Final Word (Transferring JHora Ownership)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sanjayji,

 

I think you would have done better had you not taken the name of Manish panditji

in all this.

But you took it and spelt bad against it.

MAYBE YOU WOULD HAVE DONE BETTER ALTOGETHER TO AVOID TYPING OR SPELLING THAT

NAME.

 

vedic astrology , Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr wrote:

>

> Namaste Sanjay,

>

> > I wanted it to be made FREE. I have fought

> > to make it FREE in the past.

>

> You " fought " ? With whom, me?! After all, nobody else is involved..

>

> Why should anyone have to " fight " with me to make my software free, when that

is what I wanted from the beginning? I have always kept money considerations

away from all my Jyotish and spiritual activities and did not try to benefit

even a cent from those activities (though I accepted what was given

voluntarily).

>

> My software is free. My Jyotish classes are free. My Jyotish research articles

are free. My Jyotish readings are free. Even the conferences/seminars I

organized on behalf of SJC in Boston were based on voluntary donations and not

based on a set fee. My short " do-it-yourself " homam and tarpana manuals are

free. When we arranged mass Satya Narayana vrat in Boston a couple of times, it

was free and we only took voluntary donations. When Sagar published my Vedic

astrology textbook, I asked them to pay the royalties to you.

>

> All my contributions have been transparent and free.

>

> * * *

>

> The only exception was that JHora professional version was temporarily sold

before I made that free too. However, it was *you* who wanted a free lite

version and a commercial professional version. You even recommended what should

be in the lite version and what should be in the professional version. For the

record, I did not use even a single cent from that money, even for mailing,

making CDs etc.

>

> Why would somebody have to " fight " with me to make JHora " free " ? Some lies are

so silly and so easy to see through.

>

> * * *

>

> Sanjay, we DID have a clash in money matters for almost a decade, but you seem

to remember it all wrong. Let me refresh your memory.

>

> You wanted SJC " Jyotish Gurus " to charge fixed hourly fees for teaching

Jyotish and wanted to standardize fees for each geographical region. I opposed

it tooth and nail for many years. I said I could never charge a fee for

teaching. I said, " it is a sin in my view. If others want to do it, it is their

karma - I will not stop them. But please do not force it on me. " But you wanted

to standardize the fees. If I teach for free and another guru takes some fee in

another city, you argued it would look bad and so we needed to standardize fees.

I did not budge and made clear I would never be part of an arrangement like

that. This argument came up every now and then. An interesting coincidence is

that we stopped having this argument once you finally started offering

commercial courses outside of SJC (erstwhile JIVA and now sohamsa.com).

>

> Instead of disagreeing with you on everything, I gave an exception in the case

of software and accepted the argument that software is not knowledge but a

convenience in applying knowledge and hence price can be put on it. I

unwillingly sold it, but did not touch that money. Yes, you did not oppose but

encouraged, when I finally *decided* to abolish lite vs professional distinction

and make the entire software free. But, you did not fight - nobody had to. I

always wanted it free.

>

> The one having several commercial activities relating to Jyotish is claiming

that he " fought " to make JHora free, with the one who always advocated free and

does not have any commercial activities! And he invokes the name of Shiva and

satya! What an age we are living in!!

>

> * * *

>

> > If his guru referred to me, then his Guru Manish Pandit is a sham.

>

> Yes, he referred to you.

>

> * * *

>

> Namaste friends,

>

> One final word to anybody who may be disillusioned, confused and overwhelmed

by this thread:

>

> The mails enclosed below clarify various aspects of what I see as a problem. I

was very unhappy with the haste with which unreliable knowledge is shared/sold

and the dishonesty associated with it. I tried my best to improve things without

rocking the applecart. But I was unsuccessful and I gave up. I am sorry.

>

> Truth is powerful, even when uncomfortable. The closed room of deception may

be well-contained, warm, cozy and comfortable. The open space of truth may feel

cold, confusing, dis-orienting and daunting. But one is better off with the

latter.

>

> Knowledge of rishis does not need an egoistic and commercial middleman. In

fact, it never comes through such a person. If you have a genuine desire for

knowledge of rishis, develop truthfulness, honesty and purity of thoughts. Keep

praying to the rishis for knowledge. You will receive it oneday. NO effort is

wasted. Every effort results in its fruits, tomorrow if not today and in the

next life if not in this life. But no effort is wasted. Put in your effort

sincerely and leave the rest to god.

>

> 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 Chandan Singh

> > I am not interested in taking over the software. I wanted it to be made

FREE. I have fought to make it FREE in the past.

