Guest guest Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 Hare Rama Krishna Dear All. Suggestion to progress on this topic. So far no one has gone through Narasimhas paper. Looked at the examples he gave and tried to debunk his theory. Debating translations has its value, but the real thing, is just to show him astrologically through his examples,and he gave plenty and obviously worked at this so prove to him now whether he is right or wrong. Either it works or it doesn't.? That is the real proof in the pudding. I suggest that the debate go on -but PROVE to him through astro it is not right if that is what you think, rather than go in word circles. Best wishes Lakshmi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 Dear Lakshmiji Namaste Shree Narsimha's entire argument is on the concept of 'true' and 'correct' translation of the BPHS. I thought that he has not done justice to BPHS the way he translated Charakarakas.Offcourse it is my opinion and I may be wrong.So to decide unambigiously what is the correct translation I have given the word-by-word meaning of the verses. That will let everybody know why I translated a perticular verse in a perticular manner. Please go through it. There may be 100 charts that may confirm one principle but if the principle itself is derived on wrong logic and interpretations, those 100 charts have no value. On the other hand it is good to have a principle based on correct logic and interpretations may be without any 'actual' chart support. Statistic should not form the priciple rather principle should get statistics! Thanks a lot for your Time and Space. Prabodh Vekhande Jai Jai Shankar Har Har Shankar > Hare Rama Krishna > Dear All. > Suggestion to progress on this topic. > So far no one has gone through Narasimhas paper. > Looked at the examples he gave and tried to debunk his > theory. > Debating translations has its value, but the real > thing, > is just to show him astrologically through his > examples,and he gave plenty and obviously worked at > this so prove to him now whether he is right or wrong. > Either it works or it doesn't.? That is the real proof > in the pudding. > > I suggest that the debate go on -but PROVE to him > through astro it is not right if that is what you > think, rather than go in word circles. > Best wishes > Lakshmi > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 kleem namah narasimhaaya Dear Prabhodh , Namaskar Among main three pramana namely: sabda, anumana (logic/analysis), pratyaksa (experience/statistics) - still the tradition which is sabda should be the final and first one to consider. Without following sabda we are deviating from correct approach towards any Vedanga/Upaveda. Regards, Rafal Gendarz / SJC Teacher www: http://rohinaa.com / email: rafal Prabodh Vekhande pisze: Dear Lakshmiji Namaste Shree Narsimha's entire argument is on the concept of 'true' and 'correct' translation of the BPHS. I thought that he has not done justice to BPHS the way he translated Charakarakas. Offcourse it is my opinion and I may be wrong.So to decide unambigiously what is the correct translation I have given the word-by-word meaning of the verses. That will let everybody know why I translated a perticular verse in a perticular manner. Please go through it. There may be 100 charts that may confirm one principle but if the principle itself is derived on wrong logic and interpretations, those 100 charts have no value. On the other hand it is good to have a principle based on correct logic and interpretations may be without any 'actual' chart support. Statistic should not form the priciple rather principle should get statistics! Thanks a lot for your Time and Space. Prabodh Vekhande Jai Jai Shankar Har Har Shankar > Hare Rama Krishna > Dear All. > Suggestion to progress on this topic. > So far no one has gone through Narasimhas paper. > Looked at the examples he gave and tried to debunk his > theory. > Debating translations has its value, but the real > thing, > is just to show him astrologically through his > examples,and he gave plenty and obviously worked at > this so prove to him now whether he is right or wrong. > Either it works or it doesn't.? That is the real proof > in the pudding. > > I suggest that the debate go on -but PROVE to him > through astro it is not right if that is what you > think, rather than go in word circles. > Best wishes > Lakshmi > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1754 - Release 2008-10-29 07:45 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 Hare Rama Krishna Dear Prabodh, Yes, debate on words can go on, that is fine. My point is Narasimha has proven himself in many ways over the years, and he is also guru, and should at least be given some sort of audience and let people investigate it. In fact he has come up with some very important things over the years. He is at least worth listening to. If it is based on wrong logic then people should prove it to him. Personally, I find the translations contradictory and in many places up for argument, however I am at some loss because I am not learned in language like others, so you and others can hash that out. However, in those cases