Reply to Sanjay ji

[Guest guest]

Pranaam Sanjay,

 

> Secondly the language used by him in the mails in the last 3-4

> years is definitely not acceptable in any teaching forum.

 

*Barring* the last few days when I finally chose to step outside of technical

matters and make judgments on a personality, can you quote one sentence I wrote

in the last 3-4 years that fits the above description?

 

* * *

 

I may have been criticizing your teachings for the last 3-4 years, but I never

wrote any untruth and stuck to technical points despite provocations. You would

many times become emotional and/or dramatic and state fabrications to discredit

me or cast aspersions on my knowledge and/or intentions. I patiently ignored

those fabrications and stuck to technical points each time. Let me give a couple

of specific examples to illustrate this.

 

* * *

 

You wrote in the middle of the debate on your principle that fasting on some

days " angers " Vishnu and you have to do astrological analysis before fasting:

" Is it because I did not share the Jaimni scholar lectures? I invited you and

een was prepard to shift dates, but you were too busy filming about

Krishna’s birth or something. " You also iterated a few times

later that my attitude had " changed " ever since I was not a part of your

" Jaimini scholar " program.

 

Though you personally invited me for that Jaimini scholar program, I consciously

chose to skip. I never discussed it with you later and it was never on my mind.

Moreover, I never discussed " sharing the Jaimini scholar lectures " or " shifting

dates " etc.

 

When I and my spiritual guru were in Delhi, we were free for half a day and I

tried calling the phone numbers you emailed before, to possibly meet you along

with my guru. But I could not reach you. It was as simple as that. Where is this

" sharing the Jaimini scholar lectures " coming from and " shifting dates " coming

from?

 

These accusations give readers false impression that there is a sub-text behind

my disagreements. But that is so false. I simply thought that the idea of

fasting on some days angering Vishnu is wrong and took it up.

 

Is fabricating such specific details to cast aspersions an " appropriate "

behavior?

 

* * *

 

As another example, you wrote when I questioned your interpretation of chara

karakas: " Ayanamsha ...thank God that I stopped you from coming out with another

Narasimha Ayanamsha ..but now you have come to some level of understanding with

the Vishnu nabhi which makes the nodes retro all the time ...good. Thats your

pace, but that ayanamsha is also wrong. "

 

First of all, the above statement came just one month after I revealed my

findings on ayanamsa publicly and you wrote: " THAT IS SOMETHING BRILLIANT I

think you have finally cracked it " and " Your hard work is of great historical

significance " .

 

Secondly, I never proposed to come out with a " Narasimha ayanamsa " . In fact, I

do not like to name anything after me. Even with drigdasa, I called it

" Parasara's drigdasa " , while *you* insisted that I should call it " Narasimha's

drigdasa " . The assertion that you " stopped me from coming out with another

Narasimha Ayanamsha " is absolutely a fabrication.

 

Thirdly, the new ayanamsa that I shared with the world was completely conceived,

defined and refined by me and you were not at all involved in its conception,

definition and refinement. Your only contribution, which came several months

*after* the above comments were written by you and after it was already included

in JHora as " Vishnunabhi ayanamsa " , was to suggest changing its name from

" Vishnunabhi ayanamsa " to " Jagannatha ayanamsa " (which I readily agreed to). You

neither " stopped " me from anything as mentioned above nor guided me in any way

in my ayanamsa research, which the above statement suggests.

 

* * *

 

There were many such occasions during the last 3-4 years when you would become

emotional and/or dramatic and state fabrications to discredit me or cast

aspersions on my knowledge and/or intentions. I patiently ignored these

fabrications and provocations and religiously focused on the technical points

and kept the arguments technical.

 

In addition to these fabrications that are partly personal and partly technical

in nature, there were fabrications in strictly technical matters. For example,

you *explicitly* acknowledged several years ago that the idea of taking 9th, 8th

and 7th houses for drigdasa in dual sign rising charts was your own idea and not

approved by your elders. Yet, you *explicitly* attributed it to " our tradition

from Puri " in a Jyotish Digest editorial.

 

Until recently, I have only subtly hinted at inconsistencies in your teachings

and made my arguments fully technical. You, on the other hand, often left

technical issues to get personal, condescending and falsely accusing. You proved

on many occasions that you are capable of manipulating facts, fabricating things

and lying, both in technical and personal issues. It is quite ironic that you

should accuse me of bad behavior!

 

Best regards,

Narasimha

-

Free Jyotish Software, Free Jyotish Lessons, Jyotish Writings,

" Do It Yourself " ritual manuals for short Homam and Pitri Tarpana:

http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

Films that make a difference: http://SaraswatiFilms.org

Spirituality:

Jyotish writings: JyotishWritings

-

 

vedic astrology , " Sanjay Rath " <sjrath wrote:

>

> Dear Mr Jha

> You wrote -

> ==== Point -1 =====

> Raashi-chakra has equal divisions at intervals of 30 degrees.

> Bhaava-chalita is computed along the principles given in BPHS which are

> based on Suryasiddhantic equations and has unequal divisions. In Medini

> Jyotisha, Raashichakra is fixed on map and Bhaavachalita moves on it at

> an average rate of one full cycle per day, that is why bhaavachakra is

> named Chalita. It is the real bhaava chart because the first bhaava is

> lagna which is a point on ecliptic and not on circular celestial orbit

> which means bhaavachakra must be elliptical and not circular in sky.

>

> I have tested the efficacy of bhaavachalita in rainfall, earthquakes,

> individual charts, national affairs like growth rates of national

> income, etc. It is suicidal to write it off. Goel Ji is doing great

> disservice to astrology by propounding wrong views about house

> divisions. Raju Gupta was right.

>

> Rath: The Bhava Lagna is an important factor which all of you are also

ignoring. What is the role of the Bhava Lagna which is specifically mentioned by

Parashara?

> Secondly, if you see the method of computation of Hora Lagna and Ghatika

Lagna, is it not a circular path? Then on what basis are you suggesting that the

bhava calculated from the Hora Lagna and Ghatika lagna should be elliptical?

>

> ==== Point 2 ====

>

> PVR still regards Sanjay Ji as his guru and respects him, but if Sanjay

> Ji gives a wrong definition of Kaalachakra dashaa (KCD) sequences, PVR

> has a right to express his own opinions. Goel Ji should have judged the

> merits and demerits of both on the issue under discussion (KCD).

> Instead, he buried the issue and made it a personality clash between

> guru and shishya, denouncing the shishya for opposing the guru. It is

> not sincerity. The issue must be discussed and not the persons. Mr

> Sanjay Rath and Mr PVR have both served Jyotisha. None of them should be

> denounced. The matter is which of the KCD sequences is correct, which

> Goel Ji happily forgets.

>

> Rath: PVR does not regard nor consider Sanjay Rath as his guru. He seems to

have forgotten what was so painstakingly taught in so many years. That is kali

Yuga. Secondly the language used by him in the mails in the last 3-4 years is

definitely not acceptable in any teaching forum. I think you too have taught in

the past and would not accept such behavior if your students talked in this

fashion with you. When people cannot talk decently, it is best not to talk to

them.

> So, lets be clear on one thing. There is no debate. As and when I have time, I

try to show the mess he is making of jyotish. Rest is his karma.

>

> You seem to have your own conclusions about right and wrong already. You talk

of a debate where one person speaks and the other is not to be seen.

>

> Just getting the facts right

>

> Best Wishes

> Sanjay Rath