Guest guest Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 but ofcourse a good Jupiter is a boon in any horoscope. regards, manoj b_lakshmi_ramesh <b_lakshmi_ramesh > wrote: Om Gurave Namah Namaste Pradeep, I enjoyed reading your mail. It is interesting to know that your AK is Sun as well. I was wondering if it was so, because you are also very spiritual and outspoken, like Partha and Bharat. When i had given the combination for ego as Rahu+Surya, and i also have it, does it seem like i have excluded myself? For good measure, you can also add Mars(my AK) aspecting my sun from 6th house:--)) Yet despite all this, my Sun dasa as well as Rahu dasa have been tremendous. My Mercury dasa will bring the bad results, but perhaps i may not be around by that time!! Rahu can give great spirituality as well if it's involved in such yogas, such as being placed in the 7th/12th from AL or becoming the AK. It can be seen in charts of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Srila Prabhupada and Visti. Infact, according to Sanjay ji, a grahana yoga, (Sun and Rahu) is generally bad, unless jupiter is strong in the chart. When jupiter is strong, such a combination is supposed to give great spirituality...example :chart of sri Ramana Maharshi. My guru, Pt. Sanjay Rath, terms it as Dakshina Moorthy yoga, and it is supposed to bestow great knowledge on the native, through the blessings of the superior serpents. My argument has always been this. A planet will act both according to its natural significations and functional nature, in a chart. If a planet is a functional benefic, whether it be Saturn or Rahu, it would give good results, and bad results if it's a functional malefic, even if it is jupiter or Venus, and one needs to consider the whole chart for arriving at a judicious decision.. You can refer to my previous mails in this thread, to verify this. Sun does represent the head. Incidentally Rahu also does. Only, while the Sun is always straight and never retrograde, Rahu is always retrograde. If you read Milton's Pardise Lost, you'd notice that the major difference between the Son of God and Lucifer is "retrogression"!! Infact, that epic poem starts with the marvellous description of the retrogression of Lucifer. A child is born head down/first...retrograde. Rahu also represents desire and rebirth. Does this interminable birth cycle represent maaya or the Truth? Sun has a body, while Rahu is referred to as a chaya graha...is chaya/shadow, a myth or the Truth? Kundalini awakening is also about correcting the retrogression and channeling the inner energies straight up. If head represents only pride, shouldn't Sahasraara Chakra (as the top most point of the head/body) logically represent height of pride/or garva? Why should it denote the threshold of transcendental peace and joy? In this connection, perhaps you'd like to read my paper on timing of spiritual events, presented at Mumbai Conference of SJC. I have no quarrel about Rahu representing feet. Perhaps the Bhrigu story gains an extra dimension by this understanding. why did the Lord choose to pierce the eye in the foot of the sage, and thereby killed his ego? Feet also represent the principle of movement, of gamana...so represent dynamism as well as rootlessness. Yes, it can also mean that to get out of desire/rebirth, one needs to take refuge at the feet of the lord. You are an extremely learned person, and i request you to ponder patiently on the above points and i'd always be interested in your feedback, positive or negative. Regards, Lakshmi , "vijayadas_pradeep" <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Lakshmi ji > > Thanks again for the reply. > Rahu is not Karaka for ego!!.I do not know who you got this view.Is > there any pramana.As per shastras Rahu represents feet.Infact > Dashadhyayi says one should think of feet through Rahu and > Meena.Rahu is the force which draws one towards material attachment > (desire/feet on earth).If it joins Sun then it exaggerates such > qualities.If Rahu joins Moon it makes one a Super Kaami.But there > can be a reversal and the whole thing will change.How? > -Meena/Feet gives Moksha.Rahu is a common catalyst and not a KARAKA > for ego.It is not for any single karakatwa -it is for the full > system.It moves against the movement of all planets.If he joins ego > he will magnify ego.Rahu as papagraha will ofcourse has influence as > shastras advise -but it has become a fashion to blame rahu for > karakatwas of other planets:-))) > > Also please do not get carried away by statements like- Rahu is a > terrorist,bomb maker etc.It is just ''LITERAL'' understanding of the > mythological story of Rahu/Moon/Sun.Rahu is material desire.Sun is > Atma,Moon is