Guest guest Posted June 19, 2001 Report Share Posted June 19, 2001 The current theory, atleast on this list, is that the actual house in a horoscope shows the "reality" of that house, while the arudha of that house shows the house as viewed by "the world". Narasimha told me in response to my question that this theory is based on certain teachings of his parampara (tradition). I bow to parampara and have the greatest respect for it, but are we, as astrologers, really aware of what we are saying when we talk about arudhas? Take the following example: a horoscope has an afflicted second house, but the arudha of the second house is strong. By our theory, this would mean that the person's finances (let's pick this one signification of the second house) may not be great, but since the arudha is good, "the world" may think his finances are very good. To me, apart from being astrologically questionable (for want of data, if nothing else), this theory is also presumptuous in another way. Let me elaborate - this theory assumes that we astrologers are not part of "the world". In a sense, we TOO are only judging people on the outside. We too are really only saying what the world would think. It is really rare for us to see a person's "true" intelligence, or character, or his "true" spiritual nature. These may not be known to the person himself, in some cases. For example, whether we are astrologers or laymen, the reason we think Narasimha is intelligent is because of his education, his passing exams and his writing books. None of us, either based on his chart or otherwise, has any way of knowing if he is very intelligent, or if he is simply better organised with his time and better motivated. My point is not to put down Narasimha, my point is that we TOO judge people only by the external. Our view is very much that which is shown by the arudhas. Another example, take a Lata Mangeshkar, can we really know her "real" musical worth? No. We only see the outer manifestation of her talent. Is she where she is because she practised harder in her younger days, or because of her genes, or because of God's blessings? We have no way of knowing. All we can see, whether we are astrologers or laymen, is the "manifestation", the arudha. If the outer manifestation is the arudha, then we should be judging charts almost solely based on the arudhas, which to my knowledge no astrologer does today. Presuming that we can see inside a person's real personality, while assuming that "the world" will be deluded by maya and will see something else is rather arrogant. Since when are astrologers not deluded by maya? I can imagine very, very spiritual astrologers getting *a glimpse* into reality, but this, to me, is certainly not something that every astrologer can judge simply based on houses and arudhas in a chart. *IF* on the other hand, actual houses show true potential, and arudhas show manifestation of that potential, then the rectification in areas such as knowledge, spirituality etc should be based on arudha. How can we rectify a D-20 based on how spiritual the person *IS* ?? We can only do so based on how spiritual the person thinks he is, or how spiritual *we* think the person is, or how spiritual the person comes across as being. Any way you look at it, as mere human beings, the "reality" is beyond our reach. Comments are invited (perhaps Narasimha may be able to shed some light?). Mahalinga Iyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2001 Report Share Posted June 19, 2001 Namaste Mahalinga Iyer, > The current theory, atleast on this list, is that the actual > house in a horoscope shows the "reality" of that house, > while the arudha of that house shows the house as viewed > by "the world". What I am saying is a little different. Arudha of a house shows what *exists* materially (related to the house significations). One's intelligence does not have a material existence - it lives inside one. One's perceived intelligence does not have a material existence - it only lives inside the minds of people. The only things that have a *material existence*, as far as one's intelligence and abilities are concerned, are things like prizes, awards, scores in examinations and achievements. All these are things that exist materially and *supposed* to reflect one's intelligence and abilities. Such things are shown by arudhas of houses. Houses from lagna qualify true self and show its aspects. Houses from arudha lagna qualify perceived self and show its aspects. So it is the houses from arudha lagna (and not arudhas) that show the world's impressions. > Take the following example: a horoscope has an afflicted > second house, but the arudha of the second house is strong. > By our theory, this would mean that the person's finances > (let's pick this one signification of the second house) may > not be great, but since the arudha is good, "the world" may > think his finances are very good. I wrote in detail about this a few days back. Read it again carefully. The assumption that the 2nd house shows money is simplistic. Money is not a quality or aspect of true self. The 2nd house basically shows sustenance. The 2nd house