Rahu and Osho & Sankrit grammer (Reply to Dr. Chaudhary's post).

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr. Chaudharyji,

 

Regarding Rahu, I think even the classics attribute Rahu to breaking

away from conventional path. I have Rahu in trines to navams lagna,

and unless I am fully convinced, I dont agree to what tradition

holds - this is not arrogance, but just an inborn characteristic. In

most cases, I have my own interpretation as per my understanding and

realization.

 

Chart of Osho (Rajneesh) might be an excellent candidate to study

effect of Rahu. I am fully convinced that Rahu will hold the key in

his chart. Does anyone have his chart?

 

A digression to Sanksrit grammer:

 

I am formulating a theory on links between Tamil and Tantra. I need

to get a doubt cleared about Sanksrit grammer. Ancient tamil grammer

works give 100% scientific, rigid rules regarding pronounciation of a

character. The rules mention specifics such as

when and how the tongue must bend, when and how the lips open/close,

etc and the smallest time interval given for measurements is blinking

of an eye. I know sankrit has strong pronounciation rules, but does

it have such exact definitions for each character? Please clarify.

 

Thanks,

-Siva.

 

 

 

vedic astrology, "Dr Satya Prakash Choudhary

<satyaprakasika>" <satyaprakasika> wrote:

>

> Aum Namah Shivaya

>

> Dear Sarbani ji,

>

> Nice thoughts. It is probably impossible to tell which is original

or

> atleast which came first. Veda or the regional texts? By regional I

> assume you mean the entire body of literature that now goes by the

> name Tantra. While most agamas and tantras have been written in

> periods that are relatively recent, some atleast in their seed form

> as ideas and concepts have their nebulous beginnings in pre-

historic

> times. The Tantra as old as the Veda, if not older! I know some may

> find it hard to even consider. But each day convinces me more of

how

> ancient this Tantra is. And how universal it is. It seems to have

> been spread out through out the world, of course in its nebulous

> beginnings. It is embedded deep within the psyche of man. I will

> leave it there. Since you referred to Jacques Derrida, I assume

that

> you are familiar with his ideas. JD (Jacques Derrida) is to

> Linguistics what JK was to spirituality, rather philosophy in the

> modern times. Wonder if you have JD's birth details by any chance.

I

> suspect that Rahu and Mars, especially Rahu has a major role in his

> chart. Rahu is often misunderstood as the chandala, the one who

> corrupts things, as anti- to Jupiter. But a deeper study of many

> charts only convinces me that all grahas have their higher side,

the

> spiritual. From that perspective, in some charts, Rahu can be mind

> boggling. Rahu does not only corrupt or spoil Jupiter, he CHECKS

> Jupiter. Yes Rahu can be the chandala that is seen as against

> tradition. But he is also the one who knocks us when tradition

> becomes BINDING! See JK's chart. While Jupiter is more about the so

> called 'pure' Vedic path, Rahu is more Tantric in his workings. If

> you know anything about Vasishta Ganapati Muni's life (he was a

great

> poet, tapaswi, vedic as well as tantric scholar, a man who was

held

> in esteem by Ramana Maharshi, a free- thinker, an intellectual

> giant .... It is well known that he had actually attained KAPALA

> BHEDA and it seems people actually heard the cracking of the skull

> (actually the fontenelles I believe) and saw this smoky light

> emanating from the top of his head for a few days after this. He

had

> GURU-CHANDALA YOGA in his 12th house if I remember correctly. And

all

> this happened during RAHU'S PERIOD!

>

> Well my point is that while it is true that Rahu can be corrupting

in

> his influence, a much neglected side (I am yet to read a single

> modern author writing anything on this side)of Rahu is that he also

> could be about DEMOLISHING BELIEFS , STRUCTURES, THE PAST

> CONDITIONING, etc in a way that can actually be spiritually

> liberating. But since a majority do not see this side open in their

> charts, and also because most people get frightened by this

> demolishing of the past beliefs and structures if one is not

prepared

> or insecure internally, they just sperak of his negative side. All

> energy is neutral in itself. It cannot be good or bad. It is how we

> harness it that the good and bad manifests. Sorry the diversion.

But

> speaking of Derrida reminds of JK, AND JK reminds me of Rahu, Rahu

of

> Ganapati muni, and so on. I see only Chamundi's energy here,

nothing

> less. Rahu brings the sound of Her BELLS and CONCHES and war HORNS

as

> the battle to demolish all falsehood starts. The nodes need a fresh

> look.

>

>

> Regards,

> Satya

>

>

> -- In vedic astrology, "Sarabani Sarkar"

> <sarbani@s...> wrote:

> > Dear Narasimha and others,

> >

> > Some thoughts:

> > The question that arose in my mind was that since almost all

written

> > documentation irrespective of the publisher, the text or the year

of

> > publication, seem to write 'namo' separately, and if we go by as

> you are

> > saying that its a Kali yuga distortion, then it would be

> interesting to know

> > precisely when this distortion took place. Usually language

> distortions

> > first take place in the oral tradition (through pronunciation

> glitches) and

> > only much later in the written tradition. Of course once

> introduced, texts

> > 'alter' over generations in the hands of translators, editors and

> > publishers. In fact 'reading' texts itself is a major field in

> linguistic

> > philosophy as championed by Jacques Derrida among others. So

> linguists hold

> > that there is nothing called a 'real' or 'original' text anymore.

> Each text

> > has layers of sub-texts and the task of unravelling the original

> text itself

> > is a separate discipline by itself. In the case of Hinduism,

> written texts

> > are complemented by the living tradition of Hinduism making the

> whole issue

> > more complicated. So which is the authentic source? Yajur Veda

> (including

> > the Taittiriya and the Mahnarayana Upanishads which is full of

> fabulous

> > Rudra mantras) or the regional texts? What came first? Which

> influenced

> > which? Maybe both are right...these issues are highly debatable

and

> open to

> > endless pontification, which of course need and must continue for

> the sake

> > of scholastic advancement. Hinduism as you know is a continuum, a

> fluid,

> > meandering cosmology, rather than a static text frozen in time

and

> space. It

> > cannot be 'preserved' like an unchanging object or a pickle or a

> stuffed

> > animal, but being a living tradition it is continuously changing

and

> > re-inventing itself...although core principles and the grammar is

> the same.

> > It can be continued and saved from obsoletion. It is to be lived.

> Not frozen

> > in time. So we have a harder time to identify distortions and

> > authentication. The lines truly get blurred.

> >

> > So including or not including Om...Mantra Maharnava does not

> include Om when

> > counting aksharas, while others do. Who is right? I simply follow

my

> > parampara being Sanjay's shishya and consider Om Namah Shivaya as

> > shadakshari although I am open to debates and discussions. Perhaps

> > unconsciously I make a separation between belief and scholarship,

> > spirituality and grammar. I deal with them in separate

spheres...at

> least

> > temporarily. There are many things in the spiritual plane that I

> cannot

> > account for in the scholastic, rational sphere. All I am trying

to

> say is,

> > that it would be very interesting if we could probe deeper into

the

> whys and

> > wherefores of the distortions. It might be a fruitful exercise. I

> will

> > definitely keep my eyes open on this and if I come across any

> material on

> > the issues discussed on mantra in the list...I will surely post

> them, at

> > least in the Varahamihira forum. So I would not really look at it

> as a

> > 'controversy' -

> >

> > Best regards,

> >

> > Sarbani

> >

> >

> >

> > pvr108 <pvr@c...> [pvr@c...]

> > Tuesday, January 07, 2003 3:46 AM

> > vedic astrology

> > [vedic astrology] Summary of controversy (Re:

> > Mantra-Query-Narsimhaji)

> >

> >

> > Hi Chandrashekhar,

> >

> > One quick clarification. The number of letters is not the matter

of

> > controversy (so far). The controversy is regarding the number of

> > words. If you have a compound word formed by a sandhi (e.g.

> > parameswaraanugrahaaptyartham is made up of many words - parama +

> > iswara + anugraha + aapti + artham, but it is technically one

word)

> > or samaasa (e.g. suragurubrihaspataye is made up of sura, guru and

> > brihaspataye, but it is technically one word. It is equivalent

> > to "suraanaam gurave brihaspataye"), it is technically becomes one

> > word.

> >

> > Thus the controversy is regarding the number of words in the

> > presence of sandhi/samaasa (conjoining/compounding) and not

> > regarding the number of letters.

> >

> > As far as letters go, "Om Namassivaaya" has six letters

> > and "Namassivaaya" has five letters. There is no controversy

there.

> > Namassivaaya IS the panchakshari mantra and some people add om to

> > remove any bad results due to mispronunciation. Om always

safeguards

> > against mistakes.

> >

> > May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> > Narasimha

> >

> > PS: Strictly speaking though, some people mispronounce these

> > mantras, altering the number of LETTERS too. The Sanskrit word for

> > letter/syllable is "akshara". To understand it, you have to know

> > what is kshara (perishable) and what is akshara (imperishable).

The

> > sound "k" or "kl" cannot stand on its own and perishes (you cannot

> > even properly pronounce it, if it is standing on its own). When an

> > vowel comes, it makes it imperishable and gives life (you can

> > pronounce it). So vowels (swaras) are called the lifeforce of a

> > syllable. A syllable cannot be formed without an vowel.

> > So "ka", "kah", "tat" etc are all aksharas (supported by a). In

tat,

> > you cannot consider the last "t" as a separate akshara as it does

> > not have an vowel (life) to support it (the previous a supports

the

> > t coming before it). So "tat" is considered to be just one akshara

> > and not two (that is how it is used in all Sanskrit slokas. If you

> > know chhandas, you can verify what I mean). The number of aksharas

> > in a word is equal to the number of separated vowels in it. So

> > Sivaaya has 3 aksharas (si, vaa and ya). If one

> > mispronounces "Sivaaya" as "Sivaay" (thanks to the Arabic

influence

> > on Hindi), it now has only 2 vowels instead of 3 and only two

> > aksharas (si and vaay, the y here is analogous to the second t in

> > tat - it cannot stand on its own as an akshara without an vowel

> > coming after it). Still, you may get some results over the long

run

> > due to devotion. Anywya, I am less concerned about results etc

here

> > and I am concentrating on the technicalities that got lost due to

> > the corruptions of Kali Yuga. I know what I am saying will not

> > appeal to a lot of people, but this is based on sound technical

> > considerations.

> >

> > > Respected Narasimhaji/Ramdass Rao and other knowledgeable

> teachers,

> > > I have been watching this topic for some time.If I may

intervene,

> > as I understand "Om Namah Shivaay" has always been called as

> > panchakshari mantra. Now if the line of reasoning in the ongoing

> > discussion is to be accepted it would be counted as different

number

> > of words according to who is trying to decipher it.Were the

ancient

> > sages wrong in calling the above mantra as Panchakshari? Please

> > enlighten me.

> > > Reagrds,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> >

> > Sponsor

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-

>

> >

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

> >

> >

> >

> > Terms of

Service.