Drig Dasa sanskrit question

[Guest guest]



Dear SanjayP,

 

It has been clarified beforehand that the 9th and aspected signs, 10th and aspected signs and 11th and aspected signs are seen.

 

Next lines clarify how to reckon the aspected rasis, i.e. in what order. After clarifying order for movable and fixed signs, Parasara mentions the order for odd "dvandva" signs and even "dvandva" signs. In this context, dvandva can mean nothing but dual signs. Moreover, this cannot refer to anything other than the aspect order.

 

I see absolutely no basis to deduce the use of 9th, 8th and 7th houses as bases here. The bases have been clarified beforehand and only the order of aspects from each base is being further clarified. It was clarified for movable and fixed signs and dual signs were left for the last line.

 

* * *

 

 

The "edior's note" that accompanied my drigdasa article in JD referred to changing the bases from houses 9, 10, 11 for dual sign rising charts to avoid duplication of dasas:

 

"The system taught by our tradition from Puri is by far the most logical as dual signs in the ascendant, it seems absurd to consider the dasa of the 9th, 10th, 11th houses and signs aspected which would result in duplicating some signs while ignoring others."

 

This may give one the impression that tradition uses 9th, 8th and 7th instead of 9th, 10th and 11th in dual sign rising charts. However, I know that that is a misrepresentation of tradition. Sanjay ji clearly told me privately in the past that it was *his* innovative idea and *not* from his elders. He was very clear then. I will believe what he told me privately before there was a controversy rather than what he told public after a controversy. Moreover, intelligent observers may note that this critique focused, when concluding which method is more "logical", on a fringe issue and ignored real and serious issues like dasa years (chara vs sthira) and basic order (footedness vs triplicities), where Sanjay's teachings are different from Parasara's.

 

Best regards,NarasimhaDo a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homamDo Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpanaSpirituality: Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

sohamsa , "Sanjay Prabhakaran" <sanjaychettiar wrote:>> || Om Gurave Namah ||> Dear Narasimhaji,> > lagnAd.h dharmasya tad.hdR^ishhTarAshInAM cha dashAstataH |> > dashamasya cha tad.hdR^ishhTarAshInAM cha nayet.h punaH || 46-185||> > ekAdashasya tad.hdR^ishhTarAshInAM sthiravat.h samAH |> > pravR^ittA dR^ig.h vashAdyasmAd.h dR^ig.hdasheyaM tataH smR^itA || 46-186||> > chare vyutkramato grAhyA dR^ig.hyogyAH sthirabhe kramAt.h |> > vishhame kramato dvandve rAshayo vyutkramAt.h same || 46-187||> > > In the shloka-s 187, "dvandve rAshayo vyutkramAt.h"> > Can Dvandva be taken by both the two meanings i.e 1) Dual and 2)> Contradicting ?> > So in case of Contradiction in Dual signs we can go 9,8 and 7 (instead 9,10> and 11)?> > > -Warm Regards> > Sanjay P> > > > > > 169 *dvaMdva* n. (the repeated nom. of %{dva}) pair , couple , male and> female TS. Br. MBh. Ka1v. & c. (%{a4m} , e , or %{ena} ind. by two , face to> face , secretly) ; a pair of opposites (e.g. heat and cold , joy and sorrow> & c.) Up. Mn. MBh. R. & c. ; strife , quarrel , contest , fight (esp. between> two persons , a duel) MBh. R. Hit. "' ; stronghold , fortress L. ; m. (scil.> %{samAsa} ; rarely n.) a copulative compound (or any cñcompound in which the> members if uncompounded would be in the same case and connected by the> conjunction , `" and "' cf. %{devatA-} , %{nakSatra-}) , PIn2. ii , 2 , 29 ;> 4 , 2 ; m. N. of sev. Eka7has Ka1tyS3r. ; the sign of the zodiac Gemini Gol.> ; (in music) a kind of measure ; a species of disease , a complication of> two disorders , a compound affection of two humours L.> > lagnÄÂd dharmasya taddṛṣá¹­arÄÂśīnÄÂá¹ ca daÅ›ÄÂstataḥ |> > daÅ›amasya ca taddṛṣá¹­arÄÂśīnÄÂá¹ ca nayet punaḥ || 46-185||> > ekÄÂdaÅ›asya taddṛṣá¹­arÄÂśīnÄÂá¹ sthiravat samÄÂḥ |> > pravá¹›ttÄ dá¹›g vaÅ›ÄÂdyasmÄÂd dá¹›gdaÅ›eyaá¹ tataḥ smá¹›tÄ || 46-186||> > care vyutkramato grÄÂhyÄ dá¹›gyogyÄÂḥ sthirabhe kramÄÂt |> > viá¹£ame kramato dvandve rÄÂÅ›ayo vyutkramÄÂt same || 46-187||> > लगà¥Âनादà¥Â‌ धरà¥Âमसà¥Âय तदà¥Â‌दृषà¥Âटराशीनां च दशासà¥Âततः । दशमसà¥Âय च तदà¥Â‌दृषà¥Âटराशीनां च> नयेतà¥Â‌ पà¥Âनः॥ ४६-१८५॥> > à¤Âकादशसà¥Âय तदà¥Â‌दृषà¥Âटराशीनां सà¥Âथिरवतà¥Â‌ समाः । पà¥Âरवृतà¥Âता दृगà¥Â‌ वशादà¥Âयसà¥Âमादà¥Â‌> दृगà¥Â‌दशेयं ततः सà¥Âमृता॥ ४६-१८६॥> > चरे वà¥Âयà¥Âतà¥Âकà¥Âरमतो गà¥Âराहà¥Âया दृगà¥Â‌योगà¥Âयाः सà¥Âथिरभे कà¥Âरमातà¥Â‌ । विषमे कà¥Âरमतो> दà¥Âवनà¥Âदà¥Âवे राशयो वà¥Âयà¥Âतà¥Âकà¥Âरमातà¥Â‌ समे॥ ४६-१८७॥

[Guest guest]

Om Namah Sivaya

 

Namaste Sri Narasimha,

 

Narasimha : I know that that is a misrepresentation of tradition. Sanjay ji clearly told me privately in the past that it was *his* innovative idea and *not* from his elders.

 

Your words above create a lot of confusion and distress in the minds of the students like me. In fact, these words question the very root of Sanjayji's teachings. You made similar allegations/comments in your earlier mails also. I request you not to voice these comments in public forums since he is your Guru and he is not ready to respond. I request you to continue to bring your independent research as you have been doing. Else, you will be wasting a lot of your Tapas Sakti and that is detrimental to the astrological fraternity.

 

Coming back to Drig Dasa again, I request you to see the other side of the coin as well. Drig dasa was not only dealt with in BPHS, but in a number of other Jaimini works. Please, kindly refer to them also before fixing up your mind on this dasa. As the taste of pudding lies in eating, we shall experiment on the other variations of this dasa system as well as you have done on BPHS version.

 

If you agree on that your interpretation of Drig dasa must be reconciled with Jaimini, then I would like to point some more points. The other readers may ponder.

 

 

Jaimini says *Trikoota* in the adhikara sutra. As per your interpretation, for example, Aries Lagna, the Dasa signs are Sg, Pi, Ge, Vi, Cp, ….. etc. So, the first group signs are all Dual signs. Aren't they? Then, where does that Trikoota Padakrama fit in your interpretation?

I learnt that Trikoota in Sanskrit means "Trayanaam Kootaanam Samaharaha Trikootah", which clearly says that Trikoota means it is a group of three apex, which forms a triangle. So, the combination of Movable, Fixed, Dual signs form a triangle. Where as in your interpretation, first group of dasa signs are four in number, instead that shall be three.

You may argue that you have used that Trikoota word in the interpretation of dasa years. You deduced that dasa years on the basis of sthira dasa. That Sasi Nanda … applies only when you get Movable, Fixed, Dual signs in succession.

That you can identify with Sthira dasa, which runs regular. One may argue that if we use Trikoota Padakrama, then also we get the above sequence. The answer is that this sthira dasa starts from Bramha, hence only Udaya chakra, no Padakrama. Also the case with Bramha Dasa where in dasa goes regular that is no padakrama with a difference of dasa years.

Niryaana Sula Dasa (Sula dasa as per SJC) is another class of dasa that uses prakriti chakra and gets the same sequence carries 9 years each. Since no Bramha involved, usage of prakriti chakra is justified.

Jaimini clearly instructs us to use Trikoota padakrama and your interpretation completely misses the Padakrama. Trikoota padakrama is exposed in a couple of Jaimini works and also used in other dasa like Mandooka dasa, where dasa years are 7, 8, 9 years respectively and we get Movable, Fixed, Dual signs in succession. So, it must be understood that when there is a succession of there types of signs then only sthira dasa years can be used, else naadhantah Sama… rule must be used for dasa years. Allotting dasa years to any dasa is not arbitrary nor a choice, but on sound basis.

Your interpretation of Pada as Ray of light also not tenable, since padakrama is followed in a number of dasas and Jaimini instructs us with the above word whenever a padakrama to be followed. For example Raghava Bhatta – Nrisimha Suri version of Chara Dasa, SJC's Narayana Dasa, Paryaya dasas, Mandooka dasa, Drig dasa etc.

