Humility & learning lessons of life

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

Namaskaar Sri Lakshmi

 

It is clear to one who understands Vedanta, that it is the misinterpretation

of the ego that makes it say - "that the consciousness is in me". The ego

does not understand that, all that is, is Consciousness. This separative

self, called ego, creates the individuality. The chart is cast for an

individual. The Sun represents the consciousness mistakenly considered by

ego to be it's own. Therefore, it is the very fault of the ego to call Sun

the ego. Sun, just, enlivens the ego as it enlivens everything else.

 

That which is self effulgent and in whose light all is seen, is not ego. Sun

is that self effulgence. It is the universal spirit and has been called so.

Take any chart, where Sun is weak, that person will not see the

consciousness shining but will always remain more interested in maya. Take

any chart with Surya to be strong and more importantly, unafflicted and you

will see there would be constant rememberance of consciousness with each

thought and action. The light of consciousness will make a person aware of

many things - even of his/her own ego -if he/she has due to other reasons.

The quality of awareness will be there.

 

I am sure you have heard the Kalia story - where the sarpa was asked to

leave the pond by Lord Krishna. The pond is the mind, Kalia represents ego

and its illusory manifestations including anger, lust,etc..... When Krishna

jumps into the water, kalia wakes up - which represents that the ego is

ruffled as soon as light of consciousness falls on it. Kalia tries to stifle

Krishna - which is an impossible task. The Unbound can never be bound. In

the mind of the individual when Krishna is found, then it dances with every

action and thought that the egoistic self takes place (akin to Prabhu

Krishna dancing on Kalia's hood). The entire pond -the mind - then is

purified as each karma and thought is dedicated and awareful of the

consciousness. All the poison is sucked and finally Kalia leaves.

 

Surya Devta or Sun is Krura since it only wants the Truth and rejects all

else as false. Moreover, Sun represents Vision (as in direction) - can tamas

and rajas have vision? Their vision is limited to the joys of senses or

sleep. Can awareness or vision come out of ego?

 

I stopped discussing on this topic since I felt there is no point in

changing anyone's views. Everyone can have their own. However, I refuse to

accept that Sun represents Ego, like you have very rightly pointed out.

 

Thanks and Regards

Bharat

 

 

 

 

 

On 8/31/06, 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

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Divine Lakshmi,

 

My blessings are always with you. You have studied both astrology and

scriptures in depth and it is a pleasure to enter into a dialogue with

you on astrology.

 

I see you have not commented on the story of Durvasa. So you will

perhaps agree that a King does have ego. If I remember right, Vishnu

carried the footprint of Bhrigu on his chest as a reminder of his

temporary lapse in responding to a Bhakta and that is why it is called

Bhakta LanCchana. But as you know different Puranas present a story in

different forms.

 

Shifting to Parashara, you will see that Parashara did make Sun the

King. So behavior of King of gods can not be ignored when looking at the

qualities of a King.

 

About the sage wanting students to understand the classic on the basis

of deities and spiritual parameters. Parashara does not talk about the

Avatars of Vishnu at the beginning, initially, restricting himself to

telling about Paramaatmaamsha existing in all living beings. Remember

that it is Maitreya who asked the sage to a specific query about telling

him about the proportion of Paramaatmaamsha and Jeevaatmaamsha in the

avatars of Lord Vishnu. By the way, one edition of BPHS tells that this

shastra is useful for even those who do not do any Sadhana or religious

rituals to understand how to predict the future.

 

No doubt, understanding the creation of Universe is useful in

understanding jyotish better but there are many versions of the deities

involved in different Puranas. Sage Parashara is not the only source for

that.

 

I would like you to look at position of Sun in Karakamsha in B.P.H.S.

think why Sun being the pure and unalloyed atma who is Satvik and a King

should only give service to a king at the beginning and end of one's

life when in strength. Again think about why Sun in strength gives eye

trouble in lagna and 2nd bhava. Again think why Sun and Moon both Satvik

planets in one amsha in lagna should give a child three mothers but

brought up by father and brother ( implying departing of three mothers

to their final abode).

 

I think we should separate the gunas and nature of planets to arrive at

correct understanding of how they will behave. For example if we take

the Gunas of the planets in literal and scriptural sense then the satva

guna planets will not have any activity only sustenance, the rajas Guna

planets will have activity and creative ability and the tamas guna

planets will have ignorance and lethargy. That does not seem to

translate into how the individual planets behave, even according to

Parashara.

 

I agree with your views about Indra and insecurities. But as soon as you

choose to look at Sun as a King, the insecurities are bound to set in.

Parashara does after all call him King, besides Atma. And the seat of

Indra is said to be the 10th house where the Sun attains digbala being

at its brightest. We see every graha being given different qualities and

though some of them appear to clash with each other they do not. Like

Bhavas the grahas also play multiple roles and the qualities attributed

to them are a pointer in that direction. sage Parashara did give many

things in greater details to bring to our notice the multiple roles that

grahas play in our life. If we only latch on to one quality of a graha

and want the graha's behavior fit that one quality only, I am sure we

may not be able to understand their different flavors that the sage

wanted us to understand.

 

So Sun is said to reside in temple as he is a King who builds temple (

in ancient times it is the kings that built temples) on one hand. On the

other level being the cause of the creation of this universe (Parashara

does say this, not restricting himself t Vishnu or Vasudeva) he acts

like the deity of the temple, being Krura he can protect the temple,

ruling the sthoola (bulky/stout) trees, he guards the trees in temple

premises and so on. Had only being Satva, as in pious, led him to temple

then Moon and Jupiter should also have resided in Temple. By the way the

sage does not distinguished between Moon with or without Pakshabala and

being Kaami (lustful), if I remember right.

 

"Lord Krishna in Bhagvadgita says "aham aatma gudakesa

sarvabhuta-ashayasthitah" ...which is a mere statement of fact like

"sarvaatma cha divaanathaH" and not an egoistic assertion."

 

Dear Lakshmi, did I give the impression of implying that Lord Krishna

made an egoistic statement by claiming a above? I do not seem to

remember having said anything about Lord Krishna in my mail. I do not

think I said that "sarvaatma cha divaanathaH" is egoistic assertion if

memory serves me right.

 

Perhaps I was not able to explain the concept of unsullied Aatmaa

getting helpless, on being born ,when he gets Ahamkar (feeling of being

a separate entity than the Paramatma) and led astray by Mana. As I said

this is explained in many of the Puranas beautifully.

 

I can see your reluctance to distinguish between Aatma as in self and

Aatmaa as in soul. Think of it this way why should the Pure and

unsullied Aatmaa with the Putra ( reference to Charakaraka) want to make

one a King? Atma does not have attachment for anything neither does it

detest anybody. Nor can the Atma die and then why should Sun be allotted

Marana karana Sthana in the 12th house as Atmaa is indestructible. Think

about taking the Aatmaa in different situations related to Sun and

results attributed to Sun being Aatmaa. I am sure you will find that the

definition does not fit in every situation. rather it fits the least

number of situations and even may be none to qualify as Aatmaa as

defined by Lord Krishna. Remember "nainam chindanti shastraani..." How

would Sun then be afflicted by Rahu or undergo grahana? Pray think about

this in depth. You have yourself attributed Body to lagna and rightly

so. think why is the Sun, karaka for lagna if it is Aatmaa at all times.

 

You are actually supporting my argument, when you talk of kings. As

there is no bar on Kings being enlightened so is there no bar on even

enlightened beings having ego. As to reference to King Akbar, was he not

the one who sealed Anarkali in a wall and fought his own Son to prove

his power? I do not want to comment on saintly figures like King Janaka

and whether they to had ego or not. But think about why did King Janaka

keep the Shiva Dhanushya that he could lift and string easily, as a

challenge for others to lift and string as a condition for marrying lady

Sita, if he did not think that there would be not more than one who

could do it?

 

The reason for interpreting what Parashara has said is that the sage has

not always given clear indication of the inner meaning of what he wants

to tell. That precisely is why there are many versions of Parashari and

many commentators who wrote the commentary. The reason is not being

deliberately obtuse, but to impart knowledge in such a manner that

should it fall in wrong hands it can not be mis-utilized unless the

key is received from a knowledgeable Guru or unless the student

devotes himself to unravel the deeper meaning for long period of time

and understands the underlying philosophy of the shastra, that is common

to all vedic sciences. I think the sages were sure that if a student

applies himself to a shastra seriously and understands the philosophy of

the shastra he will not misuse the shastra.

 

You are yourself well versed in scriptures. Read Sahasranama of any

deity and I am sure you will find Jyotish, tantra, mantra, yantra, yoga

and many other vedic shastras, being revealed through the 1000 names of

a deity to those who have studied the respective science in depth.

 

Though I have given you the texts that give the principle directly, if

one looks at all that the Sage Parashara says one can deduce the same

inference. Someday I will give you the reference. I have already given

the way Sun acts krura ,from what Parashara has said in the bhava

chapter. If you think about why Sankranti dosha is given by the sage,

you will agree that Sun is not at all times equated to Aatmaa by the sage.

 

And what you are referring to is Swabhimana - pride in one's abilities.

Abhimana does mean self conceit/haughtiness, wrong conception about

self, self importance etc. So it does mean ego.

 

I agree entirely with you that a truly humble person is a dignified

person, one who respects others. Rather I would put it this way a truly

knowledgeable and dignified person is one who is humble and respects

others opinions, as much he does his own. A yogi is one who sees the

lord in others as does he see the lord within.

 

You have presented your views with great study and dignity. I do not

find any mistakes in the way you put them forward. I enjoyed what you

have written.

 

Take care,

Chandrashekhar.

 

 

 

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

>

>

> ------

>

>

>

> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release 8/31/2006

>

[Guest guest]

Namaskaar Sri Pradeep

 

With your statements, you imply that I write which is written already in

another book.

 

I ignore your such references and try and explain since these questions have

been referred to me. Furthermore, you cannot limit my words by asking me to

write in 2 or 3 sentences only. So I shall write what I shall want to.

Please see my response in Blue

 

1)What is Jeevatma and Paramatma and how are they related to

Brahmanda and Pindanda.

Your question is resolved once you understand whether Paramatma is undivided

or not. Jeevatma is only used as a reference since the individual thinks

oneself to be different. Jeevatma has no separate existence. Brahmanda and

Pindanda is Macrocosm and Microcosm. The attempt is to show that whatever

exists within is without too. Pointing out the indivisibility of Paramatma.

 

4)If Moon is just Prakrithi -Name the Chethana which creates 'I'

feeling.I think you too agree that moon cannot think of its own.If

self is body/mind/soul -and body and mind are Prakrithi -Who is left

with to ignite this feeling of Self in Jeeva shareera?

You need to a realize one thing: Other than Parmatma, there is nothing else..

First be clear on this. Now we check about our "imaginations"-

 

Now, let us come to Mind - what is mind? - It is a collection of thoughts.

Not realizing Parmatma, there is thought of "me" and a thought of the

"other". The "me" is defined by a collection of thoughts. Thoughts require

expression and the Lord has been kind enough to bestow a sharira.

 

Now, how are thoughts or anything coignized - In the light of the Parmatma,

everything is coignized. Parmatma is indivisible. The same Parmatma

"enlivens" the "me" feeling or the "small I" feeling. Just be enlivening a

thought of "me" or "I", Parmatma does not become the cause of ego.

 

Moon can think on its own, in light of Parmatma. So please understand these

small things before deciding that Surya, representing Parmatma or

consciousness, is the cause for ego. For example, the electricity enlivens a

television - can you say the sound and sight you see is "caused" by

electricity. The nature of thoughts, and thinking is dependent upon the

collection of thoughts that IS the mind. Similarly, the thought of "I" is

the nature of the thought and not that of Parmatma - the undivisible SELF.

 

Hope this helps. Having said this, as I suggested to you earlier too that I

do not intend to teach or preach Vedanta here. Kindly study under an able

and a traditional guru with Sankara's Bhashya.

 

Thanks and Regards

Bharat

 

 

 

 

On 8/31/06, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep > wrote:

>

> Dear Bharat ji

>

> As you have studied Vedanta,kindly clear my following doubts.

> 1)What is Jeevatma and Paramatma and how are they related to

> Brahmanda and Pindanda.

> 2)Does (Mana Vs Jeevashareera) has any similarity with (Maya Vs

> Prapancha).Who is the connecting Link.

> 4)If Moon is just Prakrithi -Name the Chethana which creates 'I'

> feeling.I think you too agree that moon cannot think of its own.If

> self is body/mind/soul -and body and mind are Prakrithi -Who is left

> with to ignite this feeling of Self in Jeeva shareera?

>

> Kindly do not give long explanations present in Vedantic text books

> or Quotations as i can read them as well.i am interested in small

> answers,which you were revealed with ,during your slef seeking

> procedure.Say 2 or max 3 sentences per question.Kindly share your

> wisdom as gems of brevity.

>

> Thanks

> Pradeep

>

> <%40>,

> "Bharat Hindu Astrology"

> <hinduastrology wrote:

> >

> > Namaskaar Sri Lakshmi

> >

> > It is clear to one who understands Vedanta, that it is the

> misinterpretation

> > of the ego that makes it say - "that the consciousness is in me".

