Jaimini on Chara Karakas -- To Sri Sanjay

November 6, 2008

Om Namah Sivaya

Namste Sri Sanjay,

I am writing my replies to the points raised by you at appropriate

places.

Seeking your Blessings,

Shanmukha

>>>Sanjay :Views and scholarly

Shanmukha : I admit that my views are neither scholarly and nor I

wish they do. I wanted to put forth only my humble views since I am

neither Sanskrit scholar nor Jyotisha.

>>>Sanjay :The present version of the BPHS is written in modern

Sanskrit after broken and piecemeal verses were obtained through

painstaking effort by Sri Jha. The language does not match that of

Parasara in the Rik Veda and scholars, if they actually use the

language for dating, will surely find Parasara to be a more recent

work as compared to Jaimini. Point is that the Sanskrit versus were

finalised y Sri Jha and these are really the closest he could

get...and we thank him for this great service to mankind. In view of

this, it is impossible to date BPHS based on the present available

Sanskrit verses in print. Dating can only be done based on other

works like Vishnu Purana (Maitreya and Parasara discussion just as in

BPHS).

>>>Shanmukha : Well, You admit that BPHS was written in modern

Sanskrit by Sri Jha ( I presume it is Sitaram Jha). Thank you very

much for the information. All these days I was in an impression that

somebody might have written this modern BPHS. Yes, indeed, we must

thank him for his great scholarly service. You said, ¡§These are

really the closest he could get¡K.¡¨. Could you kindly explain to the

benefit of readers as to closest to what? To the piecemeal

manuscripts of Parasara Hora. But, to the best of my knowledge,

Vriddha Karika slokas are never adulterated and they are available in

perfect form in works like Jaimini Padyamritam, I believe.

I think you know some scholars do consider Vyasa is not one single

man. They consider Krishna Dwaipayana is the Vyasa who wrote Maha

Bharata. But the work of dividing Vedas has done by a no. of Vyayas.

In fact they consider Vyasa is like a Peethadhipati. This is the view

of a scholar I came across. But, others can trash it. The point is

dating of Parasara Hora by just looking at the mere discussion in

Guru ¡V Sishya style in comparison with Vsishnu Purana, doen¡¦t look

sound. But considering Parasara as the great seer who compiled the

all-astrological principles is more logical to me, and all his

principles works well. Since you are a Guru, I can¡¦t talk more on

this issue.

>>>Sanjay : You can consider to share at least what he told you about

CK if it is different from his book. Is it an extension or is it

grossly different? I would wonder why he would do such a thing ¡V give

something in print and teach another thing unless it is a more

detailed extension of what is in the book. Given the scholarly

approach of Sri Rangacharya, it is unlikely the deviation would be a

gross violation of his own teachings unless he has very sound reasons

to do so. Kindly elucidate this.

>>>Shanmukha : I am very sorry if I seem to be saying that Sri

Rangacharya contradicts himself. Why I didn¡¦t share the teaching of

his is, for the fact that has not clearly understood/ convinced by

me. So, I refrained myself from stating that for the very reason that

it would amounts to putting my words into his mouth. Such, a half-

baked knowledge of mine will definitely corrupt the essence of the

discussion.

I request all not to make this an issue and I sincerely apologize for

creating an impression that way. I am withdrawing those sentences. I

would try my best to get the opinion of Sri Rangacharya regarding

this issue. I wish learned members can understand how much an

engineer like me without any traditional parampara knowledge of

Astrology could understand with a couple (literally two) meetings

with Sri Rangacharya. In fact I recommend readers to study his book

Jaimini Sutramritam at least ten times to understand what he really

mean, that too only the Sanskrit commentary.

>>>Sanjay :That is one view. Another view is that * if Rahu becomes

the chara AK, it can give the consciousness necessary to be always

aware of this bandhana and this awareness, or constant alertness

about the bandhana leads to the spiritual realisation of moksha*.

Then also there are thoughts about houses to see for this bandhana

and moksha, which is really a deeper understanding of argala.

>>>Shanmukha : This is again a view. Personally I also admit the

above view also logical.

>>>Sanjay :Thank you for admitting that Pitri Karaka was mentioned in

one of the manuscripts you saw.

>>>Shanmukha : You are welcome.

>>>Sanjay : Sri Rangacharya¡¦s book is extremely good and is strongly

recommended.

>>>Shanmukha : Thank you very much. It is indeed your scholarly

gesture.

>>>Sanjay : Sruti and Smriti: I am a bit confused about what you are

referring to as Sruti out here. Purana, Itihasa etc are the Smriti

and the Vedas are the Sruti. So where does Sruti and smriti

comparison come into the picture? Although most people follow the

Vriddha karika *blindly*, I always try to teach with the underlying

principle. Now you agree that the 8th house principle is not from

thin air or some meditation process but by definite mathematical

derivation. If I had not shown this, everyone would have continued to

believe tat this came from simple meditation and special sadhana...