I hope you know that the calculation of Antardasas you interpreted precisely means one way of Padakrama and Jaimini also explained that. Could you explain why this padakrama/ jumping is only used in calculation of ADs? If you use padakrama it must first be applied to Mahadasa, then to ADs and it is not vice versa nor only to AD. Why can't be the verses quoted by you reg. ADs, are misplaced ones. As I already mentioned in my earlier mails, Kritwa arkatha …. Sloka is completely in toto Vriddha karika sloka. It seems logical for me that somebody clearly adulterated BPHS. I can say this since we all know that whatever we read as BPHS might not the one that Parasara originally wrote.

The verses quoted by you reg. reckoning of dasa signs is seems to me that they were completely artwork of somebody who misunderstood Jaimini. I *believe* as you do that Jaimini and Parasara taught only one Drig dasa. In your interpretation some signs may not run dasa which seems not logical. The dasa years may be equal to zero (that may happen in Narayana dasa etc.), but not complete disappearance some signs.

Aspecting dasa (Drig dasa) may not only mean a dasa of aspecting rasis, but may also mean that aspects play an important role in the dasa.

I strongly object to the word *ambiguous * used by you in your article reg. Jaimini. In fact, I dare to say that BPHS is ambiguous not Jaimini. I repeat BHPS not Parasara. Even a Sanskrit scholar shouldn't do literal interpretation of Jaimini to understand Him.

 

I am working on the charts provided by you in your article and God willing, I will try to bring forth the findings using Padakrama Version. Yet, I will not limit myself to study only spiritual events, but other Raja yogas as well. And I can admit that the results are encouraging. Reading SJC articles and your article, students may get the impression that the application of this dasa is not mentioned in classics. Here, I wish to mention that though using this dasa in D-20 is not mentioned, yet there is a very important clue. The classics instruct us to apply this dasa like the Sampat dasas like Chara Paryaya, Trikona dasa known as Gochara dasas. Alas, SJC treats Gochara dasas are Ayurdasas but in fact they are Sampat dasas.

 

In fact, I can confidently say that what I am giving here reg. Drig dasa is tip of Iceberg and the ancient Jaimini commentators' understanding of this dasa is much more superior and much more yet to see the light.

 

Warm regards,

Shanmukha

 

PS: Forgive me for preaching and I think I must hibernate to calm down my Ego. Seeking blessings.

sohamsa , "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" <pvr wrote:>> Dear SanjayP,> > It has been clarified beforehand that the 9th and aspected signs, 10th and aspected signs and 11th and aspected signs are seen.> > Next lines clarify how to reckon the aspected rasis, i.e. in what order. After clarifying order for movable and fixed signs, Parasara mentions the order for odd "dvandva" signs and even "dvandva" signs. In this context, dvandva can mean nothing but dual signs. Moreover, this cannot refer to anything other than the aspect order.> > I see absolutely no basis to deduce the use of 9th, 8th and 7th houses as bases here. The bases have been clarified beforehand and only the order of aspects from each base is being further clarified. It was clarified for movable and fixed signs and dual signs were left for the last line.> > * * *> > The "edior's note" that accompanied my drigdasa article in JD referred to changing the bases from houses 9, 10, 11 for dual sign rising charts to avoid duplication of dasas:> > "The system taught by our tradition from Puri is by far the most logical as dual signs in the ascendant, it seems absurd to consider the dasa of the 9th, 10th, 11th houses and signs aspected which would result in duplicating some signs while ignoring others."> > This may give one the impression that tradition uses 9th, 8th and 7th instead of 9th, 10th and 11th in dual sign rising charts. However, I know that that is a misrepresentation of tradition. Sanjay ji clearly told me privately in the past that it was *his* innovative idea and *not* from his elders. He was very clear then. I will believe what he told me privately before there was a controversy rather than what he told public after a controversy. Moreover, intelligent observers may note that this critique focused, when concluding which method is more "logical", on a fringe issue and ignored real and serious issues like dasa years (chara vs sthira) and basic order (footedness vs triplicities), where Sanjay's teachings are different from Parasara's.> > 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 , "Sanjay Prabhakaran" sanjaychettiar@ wrote:> >> > || Om Gurave Namah ||> > Dear Narasimhaji,> > > > lagnAd.h dharmasya tad.hdR^ishhTarAshInAM cha dashAstataH |> > > > dashamasya cha tad.hdR^ishhTarAshInAM cha nayet.h punaH || 46-185||> > > > ekAdashasya tad.hdR^ishhTarAshInAM sthiravat.h samAH |> > > > pravR^ittA dR^ig.h vashAdyasmAd.h dR^ig.hdasheyaM tataH smR^itA || 46-186||> > > > chare vyutkramato grAhyA dR^ig.hyogyAH sthirabhe kramAt.h |> > > > vishhame kramato dvandve rAshayo vyutkramAt.h same || 46-187||> > > > > > In the shloka-s 187, "dvandve rAshayo vyutkramAt.h"> > > > Can Dvandva be taken by both the two meanings i.e 1) Dual and 2)> > Contradicting ?> > > > So in case of Contradiction in Dual signs we can go 9,8 and 7 (instead 9,10> > and 11)?> > > > > > -Warm Regards> > > > Sanjay P> > > > > > > > > > > > 169 *dvaMdva* n. (the repeated nom. of %{dva}) pair , couple , male and> > female TS. Br. MBh. Ka1v. & c. (%{a4m} , e , or %{ena} ind. by two , face to> > face , secretly) ; a pair of opposites (e.g. heat and cold , joy and sorrow> > & c.) Up. Mn. MBh. R. & c. ; strife , quarrel , contest , fight (esp. between> > two persons , a duel) MBh. R. Hit. "' ; stronghold , fortress L. ; m. (scil.> > %{samAsa} ; rarely n.) a copulative compound (or any cñcompound in which the> > members if uncompounded would be in the same case and connected by the> > conjunction , `" and "' cf. %{devatA-} , %{nakSatra-}) , PIn2. ii , 2 , 29 ;> > 4 , 2 ; m. N. of sev. Eka7has Ka1tyS3r. ; the sign of the zodiac Gemini Gol.> > ; (in music) a kind of measure ; a species of disease , a complication of> > two disorders , a compound affection of two humours L.> > > > lagnÄÂd dharmasya taddṛṣṭarÄÂśīnÄÂá¹ ca daÅ›ÄÂstataḥ |> > > > daÅ›amasya ca taddṛṣṭarÄÂśīnÄÂá¹ ca nayet punaḥ || 46-185||> > > > ekÄÂdaÅ›asya taddṛṣṭarÄÂśīnÄÂá¹ sthiravat samÄÂḥ |> > > > pravá¹›ttÄ dá¹›g vaÅ›ÄÂdyasmÄÂd dá¹›gdaÅ›eyaá¹ tataḥ smá¹›tÄ || 46-186||> > > > care vyutkramato grÄÂhyÄ dá¹›gyogyÄÂḥ sthirabhe kramÄÂt |> > > > viá¹£ame kramato dvandve rÄÂÅ›ayo vyutkramÄÂt same || 46-187||> > > > à ¤²à ¤â€"à ¥Âà ¤¨à ¤¾à ¤¦à ¥Ââ€Å' à ¤§à ¤°à ¥Âà ¤®à ¤¸à ¥Âà ¤¯ à ¤¤à ¤¦à ¥Ââ€Å'à ¤¦à ¥Æ'à ¤·à ¥Âà ¤Ÿà ¤°à ¤¾à ¤¶à ¥€à ¤¨à ¤¾à ¤‚ à ¤š à ¤¦à ¤¶à ¤¾à ¤¸à ¥Âà ¤¤à ¤¤à ¤Æ' à ¥¤ à ¤¦à ¤¶à ¤®à ¤¸à ¥Âà ¤¯ à ¤š à ¤¤à ¤¦à ¥Ââ€Å'à ¤¦à ¥Æ'à ¤·à ¥Âà ¤Ÿà ¤°à ¤¾à ¤¶à ¥€à ¤¨à ¤¾à ¤‚ à ¤š> > à ¤¨à ¤¯à ¥‡à ¤¤à ¥Ââ€Å' à ¤ªà ¥Âà ¤¨à ¤Æ'à ¥¥ à ¥ªà ¥¬-à ¥§à ¥®à ¥«à ¥¥> > > > à ¤Âà ¤•à ¤¾à ¤¦à ¤¶à ¤¸à ¥Âà ¤¯ à ¤¤à ¤¦à ¥Ââ€Å'à ¤¦à ¥Æ'à ¤·à ¥Âà ¤Ÿà ¤°à ¤¾à ¤¶à ¥€à ¤¨à ¤¾à ¤‚ à ¤¸à ¥Âà ¤¥à ¤¿à ¤°à ¤µà ¤¤à ¥Ââ€Å' à ¤¸à ¤®à ¤¾à ¤Æ' à ¥¤ à ¤ªà ¥Âà ¤°à ¤µà ¥Æ'à ¤¤à ¥Âà ¤¤à ¤¾ à ¤¦à ¥Æ'à ¤â€"à ¥Ââ€Å' à ¤µà ¤¶à ¤¾à ¤¦à ¥Âà ¤¯à ¤¸à ¥Âà ¤®à ¤¾à ¤¦à ¥Ââ€Å'> > à ¤¦à ¥Æ'à ¤â€"à ¥Ââ€Å'à ¤¦à ¤¶à ¥‡à ¤¯à ¤‚ à ¤¤à ¤¤à ¤Æ' à ¤¸à ¥Âà ¤®à ¥Æ'à ¤¤à ¤¾à ¥¥ à ¥ªà ¥¬-à ¥§à ¥®à ¥¬à ¥¥> > > > à ¤šà ¤°à ¥‡ à ¤µà ¥Âà ¤¯à ¥Âà ¤¤à ¥Âà ¤•à ¥Âà ¤°à ¤®à ¤¤à ¥‹ à ¤â€"à ¥Âà ¤°à ¤¾à ¤¹à ¥Âà ¤¯à ¤¾ à ¤¦à ¥Æ'à ¤â€"à ¥Ââ€Å'à ¤¯à ¥‹à ¤â€"à ¥Âà ¤¯à ¤¾à ¤Æ' à ¤¸à ¥Âà ¤¥à ¤¿à ¤°à ¤­à ¥‡ à ¤•à ¥Âà ¤°à ¤®à ¤¾à ¤¤à ¥Ââ€Å' à ¥¤ à ¤µà ¤¿à ¤·à ¤®à ¥‡ à ¤•à ¥Âà ¤°à ¤®à ¤¤à ¥‹> > à ¤¦à ¥Âà ¤µà ¤¨à ¥Âà ¤¦à ¥Âà ¤µà ¥‡ à ¤°à ¤¾à ¤¶à ¤¯à ¥‹ à ¤µà ¥Âà ¤¯à ¥Âà ¤¤à ¥Âà ¤•à ¥Âà ¤°à ¤®à ¤¾à ¤¤à ¥Ââ€Å' à ¤¸à ¤®à ¥‡à ¥¥ à ¥ªà ¥¬-à ¥§à ¥®à ¥­à ¥¥>