> The ego

> > does not understand that, all that is, is Consciousness. This

> separative

> > self, called ego, creates the individuality. The chart is cast for

> an

> > individual. The Sun represents the consciousness mistakenly

> considered by

> > ego to be it's own. Therefore, it is the very fault of the ego to

> call Sun

> > the ego. Sun, just, enlivens the ego as it enlivens everything

> else.

> >

> > That which is self effulgent and in whose light all is seen, is

> not ego. Sun

> > is that self effulgence. It is the universal spirit and has been

> called so.

> > Take any chart, where Sun is weak, that person will not see the

> > consciousness shining but will always remain more interested in

> maya. Take

> > any chart with Surya to be strong and more importantly,

> unafflicted and you

> > will see there would be constant rememberance of consciousness

> with each

> > thought and action. The light of consciousness will make a person

> aware of

> > many things - even of his/her own ego -if he/she has due to other

> reasons.

> > The quality of awareness will be there.

> >

> > I am sure you have heard the Kalia story - where the sarpa was

> asked to

> > leave the pond by Lord Krishna. The pond is the mind, Kalia

> represents ego

> > and its illusory manifestations including anger, lust,etc.....

> When Krishna

> > jumps into the water, kalia wakes up - which represents that the

> ego is

> > ruffled as soon as light of consciousness falls on it. Kalia tries

> to stifle

> > Krishna - which is an impossible task. The Unbound can never be

> bound. In

> > the mind of the individual when Krishna is found, then it dances

> with every

> > action and thought that the egoistic self takes place (akin to

> Prabhu

> > Krishna dancing on Kalia's hood). The entire pond -the mind - then

> is

> > purified as each karma and thought is dedicated and awareful of the

> > consciousness. All the poison is sucked and finally Kalia leaves.

> >

> > Surya Devta or Sun is Krura since it only wants the Truth and

> rejects all

> > else as false. Moreover, Sun represents Vision (as in direction) -

> can tamas

> > and rajas have vision? Their vision is limited to the joys of

> senses or

> > sleep. Can awareness or vision come out of ego?

> >

> > I stopped discussing on this topic since I felt there is no point

> in

> > changing anyone's views. Everyone can have their own. However, I

> refuse to

> > accept that Sun represents Ego, like you have very rightly pointed

> out.

> >

> > Thanks and Regards

> > Bharat

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > On 8/31/06, 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

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Om Gurave Namah

 

Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

 

Today I intend to practise a virtue...brevity... because i want to

attend a classical dance recital by Dr. Shobha Naidu. So, please

bear with my cryptic language:--))

 

 

Sir, i have not commented on Durvasa episode because i refuse to

accept that Indra and Sun are similar, because they are both kings.

Anyway, since we are already into puranas , let me illustrate with

an exmple. We have heard of Lord Krishna deflating the ego of Indra

in Govardhana giri episode. The same Krishna was livid with anger,

when an apachaaram was unknowingly committed during arghya pradaanam

to Surya, by Gaya, the gandharva. why the difference?

 

I have read of Indra being cursed repeatedly, but i have never read

of Sun being cursed!! Anyway any person, who allowed himself to be

sawed into 1/12th of his original brilliance, and gave his light so

that another can become equal to him, can not be accused of being

egoistic!

 

I feel that there's nothing superflouous in the way Maharshis

thought and wrote. if Parashara wrote about creation and the ten

incarntion as chapters I & II of BPHS, there should be a valid

reason for it. And, gunas form the basis of creation, while

professions/kingships do not. I am sure that Parshara required the

students to have a rudimentary knowledge of these fundamentals for

full appreciation of what's to follow.

 

 

Chandrasekhar ji:> I would like you to look at position of Sun in

Karakamsha in B.P.H.S.

> think why Sun being the pure and unalloyed atma who is Satvik and

a King

> should only give service to a king at the beginning and end of

one's

> life when in strength. Again think about why Sun in strength

gives eye

> trouble in lagna and 2nd bhava. Again think why Sun and Moon both

Satvik

> planets in one amsha in lagna should give a child three mothers

but

> brought up by father and brother ( implying departing of three

mothers

> to their final abode).

 

Lakshmi: Sir, I fail to see how the above argument is related to sun

representing the ego. Do giving the results of service to king,

losing eyesight and loss of mother imply and support the egoistic

nature of sun? In what way are they linked? Do you mean to say that

jupiter, who is sattwik and a benefic will never give bad results? I

think it's wrong to conclude like that. Good and bad results depend

on the functional benefic/malefic nature of the planet in the chart

and the overall chart. Even Saturn & Mars can give excellent

results, as does Rahu.

 

My husband has Sun in 2nd house, and has excellent eye sight, does

not wear glasses and he's 46! I think it's injudicious to come to a

conclusion, without assessing the amending influences.

 

Please give us some examples and we will discuss them.

 

> I think we should separate the gunas and nature of planets to

arrive at

> correct understanding of how they will behave. For example if we

take

> the Gunas of the planets in literal and scriptural sense then the

satva

> guna planets will not have any activity only sustenance, the rajas

Guna

> planets will have activity and creative ability and the tamas guna

> planets will have ignorance and lethargy. That does not seem to

> translate into how the individual planets behave, even according

to

> Parashara.

 

Lakshmi: I see no contradictions in Parashara and if he did not want

us to look at the planets in the context of gunas, why would he go

to the trouble of detailing them? Btw, Mars also gets digbala in the

10th house. Does that mean Mars is also Indra or the king?

 

 

Chandrasekhar ji: So Sun is said to reside in temple as he is a

King who builds temple (

> in ancient times it is the kings that built temples) on one hand.

On the

> other level being the cause of the creation of this universe

(Parashara

> does say this, not restricting himself t Vishnu or Vasudeva) he

acts

> like the deity of the temple, being Krura he can protect the

temple,

> ruling the sthoola (bulky/stout) trees, he guards the trees in

temple

> premises and so on. Had only being Satva, as in pious, led him to

temple

> then Moon and Jupiter should also have resided in Temple. By the

way the

> sage does not distinguished between Moon with or without

Pakshabala and

> being Kaami (lustful), if I remember right.

 

Lakshmi: Sir, a palace also needs to be built, it also has trees to

be protected etc...i do not think that building, protection/trees

are peculiar only to temples or places of worship!! And having built

a temple, does a king stay in the temple or palace? I certainly do

not think "abode" means just a building..it means a place where one

resides.

 

I am sure you have heard the saying "Deho devaalaya proktho jeevo

devaH Sanatanah"...the Sun is the Soul and our body is the devalaya.

Parashara had such exalted vision of human potential!!

 

Moon and Jupiter do not represent the soul. And Parashara intends

that soul remains the King, the final authority and not the manah or

the wisdom.

 

Chandrasekhar ji: > I can see your reluctance to distinguish between

Aatma as in self and

> Aatmaa as in soul. Think of it this way why should the Pure and

> unsullied Aatmaa with the Putra ( reference to Charakaraka) want

to make

> one a King? Atma does not have attachment for anything neither

does it

> detest anybody. Nor can the Atma die and then why should Sun be

allotted

> Marana karana Sthana in the 12th house as Atmaa is indestructible.

Think

> about taking the Aatmaa in different situations related to Sun and

> results attributed to Sun being Aatmaa. I am sure you will find

that the

> definition does not fit in every situation. rather it fits the

least

> number of situations and even may be none to qualify as Aatmaa as

> defined by Lord Krishna. Remember "nainam chindanti shastraani..."

How

> would Sun then be afflicted by Rahu or undergo grahana? Pray think

about

> this in depth. You have yourself attributed Body to lagna and

rightly

> so. think why is the Sun, karaka for lagna if it is Aatmaa at all

times.

 

Lakshmi: If I may say so, I think the confusion is very much in your

mind, sir. You are confusing between chara Atma karaka (self) and

atma (soul). I think that needs to be resolved first.

 

Sun also does not have attachment for anything. Is any planet

exalted or debilitated in his house?

 

Is Sun broken by the grahanam? Is the Sun dead because rahu

momentarily covers him? Is Sun back in no time, shining more than

ever and bringing back happiness to every one? That momentary

grahanam is like the bandhana the soul has to undergo in a body.

Btw, 12th house also signifies imprisonment, and is the Soul, ever

free, happy to be imprisoned?

 

Sir, i think i need to write a big essay to answer your other

posers, but unfortunately do not have time right now. tomorrow I'll

be back:--))

 

regards,

Lakshmi

[Guest guest]

Om Gurave Namah

 

Dear sir,

 

For Sun/Leo, the 12th house is cancer, which is the house of Moon.

when Moon is shining, obviously the Sun has set...I think here the MKS

is more related to astronomical factors!!

 

Now it's really bye and i am going to enjoy:--))

 

Regards,

Lakshmi

[Guest guest]

Dear Divine Lakshmi,

 

Have a nice time at the classical dance recital. Brevity is certainly a

virtue. I shall follow you in this regard.

 

1. Why Indra as a King is different from Surya as a King? Mind you, I

never said Surya is equal to Indra. I was only and still am commenting

on the nature of a King.

 

2. About Surya not being cursed it would be interesting to read the

Sthala Purana of Thirumiyachoor temple. You will find the story of Sun

being cursed by Lord Shiva for molesting Aruna in form of Mohini, there.

Then there is another story of his being cursed by Brahma.

 

3. I accept that Parashara did not write in vain. But why should

everything, other than the creation of universe, be thought to be

inferior to what is given in the creation of Universe chapter is

something beyond me. Again this information appears in all Puranas and

not only in BPHS. If Professions/ Kingships were subservient to Gunas, I

am sure the sage would have indicated this very plainly.

 

4. No the argument is not related to ego. It tries to indicate that

being unsullied Aatmaa is not the sole quality of Surya and hence the

afflictions due to him. Does dear Ramesh have Surya in strength in the

2nd bhava? Anyway, Sun in Lagna in strength is said to cause various eye

problems like Budbudaaksha night blind and so on. I was only trying to

show that the Satwa Guna of Surya is not shown by the results and that

should have occurred if he was really like unsullied Aatmaa and could

not have ego.

 

5. Think of why only Surya and mars get digbala in rajya sthana. They

are the King and the Commander of the King's army respectively.

And by the way I did not say there is any contradiction between the

gunas and duties etc. Only that the planets exhibit different qualities

in different roles and thus the apparent contradictions. By the way

Satva means "inner strength" and Satvam means "the strength".

 

6. I would not like to go into the depth of why temples are treated as

likely places of Kings instead of deities, lest we rouse passions of

those who may not be so dispassionate as both of us when discussing a

principle.

 

However, as you rightly said "Deho devaalaya proktho jeevo devaH

Sanatanah"...the Sun is the Soul and our body is the devalaya." Now, if

this is true and I have no doubt that it is why would he live in a

temple built of stone? If we think Sun resides in temple as god then we

are saying he is restricted to a temple and is not everywhere, which is

the true form of the almighty. I am sure Parashara knew that Sun can not

be encompassed by walls of a temple. Neither can the Atma be made to

enter temple leaving the human body.

 

So why as you said, I relate Kings to temples? If we look at the history

down times, we find that the Kings erected temples, to let others know

about the great victories that they won over their enemies and the

greater the King thought he was, the larger was the temple built. I know

this may sound to be a cynical view, but history will bear me out. The

other reason that the Kings built temples was to get rid of some curse

that they received on account of their egoistic behavior. That is the

story of King Samba building the Sun temple.

 

By the way, Parashara also calls Moon the Raja (King), and it is not as

if he is allotting the throne, only to Sun because he is Aatmaa.

Parashara did give the position of King to Chandra representing Mana

too, if we want to take the literal meaning of the attributes. After all

he does say: "ravichandrau tu raajaanau". Why does he give equal status

to Mana if only Aatmaa is worthy of being a king?

 

Please think about this.

 

7. I am unable to see how when on the one hand the premise is that Sun

is the unsullied Aatmaa (barring when Chara Karaka, as you said), it

should undergo grahana and become sullied even for some time. Lord

Krishna does not say that Aatmaa gets sullied, ever. He on the other

hand says that it can not be cut by weapon, burnt by fire, soaked by

water and dried by air. So after quoting extensively from Gita to

support the position that Surya is Aatmaa, why the sudden reluctance to

apply the same to grahana? I may certainly be confused in my mind, due

to advancing age, but certainly not that confused.

 

Why should none of the planets getting exalted in a planet's rasi

indicate that he has no attachment for anything? Do you find any planet

getting exalted or debilitated in, Aquarius, the rasi of Rahu? So does

that mean Rahu represents Aatmaa and has no attachment? Is there any

scriptural or astrological support for that premise? I would like you to

think about this in depth.

 

Take care,

Chandrashekhar.

 

 

 

 

b_lakshmi_ramesh wrote:

>

> Om Gurave Namah

>

> Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

>

> Today I intend to practise a virtue...brevity... because i want to

> attend a classical dance recital by Dr. Shobha Naidu. So, please

> bear with my cryptic language:--))

>

> Sir, i have not commented on Durvasa episode because i refuse to

> accept that Indra and Sun are similar, because they are both kings.

> Anyway, since we are already into puranas , let me illustrate with

> an exmple. We have heard of Lord Krishna deflating the ego of Indra

> in Govardhana giri episode. The same Krishna was livid with anger,

> when an apachaaram was unknowingly committed during arghya pradaanam

> to Surya, by Gaya, the gandharva. why the difference?