> > I have no intention of taking over Jagannath Hora. I made a hypothetical

question and see the reaction. The question was based on one person saying that

Narasimha has given me guru dakshina. Oh no he has not. And that is what I HAVE

PROVED now.

> > His guru said that *they will try to take it over*. If his guru referred to

me, then his Guru Manish Pandit is a sham.

> > I have no hesitation in saying this about Manish Pandit if he referred to

meas trying to take over Jagannath Hora.

> > What is Satya Chandan? The one who teaches for years to another and then has

to see these lies in his name ...

> > Shiva shows satya and He will

> >

> > Jai Bharati

> > Sanjay Rath

> >

> > chandan s sabarwal

> > Thursday, March 11, 2010 11:06 AM

> > vedic astrology

> > [vedic astrology] Re: Transferring JHora Ownership

> >

> > dear narasimha ,

> >

> > i totally agree with your guruji and you must definately not give away jhora

.. i understand that this software is more research based and aims at refining

jyotisa unlike other softwares which have no or buggy calculations and are

loaded with pretyped interpretations on planetary positions.

> >

> > god knows how much more of satya is rahu yet to show !!!

> >

> > best regards,

> > chandan singh.

> >

> > vedic astrology , Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Namaste Sanjay,

> > >

> > > > Let us assume that Narasimha has become completely spiritual

> > > > and has become very renounced - what do you think he will do

> > > > if I ask him to transfer --

> > > > (1) Ownership of JHora to Sri Jagannath Center

> > >

> > > If my spiritual guru asks me to do it, I will do so without batting an

eyelid. However, he has warned of this and explicitly forbade me.

> > >

> > > When I decided a few years back to make JHora open source and leave JHora

programming to others, my spiritual guru asked me to rethink.

> > >

> > > In July 2009, he suddenly told me without any context, " they are going to

try to take over Jagannatha Hora. You must stand firm and not allow that. I know

you want to get out of this, but there is more you need to do for the Jyotish

world and JHora is an important vehicle. If they take over, all your effort so

far will go waste. They will promote dogmatism, create confusion, kill research

and eventually make it commercial like everything else they are doing today. You

must stand firm. They will invoke Krishna's name, but realize that nobody owns

Krishna. I forbid you from giving away JHora to them. Own it, keep it free and

add new researches to it. "

> > >

> > > (Note: I am mentioning this publicly with the permission of my guru.)

> > >

> > > * * *

> > >

> > > Very interestingly, just a few days after he said this, you wrote on the

lists, " I think the time has come when PVR Narasimha and SJC have to part ways " ,

because I had no " faith in Jagannath Mahaprabhu " .

> > >

> > > And, just a few days later, you wanted a team decided by SJC to take over

JHora and create an " SJC version " , as there were too many options in JHora. I

immediately remembered my guru's words and saw this is as the first step of what

he described.

> > >

> > > * * *

> > >

> > > This was my reply to you from August 2009:

> > >

> > > " I will continue to maintain " Jagannatha Hora " software effort for some

more time.

> > >

> > > Also, Jagannatha Hora will continue to support " non-SJC " calculations and

options in the interest of the advancement of Jyotish knowledge. As I said, I

will be happy to add a menu item to apply SJC recommended settings, if you or an

SJC committee standardize the settings and send them to me via a jhora.ini file.

> > >

> > > If you or an SJC committee decide that something more is needed, I can

review the expectations and judge whether and how I can help. "

> > >

> > > * * *

> > >

> > > Though addressed to someone else, I realize that the above question about

transferring the " ownership of JHora " is indirectly meant for me. But, you

already know my answer! I reproduced it above anyway.

> > >

> > > 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:

> > > > om gurave namah

> > > > Dear Raj

> > > > When you give something to someone, who is the owner of it? You or the

person to whom you gave it?

> > > > So according to this simple logic, who is supposed to be the owner of

Jagannath Hora? If it is not Sanjay Rath, then it was never given to him.

> > > > Secondly, I don't want to make money from this software or such things,

so then what if I wish something and it is not done regarding the software, can

we say that I am even a partial owner of the software? So how is the *Guru

Dakshina?*

> > > > In view of the above, some of your statements may seem very untruthful.

In future I can only suggest that you at least get the facts right before making

statements, else you may be seen as one who is telling lies easily.

> > > >

> > > > If you think I am worried about changing of names of JHora, you are

wrong.

> > > > Now let me tell you and other list members another thing -

> > > > This Vedic Astrology list was created long time back in 1998 by

Narasimha on behalf of Sri Jagannath. Other groups were created by another old

student ran away with the SJVC websites and . One thief called

Dinanath Das. So, technically Narasimha was entrusted with the responsibility of

having public forum for Sri Jagannath Center.