[Guest guest]

Om Namah Sivaya

Namaste All,

 

I am writing this mail with a very frustrated heart. Let me explain a bit. I have given a mail regarding the calculation of Drig Dasa. I have waited almost a week for someone, at least one, to respond. It is really frustrating to daily and go to one of the computers that are connected to internet in our Dept. and check if somebody responded. I hope if not others, at least Narasimha to respond since he brought an article on that dasa. I know that everybody here is very busy and may not respond to each and every message that crops up, but I *feel* my message contains a sustance to discuss.

 

I am just summarizing below the points I raised.

 

1. I have shown on how to calculate the successive dasas in Drig dasa which contradicts Sri Sanjay and Sri Narasimha Rao.

 

2. I have shown on why 7, 8, and 9 years respectively be allotted to Movable, Fixed and Dual signs, and why not 9 years to each signs, which is connectd to dasa progression.

 

3. I have shown why BPHS can't be followed to interpret Rasi dasas and I can show how may places BPHS slokas just resembles Vriddha karkika slokas. I strongly feel, if you don't have vriddha karika slokas and try to interpret Jaimini is like sailing without compass. I can show a no. of scholars tried to translate Jaimini Sutras without consulting Vriddha Karikas and how they are wrong.

 

4. In fact, Narasimha was complaining that the critique that printed in Jyotish Digest didn't touched the important concepts like dasa years and dasa progression, and I responded to the same. But he didn't turn up.

 

5. I have been associated with SJC Hyderabad since 2002 and I tried to be passive all these years, but when it comes to Jaimini I wanted to share my understanding, yet nobody tried to even care the important issue I raised. Since there are a no. of Gurus on this forum and they can at least prove me wrong which may benefit me and others as well.

 

Well, I know my absence doen't affect this forum or anybody. Yet, I want to again go quiet on these forums. I will bring out the other side of Jaimini teaching which has been not brought light on my first blog site. Interested readers may kindly visit http://sutramritam.blogspot.com to view my views on important aspects of Jaimini.

 

In the mail I am referring, I raised the points how dasa progresses, and I have not touched how to know the first dasa. Well, the first dasa is always 9th house, but there are a couple of views on 9th house, same as vriddha karika method of 8th house. I thought I would bring it too, but since nobody interested here, instead I will show that on my blog very soon. There I will show how BPHS sloka that Narasimha used will be useful.

 

This looks like I am boasting. Let it be. Yet I sincerely tell you what I am write on this topic is not my research or findings but based on ancient commentaries, which were suppressed for the years.

 

Seeking Blessings,Shanmukha.