Mind.Sun-Moon conjunction is Atma/Mana Samyojana or > Siva/Shakthi Aikyam(i will give pramana in another mail)When we want > Sivashakthi Aikyam(Amrita) and Material at the same time,complaint is > raised and Rahu is beheaded.What is the colour of Rahu?What is this > ultraviolet?What is colour of Krishna -Why is he related to Moon? Why > is Rahu node of MOON?What is Krishna Leela and Maya?Why are they > material in nature? Can we link all of the above said.What is the > colour of poison?Why is Rahu considered as Sarpa(Time Serpent - > Kaala Sarpam)? What is Poison?How does he become an ornament for > Sankara? > > I have Sun as my 9th lord,have Sun as CharaAtmakaraka and my Moon > too is placed in the nakshathra of Sun,Utharashada.The rules which > are applicable for others are applicable to our own charts as well.We > (you or me) should not find lame excuses and nullify combinations.If > Sun gives pride ,we have to accept it.If sun is weakened by Rahu - > it is.If Mercury is combust -It is.In the kshethra of > Kuja,especially Aries- signifying the head,Sun cannot have > Vinaya.This is called exaltation of Sun.See Saddam > Hussain.Unafflicted exalted Sun.It has given him > Paurusha/Initiaition/Sabha/Kingdom etc but Pride is Pride(Garva is > quality of Sun and not Moon -Rahu is not joining his Sun!!!). > > The moment we think, we have, learned everything -Ahamkara takes a > an upward curve. > > Your knowedge is far exceeding mine and does not need my petty > scribblings. > > Thanks > Pradeep > > > > , "b_lakshmi_ramesh" > <b_lakshmi_ramesh@> wrote: > > > > Om Gurave Namah > > > > Namaste Pradeep, > > > > We have been discussing the basic karakatwa of planets so far. if > > there are afflictions to the planet, it might lead to a aberrated > > manifestation of the primary quality. But to treat an aberration > as > > a normal signification is incorrect. > > > > If rahu, whom i consider to be the karaka for maya/ego, afflicts > > Sun, without any other redeeming influences, "the confidence" > might > > manifest as ahamkaara. We all know about aditya, chandra and guru > > chandala yogas, and their results, don't we? > > > > Light passed through blue glass throws out blue colour, light > > reflected through red glass throws out red colour...yet is that > the > > colour of the light or of the glass? The chaitanya is certainly > the > > same but the reflecting media are different, so the manifestations > > are bound to be different. > > > > Regards, > > Lakshmi > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Lakshmi ji > > > > > > Thanks again for migrating garva from higher level to mundane > with > > > necassary modifications.I agree with you regarding this > confidence. > > > But the problem arise if that ''garva at mundane level''starts > > > thinking -'' �nly me can do this''.This is not true!!.It is the > > same > > > Chaitanya that enlivens every jeevashareera. > > > > > > Regds > > > Pradeep > > > , "b_lakshmi_ramesh" > > > <b_lakshmi_ramesh@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Om Gurave Namah > > > > > > > > Namaste Pradeep, > > > > > > > > I thought that you wanted to know about the "garva" of Lion as > > > > significator of soul, hence quoted Bhaskara Raaya:--)) > > > > > > > > Translate Bhaskara Raaya's comment into mundane parlance, it > > would > > > > imply the awareness (gynaana) and confidence of a person, in > his > > > > ability, to create/carve out a domain for himself anywhere, of > > which > > > > he's the undisputed leader. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Lakshmi > > > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Lakshmi ji > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for letting me know about the quotation and meaning. > > > > > Simha rashi and Garva vis-a-vis manushya jataka ,may not be > > equated > > > > > with Garva of creating wolrd is my humble opinion-)). > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "b_lakshmi_ramesh" > > > > > <b_lakshmi_ramesh@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Om Gurave Namah > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the term "garva" I would like to quote from > > Soubhagya > > > > > > Bhaskara bhashyam of Lalitha Sahasranaamam. While > explaining > > the > > > > > > term "Garvitaa" Bhaskara Raaya says "garvo vishwa nirmaaNa > > > > > > vishayiNii paraahantaa saasyasanjaataa...." meaning one > who > > is > > > > aware > > > > > > of his/her power/ability to create the > > world...Parahanta...The > > > > > > Supreme Soul!! > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Lakshmi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Lakshmi ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Missed onething. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One quality of Simha rashi is ''GarvVadhika'' - showing > > High > > > > Pride > > > > > > or > > > > > > > Ego.Ofcourse the swakshethra of King should have this. > > > > > > > Saddam Hussain has unafflicted exalted Soorya showing > high > > > > Pride. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regds > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are all like Ganeshas when we are born. We know > > only > > > > the > > > > > > > > > Mother/Prakriti and have no idea that a Father > exists > > who > > > > is > > > > > > equally > > > > > > > > > responsible for our birth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Lakshmi ji > > > > > > > > If my questions were able to open the floodgates of > > wisdom, > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > within you ,i am happy.Pls call be my name without any > > > > > > formalities. > > > > > > > > This is simply brilliant.I can no way disagree with > > you.You > > > > are > > > > > > > > mentioning the existence of Ganesha stage > > > > (Jeevashareera/Jeevatma > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > this example).In this context - Ganesha initially > cannot > > > > > > say ''Me and > > > > > > > > Siva'' are one and the same.Ganesha has to ''Realize'' > > his > > > > > > source or > > > > > > > > Origin.As you have rightly taught- this is > > AtmaGyana.There > > > > is a > > > > > > goal > > > > > > > > for the instrument called Jeevashareera.To reach our > > > > destination > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > have to go on a journey.(Major disagreement with > > Bharatji). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similar to, mind emerging out of Jeevatma,Maya is > > emerging > > > > from > > > > > > > > Paramatma.One Guru from Kerala, of yesteryears in ,his > > > > > > Drashanamala > > > > > > > > says -like a painter's imagination before the > > > > painting/creation, > > > > > > > > Lord(Paramatma) imagines about the Prapancha.Thus i > > think > > > > the > > > > > > realms > > > > > > > > of this imagination is Maya.May be thats why Shankara > > said > > > > Lord > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > veiled by Maya.May be Moorthi Roopa of Maya > is ''seen'' > > as > > > > > > Prapancha. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the problem is - the moment we talk of > Jeevashaeera > > > > there is > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > free existence of Soul.Jeeva shareera is having a self > > > > feeling > > > > > > ignited > > > > > > > > by Soul.Lakshmi ji isn't there a difference > > between ''HE'' > > > > > > and ''HIS > > > > > > > > reflection''.Shankara said Jeevatma is like reflection > > and > > > > > > Paramatma > > > > > > > > Sun.''Reflection of SUN'' and ''SUN'', are not one and > > the > > > > same - > > > > > > Sun > > > > > > > > is not inside the Pond.So we may understand - ''I'' > am, > > is > > > > > > because of > > > > > > > > HIS Chaitanya.In that sense ''I'' do exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we cannot equate - 'I ''(reflection) > > > > and ''HE''(SUN).But > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > there remains nothing(Prakriti) for > the 'I'(reflection) > > to > > > > > > exist, HE > > > > > > > > alone remains.This is Atma Gyana as you have rightly > > > > said,again. > > > > > > > > Hence for the same reason i feel ''Soorya''is the > Karaka > > for > > > > > > Self as > > > > > > > > far as a jataka is concerned (reflected soul in the > > medium > > > > called > > > > > > > > prakriti -mind/body) and should not be equated with > > > > Paramatma or > > > > > > > > Supreme Soul. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lakshmi: I am sure that you have read in classics > that > > our > > > > > > body is > > > > > > > > > akin to an inaccessible jungle, with its rampant and > > > > > > uncontrollable > > > > > > > > > urges, needs, dangerous desires etc. That's why the > > > > > > ashtamurthi form > > > > > > > > > of Shiva as Pashupati (Pashupataye yajamaana > murthaye > > > > namaH) > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > linked to Yajamaana/kshetrajna/soul in the body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep:Totally agree.Many people project themselves, > as > > > > free > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > material desires and Kama,but mostly frauds.It is a > > tough > > > > job and > > > > > > > > Jyotish is ofcourse a stepping stone for spiritual > > > > ascend.When > > > > > > > > Menaka's can reverse the flow of energy in Viswamitra > > what > > > > about > > > > > > > > common souls:-)). HE alone can help.I feel Devi bhava > > can > > > > help a > > > > > > man > > > > > > > > while Siva Roopa, a lady,in these matters.Thus > Pashupati > > the > > > > king > > > > > > > > among Animals is needed for strength and guard. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep ji, communication is a need born of manah, > as > > are > > > > the > > > > > > > > > shadripus etc (Mercury is the son of Chandra). Soul > is > > > > termed > > > > > > > > > as "Ekaki", because it is alone and it alone exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep:This is also brilliant.Sun's strength is a > must > > for > > > > > > Paurusha > > > > > > > > Sidhi and Moons strength for Karya Sidhi.Paurusha > sidhi > > at > > > > its > > > > > > height > > > > > > > > may be a must for reaching ''Purusha or HIM'' and may > be > > > > ladies > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > good at ''Karya Sidhi'' :-)).Thus a Lions mind is must > > for > > > > > > > > Parivarjya.But see there is a Paraspara Ashrayatwa > > mentioned > > > > in > > > > > > > > classics.I agree that once mind is formed it is self > > creating > > > > > > (mercury) > > > > > > > > and growing.But can SHE create if HE is not there.So > > later > > > > on > > > > > > though > > > > > > > > HE is just watching,HIS unison is always with HER for > > all > > > > further > > > > > > > > creations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paraspara ashrayatwa is the biggest hint/clue for > me.How > > > > will > > > > > > Sun > > > > > > > > gain strength from Moon? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AtmaManasoRithareytharashrayathwath > > SooryaChandramasorEkasya > > > > > > > > BalawathawadItharasya Balasidhi Thadha cha Samhithayam. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus they have mutual dependence and if one among > > > > Soorya/Chandra > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > strong the other graha will also have strength. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ''Atma Sahedi Manasa Mana Indriyena... > > > > > > > > Swarthena Chendriyagana krama evamesha > > > > > > > > Yogoyameva Manasa Kimagamyamasthi > > > > > > > > Yasmin Mano Vrajathi Tathra Gathoyamatma'' ithi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Atma goes with Mana ...Mana with indriyas....etc > > > > > > > > If there is Yoga of mind what is not possible!!!! > > > > > > > > Wherever Mind goes there goes Atma > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also > > > > > > > > Rajanau Ravisheethagu > > > > > > > > Thus Soorya and Chandra are Raja _ Why both of them > are > > Raja > > > > as > > > > > > per > > > > > > > > sage?as Chandrashekhar ji has asked:_) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also Soorya has more Papatwa than Ksheena Chandra<Also > > > > > > intersting to > > > > > > > > note is defintion of Ksheena chandra as opposed to > > Paksha > > > > Bala. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amayam cha Chadurdashyam Ksheenachandro na sarvada - > > Thus > > > > only > > > > > > > > Amavasya and chathurdashi chandras as Ksheena> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They also eat flesh, because for them there's no > > > > > > > > > difference�.remember that shloka from Bhagavadgita > > where > > > > the > > > > > > lord > > > > > > > > > talks of samadrishti�that for an enlightened person > > the > > > > > > Brahmin, the > > > > > > > > > dog and the man who eats the dog are all the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep:Only great souls can have samadrishti. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the nice questions. I hope others also > > > > contribute > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > correct me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep:Not at all.This is not an ''official'' > > compliment to > > > > get > > > > > > > > compliment paid back with interst_),Your words are > full > > of > > > > wisdom > > > > > > > > coming from within,and is a treat indeed.Thanks a lot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > Lakshmi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Lakshmi ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similar to the way you are having a student > feeling > > > > towards > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashaekhar ji,i am approaching > you,considering > > your > > > > > > knoweldge > > > > > > > > > > and authority,in scriptural texts.Kindly correct > > me.I am > > > > no > > > > > > man to > > > > > > > > > > discuss these topics,especially with well read > > scholars > > > > like > > > > > > you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel Sun and Moon can be considerd as