Tara mantra (Parampara Knowledge)

[Guest guest]

Hare Rama Krishna,

Dear Narasimha, Namaste:

 

Briefly:

1 In The (Hindu and not Buddhist) Tantrarajatantra, Her mantra is given as Om Tare Tuttare Ture Svaha .

2.In the 6th Century Sanskrit Praises of Tara (used for total Nakshatra shanti, as it has 108 lines , perfectly symmetrical arrrangement for the 4 padas of each Nakshatra), the Words: Om TARE TUTTARE TURE IS SPELLED OUT CLEARLY.

3. The recently uncovered (unerathed- literally ) stone slab in Bihar contains Tara's mantra CARVED IN STONE!!!)- as OM TARE TUTTARE TURE SVAHA.(9th Century)

4. Consider the short praises of Tara (6th centrury)

Namas Tare Ture Vire,

Tuttare Bhaya Nashane,

Ture Sarvarthadatare,

Svaha Kare Namo Stute.

 

Before making up or revising Mantras, please check your sanskrit sources carefully.

If you or anyone is interested, I will be happy to supply the original documents.

Sincerely yours:

With deep respect to all:

AJ

 

sohamsa , "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" <pvr wrote:>> Namaste,> > Someone I respect who was doing Tara sadhana asked me about this mantra many years back. He quoted a mantra called "om taare tuttare ture sohaa" from apparently some Buddhist texts. He tried it for while and strongly suspected that it was wrong. He thought it was originally a Sanskrit mantra and practice of this mantra for many generations by people not knowing Sanskrit resulted in a corruption in time. He sought my help and asked me to guess what the original Sanskrit version could be. He wanted to do sadhana using the original Sanskrit version guessed by me.> > Obviously, the text I gave above has no meaning in Sanskrit.> > I *guessed* that tuttare may originally have been dustare. The word "dustaraa" means unconquerable or invincible. The word ture does have a meaning, but I guessed that it was probably turye after the previous word. The word "turyaa" means the supreme power beyond all states of existence. The word sohaa must of course be swaahaa. Thus, I guessed that the original Sanskrit version may have been "om taare dustare turye svaahaa" and gave it to that gentleman. This was simply my speculation at the request of that gentleman.> > * * *> > After making this correction as requested by that gentleman, it remained in my mind. But I did not ask anyone to chant that mantra.> > When I was teaching in my class how to count letters and words in mantras and see devata sthana, I used several examples. I even used things like "god is great" as mantras. Basically, any pattern of sounds repeated in the mind over a time has an effect and I was demonstrating some technicalities related to that. So any combination of sounds can be used as an example. As one of the examples, I used this guessed Sanskrit version of Tara mantra that was stuck in my mind.> > Best regards,> Narasimha> > Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam> Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana> Spirituality: > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net> Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org> Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org> > > sohamsa , "Arpad Joo" panchasila@ wrote:> >> > > > Hare Rama Krishna,> > > > Namaste Mr. Narasimha:> > > > I realise that you cannot answer every mail, due to your workload. I> > - and I am sure I speak for everyone here- appreciate this. We are> > ALL busy.I am also glad that you usually identify your sources. This is> > a good and laudable practice.> > > > As you have written in your post:> > > > "If I made any lapse, please bring it to attention and I will be> > very happy to correct myself."> > > > So ,here it is:> > > > Just very simply- under what authority have you changed the venerable> > and ancient Tara Mantra: "OM TARE TUTTARE TURE SVAHA, "into Om> > Tare Dustarye Turye Svaha- or something like that....> > > > Since this mangled form has been published on your website (maintained> > by your students), may I take the opportunity to ask you to identify> > your scriptural source for this...that is -if you have any.> > > > I have asked the same question now several times, over a period of some> > months now.> > > > I await your answer....> > > > Thank you Sir> > > > With deep respect to all> > > > sohamsa , "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" <pvr@> wrote:> > >> > > 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,> > > 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 , "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>

[Guest guest]

