Guest guest Posted December 31, 2008 Report Share Posted December 31, 2008 Namaste Shanmukha, > >>>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. If there is a regular sentence like " walk ten steps in the eastern direction and five steps in the northern direction " , there is not much ambiguity in it and most people will understand it similarly. There may be more to it to understand, but the instruction itself is clear. On the other hand, if there is a cryptic sentence like " avataras in ocean, bhutas to himalayas, go " , there may be many ways to interpret it. It is ambiguous by nature (and, likely, by intention!). Whether you peruse four commentaries or forty commentaries is irrelevant. There is a very good chance that you will never understand it correctly. Even if there are some old commentaries on such a work, one can never be sure that they are correct. The original work itself is intentionally ambiguous for some reason! BPHS on the other hand is far less cryptic and easier to understand. I am sorry to say that people have NOT understood many important portions of BPHS correctly yet. I firmly believe that study and research into BPHS have a far higher chance of being fruitful than study and research into Jaimini Sutras, which are intentionally ambiguous. I also totally disagree with the view that cryptic sutras of Jaimini and their ancient commentaries are somehow more valuable than clear instructions in BPHS. The latter is a very good source of knowledge and it seems to be quite reliable. If Jyotish researchers focus their energy on deciphering the ignored portions of BPHS correctly, it will be very useful to the Jyotish community. I started studying Jyotish 30 years back and have studied Jyotish seriously and sincerely for more than 15 years now. I know Sanskrit well; I know the ancient writing practices well; I tried many Jyotish techniques practically over the years; I have an insider's understanding of the limitations of knowledge attributed to paramparas; and, I have no agendas and not trying to sell anything and hence have no conflicts of interest. From my vantage point, I have a decent understanding of what is worth pursuing. Others may see things differently. 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, > > 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 <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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.