from lagna shows sustenance of self, the 2nd from AL shows one's sustenance in world's view and A2 (arudha of 2nd) shows money. > To me, apart from being astrologically questionable (for want > of data, if nothing else), this theory is also presumptuous > in another way. Let me elaborate - this theory assumes > that we astrologers are not part of "the world". In a sense, > we TOO are only judging people on the outside. We too are > really only saying what the world would think. It is really > rare for us to see a person's "true" intelligence, or character, > or his "true" spiritual nature. These may not be known to > the person himself, in some cases. Yes, the impressions of the person himself may be different too. Jyotisha, as taught by Parasara and interpreted by my gurus, provides a way for delineating that too. > For example, whether we are astrologers or laymen, the > reason we think Narasimha is intelligent is because of his > education, his passing exams and his writing books. True. > None of > us, either based on his chart or otherwise, has any way of > knowing if he is very intelligent, or if he is simply better > organised with his time and better motivated. My point is > not to put down Narasimha, my point is that we TOO judge > people only by the external. Our view is very much that which > is shown by the arudhas. Yes, we are all often swayed by the illusion of the material world. But, elders teach us that astrology enables a wise astrologer to see through the layer of illusion. > Presuming that we can see inside a person's real personality, > while assuming that "the world" will be deluded by maya > and will see something else is rather arrogant. Well, if you rule that out and call it "arrogant", what else can I say? I was taught, and I teach, that it can be done. If you think that it is arrogant, that is the end of the conversation... May Jupiter's light shine on us, Narasimha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2001 Report Share Posted June 19, 2001 Hello Mahalingam, Please read my comments below. > > To me, apart from being astrologically questionable (for want > of data, if nothing else), this theory is also presumptuous > in another way. Let me elaborate - this theory assumes > that we astrologers are not part of "the world". In a sense, > we TOO are only judging people on the outside. We too are > really only saying what the world would think. It is really > rare for us to see a person's "true" intelligence, or character, > or his "true" spiritual nature. These may not be known to > the person himself, in some cases. Yes. Whatever we do is a process of *judging* people, but when we read a chart, the houses/planets reveal the true nature, when we go by the rules/principles laid down, we end up judging the true nature of a person. After all I did not lay down these rules, it was prescribed by Maharishi's. Ofcourse our interpretation will vary slightly from person to person, and the chart of an astrologer who has a better potential will end up doing *better* justice to the chart of the native. > > For example, whether we are astrologers or laymen, the > reason we think Narasimha is intelligent is because of his > education, his passing exams and his writing books. None of > us, either based on his chart or otherwise, has any way of > knowing if he is very intelligent, or if he is simply better > organised with his time and better motivated. My point is > not to put down Narasimha, my point is that we TOO judge > people only by the external. Our view is very much that which > is shown by the arudhas. Although our perceptions are all borne out of Arudha, the fact still remains that there is something inherently *true* about Narasimha, and that could be deciphered by using houses rather than the Arudha. Once again the question arises that we are ourselves in this world of maya, how can we decipher the *truth*. Here is *my* opinion. Once we take birth, we automatically enter the realm of Maya. In this world once again, there is *Truth*, but speaking relatively wrt *Maya*. This *Truth* is shown by houses and the *Maya* is shown by Arudha of the houses. Face it, unless one is truly realized soul, one wouldn't be able to see the actual *Truth*. This actual *Truth* is something that transcends beyond what we human beings can see or even fathom. It is beyond our undertanding. They say, our minds are always enveloped in *Maya*, if thats the case then how can we use this faulty instrument called *Mind* to perceive the *Reality/Truth*. Any attempt to understand is still in this field of knowledge which is acquired in this world of *Maya*. > > Another example, take a Lata Mangeshkar, can we really > know her "real" musical worth? No. We only see the outer > manifestation of her talent. Is she where she is because > she practised harder in her younger days, or because of her > genes, or because of God's blessings? We have no way of > knowing. All we can see, whether we are astrologers or > laymen, is the "manifestation", the arudha. If the outer > manifestation is the arudha, then we should be judging > charts almost solely based on the arudhas, which to my > knowledge