>>>Shanmukha : Yes, Vedas are the Sruti, and Purana, Ithihasas are

Smruti. The point I want to make clear is that Vriddha karikas must

be given preference to any commentary as Sruti is given preference to

all.

Yes, I follow Vriddha Karikas blindly. I may not understand the

underlying principle behind those karikas as I am really a beginner.

But, I have full faith in them. Could you show one instance where

any scholar or commentator ever proved / tried to prove Vriddha

Karikas wrong. I would be very happy to learn and correct myself. As

far as I know they could stand up the test of time and scholars like

Sri Rangacharya, Sri Sanjay Rath and Sri Narasimha prove from time to

time that they work well, though they take different routes but

ultimately everything is there in Vriddhas. Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha

Vadanthi.

Kindly refer to your sentence itself elsewhere in your mail

¡§I agree that the Vriddhas method of including Rahu when two planets

are in the same degree works well (...but this is logically possible

for 7 CK scheme only).

In fact, Sri Rangacharya proved how Sammukha sign for dual sign is

different from what is given by Neelakantha. He took the verses from

vriddha karaka itself, to prove how Neelakantha was wrong.

Meditation and Sadhana is very important to correctly decipher the

real meaning of any sasthra.

>>>Sanjay : Krishna Mishra uses Lagnamsaka dasa as Ayur dasha...so

many people even use Vimsottari dasa as Ayur dasha for timing various

death events. Are they all wrong? Do you use Vimshottari for timing

death? Point is do not restrict if you have a reason and logic to

believe that it is not restrictive. What about Pada-nathamsha dasha?

There are many opinions out there also. Are the words of Tajik

Nilakantha and a few others to be taken blindly or are they to be

tested against available literature of the Rishi¡¦s? I follow the path

of testing everything before using it. You are welcome to what you

think is right.

>>>Shanmukha : As I said earlier I am beginner and I am not trying to

hide out stating this. I can¡¦t comment on all the astrological

pointers, I was clearly mentioning only about Jaimini pointers. I

wrote elsewhere in the same mail that one should resolve with

scientific approach and practical examples.

I know one scholar brought out a book on Mandooka dasa as advocated

by K.N.Rao and used it as phalita dasa. Well, She is not a layman,

she was well educated, from traditional family and could win gold

medal in ICAS exam at age of 60+ years. So the bottom line is that

Astrologers could see every thing with each dasa. I very sorry if I

hurt any body.

Since you mentioned about Pada nadhamsa dasa, I wish to mention that

Krishna Mishra himself didn¡¦t resolve it. Yes, every astrological

principle must be tested. But against what? You say that against

literature of Rishis. You treat available literature of Rishis as the

reference, I take Vriddha karikas are the reference to the Jaimini

Astrology. I know this is subjective.

I too follow the test of everything except the literature of Rishis.

In fact I have been working on Chara Dasa given by Rahava Bhatta and

Nrisimha Suri in their commentaries and find it works wonderfully for

timing events like marriage.

>>>Sanjay : Rashi Dristi, Padas! For heaven¡¦s sake please read BPHS

in its available version befpre commenting on Padas, Rashi Drishti

etc. I do not argue on this as many published books are readily

available.

>>>Shanmukha : I am very sorry for using a Telugu slang. The

word ¡§Parasari¡¨, I wrote, is not a TYPO, but is a slang in Telugu

which means „³ ¡§belongs to Parasara system¡¨.

Well, when the author of present modern available BPHS itself is

debated, I find reading wonderful Jaimini Sutras to learn principles

like Rasi drishti, Padas etc is the best option. My point here is why

classical literature like Jataka Parijata, Phala Deepika etc. never

dealt these principles. Do you think they don¡¦t have the Parasara

Hora available to them, or they considered worth not taking those

principles?

Then, why don¡¦t anybody out here openly discuss/ disclose those

relevant karikas and those verses from those commentators who

practiced only Rasi drishtis, Rasi dasas etc. Instead , I find some

learned scholars always refer to Parampara instead of quoting the

Karikas and commentaries. I never find you (sanjay) doing so. Does

anybody here consider it is not worth discussing those commentaries?

Most of the scholars who write those wonderful expositions of Jaimini

principles ever tried to learn what Raghava Bhatta, Nrisimha Suri

etc. have to say about these systems. I admit that a lot of knowledge

is available in traditional paramapars and also with native

astrologers living in small remote villages. I know very well that

you are great Jyotisha, and studied all those karikas and

commentaries. But, how many others here did that. I also admit that

you are probably, the first person to openly share that Paramapara

knowledge. Thank you very much.

>>>Sanjay : BPHS as Vriddha Karika! No BPHS cannot be taken as a

Vriddha Karika. If you say it can be, then you have to give some

solid reasons for the deviation.

>>>Shanmukha : I am generally telling that BPHS can be considered as

Vriddha Karika keeping view that whatever has been said in BPHS

regarding the issue can be considered. If you feel the other way, you

are welcome.

