[quote="basab"]Rohiniranjanji,

I don't know why I am always being misunderstood here. I had no intention of attacking Girish Chandra Sharma or for that matter you. I think any person will be sensible enough to understand that it's a genuine confusion about the slokas that led me to my writing such a post but I guess this site is about criticizing people and their honest intentions. I don't think you even bothered to check the articles and find out why I was saying what I was saying. Anyway, I don't think there is any point trying to share my confusions here because it will be thought of in a totally different way and given a new meaning. I have faced that since the very day I started writing here and I am very disappointed with this discussion board which I guess is more about learning how to make people feel humiliated than discussing astrology.

My deepest apologies to Girish Chandra Sharma for criticizing his translation of BPHS in my previous post.[/quote]

Sorry Basab but you are overreacting, just as you overreacted in your first message when you lamented/accused me for steering you wrong by recommending GC Sharma. I neither get a commission from Sharma nor Sagar publications. Point by point, I have shown how the mistakes you or whoever identified in Sharma's edition were baseless.

That said, I have myself written years ago that there are many versions of BPHS and some discrepancies within it. Great text and reference source though it may be, no one should remain married to any particular book or scripture. That is why we have scores of ancient and probably hundreds of modern books on jyotish. One has to examine it all with a balanced and unbiased approach.

And please do not project your frustrations or perceptions to blame the entire board and your lament about being criticized and what not. In fact if you step back a bit you will see that it was YOU who began criticizing and passing hasty judgments about GC Sharma and so on. In all fairness I had to respond, which I did.

Jyotish is full of uncertainties and requires a lot of UHA POHA! One needs to be tough or it can turn into quicksand. I am more than twice your age and have seen all of this many many times from those younger than me and some much older than me!

Rohiniranjanji,

Sorry, if I overreacted. When I was thinking of buying the book last year I had asked for some suggestions and one astrologer told me that it was not a very useful book and as I discuss astrology in the discussion board of a website which is owned by one of the students of K.N. Rao I also got to hear K.N. Rao's opinion on the BPHS translations available in the market(this student of K.N. Rao told us what K.N. Rao had told him when he e-mailed him asking him about BPHS) and he doesn't hold a very high opinion about them. When I read an articles in K.N. Rao's website and a couple of articles in his students website where the yoga quoted from BPHS was slightly different from the one translated by G.C. Sharma I thought it better to follow the one mentioned in the articles because I believed that they being astrologers and being K.N. Rao's students must have quoted the correct translation as they have been taught by one of the best astrology teachers in the whole world, i.e. K.N. Rao. Another yoga I talked about in my previous post where I mentioned I discussed it with an astrologer, well I thought he is correct as he must have read all the translations and judged which one as the correct one.  

I am a beginner in astrology so I don't have the knowledge to judge as to which of the translations is accurate and which one is not, there are some printing mistakes in the book, you have identified one and if you read the links of the articles i have attached in my post you will identify another one for sure. about the aspects by one foot  and 2 feet etc that I have mentioned, I have read about the same aspects(2 feet,3 feet) in a bengali book on astrology which is "Phalit Jyotish" by Harihar Majumdar where some of the aspects are mentioned differently as I have stated in my earlier post and when talking about those aspects in particular Mars, Saturn and Jupiter has been awarded full aspects when they are aspecting the 7th house, and also the other aspects like 2 feet and 3 feet aspects are also different from what is mentioned in the BPHS(translated by G.C. Sharma) for the above mentioned planets that led to my getting confused as to which one is correct.

I believe there are more errors in the book which I can't recollect now as I have read the book an year back and I don't have such a strong memory that I will remember every line that is written there in those 2 vols. I have recollected another mistake. Let me point it out here:

quoting from chapter 49 , page 122, of BPHS Vol. 2(translated by Girish Chandra Sharma)

"34-39-1/2: O Brahmin! Now I explain the signs etc., of Rahu and Ketu so that I can disclose the results of their Dasa before you. The exaltation signs of Rahu is Scorpio and for Ketu it is Taurus and the Mooltrikona signs are respectively Sagittarius and Gemini."

Now won't you call this an error?

There is another one which is very confusing:

Quoting from the BPHS(translated by G.C. Sharma) chapter 34 Planetary Karakatwas(Indications of Planets) page 447 slokas 16-17:

"If the degrees etc of two planets are identical, both of them are considered as one Karaka and O excellent of the Brahmins, in this case the former Karaka is eclipsed. In such a state the auspicious or inauspicious effects of that former planet should be known from the constant karaka(significator)."

Now in the next page, page 448 where there is the authors note explaining the above slokas in more simple language something totally opposite to the sloka has been made to understand with the help of an example. quoting from there:

"Suppose the Bhatri Karaka(significator of Brother) and the next planet to him in lower degrees are identical, then both of them will be the Bhatri Karaka and the next planet to the Bhatri Karaka one having lower degrees than he has will not be a chara karaka in the form of Matri Karaka (significator of the mother). It is from the constant karaka of the mother who is generally the Moon, the auspicious and the inauspicious effects of the mother are studied."

This is really confusing. Rohiniranjanji, could you please tell me which one is the correct one?

