Scriptures - gurus - interpretations

[Guest guest]

Hi all!

 

I read all your letters on various aspects, see how you can all quote the

scriptures: some in sanskrit, some out of translations. Hats off, your knowledge

is indeed great!

 

But have you understood history and related your knowledge to it?

 

There is a children´s TV show in Germany called the "Broadcast with the mouse".

The Big mouse appears frequently, accompanied by its friend, a tiny elepphant.

Recently this show had its 30th anniversary, celebrated by all kids as the 30th

birthdy of the Mouse. In honour of this in many cities in germany monuments were

set up for the Mouse with elephant: marble statues, mosaics etc. - permanent

things.

 

Perhaps 5000 years later archaeologists will find these monuments and decide

that Germans had a Mouse-God, who rode on a tiny elephant - the reverse of

Ganesha!

 

 

The ancient texts were originally composed to be memorized, not printed and

read. Essentially mnemonic, much was also allegoric and not to be taken

literally. This was the reason why a guru was essential: he had to give the

correct interpretation.

 

Monier Williams says that at least 10,000 works mentioned in later literature

have vanished completely. The 4 Vedas and puranas are all much shorter than

mentioned, at least 40% of the verses have been lost. We do not even know

whether the books that have survived were canonical or apocrypha. Many books

have various or contradictory information: perhaps the guru dealt with both

versions and offered them as possible variations. To take the bible as example

there are 3 versions of the creation myth in the first book of genesis. They

don´t tally with one another. Were they given as 3 possibilities, or as 3

aspects of the same? Whoever compiled the book has only preserved the

information, the various traditions, but not commented upon it. The various

puranic stories also reveal incongruities, who begat whom is often a mystery!

 

We do not even know how to interpret the information, for the language and idiom

of the various centuries in the past is lost to us, we try to understand

literally. In Shakespeare´s days "nunnery" was slang for "brothel", "lady

Greensleeves" meant a prostitute. From my study I think that "Narada" meant

"friction" and "inertia", the forces that oppose smooth motion.

 

The old traditional handing down of information - the verbal commentary to the

books - has been lost. From late classical times - or post-classical -

interpretations have been "given". Modern translators differ in interpretation,

either through subjective prejudice or preferred etymology. The sanskrit

dictionary shows how many words have how many meanings!

 

Take the debate about Rahu. Celestial points are computed astronomically. But

were they considered as heavenly "objects"? If they say "mean Rahu", then the

astronomical evaluation is disregarded. Although the astrological texts deal

with minute amsas, the contemporary (???) siddhanthas do not show any great

accuracy, fall far short of the Maya observations. They don´t seem to give any

ephemeris, but positions calculated by using the recommended formulae do not

give correct positions.

 

My sanskrit is poor, but know that there are abou a dozen words that could mean

"planet". But practically each of these words can mean something else too! The

word most used in jyothish, "graha", has nothing to do with the idea of cooled

down bodies orbiting around a central sun. It means something that "grasps" -

takes over and determines the fate of human beings! In this sense a point in the

sky is just as strong as a physical body. So Rahu and Kethu should be treated as

points that have all the aspects. Yet there is a doubt - a doubt that perhaps

the ancient jyothishis also had!... The problem of accepting purely esoteric

matter in terms of the material.

 

At least one seer who used astrology to give very good predictions was Edgar

Cayce. But he used the draconic zodiac, with the tropical position of Rahu as 0°

Aries! How does this fit in with our conceptions?

 

So how many of the aphorisms of the old texts can be taken for granted as

absolute? There could hardly have been any statistical study. The local

population was limited, had so much in common, professions were few in number.

So it was mostly either "revealed" or conjectured. Both depend on the quality of

the seer or thinker.

 

How do we know that after Parasara anyone had revealed knowledge? The fact that

so many authors give the same rules means nothing: in all probability they just

took over what Parasara said. There are any number of textbooks on physics or

chemistry, all give the same information. All describe experiments which the

authors themselves never performed! It is only a change of language or

rearrangement to suit the times, plus a bit of new information. Varahamihira,

Mantresvara etc. just repeated the old stuff, and added a bit. These added bits

may have more validity than what they merely quoted!

 

Considering the amount of space given in many of the books to discussing whether

the new-born baby will survive at all, and the effects of the first menstruation

of the daughter, one wonders if the authors bothered with other aspects of life

all that much!

 

We are left with a number of pieces of a huge jigsaw puzzle. Some pieces fit

into patches, but we are nowhere near to saying how the full picture looks like.

 

Another thing in esoteric matters: A presents a new view, B finds it good and

quotes it in a book. C quotes A and B and so on ... And then A writes a new

book in which he says the idea is proved - citing B, C, D etc as the

authorities!

 

In all the more involved discussions the finer vargas are used to prove points.

There seem to be as many "traditional" ayanamsas as states and mutts in India.

Every panchang has its own value. Any discussion based on vargas between these

groups is a waste of time! When Lahiri/Krishnamurthy adherents start a

discussion, Raman and other addicts don´t jon in at all! They can´t pick up the

argument, and are too "lazy" to give a full interpretation based on their value.

 

Now you are all debunking Princess Diana. I was never very impressed by her -

neither by looks nor actions. My sympathies were more with Charles. But is it

fair? With another ayanamsa she may come up in a different light! Before we

judge people based on their charts, we must at least be sure that we are correct

in the basics.

 

When you deal with vimsottari most of you stop at the first two levels. But the

3rd, 4th and 5th levels are the ones taht truly decide! The first two only

provide very broad backgrounds. It is with the lower ones that you can really

check ayanamsa and TOB.

 

Grace Inglis tested out and finally chose Fagan´s value as the best! Raman

conceded that Fagan´s value produced "unexpectedly good results". Fagan had some

statistical basis - sudden catastrophes. He corrected his value by 6 minutes,

unfortunately I don´t know whether plus or minus. Chandrahari gave a very

convincing tantric argument for his value, which is Fagan minus 9 minutes. The

true value probably lies in that area.

 

Today you debate from New Zealand till Alaska, use computers. Even with the

computers most of you are reluctant to test out ayanamsas statistically - It is

an enormous task. You have started collecting statistics, but as one of Sanjay´s

students once said on the list, all the statistics we collect represents only 1

or 2% of humanity, so how can we ever be sure?

 

Nevertheless, instead of spending hours about beauty or buck-teeth, it would be

better to test a few ayanamsas. I AM DEAD SURE IT LIES NEAR FAGAN OR

CHANDRAHARI! I´d have done this research if only my knowledge of jyothish were

at least 50% as good as yours.

 

If Robert brings 10 examples to prove a point, but Wendy finds 5 that

don´t tally, there is no clear solution, but it is not enough to debate and end

up saying, "we agree to disagree". Both should look for additional factors and

these may end up being the key factors! AND USING THE CORRECT AYANAMSA MAY

RESOLVE MANY PROBLEMS!

 

Manoj cites "Wise men seldom agree and fools seldom differ!" Ironic and

sarcastic. But disagreeing is not a sign of wisdom, nor does agreeing imply

folly - unless all agree with something that is wrong! If all agree that each

one has good results with his own ayanamsa, why worry about ayanamsa at all? The

tropical zodiac is just as good - and some western tropicalists use navamsas

etc., also claim success!

 

The amazing part is that with all this you are all able to read charts so well.

I personally put this down to highly developed intuition, which comes with

spiritual advancement - and all of you are spiritually advanced one way or the

other. Your tools are blunt and shaky, it is your psychic power that gets you

through! Just imagine how much better it would be, if you acquire better tools!

 

regards

Mani