father and > > > > mother > > > > > > apart > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > being King and Queen,in the planetary cabinet.All > > the > > > > other > > > > > > > > > planets > > > > > > > > > > have to take ''birth'' from them.Sun and Moon have > > > > Paraspara > > > > > > > > > > Ashryathvam.Without this a ''bhava'' cannot be > > > > formed.Also i > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > seen classical pramanas stating ''Atma going > > wherever > > > > the > > > > > > mana > > > > > > > > > takes > > > > > > > > > > it'' w.r to Jeeva Shareera. > > > > > > > > > > If such be the case who is the only chethana that > > can > > > > give > > > > > > rise to > > > > > > > > > > aham feeling?Ofcourse in a detached void HE is > > > > > > ormless/thoughltess > > > > > > > > > > etc.In a jeeva shaeera,if body and mind are > prakriti > > > > (which > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > are) > > > > > > > > > > who else can ignite this 'I' feeling.Kindly throw > > light. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sun is having swakshethra in Simha which is > > LION.Lion is > > > > > > ofcourse > > > > > > > > > > having pride and not samabhavana.Similarly no King > > will > > > > sit > > > > > > on par > > > > > > > > > > with others and will have elevated position.Simha > > rashi > > > > > > likes > > > > > > > > > eating > > > > > > > > > > flesh and living in forests ,hills ,caves.So in > > jeeva > > > > > > shareera and > > > > > > > > > > jataka do we have a modified version of Sun. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kindly share your views and correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "b_lakshmi_ramesh" > > > > > > > > > > <b_lakshmi_ramesh@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Om Gurave Namah > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Chandrasekhar ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First of all let me express how much I admire > the > > > > sagacity > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > which you patiently field our endless > > > > queries/arguments. I > > > > > > > > > > certainly > > > > > > > > > > > wish I had that quality, so please bless me that > I > > can > > > > > > learn the > > > > > > > > > > > same from you one day:--)) I am certainly > > benefitting > > > > a > > > > > > lot from > > > > > > > > > > > this thread and thank you for every thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrasekhar ji: As I said let us not bring the > > > > > > > > > > > > deities into the discussion as their actions > can > > be > > > > > > > > > interpreted > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > many > > > > > > > > > > > > ways. If you remember the story of Bhrigu > rishi > > and > > > > the > > > > > > Gods, > > > > > > > > > > > including, > > > > > > > > > > > > Vishnu you will find him punishing the gods > for > > > > their > > > > > > ego. One > > > > > > > > > > > finds > > > > > > > > > > > > similar story about Durvasa and Indra, in > Padma > > > > Purana, > > > > > > where > > > > > > > > > > > Indra > > > > > > > > > > > > exhibited the highest form of ego and he is > King > > of > > > > Gods. > > > > > > > > > > > > But let us keep it a separate issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lakshmi: Sir, I only brought in the deities who > > were > > > > > > expressly > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned by Parashara in BPHS. Infact, the very > > first > > > > > > chapters > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS deal with these divinities and I feel that > > the > > > > Sage > > > > > > > > > intended > > > > > > > > > > > the students to understand his astrological > > treatise > > > > > > against > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > background. If we ignore this background and the > > > > exalted > > > > > > > > > pace/tone > > > > > > > > > > > it sets, I sincerely feel that our knowledge of > > > > jyotish > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > incomplete / flawed. I am sure it's for this > > reason > > > > that > > > > > > > > > Sanjay > > > > > > > > > > ji > > > > > > > > > > > also insists on mandatory reading of these > > chapters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, if Parashara wanted to compare Sun to > > Indra, > > > > he > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > certainly done so himself, because it is not as > > though > > > > he > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > > > > unaware of Indra. He had not done that because > > Indra > > > > is > > > > > > > > > changing, > > > > > > > > > > > whereas Sun is unchanging. If a