no astrologer does today. > I think I just explained it above. > Presuming that we can see inside a person's real personality, > while assuming that "the world" will be deluded by maya > and will see something else is rather arrogant. Since when > are astrologers not deluded by maya? I can imagine very, very > spiritual astrologers getting *a glimpse* into reality, but this, > to me, is certainly not something that every astrologer can > judge simply based on houses and arudhas in a chart. > > *IF* on the other hand, actual houses show true potential, > and arudhas show manifestation of that potential, then the > rectification in areas such as knowledge, spirituality etc > should be based on arudha. How can we rectify a D-20 > based on how spiritual the person *IS* ?? We can only do > so based on how spiritual the person thinks he is, or how > spiritual *we* think the person is, or how spiritual the > person comes across as being. Any way you look at it, as > mere human beings, the "reality" is beyond our reach. Put yourself in a situation, where you mis-understood a person, and later you realized that a person is not what you thought him to be, and you aplogized. In this situation, you started out with a wrong perception and then later realized the *truth*. This is where Arudha usage comes into play. It is all with respect to this world we are borne in. > > Comments are invited (perhaps Narasimha may be able to > shed some light?). > Given Regards Narayan Iyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2001 Report Share Posted June 19, 2001 Namaste Narayan, > Face it, unless one is truly realized soul, one wouldn't be able to > see the actual *Truth*. This actual *Truth* is something that > transcends beyond what we human beings can see or even fathom. It is > beyond our undertanding. My point exactly. All our attempts to perceive "truth" are still in the realm of Maya. Mahalinga Iyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2001 Report Share Posted June 19, 2001 Namaste Narasimha, > Houses from lagna qualify true self and show its aspects. Houses from > arudha lagna qualify perceived self and show its aspects. So it is > the houses from arudha lagna (and not arudhas) that show the world's > impressions. Can you elaborate with an example. If I may, I will start with a simplistic example. If we agree that the concept works with this, we can extend this to more realistic (and hence more complex) examples. Take the lagna. What does a powerful lagna (in any commonly accepted sense of the word) indicate? What does a powerful arudha lagna indicate? When we are talking about things in the context of this world, how would the "real self" manifest itself? Would we not be seeing the perceived self all the time? > I wrote in detail about this a few days back. Read it again > carefully. The assumption that the 2nd house shows money is > simplistic. Money is not a quality or aspect of true self. The 2nd > house basically shows sustenance. The 2nd house from lagna shows > sustenance of self, the 2nd from AL shows one's sustenance in > world's view and A2 (arudha of 2nd) shows money. All kinds of dhana-yogas are seen from the second house from lagna, and from second lord from lagna (ie not from arudha lagna). If these are not pertaining to the "perceived self", then what are they? Again, my point is, how does the "real self" show itself in this materialistic world? Are not all our impressions based on our perceptions? And so many of our perceptions, such as wealth, seem to be indicated by houses and lordships from the *lagna*. How does one explain this? > > Presuming that we can see inside a person's real personality, > > while assuming that "the world" will be deluded by maya > > and will see something else is rather arrogant. > > Well, if you rule that out and call it "arrogant", what else can I > say? I was taught, and I teach, that it can be done. If you think > that it is arrogant, that is the end of the conversation... Don't take the word "arrogant" as a putdown. It was not personal. To think that we can simplistically talk about "the real self" and "the perceived self" is somewhat arrogant, unless the person saying it is a truly realized soul. Agree? Mahalinga Iyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2001 Report Share Posted June 19, 2001 AUM SRI GURUVE NAMAH Dear Mahalinga and Narasimha! I shall give a simple analogy here. A person is having blood cancer. The person might not be aware of the fact that he is having such ailment because he is having a perfect health otherwise and no symptoms outside. Even his nears and dears or general people also think the same because he doesn't have any external symptoms. For regular checkup he goes to a doctor and the doctor diagnosed that he has Blood cancer after all the required tests and confirms it. In this instance the Doctors also could have been fooled, if he didn't have the specialised skills and the tools. Shall we call the doctors arrogant because he is not deceived? Similarly the astrologer also has the tools and skills to see through the veil of illusion. However, that doesn't make an astrologer arrogant. Regards