>

> I have read of Indra being cursed repeatedly, but i have never read

> of Sun being cursed!! Anyway any person, who allowed himself to be

> sawed into 1/12th of his original brilliance, and gave his light so

> that another can become equal to him, can not be accused of being

> egoistic!

>

> I feel that there's nothing superflouous in the way Maharshis

> thought and wrote. if Parashara wrote about creation and the ten

> incarntion as chapters I & II of BPHS, there should be a valid

> reason for it. And, gunas form the basis of creation, while

> professions/kingships do not. I am sure that Parshara required the

> students to have a rudimentary knowledge of these fundamentals for

> full appreciation of what's to follow.

>

> Chandrasekhar ji:> I would like you to look at position of Sun in

> Karakamsha in B.P.H.S.

> > think why Sun being the pure and unalloyed atma who is Satvik and

> a King

> > should only give service to a king at the beginning and end of

> one's

> > life when in strength. Again think about why Sun in strength

> gives eye

> > trouble in lagna and 2nd bhava. Again think why Sun and Moon both

> Satvik

> > planets in one amsha in lagna should give a child three mothers

> but

> > brought up by father and brother ( implying departing of three

> mothers

> > to their final abode).

>

> Lakshmi: Sir, I fail to see how the above argument is related to sun

> representing the ego. Do giving the results of service to king,

> losing eyesight and loss of mother imply and support the egoistic

> nature of sun? In what way are they linked? Do you mean to say that

> jupiter, who is sattwik and a benefic will never give bad results? I

> think it's wrong to conclude like that. Good and bad results depend

> on the functional benefic/malefic nature of the planet in the chart

> and the overall chart. Even Saturn & Mars can give excellent

> results, as does Rahu.

>

> My husband has Sun in 2nd house, and has excellent eye sight, does

> not wear glasses and he's 46! I think it's injudicious to come to a

> conclusion, without assessing the amending influences.

>

> Please give us some examples and we will discuss them.

>

> > I think we should separate the gunas and nature of planets to

> arrive at

> > correct understanding of how they will behave. For example if we

> take

> > the Gunas of the planets in literal and scriptural sense then the

> satva

> > guna planets will not have any activity only sustenance, the rajas

> Guna

> > planets will have activity and creative ability and the tamas guna

> > planets will have ignorance and lethargy. That does not seem to

> > translate into how the individual planets behave, even according

> to

> > Parashara.

>

> Lakshmi: I see no contradictions in Parashara and if he did not want

> us to look at the planets in the context of gunas, why would he go

> to the trouble of detailing them? Btw, Mars also gets digbala in the

> 10th house. Does that mean Mars is also Indra or the king?

>

> Chandrasekhar ji: So Sun is said to reside in temple as he is a

> King who builds temple (

> > in ancient times it is the kings that built temples) on one hand.

> On the

> > other level being the cause of the creation of this universe

> (Parashara

> > does say this, not restricting himself t Vishnu or Vasudeva) he

> acts

> > like the deity of the temple, being Krura he can protect the

> temple,

> > ruling the sthoola (bulky/stout) trees, he guards the trees in

> temple

> > premises and so on. Had only being Satva, as in pious, led him to

> temple

> > then Moon and Jupiter should also have resided in Temple. By the

> way the

> > sage does not distinguished between Moon with or without

> Pakshabala and

> > being Kaami (lustful), if I remember right.

>

> Lakshmi: Sir, a palace also needs to be built, it also has trees to

> be protected etc...i do not think that building, protection/trees

> are peculiar only to temples or places of worship!! And having built

> a temple, does a king stay in the temple or palace? I certainly do

> not think "abode" means just a building..it means a place where one

> resides.

>

> I am sure you have heard the saying "Deho devaalaya proktho jeevo

> devaH Sanatanah"...the Sun is the Soul and our body is the devalaya.

> Parashara had such exalted vision of human potential!!

>

> Moon and Jupiter do not represent the soul. And Parashara intends

> that soul remains the King, the final authority and not the manah or

> the wisdom.

>

> Chandrasekhar ji: > I can see your reluctance to distinguish between

> Aatma as in self and

> > Aatmaa as in soul. Think of it this way why should the Pure and

> > unsullied Aatmaa with the Putra ( reference to Charakaraka) want

> to make

> > one a King? Atma does not have attachment for anything neither

> does it

> > detest anybody. Nor can the Atma die and then why should Sun be

> allotted

> > Marana karana Sthana in the 12th house as Atmaa is indestructible.

> Think

> > about taking the Aatmaa in different situations related to Sun and

> > results attributed to Sun being Aatmaa. I am sure you will find

> that the

> > definition does not fit in every situation. rather it fits the

> least

> > number of situations and even may be none to qualify as Aatmaa as

> > defined by Lord Krishna. Remember "nainam chindanti shastraani..."

> How

> > would Sun then be afflicted by Rahu or undergo grahana? Pray think

> about

> > this in depth. You have yourself attributed Body to lagna and

> rightly

> > so. think why is the Sun, karaka for lagna if it is Aatmaa at all

> times.

>

> Lakshmi: If I may say so, I think the confusion is very much in your

> mind, sir. You are confusing between chara Atma karaka (self) and

> atma (soul). I think that needs to be resolved first.

>

> Sun also does not have attachment for anything. Is any planet

> exalted or debilitated in his house?

>

> Is Sun broken by the grahanam? Is the Sun dead because rahu

> momentarily covers him? Is Sun back in no time, shining more than

> ever and bringing back happiness to every one? That momentary

> grahanam is like the bandhana the soul has to undergo in a body.

> Btw, 12th house also signifies imprisonment, and is the Soul, ever

> free, happy to be imprisoned?

>

> Sir, i think i need to write a big essay to answer your other

> posers, but unfortunately do not have time right now. tomorrow I'll

> be back:--))

>

> regards,

> Lakshmi

>

>

> ------

>

>

>

> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release 8/31/2006

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Divine Lakshmi,

 

You do have a point there. But then the 2nd house should be the MKS for

the Moon is that not so?

 

Have a nice time,

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

b_lakshmi_ramesh wrote:

>

> Om Gurave Namah

>

> Dear sir,

>

> For Sun/Leo, the 12th house is cancer, which is the house of Moon.

> when Moon is shining, obviously the Sun has set...I think here the MKS

> is more related to astronomical factors!!

>

> Now it's really bye and i am going to enjoy:--))

>

> Regards,

> Lakshmi

>

>

> ------

>

>

>

> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release 8/31/2006

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Pradeep

 

Since it is a question of realization, it is not a question of becoming...

but a question of being. Whenever, you think of becoming - there is a change

is state and there will be two - the start and the end. Parmatma is here and

now and it is undivided. It is therefore, our error to not to see it as

thus. To call Atman and Brahman different is a mistake. This is what Sri

Sankara and Sri Vyasa resolve through Bhashya and Sutra (Brahma).

 

For me, whereever teaching comes from, it is Bhagwan Shiva who is teaching.

For me, my master is always realized. Perhaps you make such distinctions.

 

Thanks and Regards

Bharat

 

On 9/2/06, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep > wrote:

>

> Dear Bharat ji

>

> Namaste.Kindly pardon if my words were trying to put restrictions.My

> intention was only the following -

>

> Realization is the culmination of a necessary journey, needed from

> Jeevatma.''Tatwam Asi'' ,''Aham Brahmasmi'' etc is that

> destination.Questions 2 & 3 had a reason connected to the above

> said.Unfortunately those were skipped.Self(Jeevatma) cannot start from

> his goal(Paramatma) but has to Reach/Realize.Understanding one to one

> correspondence between - (Mana /jeeva shareera - Maya/ Parapancha) is

> worthy,if you wish.

>

> Vedanta is not an easy topic and repeating Aatma Satyas(realized by

> Yogis) alone is of no help.Thus i had requested for brevity.So far i

> have not requested you or for that matter anyone to cut down

> thoughts/words ( i have no right).For this topic, i thought ,those who

> are ''realized'' can explain in brevity,which can never be understood

> otherwise,no matter how many kilometers of paper or electronic editor

> ,you consume.I am just abeginner looking at this vast ocean.

>

> Kindly read my mail addressed to Lakshmi ji.

>

> Pradeep

>

> <%40>,

> "Bharat Hindu Astrology"

> <hinduastrology wrote:

> >

> > Namaskaar Sri Pradeep

> >

> > With your statements, you imply that I write which is written already in

> > another book.

> >

> > I ignore your such references and try and explain since these

> questions have

> > been referred to me. Furthermore, you cannot limit my words by

> asking me to

> > write in 2 or 3 sentences only. So I shall write what I shall want to.

> > Please see my response in Blue

> >

> > 1)What is Jeevatma and Paramatma and how are they related to

> > Brahmanda and Pindanda.

> > Your question is resolved once you understand whether Paramatma is

> undivided

> > or not. Jeevatma is only used as a reference since the individual thinks

> > oneself to be different. Jeevatma has no separate existence.

> Brahmanda and

> > Pindanda is Macrocosm and Microcosm. The attempt is to show that

> whatever

> > exists within is without too. Pointing out the indivisibility of

> Paramatma.

> >

> > 4)If Moon is just Prakrithi -Name the Chethana which creates 'I'

> > feeling.I think you too agree that moon cannot think of its own.If

> > self is body/mind/soul -and body and mind are Prakrithi -Who is left

> > with to ignite this feeling of Self in Jeeva shareera?

> > You need to a realize one thing: Other than Parmatma, there is

> nothing else.

> > First be clear on this. Now we check about our "imaginations"-

> >

> > Now, let us come to Mind - what is mind? - It is a collection of

> thoughts.

> > Not realizing Parmatma, there is thought of "me" and a thought of the

> > "other". The "me" is defined by a collection of thoughts. Thoughts

> require

> > expression and the Lord has been kind enough to bestow a sharira.

> >

> > Now, how are thoughts or anything coignized - In the light of the

> Parmatma,

> > everything is coignized. Parmatma is indivisible. The same Parmatma

> > "enlivens" the "me" feeling or the "small I" feeling. Just be

> enlivening a

> > thought of "me" or "I", Parmatma does not become the cause of ego.

> >

> > Moon can think on its own, in light of Parmatma. So please

> understand these

> > small things before deciding that Surya, representing Parmatma or

> > consciousness, is the cause for ego. For example, the electricity

> enlivens a

> > television - can you say the sound and sight you see is "caused" by

> > electricity. The nature of thoughts, and thinking is dependent upon the

> > collection of thoughts that IS the mind. Similarly, the thought of

> "I" is

> > the nature of the thought and not that of Parmatma - the undivisible

> SELF.

> >

> > Hope this helps. Having said this, as I suggested to you earlier too

> that I

> > do not intend to teach or preach Vedanta here. Kindly study under an

> able

> > and a traditional guru with Sankara's Bhashya.

> >

> > Thanks and Regards

> > Bharat

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > On 8/31/06, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Bharat ji

> > >

> > > As you have studied Vedanta,kindly clear my following doubts.

> > > 1)What is Jeevatma and Paramatma and how are they related to

> > > Brahmanda and Pindanda.

> > > 2)Does (Mana Vs Jeevashareera) has any similarity with (Maya Vs

> > > Prapancha).Who is the connecting Link.

> > > 4)If Moon is just Prakrithi -Name the Chethana which creates 'I'

> > > feeling.I think you too agree that moon cannot think of its own.If

> > > self is body/mind/soul -and body and mind are Prakrithi -Who is left

> > > with to ignite this feeling of Self in Jeeva shareera?

> > >

> > > Kindly do not give long explanations present in Vedantic text books

> > > or Quotations as i can read them as well.i am interested in small

> > > answers,which you were revealed with ,during your slef seeking

> > > procedure.Say 2 or max 3 sentences per question.Kindly share your

> > > wisdom as gems of brevity.

> > >

> > > Thanks

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > > <%40><%40>,

> > > "Bharat Hindu Astrology"

> > > <hinduastrology@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Namaskaar Sri Lakshmi

> > > >

> > > > It is clear to one who understands Vedanta, that it is the

> > > misinterpretation

> > > > of the ego that makes it say - "that the consciousness is in me".

> > > The ego

> > > > does not understand that, all that is, is Consciousness. This

> > > separative

> > > > self, called ego, creates the individuality. The chart is cast for

> > > an

> > > > individual. The Sun represents the consciousness mistakenly

> > > considered by

> > > > ego to be it's own. Therefore, it is the very fault of the ego to

> > > call Sun

> > > > the ego. Sun, just, enlivens the ego as it enlivens everything

> > > else.

> > > >

> > > > That which is self effulgent and in whose light all is seen, is

> > > not ego. Sun

> > > > is that self effulgence. It is the universal spirit and has been

> > > called so.

> > > > Take any chart, where Sun is weak, that person will not see the

> > > > consciousness shining but will always remain more interested in

> > > maya. Take

> > > > any chart with Surya to be strong and more importantly,

> > > unafflicted and you

> > > > will see there would be constant rememberance of consciousness

> > > with each

> > > > thought and action. The light of consciousness will make a person

> > > aware of

> > > > many things - even of his/her own ego -if he/she has due to other

> > > reasons.

> > > > The quality of awareness will be there.

> > > >

> > > > I am sure you have heard the Kalia story - where the sarpa was

> > > asked to

> > > > leave the pond by Lord Krishna. The pond is the mind, Kalia

> > > represents ego

> > > > and its illusory manifestations including anger, lust,etc.....

