Parampara Knowledge (Char Karka)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sir,

 

People should realize that I have no time to reply to all emails addressed to me.

 

I MAY mention mantras that I got from other people or books without referring to the source.

 

But, when it comes to astrology, I ensure whenever teaching my own research that it is identified as such. I identify what was taught by my gurus, what I found in the words of rishis unambiguously, what I extrapolated from those words and what I thought of by myself. I am usually thorough in identifying the source and type of astrological knowledge I share with others. If I made any lapse, please bring it to attention and I will be very happy to correct myself.

 

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 , "Arpad Joo" <panchasila wrote:>> > Hare Rama Krishna,> > Dear Narasimha,> > > > It is the principle.> > Please allow me to quote from your recent post:> > > > "It seemed to me like several teachings that were not identified> explicitly as either research or parampara knowledge may actually be> his(Pt.S.Rath) research."> > > > "On several occasions, I privately requested him (Pandit Sanjay> Rath) to acknowledge whether a specific teaching was strictly from> parampara or his own research/extrapolation. On each occasion, he just> smiled and evaded the question. I told him that it is important to me> and perhaps others to know which knowledge is from parampara and which> knowledge is his own research and requested that he should clarify when> teaching new things.> > > > From his reaction, my subjective judgment was that he was mixing up the> two, though some people may be assuming that anything from him not> explicitly identified as research is from parampara. As a seeker of> knowledge who has a good level of belief in the knowledge coming from> Sri Achyutananda, this ambivalence from Sanjay ji made things> particularly challenging for me." (The underline is from me.)> > > > I have a similar problem with you. I have asked you a question> –several times now- to identify the scriptural basis of a Mantra> which you teach publicly to your students. Mantras are at least as> serious an issue (if not more) than a Sanskrit Shloka of Parasara. Since> you have consistently evaded the answer to my question,I am forced to > come to the following conclusion-either:> > 1. You cannot identify the scriptural source of the Mantra which you> teach.> > 2. This mantra was given to you in a "parampara" or (worse)> > 3. You have made up a mantra to suit your purpose.> > 4. You mix up the source of an authentic Mantra, with personal> revelation/research or "parampara".> > 5. The Mantra which you have taught to your students is falsified.> > (I reckon ALL of the above)> > > > It is always advisable to adhere and follow consistently to the> principles of what one preaches (see above)> > Please feel free to challenge me (shotgun approach)to quote the> "chapter and verse"-in the original, to support my argument.> > It is one thing to accuse someone ( a brilliant authority on these> subjects-Pt.S.Rath!)of mixing up Rishi's words,parampara,personal> research etc ,carelessly, and then failing to apply the same standards> to oneself.> > I have another name for this:> > Hypocrisy.> > > > As I said before: it IS the Principle.> > > > > > With deep respect to all:> > > > > > AJ> > > > P.S. Moreover,it is my personal belief, that if we add up all the> "Jyotish" knowledge of all the members on this list, (and I include you> and me here as well)> > we may not amount to more than- let's say- 5% of what Pt.Sanjay Rath> knows.Just to keep things in perspective.> > > sohamsa , "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" <pvr@> wrote:> >> > Namaste Sundeep and others,> >> > > Or if they were,> > > were they just deluding themselves? Were they simply predicting> > > correctly because of their spiritual strength? If so, we might as> > > well all give up astrology, and throw some tea leaves up in the air> > > and predict using spiritual strength, no?> >> > Let us take a step back. Some of the SJC gurus and some other people> at SJC were once using 7 chara karakas and arudha padas as taught by Sri> KN Rao. Some of them were happy and found them working. When they came> to SJC, they switched and found things working better. The bottomline is> that their knowledge was incomplete before, but contained some useful> stuff nevertheless.> >> > I am pretty sure there are a lot of mistakes in our understanding even> now. The bottomline is that our knowledge is incomplete now, but> contains some useful stuff nevertheless.> >> > One more thing: Not all knowledge is equally critical in our practical> predictions.> >> > Suppose I predict someone's marriage or promotion. Whether I see D-9> or D-10 for marriage is critical. Whether I see D-10 or D-12 for> promotion is critical. Whether I use TA dasa with TP charts or not is> critical. Whether I take the 6th or 7th house for marriage is critical.> >> > But, if I evaluate the argalas on 7th house or UL incorrectly, it may> be masked off in the other things I consider. If I use a wrong planet as> DK or AmK or PK, again it may be masked off in the other things I> consider. After all, we consider multiple factors and make a prediction> when there is an agreement between several factors.> >> > Thus, we use a lot of knowledge and techniques and some of them> critical and some of them are less critical in our predictions. Our> predictions are due to multiple factors and not just one.> >> > Bottomline on the negative side: We have some incorrect knowledge.> Though this may make some uncomfortable, this is the truth.> >> > Bottomline on the positive side: We have a decent body of knowledge> with a good degree of reliability and, when we combine multiple> techniques, we are in a good shape a good percentage of times! The same> is true with others outside our parampara also (like Sri KN Rao's> followers), though the degree of correctness may be different with> different techniques used by them.> >> > > And relatedly, note that all this suddenly puts a lot of parampara> > > knowledge in question. An average person like me treats parampara> > > knowledge with respect because one naturally assumes that this> > > knowledge has been tested over the generations.