An Independent Interpretation [Michal]

October 25, 2008

Hi Michal,In your analysis of actors and actresses, did you find any correlation between Moon and acting, either as Amk or in relation to D10?Its just that I have seen a number of charts where Moon and or Venus are specifically related to the performing arts in people's chart. Also an aspect of Saturn to Moon and Venus is involved in some artists charts as well.Its also curious, my partner is a successful musician, not a singer but writes his own songs, is a guitarist and has his own band, and I have Moon in Aquarius in my 7th House in Navamsa, which of course describes my partner and his abilities.regards,ND--- On Fri, 10/24/08, Michal Dziwulski <nearmichal wrote:Michal Dziwulski

<nearmichalRe: Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretationsohamsa Received: Friday, October 24, 2008, 10:03 PM

Hare Rama Krsna ||Dear Anna,Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. It was just the way you mentioned Amk that caught my attention. Perhaps I can use another example to explain myself better. In my database I have a folder for actors and actresses from Ben Afleck to Bruce Willis, from Paatricia Arquette to Sigorney Weaver. They all share a common focus as far as their careers are concerned - acting. However the AmK in all of these charts is not Mercury, but any one of the 8 possible grahas.I tend to disagree with your statement about the 'optimal' conditions for learning, and am reminded of a quote by Vivekananda - “Comfort” is no test of truth; on the contrary, truth is often far from being “comfortable.”Respectfully,Michal (not

Michael:)108ar <bona_mente >sohamsa@ .comSaturday, October 25, 2008 1:32:29 PMRe: Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation

You didn't get my point,

dear Michael

- it's not Ju Amk I spoke about specifically, it was just a metaphor for 'misfit',

Let me use this opportunity to say that I honestly believe

that exchange of views, knowledge, opinions /in respectful environment/ can only advance Jyotish cause-

can be and should be free of ego-political- brand- loyalty-hurt feelings-dominance- submissiveness- gains-uses- abuses...... list goes on and on....-issues-

only than it is optimally beneficial to all. /as much as you, individually, can grasp, that is/

Best wishes,

Anna--- On Fri, 10/24/08, Michal Dziwulski <nearmichal > wrote:

Michal Dziwulski <nearmichal >Re: Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretationsohamsa@ .comFriday, October 24, 2008, 7:07 PM

Hare Rama Krsna ||Dear Anna,Regarding the following:If you get construction worker and Ju AmK you would be suspicious, wouldn't you?There are some huge buildings that they construct where there are hundreds of construction workers involved. Do you think it is possible for not one of them to have Jupiter as AmK? Even statistically this is unlikely.Amatyakaraka does not necessarily show the environment we work in. For this you must see D10.Respectfully,Michal

108ar <bona_mente >sohamsa@ .comSaturday, October 25, 2008 11:33:27 AMRe: Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretation

Dear Narasimha and Sundeep,

Thank you for spelling out these clarifications- I settled down for less, though - trusting that if any portfolio results are to be judged based on shtira karaka- and that seems to be clear instruction/ Parashara- than Nararisimha' s interpretation on that higher-lower lever p., i.e. practical implementation of Parashara's 'instruction' , DOES FILL that 'void'.

As I've written to some listers who asked me for the reasons why I accept this, although Narasimha didn't mention in the article what part was his interpretation, it is clear that just /clear/ direction is coming from Parashara. I've considered this from many angles, Narasimha's doesn't

violate this /precious/ direction in any way. It may not be the best interpretation, thanks Narasimha for mentioning that, but as 'working hypothesis' is seems still closer to the 'source' than others I've experimented with so far. CKDasa seems to work nicely, in dozen of charts I tested it on so far.

In my own chart, this interpretation resolves one major issue that's been bothering me for long time- Saturn and Me are at the same degree, Sa more advanced in minutes, becomes AmK- with all overstretching, Ju, Me, Ve aspects, 'additional' influences etc...Sa as my AmK was unacceptable and had nothing to do with my real-life profession, so I set it aside for a long time, as some 'idiosyncrasy' - Neither was Me as BK! Now I have ME as STIRA k. holding higher portfolio of AmK, and SA as BK. That fits- totally.

If you get construction worker and Ju AmK you would be suspicious, wouldn't you?- so was I. If Narasimha or whoever makes this interpretation more polished,

I'd go for it. But I feel this one is fundamentally correct. Intuitively as well.

2)-What I have set aside here is CLEAR 'middle' karaka

interpretation, lack of it. /Is that addressing well known decreasing ck order, or smth else.../

3/-I wasn't aware of 'second cycle' issue before, must admit. I assumed that would be just reasonable assumption?

4/ Forgive me if I complicate this with Rahu- i somehow feel that 7 or 8 ck's must have some deeper meaning in defining individual differences- not god or bad, as Narasimha said in response to my 'confusing' q. before. But,

Is there something different btw 2 indivuduals, one having 7 cks, another having Rahu experience introduced in such a MAJOR way /as Chara karaka/. I'd say must be.

I am not quite sure I've explained this Q clearly, hope you'll understand.

Looking forward to hearing more on this,

Yours,

Anna

--- On Fri, 1 0/24/08, Narasimha Rao <pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net> wrote:

Narasimha Rao <pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net> Re: Parasara on Chara Karakas: An Independent Interpretationsohamsa@ .comFriday, October 24, 2008, 3:57 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

Now with a new friend-happy design! Try the new Canada Messenger