were things are unclear, I try and take info from lineage. I'm sure Sanjay is working on this and will come to some conclusion, because he will also investigate in charts ALONG with going over the translations. Sometimes these things stimulate all to really dig and come up with some additional info. People are coming up with some good points im just disappointed that most havent gone into his practical examples and points yet. I mean after all either it works or it doesn't. Or, perhaps there are a few important pieces we are all still missing. Best wishes Lakshmi --- Prabodh Vekhande <amolmandar wrote: > Dear Lakshmiji Namaste > > Shree Narsimha's entire argument is on the concept > of 'true' > and 'correct' translation of the BPHS. I thought > that he has not done > justice to BPHS the way he translated > Charakarakas.Offcourse it is my > opinion and I may be wrong.So to decide > unambigiously what is the > correct translation I have given the word-by-word > meaning of the > verses. That will let everybody know why I > translated a perticular > verse in a perticular manner. Please go through it. > > > There may be 100 charts that may confirm one > principle but if the > principle itself is derived on wrong logic and > interpretations, those > 100 charts have no value. On the other hand it is > good to have a > principle based on correct logic and interpretations > may be without > any 'actual' chart support. Statistic should not > form the priciple > rather principle should get statistics! > > Thanks a lot for your Time and Space. > > Prabodh Vekhande > Jai Jai Shankar > Har Har Shankar > > > Hare Rama Krishna > > Dear All. > > Suggestion to progress on this topic. > > So far no one has gone through Narasimhas paper. > > Looked at the examples he gave and tried to debunk > his > > theory. > > Debating translations has its value, but the real > > thing, > > is just to show him astrologically through his > > examples,and he gave plenty and obviously worked > at > > this so prove to him now whether he is right or > wrong. > > Either it works or it doesn't.? That is the real > proof > > in the pudding. > > > > I suggest that the debate go on -but PROVE to him > > through astro it is not right if that is what you > > think, rather than go in word circles. > > Best wishes > > Lakshmi > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 Dear Laxmiji Namste > My point is Narasimha has proven himself in many ways > over the years, and he is also guru, and should at > least be given some sort of > audience and let people investigate it. I agree to all. There is no doubt about Shree Narsimhas contribution to Vedic Jyotish and recently to world of spirituality. > years. He is at least worth listening to. I must say he is most(not least) worth listening to! > If it is based on wrong logic then people should prove > it to him. This is what I tried I supposed! But the point is, is he ready and open enough to get disproved? Thanks a lot for your Time and Space. Prabodh Vekhande Jai Jai Shankar Har Har Shankar sohamsa , Lakshmi Kary <lakshmikary wrote: > > Hare Rama Krishna > Dear Prabodh, > Yes, debate on words can go on, that is fine. > My point is Narasimha has proven himself in many ways > over the years, and he is also guru, and should at > least be given some sort of > audience and let people investigate it. In fact he has > come up with some very important things over the > years. He is at least worth listening to. > If it is based on wrong logic then people should prove > it to him. > Personally, I find the translations contradictory and > in many places up for argument, however I am at some > loss because I am not learned in language like others, > so you and others can hash that out. > > However, in those cases were things are unclear, I try > and take info from lineage. > I'm sure Sanjay is working on this and will come to > some conclusion, because he will also investigate in > charts ALONG with going over the translations. > Sometimes these things stimulate all to really dig and > come up with some additional info. > People are coming up with some good points im just > disappointed that most havent gone into his practical > examples and points yet. > I mean after all either it works or it doesn't. > > Or, perhaps there are a few important pieces we are > all still missing. > Best wishes > Lakshmi > > --- Prabodh Vekhande <amolmandar wrote: > > > Dear Lakshmiji Namaste > > > > Shree Narsimha's entire argument is on the concept > > of 'true' > > and 'correct' translation of the BPHS. I thought > > that he has not done > > justice to BPHS the way he translated > > Charakarakas.Offcourse it is my > > opinion and I may be wrong.So to decide > > unambigiously what is the > > correct translation I have given the word-by-word > > meaning of the > > verses. That will let everybody know why I > > translated a perticular > > verse in a perticular manner. Please go through it. > > > > > > There may be 100 charts that may confirm one > > principle but if the > > principle itself is derived on wrong logic and > > interpretations, those > > 100 charts have no value. On the other hand it is > > good to have