Jaya JagannathaDear Arpad,NamasteThe Shaiva tantra book was written by Arthur Avalon (John Woodroffe). We should be able to get a copy of this from the SYDA foundation website http://www.muktabodha.org/ Swami Shantananda is one of the faculty member with whom I have had the grace to meet in August this year at the special satsang in London.The Tantraraajatantra texts:http://www.muktabodhalib.org/SECURE/SHAIVA%20PUBLISHED%20TEXTS/TANTRARAJATANTRA/tantrarajatantraHK.txt(The text is in Harvard -Tokyo style) the search for "namas" has brought the following:Text by: subhagÄnandanÄthatantrarÄjatantra : (line: 672 ): namaste nÄtha ! bhagavan ! Å›ivÄya Å›ivarÅ«piṇe | tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 684 ): purastÄtpÄrÅ›vayoḥ pṛṣṭhe namaskuryÄduparyadhaḥ | tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 783 ):  tÄnme ityÄdyairnamasÄsthitirityantaiḥ pañcabhiḥ Å›lokaiḥ tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 799 ): śaktitantrÄdbahirbhÅ«tatantreá¹£u namasÄ sthitiḥ || 16 || tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 2456 ): saptamyÄ'vÄhanaṃ kuryÄnnamasoktatrikhaṇá¸ayÄ || 11 || tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 2480 ): namasÄ yuktayeti Å›eá¹£aḥ namaḥśabdÄntayetyarthaḥ | uktatrikhaṇá¸ayÄ tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 2655 ): sannidhÄpanasaṃjñaṃ ca hetimudrÄ namaskriyÄ || 30 || tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 2729 ): tarjanyau á¹›jusaṃśliṣṭe mudraiá¹£oktÄ namaská¹›tau || 40 || tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 2742 ):  khecaryÄ ityÄdinÄ Å›lokena namaskÄramudrÄviracanakramamupadiÅ›ati tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 2743 ): | tatra namaská¹›tirnÄma vandanÄ«yasyÄá¹…gatvena tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 2746 ): sthÄpana namaskÄrÄntÄnÄṃ pañcÄnÄṃ mudrÄṇÄṃ pradarÅ›anaṃ tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 3239 ): tÄmbÅ«lamarcanÄstotraṃ tarpaṇaṃ ca namaskriyÄm || 3 || tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 3262 ):  pÄdyetyÄdinÄ namaskriyÄmityantenÄrdhÄdyena Å›lokena tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 3266 ): nivedanamuktam | namaskriyÄṃ mudrÄsamayaproktamadrÄḥ | evaṃ tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 3572 ): samarcayedityarthaḥ | bÄ«janamasormadhyasthairnÄmabhiryutam | proktÄnÄṃ tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 4100 ): gandhapuá¹£padhÅ«padÄ«panaivedyanamaskÄraiḥ tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 4124 ): namaskÄraiḥ pañcabhirupacÄraiḥ samabhyarcya kvacitsaparyÄsthÄne tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 8488 ): japtvÄ hutvÄ namaská¹›tya svÄtmanyudvÄsayettathÄ | tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 15377 ): lalitÄyÄ aá¹…gabhÅ«tÄmuparitanapaá¹­alavaká¹£yamÄṇavidhÄnamasyÄḥ tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 18241 ): naká¹£atreÅ›aÅ›ca á¹£aá¸vidhÄḥ | teá¹£Äṃ dinanityÄsamarcanamasmin paá¹­ale tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 20485 ): savÄrÄhÄ«kurukullÄnÄṃ tattatpÅ«jÄcakre svapurasthÄpanamasmÄbhiḥ tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 25988 ): ślokairvajraliá¹…gÄbhidhÄnayantranirmÄṇavidhÄnamasmin tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 26893 ): praṇavaṃ namasÄ yuktaṃ tathÄ bhagavatÄ«ti ca | tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 26909 ): saptadaÅ›Äká¹£aravidyÄmupadiÅ›ati | tatra namasÄ namaḥ padena tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 26962 ): praṇavaṃ tripuá¹­ÄntyÄrṇaṃ namasÄ caturaká¹£arÄ« | tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 26981 ): dvitÄ«yÄká¹£aramityarthaḥ | namasÄ nama ityaká¹£aradvayena tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 27185 ): vijayÄnityÄyÄ dhyÄnamasyÄ api dhyÄnamiti yÄvat | vijayÄdÄ«tyatrÄdiÅ›abdo tantrarÄjatantra : (line: 29316 ): pradaká¹£iṇanamaskÄrÄdiviá¹£ayaḥ | guroḥ Which chapter and sloka is the reference for the mantra? As you can see, it is not clearly spelt out here according to your ref.love,SweeOn 4 Nov 2008, at 10:37, Arpad Joo wrote:Hare Rama Krishna,Dear Narasimha, Namaste: Briefly:1 In The (Hindu and not Buddhist) Tantrarajatantra,  Her mantra is given as Om Tare Tuttare Ture Svaha .2.In the 6th Century Sanskrit Praises of Tara (used for total Nakshatra shanti, as it has 108 lines , perfectly symmetrical arrrangement for the 4 padas of each Nakshatra), the Words: Om TARE TUTTARE TURE IS SPELLED OUT CLEARLY.3. The recently uncovered (unerathed- literally ) stone slab in Bihar contains Tara's mantra CARVED IN STONE!!!)