person acquires > > great > > > > > > merit, he > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > eligible to become Indra, so Indra is forever > > subject > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > insecurities of the terrestrial kings and is > > afraid of > > > > > > losing > > > > > > > > > his > > > > > > > > > > > position. It's never the case with Sun. He is > > constant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Secondly, thanks for bringing in the topic of > > Bhrigu. > > > > > > That's > > > > > > > > > > indeed > > > > > > > > > > > most appropriate to this argument. Lord Vishnu > was > > > > indeed > > > > > > tested > > > > > > > > > > > among others, but was found to be totally > saattwik > > and > > > > was > > > > > > > > > > > apportioned havirbhaga. Contrary to what you > said, > > it > > > > is > > > > > > Sage > > > > > > > > > > Bhrigu > > > > > > > > > > > who was found to be egoistic and Lord Vishnu > > punctured > > > > his > > > > > > ego > > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > > piercing the eye in the Sage's foot. This story > > indeed > > > > > > > > > illustrates > > > > > > > > > > > the nature of ego wonderfully. If Sun were to > > > > represent > > > > > > ego, > > > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > > > > Lord should have pierced the regular eyes of > > Bhrigu, > > > > but > > > > > > those > > > > > > > > > > eyes > > > > > > > > > > > reflect the sage's steady, balanced & illumined > > > > > > intelligence, > > > > > > > > > > > whereas the eye in the foot indicated a > > perspective, a > > > > > > drishti > > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > is shifting, unsteady, lopsided and conveys a > > > > > > disproportionate, > > > > > > > > > > > larger than life impression. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrasekhar ji: > But think about it why would > > then > > > > > > Chandra be > > > > > > > > > > > described as Kaami and > > > > > > > > > > > > Surya as Paapa? This does not fit in with the > > > > > > description of > > > > > > > > > > > Satvik as > > > > > > > > > > > > in pious but does with satva as strength. But > if > > we > > > > look > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > their > > > > > > > > > > > > strength then the principle that the strength > of > > > > Grahas > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > derived > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > strength of Moon does indicate that the satva > > > > attributed > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra > > > > > > > > > > > > could relate to its strength as opposed to > pious > > > > > > > > > > > behavior.Similarly > > > > > > > > > > > > strength of Sun being related to the self > > confidence > > > > of > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > person > > > > > > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > > > > strength is also relevant for a chart and not > > its > > > > being > > > > > > Pious. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lakshmi: If Sun were indeed related malefic > > > > tendencies, > > > > > > why is > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > abode of sun given as temple and all places of > > worship > > > > > > (shloka 32 > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS)? If Sun is only the cruel King as you > > > > interpreted, > > > > > > > > > wouldn't > > > > > > > > > > > the Palace, the Royal court or the battle field > be > > > > more > > > > > > likely > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > the abode of Sun? Was the venerable Sage > foolish > > to > > > > allot > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > pious, > > > > > > > > > > > pure place like the temple to the egoist Sun? > > Please > > > > tell > > > > > > me > > > > > > > > > Sir, > > > > > > > > > > > what is more compatible�the saattwik soul and > the > > > > temple � > > > > > > or the > > > > > > > > > > > egoist king and the temple? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you feel that temples were power centres in > > ancient > > > > > > times and > > > > > > > > > > > hence Sun was allotted the temples, then > > Jupiter/venus > > > > as > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > priests would be more powerful than the Sun, > which > > is > > > > > > clearly > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > the case�so this particular angle stands > > dismissed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moon is subject to changes/the play of gunas > > because > > > > it > > > > > > > > > represents > > > > > > > > > > > prakriti. A bright moon is never considered a > > paapi, > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > it's > > > > > > > > > > > full of light at that time...like the Sun. When > > the > > > > moon > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > bright, > > > > > > > > > > > it gives out light like the Sun, rises in the > east > > > > like > > > > > > the sun. > > > > > > > > > > > When a Moon which is like the Sun is cinsidered > a > > > > great > > > > > > > > > benefic, > > > > > > > > > > > why is Sun considered krura? It's because he's > > > > brilliant > > > > > > to the > > > > > > > > > > > exclusion of the others and perhaps lacks the > > > > compassion > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > > > watery planets. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrasekhar ji: > talk of pure Atma till it is > > born > > > > but > > > > > > once > > > > > > > > > > born > > > > > > > > > > > it comes under control > > > > > > > > > > > > of Mana and no longer remains unsullied. By > the > > way > > > > in > > > > > > > > > Sanskrit > > > > > > > > > > > Atma has > > > > > > > > > > > > many meanings besides soul, as I am sure you > are > > > > aware. > > > > > > On > > > > > > > > > birth > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > atma gets the feeling o f Ahamkar and I am > sure > > you > > > > also > > > > > > know > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > > > > of the meaning of Ahamkar is egoism besides > > > > ignorance > > > > > > etc. So > > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > > Surya > > > > > > > > > > > > is the sarvatmaa then he is the one who gives > > ego. > > > > Or at > > > > > > least > > > > > > > > > > > that is > > > > > > > > > > > > how I would look at the interpretation of the > > words. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lakshmi: Sir, Lord Krishna in Bhagavadgita > > says "aham > > > > > > aatma > > > > > > > > > > > gudakesa sarvabhuta-ashayasthitah" �which is a > > mere > > > > > > statement of > > > > > > > > > > > fact like "sarvaatma cha divaanathaH" and not an > > > > egoistic > > > > > > > > > > > assertion. I again quote from the Chapter II - > > > > Sankhya > > > > > > yoga > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > Bhagavad gita, about the nature of Aatma. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also do not think that Parashara was talking > > about > > > > Aatma > > > > > > > > > > > as "self", because "self" is a combination of > > > > > > soul+manah+body > > > > > > > > > > > (lagna), while the muni was careful enough to > > specify > > > > > > > > > significator > > > > > > > > > > > for each separately. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The aatma is neither born nor does it die. > Coming > > into > > > > > > being, > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > ceasing to be do not take place in it. Unborn, > > > > eternal, > > > > > > constant > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > ancient, it is not killed when the body is > > > > slain. ....it > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > changeless and invulnerable. Atma, by > definition, > > is > > > > pure > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > always > > > > > > > > > > > remains so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Further on, the Gita also talks of how the aatma > > can > > > > > > animate the > > > > > > > > > > > being, be a witness to all its actions and yet > > remain > > > > > > > > > > > untouched....like the Sun, who animates the > entire > > > > world > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > witnesses everything and yet remains unaffected > & > > > > above > > > > > > all! > > > > > > > > > And, > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > am only talking of Sun the planet, please. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, "change" is the name of the > > > > Ego...it > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > appear, > > > > > > > > > > > disappear, grow to gigantic proportions and > > > > > > diminish�.every > > > > > > > > > small > > > > > > > > > > > thing appallingly affects it. How can can the > Soul > > and > > > > > > Ego be > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > one and same thing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrasekhar ji: > I would not give humility as > > > > opposed > > > > > > to a > > > > > > > > > > King. > > > > > > > > > > > It is not for nothing he > > > > > > > > > > > > sits on a throne, wears a crown and expects > > everyone > > > > to > > > > > > salute > > > > > > > > > > him > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > also worship him as an amsha of Vishnu. I > would > > say > > > > this > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > height > > > > > > > > > > > > of ego for a human being, to think himself to > be > > on > > > > par > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > god. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lakshmi: One can sit on the throne, because > that's > > the > > > > > > appointed > > > > > > > > > > > place for him to sit, yet not get swayed by it > and > > all > > > > > > that it > > > > > > > > > > > signifies. You have Janaka Rajarshi as a shining > > > > example, > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > > > among > > > > > > > > > > > mortals. King Akbar is a more recent example. > > Human > > > > > > history is > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > replete with the legends of humble humane kings > as > > it > > > > is > > > > > > of vile > > > > > > > > > > > egoistic kings. I think it's unfair to > > impute "ego" to > > > > a > > > > > > person > > > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > > > because he happens to be king!! Even beggars may > > have > > > > > > massive > > > > > > > > > egos > > > > > > > > > > > and may not be averse to engage bhats to sing > > their > > > > > > praises, if > > > > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > > > can afford it:--)) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there any law that bars a king from being > > > > > > > > > enlightened/detached > > > > > > > > > > > and a beggar from being egoistic or the other > way > > > > round? I > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > > > it's incorrect/inconclusive to arrogate > qualities > > to > > > > > > people > > > > > > > > > based > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > their station in life. I really can't understand > > how > > > > Sun > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > equated > > > > > > > > > > > to ego... and just because he's the king of the > > > > planetary > > > > > > > > > system!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, why ignore what Parashara had so clearly > > and > > > > > > > > > unambiguously > > > > > > > > > > > stated and instead look for convoluted > > interpretations? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrasekhar ji: > But leaving the > interpretation > > of > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > Parashara > > > > > > > > > > > wanted to say and how > > > > > > > > > > > > scriptures are to be interpreted, we find that > > Bhava > > > > > > Manjari > > > > > > > > > > does > > > > > > > > > > > > attribute Abhimana (pride/ego) to Surya and so > > does > > > > > > Bhuvan > > > > > > > > > > Deepak. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lakshmi: Thank you for your clarification. I am > > glad > > > > that > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > statement is not quoted from BPHS, because such > a > > > > > > statement > > > > > > > > > coming > > > > > > > > > > > from Parashara would be very inconsistent & out > of > > > > > > character. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Though I have nothing against other astrological > > > > texts, I > > > > > > > > > > personally > > > > > > > > > > > find many of them with their pithy and catchy > > dictums, > > > > > > lacking > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > maturity and ethical depth of BPHS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you have correctly observed, a Sanskrit word > > has > > > > > > multiple > > > > > > > > > > > meanings, and from my view point the > > word "Abhimaan" > > > > can > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > mean > > > > > > > > > > > self-respect, which is a positive quality and > > needs to > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > encouraged/cultivated. Humbleness does not mean > > being > > > > > > obsequious > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > groveling at some one else's feet. In my > thinking > > a > > > > true > > > > > > humble > > > > > > > > > > > person is a dignified person who can respect > > others > > > > in > > > > > > the same > > > > > > > > > > way > > > > > > > > > > > he respects himself�for then he sees no > difference > > > > between > > > > > > > > > himself > > > > > > > > > > > and others, and sees Narayana everywhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sir, I may have made many mistakes in my long > > mail. > > > > Please > > > > > > > > > pardon > > > > > > > > > > > them and correct me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > Lakshmi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. 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.