[]Why Navamsa Chart - Tarka and Pramana?

[Guest guest]

Namaste AllVedanta is a Sabda Pramana. It is available in Book form. It is sabda pramana of the Truth. Therefore, Atma jnana is obtained from this sabda pramana. Today, a person is refuting this. It is silly that one has to converse or discuss matters with a person who changes the meaning of Shastra every now and then, just to prove that he is right. This person has misquoted, misrepresented many facts, statements of many people, just to argue and argue.

If Vedanta isn't being adhered too what kind of Jyotish will the said person adhere too? If someone knows for sure that divisional charts cannot be used separately, let him not use it. If someone does not know for sure that divisional charts can be used separately, let him become a student and ask the knowers (Sri Pradeep had a major discussion with Sri PVR Narasimha Rao and Sri Sanjay Rath and both gave him proofs and shastric references. He did not agree to them and kept on arguing - this shows he is convinced of this as a fact). Once he is convinced, it is sure that he will not understand any Tarka or Pramana (as such he does not consider Veda as pramana since it is a book). In this view, his role on this group is only to propagate what he is convinced about, whether or not it is the True. If such is the role, why is it being portrayed that there is a discussion going on?Cleverness has its limits.

Thanks and RegardsBharatOn 7/11/07, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep

> wrote:

 

 

 

 

Dear shri Bharath

 

Ofcourse i repeat what i have said.Context is important.

 

Atma gyan is not obtained from any books.This was the guidance i got

from my Gurus and i trust them.

 

On the other hand six divsions of a rashi,rules for aspect etc are

defined as Pramanas.Ofcourse the mahamunis who have written this,got

their knowledge through inner self.But miles and miles to go atleast

for me.

 

If one can get self realization by **just** reading books,all those

who could afford those books would have been realized by now.

 

If the below paragraph written by me,were personal ,then what would

be the ones you have written !!!.I don't want to refer back to yor

usages and insulting comments.Neither had i reacted then nor i would

now.

 

It was you who had written that,when shri Finn Wandahl was present

(along with many others) the list was interesting,knowledge comes to

blessed etc.

 

I have my impressions on shri wandahl and it is not based on your

inputs.

 

You can keep off or keep on as and when you like.Let Lord bless you.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

, " Bharat - Hindu Astrology "

<astrologyhindu wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Pradeep

>

> ON 31/08/2006 You made the first remark suggesting my explanations

are from

> books. You had said this directly once before. ON our first

discussion

> regarding Bhagavad Gita, it was you who was writing directly from

books.

> Moreover your sarcasm was more than evident then. So do not try

to behave

> as if you are innocent.

>

> * " Kindly do not give long explanations present in Vedantic text

books

> or Quotations as i can read them as well.i am interested in small

> answers,which you were revealed with ,during your slef seeking

> procedure.Say 2 or max 3 sentences per question.Kindly share your

> wisdom as gems of brevity.*

>

>

> I can also provide more references where you had turned personal.

My action

> was to stop discussions with you on any matter. I gave you the

benefit of

> the doubt only to learn that you are the same still. In this

regard, it is

> best you and I stay out of each other's way. I made a mistake once

but

> wouldn't make once again.

>

> You are giving names of Sri Finn Windhall as talking of Pramana.

Do you even

> know what Sri Windhall thinks of BPHS? He has mentioned on his

website as

> well as on this group that he does not think BPHS as a pramana

authored by

> the father of Sri Veda Vyasa. He says it is an amalgamation of all

Jyotish

> material and dates around 800 AD. You have consistently used bits

and pieces

> of information and are trying to show as if you are right. I guess

this is

> the level one has to stoop to, to " win " arguments and discussions.

Btw,

> before you have another misconception, I do not hold that against

Sri

> Windhall's fabulous experience and knowledge of Jyotish. Unlike

others, I

> let him hold on to his views.

>

> Without having adequate knowledge of Sanskrit, without any Sankara

Bhashya

> for reference in Jyotish, without having cross reference texts,

after having

> lost possibly thousands of Astrological works, how can be so sure

about

> something that might not be so? Don't bother answering this

question. It is

> just a repeat.

>

> So please keep off limits me and I shall do the same for you.

>

> Thanks and Regards

> Bharat

>

>

>

>

> On 7/11/07, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Baharat ji

> >

> > Any member of this group can go and see the archives,if i had

made

> > any personal remarks,during our discussions on atma etc.On the

other

> > hand you had made some personal remarks,as you have done

below.This

> > time it is a gentle one as compared to previous.