> >> > Apart from knowledge in a parampara getting corrupted in time, there> is another issue - knowledge not from a parampara may be misunderstood> to be from a parampara.> >> > I subjectively found a lot of difference between some of Sanjay ji's> initial teachings like Tithi Pravesha and Narayana dasa and some of his> later teachings. The initial teachings were simple, logical and> beautiful, but I was not convinced by several teachings later on. I had> a strong suspicion that some of those teachings were Sanjay ji's own> research/extrapolations. It seemed to me like several teachings that> were not identified explicitly as either research or parampara knowledge> may actually be his research.> >> > I did not hide my suspicion from him. I mentioned it privately to him.> On several occasions, I privately requested him to acknowledge whether a> specific teaching was strictly from parampara or his own> research/extrapolation. On each occasion, he just smiled and evaded the> question. I told him that it is important to me and perhaps others to> know which knowledge is from parampara and which knowledge is his own> research and requested that he should clarify when teaching new things.> >> > From his reaction, my subjective judgment was that he was mixing up> the two, though some people may be assuming that anything from him not> explicitly identified as research is from parampara. As a seeker of> knowledge who has a good level of belief in the knowledge coming from> Sri Achyutananda, this ambivalence from Sanjay ji made things> particularly challenging for me.> >> > > replacement (and earlier Drig Dasa calculation), into the trash can,> >> > Regarding drigdasa calculation, Sanjay ji privately told me several> years back that he was taught drigdasa along with so many other dasas in> one afternoon and that he just took very brief notes on so many things> at once. He said there could have beem confusion or mistakes in> drigdasa. Given this uncertainty, it is not impossible that what he> finally taught is different from Achyutananda's teaching.> >> > Parasara's verses on drigdasa were translated the same way by all> translators I saw. And I have not deviated from Santhanam etc. I only> supplemented it with a small rule related to interpretation. Thus, what> I shared on drigdasa calculations is not just my own independent> interpretation, but an interpretation of Santhanam and Sharma too.> >> > 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 , "vedicastrostudent" vedicastrostudent@> wrote:> > >> > > Dear Narasimhaji (and Vistiji),> > > While I cant question Narasimhaji's scholarship, it is clear that> > > these kind of issues question the very root of parampara knowledge> > > if not astrology itself. The silence (from SJC Gurus and Sanjayji)> > > surprises me.> > >> > > In scientific subjects, if a new theory comes up that contradicts> > > an old one, it must either be a generalization of the old theory> > > (e.g. Einstein's theory of relativity (new) is not in contradiction> > > with Newton's theory (old) at speeds far less than the speed of> > > light), or at the very least it must explain why the old theory> > > correctly predicted in some cases, or if the old theory didnt even> > > do that, then why the old theory's observations were wrong (since> > > those wrong observations supported the old theory).> > >> > > In this case, Narasimhaji has simply thrown the entire CK> > > replacement theory into the trash can. Which immediately begs the> > > question: So are Sanjayji's explanations of Alan Leo's and Mahatma> > > Gandhi's charts, in his AK paper, wrong? Narasimhaji, after your new> > > found knowledge, you must either conclude that the events in one's> > > life (i.e. total change of motivation and direction in life, not> > > present in most people's life) that Sanjayji has hitherto explained> > > using AK replacement, do not exist i.e Sanjayji was merely deluding> > > himself, OR that they are explained by some other astrological> > > combination. So far, in the new scheme of things, you havent> > > volunteered any astrological combination that explains ALL and ONLY> > > those events that have so far been explained by Sanjayji as CK> > > replacement. I quote directly from Sanjayji's paper, Section 3.1 -> > > "The carakaraka being replaced gives us an idea of the area of life> > > where a major unheaval is expected to occur while the slot, which is> > > falling vacant, needs the strong support of Lord Siva in the form of> > > a strong sthira karaka so that the concerned relation/aspect of life> > > is not disturbed or destroyed. <some omitted>. The spiritual impact> > > on the person is very strong if the AK, AMK or BK are involved..".> > > Please clarify your position on this.> > >> > > And relatedly, note that all this suddenly puts a lot of parampara> > > knowledge in question. An average person like me treats parampara> > > knowledge with respect because one naturally assumes that this> > > knowledge has been tested over the generations. As an example, how> > > do I build confidence that one day some one wont come up with a key> > > undiscovered precursor verse of Parasara that unambiguously says "In> > > all my remaining verses, when I say Rahu I actually mean Jupiter and> > > when I say Jupiter, I actually mean Rahu", and in doing so trashes> > > all current knowledge. The way I build that confidence is that I see> > > that the current knowledge WORKS IN PRACTICE. Since it WORKS IN> > > PRACTICE, I know that the probability of discovering such a verse is> > > next to nil. And Narasimhaji, now that you have thrown CK> > > replacement (and earlier Drig Dasa calculation), into the trash can,> > > it makes me wonder - Were Sanjay Rathji, his Guru Pt Kasinath> > > Rathji, or his Guru Pt Jagannath Rathji, and their Gurus, were they> > > all using this knowledge previously AT ALL or NOT? Or if they were,> > > were they just deluding themselves? Were they simply predicting> > > correctly because of their spiritual strength? If so, we might as> > > well all give up astrology, and throw some tea leaves up in the air> > > and predict using spiritual strength, no?> > >> > > Regards,> > >> > > Sundeep