sohamsa , "Shanmukha" <teli_sha2002 wrote:>> > Om Namah Sivaya> > > > Namaste Sri Narasimha,> > > > Narasimha : I know that that is a misrepresentation of tradition. Sanjay> ji clearly told me privately in the past that it was *his* innovative> idea and *not* from his elders.> > > > Your words above create a lot of confusion and distress in the minds of> the students like me. In fact, these words question the very root of> Sanjayji's teachings. You made similar allegations/comments in your> earlier mails also. I request you not to voice these comments in public> forums since he is your Guru and he is not ready to respond. I request> you to continue to bring your independent research as you have been> doing. Else, you will be wasting a lot of your Tapas Sakti and that is> detrimental to the astrological fraternity.> > > > Coming back to Drig Dasa again, I request you to see the other side of> the coin as well. Drig dasa was not only dealt with in BPHS, but in a> number of other Jaimini works. Please, kindly refer to them also before> fixing up your mind on this dasa. As the taste of pudding lies in> eating, we shall experiment on the other variations of this dasa system> as well as you have done on BPHS version.> > > > If you agree on that your interpretation of Drig dasa must be reconciled> with Jaimini, then I would like to point some more points. The other> readers may ponder.> > > > 1. Jaimini says *Trikoota* in the adhikara sutra. As per your> interpretation, for example, Aries Lagna, the Dasa signs are Sg, Pi, Ge,> Vi, Cp, ….. etc. So, the first group signs are all Dual signs.> Aren't they? Then, where does that Trikoota Padakrama fit in your> interpretation?> 2. I learnt that Trikoota in Sanskrit means "Trayanaam Kootaanam> Samaharaha Trikootah", which clearly says that Trikoota means it is> a group of three apex, which forms a triangle. So, the combination of> Movable, Fixed, Dual signs form a triangle. Where as in your> interpretation, first group of dasa signs are four in number, instead> that shall be three.> 3. You may argue that you have used that Trikoota word in the> interpretation of dasa years. You deduced that dasa years on the basis> of sthira dasa. That Sasi Nanda … applies only when you get Movable,> Fixed, Dual signs in succession.> 4. That you can identify with Sthira dasa, which runs regular. One> may argue that if we use Trikoota Padakrama, then also we get the above> sequence. The answer is that this sthira dasa starts from Bramha, hence> only Udaya chakra, no Padakrama. Also the case with Bramha Dasa where in> dasa goes regular that is no padakrama with a difference of dasa years.> 5. Niryaana Sula Dasa (Sula dasa as per SJC) is another class of dasa> that uses prakriti chakra and gets the same sequence carries 9 years> each. Since no Bramha involved, usage of prakriti chakra is justified.> 6. Jaimini clearly instructs us to use Trikoota padakrama and your> interpretation completely misses the Padakrama. Trikoota padakrama is> exposed in a couple of Jaimini works and also used in other dasa like> Mandooka dasa, where dasa years are 7, 8, 9 years respectively and we> get Movable, Fixed, Dual signs in succession. So, it must be understood> that when there is a succession of there types of signs then only sthira> dasa years can be used, else naadhantah Sama… rule must be used for> dasa years. Allotting dasa years to any dasa is not arbitrary nor a> choice, but on sound basis.> 7. Your interpretation of Pada as Ray of light also not tenable,> since padakrama is followed in a number of dasas and Jaimini instructs> us with the above word whenever a padakrama to be followed. For example> Raghava Bhatta – Nrisimha Suri version of Chara Dasa, SJC's> Narayana Dasa, Paryaya dasas, Mandooka dasa, Drig dasa etc.> 8. I hope you know that the calculation of Antardasas you interpreted> precisely means one way of Padakrama and Jaimini also explained that.> Could you explain why this padakrama/ jumping is only used in> calculation of ADs? If you use padakrama it must first be applied to> Mahadasa, then to ADs and it is not vice versa nor only to AD. Why can't> be the verses quoted by you reg. ADs, are misplaced ones. As I already> mentioned in my earlier mails, Kritwa arkatha …. Sloka is completely> in toto Vriddha karika sloka. It seems logical for me that somebody> clearly adulterated BPHS. I can say this since we all know that whatever> we read as BPHS might not the one that Parasara originally wrote.> 9. The verses quoted by you reg. reckoning of dasa signs is seems to> me that they were completely artwork of somebody who misunderstood> Jaimini. I *believe* as you do that Jaimini and Parasara taught only one> Drig dasa. In your interpretation some signs may not run dasa which> seems not logical. The dasa years may be equal to zero (that may happen> in Narayana dasa etc.), but not complete disappearance some signs.> 10. Aspecting dasa (Drig dasa) may not only mean a dasa of aspecting> rasis, but may also mean that aspects play an important role in the> dasa.> 11. I strongly object to the word *ambiguous * used by you in your> article reg. Jaimini. In fact, I dare to say that BPHS is ambiguous not> Jaimini. I repeat BHPS not Parasara. Even a Sanskrit scholar> shouldn't do literal interpretation of Jaimini to understand Him.> > > > I am working on the charts provided by you in your article and God> willing, I will try to bring forth the findings using Padakrama Version.> Yet, I will not limit myself to study only spiritual events, but other> Raja yogas as well. And I can admit that the results are encouraging.> Reading SJC articles and your article, students may get the impression> that the application of this dasa is not mentioned in classics. Here, I> wish to mention that though using this dasa in D-20 is not mentioned,> yet there is a very important clue. The classics instruct us to apply> this dasa like the Sampat dasas like Chara Paryaya, Trikona dasa known> as Gochara dasas. Alas, SJC treats Gochara dasas are Ayurdasas but in> fact they are Sampat dasas.> > > > In fact, I can confidently say that what I am giving here reg. Drig dasa> is tip of Iceberg and the ancient Jaimini commentators'> understanding of this dasa is much more superior and much more yet to> see the light.> > > > Warm regards,> > Shanmukha> > > > PS: Forgive me for preaching and I think I must hibernate to calm down> my Ego. Seeking blessings.> > > sohamsa , "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" pvr@ wrote:> >> > Dear SanjayP,> >> > It has been clarified beforehand that the 9th and aspected signs, 10th> and aspected signs and 11th and aspected signs are seen.> >> > Next lines clarify how to reckon the aspected rasis, i.e. in what> order. After clarifying order for movable and fixed signs, Parasara> mentions the order for odd "dvandva" signs and even "dvandva" signs. In> this context, dvandva can mean nothing but dual signs. Moreover, this> cannot refer to anything other than the aspect order.> >> > I see absolutely no basis to deduce the use of 9th, 8th and 7th houses> as bases here. The bases have been clarified beforehand and only the> order of aspects from each base is being further clarified. It was> clarified for movable and fixed signs and dual signs were left for the> last line.> >> > * * *> >> > The "edior's note" that accompanied my drigdasa article in JD referred> to changing the bases from houses 9, 10, 11 for dual sign rising charts> to avoid duplication of dasas:> >> > "The system taught by our tradition from Puri is by far the most> logical as dual signs in the ascendant, it seems absurd to consider the> dasa of the 9th, 10th, 11th houses and signs aspected which would result> in duplicating some signs while ignoring others."> >> > This may give one the impression that tradition uses 9th, 8th and 7th> instead of 9th, 10th and 11th in dual sign rising charts. However, I> know that that is a misrepresentation of tradition. Sanjay ji clearly> told me privately in the past that it was *his* innovative idea and> *not* from his elders. He was very clear then. I will believe what he> told me privately before there was a controversy rather than what he> told public after a controversy. Moreover, intelligent observers may> note that this critique focused, when concluding which method is more> "logical", on a fringe issue and ignored real and serious issues like> dasa years (chara vs sthira) and basic order (footedness vs> triplicities), where Sanjay's teachings are different from Parasara's.> >> > 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 , "Sanjay Prabhakaran" sanjaychettiar@> wrote:> > >> > > || Om Gurave Namah ||> > > Dear Narasimhaji,> > >> > > lagnAd.h dharmasya tad.hdR^ishhTarAshInAM cha dashAstataH |> > >> > > dashamasya cha tad.hdR^ishhTarAshInAM cha nayet.h punaH || 46-185||> > >> > > ekAdashasya tad.hdR^ishhTarAshInAM sthiravat.h samAH |> > >> > > pravR^ittA dR^ig.h vashAdyasmAd.h dR^ig.hdasheyaM tataH smR^itA ||> 46-186||> > >> > > chare vyutkramato grAhyA dR^ig.hyogyAH sthirabhe kramAt.h |> > >> > > vishhame kramato dvandve rAshayo vyutkramAt.h same || 46-187||> > >> > >> > > In the shloka-s 187, "dvandve rAshayo vyutkramAt.h"> > >> > > Can Dvandva be taken by both the two meanings i.e 1) Dual and 2)> > > Contradicting ?> > >> > > So in case of Contradiction in Dual signs we can go 9,8 and 7> (instead 9,10> > > and 11)?> > >> > >> > > -Warm Regards> > >> > > Sanjay P> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > 169 *dvaMdva* n. (the repeated nom. of %{dva}) pair , couple , male> and> > > female TS. Br. MBh. Ka1v. & c. (%{a4m} , e , or %{ena} ind. by two ,> face to> > > face , secretly) ; a pair of opposites (e.g. heat and cold , joy and> sorrow> > > & c.) Up. Mn. MBh. R. & c. ; strife , quarrel , contest , fight (esp.> between> > > two persons , a duel) MBh. R. Hit. "' ; stronghold , fortress L. ;> m. (scil.> > > %{samAsa} ; rarely n.) a copulative compound (or any> cñcompound in which the> > > members if uncompounded would be in the same case and connected by> the> > > conjunction , `" and "' cf. %{devatA-} , %{nakSatra-}) , PIn2. ii ,> 2 , 29 ;> > > 4 , 2 ; m. N. of sev. Eka7has Ka1tyS3r. ; the sign of the zodiac> Gemini Gol.> > > ; (in music) a kind of measure ; a species of disease , a> complication of> > > two disorders , a compound affection of two humours L.> > >> > > lagnÄÂd dharmasya> taddṛṣṭarÄÂśīnÄÂá¹Â> ca daÅ›ÄÂstataḥ |> > >> > > daÅ›amasya ca> taddṛṣṭarÄÂśīnÄÂá¹Â> ca nayet punaḥ || 46-185||> > >> > > ekÄÂdaÅ›asya> taddṛṣṭarÄÂśīnÄÂá¹Â> sthiravat samÄÂḥ |> > >> > > pravá¹›ttÄ dá¹›g> vaÅ›ÄÂdyasmÄÂd dá¹›gdaÅ›eyaá¹Â> tataḥ smá¹›tÄ || 46-186||> > >> > > care vyutkramato grÄÂhyÄÂ> dá¹›gyogyÄÂḥ sthirabhe kramÄÂt |> > >> > > viá¹£ame kramato dvandve rÄÂÅ›ayo> vyutkramÄÂt same || 46-187||> > >> > > à ¤²à ¤â€"à ¥Âà ¤¨à ¤¾à ¤¦Ã> Â¥Ââ€Å' à ¤§à ¤°à ¥Âà ¤®à ¤¸Ã> Â¥Âà ¤¯ à ¤¤à ¤¦à ¥Ââ€Å'à ¤¦Ã> Â¥Æ'à ¤·à ¥Âà ¤Ÿà ¤°à ¤¾à ¤¶Ã> ¥€à ¤¨à ¤¾à ¤‚ à ¤š à ¤¦Ã> ¤¶à ¤¾à ¤¸à ¥Âà ¤¤à ¤¤à ¤Æ' Ã> ¥¤ à ¤¦à ¤¶à ¤®à ¤¸à ¥Âà ¤¯ Ã> ¤š à ¤¤à ¤¦à ¥Ââ€Å'à ¤¦à ¥Æ'Ã> ¤·à ¥Âà ¤Ÿà ¤°à ¤¾à ¤¶à ¥€Ã> ¤¨à ¤¾à ¤‚ à ¤š> > > à ¤¨à ¤¯à ¥‡à ¤¤à ¥Ââ€Å' Ã> ¤ªà ¥Âà ¤¨à ¤Æ'à ¥¥ à ¥ªà ¥¬-Ã> ¥§à ¥®à ¥«à ¥¥> > >> > > à ¤Âà ¤•à ¤¾à ¤¦à ¤¶à ¤¸Ã> Â¥Âà ¤¯ à ¤¤à ¤¦à ¥Ââ€Å'à ¤¦Ã> Â¥Æ'à ¤·à ¥Âà ¤Ÿà ¤°à ¤¾à ¤¶Ã> ¥€à ¤¨à ¤¾à ¤‚ à ¤¸à ¥Âà ¤¥Ã> ¤¿à ¤°à ¤µà ¤¤à ¥Ââ€Å' à ¤¸Ã> ¤®à ¤¾à ¤Æ' à ¥¤ à ¤ªà ¥Âà ¤°Ã> ¤µà ¥Æ'à ¤¤à ¥Âà ¤¤à ¤¾ à ¤¦Ã> Â¥Æ'à ¤â€"à ¥Ââ€Å' à ¤µà ¤¶à ¤¾Ã> ¤¦à ¥Âà ¤¯à ¤¸à ¥Âà ¤®à ¤¾Ã> ¤¦à ¥Ââ€Å'> > > à ¤¦à ¥Æ'à ¤â€"à ¥Ââ€Å'à ¤¦Ã> ¤¶à ¥‡à ¤¯à ¤‚ à ¤¤à ¤¤à ¤Æ'> à ¤¸à ¥Âà ¤®à ¥Æ'à ¤¤à ¤¾à ¥¥> à ¥ªà ¥¬-à ¥§à ¥®à ¥¬à ¥¥> > >> > > à ¤šà ¤°à ¥‡ à ¤µà ¥Âà ¤¯Ã> Â¥Âà ¤¤à ¥Âà ¤•à ¥Âà ¤°à ¤®Ã> ¤¤à ¥‹ à ¤â€"à ¥Âà ¤°à ¤¾à ¤¹Ã> Â¥Âà ¤¯à ¤¾ à ¤¦à ¥Æ'à ¤â€"Ã> Â¥Ââ€Å'à ¤¯à ¥‹à ¤â€"à ¥Âà ¤¯Ã> ¤¾à ¤Æ' à ¤¸à ¥Âà ¤¥à ¤¿à ¤°Ã> ¤­à ¥‡ à ¤•à ¥Âà ¤°à ¤®Ã> ¤¾à ¤¤à ¥Ââ€Å' à ¥¤ à ¤µà ¤¿Ã> ¤·à ¤®à ¥‡ à ¤•à ¥Âà ¤°à ¤®Ã> ¤¤à ¥‹> > > à ¤¦à ¥Âà ¤µà ¤¨à ¥Âà ¤¦Ã> Â¥Âà ¤µà ¥‡ à ¤°à ¤¾à ¤¶à ¤¯Ã> ¥‹ à ¤µà ¥Âà ¤¯à ¥Âà ¤¤à ¥ÂÃ> ¤•à ¥Âà ¤°à ¤®à ¤¾à ¤¤Ã> Â¥Ââ€Å' à ¤¸à ¤®à ¥‡à ¥¥ Ã> ¥ªà ¥¬-à ¥§à ¥®à ¥­à ¥¥> >>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Shanmukha,

