niryana shoola dasa calculation-help required

[Guest guest]

Hi

 

Since my comp is down at home, can anybody calculate niryana shoola dasa for me and send it back in text format(i dont have jhora).

 

Details

15 december 1976

Time: 8 27:06

Place: New Delhi

 

regards

partha

 

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Shanmukha <teli_sha2002 wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Om Namah SivayaNamaste Sri Sanjay,Thank you very much for clarifying about Vyasa. Regarding Sri Rangacharya --> I know his home address and I would be very much glad, if anything I could do in that regard.

Seeking your Blessings,warm regards,Shanmukha sohamsa , " Sanjay Rath " <sjrath wrote:>> Namaste Shanmukha> > I will be precise and to the point –

> > 1. The topic was about dating Parasara as in BPHS. I think you

have> deviated and mixed with Vriddhas here.> 2. 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.> 3. 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

> > > > 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.>

[Guest guest]

hello parthchk if this serve your purpose..Niryana Shoola Dasa (death): Vi MD: 2007-12-16 (7:07:38) - 2016-12-15 (14:34:50) Antardasas in this MD: Sg: 2007-12-16 (7:07:38) - 2008-09-16 (10:45:32)

Cp: 2008-09-16 (10:45:32) - 2009-06-14 (21:32:15) Aq: 2009-06-14 (21:32:15) - 2010-03-14 (16:02:03) Pi: 2010-03-14 (16:02:03) - 2010-12-16 (1:38:40) Ar: 2010-12-16 (1:38:40) - 2011-09-17 (5:11:25) Ta: 2011-09-17 (5:11:25) - 2012-06-14 (16:00:43)

Ge: 2012-06-14 (16:00:43) - 2013-03-14 (10:28:57) Cn: 2013-03-14 (10:28:57) - 2013-12-15 (20:07:48) Le: 2013-12-15 (20:07:48) - 2014-09-16 (23:35:14) Vi: 2014-09-16 (23:35:14) - 2015-06-15 (10:27:29) Li: 2015-06-15 (10:27:29) - 2016-03-14 (4:50:04)

Sc: 2016-03-14 (4:50:04) - 2016-12-15 (14:34:50)regard2008/11/12 Partha Sarathy <partvinu

 

 

 

 

Hi

 

Since my comp is down at home, can anybody calculate niryana shoola dasa for me and send it back in text format(i dont have jhora).

 

Details

15 december 1976

Time: 8 27:06

Place: New Delhi

 

regards

partha

 

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Shanmukha <teli_sha2002 wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Om Namah SivayaNamaste Sri Sanjay,Thank you very much for clarifying about Vyasa. Regarding Sri Rangacharya --> I know his home address and I would be very much glad, if anything I could do in that regard.

Seeking your Blessings,warm regards,Shanmukha sohamsa , " Sanjay Rath " <sjrath wrote:>> Namaste Shanmukha> > I will be precise and to the point –

> > 1. The topic was about dating Parasara as in BPHS. I think you

have> deviated and mixed with Vriddhas here.> 2. 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.> 3. 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

> > > > 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.>