[quote="basab"]Rohiniranjanji,

Sorry, if I overreacted. When I was thinking of buying the book last year I had asked for some suggestions and one astrologer told me that it was not a very useful book and as I discuss astrology in the discussion board of a website which is owned by one of the students of K.N. Rao I also got to hear K.N. Rao's opinion on the BPHS translations available in the market(this student of K.N. Rao told us what K.N. Rao had told him when he e-mailed him asking him about BPHS) and he doesn't hold a very high opinion about them. When I read an articles in K.N. Rao's website and a couple of articles in his students website where the yoga quoted from BPHS was slightly different from the one translated by G.C. Sharma I thought it better to follow the one mentioned in the articles because I believed that they being astrologers and being K.N. Rao's students must have quoted the correct translation as they have been taught by one of the best astrology teachers in the whole world, i.e. K.N. Rao. Another yoga I talked about in my previous post where I mentioned I discussed it with an astrologer, well I thought he is correct as he must have read all the translations and judged which one as the correct one.  

I am a beginner in astrology so I don't have the knowledge to judge as to which of the translations is accurate and which one is not, there are some printing mistakes in the book, you have identified one and if you read the links of the articles i have attached in my post you will identify another one for sure. about the aspects by one foot  and 2 feet etc that I have mentioned, I have read about the same aspects(2 feet,3 feet) in a bengali book on astrology which is "Phalit Jyotish" by Harihar Majumdar where some of the aspects are mentioned differently as I have stated in my earlier post and when talking about those aspects in particular Mars, Saturn and Jupiter has been awarded full aspects when they are aspecting the 7th house, and also the other aspects like 2 feet and 3 feet aspects are also different from what is mentioned in the BPHS(translated by G.C. Sharma) for the above mentioned planets that led to my getting confused as to which one is correct.

I believe there are more errors in the book which I can't recollect now as I have read the book an year back and I don't have such a strong memory that I will remember every line that is written there in those 2 vols. I have recollected another mistake. Let me point it out here:

quoting from chapter 49 , page 122, of BPHS Vol. 2(translated by Girish Chandra Sharma)

"34-39-1/2: O Brahmin! Now I explain the signs etc., of Rahu and Ketu so that I can disclose the results of their Dasa before you. The exaltation signs of Rahu is Scorpio and for Ketu it is Taurus and the Mooltrikona signs are respectively Sagittarius and Gemini."

Now won't you call this an error?

There is another one which is very confusing:

Quoting from the BPHS(translated by G.C. Sharma) chapter 34 Planetary Karakatwas(Indications of Planets) page 447 slokas 16-17:

"If the degrees etc of two planets are identical, both of them are considered as one Karaka and O excellent of the Brahmins, in this case the former Karaka is eclipsed. In such a state the auspicious or inauspicious effects of that former planet should be known from the constant karaka(significator)."

Now in the next page, page 448 where there is the authors note explaining the above slokas in more simple language something totally opposite to the sloka has been made to understand with the help of an example. quoting from there:

"Suppose the Bhatri Karaka(significator of Brother) and the next planet to him in lower degrees are identical, then both of them will be the Bhatri Karaka and the next planet to the Bhatri Karaka one having lower degrees than he has will not be a chara karaka in the form of Matri Karaka (significator of the mother). It is from the constant karaka of the mother who is generally the Moon, the auspicious and the inauspicious effects of the mother are studied."

This is really confusing. Rohiniranjanji, could you please tell me which one is the correct one?[/quote]

Basab,

Again you are missing to distinguish between:
a) 'Alleged' flawed translation by Sharma which I am trying to defend against...
b) flawed BPHS which is a HUGE can of worms right up there along -- how does one prove that punarjanma can be seen through a horoscope? And similar twenty aspirin questions!

I think you should have listened to Mr. KN Rao who directly or indirectly, if I understand your post and its sentiments, conveyed that all versions are flawed as are the translations! You could perhaps have got all the distilled knowledge through reading his books instead of getting into this confused state of mind. Maybe there is still time to recoup your lost time. By the way, just as a caveat THIS IS NOT A RECOMMENDATION OR ENDORSEMENT OF KN RAO'S WRITINGS, BOOKS OR ARTICLES! I do not want another angry accusatory letter from you or someone else who may misunderstood this and then I am placed in a difficult position of having to defend KNR (not because he needs tiny atoms like me to defend his glory but because he is not here to defend himself). Again, please do not take this combatively or an excuse to prolong the dialogue! I personally care not one bit if your head clear or you remain confused as a jyotishi or whatever.

End of discussion as far as I am concerned. Go work hard just as I and all others had to in order to learn jyotish.

Sorry for my harsh tone but I do not see any sincerity in your posts, the questions raised there (at least the ones on Parashara and Sharma this and Sharma that postings), I am afraid!

Rohiniranjanji,

Thank you so much for your advice.

[quote="basab"]Rohiniranjanji,

Thank you so much for your advice.[/quote]

Basab,

When I was 27/28 interestingly, that was when my *reality* got an overhaul!

The ages attributed to venus and mars are just accepted and never questioned, or the age of Jupiter (16) or of sun or moon or the <36> year old OLD guy saturn!

I think longevity has realistically grown longer and we (jyotishis> must reconvene and look at these years and AGES again!

WE, interested parties from 70s and 90s and later have thankfully ended up here and since we have, we should talk and have a meeting!

Or else I will continue my merry way while your generation may proceed along some other reality, while ASTROLOGY awaits our consensus!

That would be pathetic and not acceptable for the PAYING sponsors who seem to be taking over reality!