 

> Your words above create a lot of confusion and distress in the minds of

> the students like me. In fact, these words question the very root of

> Sanjayji's teachings. You made similar allegations/comments in your

> earlier mails also. I request you not to voice these comments in public

> forums since he is your Guru and he is not ready to respond. I request

> you to continue to bring your independent research as you have been

> doing. Else, you will be wasting a lot of your Tapas Sakti and that is

> detrimental to the astrological fraternity.

 

One has to balance one's dharma to guru with one's dharma to parampara and one's

dharma to the subject itself. One chooses the dharmas on which to expend one's

Tapas Sakti. If an honest truth is detrimental to a fraternity, so be it. In the

long run, Truth has to be beneficial.

 

It is a fact that what has been attributed to " the tradition from Puri " in this

editorial note was explicitly identified to me long back as Sanjay ji's

innovative idea and not from his elders. If mentioning this fact creates a

problem, it is not of my *making*. I am only *pointing* it out.

 

* * *

 

> 11. I strongly object to the word *ambiguous * used by you in your

> article reg. Jaimini. In fact, I dare to say that BPHS is ambiguous not

> Jaimini.

 

Take Jaimini's sutras on drigdasa. Four translations of Jaimini that I referred

to (Sastri, Iranganti, Rath and Kambhampati) give four totally different

interpretations. I rest my case on Jaimini's instruction on drigdasa being

ambiguous!

 

BPHS verses on drigdasa, on the other hand, are quite clear and unambiguous.

Translations of GC Sharma and Sanathanam are the same and they match my

independent translation too. Moreover, I have not seen any alternate

translations by any scholar. Again, I rest my case.

 

> Drig dasa was not only dealt with in BPHS, but in a

> number of other Jaimini works. Please, kindly refer to them also before

> fixing up your mind on this dasa.

 

My friend, Parasara is a maharshi and father of Vyasa. He is not any lesser

authority than Jaimini. I will be compelled to understand Jaimini, who is

inherently ambiguous, only on issues that Parasara is silent on. On issues on

which Parasara commented unambiguously, his word is final to me. Others may

disagree, but this is my view on the position of Parasara.

 

* * *

 

If you share your findings about drigdasa *application* based on Jaimini

commentaries at your disposal, I will give you my due consideration.

 

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 , " Shanmukha " <teli_sha2002 wrote:

>

> Om Namah Sivaya

>

> Namaste Sri Narasimha,

>

> Narasimha : I know that that is a misrepresentation of tradition. Sanjay

> ji clearly told me privately in the past that it was *his* innovative

> idea and *not* from his elders.

>

> Your words above create a lot of confusion and distress in the minds of

> the students like me. In fact, these words question the very root of

> Sanjayji's teachings. You made similar allegations/comments in your

> earlier mails also. I request you not to voice these comments in public

> forums since he is your Guru and he is not ready to respond. I request

> you to continue to bring your independent research as you have been

> doing. Else, you will be wasting a lot of your Tapas Sakti and that is

> detrimental to the astrological fraternity.

>

> Coming back to Drig Dasa again, I request you to see the other side of

> the coin as well. Drig dasa was not only dealt with in BPHS, but in a

> number of other Jaimini works. Please, kindly refer to them also before

> fixing up your mind on this dasa. As the taste of pudding lies in

> eating, we shall experiment on the other variations of this dasa system

> as well as you have done on BPHS version.

>

> If you agree on that your interpretation of Drig dasa must be reconciled

> with Jaimini, then I would like to point some more points. The other

> readers may ponder.

>

> 1. Jaimini says *Trikoota* in the adhikara sutra. As per your

> interpretation, for example, Aries Lagna, the Dasa signs are Sg, Pi, Ge,

> Vi, Cp, ... etc. So, the first group signs are all Dual signs.

> Aren't they? Then, where does that Trikoota Padakrama fit in your

> interpretation?

> 2. I learnt that Trikoota in Sanskrit means " Trayanaam Kootaanam

> Samaharaha Trikootah " , which clearly says that Trikoota means it is

> a group of three apex, which forms a triangle. So, the combination of

> Movable, Fixed, Dual signs form a triangle. Where as in your

> interpretation, first group of dasa signs are four in number, instead

> that shall be three.

> 3. You may argue that you have used that Trikoota word in the

> interpretation of dasa years. You deduced that dasa years on the basis

> of sthira dasa. That Sasi Nanda . applies only when you get Movable,

> Fixed, Dual signs in succession.

> 4. That you can identify with Sthira dasa, which runs regular. One

> may argue that if we use Trikoota Padakrama, then also we get the above

> sequence. The answer is that this sthira dasa starts from Bramha, hence

> only Udaya chakra, no Padakrama. Also the case with Bramha Dasa where in

> dasa goes regular that is no padakrama with a difference of dasa years.

> 5. Niryaana Sula Dasa (Sula dasa as per SJC) is another class of dasa

> that uses prakriti chakra and gets the same sequence carries 9 years

> each. Since no Bramha involved, usage of prakriti chakra is justified.

> 6. Jaimini clearly instructs us to use Trikoota padakrama and your

> interpretation completely misses the Padakrama. Trikoota padakrama is

> exposed in a couple of Jaimini works and also used in other dasa like

> Mandooka dasa, where dasa years are 7, 8, 9 years respectively and we

> get Movable, Fixed, Dual signs in succession. So, it must be understood

> that when there is a succession of there types of signs then only sthira

> dasa years can be used, else naadhantah Sama. rule must be used for

> dasa years. Allotting dasa years to any dasa is not arbitrary nor a

> choice, but on sound basis.

> 7. Your interpretation of Pada as Ray of light also not tenable,

> since padakrama is followed in a number of dasas and Jaimini instructs

> us with the above word whenever a padakrama to be followed. For example

> Raghava Bhatta - Nrisimha Suri version of Chara Dasa, SJC's

> Narayana Dasa, Paryaya dasas, Mandooka dasa, Drig dasa etc.

> 8. I hope you know that the calculation of Antardasas you interpreted

> precisely means one way of Padakrama and Jaimini also explained that.

> Could you explain why this padakrama/ jumping is only used in

> calculation of ADs? If you use padakrama it must first be applied to

> Mahadasa, then to ADs and it is not vice versa nor only to AD. Why can't

> be the verses quoted by you reg. ADs, are misplaced ones. As I already

> mentioned in my earlier mails, Kritwa arkatha .. Sloka is completely

> in toto Vriddha karika sloka. It seems logical for me that somebody

> clearly adulterated BPHS. I can say this since we all know that whatever

> we read as BPHS might not the one that Parasara originally wrote.

> 9. The verses quoted by you reg. reckoning of dasa signs is seems to

> me that they were completely artwork of somebody who misunderstood

> Jaimini. I *believe* as you do that Jaimini and Parasara taught only one

> Drig dasa. In your interpretation some signs may not run dasa which

> seems not logical. The dasa years may be equal to zero (that may happen

> in Narayana dasa etc.), but not complete disappearance some signs.

> 10. Aspecting dasa (Drig dasa) may not only mean a dasa of aspecting

> rasis, but may also mean that aspects play an important role in the

> dasa.

> 11. I strongly object to the word *ambiguous * used by you in your

> article reg. Jaimini. In fact, I dare to say that BPHS is ambiguous not

> Jaimini. I repeat BHPS not Parasara. Even a Sanskrit scholar

> shouldn't do literal interpretation of Jaimini to understand Him.

>

> I am working on the charts provided by you in your article and God

> willing, I will try to bring forth the findings using Padakrama Version.

> Yet, I will not limit myself to study only spiritual events, but other

> Raja yogas as well. And I can admit that the results are encouraging.

> Reading SJC articles and your article, students may get the impression

> that the application of this dasa is not mentioned in classics. Here, I

> wish to mention that though using this dasa in D-20 is not mentioned,

> yet there is a very important clue. The classics instruct us to apply

> this dasa like the Sampat dasas like Chara Paryaya, Trikona dasa known

> as Gochara dasas. Alas, SJC treats Gochara dasas are Ayurdasas but in

> fact they are Sampat dasas.

