Guest guest Posted June 19, 2001 Report Share Posted June 19, 2001 For Planetary Mantras see: http://www.p-g-a.org/mantra.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2001 Report Share Posted June 19, 2001 Thanks for the link Das. As a rank amateur when it comes to remedial measures, do you or anyone else know the significance of there being 108 names for each planet? And what determines which mantra one chooses to chant -- I'm assuming here that one doesn't chant through the entire list! Just a few novice enquiries. Chris At 07:44 AM 6/19/01 -0800, you wrote: > > >For Planetary Mantras see: > > > >http://www.p-g-a.org/mantra.html > > >gjlist- > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2001 Report Share Posted June 19, 2001 Om Krsnaaya Namah Hi Everyone, > say "Om Namo Narayanaya" or "Om Namo Shivaya". If you have a Guru, then > you will have so many mantras already to start with undoubtedly. > If and when reciting it, be careful with the pronouciation of the latter mantra - Lord Shiva's pancaksari (without the "Om") mantra. The correct pronounciation is "Om Namah Shivaya", which simply tranlates to "Om. I offer my respectful obeisances unto Lord Shiva." I once heard it said that when people mistakenly say "Om Namo Shivaya" they are actually saying that Lord Shiva should bow to them! Don't know if it's true or not, but everytime I've seen it written in Roman/Devanagari, it's always "Om Namah Shivaya". "Om Namo Narayanaya" is, I believe, the correct way of pronouncing the astaksari mantra of Lord Narayana. Thanks, Pursottam _______ Get your free @ address at Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2001 Report Share Posted June 19, 2001 >do you or anyone else know the significance of there being 108 names for each planet? And what determines which mantra one chooses to chant -- I'm assuming here that one doesn't chant through the entire list! The number 108 has a number of mystical sources. For the Vaisnavas, it is the number of principal cowherd girlfriends Krishna has in his Vrndavan lila. Otherwise, it is found throughout nature on all levels. It is 9 times 12, which are the two ripened Vedic numbers, it is also the number of padas of nakshatras, or navamsas in the zodiac. Basically, 108 is the number that represents Divinity overall. Yes, one chants the whole list. You just chant right down the list. And you do this each day, or over and over. A serious Vrata would be to chant the 108 names of a planet 108 times over. That would take all day most likely, perhaps longer. If one does this kind of thing, one will see magic unfold in their life, especially if they continue the vrata by giving up something dear, in honor of that planet, like as was said, fasting on it's day is strong. Whenever you see a list of 108 names, it is generally understood that you chant the whole thing. But first bathe, sit facing east, be calm, get collected, wear clean clothing, do not be disturbed, consider it a meeting with a God. Begin on it's day when the planet is rising, or your ninth sign exact angle from your lagna is rising, bow before and after, that means, lay flat on the floor pointing east towards the planet, towards the ecliptic, and say "Om Namo Narayanaya" or "Om Namo Shivaya". If you have a Guru, then you will have so many mantras already to start with undoubtedly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2001 Report Share Posted June 19, 2001 Dear Das, <. Begin on it's day when the planet is rising, or your ninth sign exact angle from your lagna is rising, .> You know applied astrology much more than the average astrologers. Keep it going. Regards, Inder Jit Sahni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2001 Report Share Posted June 19, 2001 > > >Yes, one chants the whole list. Whoa! That's a lot of chanting! :-) I know there is a difference of opinion out there about pronounciation, but how close should one be to the "correct" one? Thanks again. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2001 Report Share Posted June 20, 2001 Christopher Kevill wrote: > > > > > >Yes, one chants the whole list. > > Whoa! That's a lot of chanting! :-) I know there is a difference of > opinion out there about pronounciation, but how close should one be to the > "correct" one? Dear Chris, It doesn´t really take up a long time. A standard line is supposed to be 8 words - I mean when people get paid for typing or translating etc. - and a page 50 lines. Therefore 400 words. Now the sanskrit names can be long, double the usual word, so it gives says 200 words a page. 108 is only half a page! how long do you need to read half a page? About 5 minutes, as a slow reader, who tries to understand all that is written. But the recitation of names is not an intellectual matter at all! So the time factor is not important or significant. As to pronunciation, every province in India pronounces the anskrit words differently. Nobody knows how the vedic language really sounded. In europe the letter 2a2 is pronounced differently by the English, Scots, welsh, irish, French, Germans, italians and russians etc. This applies to Sanskrit in the various Indian states. The greatest difference is perhaps between Kashmir, Bengal and Kerala. The Bengali reads his Gita not as "Dharmakshetre, kurukshetre...." but as "Dhommoketre, kurukketre...." As a scion of the Rishi Kasapa, I believe that I have the right pronunciation, BUT ALAS HAVE NEVER LEARNT SANSKRIT PROPERLY! So all one can do is to hope. At least the intention should be right. but the magical effect - the resonance of vibrations - may not be there. i cannot say anything about Srila Prabhupada. But the Bengali pronuncuiation is the most remote from the original: it is a derivative of the prakrit/pali language of the kingdom/empire of Maghadha, which included a sizeable part of mongolian civilization and language. Pursottam has pointed oiut to a discrepancy: Not "namo sivaye" but "namah sivaye". Actually these are grammatical differences, discussed by Panini ( who was not an Italian!) in his standard text on grammar: to keep the flow of of words without abrupt breaks - the liaisons. like the French itroduce a "t" between ya and il, making it "ya-t-il", which is easier to say, Although the ":" in sanskrit is usually pronounced as an aspirate like "ha" or "hu", it was originally only "s". "Rama:" is today Ramaha, was "Ramas" in the early days. Corresponding to the Phrygian (descendants of sage Brighu)/greek masculine ending "os". So chant the mantras as best you can and hope that goodies will accrue, though your tongue may not nuances span, but faith and devotion to God be true! What matters most is what we do, NOT Voodoo! regards Mani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2001 Report Share Posted June 20, 2001 Dear Das, dear Inder Jit, <. Begin >on it's day when the planet is rising, or your ninth sign exact angle >from your lagna is rising, .> Please explain what exactly this sentence means, I don't understand it. Thanks in advance, regards and love, Liliana _______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2001 Report Share Posted June 21, 2001 Dear Mani: > >As to pronunciation, every province in India pronounces the anskrit words >differently. Nobody knows how the vedic language really sounded. In europe the >letter 2a2 is pronounced differently by the English, Scots, welsh, irish, >French, Germans, italians and russians etc. This applies to Sanskrit in the >various Indian states. The greatest difference is perhaps between Kashmir, >Bengal and Kerala. The Bengali reads his Gita not as "Dharmakshetre, >kurukshetre...." >but as "Dhommoketre, kurukketre...." Thanks for this reminder on the vagaries of dialects. I think it weakens the whole idea of a "right" pronunciation. > >So all one can do is to hope. At least the intention should be right. but the >magical effect - the resonance of vibrations - may not be there. But without the resonance, what is the point of chanting? If chanting actually works, that is, if it can really improve the effect of specific planets in a horoscope, then how could this be achieved if not by resonance of vibrations? > >So chant the mantras as best you can >and hope that goodies will accrue, >though your tongue may not nuances span, >but faith and devotion to God be true! Here's a dumb question: why is it necessary to have faith in God if one is chanting to the planets? One isn't chanting to God but to Jupiter. The notion of chanting exalts the planets to the status of Gods. So what will happen if an atheist performs the planetary chants? As long as the chants are performed properly, pronunciation notwithstanding, what role does faith play? Such a person would have faith in the power of the planets, no? Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2001 Report Share Posted June 21, 2001 --- subra wrote: > > Pursottam has pointed oiut to a discrepancy: Not > "namo sivaye" but "namah > sivaye". Actually these are grammatical differences, Sorry but Purushottam wrote is not correct. I have learnt sanskrit to some extent, and here, I know that the thing on 'namaH' and 'namo' is not correct (Also, the way Mani has produced is wrong). Most of the times, visarga (aH; not iH and uH) gets changed to 'o'; i.e., rAmaH gachChati (Rama goes) becomes rAmo gachChati (Rama goes). See any of the sahasra nAmas. VishnusahasranAma for example. 'lokeshwaro' would have been presented as 'lokeshwaraH' in the nAma list. This visarga gets transformed into different forms ('r' gets attached) and gets a lopa (is absent) when the 'uttara pada' (second word) starts with a vowel, i.e., sah Arambhate (he starts) does NOT become 'so Arambhate', but 'sa Arambhate'. Also, 'shivAya' is in dative case, i.e., 'for Shiva'. So, the meaning can never be 'let shiva bow to me'. The meaning remains same whether it is 'namaH shivAya' or 'namo shivAya'. However, the declensions should not be changed for a different reason. These are vedic mantras, whose Rishi, devatA and chandas (metre) are defined and constant. These and the mantra itself should NOT be changed. And in case, the above change is done, note that not only is the vedicness being lost, but also the metre of chant is lost. Hence the restriction. Also, 'sivaye' has the wrong 'pratyaya' (ending). That would be true if the root word is 'shivi' (as in 'hari', 'kapi', 'giri'), but that is not the case. The root word (prakrita form) is 'shiva' which ends like 'rAma' (akAranta pullinga). > > Although the ":" in sanskrit is usually pronounced > as an aspirate like "ha" or > "hu", it was originally only "s". "Rama:" is today > Ramaha, was "Ramas" in the That also, sir, is not correct. It was 'rama:' (rAmaH) even then. It should have been 'rAma + su' (All nouns + pronouns are called 'subanta' because of this declension). Then, there are two different Panini rules, which cause the combination to take the form, 'rAmaj' first and then 'rAmaH'. I don't remember the sUtrAs exactly, but I can get you the references in case you wish. Already I have digressed from what this list is for... Regards, NDS Get personalized email addresses from Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.