a > > principle based on correct logic and interpretations > > may be without > > any 'actual' chart support. Statistic should not > > form the priciple > > rather principle should get statistics! > > > > Thanks a lot for your Time and Space. > > > > Prabodh Vekhande > > Jai Jai Shankar > > Har Har Shankar > > > > > Hare Rama Krishna > > > Dear All. > > > Suggestion to progress on this topic. > > > So far no one has gone through Narasimhas paper. > > > Looked at the examples he gave and tried to debunk > > his > > > theory. > > > Debating translations has its value, but the real > > > thing, > > > is just to show him astrologically through his > > > examples,and he gave plenty and obviously worked > > at > > > this so prove to him now whether he is right or > > wrong. > > > Either it works or it doesn't.? That is the real > > proof > > > in the pudding. > > > > > > I suggest that the debate go on -but PROVE to him > > > through astro it is not right if that is what you > > > think, rather than go in word circles. > > > Best wishes > > > Lakshmi > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 Dear Lakshmiji, I find it hard to agree with you. Although I am not a Jyotish authority, I do know something about writing papers. Please dont use the current astrology journals as the gold standard for paper writing - astrology publication standards are rather poor at best (but I am not implying that the scholarship of the authors is necessarily poor). Look to fields where tens of thousands of papers are published by hundreds of thousands of extremely competitive people to understand how papers should be written. While Narasimhaji's intentions are pure, the paper isnt presented properly to objectively compare the old theory(ies) and the new theory. Rather than point out the mistakes (in presentation), let me tell you the right way, and you (or anyone else) can point out flaws: 1) Section 1: Introduction: There are 2 new concepts in this paper: (a) New claims: Reinterpretation of Parasara's writing and consequently (i) Reallotment of CKs (ii) Removal of " CK disappearance at some point in life " (b) New dasa scheme by Parasara namely karaka dasa and its calculation 2) Reinterpretation of Parasara's writing (a) Old interpretation (b) New interpretation, with logical deductions of all kinds clearly outlined. No omission of logical deductions based on " what was found to be working correctly with karaka dasa " . Possible variations and why they were dismissed. 3) Karaka dasa and its calculation (obvious) 4) (This is the main part I have trouble with) Objective proof of the new theory using karaka dasa: (a) Proof of CK reallotment using karaka dasa: This part absolutey must show FOR EACH EXAMPLE, the three CK allotment schemes, possibly in a table side by side i.e. CKs by Rath, CKs by KNR, CKs by Narasimha. For each CK scheme, the karaka dasa (KD) progression must be shown i.e. KD for Rath CKs, KD for KNR CKs, KD for Narasimha CKs. Now, WITH ALL THE DATA in hand, it must be shown why CKs by Narasimha and KD by Narasimha stand out as the best. ALSO, YOU CANNOT AFFORD to leave out examples used by previous authors to prove their points - Rath used Alan Leo and MK Gandhi in his CK paper. Why are they missing? (b) Proof of CK disappearance being explained by other things better. Show us how other dasa systems explain better the events Rath used as illustration of CK disappearance. The above is what I would say presents a clear picture. In the current presentation the strength of the new (for us) karaka dasa is used to make the reader lean towards the author's interpretation with no corresponding data of its use in the other CK allotment schemes. Also, the standard mistake that all astrologers always make is inevitably present - When an astrologer calculates a new dasa system, he automatically invariably ASSUMES that the person's life definitely changed at those points. e.g. if karaka dasa says my AK dasa is from 1994-2000, and my AmK dasa is from 2000-2005, then my first responsibility is to see - was 1994 really a defining changepoint when AK issues became more relevant? If not, then perhaps there is a calculation mistake in the dasa, or a mistake in the CK allotment? Similary, was 2000 really the point when AmK issues became more relevant. If you plot KD by Rath, KD by Narasimha, KD by KNRao, then you will be forced to answer these questions... Regards, Sundeep sohamsa , Lakshmi Kary <lakshmikary wrote: > > Hare Rama Krishna > Dear All. > Suggestion to progress on this topic. > So far no one has gone through Narasimhas paper. > Looked at the examples he gave and tried to debunk his > theory. > Debating translations has its value, but the real > thing, > is just to show him astrologically through his > examples,and he gave plenty and obviously worked at > this so prove to him now whether he is right or wrong. > Either it works or it doesn't.? That is the real proof > in the pudding. > > I suggest that the debate go on -but PROVE to him > through astro it is not right if that is what you > think, rather than go in word circles. > Best wishes > Lakshmi > 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.