Sarajit - <pvr <vedic astrology> Wednesday, June 20, 2001 5:32 AM [vedic astrology] Re: Arudhas - do we mean what we say? > Namaste Mahalinga Iyer, > > > The current theory, atleast on this list, is that the actual > > house in a horoscope shows the "reality" of that house, > > while the arudha of that house shows the house as viewed > > by "the world". > > What I am saying is a little different. Arudha of a house shows what > *exists* materially (related to the house significations). > > One's intelligence does not have a material existence - it lives > inside one. One's perceived intelligence does not have a material > existence - it only lives inside the minds of people. The only things > that have a *material existence*, as far as one's intelligence and > abilities are concerned, are things like prizes, awards, scores in > examinations and achievements. All these are things that exist > materially and *supposed* to reflect one's intelligence and > abilities. Such things are shown by arudhas of houses. > > Houses from lagna qualify true self and show its aspects. Houses from > arudha lagna qualify perceived self and show its aspects. So it is > the houses from arudha lagna (and not arudhas) that show the world's > impressions. > > > Take the following example: a horoscope has an afflicted > > second house, but the arudha of the second house is strong. > > By our theory, this would mean that the person's finances > > (let's pick this one signification of the second house) may > > not be great, but since the arudha is good, "the world" may > > think his finances are very good. > > I wrote in detail about this a few days back. Read it again > carefully. The assumption that the 2nd house shows money is > simplistic. Money is not a quality or aspect of true self. The 2nd > house basically shows sustenance. The 2nd house from lagna shows > sustenance of self, the 2nd from AL shows one's sustenance in world's > view and A2 (arudha of 2nd) shows money. > > > To me, apart from being astrologically questionable (for want > > of data, if nothing else), this theory is also presumptuous > > in another way. Let me elaborate - this theory assumes > > that we astrologers are not part of "the world". In a sense, > > we TOO are only judging people on the outside. We too are > > really only saying what the world would think. It is really > > rare for us to see a person's "true" intelligence, or character, > > or his "true" spiritual nature. These may not be known to > > the person himself, in some cases. > > Yes, the impressions of the person himself may be different too. > Jyotisha, as taught by Parasara and interpreted by my gurus, provides > a way for delineating that too. > > > For example, whether we are astrologers or laymen, the > > reason we think Narasimha is intelligent is because of his > > education, his passing exams and his writing books. > > True. > > > None of > > us, either based on his chart or otherwise, has any way of > > knowing if he is very intelligent, or if he is simply better > > organised with his time and better motivated. My point is > > not to put down Narasimha, my point is that we TOO judge > > people only by the external. Our view is very much that which > > is shown by the arudhas. > > Yes, we are all often swayed by the illusion of the material world. > But, elders teach us that astrology enables a wise astrologer to see > through the layer of illusion. > > > Presuming that we can see inside a person's real personality, > > while assuming that "the world" will be deluded by maya > > and will see something else is rather arrogant. > > Well, if you rule that out and call it "arrogant", what else can I > say? I was taught, and I teach, that it can be done. If you think > that it is arrogant, that is the end of the conversation... > > May Jupiter's light shine on us, > Narasimha > > > > > > > > > > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... > > > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2001 Report Share Posted June 20, 2001 In a message dated 6/20/01 1:47:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time, mahalinga_iyer writes: << How can we rectify a D-20 based on how spiritual the person *IS* ?? We can only do so based on how spiritual the person thinks he is, or how spiritual *we* think the person is, or how spiritual the person comes across as being. Any way you look at it, as mere human beings, the "reality" is beyond our reach. >> Are we even meant to 'know'? We have the manifestation of a soul in this incarnation and how they 'appear'. Should we presume to think that we can actually 'see' a particular soul objectively (what's that?) at all? This revelation is probably kept from each individual soul as well. What exactly is 'spiritual'? Do we all agree on what is a universal definition of 'spiritual'? Each expression of 'spiritual' for each soul is unique to that person. A chart is a snapshot of possibilities and does not indicate the ultimate outcome for each individual. That is for them to review after the incarnation is completed (I assume). Just pondering... Renee 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.