>

> In fact, I can confidently say that what I am giving here reg. Drig dasa

> is tip of Iceberg and the ancient Jaimini commentators'

> understanding of this dasa is much more superior and much more yet to

> see the light.

>

> Warm regards,

>

> Shanmukha

>

> PS: Forgive me for preaching and I think I must hibernate to calm down

> my Ego. Seeking blessings.

>

> sohamsa , " Narasimha P.V.R. Rao " pvr@ wrote:

> >

> > Dear SanjayP,

> >

> > It has been clarified beforehand that the 9th and aspected signs, 10th

> and aspected signs and 11th and aspected signs are seen.

> >

> > Next lines clarify how to reckon the aspected rasis, i.e. in what

> order. After clarifying order for movable and fixed signs, Parasara

> mentions the order for odd " dvandva " signs and even " dvandva " signs. In

> this context, dvandva can mean nothing but dual signs. Moreover, this

> cannot refer to anything other than the aspect order.

> >

> > I see absolutely no basis to deduce the use of 9th, 8th and 7th houses

> as bases here. The bases have been clarified beforehand and only the

> order of aspects from each base is being further clarified. It was

> clarified for movable and fixed signs and dual signs were left for the

> last line.

> >

> > * * *

> >

> > The " edior's note " that accompanied my drigdasa article in JD referred

> to changing the bases from houses 9, 10, 11 for dual sign rising charts

> to avoid duplication of dasas:

> >

> > " The system taught by our tradition from Puri is by far the most

> logical as dual signs in the ascendant, it seems absurd to consider the

> dasa of the 9th, 10th, 11th houses and signs aspected which would result

> in duplicating some signs while ignoring others. "

> >

> > This may give one the impression that tradition uses 9th, 8th and 7th

> instead of 9th, 10th and 11th in dual sign rising charts. However, I

> know that that is a misrepresentation of tradition. Sanjay ji clearly

> told me privately in the past that it was *his* innovative idea and

> *not* from his elders. He was very clear then. I will believe what he

> told me privately before there was a controversy rather than what he

> told public after a controversy. Moreover, intelligent observers may

> note that this critique focused, when concluding which method is more

> " logical " , on a fringe issue and ignored real and serious issues like

> dasa years (chara vs sthira) and basic order (footedness vs

> triplicities), where Sanjay's teachings are different from Parasara's.

> >

> > Best regards,

> > Narasimha

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Shanmukha,

 

> Your words above create a lot of confusion and distress in the minds of> the students like me. In fact, these words question the very root of> Sanjayji's teachings. You made similar allegations/comments in your> earlier mails also. I request you not to voice these comments in public> forums since he is your Guru and he is not ready to respond. I request> you to continue to bring your independent research as you have been> doing. Else, you will be wasting a lot of your Tapas Sakti and that is> detrimental to the astrological fraternity.

One has to balance one's dharma to guru with one's dharma to parampara and one's dharma to the subject itself. One chooses the dharmas on which to expend one's Tapas Sakti. If an honest truth is detrimental to a fraternity, so be it. In the long run, Truth has to be beneficial.

 

It is a fact that what has been attributed to "the tradition from Puri" in this editorial note was explicitly identified to me long back as Sanjay ji's innovative idea and not from his elders. If mentioning this fact creates a problem, it is not of my *making*. I am only *pointing* it out.

 

* * *

 

> 11. I strongly object to the word *ambiguous * used by you in your> article reg. Jaimini. In fact, I dare to say that BPHS is ambiguous not> Jaimini.

 

Take Jaimini's sutras on drigdasa. Four translations of Jaimini that I referred to (Sastri, Iranganti, Rath and Kambhampati) give four totally different interpretations. I rest my case on Jaimini's instruction on drigdasa being ambiguous!

 

BPHS verses on drigdasa, on the other hand, are quite clear and unambiguous. Translations of GC Sharma and Sanathanam are the same and they match my independent translation too. Moreover, I have not seen any alternate translations by any scholar. Again, I rest my case.

 

 

> Drig dasa was not only dealt with in BPHS, but in a> number of other Jaimini works. Please, kindly refer to them also before> fixing up your mind on this dasa.

 

My friend, Parasara is a maharshi and father of Vyasa. He is not any lesser authority than Jaimini. I will be compelled to understand Jaimini, who is inherently ambiguous, only on issues that Parasara is silent on. On issues on which Parasara commented unambiguously, his word is final to me. Others may disagree, but this is my view on the position of Parasara.

 

* * *

 

If you share your findings about drigdasa *application* based on Jaimini commentaries at your disposal, I will give you my due consideration.

 

Best regards,NarasimhaDo a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homamDo Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpanaSpirituality: Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

sohamsa , "Shanmukha" <teli_sha2002 wrote:> > Om Namah Sivaya> > Namaste Sri Narasimha,> > Narasimha : I know that that is a misrepresentation of tradition. Sanjay> ji clearly told me privately in the past that it was *his* innovative> idea and *not* from his elders.> > Your words above create a lot of confusion and distress in the minds of> the students like me. In fact, these words question the very root of> Sanjayji's teachings. You made similar allegations/comments in your> earlier mails also. I request you not to voice these comments in public> forums since he is your Guru and he is not ready to respond. I request> you to continue to bring your independent research as you have been> doing. Else, you will be wasting a lot of your Tapas Sakti and that is> detrimental to the astrological fraternity.> > Coming back to Drig Dasa again, I request you to see the other side of> the coin as well. Drig dasa was not only dealt with in BPHS, but in a> number of other Jaimini works. Please, kindly refer to them also before> fixing up your mind on this dasa. As the taste of pudding lies in> eating, we shall experiment on the other variations of this dasa system> as well as you have done on BPHS version.> > If you agree on that your interpretation of Drig dasa must be reconciled> with Jaimini, then I would like to point some more points. The other> readers may ponder.> > 1. Jaimini says *Trikoota* in the adhikara sutra. As per your> interpretation, for example, Aries Lagna, the Dasa signs are Sg, Pi, Ge,> Vi, Cp, ….. etc. So, the first group signs are all Dual signs.> Aren't they? Then, where does that Trikoota Padakrama fit in your> interpretation?> 2. I learnt that Trikoota in Sanskrit means "Trayanaam Kootaanam> Samaharaha Trikootah", which clearly says that Trikoota means it is> a group of three apex, which forms a triangle. So, the combination of> Movable, Fixed, Dual signs form a triangle. Where as in your> interpretation, first group of dasa signs are four in number, instead> that shall be three.> 3. You may argue that you have used that Trikoota word in the> interpretation of dasa years. You deduced that dasa years on the basis> of sthira dasa. That Sasi Nanda … applies only when you get Movable,> Fixed, Dual signs in succession.> 4. That you can identify with Sthira dasa, which runs regular. One> may argue that if we use Trikoota Padakrama, then also we get the above> sequence. The answer is that this sthira dasa starts from Bramha, hence> only Udaya chakra, no Padakrama. Also the case with Bramha Dasa where in> dasa goes regular that is no padakrama with a difference of dasa years.> 5. Niryaana Sula Dasa (Sula dasa as per SJC) is another class of dasa> that uses prakriti chakra and gets the same sequence carries 9 years> each. Since no Bramha involved, usage of prakriti chakra is justified.> 6. Jaimini clearly instructs us to use Trikoota padakrama and your> interpretation completely misses the Padakrama. Trikoota padakrama is> exposed in a couple of Jaimini works and also used in other dasa like> Mandooka dasa, where dasa years are 7, 8, 9 years respectively and we> get Movable, Fixed, Dual signs in succession. So, it must be understood> that when there is a succession of there types of signs then only sthira> dasa years can be used, else naadhantah Sama… rule must be used for> dasa years. Allotting dasa years to any dasa is not arbitrary nor a> choice, but on sound basis.> 7. Your interpretation of Pada as Ray of light also not tenable,> since padakrama is followed in a number of dasas and Jaimini instructs> us with the above word whenever a padakrama to be followed. For example> Raghava Bhatta – Nrisimha Suri version of Chara Dasa, SJC's> Narayana Dasa, Paryaya dasas, Mandooka dasa, Drig dasa etc.> 8. I hope you know that the calculation of Antardasas you interpreted> precisely means one way of Padakrama and Jaimini also explained that.> Could you explain why this padakrama/ jumping is only used in> calculation of ADs? If you use padakrama it must first be applied to> Mahadasa, then to ADs and it is not vice versa nor only to AD. Why can't> be the verses quoted by you reg. ADs, are misplaced ones. As I already> mentioned in my earlier mails, Kritwa arkatha …. Sloka is completely> in toto Vriddha karika sloka. It seems logical for me that somebody> clearly adulterated BPHS. I can say this since we all know that whatever> we read as BPHS might not the one that Parasara originally wrote.> 9. The verses quoted by you reg. reckoning of dasa signs is seems to> me that they were completely artwork of somebody who misunderstood> Jaimini. I *believe* as you do that Jaimini and Parasara taught only one> Drig dasa. In your interpretation some signs may not run dasa which> seems not logical. The dasa years may be equal to zero (that may happen> in Narayana dasa etc.), but not complete disappearance some signs.> 10. Aspecting dasa (Drig dasa) may not only mean a dasa of aspecting> rasis, but may also mean that aspects play an important role in the> dasa.> 11. I strongly object to the word *ambiguous * used by you in your> article reg. Jaimini. In fact, I dare to say that BPHS is ambiguous not> Jaimini. I repeat BHPS not Parasara. Even a Sanskrit scholar> shouldn't do literal interpretation of Jaimini to understand Him.> > I am working on the charts provided by you in your article and God> willing, I will try to bring forth the findings using Padakrama Version.> Yet, I will not limit myself to study only spiritual events, but other> Raja yogas as well. And I can admit that the results are encouraging.> Reading SJC articles and your article, students may get the impression> that the application of this dasa is not mentioned in classics. Here, I> wish to mention that though using this dasa in D-20 is not mentioned,> yet there is a very important clue. The classics instruct us to apply> this dasa like the Sampat dasas like Chara Paryaya, Trikona dasa known> as Gochara dasas. Alas, SJC treats Gochara dasas are Ayurdasas but in> fact they are Sampat dasas.> > In fact, I can confidently say that what I am giving here reg. Drig dasa> is tip of Iceberg and the ancient Jaimini commentators'> understanding of this dasa is much more superior and much more yet to> see the light.> > Warm regards,> > Shanmukha> > PS: Forgive me for preaching and I think I must hibernate to calm down> my Ego. Seeking blessings.> > sohamsa , "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" pvr@ wrote:> >> > Dear SanjayP,> >> > It has been clarified beforehand that the 9th and aspected signs, 10th> and aspected signs and 11th and aspected signs are seen.> >> > Next lines clarify how to reckon the aspected rasis, i.e. in what> order. After clarifying order for movable and fixed signs, Parasara> mentions the order for odd "dvandva" signs and even "dvandva" signs. In> this context, dvandva can mean nothing but dual signs. Moreover, this> cannot refer to anything other than the aspect order.> >> > I see absolutely no basis to deduce the use of 9th, 8th and 7th houses> as bases here. The bases have been clarified beforehand and only the> order of aspects from each base is being further clarified. It was> clarified for movable and fixed signs and dual signs were left for the> last line.> >> > * * *> >> > The "edior's note" that accompanied my drigdasa article in JD referred> to changing the bases from houses 9, 10, 11 for dual sign rising charts> to avoid duplication of dasas:> >> > "The system taught by our tradition from Puri is by far the most> logical as dual signs in the ascendant, it seems absurd to consider the> dasa of the 9th, 10th, 11th houses and signs aspected which would result> in duplicating some signs while ignoring others."> >> > This may give one the impression that tradition uses 9th, 8th and 7th> instead of 9th, 10th and 11th in dual sign rising charts. However, I> know that that is a misrepresentation of tradition. Sanjay ji clearly> told me privately in the past that it was *his* innovative idea and> *not* from his elders. He was very clear then. I will believe what he> told me privately before there was a controversy rather than what he> told public after a controversy. Moreover, intelligent observers may> note that this critique focused, when concluding which method is more> "logical", on a fringe issue and ignored real and serious issues like> dasa years (chara vs sthira) and basic order (footedness vs> triplicities), where Sanjay's teachings are different from Parasara's.> >> > Best regards,> > Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Om Namah Sivaya

Namaste Sri Narasimha,

Thank you for your much awaited mail.

>>>One has to balance one's dharma to guru with one's dharma to parampara and one's dharma to the subject itself. One chooses the dharmas on which to expend one's Tapas Sakti. If an honest truth is detrimental to a fraternity, so be it. In the long run, Truth has to be beneficial.

My point was that to deal the issue with Sri Sanjay himself rather than pointing the same issue again and again. Your approach is very much appreciated towards briging out the Truth. It was my sincere and friendly advice and we really need you.

>>>Take Jaimini's sutras on drigdasa. Four translations of Jaimini that I referred to (Sastri, Iranganti, Rath and Kambhampati) give four totally different interpretations. I rest my case on Jaimini's instruction on drigdasa being ambiguous!

Are there only four? Is this word from a scholar of the stature of yours. Don't you see the necessity to search, research and understand the missing ones? If we don't understand something, Can we simply blame somebody and pass on the buck? I agree theat the four translations you referred to give four totally different interpretations. Yet, My point is that there are many more. Doesn't this all mean, this Drig dasa is very cryptic and contains much more to be explored. Why Jaimini concepts were not explored for centuries and instead Parasara system grown like a Banyan tree? If Jaimini concepts were unambiguously told by Parasara, then why scholars on this system are just countable by fingers?

One good friend of mine advised me not to speak about any dasa unless I use it for at least a decade. That is the traditional way of learning. Now a days, we observe a number of modifications, changes in calculations etc. in some dasas by the same author in just a span of a couple of years. And they never show any tangible reference on why did it that way, instead just take reference to Parampara. Doesn't it show our understanding of Jaimini is very limited? If this is the case, then what sort of knowledge we are imparting to the students? When Truth is like this , we simply blame Jaimini as being ambiguous.

>> BPHS verses on drigdasa, on the other hand, are quite clear and unambiguous. Translations of GC Sharma and Sanathanam are the same and they match my independent translation too. Moreover, I have not seen any alternate translations by any scholar. Again, I rest my case.

I doubt the slokas in BPHS whether authored by Parasara. When source itself is corrupted, so are the translations. I never said your translation or Sharma's or Santhanam's is ambiguous. My point was the slokas in BPHS are ambiguous instead. Popular and simple doesn't mean they are correct. It is not a my problem if you haven't seen any translations. By the way can you show me either of these translators used this dasa practically.

How come, some signs don't run at all and instead some run twice on your interpretation?

>>>My friend, Parasara is a maharshi and father of Vyasa. He is not any lesser authority than Jaimini. On issues on which Parasara commented unambiguously, his word is final to me. Others may disagree, but this is my view on the position of Parasara.

Sri Narasimha, I respect Parasara and I know he is father of Vyasa. In fact, the wall paper on my cell phone is of Parasara Maharshi. I never said Parasara is lesser authority than Jaimini. At the same time, Jaimini is also not any lesser authority than Parasara. When it comes to concepts in Parasara system, I take Parasara is the authority. But, when it comes to Jaimini concepts, Jaimini is the authority.Accepting this fact is noway disrespecting either Sages. It is only respecting their teachings and giving due respect they deserve. If you don't agree that Parasara and Jaimini are two different schools of thought, that another matter.

>>> I will be compelled to understand Jaimini, who is inherently ambiguous, only on issues that Parasara is silent on.

I totally disagree with this. The author of BPHS elaborated the cocepts that Jaimini introduced. The author of slokas of these Jaimini concepts in BPHS might not understood some concepts and hence might be silent on those issues. I reserve my opinion on the author of slokas of Jaimini concepts in BPHS. The bottom line is that we must respect them and shall try to understand them. I request you to kindly visit my blog http://sutramritam.blogspot.com, where I have shown one more example on this issue.

>>>If you share your findings about drigdasa *application* based on Jaimini commentaries at your disposal, I will give you my due consideration.

Narasimha, really I am a beginner. The very purpose of writing all this is to intorduce the readers that there is much more knowledge on this dasa system yet to be explored.

I repeat, to understand Jaimini, the commentaries available in print these days are not enough. We must get hold of Vriddha karika slokas to understand these concepts. It is Sri Iranganti Rangacharya's Jaimini Sutramritam where we find more Vriddha karika slokas and none in Sri Sanjay's. Get hold of a Sanskrit verse work called Jaimini Padyamritam to learn Vriddha Karikas.

I have raised a number of points, and you have not answered any. No problem. Yet I want to just tell one more thing on this dasa system. There are concepts called Sign Arudha and Aspect Arudha introduced by Raghavabhatta in his Jataka Sarasangraha exclusively to apply in this dasa. Kindly try them in your interpretation of this dasa. Sign Arudha also was dealt with Kalpalatha, I *believe*.

Let the knowledge come from everywhere

Warm regards,Shanmukha.