> >

> > Thus i would say,i can see an improvement in your

style.Similarly i

> > will try to improve myself.

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> > <%

40>,

> > " Bharat - Hindu Astrology "

> > <astrologyhindu@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Namaste Sri Pradeep

> > >

> > > Tarka and Pramana is something you did not understand in our

> > previous

> > > discussions and made them personal. Today again, you are using

> > these words

> > > to be suggest that you discuss only with people having it. I

have

> > big doubts

> > > on the same.

> > >

> > > I retire from this useless discussion. Every time I think there

> > has been an

> > > improvement in you, I am proven wrong.

> > >

> > > Thanks and Regards

> > > Bharat

> > >

> > > On 7/11/07, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Bharat ji

> > > >

> > > > I understand your views fully.Also regarding previous

philosoical

> > > > discussions myslef and chandrashekhar ji had our own reasons

> > while

> > > > you had your own.

> > > >

> > > > You are also free to use any method you wants.I am

interested in

> > this

> > > > thread as long as some one is participating using Tarka and

> > Pramana.

> > > >

> > > > Regds

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > > <%

40><%

> > 40>,

> > > > " Bharat - Hindu Astrology "

> > > > <astrologyhindu@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Namaste Sri Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > > As you are already aware, I try to discuss with you at a

> > minimum.

> > > > The

> > > > > reasons can be well known through our previous discussions.

> > Again,

> > > > you are

> > > > > free to draw whatever conclusions you want from my

posting. I

> > will

> > > > not

> > > > > correct them.

> > > > >

> > > > > I have already made it clear that I use Kaal Sarp yoga as

well

> > as

> > > > Kaal

> > > > > Amrita Yoga in charts and some of the well known faces in

> > India have

> > > > > understood me and gotten help from its remedies. I have

already

> > > > made it

> > > > > clear that my respect for Sri K N Rao does not stop me from

> > forming

> > > > my own

> > > > > opinions and knowledge base.

> > > > >

> > > > > By not following some of his principles or of others, I do

not

> > > > disrespect

> > > > > them. Since my desire is for knowledge and not gain extra

> > > > somethings by

> > > > > attaching big names in Astrology to my resume.

> > > > >

> > > > > In any case by not following KSY, I would be going against

Sri

> > B V

> > > > Raman and

> > > > > by following it against Sri K N Rao. I understand the

working

> > of it

> > > > and use

> > > > > it. Btw, the way many people scare living daylights out of

> > people

> > > > is not the

> > > > > meaning of KSY.

> > > > >

> > > > > My post is amply clear on what I mean, however, you choose

to

> > > > misunderstand

> > > > > it. Continue doing so if you so wish.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks and Regards

> > > > > Bharat

> > > > >

> > > > > On 7/11/07, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Bharat ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Even if i hide it from you,i cannot hide it from my own

> > > > conscience,on

> > > > > > whether i am doing it for ego satisfaction or as a fight

for

> > > > justice.

> > > > > > Thus it is clear.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nowhere it is mentioned that Kalasarpa yoga should not be

> > used -

> > > > Then

> > > > > > as per your logic,any one can use them.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Ok .Fine.Now Raoji have been fighting against this since

> > long.We

> > > > > > cannot say for sure ,whether it i egotitical or

not.Similar

> > was

> > > > the

> > > > > > case with Karakamsha.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thus wehave to see the merits in the points discussed in

an

> > > > objective

> > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I understand your views fully.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thanks

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > > <%

40><%

> > 40><%

> > > > 40>,

> > > > > > " Bharat - Hindu Astrology "

> > > > > > <astrologyhindu@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Namaste Sri Pradeep

> > > > > > > I am not stopping you from debating or discussing.

Again

> > you are

> > > > > > free to do

> > > > > > > so. Whether or not you do it egoistically or devotedly

is

> > also

> > > > your

> > > > > > own

> > > > > > > choice.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I mentioned what I mentioned as per my own thinking,

in my

> > > > previous

> > > > > > post. It

> > > > > > > is quite clear. You are free to draw wrong or right

> > conclusions

> > > > > > from what I

> > > > > > > said. I do not wish to correct your conclusions.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thanks and Regards

> > > > > > > Bharat

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > On 7/10/07, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Shri Bharat

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I agree with your views.I cannot stop anyone from

seeing

> > > > things as

> > > > > > > > they want.Even if i want i cannot.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Most importantly i should not.What is my role then.I

am

> > > > > > > > participating in debates.Through Vaada -Prathivaada

> > (healthy-

> > > > > > > > Tarka/Pramana) we are enhancing each others

knowledge.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > When some one produce reference,we debate, whether

the

> > intent

> > > > was

> > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > or not.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If some one thinks that,they already know what has be