> > > When Krishna

> > > > jumps into the water, kalia wakes up - which represents that the

> > > ego is

> > > > ruffled as soon as light of consciousness falls on it. Kalia tries

> > > to stifle

> > > > Krishna - which is an impossible task. The Unbound can never be

> > > bound. In

> > > > the mind of the individual when Krishna is found, then it dances

> > > with every

> > > > action and thought that the egoistic self takes place (akin to

> > > Prabhu

> > > > Krishna dancing on Kalia's hood). The entire pond -the mind - then

> > > is

> > > > purified as each karma and thought is dedicated and awareful of the

> > > > consciousness. All the poison is sucked and finally Kalia leaves.

> > > >

> > > > Surya Devta or Sun is Krura since it only wants the Truth and

> > > rejects all

> > > > else as false. Moreover, Sun represents Vision (as in direction) -

> > > can tamas

> > > > and rajas have vision? Their vision is limited to the joys of

> > > senses or

> > > > sleep. Can awareness or vision come out of ego?

> > > >

> > > > I stopped discussing on this topic since I felt there is no point

> > > in

> > > > changing anyone's views. Everyone can have their own. However, I

> > > refuse to

> > > > accept that Sun represents Ego, like you have very rightly pointed

> > > out.

> > > >

> > > > Thanks and Regards

> > > > Bharat

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > On 8/31/06, 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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Om Gurave Namah

 

Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

 

Thank you, We did have a lovely time at the dance recital. Her

abhinaya was mind blowing!!

 

1. Sir, I had already written in my previous mails why Surya is not

subject to the same earthly insecurities/anxieties as Indra, because

Indra is someone who gets elevated to that post and is always afraid

of losing it, while Sun has no such fears.

 

And, there are kings and kings. Shirdi Sai Baba was/is worshipped as

yogi raaja...is his temperament similar to that of Indra? In India,

we have the custom of honouring/worshipping eminent spiritual

personages with rajopachaaras and addressing them as kings. Do they

all have egos?

 

You have not responded to why Lord Krishna humiliated Indra, not

once but twice, while he chose to propitiate Surya...both are kings,

so why was this distinction shown by Bhagavan?

 

2. Sugriva born out of a forced union between Surya and Aruna was

news to me, Sir. I always thought Sugriva was the spiritual son of

Surya, in the way Hanuman is the spiritual son of Vayu and that the

name of his mother was Viraja!!

 

3. sir, i never denied that Sun is "krura" or tough!! Usually

Fathers are inaacessible, irritable and prone to angry outbursts and

generally tougher on the kids than mothers are:--) does that mean

that the father is not satwik or that he's not loving?

 

You have not answered my query about Jupiter giving bad results

based on his functional nature.

 

I have Sun in the 9th house in strength, and he had always given me

great results...loving father, loving gurus etc.

 

Ramesh's Sun is in Cancer (in the house of great friend).

 

4. The 10th house is the karma bhava and as the highest point in the

zodiac indicates detachment. All the 3 planets Saturn, Mars and Sun

indicate Parivraja yoga. No wonder the soul gets digbala there!!

 

5. Any place of worship is linked to Sun, perhaps more so to temples

because he rules structures (bones in the body).

 

6. Sun and Moon are ineed Royal planets, i never said any thing to

the contrary. but Moon is not allotted Temple as the abode while sun

is given so. For me that certainly makes Sun more important...infact

it was you who always insisted on Sun being Raja. I always said he

was the soul.

 

Sir, I think we are imposing on others's time and space and need to

conclude this dialogue. I am already begging my youger son for a few

minutes more of computer time, and i don't think he would wait for a

minute more:--))

 

Personally i would like to think that at the core of my being

there's something radiant, whole and pure, if you prefer to think in

the contrary way, it's your prerogative.

 

Thanks for your affection and patience. i look forward to your visit

to tirupati.

 

Regards,

Lakshmi

[Guest guest]

Dear Divine Lakshmi,

 

That is good news. You must have enjoyed the performance.

 

As you said "we are imposing on other's time and space and need to

conclude this dialogue." , I would only make a few points and conclude

the discussion.

 

I see no comment of the Curses received by Surya that I quoted in

respect of argument that Indra was cursed and Surya was not s Surya is

not the King in the same manner as Indra.

 

Calling someone a King out of love and affection, and someone being

called a King as he collects taxes and rules over others with total

authority are different matter. many of the mothers in at least

Maharashtra call their children King, that does not mean they have the

authority of a King.

 

Lord Krishna propitiating Surya is something that has nothing to do with

his not being considered a King. But if you would like to know, then

remember that it is Lord Krishna who is said to have made Surya set

though it was not sunset to lay a trap ( if I may say so for the sake of

brevity) for "Jayadratha", whom he got killed at the hands of Arjuna. So

it is the very Lord Krishna who did cause Sun to get eclipsed. Also

remember that it was Lord Krishna that deceived the Son of Surya "Karna"

by advising Indra to go to him as a bhikshu and ask him to give up his

protective divine armour and ear rings and got him killed at the hands

of Arjuna. So you can not perhaps prove mythologically that Lord Krishna

favoured Surya over Indira.

 

About your Sun in the 9th, is it not weakened by Rahu and aspected by

Guru , if memory serves me right. Where is it in strength. In Ramesh's

case it occupies a female rasi and is not much able to cause harm to

eyesight. I am sure there has to be some god aspect on that Sun as

Ramesh is a soft spoken person as I remember and Sun in 2nd does

sometime tend to give a harsh speech, if not eye trouble, if in

strength. But I was primarily referring to eye trouble to person of Leo

Lagna with its owner Surya posited in it.

 

10th house is also called Maana and Rajya bhava, certainly nothing to do

with detachment. Please check if I am wrong in my nomenclature of the

10th bhava as I am quoting from memory.

 

But then we are veering away from Surya being in temple as soul to being

ruler of structures. If this is all right, why should he also not be a King?

 

I may agree with that, but then why should a satva graha not be in

temple? Can a devotee be considered to be in a temple, truly, if his

mind (ruled by Chandra) is not there?

 

Dear Lakshmi, when did I say something that at the core of your being

there's not something that is radiant, whole and pure? Did my mail

appear to give you that impression? Why would I call you Divine Lakshmi

if I did not think there is something that is radiant, whole and Pure at

the core of your heart? You know, I do not use words in vain. Please

think about this, in depth.

 

Take care,

Chandrashekhar.

 

 

b_lakshmi_ramesh wrote:

>

> Om Gurave Namah

>

> Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

>

> Thank you, We did have a lovely time at the dance recital. Her

> abhinaya was mind blowing!!

>

> 1. Sir, I had already written in my previous mails why Surya is not

> subject to the same earthly insecurities/anxieties as Indra, because

> Indra is someone who gets elevated to that post and is always afraid

> of losing it, while Sun has no such fears.

>

> And, there are kings and kings. Shirdi Sai Baba was/is worshipped as

> yogi raaja...is his temperament similar to that of Indra? In India,

> we have the custom of honouring/worshipping eminent spiritual

> personages with rajopachaaras and addressing them as kings. Do they

> all have egos?

>

> You have not responded to why Lord Krishna humiliated Indra, not

> once but twice, while he chose to propitiate Surya...both are kings,

> so why was this distinction shown by Bhagavan?

>

> 2. Sugriva born out of a forced union between Surya and Aruna was

> news to me, Sir. I always thought Sugriva was the spiritual son of

> Surya, in the way Hanuman is the spiritual son of Vayu and that the

> name of his mother was Viraja!!

>

> 3. sir, i never denied that Sun is "krura" or tough!! Usually

> Fathers are inaacessible, irritable and prone to angry outbursts and

> generally tougher on the kids than mothers are:--) does that mean

> that the father is not satwik or that he's not loving?

>

> You have not answered my query about Jupiter giving bad results

> based on his functional nature.

>

> I have Sun in the 9th house in strength, and he had always given me

> great results...loving father, loving gurus etc.

>

> Ramesh's Sun is in Cancer (in the house of great friend).

>

> 4. The 10th house is the karma bhava and as the highest point in the

> zodiac indicates detachment. All the 3 planets Saturn, Mars and Sun

> indicate Parivraja yoga. No wonder the soul gets digbala there!!

>

> 5. Any place of worship is linked to Sun, perhaps more so to temples

> because he rules structures (bones in the body).

>

> 6. Sun and Moon are ineed Royal planets, i never said any thing to

> the contrary. but Moon is not allotted Temple as the abode while sun

> is given so. For me that certainly makes Sun more important...infact

> it was you who always insisted on Sun being Raja. I always said he

> was the soul.

>

> Sir, I think we are imposing on others's time and space and need to

> conclude this dialogue. I am already begging my youger son for a few

> minutes more of computer time, and i don't think he would wait for a

> minute more:--))

>

> Personally i would like to think that at the core of my being

> there's something radiant, whole and pure, if you prefer to think in

> the contrary way, it's your prerogative.

>

> Thanks for your affection and patience. i look forward to your visit

> to tirupati.

>

> Regards,

> Lakshmi

>

>

> ------

>

>

>

> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release 8/31/2006

>

[Guest guest]

Om Gurave Namah

 

Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

 

> About your Sun in the 9th, is it not weakened by Rahu and aspected

by

> Guru , if memory serves me right. Where is it in strength.

 

Lakshmi: Sir, my sun is in moolatrikona and vargottama. Rahu is in

MKS in 9th house. Sun is also conjoined Mercury, a benefic and

aspected by guru, a benefic. Does that make my Sun, strong or weak?

My Rahu das, running right now, is also excellent!!

 

>10th house is also called Maana and Rajya bhava, certainly nothing

to do

> with detachment. Please check if I am wrong in my nomenclature of

the

> 10th bhava as I am quoting from memory.

 

Lakshmi: The 10th house is the 7th house (maraka house)from 4th

house, which rules attachments. Sun is also a maraka for Cancer and

Mars causes the debility of moon. That's why these 3 planets act

against attachment and cause detachment and parivraja yoga.

 

"Maana" is respect and a detached / objective person earns more

respect than an attached person!!

 

> But then we are veering away from Surya being in temple as soul to

being

> ruler of structures. If this is all right, why should he also not

be a King?

>

> I may agree with that, but then why should a satva graha not be in

> temple? Can a devotee be considered to be in a temple, truly, if

his

> mind (ruled by Chandra) is not there?

 

Lakshmi: Chandra is also there in the temple tanks etc, which deal

with cleasing. An en"lightened" Chandra is definitely equal to Sun.

 

> Dear Lakshmi, when did I say something that at the core of your

being

> there's not something that is radiant, whole and pure? Did my mail

> appear to give you that impression? Why would I call you Divine

Lakshmi

> if I did not think there is something that is radiant, whole and

Pure at

> the core of your heart? You know, I do not use words in vain.

Please

> think about this, in depth.

 

Lakshmi: Sir, I typed that sentence in a hurry and instead of

writing "our being" I ended up writing "my being"!! It's as simple

as that!! "I" means "every one" ok:--))

 

I do know your great affection for me, and I am sure you know that I

heartily reciprocate it!!

 

Regards,

Lakshmi

[Guest guest]

Om Gurave Namah

 

Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

 

As i have left some queries of yours without answering, i thought i

would revert back to the topic for a few more minutes.

 

> I see no comment of the Curses received by Surya that I quoted in

> respect of argument that Indra was cursed and Surya was not s

Surya is

> not the King in the same manner as Indra.

 

Lakshmi: I did answer your query by stating a different version from

puranas, which gave Viraja as the mother of sugriva and not Aruna.

Knowing that physical relationship was not the only means to father

sons, as given in many puranas, I tend to support that version and

not this.

 

The glaring difference between Vali and Sugriva also illustrates the

difference between their fathers, Indra and Surya. While Sri Rama

killed Vali, he befriended and sought the help of Sugriva!!

 

Anyway, what happened to the world when Surya turned dark and till

he redeemed himself? Prior to the curse, was Aruna not preceding the

Sun? In which Purana this episode was mentioned? I would like to go

through it, so that i can understand the implications better.

 

> Calling someone a King out of love and affection, and someone

being

> called a King as he collects taxes and rules over others with

total

> authority are different matter. many of the mothers in at least

> Maharashtra call their children King, that does not mean they have

the

> authority of a King.

 

Lakshmi: so, you consider the authority of a spiritual master less

than that of a material master.

 

>From that point of view too, a king is not only feared, he is also

treated with love and respect due to a father and protector. His

presence is essential to the security of the people and to prevent

anarchy and lawlessness in the country. Otherwise, why would people

be in a hurry to designate another as a king as soon as the reigning

king dies? If a king represents only egoism and avarice, wouldn't

people be happier without governance? Why are you not taking this

angle into account?

 

Sir, I never said that Lord krishna prayed to Sun because

Sun was the king:--)) you were the one preoccupied with the royal

aspect of Sun and not me. Lord krishna prayed to Sun, because he is

the Light and represented/represents Brahman!!

 

At the time of death of Jayadratha, an eclipse was said to have

taken place, and this was verified by eminent scientists like Sri

Balakrishna, in trying to ascertain the timing of Mahabharata.

Karna, though undoubtedly a great man, suffered because of his

loyalty to the adharmic elements and in this regard, I am sure you

have read the various commentaries on Maha Bharata written by

persons wiser and better equipped/authorised. Due to paucity of time

and space I will not expand on this. So is the case with Janaka

rajarshi!! Who am I to question the wisdom of Vyasa and Valmiki? It

shows that Bhagavan is unsparing/unbiased in his justice, and this

scheme included Himself!!

 

Regarding eye sight, the comment could be correct, because excessive

light can also damage eye-sight and Sun is brilliant!!

 

Parashara used the same word "satvam" to describe the governance of

kuja and the guna of Sun, Moon and Jupiter. The word used is the

same, but the context differs. Please refer to the shlokas in BPHS.

 

Regards,

Lakshmi

 

P.s.: Sundeep ji, I will answer your question as soon as i can get

the computer back. Weekends are tough!

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Pradeep

 

I would like to stop discussing any matter with you. You can ignore my

messages and I can do that to yours. It is not my duty to deal with your

ignorance or Knowledge about various subjects. You can choose to take this

message in any way you may want to.

 

Thanks and Regards

Bharat

 

On 9/2/06, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep > wrote:

>

> Dear Bharat ji

>

> You are well read in Vedanta and there is no doubt about it.Brahman is

> undivided,everything is Brahman etc is known to everyone and can be

> found in numerous text books and no body is disputing this.It was only

> for this reason i had requested you not to repeat this again and again.

>

> Now let us take a small example.Hand is also part of body but hand

> cannot say i am the full body.Full body feeling is a collective

> feeling of all organs.Human body(Pindanda) is simalr to

> Prapancha(Brahmanda).The way Maya is to Brahmanda, Mind is to Pindanda.

> We cannot say Pindanda is not existing!!!.Initially there was just

> Pure consciousness.When Kalpana arose this consciousness resulted in

> Maya.Similarly each Paindanda has jeevatma(which is an amsha of the

> undivided Brahman) surrounded by mind and body.When Bodha or true

> knowledge happens mind is erased(outside maya is not perceived) and we

> realize that i am also part(CONTINOUS AND UNDIVIDED) of HIM.Similarly

> when Kalpana ceases,Maya shrinks and everything goes back to original

> state of consciousness.(Principle behind Pralaya etc).Even before

> creation the consciousness has the creation inherent within.Also

> collective simulataneous bodha of all jeevatmas can be called as

> Brahman -it is not the sum of jeevatmas,but colelctive feeling.

> It is very easy to say there is no jeevatma,but that is not the

> case.When jeeavtma tries to equate himself with Lord it is like hand

> equating it with full BODY.This is a result of self-pride and self

> -pride is incomplete knowledge.

>

> Sages have proclaimed the TRUTH they have

> realized(Tat-Twam-Asi).Similarly each jeevatma has to experinece and

> become that.Of course become is a confusing word ,but it is so.A child

> '' becomes'' tall though, it is the same being,which is becoming

> tall.Similarly regarding consciousness and spiritual culmination there

> are heights.When we become tall,we Realize.

>

> Whatever i am telling has to be experienced by me for Realization-Long

> way to go.I am only happy with these discussions as we are mutually

> learning.

>

> Thanks

> Pradeep

> <%40>,

> "Bharat Hindu Astrology"

> <hinduastrology wrote:

> >

> > Namaste Sri Pradeep

> >

> > Since it is a question of realization, it is not a question of

> becoming...

> > but a question of being. Whenever, you think of becoming - there is

> a change

> > is state and there will be two - the start and the end. Parmatma is

> here and

> > now and it is undivided. It is therefore, our error to not to see it as

> > thus. To call Atman and Brahman different is a mistake. This is what Sri

> > Sankara and Sri Vyasa resolve through Bhashya and Sutra (Brahma).

> >

> > For me, whereever teaching comes from, it is Bhagwan Shiva who is

> teaching.

> > For me, my master is always realized. Perhaps you make such

> distinctions.

> >

> > Thanks and Regards

> > Bharat

> >

> > On 9/2/06, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Bharat ji

> > >

> > > Namaste.Kindly pardon if my words were trying to put restrictions.My

> > > intention was only the following -

> > >

> > > Realization is the culmination of a necessary journey, needed from

> > > Jeevatma.''Tatwam Asi'' ,''Aham Brahmasmi'' etc is that

> > > destination.Questions 2 & 3 had a reason connected to the above

> > > said.Unfortunately those were skipped.Self(Jeevatma) cannot start from

> > > his goal(Paramatma) but has to Reach/Realize.Understanding one to one

> > > correspondence between - (Mana /jeeva shareera - Maya/ Parapancha) is

> > > worthy,if you wish.

> > >

> > > Vedanta is not an easy topic and repeating Aatma Satyas(realized by

> > > Yogis) alone is of no help.Thus i had requested for brevity.So far i

> > > have not requested you or for that matter anyone to cut down

> > > thoughts/words ( i have no right).For this topic, i thought ,those who

> > > are ''realized'' can explain in brevity,which can never be understood

> > > otherwise,no matter how many kilometers of paper or electronic editor

> > > ,you consume.I am just abeginner looking at this vast ocean.

> > >

> > > Kindly read my mail addressed to Lakshmi ji.

> > >

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > > <%40><%40>,

> > > "Bharat Hindu Astrology"

> > > <hinduastrology@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Namaskaar Sri Pradeep

> > > >

> > > > With your statements, you imply that I write which is written

> already in

> > > > another book.

> > > >

> > > > I ignore your such references and try and explain since these

> > > questions have

> > > > been referred to me. Furthermore, you cannot limit my words by

> > > asking me to

> > > > write in 2 or 3 sentences only. So I shall write what I shall

> want to.

> > > > Please see my response in Blue

> > > >

> > > > 1)What is Jeevatma and Paramatma and how are they related to

> > > > Brahmanda and Pindanda.

> > > > Your question is resolved once you understand whether Paramatma is

> > > undivided

> > > > or not. Jeevatma is only used as a reference since the

> individual thinks

> > > > oneself to be different. Jeevatma has no separate existence.

> > > Brahmanda and

> > > > Pindanda is Macrocosm and Microcosm. The attempt is to show that

> > > whatever

> > > > exists within is without too. Pointing out the indivisibility of

> > > Paramatma.

> > > >

> > > > 4)If Moon is just Prakrithi -Name the Chethana which creates 'I'

> > > > feeling.I think you too agree that moon cannot think of its own.If

> > > > self is body/mind/soul -and body and mind are Prakrithi -Who is left

> > > > with to ignite this feeling of Self in Jeeva shareera?

> > > > You need to a realize one thing: Other than Parmatma, there is

> > > nothing else.

> > > > First be clear on this. Now we check about our "imaginations"-

> > > >

> > > > Now, let us come to Mind - what is mind? - It is a collection of

> > > thoughts.

> > > > Not realizing Parmatma, there is thought of "me" and a thought

> of the

> > > > "other". The "me" is defined by a collection of thoughts. Thoughts

> > > require

> > > > expression and the Lord has been kind enough to bestow a sharira.

> > > >

> > > > Now, how are thoughts or anything coignized - In the light of the

> > > Parmatma,

> > > > everything is coignized. Parmatma is indivisible. The same Parmatma

> > > > "enlivens" the "me" feeling or the "small I" feeling. Just be

> > > enlivening a

> > > > thought of "me" or "I", Parmatma does not become the cause of ego.

> > > >

> > > > Moon can think on its own, in light of Parmatma. So please

> > > understand these

> > > > small things before deciding that Surya, representing Parmatma or

> > > > consciousness, is the cause for ego. For example, the electricity

> > > enlivens a

> > > > television - can you say the sound and sight you see is "caused" by

> > > > electricity. The nature of thoughts, and thinking is dependent

> upon the

> > > > collection of thoughts that IS the mind. Similarly, the thought of

> > > "I" is

> > > > the nature of the thought and not that of Parmatma - the undivisible

> > > SELF.

> > > >

> > > > Hope this helps. Having said this, as I suggested to you earlier too

> > > that I

> > > > do not intend to teach or preach Vedanta here. Kindly study under an

> > > able

> > > > and a traditional guru with Sankara's Bhashya.

> > > >

> > > > Thanks and Regards

> > > > Bharat

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > On 8/31/06, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Bharat ji

> > > > >

> > > > > As you have studied Vedanta,kindly clear my following doubts.

> > > > > 1)What is Jeevatma and Paramatma and how are they related to

> > > > > Brahmanda and Pindanda.

> > > > > 2)Does (Mana Vs Jeevashareera) has any similarity with (Maya Vs

> > > > > Prapancha).Who is the connecting Link.

> > > > > 4)If Moon is just Prakrithi -Name the Chethana which creates 'I'

> > > > > feeling.I think you too agree that moon cannot think of its own.If

> > > > > self is body/mind/soul -and body and mind are Prakrithi -Who

> is left

> > > > > with to ignite this feeling of Self in Jeeva shareera?

> > > > >

> > > > > Kindly do not give long explanations present in Vedantic text

> books

> > > > > or Quotations as i can read them as well.i am interested in small

> > > > > answers,which you were revealed with ,during your slef seeking

> > > > > procedure.Say 2 or max 3 sentences per question.Kindly share your

> > > > > wisdom as gems of brevity.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > > <%40>

> <%40><%40>,

> > > > > "Bharat Hindu Astrology"

> > > > > <hinduastrology@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Namaskaar Sri Lakshmi

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is clear to one who understands Vedanta, that it is the

> > > > > misinterpretation

> > > > > > of the ego that makes it say - "that the consciousness is in

> me".

> > > > > The ego

> > > > > > does not understand that, all that is, is Consciousness. This

> > > > > separative

> > > > > > self, called ego, creates the individuality. The chart is

> cast for

> > > > > an

> > > > > > individual. The Sun represents the consciousness mistakenly

> > > > > considered by

> > > > > > ego to be it's own. Therefore, it is the very fault of the

> ego to

> > > > > call Sun

> > > > > > the ego. Sun, just, enlivens the ego as it enlivens everything

> > > > > else.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That which is self effulgent and in whose light all is seen, is

> > > > > not ego. Sun

> > > > > > is that self effulgence. It is the universal spirit and has been

> > > > > called so.

> > > > > > Take any chart, where Sun is weak, that person will not see the

> > > > > > consciousness shining but will always remain more interested in

> > > > > maya. Take

> > > > > > any chart with Surya to be strong and more importantly,

> > > > > unafflicted and you

> > > > > > will see there would be constant rememberance of consciousness

> > > > > with each

> > > > > > thought and action. The light of consciousness will make a

> person

> > > > > aware of

> > > > > > many things - even of his/her own ego -if he/she has due to

> other

> > > > > reasons.

> > > > > > The quality of awareness will be there.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am sure you have heard the Kalia story - where the sarpa was

> > > > > asked to

> > > > > > leave the pond by Lord Krishna. The pond is the mind, Kalia

> > > > > represents ego

> > > > > > and its illusory manifestations including anger, lust,etc.....

> > > > > When Krishna

> > > > > > jumps into the water, kalia wakes up - which represents that the

> > > > > ego is

> > > > > > ruffled as soon as light of consciousness falls on it. Kalia

> tries

> > > > > to stifle

> > > > > > Krishna - which is an impossible task. The Unbound can never be

> > > > > bound. In

> > > > > > the mind of the individual when Krishna is found, then it dances

> > > > > with every

> > > > > > action and thought that the egoistic self takes place (akin to

> > > > > Prabhu

> > > > > > Krishna dancing on Kalia's hood). The entire pond -the mind

> - then

> > > > > is

> > > > > > purified as each karma and thought is dedicated and awareful

> of the

> > > > > > consciousness. All the poison is sucked and finally Kalia

> leaves.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Surya Devta or Sun is Krura since it only wants the Truth and

> > > > > rejects all

> > > > > > else as false. Moreover, Sun represents Vision (as in

> direction) -

> > > > > can tamas

> > > > > > and rajas have vision? Their vision is limited to the joys of

> > > > > senses or

> > > > > > sleep. Can awareness or vision come out of ego?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I stopped discussing on this topic since I felt there is no

> point

> > > > > in

> > > > > > changing anyone's views. Everyone can have their own. However, I

> > > > > refuse to

> > > > > > accept that Sun represents Ego, like you have very rightly

> pointed

> > > > > out.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thanks and Regards

> > > > > > Bharat

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On 8/31/06, 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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Divine Lakshmi,

 

Mercury with malefic planets is considered a malefic and he is with

rahu. Rahu being in MKS does not reduce the affliction to Sun, as far as

I know. Rahu dasha will be good as rahu will give results of Sun whose

house it occupies and with whom he is conjunct and also Mercury who is

conjunct and lord of the 10th. Ududaya Pradeep would call such a Rahu a

Yogakaraka. So how does Rahu dasha being good prove that Sun is good and

strong? For that you have to analyze the Sun dasha I would say.

 

Whether a detached person earns more respect is not the point. Whether

10th bhava is Maana/ Rajya bhava is the point we were looking at. By the

way 4th house being the apex of Moksha Trikona 10th would certainly

indicate great attachment being maraka to the 4th.

 

Chandra is in all water bodies, not only in tanks of temples, if I

remember right.

 

I see, so that was a typo.

 

Yes the feeling is reciprocal.

 

Take care,

Chandrashekhar.