> > > > Now, can you please check and tell me *who is the owner of Vedic

Astrology List*? Is this Narasimha or SJC? And if Narasimha runs away with this

list (who is to stop him?), in what way is he any different from the previous

ones who ran away with things entrusted to them?

> > > > Let us assume that Narasimha has become completely spiritual and has

become very renounced - what do you think he will do if I ask him to transfer --

> > > > (1) Ownership of JHora to Sri Jagannath Center

> > > > (2) Ownership of this list to say ... You Raj, you can handle this list

of Jagannath. You seem to have faith in Krishna.

> > > > Jaya Bharati

> > > > Regards ~

> > > > Sanjay Rath

> > > > http://srath.cpm

>

>

> > Namaste,

> >

> > > why unnecessarily waste your time in unproductive lengthy

> > > arguments with him.Every body is also listening Narasimha

> > > ji. He may put forth his views without referring Mr. Rath.

> >

> > I have put forth my views on technical matters impersonally for a long time

now and continue to do it (some more research articles are in the pipeline,

apart from JHora 7.4 software release with several important new features).

> >

> > Just to be clear, what I have done in the last few days in this thread is

different. I was NOT engaged in technical arguments with Pt Rath or anybody. I

am simply giving my own personal *judgment* on a *public figure* in the Jyotish

world, based on the insights gained from my close interaction with him for a

long time.

> >

> > * * *

> >

> > > Dear Narsahima ji , life is short , why not work together for the

benefit of this

> > > branch of knowledge together and unitedly.

> >

> > You are right. Life is short. Amount of knowledge available in the Jyotish

world is limited and there is more confusion than genuine knowledge. There are

very few talented students who can work on refining this knowledge. Given the

paucity of resources and people, we should not waste them in order to pursue our

own name, fame, money etc.

> >

> > I have seen irresponsible behavior on this count for a long time:

> >

> > (1) There have been things that were obviously made up in a hurry and not

researched at all, but were presented along with tall claims. For example, nadi

navamsa was revealed with fanfare and Sanjay ji claimed it overrides all other

charts when it comes to death. He also put forward some vague notions of

internal vs external and claimed this chart gives clarity. On digging, there was

no consistent methodology and even the chart itself is an illogical chart and in

all likelihood an invalid chart. Why make things up hurriedly and make tall

claims?

> >

> > (2) How do I know he made up in a hurry? Apart from guessing it based on the

shallowness of what was presented, I have seen it live in other cases! For

example, he would tell one of us the night before a seminar in US to " figure

out " something (e.g. Sudasa) to teach the next morning. For example, he would

give a few possibilities for Sudasa and ask us to figure out using a couple of

examples what is working better. When there is something interesting in one

example, he exclaims, " that's it " and jumps to conclusions. Next morning,

students would drink it up thinking that it is nectar coming from parampara.

> >

> > When your memory of what your elders taught is vague, either do a thorough

research and teach or present various possibilities and be honest about what you

know and what you don't. Do not present it to the world with dishonest

confidence. The pressure felt by him to keep revealing secrets and fascinating

knowledge is quite sad. It is not conducive to the growth of correct knowledge.

> >

> > In cases like nadi navamsa, it is not even based on vague memory of what

elders taught. It is something he is trying to construct based on reading books

and thinking. If a chart itself is fake and you are making tall claims about the

results seen in it, what does it say about the quality of your work?

> >

> > (3) In the early days, there was more honesty in what he knew and what he

didn't, atleast privately. In later days, with more people coming in, the

behavior changed. He would portray as though he knew a lot and had many secrets

but was revealing only part of it. An air of enigma conveniently developed

around him and his knowledge.

> >

> > (4) When I saw inconsistencies in his logic at seminars, I would sometimes

ask. He would brush it off saying, " Narasimha, you are too advanced. These

people won't understand. We will discuss later. " That would be the end of it. In

the beginning, he had the spirit of finding truth. Later, he was happy if his

audiences bought what he said. By remaining enigmatic, by vaguely tying in high

philosophy and keeping the logic flexible, one can maximize the chance of

audiences buying what one says (and thinking that they have to study more to

understand fully!).

> >

> > (5) There have been things that Sanjay ji privately confessed long back, in

explicit terms, to be his ideas not approved by elders, but later explicitly

attributed the same to parampara (e.g. drigdasa exception for dual sign rising

charts). Why abuse the security given by parampara?

