. > > Please realize that I am not hurt with you, but actually quite grateful. > > Best regards, > Narasimha > > > Dear Narsimha Namaste > > > > > > But the point is, is he ready and open enough to get disproved? > > > > > > This one sentence made me realize that the time has come to > > disengage from this one and move on to the next task. > > > > My mail was not intended to put things to an unnatural end. To be > > honest i had no intentions of hurting. I also firmly believe that the > > very same Nature also used me as an instrument to respond to the > > initial notes. I reiterate that I have no claims for scholarships of > > any kind. > > > > I also humbly and respectfully surrender all my efforts to the feet > > of lord. > > > > Thanks a lot for your Time and Space. > > > > Prabodh Vekhande > > Jai Jai Shankar > > Har Har Shankar > > > > > > > > sohamsa , Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr@> wrote: > > > > > > Namaste friends, > > > > > > > But the point is, is he ready and open enough to get disproved? > > > > > > This one sentence made me realize that the time has come to > > disengage from this one and move on to the next task. > > > > > > When one argues something as a scholar, one stays put for the > > questions and arguments. That is the dharma of a scholar. > > > > > > But I believe I have addressed all valid concerns and criticism > > expressed on sohamsa and other lists to the best of my ability. I > > believe I fulfilled my dharma in this matter and there is no > > productive purpose to be served by remaining in this thread further. > > There is no point in repeating things. > > > > > > Continuing with something after the purpose is served only > > creates/increases attachment and possessiveness. I do not want that. > > This knowledge or argument is not really MINE. I do not want it to > > BECOME mine. In order to not be bound, the one who sows a seed should > > leave it to the Nature to decide whether the seed gives rise to a > > tree and whether people enjoy the fruits from that tree in future. I > > have neither any rights nor any responsibilities regarding the > > knowledge and argument I advanced and defended shortly. My job with > > it is done. I leave the rest to Nature. > > > > > > Whether other scholars are able to judge all arguments correctly or > > not, what conclusion they come to and whether people benefit from > > this or not is not MY business. It is for my Mother to take care of. > > I did what She inspired me to do and now I should surrender the > > action and move on to the next action. > > > > > > I respectfully and humbly surrender this effort to Lord Krishna and > > wait for the next inspiration for action. > > > > > > If I was unable to answer your questions, I am sorry. Please > > realize that I am not the only one who can answer. Nature used me > > merely as an instrument to put some knowledge and argument out there. > > They are not mine. If you have a strong desire to know something more > > about them, Nature WILL somehow send someone to help you. > > > > > > 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 > > > ------------------------------- -- > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.