>>>Sanjay : Now on the CK¡¦s: If Jaimini does not take MK and PuK as

one then you should have Eight CK not seven...I am missing your logic.

>>>Shanmukha : The relevant Jaimini Sutra reads as " Atmadhika

Kaladirnabhoga Saptanaam Asthanam Va " . It means Sage is saying that

the planet which has more degrees out of 7 or 8 planets is Atma

Karaka. Well, if one thinks that Jaimini asking us to consider the

planet having more degrees out of 7 or 8 Karakas, doesn't hold good.

Since, in the ensuing sutras he speaks about each every karaka by

name, it is not necessary that sage telling the no. of chara karakas

to be considered. If one thinks that Sage indeed did that, then it is

dishonoring brevity the Sage follows. Jaimini never wastes even a

letter; forget about a word, in his cryptic upadesa sutras. Each and

every word the great Sage speaks of has a very specific purpose and

distinct meaning. This is my humble view.

Well, my Logic here is

The planet having most Degrees out of 7 or 8 planets is Atma karaka.

This is my understanding and if you feel this is not scholarly, I

seek your blessings. I am not a Sanskrit scholar. The Sage doesn¡¦t

tell more than that. Then we must see whether vriddha karika has

anything to say. Fortunately, Vriddha karika tells the application of

this sutra.

It can be deduced the other way if we don¡¦t consider the vriddhas,

which doesn¡¦t amuse anybody here. If you go by literal menaing of the

above sutra, we find the following

Bhaga „³ Degrees Kala „³ Minutes, Vikala „³ Seconds. So, Atma

karaka is the planet, which is having more minutes. Now, the other

way of interpretation which sounds logical. If you look at the word

Kalaadi, we can deduce that Atma karaka is the planet, which has more

DMS (Degrees, Minutes, Seconds etc.). Then this entire problem gets

solved.

So as you said we shall continuously test the principles with

practical examples.

>>>Sanjay : Would like me to refer to some dictums about Rajayoga

coming from the combinations of AK and Putra karaka? What happens to

Putra Karaka?

>>>Shanmukha : Putra Karaka is very much there in the 7 CK scheme.

The karaka missing is Pitri Karaka. So the raja yoga from the

combination of AK and PK are valid in this scheme also.

>>>Sanjay : What is the reason (grateful for any references) for

taking different rules for karakas being in same degrees...you have

given different rules for AK + AmK, then different for others...what

is the reference or reason for doing this?

>>>Shanmukha : The reason is very fact that we don¡¦t find sthira

karaka for AK and AmK. I have given the reference there in the mail

itself, vide the Vriddha Karaika sloka. It clearly mentions that Swa

Karaka (Atma Karaka) never gets omitted in Antya Karaka Lopa Scheme.

So, there no question of Chara Karaka Parivartana ( or replacement)

either by Sthira Karaka or any other Karaka. So, it seems Sri

Rangacharya took Naisargika bala planet out of AK and AmK as Atma

Karaka when AK and AmK are at same degree.

>>>Sanjay : I agree that the Vriddhas method of including Rahu when

two planets are in the same degree works well (...but this is

logically possible for 7 CK scheme only).

>>>Shanmukha : Thank you very much for stating the fact.

November 9, 2008

Namaste Shanmukha

I will be precise and to the point –

The topic was

about dating Parasara as in BPHS. I think you have deviated and mixed with

Vriddhas here.

There is a

different Vyasa for each Yuga and for the present Sri Krishna Dwaipaayana

is the Vyasa. Even Parashara was a Vyasa for a previous Yuga. So to that

extent the statement you make is right but here we are only talking of

Krishna Dwaipayana when we talk of Vyaasa. The Brahma Tejas of Krishna

Dwaipaayana Vyasa and the Kshatra tejas of Ganga putra Bheeshma

re-established the Vedas in the beginning of the Yuga when the sabha was

established and under the explicit directions of Vyasa the Vedas were

written. Here Jaimini was in charge of the Sama Veda and is a sishya of

Vyasa Sri Krishna Dwaipayana. The author of the Jaimini Upadesa Sutras and

the recorder of the Sama Veda are one and the same, for it is His

authority as the sishya of Vyasa to give them. As to when this was finally

written down is another issue.

That point

about Sri Rangacharya where he proved Nilakantha wrong...thats why I call

him brilliant. I have read every article of Sri Rangacharya and every book

of his. I hope to meet with him sometime and pay my respects.

Thank you for sharing and being clear about why you are not

willing to share everything as you are not clear about what he said.

Best wishes and blessings of Sri Jagannatha that you may find

the real light of Jyotish,

Sanjay Rath

sohamsa

[sohamsa ] On Behalf Of Shanmukha

06 November 2008 22:19

sohamsa

Re: Jaimini on Chara Karakas --> To Sri Sanjay