Arudhas - do we mean what we say? - Sarajit

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sarajit,

 

Would the results of the tests showing the disease in your analogy be

demonstrated by the A8 in the chart?

 

regards,

 

Alex J

 

vedic astrology, "Sarajit Poddar" <sarajitp@h...> wrote:

> 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@m...>

> <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

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-

 

> >

> > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

> >

> >

> >

> > Your use of is subject to

 

> >

> >