To: Narashimha Ji,,,, Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Narashimha Ji Namastay,

I am giving you 2 examples.

 

Please apply your chara-karakas theory (means with or with out taking Ra in consideration in both charts) and predict.Only delineate what type of the persons they could have been.

 

You have written in so much detail about 15 personalities now please take only 2 of mine and tell me your prediction related to Ra as in both case Ra is AK.I know Rath Ji will give correct prediction according to his theory.

 

I want to see your views (Only you have to think about Ra,,means you want to take or not as AK) :-

 

1) May 19,1910 (Thu)

08:29:17

Bombay

 

2) Aug 26,1910 (Fri)14:25:21

Skopje, Yugoslavia

 

Please take Ra in your consideration means if you want to leave then you can leave,,if you want to take then you can take.

 

Regs,

Khanna--- On Fri, 24/10/08, Narasimha Rao <pvr wrote:

Narasimha Rao <pvr Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretationsohamsa Date: Friday, 24 October, 2008, 7:57 PM

 

 

Namaste Sundeep,Excellent questions! I am pleased.The interpretation I shared is based on mulling over possibleinterpretations and evaluating them practically. Luckily, karaka dasawas there and served as a relatively objective test. I came to aconclusion after considering various possibilities and fullysatisfying *myself* that this was the best.* * *1. :-) Even a literal translation would depend on somecontextualization in a language like Sanskrit. Unfortunately, mostSanskrit scholars are not into astrology. Most astrologers out thereare not really Sanskrit scholars.2. Depends on who you are talking about. Jaimini commentator IrangantiRangacharya quotes Vriddha karika and Nilakantha and does take 7karakas in some charts and 8 in some, based on two planets being inthe same degree. Thus, there WERE some people before who consideredRahu conditionally, based on two

planets being in the same degree. Iam not the first one. I deviated from them in other aspects, but theaspect of considering Rahu conditionally based on two planets being inthe same degree was there before. I think that particular verse ofParasara is quite clear.Why some paramparas ignored the verse is unclear to me. However,please realize that a parampara is only as good as its weakest link.People in a parampara can change knowledge or add things to it.3. I don't see it as redundant. If you see it that way and think thatit has some extra meaning, please propose it! :-)4. If you interpret it that way and go towards the theory of Sri KNRao, there is one problem. Parasara's later verse on the absence ofhigher portfolio and judgment using sthira karaka when two planets arein the same degree would be rendered meaningless. I had to balancethat directive with the specific directive regarding

atma karaka.As I said, I considered several possibilities and put them to testwith several charts.5. The word in question means "absence" and the context strengthensthat meaning. Moreover, Parasara says "the results of that portfolioshould be learnt from sthira karaka" and does not qualify that further!6. It was a logical deduction and one that can certainly bequestioned. I considered other possibilities, but this worked betterpractically. This is one thing where I am not 100% sure.7. Though you did not ask, I will add a question: "Did Parasaraspecifically teach about the second cycle in karaka dasa?" Answer isno. As far as the first cycle of karaka dasa is concerned, Parasara'steachings are unambiguous and crystal clear. The second and thirdcycles were a logical deduction of mine. But I am almost 100% surethat I got it correct.* * *As I said, this is based on my

best effort. Is it 100% correct? Idon't know. But I am pretty confident that this is far more correctthan anything else out there. Others may have other views. :-)Best regards,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, "vedicastrostudent"<vedicastrostudent@ ...> wrote:>> Dear Narasimhaji,> Well written article, but it is hard to prematurely jump to the > conclusion that yours is an unambiguous intepretation in totality. > There are points that need to be addressed, and perhaps this is why > parampara interpretations have reigned so far. Here are the points > that I see:> > 1) First, is your literal translation agreed upon by all scholars?> > 2) Then, the translation "Now I am speaking of.... Thus, only seven >

significators [in some] and eight in some are considered" is pretty > unambiguous, i.e. that Rahu should be considered when 2 planets are > at equal degrees. There seems to be no room for any doubt here at > all - which brings up the question for an uninformed observer like > myself - did the parampara interpreters earlier disregard these > statements completely?> > 3) Next, try as I might, the statement: "One with higher degrees > becomes higher karaka, one with less degrees becomes lower karaka, > and one in the middle becomes lower karaka" seems completely > redundant, wouldnt you say? I mean if we accept your interpretation > (not translation, but interpretation) , then the above statement > seems completely redundant, because it is saying exactly the same > thing as the immediately following one, i.e. "By arranging in the > decreasing and decreasing

order of degrees, chara karakas are to be > found". Note that you write "decreasing and decreasing" - do you > mean increasing and decreasing? Why would Parasara throw in a > completely redundant and useless statement i.e. the first one? It > would seem logical to assume that the statement needed to convey > some EXTRA meaning, but it doesnt according to your interpretation - > you seem to give no weight to him distributing karakas in 3 > categories, lower, middle and higher? In fact, by your > interpretation, the distributing into 3 categories seems totally > illogical and unnecessary, then.. I mean I can as easily > artificially create 5 categories by saying "One with extremely high > degrees becomes extremely higher karaka, one with high degrees > become higher karaka, one with middle degrees becomes middle karaka, > one with lower degrees becomes lower karaka,

and one with extremely > low degrees become extremely lower karaka".. As you can see, my > creation is simply meaningless verbiage - there is no meaningful use > of the 5 categories, exactly as there appears to be no meaningful > use of the 3 categories Parasara has created, according to your > interpretation. So net result - in your interpretation, this triple > categorization of Parasara seems to be a useless additional > statement, which consequently brings a certain amount of doubt to > your interpretation.> > 4) Next and very important, the use of "degrees". Your > interpretation is hinged tightly on the word "self" in "Learned men > should not take SELF from only degrees [and use upto seconds]". It > is quite possible he means this in general as well i.e. to always > use seconds when deciding the charakaraka. If so, the entire > interpretation

changes. Now, if you re-read the entire thing keeping > in mind that by degrees, Parasara GENERALLY actually means > degrees+minutes+ seconds (DMS) and not degrees only (DO). Because > then Rahu would come in when two planets have the same DMS only (a > very rare occurrence)! ! So this would lend a lot of credibility to > KN Rao's thesis, that we should use 7 karakas. All I'm saying is: > it is hard to accept your interpretation as totally unambiguous. > > 5) You have clearly interpreted one line as "If two planets are > equal in degrees in one's birth chart, O excellent brahmin, the > absence of higher significator only is to be learnt". Again, the > devil is in the details. Is it unambiguously "absence" or might it > be "disappearance" ? The difference being: Disappearance, as you know > implies something was present and THEN disappeared, whereas absence

> means "never present". Does the Sanskrit word actually imply > absence, and NOT disappearance? Because the entire CK replacement > theory hinges on that minor detail.> > 6) I am missing the part where he says when two grahas have a > conflict, who takes the lower karakatwa? Ok, the higher karakatwa > gets absent, but why does the highest DMS planet take the lower > karakatwa? I assume this is a logical deduction, motivated solely by > the need to be able to complete the karaka assignment?> > Sorry for the pointed questioning, but in general I would love to > see some deeper discussion before simply throwing everything out of > the back door.. Would love to see what other Gurus, especially > Sanjayji, have to say..> > Regards,> > Sundeep

Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now.