> > done

> > > > and is

> > > > > > > > not interested in looking at basics ,they are free

to do

> > so.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > But those who are interested will debate and let them

> > decide

> > > > based

> > > > > > > > on the points raised.Are you saying there should not

be

> > any

> > > > > > debate.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If you say,sage has not prevented us from seeing

amshas

> > as

> > > > > > > > charts,and hence we can see,then we can do anything

as we

> > > > want.Who

> > > > > > > > is against it.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > As far as i am concerned the debate is only valid ,if

> > some one

> > > > > > wants

> > > > > > > > to study Jyotish based on the rules set by

Maharishi.For

> > eg

> > > > Late

> > > > > > > > Santhanam has said aspects are not possible as per

the

> > rules.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If some one wants to use let them use.My debate is

never

> > with

> > > > > > > > them.It is only with those who are interested in

Tarka

> > and

> > > > > > Pramana.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > <%

40>

> > <%

> > 40><%

> > > > 40><%

> > > > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > " Sateesh Batas " <makaras@>

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Bharat,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Excellent post - I concur with all of it, and do

not

> > take

> > > > > > anything

> > > > > > > > at face value, even from respected authorities -

until

> > and

> > > > unless

> > > > > > I

> > > > > > > > am convinced of it.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Especially this part is apt -

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ***The difference is, I do not tell people what to

do

> > and

> > > > what

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > to. The freedom of choice is a God gift. You and I

are

> > no one

> > > > to

> > > > > > > > take it from anyone.***

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Best - Sateesh.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ========

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > Bharat - Hindu Astrology

> > > > > > > > > <%

40>

> > <%

> > 40><%

> > > > 40><%

> > > > > > 40>

> > > > > > > > > Monday, July 09, 2007 6:10 PM

> > > > > > > > > Re: Why Navamsa Chart - Shri

> > Finn

> > > > Wandahl

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Namaste Sri Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The question is not whether a person gave support

or

> > not.

> > > > The

> > > > > > > > question is

> > > > > > > > > whether something is true or not. In Vedanta, I was

> > taught

> > > > to

> > > > > > > > question and

> > > > > > > > > question and not accept just because someone

important

> > had

> > > > said

> > > > > > > > it. Sri

> > > > > > > > > Krishna, in Bhagavad Gita, in 2nd chapter, first

verse

> > he

> > > > spoke,

> > > > > > > > said that

> > > > > > > > > there isn't a cause for sorrow. Did Arjuna accept

the

> > > > statement?

> > > > > > > > He did not

> > > > > > > > > but questioned till he understood something. Did

Lord

> > > > Krishna

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > egoistic problem with questioning? No!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The problem that can be seen in the group today is

> > > > nonacceptance

> > > > > > > > of an idea

> > > > > > > > > which may be. There isn't a single proof that

> > explicitly

> > > > says

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > amshas

> > > > > > > > > cannot be used separately. There is no debate on

their

> > > > usage in

> > > > > > > > tandem with

> > > > > > > > > Rashi chart. Couple that with limited knowledge of

> > Sanskrit,

> > > > > > > > limited text

> > > > > > > > > availability of Jyotish, limited explanations

> > available, we

> > > > are

> > > > > > > > trying to

> > > > > > > > > stop a mass of people from researching and using a

> > > > particular

> > > > > > > > concept. If

> > > > > > > > > this isn't egoistic intervention than what is?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > As far as I am concerned, my respect for Sri Finn

> > Windhall

> > > > or

> > > > > > Sri

> > > > > > > > K.N. Rao

> > > > > > > > > would not deter me from not following something

that I

> > feel

> > > > > > ain't

> > > > > > > > so. This

> > > > > > > > > is the reason despite Sri K N Rao's many writings

> > against

> > > > usage

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > Gems, I

> > > > > > > > > continue to write about them, use them successfully

> > with

> > > > many of

> > > > > > > > clients and

> > > > > > > > > now beginning to write a book on them. Despite the

> > same, I

> > > > > > follow

> > > > > > > > his

> > > > > > > > > Karakamsha technique in Rashi chart whole heartedly

> > with

> > > > > > excellent

> > > > > > > > results.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The difference is, I do not tell people what to do

and

> > what

> > > > not

> > > > > > > > to. The

> > > > > > > > > freedom of choice is a God gift. You and I are no

one

> > to

> > > > take it

> > > > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > anyone.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards

> > > > > > > > > Bharat

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >