Info about Moksha combination (re: Gauranga's reply)

[Guest guest]

Dear Gauranga and others,

In the scientific world, there are two terms which have a more

pointedly specific meaning than their use in ordinary language - it

is very helpful to use them here: Necessary and Sufficient. When you

say A is Necessary for B, then what it means is that whenever B is

present, A must be present. However, it does not mean that every time

that A is present B will also be present. For example, being able to

read is NECESSARY in order to have read the Gita. But not everyone

who can read has read the Gita.

 

On the other hand, when you say A is Sufficient for B, then you are

saying that whenever A is present, B will be present. However, you

are not saying that whenever B is present that A must be present. For

example, having a huge beard is sufficient to guarantee that you are

a male. But every male does not have a huge beard.

 

Given the above precise definitions, I have so far assumed that the

Moksha combinations cited in BPHS and other places are the conditions

that are NECESSARY for Moksha, i.e. whenever Moksha is present in a

person, these conditions must be satisfied in that chart. However,

these conditions are not SUFFICIENT for Moksha, meaning everyone who

has these combinations need not have Moksha.

 

My original post was to investigate what are the SUFFICIENT

conditions for Moksha. However, you have replied and said that these

conditions are NOT even NECESSARY for Moksha i.e. even people who

have Moksha need not have these conditions in their chart. So what

are these combinations for, then? Just random then - a person who has

moksha may or may not have these combinations. A person with these

combinations may or may not get Moksha. That is not saying anything

at all. We might as well ignore them then. Or am I missing something?

 

 

Sundeep

 

 

vedic astrology, Gauranga Das <gauranga@b...>

wrote:

> JAYA JAGANNATHA!

>

> Dear Jyotisha,

>

> Namaste.

>

> My understanding about Moksha yogas is the following:

>

> It would be futile to assume that any number of the polulation will

attain

> moksha just on the strength of the combinations in their charts.

Therefore

> I think it is useless to attempt any mathematical models to this.

Indeed

> Jaimini, Parashara and other classics give several combinations for

moksha,

> out of which some have extremely relaxed conditions, for example

even one

> strong benefic in 12th from Karakamsha gives moksha. So my way to

deal with

> this is the following:

>

> 1. Look for moksha yogas in D-1, D-9, D-20 and D-60.

> 2. Thorougly analyse the strangth to these combinations and any

badha to

> them.

> 3. Analyse the overall spiritual strength of the chart.

> 4. Anaylse AK thoroughly. I have compiled an article on this which

is to

> appear in the March issue of JD, although I still couldn't send it

to

> Sarbani because her mailbox bounces saying it's full. Sarbani,

please reply

> to me in private if you read this.

> 5. Analyse 7th house in Rasi and Navamsa, as this will indicate the

causes

> for rebirth.

> 6. Analyse Pravrajya combinations.

> If all the above say OK, then you can infer that the native will

attain

> moksha. On the other hand, someone without these combinations is

still not

> excluded, as by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's mercy even the most

fallen can go

> back to Godhead if the take to the process of chanting Lord

Krishna's hol

> name.

>

> Yours,

>

> Gauranga Das Vedic Astrologer

> gauranga@b...

> Jyotish Remedies:

> WWW.BRIHASPATI.NET

> Phone:+36-309-140-839

>

>

> -

> "Ramapriya D" <hubli@v...>

> <vedic astrology>

> Monday, February 17, 2003 8:56 AM

> Re: [vedic astrology] Info about Moksha combination

>

>

> > Dear Sundeep,

> >

> > To those like me who're zilch in math, could you please explain

some of

> the

> > figures you've stated?

> >

> > For example: "Assuming everything is independent, 16% of all

people would

> > have Ke in 4th or 12th. If you additionally put the Pi and Cn

limitation,

> > you cut it down to about 3% of the population." However so?? If

it was Ke

> > being in 4th or 12th from the asc, I can understand the 16%

thing, but

> this

> > combo is for k'sha or k'shaka. When a slow-moving planet gets to

be the AK

> > (like now for example), Ke won't be in 4th or 12th from k'sha for

quite a

> > while. In fact, the closest possibility to a straight-line

determination

> > like you've posited comes when the faster ones like Mo, Su, Me or

Ve get

> to

> > be AK.

> >

> > I also don't know why, like you say, only a very small percentage

of the

> > populace needs to be heading for moksha.

> >

> > By stating the impossibility of a guy getting moksha when Ra gets

to be

> the

> > AK, I think you've played the devil's advocate (rightly) against

k'sha.

> > K'shaka looks the more probable term, and correct too.

> >

> > Warm regards,

> >

> > Ramapriya

> > hubli@v...

> >

> >

> > -

> > <vedicastrostudent>

> > <vedic astrology>

> > Monday, February 17, 2003 11:45 AM

> > [vedic astrology] Info about Moksha combination (related

to the

> > Rational Thinking post)

> >

> >

> > > Dear all especially PVR guru,

> > > You very right ly pointed out the fact that we should do a

sanity

> > > check to see how probable the occurrence of a combination is

> > > before pronouncing it as the determinant of a particular

> > > condition/event. I do this all the time but dont always end up

> > > satisfied.

> > >

> > > In exactly this vein, note that the frequently cited

combinations for

> > > Moksha are:

> > > 1) Karakamsa in Pisces (a variation I have heard is

> > > Karakamshaka in Pisces)

> > > 2) 4th or 12th from Karakamsa has Ketu. Additional things I

> > > have heard is that this sign (4th or 12th) from Karakamsa should

> > > be a saatwik sign e.g. Pisces or Cancer.

> > >

> > > Now looking at the first combination, the probability is 1/12,

> > > right? i.e 8% (I havent done a detailed conditional probability

> > > study - just assuming everything is independent)

> > > Looking at the second combination, again,

> > >

> > > However, all these numbers sound way too high to me (even 3%

> > > is too high). Even if you look at many charts blindly and apply

> > > these rules, you will see a number of people seemingly headed

> > > towards Moksha - people you would not ordinarily suspect - e.g.

> > > George W. Bush has Ketu in 12th from Karakamsa. So

> > > obviously there are other combinations which are FAR more

> > > strict that these ones - why are these ones cited then, and what

> > > are those more strict combinations? Realistically, we should

> > > see these moksha combinations in about 1 in 1 million people

> > > i.e. 0.0001% or less. In a related point people with Rahu

> > > Atmakaraka should never achieve Moksha because they can

> > > never have Ketu in 4th or 12th from Karakamsa. Realistically, we

> > > know this is not true.

> > >

> > > Thank you,

> > >

> > > Sundeep

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-

 

> >

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

> >

> >

> >

> > Your use of is subject to

 

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear list,

I notice a basic logical flaw with the possbility of any necessary

and sufficient combinations for moksha. The very fact that a person

is born in this world (avatars excluded) suggests that the person's

karma so far was not enough to carry him/her to moksha in his/her

last life. Hence the positive karmic influence from past lifes can

also be less that is needed for moksha in this life. Only by proper

shadana, through compassion (bhakthi), yoga, gnana or proper karma

through FREE WILL & ACTIONS in this life one can attain moksha.

 

All these combinations such as KE in 4th or 21th from lagna or

karakamsa can only be indicators of high spiritual evolution. I just

simply cannot understand how there can be any necessary and

sufficient conditions for moksha.

 

We need to remember that there is nothing called a forced destiny.

People make their destiny (accumulated karma) through their actions

and free will. They can also clear the karma only through actions

based on free will.

 

regards,

-Siva.

 

vedic astrology, "vedicastrostudent

<vedicastrostudent>" <vedicastrostudent> wrote:

> Dear Gauranga and others,

> In the scientific world, there are two terms which have a more

> pointedly specific meaning than their use in ordinary language -

it

> is very helpful to use them here: Necessary and Sufficient. When

you

> say A is Necessary for B, then what it means is that whenever B is

> present, A must be present. However, it does not mean that every

time

> that A is present B will also be present. For example, being able

to

> read is NECESSARY in order to have read the Gita. But not everyone

> who can read has read the Gita.

>

> On the other hand, when you say A is Sufficient for B, then you

are

> saying that whenever A is present, B will be present. However, you

> are not saying that whenever B is present that A must be present.

For

> example, having a huge beard is sufficient to guarantee that you

are

> a male. But every male does not have a huge beard.

>

> Given the above precise definitions, I have so far assumed that

the

> Moksha combinations cited in BPHS and other places are the

conditions

> that are NECESSARY for Moksha, i.e. whenever Moksha is present in

a

> person, these conditions must be satisfied in that chart. However,

> these conditions are not SUFFICIENT for Moksha, meaning everyone

who

> has these combinations need not have Moksha.

>

> My original post was to investigate what are the SUFFICIENT

> conditions for Moksha. However, you have replied and said that

these

> conditions are NOT even NECESSARY for Moksha i.e. even people who

> have Moksha need not have these conditions in their chart. So what

> are these combinations for, then? Just random then - a person who

has

> moksha may or may not have these combinations. A person with these

> combinations may or may not get Moksha. That is not saying

anything

> at all. We might as well ignore them then. Or am I missing

something?

>

>

> Sundeep

>

>

> vedic astrology, Gauranga Das

<gauranga@b...>

> wrote:

> > JAYA JAGANNATHA!

> >

> > Dear Jyotisha,

> >

> > Namaste.

> >

> > My understanding about Moksha yogas is the following:

> >

> > It would be futile to assume that any number of the polulation

will

> attain

> > moksha just on the strength of the combinations in their

charts.

> Therefore

> > I think it is useless to attempt any mathematical models to

this.

> Indeed

> > Jaimini, Parashara and other classics give several combinations

for

> moksha,

> > out of which some have extremely relaxed conditions, for example

> even one

> > strong benefic in 12th from Karakamsha gives moksha. So my way

to

> deal with

> > this is the following:

> >

> > 1. Look for moksha yogas in D-1, D-9, D-20 and D-60.

> > 2. Thorougly analyse the strangth to these combinations and any

> badha to

> > them.

> > 3. Analyse the overall spiritual strength of the chart.

> > 4. Anaylse AK thoroughly. I have compiled an article on this

which

> is to

> > appear in the March issue of JD, although I still couldn't send

it

> to

> > Sarbani because her mailbox bounces saying it's full. Sarbani,

> please reply

> > to me in private if you read this.

> > 5. Analyse 7th house in Rasi and Navamsa, as this will indicate

the

> causes

> > for rebirth.

> > 6. Analyse Pravrajya combinations.

> > If all the above say OK, then you can infer that the native will

> attain

> > moksha. On the other hand, someone without these combinations is

> still not

> > excluded, as by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's mercy even the most

> fallen can go

> > back to Godhead if the take to the process of chanting Lord

> Krishna's hol

> > name.

> >

> > Yours,

> >

> > Gauranga Das Vedic Astrologer

> > gauranga@b...

> > Jyotish Remedies:

> > WWW.BRIHASPATI.NET

> > Phone:+36-309-140-839

> >

> >

> > -

> > "Ramapriya D" <hubli@v...>

> > <vedic astrology>

> > Monday, February 17, 2003 8:56 AM

> > Re: [vedic astrology] Info about Moksha combination

> >

> >

> > > Dear Sundeep,

> > >

> > > To those like me who're zilch in math, could you please

explain

> some of

> > the

> > > figures you've stated?

> > >

> > > For example: "Assuming everything is independent, 16% of all

> people would

> > > have Ke in 4th or 12th. If you additionally put the Pi and Cn

> limitation,

> > > you cut it down to about 3% of the population." However so??

If

> it was Ke

> > > being in 4th or 12th from the asc, I can understand the 16%

> thing, but

> > this

> > > combo is for k'sha or k'shaka. When a slow-moving planet gets

to

> be the AK

> > > (like now for example), Ke won't be in 4th or 12th from k'sha

for

> quite a

> > > while. In fact, the closest possibility to a straight-line

> determination

> > > like you've posited comes when the faster ones like Mo, Su, Me

or

> Ve get

> > to

> > > be AK.

> > >

> > > I also don't know why, like you say, only a very small

percentage

> of the

> > > populace needs to be heading for moksha.

> > >

> > > By stating the impossibility of a guy getting moksha when Ra

gets

> to be

> > the

> > > AK, I think you've played the devil's advocate (rightly)

against

> k'sha.

> > > K'shaka looks the more probable term, and correct too.

> > >

> > > Warm regards,

> > >

> > > Ramapriya

> > > hubli@v...

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > <vedicastrostudent>

> > > <vedic astrology>

> > > Monday, February 17, 2003 11:45 AM

> > > [vedic astrology] Info about Moksha combination

(related

> to the

> > > Rational Thinking post)

> > >

> > >

> > > > Dear all especially PVR guru,

> > > > You very right ly pointed out the fact that we should do a

> sanity

> > > > check to see how probable the occurrence of a combination is

> > > > before pronouncing it as the determinant of a particular

> > > > condition/event. I do this all the time but dont always end

up

> > > > satisfied.

> > > >

> > > > In exactly this vein, note that the frequently cited

> combinations for

> > > > Moksha are:

> > > > 1) Karakamsa in Pisces (a variation I have heard is

> > > > Karakamshaka in Pisces)

> > > > 2) 4th or 12th from Karakamsa has Ketu. Additional things I

> > > > have heard is that this sign (4th or 12th) from Karakamsa

should

> > > > be a saatwik sign e.g. Pisces or Cancer.

> > > >

> > > > Now looking at the first combination, the probability is

1/12,

> > > > right? i.e 8% (I havent done a detailed conditional

probability

> > > > study - just assuming everything is independent)

> > > > Looking at the second combination, again,

> > > >

> > > > However, all these numbers sound way too high to me (even 3%

> > > > is too high). Even if you look at many charts blindly and

apply

> > > > these rules, you will see a number of people seemingly headed

> > > > towards Moksha - people you would not ordinarily suspect -

e.g.

> > > > George W. Bush has Ketu in 12th from Karakamsa. So

> > > > obviously there are other combinations which are FAR more

> > > > strict that these ones - why are these ones cited then, and

what

> > > > are those more strict combinations? Realistically, we should

> > > > see these moksha combinations in about 1 in 1 million people

> > > > i.e. 0.0001% or less. In a related point people with Rahu

> > > > Atmakaraka should never achieve Moksha because they can

> > > > never have Ketu in 4th or 12th from Karakamsa.

Realistically, we

> > > > know this is not true.

> > > >

> > > > Thank you,

> > > >

> > > > Sundeep

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Group info: vedic-

astrology/info.html

> > >

> > > To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-

>

> > >

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

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Your use of is subject to

>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

JAYA JAGANNATHA!

 

Dear Sundeep,

 

Namaste.

>

> Given the above precise definitions, I have so far assumed that the

> Moksha combinations cited in BPHS and other places are the conditions

> that are NECESSARY for Moksha, i.e. whenever Moksha is present in a

> person, these conditions must be satisfied in that chart. However,

> these conditions are not SUFFICIENT for Moksha, meaning everyone who

> has these combinations need not have Moksha.

 

Yes, your understanding is absolutely correct in standard conditions or

Vedic terms. One with a strong spiritual background indicated by the

presence of Moksha yogas in the chart is eligible for liberation, which will

be moslty based on his own effort. Of course Lord Vishnu is the person who

ultimately grants liberation, so no chance without his help. But hte person

became eligible at least.

 

> My original post was to investigate what are the SUFFICIENT

> conditions for Moksha. However, you have replied and said that these

> conditions are NOT even NECESSARY for Moksha i.e. even people who

> have Moksha need not have these conditions in their chart. So what

> are these combinations for, then? Just random then - a person who has

> moksha may or may not have these combinations. A person with these

> combinations may or may not get Moksha. That is not saying anything

> at all. We might as well ignore them then. Or am I missing something?

 

No. Here I am takning of an exceptional situation: the native gaining Lrod

Caitanya's mercy. There are still objective factors seen from the life of

the native: i.e. he may accept chanting of the Maha Mantra in good fatih and

surrender his life to Lord Caitanya, even if he had not spiritual

combinations from previous life. Of course one who has them would accept it

easier, but no one is excluded. So this is just an exception because Lord

Caitanya appeared 500 years ago and introduced the Sankirtana movement.

Otherwise standard combintations will work without fail. If you study His

chart, you will be able to see how He can deliver even those who are

unqualified. I attach His chart.

 

Yours,

 

Gauranga Das Vedic Astrologer

gauranga

Jyotish Remedies:

WWW.BRIHASPATI.NET

Phone:+36-309-140-839

Attachment: [not stored]