 

sohamsa , "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" <pvr wrote:>> Namaste Sri Shanmukha,> > > Your words above create a lot of confusion and distress in the minds of> > the students like me. In fact, these words question the very root of> > Sanjayji's teachings. You made similar allegations/comments in your> > earlier mails also. I request you not to voice these comments in public> > forums since he is your Guru and he is not ready to respond. I request> > you to continue to bring your independent research as you have been> > doing. Else, you will be wasting a lot of your Tapas Sakti and that is> > detrimental to the astrological fraternity.> > One has to balance one's dharma to guru with one's dharma to parampara and one's dharma to the subject itself. One chooses the dharmas on which to expend one's Tapas Sakti. If an honest truth is detrimental to a fraternity, so be it. In the long run, Truth has to be beneficial.> > It is a fact that what has been attributed to "the tradition from Puri" in this editorial note was explicitly identified to me long back as Sanjay ji's innovative idea and not from his elders. If mentioning this fact creates a problem, it is not of my *making*. I am only *pointing* it out.> > * * *> > > 11. I strongly object to the word *ambiguous * used by you in your> > article reg. Jaimini. In fact, I dare to say that BPHS is ambiguous not> > Jaimini.> > Take Jaimini's sutras on drigdasa. Four translations of Jaimini that I referred to (Sastri, Iranganti, Rath and Kambhampati) give four totally different interpretations. I rest my case on Jaimini's instruction on drigdasa being ambiguous!> > BPHS verses on drigdasa, on the other hand, are quite clear and unambiguous. Translations of GC Sharma and Sanathanam are the same and they match my independent translation too. Moreover, I have not seen any alternate translations by any scholar. Again, I rest my case.> > > Drig dasa was not only dealt with in BPHS, but in a> > number of other Jaimini works. Please, kindly refer to them also before> > fixing up your mind on this dasa.> > My friend, Parasara is a maharshi and father of Vyasa. He is not any lesser authority than Jaimini. I will be compelled to understand Jaimini, who is inherently ambiguous, only on issues that Parasara is silent on. On issues on which Parasara commented unambiguously, his word is final to me. Others may disagree, but this is my view on the position of Parasara.> > * * *> > If you share your findings about drigdasa *application* based on Jaimini commentaries at your disposal, I will give you my due consideration.> > 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 , "Shanmukha" teli_sha2002@ wrote:> > > > Om Namah Sivaya> > > > Namaste Sri Narasimha,> > > > Narasimha : I know that that is a misrepresentation of tradition. Sanjay> > ji clearly told me privately in the past that it was *his* innovative> > idea and *not* from his elders.> > > > Your words above create a lot of confusion and distress in the minds of> > the students like me. In fact, these words question the very root of> > Sanjayji's teachings. You made similar allegations/comments in your> > earlier mails also. I request you not to voice these comments in public> > forums since he is your Guru and he is not ready to respond. I request> > you to continue to bring your independent research as you have been> > doing. Else, you will be wasting a lot of your Tapas Sakti and that is> > detrimental to the astrological fraternity.> > > > Coming back to Drig Dasa again, I request you to see the other side of> > the coin as well. Drig dasa was not only dealt with in BPHS, but in a> > number of other Jaimini works. Please, kindly refer to them also before> > fixing up your mind on this dasa. As the taste of pudding lies in> > eating, we shall experiment on the other variations of this dasa system> > as well as you have done on BPHS version.> > > > If you agree on that your interpretation of Drig dasa must be reconciled> > with Jaimini, then I would like to point some more points. The other> > readers may ponder.> > > > 1. Jaimini says *Trikoota* in the adhikara sutra. As per your> > interpretation, for example, Aries Lagna, the Dasa signs are Sg, Pi, Ge,> > Vi, Cp, ... etc. So, the first group signs are all Dual signs.> > Aren't they? Then, where does that Trikoota Padakrama fit in your> > interpretation?> > 2. I learnt that Trikoota in Sanskrit means "Trayanaam Kootaanam> > Samaharaha Trikootah", which clearly says that Trikoota means it is> > a group of three apex, which forms a triangle. So, the combination of> > Movable, Fixed, Dual signs form a triangle. Where as in your> > interpretation, first group of dasa signs are four in number, instead> > that shall be three.> > 3. You may argue that you have used that Trikoota word in the> > interpretation of dasa years. You deduced that dasa years on the basis> > of sthira dasa. That Sasi Nanda . applies only when you get Movable,> > Fixed, Dual signs in succession.> > 4. That you can identify with Sthira dasa, which runs regular. One> > may argue that if we use Trikoota Padakrama, then also we get the above> > sequence. The answer is that this sthira dasa starts from Bramha, hence> > only Udaya chakra, no Padakrama. Also the case with Bramha Dasa where in> > dasa goes regular that is no padakrama with a difference of dasa years.> > 5. Niryaana Sula Dasa (Sula dasa as per SJC) is another class of dasa> > that uses prakriti chakra and gets the same sequence carries 9 years> > each. Since no Bramha involved, usage of prakriti chakra is justified.> > 6. Jaimini clearly instructs us to use Trikoota padakrama and your> > interpretation completely misses the Padakrama. Trikoota padakrama is> > exposed in a couple of Jaimini works and also used in other dasa like> > Mandooka dasa, where dasa years are 7, 8, 9 years respectively and we> > get Movable, Fixed, Dual signs in succession. So, it must be understood> > that when there is a succession of there types of signs then only sthira> > dasa years can be used, else naadhantah Sama. rule must be used for> > dasa years. Allotting dasa years to any dasa is not arbitrary nor a> > choice, but on sound basis.> > 7. Your interpretation of Pada as Ray of light also not tenable,> > since padakrama is followed in a number of dasas and Jaimini instructs> > us with the above word whenever a padakrama to be followed. For example> > Raghava Bhatta - Nrisimha Suri version of Chara Dasa, SJC's> > Narayana Dasa, Paryaya dasas, Mandooka dasa, Drig dasa etc.> > 8. I hope you know that the calculation of Antardasas you interpreted> > precisely means one way of Padakrama and Jaimini also explained that.> > Could you explain why this padakrama/ jumping is only used in> > calculation of ADs? If you use padakrama it must first be applied to> > Mahadasa, then to ADs and it is not vice versa nor only to AD. Why can't> > be the verses quoted by you reg. ADs, are misplaced ones. As I already> > mentioned in my earlier mails, Kritwa arkatha .. Sloka is completely> > in toto Vriddha karika sloka. It seems logical for me that somebody> > clearly adulterated BPHS. I can say this since we all know that whatever> > we read as BPHS might not the one that Parasara originally wrote.> > 9. The verses quoted by you reg. reckoning of dasa signs is seems to> > me that they were completely artwork of somebody who misunderstood> > Jaimini. I *believe* as you do that Jaimini and Parasara taught only one> > Drig dasa. In your interpretation some signs may not run dasa which> > seems not logical. The dasa years may be equal to zero (that may happen> > in Narayana dasa etc.), but not complete disappearance some signs.> > 10. Aspecting dasa (Drig dasa) may not only mean a dasa of aspecting> > rasis, but may also mean that aspects play an important role in the> > dasa.> > 11. I strongly object to the word *ambiguous * used by you in your> > article reg. Jaimini. In fact, I dare to say that BPHS is ambiguous not> > Jaimini. I repeat BHPS not Parasara. Even a Sanskrit scholar> > shouldn't do literal interpretation of Jaimini to understand Him.> > > > I am working on the charts provided by you in your article and God> > willing, I will try to bring forth the findings using Padakrama Version.> > Yet, I will not limit myself to study only spiritual events, but other> > Raja yogas as well. And I can admit that the results are encouraging.> > Reading SJC articles and your article, students may get the impression> > that the application of this dasa is not mentioned in classics. Here, I> > wish to mention that though using this dasa in D-20 is not mentioned,> > yet there is a very important clue. The classics instruct us to apply> > this dasa like the Sampat dasas like Chara Paryaya, Trikona dasa known> > as Gochara dasas. Alas, SJC treats Gochara dasas are Ayurdasas but in> > fact they are Sampat dasas.> > > > In fact, I can confidently say that what I am giving here reg. Drig dasa> > is tip of Iceberg and the ancient Jaimini commentators'> > understanding of this dasa is much more superior and much more yet to> > see the light.> > > > Warm regards,> > > > Shanmukha> > > > PS: Forgive me for preaching and I think I must hibernate to calm down> > my Ego. Seeking blessings.> > > > sohamsa , "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" pvr@ wrote:> > >> > > Dear SanjayP,> > >> > > It has been clarified beforehand that the 9th and aspected signs, 10th> > and aspected signs and 11th and aspected signs are seen.> > >> > > Next lines clarify how to reckon the aspected rasis, i.e. in what> > order. After clarifying order for movable and fixed signs, Parasara> > mentions the order for odd "dvandva" signs and even "dvandva" signs. In> > this context, dvandva can mean nothing but dual signs. Moreover, this> > cannot refer to anything other than the aspect order.> > >> > > I see absolutely no basis to deduce the use of 9th, 8th and 7th houses> > as bases here. The bases have been clarified beforehand and only the> > order of aspects from each base is being further clarified. It was> > clarified for movable and fixed signs and dual signs were left for the> > last line.> > >> > > * * *> > >> > > The "edior's note" that accompanied my drigdasa article in JD referred> > to changing the bases from houses 9, 10, 11 for dual sign rising charts> > to avoid duplication of dasas:> > >> > > "The system taught by our tradition from Puri is by far the most> > logical as dual signs in the ascendant, it seems absurd to consider the> > dasa of the 9th, 10th, 11th houses and signs aspected which would result> > in duplicating some signs while ignoring others."> > >> > > This may give one the impression that tradition uses 9th, 8th and 7th> > instead of 9th, 10th and 11th in dual sign rising charts. However, I> > know that that is a misrepresentation of tradition. Sanjay ji clearly> > told me privately in the past that it was *his* innovative idea and> > *not* from his elders. He was very clear then. I will believe what he> > told me privately before there was a controversy rather than what he> > told public after a controversy. Moreover, intelligent observers may> > note that this critique focused, when concluding which method is more> > "logical", on a fringe issue and ignored real and serious issues like> > dasa years (chara vs sthira) and basic order (footedness vs> > triplicities), where Sanjay's teachings are different from Parasara's.> > >> > > Best regards,> > > Narasimha>