Shobhana

To be honest, you cannot judge any horoscope based on these 3 discrete bits of data. A professional reading is best. For example, a planet may be Uccha in the birthchart, but if it is debilitated and afflicted in the navamsha, dashamsha, or other varga charts, then how can it give it's best effects? And what of the condition of the planet's dispositors? Mars rules Aries, so its strength or weakness will influence the Sun's results. The same goes for Venus, who rules Tula. Sun rules 3rd house for Mithuna Lagna, so 3L in 11H, depending upon Sun's strength and aspect, could possibly indicate gains from siblings or possibly gains from writing or instruction of others during the Mahadasha or Antardasha of the Sun. Saturn rules houses 8 and 9 for Mithuna lagna, so his placement in 5th house may indicate mixed results, depending upon the strength of Venus, and upon where Saturn is located in the varga charts. Namaste.

Haribol Muralimohan Prabhu, This is my first ever post on Audarya. What have I gotten myself into? Thanks for drawing my attention to that thread. I'm kinda sorry that it is closed, because I actually had an answer to one of Muralidhara's questions (at the end). Murali Mohan Prabhu, I've been thinking about how you're contrasting a Rishi with an Acarya and I'm wondering whether the sharp distinction is correct. Scriptural knowledge is a living thing, and what is revealed to a commenting acarya may or may not have been revealed to the scripture's author. An acarya is said to be one who "not only confers the sacred thread... He trains his disciples in sacrifice and teaches them the confidential meaning of the Vedas. Such a spiritual master is an acarya, according to saintly authorities. [Cited in Gaudiya Kantahara, Chapter 1, from Manu Samhita]" And then there is the more famous verse that states: "An acarya is one who understands the conclusions of the scriptures and whose behavior is in accordance with them. He teaches by word and deed." [Cited from the Vayu Purana, also in Gaudiya Kantahara, Chapter 1]. If the literal words of the sastra were all that was to be gleaned from them, you wouldn't need an acarya to explain the "rahasyam" or the hidden meaning. Indeed, Srila Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura's comments on the verses of Srimad Bhagavatam sometimes go way way way beyond the literal meaning of the verse, sometimes to the extent that when Krishna is saying one thing to the gopis ("go home, good ladies"), Srila Chakravarti Thakura is saying, "actually Krishna means the exact opposite". As an extreme "insider", he's qualified to do that. So the Acarya is expected to have some realization, or to at least have heard something relevant from his gurus in the parampara, and this may appear in the world as something "new". Srila Sridhar Maharaj's commentary on Brahma Gayatri is as original as it gets; it is totally in line with scripture, but nowhere else to be seen. By using the word "electricity" in rendering the Bhagavad Gita verse na tad bhasayate suryo..., Srila Prabhupada was adding something new, but that doesn't mean it was wrong or speculation. A rishi is supposed to be one who first "saw" the verse. So when we're doing a fire sacrifice and we must recite a vedic mantra, we're reading/saying things like "om prajapati visnu rishi, gayatri chhandah, janardano devatah etc." -- that the seer of the following mantra is Prajapati Vishnu, that the meter is gayatri, and that the devata is Sri Janardana, etc. One can argue that even the rishi only knows what was revealed to him regarding the verse, and that there may be things that the rishi doesn't know and perhaps cannot know. Lord Shiva's statement comes to mind: aham vedmi suko vetti vyasa vetti na vetti va sridharah sakalam vetti narasimha prasadatah: "I know the meaning of Srimad Bhagavatam, Sukadeva knows the meaning of Srimad Bhagavatam, and Vyasa (the writer) may or may not know. [but] Sridhara knows everything, by the mercy of Sri Nrisimhadeva." And Vyasa most definitely had a direct experience of the Absolute Truth, as described in the first canto of Srimad Bhagavatam. Regarding the closed thread, when I joined ISKCON in 1984, Life Comes from Life was one of the first books that I ever read, and I came away from the book with the understanding that there was an individual jivatma in every cell. So, I'm inclined to agree with Jahnava Nitai Prabhu and I think his different quotes from Srila Prabhupada bear that out, that there are jivas in various states of covered consciousness in all of the cells of living beings. Nevertheless, I understand Ksamabuddhi's (he probably remembers me as 'Sulochan' back in San Jose 1986) doubts and concerns that Srila Prabhupada would often refer to worms and germs when the devotees would mention cells, but regardless, I think he did understand what his disciples were asking him. But here is something unusual: after answering in the affirmative on several occasions (based on my Vedabase Searches), Srila Prabhupada seems to back away from the question for whatever divine reason: At the same time, I also agree with Muralidhara Prabhu that devatas pervade the the species and that devatas may preside over diseases. I'm not sure which quotes from Srila Sridhara Maharaj he's referring to when he says that SSM clearly supports the view that there is only one jiva in every body. The quote from the Gita 13.34 is an analogy that doesn't prove that there are no other souls in the body. That there are presiding deities of the senses, the elements, the directions, and time is a well known feature of the Vedic world view. Along those lines, I can accept that there are presiding deities of species, trees, and even diseases. But can't a CEO preside over a company and direct its affairs while still having conscious individual people as employees? One more thing, Actually, there is such evidence, at least with regard to bacteria, and by extension, individual cells. I have an article by one Neurophysiologist, Dr. Daniel Murphy (Dayadhar Gauranga Dasa) from the June 1980 Bhaktivedanta Institute Bulletin entitled "Beyond the Mind-Brain Dilemma: Aneural Organisms". His basic point is that, while there are scientists who spend their lives struggling to reduce consciousness to the brain, what about when aneural (without a brain or nervous system) organisms such as bacteria display complex behavior generally associated with brains, such as memory and irritability? Along these lines, Alfred Binet, one of the pioneers of todays intelligence and aptitude tests, wrote a book as far back as 1889, titled "The Psychic Life of Micro-organisms". I can't post links yet on Audarya, but you can search Google Books for the book by that title. Haribol, Shobhana Krishna Dasa