-  as OM TARE TUTTARE TURE SVAHA.(9th Century)4. Consider the short praises of Tara (6th centrury)Namas Tare Ture Vire,Tuttare Bhaya Nashane,Ture Sarvarthadatare,Svaha Kare Namo Stute. Before making up or revising Mantras, please check your sanskrit sources carefully.If you or anyone is interested, I will be happy to supply the original documents.Sincerely yours:With deep respect to all:AJ sohamsa , "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" <pvr wrote:>> Namaste,> > Someone I respect who was doing Tara sadhana asked me about this mantra many years back. He quoted a mantra called "om taare tuttare ture sohaa" from apparently some Buddhist texts. He tried it for while and strongly suspected that it was wrong. He thought it was originally a Sanskrit mantra and practice of this mantra for many generations by people not knowing Sanskrit resulted in a corruption in time. He sought my help and asked me to guess what the original Sanskrit version could be. He wanted to do sadhana using the original Sanskrit version guessed by me.> > Obviously, the text I gave above has no meaning in Sanskrit.> > I *guessed* that tuttare may originally have been dustare. The word "dustaraa" means unconquerable or invincible. The word ture does have a meaning, but I guessed that it was probably turye after the p revious word. The word "turyaa" means the supreme power beyond all states of existence. The word sohaa must of course be swaahaa. Thus, I guessed that the original Sanskrit version may have been "om taare dustare turye svaahaa" and gave it to that gentleman. This was simply my speculation at the request of that gentleman.> > * * *> > After making this correction as requested by that gentleman, it remained in my mind. But I did not ask anyone to chant that mantra.> > When I was teaching in my class how to count letters and words in mantras and see devata sthana, I used several examples. I even used things like "god is great" as mantras. Basically, any pattern of sounds repeated in the mind over a time has an effect and I was demonstrating some technicalities related to that. So any combination of sounds can be used as an example. As one of the examples, I used this guessed Sanskrit version of Tara mantra that was stuck in my mind. & gt; > Best regards,> Narasimha> > Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam> Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana> Spirituality: > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net> Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org> Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org>  > > sohamsa , "Arpad Joo" panchasila@ wrote:> >> > > > Hare Rama Krishna,> > > > Namaste Mr. Narasimha:> > > > I realise that you cannot answer every mail, due to your workload. I> > - and I am sure I speak for everyone here- appreciate this. We are> > ALL busy.I am also glad that you usually identify your sources. This is> > a good and laudable practice.> > > > As you have written in your post:> > > > "If I made any lapse, please bring it to attention and I will be> > very happy to correct myself."> > > > So ,here it is:> > > > Just very simply- under what authority have you changed the venerable> > and ancient Tara Mantra: "OM TARE TUTTARE TURE SVAHA, "into Om> > Tare Dustarye Turye Svaha- or something like that....> > > > Since this mangled form has been published on your website (maintained> > by your students), may I take the opportunity to ask you to identify> > your scriptural source for this...that is -if you have any.> > > > I have asked the same question now several times, over a period of some> > months now.> ; > > > I await your answer....> > > > Thank you Sir> > > > With deep respect to all> > > > sohamsa , "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" <pvr@> wrote:> > >> > > 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 < BR>> > 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,> > > 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 , "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, h e > > 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 h ere 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.> > > > > & g t; > > > > 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> > & gt; > 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 so m e 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. T hus,> > 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 h i s 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, Sect i on 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>