> >

> > (6) There were things where Sanjay ji confessed to me long back where there

were multiple versions and he was not sure which version was correct and asked

me to research (e.g. solar vs soli-lunar months in TP,

sign-based/longitude-based arudha padas and varnadas). However, in the following

years, only one simple version was pushed by SJC and given in the software. Now,

when I speak in favor of the other version after research, he seems to feel

threatened and is so intolerant and dismissive (e.g. reaction to my findings on

solar/soli-lunar months issue in TP).

> >

> > (7) As I showed in the mail enclosed below, there is unscrupulous behavior

in fabricating and manipulating things (scroll down for specific examples). He

can fabricate things and write them publicly to discredit his rival in a debate

and cast aspersions on his knowledge and intentions. Is that the way to " work

together for the benefit of this branch of knowledge " ? In fact, is Sanjay ji of

today truly capable of " working together for the benefit of this branch of

knowledge " ? I know that the original Sanjay ji I met seemed capable.

> >

> > (8) I will not name names, but I do know some talented students with good

capability for research, who immersed themselves in SJC knowledge, got

disillusioned later and reduced their Jyotish activities after a promising

start. If there was honesty about what we knew and what we did not know and if

new confusions were not thrust upon the existing confusions of Jyotish by adding

a lot of hurriedly manufactured fake knowledge to the public discourse, these

people could have made good contributions to Jyotish, instead of getting

disillusioned.

> >

> > If I can stop a few talented students from getting disillusioned after

investing a lot of their time, money and energy on fake knowledge, this

whistleblowing of mine would've served its purpose!! I don't know if that will

happen, but I will take my chance..

>

>

> > > Namaste friends,

> > >

> > > > He is free to peruse his own independent path with out

> > > > abusing or blaming his guru , and earning and accumulating

> > > > bad Karma for himself.)

> > >

> > > If what I wrote is false, then it counts as an " abuse " . But, if what I

wrote is true, it is a serious and relevant issue to the Jyotish world.

Whistleblowing and abuse are different.

> > >

> > > Let me illustrate my point using the example of so-called " Nadi navamsa " .

A few months back, Pt Rath taught " Nadi Navamsa " and shared a multimedia

presentation. He tried to differentiate it from regular navamsa saying one is

for " internal " matters and the other for " external " matters. He said, " until

now, you were seeing everything in one chart and did not have clarity. That is

because you did not have a tool. Now I am giving you a tool. " He even made very

serious claims (e.g. when this chart shows death, it overrides other charts and

one has to be very careful).

> > >

> > > I wrote a detailed critique showing how there was no consistent

methodology of what is internal and what is external. I showed how he mixed up

everything and how his teachings were all over the place and filled with

contradictions and confusions. Above all, I showed that the chart he defined

itself was an *illogical* chart and suggested a more logical alternative

definition, which renders his teachings on this meaningless. Mr Goel, the person

who wrote the mail below, said about my definition: " I am convinced that you are

right " !

> > >

> > > * * *

> > >

> > > Sanjay ji's response to my detailed critique was short in a mail addressed

to Mr Goel:

> > >

> > > " It is not the critique that I question, it is the intention. As I told

Narasimha earlier - it is bhakti that is under doubt and question, and that is

the heart. He has no bhakti for Jagannath and there is no truth in his heart.

> > >

> > > Note that he did not have any response to the technical points in my

critique! When it comes to my " bhakti " , it is a matter between me, my spiritual

master and my Mother.

> > >

> > > * * *

> > >

> > > Bottomline: Sanjay ji taught an illogical chart and what seems on a

superficial observation like a sophisticated and nuanced methodology around it

but which is in fact a facade. Unfortunately, he did it so many times in so many

matters, after his ran out of his true parampara secrets such as Narayana dasa

and TP in the early years.

> > >

> > > After my critique, this Nadi navamsa thing fizzled out. Otherwise, it

would've become part of standard terminology on lists. People would wonder " why

are you using regular navamsa? Shouldn't we use nadi navamsa in this case

because of so and so reason? " Like this, so much fake knowledge got into public

discourse and corrupted it in the last several years. This is very bad for the

growth of correct Jyotish knowledge.

> > >

> > > When his ill-researched " hunches " are shared with pomp, fanfare and an air

of great importance, people take it to be either a parampara secret or an

important research that is inspired by the wisdom of parampara. But, as I said,

Sanjay ji is a very bad researcher (his USP is parampara secrets. He is good at

coming up with ideas in a hunch, but terrible at researching them) and jumps to

conclusions at the drop of a hat. So much fake knowledge enetered public

discourse like this and corrupted the field.

>

>

> > > 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

KrishnaÃÆ'ƒÂ¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'¢â€ž\

¢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

>