 

 

 

 

b_lakshmi_ramesh wrote:

>

> Om Gurave Namah

>

> Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

>

> > About your Sun in the 9th, is it not weakened by Rahu and aspected

> by

> > Guru , if memory serves me right. Where is it in strength.

>

> Lakshmi: Sir, my sun is in moolatrikona and vargottama. Rahu is in

> MKS in 9th house. Sun is also conjoined Mercury, a benefic and

> aspected by guru, a benefic. Does that make my Sun, strong or weak?

> My Rahu das, running right now, is also excellent!!

>

> >10th house is also called Maana and Rajya bhava, certainly nothing

> to do

> > with detachment. Please check if I am wrong in my nomenclature of

> the

> > 10th bhava as I am quoting from memory.

>

> Lakshmi: The 10th house is the 7th house (maraka house)from 4th

> house, which rules attachments. Sun is also a maraka for Cancer and

> Mars causes the debility of moon. That's why these 3 planets act

> against attachment and cause detachment and parivraja yoga.

>

> "Maana" is respect and a detached / objective person earns more

> respect than an attached person!!

>

> > But then we are veering away from Surya being in temple as soul to

> being

> > ruler of structures. If this is all right, why should he also not

> be a King?

> >

> > I may agree with that, but then why should a satva graha not be in

> > temple? Can a devotee be considered to be in a temple, truly, if

> his

> > mind (ruled by Chandra) is not there?

>

> Lakshmi: Chandra is also there in the temple tanks etc, which deal

> with cleasing. An en"lightened" Chandra is definitely equal to Sun.

>

> > Dear Lakshmi, when did I say something that at the core of your

> being

> > there's not something that is radiant, whole and pure? Did my mail

> > appear to give you that impression? Why would I call you Divine

> Lakshmi

> > if I did not think there is something that is radiant, whole and

> Pure at

> > the core of your heart? You know, I do not use words in vain.

> Please

> > think about this, in depth.

>

> Lakshmi: Sir, I typed that sentence in a hurry and instead of

> writing "our being" I ended up writing "my being"!! It's as simple

> as that!! "I" means "every one" ok:--))

>

> I do know your great affection for me, and I am sure you know that I

> heartily reciprocate it!!

>

> Regards,

> Lakshmi

>

>

> ------

>

>

>

> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release 8/31/2006

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Lakshmi,

 

About Vali and Sugriva, I do not look at the nature of mythological

figures to determine the qualities of their fathers. That is a two edged

weapon. I could then say that since Karna who was son of Surya always

stood by the side of Duryodhana, representing adharma, having been

crowned King of Anga desha by Duryodhana Sun sides by adharma for petty

gains.

 

That again is the reason I prefer not to justify astrological principles

by tortuous interpretation of Puranaic stories. I only use the stories

from Puranas to illustrate is stated principle of astrology in an easily

digested form, that to rarely.

 

The story of Ratha Saptami is based on the curse received by Surya. I

give it for your reference, below. There is a temple in Tamilnadu whose

sthala purana mentions that fact.

 

"The Sun God, the creator and sustainer of all lives in this world, is

worshiped for curing all diseases and bless us with good health, and for

the removal of all our enemies. He is prayed on Ratha Saptami day by

chanting Aruna Parayanam. Two kalashas, one representing Sun God and the

other representing His wifes, will be installed at the center. While a

priest is chanting, another priest will do 132 pradakshanams and do

sashtanga namaskrams (salutations) to the Kalashas on behalf of

devotees. For, the legendary saying for Sun God is "/Namaskara priyo

bhanu:/" All devotees are welcome to participate, listen to the chanting

and get theertha prasadam at the end and be blessed by the Sun God.

 

 

 

Story of Ratha Sapthami

 

Karthru and Vinathai, wives of sage Kasyapa, once prayed to Lord Shiva

for a child. Shiva gave each of them an andam (egg). After a year,

Vinathai's egg hatched and out flew a huge bird. Lord Shiva told a

worried Vinathai that the bird was Garuda who would be Lord Vishnu's

mount. Jealous Karthru broke open her egg from which appeared a lame

boy. Lord Shiva pacified her saying that the child, Aruna, would become

Surya's Sarathi (driver of the chariot) and would shed light on the earth.

 

 

 

Later, Aruna told Surya that he wanted to visit Kailas. Surya said that

Nandhikeswara would not let him enter as he was lame. But Aruna prayed

to Lord Shiva. With the acquired power, Aruna took the form of charming

Mohini and headed towards Kailas. En route, Indra, infatuated by

Mohini's charm, molested her and Mohini gave birth to Vali. Shiva

pacified Aruna that Vali would derive half the strength of his enemy and

would attain salvation (moksha) at Lord Vishnu's hands. Shiva cursed

Indra that he would be cruelly treated by Mahabali Chakravarthi.

 

 

 

When Surya heard this, he wanted to see Mohini and compelled Aruna to

take that form again. Surya also molested her and so was born Sugriva.

Following this incident, Shiva cursed Surya that he would turn black in

complexion, which would disappear only if he worshipped Shiva for seven

months. Lord Shiva told the devas that Aruna would shed light on the

earth by the power of his penance. Thus, light spreads on the earth as

Arunodhaya prior to Suryodhaya (sunrise).

 

 

 

Surya came to Thirumiyachoor, built the holy tank Surya Pushkarini.

Holding erukka leaf (calatropsis), Arukampul (cynadon dactylon) and cow

dung on his head, Surya bathed in the holy tank and prayed to Shiva for

seven months. Yet his skin colour did not change.

 

 

 

Frustrated, Surya shouted, "Hey, Mihura!" (Thus, Lord Meghanatha came to

be known as Mihura Aruneswar in Thirumiyachchoor.) This disturbed

Parvathi when she was in the company of Shiva. She rose to curse Surya.

Shiva pacified her saying that Surya shouted to get rid of his curse and

if cursed again, the earth would be engulfed in total darkness. This

scene is seen as Kshethra Puraneswarar at the Thirumiyachoor temple

Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu. The day, of Shiva absolving the sins

of Surya, is celebrated as Rathsapthami. It is considered auspiciously

equivalent to 1000 Solar Eclipses."

 

 

It is not a question of considering authority of a spiritual master

versus a King. It is the nature of the King that is the topic under

discussion or rather Surya and his attributes.

 

 

To assume that people love and respect the King being the reason that

another King is immediately designated is alright from the point of view

of thinking that all kings are divine. But the fact remains is more

administrative than love or respect. That, and the fear of someone else

usurping the power.

 

 

About Sun's eclipse, I was quoting what the Mahabharata said. One has

either to take support of the scriptures and their stories or to present

scientific evidence. We can do what suits selectively. Since we were

discussing principles to be applied from Puranas and scriptures, I stuck

to the stories of scriptures. The moment we want to go to science and

mix them with scriptural references, we are in a gray area. For example

why should the Sun being Aatmaa, as in soul, be invisible for 1/2 of the

Ahoratra, is something that will be difficult to answer.

 

 

I am glad you could see the connection between strong sun and problems

to eye. I have read almost all the editions of B.P.H.S. barring the C.G.

Rajan version, and though as you said the word Satvam is used in

different context for different planets, whether that will prove Surya

to be bereft of the qualities that were under discussions must remain a

moot point, to be interpreted by astrologers who may want t find their

own truth.

 

take care,

Chandrashekhar.

 

 

b_lakshmi_ramesh wrote:

>

> Om Gurave Namah

>

> Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

>

> As i have left some queries of yours without answering, i thought i

> would revert back to the topic for a few more minutes.

>

> > I see no comment of the Curses received by Surya that I quoted in

> > respect of argument that Indra was cursed and Surya was not s

> Surya is

> > not the King in the same manner as Indra.

>

> Lakshmi: I did answer your query by stating a different version from

> puranas, which gave Viraja as the mother of sugriva and not Aruna.

> Knowing that physical relationship was not the only means to father

> sons, as given in many puranas, I tend to support that version and

> not this.

>

> The glaring difference between Vali and Sugriva also illustrates the

> difference between their fathers, Indra and Surya. While Sri Rama

> killed Vali, he befriended and sought the help of Sugriva!!

>

> Anyway, what happened to the world when Surya turned dark and till

> he redeemed himself? Prior to the curse, was Aruna not preceding the

> Sun? In which Purana this episode was mentioned? I would like to go

> through it, so that i can understand the implications better.

>

> > Calling someone a King out of love and affection, and someone

> being

> > called a King as he collects taxes and rules over others with

> total

> > authority are different matter. many of the mothers in at least

> > Maharashtra call their children King, that does not mean they have

> the

> > authority of a King.

>

> Lakshmi: so, you consider the authority of a spiritual master less

> than that of a material master.

>

> >From that point of view too, a king is not only feared, he is also

> treated with love and respect due to a father and protector. His

> presence is essential to the security of the people and to prevent

> anarchy and lawlessness in the country. Otherwise, why would people

> be in a hurry to designate another as a king as soon as the reigning

> king dies? If a king represents only egoism and avarice, wouldn't

> people be happier without governance? Why are you not taking this

> angle into account?

>

> Sir, I never said that Lord krishna prayed to Sun because

> Sun was the king:--)) you were the one preoccupied with the royal

> aspect of Sun and not me. Lord krishna prayed to Sun, because he is

> the Light and represented/represents Brahman!!

>

> At the time of death of Jayadratha, an eclipse was said to have

> taken place, and this was verified by eminent scientists like Sri

> Balakrishna, in trying to ascertain the timing of Mahabharata.

> Karna, though undoubtedly a great man, suffered because of his

> loyalty to the adharmic elements and in this regard, I am sure you

> have read the various commentaries on Maha Bharata written by

> persons wiser and better equipped/authorised. Due to paucity of time

> and space I will not expand on this. So is the case with Janaka

> rajarshi!! Who am I to question the wisdom of Vyasa and Valmiki? It

> shows that Bhagavan is unsparing/unbiased in his justice, and this

> scheme included Himself!!

>

> Regarding eye sight, the comment could be correct, because excessive

> light can also damage eye-sight and Sun is brilliant!!

>

> Parashara used the same word "satvam" to describe the governance of

> kuja and the guna of Sun, Moon and Jupiter. The word used is the

> same, but the context differs. Please refer to the shlokas in BPHS.

>

> Regards,

> Lakshmi

>

> P.s.: Sundeep ji, I will answer your question as soon as i can get

> the computer back. Weekends are tough!

>

>

> ------

>

>

>

> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release 8/31/2006

>

[Guest guest]

Om Gurave Namah

 

Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

 

My Sun dasa was excellent too. My father received promotion(s), my

school/college days were great and i received wide acclaim/prizes

for my ability in creative writing, Veena, quiz contests etc, apart

from studies. So, for a student, I guess that's excellent!!

How do you justify this, if Sun were weak? Rahu is certainly giving

the yogakaraka results, but being in Sun's house and being conjunct

Sun, don't you think Rahu is also giving the results of Sun? You

said that mercury is malefic and heavily combust too:--))

 

1th house also represent burial ground/smashaana. Is that a place

for attachment?

 

Chandra represents all water bodies, so why can't he represent

temple tank?

 

Regards,

Lakshmi

 

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Divine Lakshmi,

>

> Mercury with malefic planets is considered a malefic and he is

with

> rahu. Rahu being in MKS does not reduce the affliction to Sun, as

far as

> I know. Rahu dasha will be good as rahu will give results of Sun

whose

> house it occupies and with whom he is conjunct and also Mercury

who is

> conjunct and lord of the 10th. Ududaya Pradeep would call such a

Rahu a

> Yogakaraka. So how does Rahu dasha being good prove that Sun is

good and

> strong? For that you have to analyze the Sun dasha I would say.

>

> Whether a detached person earns more respect is not the point.

Whether

> 10th bhava is Maana/ Rajya bhava is the point we were looking at.

By the

> way 4th house being the apex of Moksha Trikona 10th would

certainly

> indicate great attachment being maraka to the 4th.

>

> Chandra is in all water bodies, not only in tanks of temples, if I

> remember right.

>

> I see, so that was a typo.

>

> Yes the feeling is reciprocal.

>

> Take care,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

>

>

> b_lakshmi_ramesh wrote:

> >

> > Om Gurave Namah

> >

> > Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

> >

> > > About your Sun in the 9th, is it not weakened by Rahu and

aspected

> > by

> > > Guru , if memory serves me right. Where is it in strength.

> >

> > Lakshmi: Sir, my sun is in moolatrikona and vargottama. Rahu is

in

> > MKS in 9th house. Sun is also conjoined Mercury, a benefic and

> > aspected by guru, a benefic. Does that make my Sun, strong or

weak?

> > My Rahu das, running right now, is also excellent!!

> >

> > >10th house is also called Maana and Rajya bhava, certainly

nothing

> > to do

> > > with detachment. Please check if I am wrong in my nomenclature

of

> > the

> > > 10th bhava as I am quoting from memory.

> >

> > Lakshmi: The 10th house is the 7th house (maraka house)from 4th

> > house, which rules attachments. Sun is also a maraka for Cancer

and

> > Mars causes the debility of moon. That's why these 3 planets act

> > against attachment and cause detachment and parivraja yoga.

> >

> > "Maana" is respect and a detached / objective person earns more

> > respect than an attached person!!

> >

> > > But then we are veering away from Surya being in temple as

soul to

> > being

> > > ruler of structures. If this is all right, why should he also

not

> > be a King?

> > >

> > > I may agree with that, but then why should a satva graha not

be in

> > > temple? Can a devotee be considered to be in a temple, truly,

if

> > his

> > > mind (ruled by Chandra) is not there?

> >

> > Lakshmi: Chandra is also there in the temple tanks etc, which

deal

> > with cleasing. An en"lightened" Chandra is definitely equal to

Sun.

> >

> > > Dear Lakshmi, when did I say something that at the core of your

> > being

> > > there's not something that is radiant, whole and pure? Did my

mail

> > > appear to give you that impression? Why would I call you Divine

> > Lakshmi

> > > if I did not think there is something that is radiant, whole

and

> > Pure at

> > > the core of your heart? You know, I do not use words in vain.

> > Please

> > > think about this, in depth.

> >

> > Lakshmi: Sir, I typed that sentence in a hurry and instead of

> > writing "our being" I ended up writing "my being"!! It's as

simple

> > as that!! "I" means "every one" ok:--))

> >

> > I do know your great affection for me, and I am sure you know

that I

> > heartily reciprocate it!!

> >

> > Regards,

> > Lakshmi

> >

> >

> > --------------------------------

-------

> >

> >

> >

> > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release

8/31/2006

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Pradeep

 

No need to comment upon my chart or anything else or trying to get personal..

 

I again ask you not to bring a pious person such as Sri Ramanarayanan in

between your and my discussion.

 

I stopped discussing with you because knowledge can be shared if one wants

to know and other has it. I, now, know for sure, you have nothing much to

give me in terms of knowledge. I know for sure, that you cannot take from me

any knowledge that I might possess.

 

You are free to carry on with your beliefs or your "knowledge". It is

acceptable to me. I do not seek to change you or your thinking.

 

Hope I am more clear this time.

 

Thanks and Regards

Bharat

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again,

 

On 9/3/06, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep > wrote:

>

> Dear Bharat ji

>

> It is ok.Ramanarayanan ji once told Parker and company is the

> manufacturer of Parker pens.But Parker and company does not sit inside

> parker pens.It is the intelligence of parker company that is inherent

> in the pens.If parker pens start thinking i am parker and company -is

> the pen ignorant ot parker & company?

> Similarly one cannot equate jeevatma and Paramatma -it is ignorance or

> pride.Jeevatma is part of paramatma.

> I have not seen your chart ,but i feel you have an exalted or

> swakshethra sun for sure.Those who understand the concept of jeevatma

> will learn from everyone as they know it is the same chaitanya that

> enlivens every jeevashareera.Others are not prepared to learn from others..

>

> Ignorance to one is knowledge for other and vice-versa.Thus let the

> learned decide.

>

> Thanks a lot for your discussions.

>

> Pradeep

>

> <%40>,

> "Bharat Hindu Astrology"

> <hinduastrology wrote:

> >

> > Namaste Sri Pradeep

> >

> > I would like to stop discussing any matter with you. You can ignore my

> > messages and I can do that to yours. It is not my duty to deal with your

> > ignorance or Knowledge about various subjects. You can choose to

> take this

> > message in any way you may want to.

> >

> > Thanks and Regards

> > Bharat

> >

> > On 9/2/06, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Bharat ji

> > >

> > > You are well read in Vedanta and there is no doubt about it.Brahman is

> > > undivided,everything is Brahman etc is known to everyone and can be

> > > found in numerous text books and no body is disputing this.It was only

> > > for this reason i had requested you not to repeat this again and

> again.

> > >

> > > Now let us take a small example.Hand is also part of body but hand

> > > cannot say i am the full body.Full body feeling is a collective

> > > feeling of all organs.Human body(Pindanda) is simalr to

> > > Prapancha(Brahmanda).The way Maya is to Brahmanda, Mind is to

> Pindanda.

> > > We cannot say Pindanda is not existing!!!.Initially there was just

> > > Pure consciousness.When Kalpana arose this consciousness resulted in

> > > Maya.Similarly each Paindanda has jeevatma(which is an amsha of the

> > > undivided Brahman) surrounded by mind and body.When Bodha or true

> > > knowledge happens mind is erased(outside maya is not perceived) and we

> > > realize that i am also part(CONTINOUS AND UNDIVIDED) of HIM.Similarly

> > > when Kalpana ceases,Maya shrinks and everything goes back to original

> > > state of consciousness.(Principle behind Pralaya etc).Even before

> > > creation the consciousness has the creation inherent within.Also

> > > collective simulataneous bodha of all jeevatmas can be called as

> > > Brahman -it is not the sum of jeevatmas,but colelctive feeling.

> > > It is very easy to say there is no jeevatma,but that is not the

> > > case.When jeeavtma tries to equate himself with Lord it is like hand

> > > equating it with full BODY.This is a result of self-pride and self

> > > -pride is incomplete knowledge.

> > >

> > > Sages have proclaimed the TRUTH they have

> > > realized(Tat-Twam-Asi).Similarly each jeevatma has to experinece and

> > > become that.Of course become is a confusing word ,but it is so.A child

> > > '' becomes'' tall though, it is the same being,which is becoming

> > > tall.Similarly regarding consciousness and spiritual culmination there

> > > are heights.When we become tall,we Realize.

> > >

> > > Whatever i am telling has to be experienced by me for Realization-Long

> > > way to go.I am only happy with these discussions as we are mutually

> > > learning.

> > >

> > > Thanks

> > > Pradeep

> > > <%40><%40>,

> > > "Bharat Hindu Astrology"

> > > <hinduastrology@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Namaste Sri Pradeep

> > > >

> > > > Since it is a question of realization, it is not a question of

> > > becoming...

> > > > but a question of being. Whenever, you think of becoming - there is

> > > a change

> > > > is state and there will be two - the start and the end. Parmatma is

> > > here and

> > > > now and it is undivided. It is therefore, our error to not to

> see it as

> > > > thus. To call Atman and Brahman different is a mistake. This is

> what Sri

> > > > Sankara and Sri Vyasa resolve through Bhashya and Sutra (Brahma).

> > > >

> > > > For me, whereever teaching comes from, it is Bhagwan Shiva who is

> > > teaching.

> > > > For me, my master is always realized. Perhaps you make such

> > > distinctions.

> > > >

> > > > Thanks and Regards

> > > > Bharat

> > > >

> > > > On 9/2/06, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Bharat ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Namaste.Kindly pardon if my words were trying to put

> restrictions.My

> > > > > intention was only the following -

> > > > >

> > > > > Realization is the culmination of a necessary journey, needed from

> > > > > Jeevatma.''Tatwam Asi'' ,''Aham Brahmasmi'' etc is that

> > > > > destination.Questions 2 & 3 had a reason connected to the above

> > > > > said.Unfortunately those were skipped.Self(Jeevatma) cannot

> start from

> > > > > his goal(Paramatma) but has to Reach/Realize.Understanding one

> to one

> > > > > correspondence between - (Mana /jeeva shareera - Maya/

> Parapancha) is

> > > > > worthy,if you wish.

> > > > >

> > > > > Vedanta is not an easy topic and repeating Aatma

> Satyas(realized by

> > > > > Yogis) alone is of no help.Thus i had requested for brevity.So

> far i

> > > > > have not requested you or for that matter anyone to cut down

> > > > > thoughts/words ( i have no right).For this topic, i thought

> ,those who

> > > > > are ''realized'' can explain in brevity,which can never be

> understood

> > > > > otherwise,no matter how many kilometers of paper or electronic

> editor

> > > > > ,you consume.I am just abeginner looking at this vast ocean.

> > > > >

> > > > > Kindly read my mail addressed to Lakshmi ji.

> > > > >

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > > <%40>

> <%40><%40>,

> > > > > "Bharat Hindu Astrology"

> > > > > <hinduastrology@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Namaskaar Sri Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > > With your statements, you imply that I write which is written

> > > already in

> > > > > > another book.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I ignore your such references and try and explain since these

> > > > > questions have

> > > > > > been referred to me. Furthermore, you cannot limit my words by

> > > > > asking me to

> > > > > > write in 2 or 3 sentences only. So I shall write what I shall

> > > want to.

> > > > > > Please see my response in Blue

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1)What is Jeevatma and Paramatma and how are they related to

> > > > > > Brahmanda and Pindanda.

> > > > > > Your question is resolved once you understand whether

> Paramatma is

> > > > > undivided

> > > > > > or not. Jeevatma is only used as a reference since the

> > > individual thinks

> > > > > > oneself to be different. Jeevatma has no separate existence.

> > > > > Brahmanda and

> > > > > > Pindanda is Macrocosm and Microcosm. The attempt is to show that

> > > > > whatever

> > > > > > exists within is without too. Pointing out the indivisibility of

> > > > > Paramatma.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 4)If Moon is just Prakrithi -Name the Chethana which creates 'I'

> > > > > > feeling.I think you too agree that moon cannot think of its

> own.If

> > > > > > self is body/mind/soul -and body and mind are Prakrithi -Who

> is left

> > > > > > with to ignite this feeling of Self in Jeeva shareera?

> > > > > > You need to a realize one thing: Other than Parmatma, there is

> > > > > nothing else.

> > > > > > First be clear on this. Now we check about our "imaginations"-

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now, let us come to Mind - what is mind? - It is a collection of

> > > > > thoughts.

> > > > > > Not realizing Parmatma, there is thought of "me" and a thought

> > > of the

> > > > > > "other". The "me" is defined by a collection of thoughts.

> Thoughts

> > > > > require

> > > > > > expression and the Lord has been kind enough to bestow a

> sharira.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now, how are thoughts or anything coignized - In the light

> of the

> > > > > Parmatma,

> > > > > > everything is coignized. Parmatma is indivisible. The same

> Parmatma

> > > > > > "enlivens" the "me" feeling or the "small I" feeling. Just be

> > > > > enlivening a

> > > > > > thought of "me" or "I", Parmatma does not become the cause

> of ego.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Moon can think on its own, in light of Parmatma. So please

> > > > > understand these

> > > > > > small things before deciding that Surya, representing

> Parmatma or

> > > > > > consciousness, is the cause for ego. For example, the

> electricity

> > > > > enlivens a

> > > > > > television - can you say the sound and sight you see is

> "caused" by

> > > > > > electricity. The nature of thoughts, and thinking is dependent

> > > upon the

> > > > > > collection of thoughts that IS the mind. Similarly, the

> thought of

> > > > > "I" is

> > > > > > the nature of the thought and not that of Parmatma - the

> undivisible

> > > > > SELF.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Hope this helps. Having said this, as I suggested to you

> earlier too

> > > > > that I

> > > > > > do not intend to teach or preach Vedanta here. Kindly study

> under an

> > > > > able

> > > > > > and a traditional guru with Sankara's Bhashya.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thanks and Regards

> > > > > > Bharat

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On 8/31/06, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Bharat ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As you have studied Vedanta,kindly clear my following doubts.

> > > > > > > 1)What is Jeevatma and Paramatma and how are they related to

> > > > > > > Brahmanda and Pindanda.

> > > > > > > 2)Does (Mana Vs Jeevashareera) has any similarity with

> (Maya Vs

> > > > > > > Prapancha).Who is the connecting Link.

> > > > > > > 4)If Moon is just Prakrithi -Name the Chethana which

> creates 'I'

> > > > > > > feeling.I think you too agree that moon cannot think of

> its own.If

> > > > > > > self is body/mind/soul -and body and mind are Prakrithi -Who

> > > is left

> > > > > > > with to ignite this feeling of Self in Jeeva shareera?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Kindly do not give long explanations present in Vedantic text

> > > books

> > > > > > > or Quotations as i can read them as well.i am interested

> in small

> > > > > > > answers,which you were revealed with ,during your slef seeking

> > > > > > > procedure.Say 2 or max 3 sentences per question.Kindly

> share your

> > > > > > > wisdom as gems of brevity.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thanks

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > --- In

> <%40>

> <%40>

> > > <%40><%40>,

> > > > > > > "Bharat Hindu Astrology"

> > > > > > > <hinduastrology@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Namaskaar Sri Lakshmi

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It is clear to one who understands Vedanta, that it is the

> > > > > > > misinterpretation

> > > > > > > > of the ego that makes it say - "that the consciousness is in

> > > me".

> > > > > > > The ego

> > > > > > > > does not understand that, all that is, is Consciousness.

> This

> > > > > > > separative

> > > > > > > > self, called ego, creates the individuality. The chart is

> > > cast for

> > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > individual. The Sun represents the consciousness mistakenly

> > > > > > > considered by

> > > > > > > > ego to be it's own. Therefore, it is the very fault of the

> > > ego to

> > > > > > > call Sun

> > > > > > > > the ego. Sun, just, enlivens the ego as it enlivens

> everything

> > > > > > > else.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > That which is self effulgent and in whose light all is

> seen, is

> > > > > > > not ego. Sun

> > > > > > > > is that self effulgence. It is the universal spirit and

> has been

> > > > > > > called so.

> > > > > > > > Take any chart, where Sun is weak, that person will not

> see the

> > > > > > > > consciousness shining but will always remain more

> interested in

> > > > > > > maya. Take

> > > > > > > > any chart with Surya to be strong and more importantly,

> > > > > > > unafflicted and you

> > > > > > > > will see there would be constant rememberance of

> consciousness

> > > > > > > with each

> > > > > > > > thought and action. The light of consciousness will make a

> > > person

> > > > > > > aware of

> > > > > > > > many things - even of his/her own ego -if he/she has due to

> > > other

> > > > > > > reasons.

> > > > > > > > The quality of awareness will be there.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I am sure you have heard the Kalia story - where the

> sarpa was

> > > > > > > asked to

> > > > > > > > leave the pond by Lord Krishna. The pond is the mind, Kalia

> > > > > > > represents ego

> > > > > > > > and its illusory manifestations including anger,

> lust,etc.....

> > > > > > > When Krishna

> > > > > > > > jumps into the water, kalia wakes up - which represents

> that the

> > > > > > > ego is

> > > > > > > > ruffled as soon as light of consciousness falls on it. Kalia

> > > tries

> > > > > > > to stifle

> > > > > > > > Krishna - which is an impossible task. The Unbound can

> never be

> > > > > > > bound. In

> > > > > > > > the mind of the individual when Krishna is found, then

> it dances

> > > > > > > with every

> > > > > > > > action and thought that the egoistic self takes place

> (akin to

> > > > > > > Prabhu

> > > > > > > > Krishna dancing on Kalia's hood). The entire pond -the mind

> > > - then

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > purified as each karma and thought is dedicated and awareful

> > > of the

> > > > > > > > consciousness. All the poison is sucked and finally Kalia

> > > leaves.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Surya Devta or Sun is Krura since it only wants the

> Truth and

> > > > > > > rejects all

> > > > > > > > else as false. Moreover, Sun represents Vision (as in

> > > direction) -

> > > > > > > can tamas

> > > > > > > > and rajas have vision? Their vision is limited to the

> joys of

> > > > > > > senses or

> > > > > > > > sleep. Can awareness or vision come out of ego?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I stopped discussing on this topic since I felt there is no

> > > point

> > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > changing anyone's views. Everyone can have their own.

> However, I

> > > > > > > refuse to

> > > > > > > > accept that Sun represents Ego, like you have very rightly

> > > pointed

> > > > > > > out.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards

> > > > > > > > Bharat

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > On 8/31/06, 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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Divine Lakshmi,

 

You were too young for the results of the dasha to manifest, though it

is good news that your father had promotions and you received

prizes/accolades during that time. It is interesting to know you got

these results at a young age of 9 or so as that is when Sun dasha was

operative. I am relieved you did not have any health problems in

March-August 1970 period.

 

But we are talking about Rahu and Rahu would give results of Sun more

prominently, by conjunction, as you guessed but also that of Mercury

(You have a Dharmakarmaadhipati yoga after all) and that is why I said

for understanding Sun its dasha instead of Rahu dasha needs to be analyzed.

 

Mercury is malefic not because I say so but because Jyotish says that

mercury is malefic when conjunct a papa graha and he is conjunct two,

Sun and Rahu.

 

10th house is the apex of Artha trikona and directly involved with

efforts to earn money. Though claimed to be smashana/burial ground, it

is 4th from ayush sthana (8th) and its home that is why affliction to it

can give death. But 8th is more popularly called mrityu sthana and hence

10th is called Smashana. If it is really smashana why would it be called

karma sthana and why would Sun be at its most brilliant there?

 

I did not say he can not represent water bodies in temple, but not only

those.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

b_lakshmi_ramesh wrote:

>

> Om Gurave Namah

>

> Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

>

> My Sun dasa was excellent too. My father received promotion(s), my

> school/college days were great and i received wide acclaim/prizes

> for my ability in creative writing, Veena, quiz contests etc, apart

> from studies. So, for a student, I guess that's excellent!!

> How do you justify this, if Sun were weak? Rahu is certainly giving

> the yogakaraka results, but being in Sun's house and being conjunct

> Sun, don't you think Rahu is also giving the results of Sun? You

> said that mercury is malefic and heavily combust too:--))

>

> 1th house also represent burial ground/smashaana. Is that a place

> for attachment?

>

> Chandra represents all water bodies, so why can't he represent

> temple tank?

>

> Regards,

> Lakshmi

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Divine Lakshmi,

> >

> > Mercury with malefic planets is considered a malefic and he is

> with

> > rahu. Rahu being in MKS does not reduce the affliction to Sun, as

> far as

> > I know. Rahu dasha will be good as rahu will give results of Sun

> whose

> > house it occupies and with whom he is conjunct and also Mercury

> who is

> > conjunct and lord of the 10th. Ududaya Pradeep would call such a

> Rahu a

> > Yogakaraka. So how does Rahu dasha being good prove that Sun is

> good and

> > strong? For that you have to analyze the Sun dasha I would say.

> >

> > Whether a detached person earns more respect is not the point.

> Whether

> > 10th bhava is Maana/ Rajya bhava is the point we were looking at.

> By the

> > way 4th house being the apex of Moksha Trikona 10th would

> certainly

> > indicate great attachment being maraka to the 4th.

> >

> > Chandra is in all water bodies, not only in tanks of temples, if I

> > remember right.

> >

> > I see, so that was a typo.

> >

> > Yes the feeling is reciprocal.

> >

> > Take care,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > b_lakshmi_ramesh wrote:

> > >

> > > Om Gurave Namah

> > >

> > > Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

> > >

> > > > About your Sun in the 9th, is it not weakened by Rahu and

> aspected

> > > by

> > > > Guru , if memory serves me right. Where is it in strength.

> > >

> > > Lakshmi: Sir, my sun is in moolatrikona and vargottama. Rahu is

> in

> > > MKS in 9th house. Sun is also conjoined Mercury, a benefic and

> > > aspected by guru, a benefic. Does that make my Sun, strong or

> weak?

> > > My Rahu das, running right now, is also excellent!!

> > >

> > > >10th house is also called Maana and Rajya bhava, certainly

> nothing

> > > to do

> > > > with detachment. Please check if I am wrong in my nomenclature

> of

> > > the

> > > > 10th bhava as I am quoting from memory.

> > >

> > > Lakshmi: The 10th house is the 7th house (maraka house)from 4th

> > > house, which rules attachments. Sun is also a maraka for Cancer

> and

> > > Mars causes the debility of moon. That's why these 3 planets act

> > > against attachment and cause detachment and parivraja yoga.

> > >

> > > "Maana" is respect and a detached / objective person earns more

> > > respect than an attached person!!

> > >

> > > > But then we are veering away from Surya being in temple as

> soul to

> > > being

> > > > ruler of structures. If this is all right, why should he also

> not

> > > be a King?

> > > >

> > > > I may agree with that, but then why should a satva graha not

> be in

> > > > temple? Can a devotee be considered to be in a temple, truly,

> if

> > > his

> > > > mind (ruled by Chandra) is not there?

> > >

> > > Lakshmi: Chandra is also there in the temple tanks etc, which

> deal

> > > with cleasing. An en"lightened" Chandra is definitely equal to

> Sun.

> > >

> > > > Dear Lakshmi, when did I say something that at the core of your

> > > being

> > > > there's not something that is radiant, whole and pure? Did my

> mail

> > > > appear to give you that impression? Why would I call you Divine

> > > Lakshmi

> > > > if I did not think there is something that is radiant, whole

> and

> > > Pure at

> > > > the core of your heart? You know, I do not use words in vain.

> > > Please

> > > > think about this, in depth.

> > >

> > > Lakshmi: Sir, I typed that sentence in a hurry and instead of

> > > writing "our being" I ended up writing "my being"!! It's as

> simple

> > > as that!! "I" means "every one" ok:--))

> > >

> > > I do know your great affection for me, and I am sure you know

> that I

> > > heartily reciprocate it!!

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Lakshmi

> > >

> > >

> > > -------------------------

> -------

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date:

> 8/31/2006

> > >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Om Gurave Namah

 

Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

 

I could then say that since Karna who was son of Surya always

> stood by the side of Duryodhana, representing adharma, having been

> crowned King of Anga desha by Duryodhana Sun sides by adharma for

petty

Ø gains.

 

> That again is the reason I prefer not to justify astrological

principles

> by tortuous interpretation of Puranaic stories. I only use the

stories

> from Puranas to illustrate is stated principle of astrology in an

easily

> digested form, that to rarely.

 

Lakshmi: Sir, any one, even with rudimentary acquaintance with

Mahabharata knows what you have said just now is very unfair. Lord

Krishna tried to tempt Karna to come over to Pandavas' side, with

offer of becoming the Emperor (as Karna is elder to Dharmaraja),

but Karna refused to desert Duryodhana at that crucial hour. Karna

remained indebted / loyal to Duryodhana till the end, not because

the latter made him a king, but because Duryodhana treated him

fairly, on an equal footing and as a friend. Duryodhana too,

perhaps started out cultivating Karna as an antidote to Arjuna, but

I am sure he later grew to love Karna genuinely for his own merits.

Theirs was a great friendship and let's not taint it !!

 

One can see the stamp of sun in the selfless generosity of Karna and

yet you accuse Daana Karna of avarice!! And, all for the sake of an

argument! Perhaps the discussion should stop now.

 

Talking of puranas and "tortuous" (mis)interpretations:--)), I

request you to refer back to the discussions and see who first

talked about Indra, Bhrigu, Durvasa etc. I quoted only Parashara's

words earlier, and that too only in relation to surya as a planet

and not as a deity.

 

2. Ratha saptami / Surya jayanthi is celebrated and Sun is

worshipped on that day because it happens to be the birth day of the

Sun. People rejoice at the birth of Light!!

 

Can you please tell me, if the Sun is indeed redeemed from a curse

on that day by Shiva, why do people worship Surya, on Ratha saptami,

instead of Shiva? Do we worship the redeemer or the sinner? On

Vinayaka Chaturthi day, who is worshipped? Lord Ganesha or Moon?

 

I have already read the sthalapurana and if you read my few

questions (in the previous email) a little more carefully, you'd

notice that they are based on that sthalapurana. I also requested

for a reference from a purana (not sthalapurana), because I wanted

to go through it myself to fully understand the implications.

 

Btw, Cancer represents Mother, womb, heart etc, and hence indicates

attachments. If one should not distinguish among the water signs,

because they all are the moksha trikona, why have you, at the

beginning of this thread, talked about the differences among the

fire signs, as they are all dharma trikona?

 

Regards,

Lakshmi

 

 

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Lakshmi,

>

> About Vali and Sugriva, I do not look at the nature of

mythological

> figures to determine the qualities of their fathers. That is a two

edged

> weapon. I could then say that since Karna who was son of Surya

always

> stood by the side of Duryodhana, representing adharma, having been

> crowned King of Anga desha by Duryodhana Sun sides by adharma for

petty

> gains.

>

> That again is the reason I prefer not to justify astrological

principles

> by tortuous interpretation of Puranaic stories. I only use the

stories

> from Puranas to illustrate is stated principle of astrology in an

easily

> digested form, that to rarely.

>

> The story of Ratha Saptami is based on the curse received by

Surya. I

> give it for your reference, below. There is a temple in Tamilnadu

whose

> sthala purana mentions that fact.

>

> "The Sun God, the creator and sustainer of all lives in this

world, is

> worshiped for curing all diseases and bless us with good health,

and for

> the removal of all our enemies. He is prayed on Ratha Saptami day

by

> chanting Aruna Parayanam. Two kalashas, one representing Sun God

and the

> other representing His wifes, will be installed at the center.

While a

> priest is chanting, another priest will do 132 pradakshanams and

do

> sashtanga namaskrams (salutations) to the Kalashas on behalf of

> devotees. For, the legendary saying for Sun God is "/Namaskara

priyo

> bhanu:/" All devotees are welcome to participate, listen to the

chanting

> and get theertha prasadam at the end and be blessed by the Sun God.

>

>

>

> Story of Ratha Sapthami

>

> Karthru and Vinathai, wives of sage Kasyapa, once prayed to Lord

Shiva

> for a child. Shiva gave each of them an andam (egg). After a year,

> Vinathai's egg hatched and out flew a huge bird. Lord Shiva told a

> worried Vinathai that the bird was Garuda who would be Lord

Vishnu's

> mount. Jealous Karthru broke open her egg from which appeared a

lame

> boy. Lord Shiva pacified her saying that the child, Aruna, would

become

> Surya's Sarathi (driver of the chariot) and would shed light on

the earth.

>

>

>

> Later, Aruna told Surya that he wanted to visit Kailas. Surya said

that

> Nandhikeswara would not let him enter as he was lame. But Aruna

prayed

> to Lord Shiva. With the acquired power, Aruna took the form of

charming

> Mohini and headed towards Kailas. En route, Indra, infatuated by

> Mohini's charm, molested her and Mohini gave birth to Vali. Shiva

> pacified Aruna that Vali would derive half the strength of his

enemy and

> would attain salvation (moksha) at Lord Vishnu's hands. Shiva

cursed

> Indra that he would be cruelly treated by Mahabali Chakravarthi.

>

>

>

> When Surya heard this, he wanted to see Mohini and compelled Aruna

to

> take that form again. Surya also molested her and so was born

Sugriva.

> Following this incident, Shiva cursed Surya that he would turn

black in

> complexion, which would disappear only if he worshipped Shiva for

seven

> months. Lord Shiva told the devas that Aruna would shed light on

the

> earth by the power of his penance. Thus, light spreads on the

earth as

> Arunodhaya prior to Suryodhaya (sunrise).

>

>

>

> