Ketu Drishti or Not?

[Guest guest]

On June 14, 2005, in the list of Srijagannatha, we were discussing whether or

not Ketu has a head. This was being done to find out, whether or not, Ketu had

an aspect. I had mentioned a story that Ketu does have a head. It has the head

of a snake. The story was that the demon was cut into by Lord Vishnu into two

parts Rahu and Ketu, then, the Lord cut a snake and gave the body to Rahu and

head to Ketu to complete them. (The discussion was between Sri Sarbani, Sri

Lakshmi Kary, Sri Himanshu Mohan and some others and I was a part to it too)

Many think it is the other way round. They think Rahu is the head of the snake.

Rahu has the head of a demon and not of a snake. Related to this was that was

the argument, since Ketu does not have a head, it cannot cast a glance.

Therefore, it cannot have a graha dristi or if can losely translate it as an

aspect. Ketu is called the "Moksha Karaka". Some believe that it signifies the

moksha. If we say, that Ketu signifies Moksha, then, we are effectively saying

that our Natal chart has a significator for Moksha. Which means we can find out

from the chart, when and how Moksha will happen. Now, if we say that, then, we

are saying that the Natalchart, that is born of Maya, is showing Moksha.

Secondly, we are saying that the Moksha is shown by a Graha. The meaning of a

Graha is that the one which seizes our thinking to believe the limited self.

Can such a graha show Moksha? I doubt it. Therefore, what is the meaning of

Moksha Karaka? How do you define it? Is it showing Moksha? Is it the cause of

Moksha? Is it want for Moksha? Veda is clear. There is no cause for Moksha.

That I am free is an already achieved end. There is nothing to be achieved. It

is a question of realization. "Na Karmana, Na Prajaya Dhanena, Tyage naike,

amritatvamanashuh

" (Upanishad) is the statment of the Veda. Nor by any action, nor by progeny or

wealth (results), one realizes. It is through giving up of the thoughts, which

strengthens the individuality, that one realizes the whole. Which essentially

means, negating (neti, neti) all thoughts that pretain oneself to be a limited

human being. So the argument that Ketu cannot have a desire (graha dristi), is

currently unagreeable for me. Ketu, though having a desire - it is desire of

not wanting other desires. Mumukshatvam is a desire for knowing the self. This

desire is based on the understanding that Artha and Kama pursuits can only give

oneself limited fulfillment.

It is very important to understand that every desire is a desire for liberation

- only the goal is misplaced. Artha and Kama are misplaced as people seek

fulfillment and yet try to achieve that through limited objects. But they too

are desire for liberation. A liberation from "one's wanting self". The goal of

every desire is to cessate. In Mukumshatvam, this goal becomes clearer and one

develops viveka - "Discrimination between the self and the non-self" - between

Sat, chit, ananda and Naam -rupa (Drig Drshya Viveka). Veda is supreme. Purana

is story form teaching of the Veda. If understanding of a story is incomplete

and in conflict with the Veda, it cannot be accepted. In that sense, isn't it

likely that Ketu is showing mumukshatvam and not Moksha? Since it is a desire,

does it now show graha dristi? Should it not be the drishti, that destroyes the

kama and the artha dristi of other grahas? A very learned and a very respected

Guru of Astrology, jokingly remarked about ketu's dristi by saying "Maybe it

has eyes in the stomach, and therefore, one walks in the direction of the

stomach". To whom, I would say I respect his views, but my search isn't rested.

I would not accept this statement, unless it becomes crystal clear to me. I

request everyone who has knowledge of the same to respond and give their views.

It is my request to read my post with an open heart and, then, respond. Thanks

and RegardsBharat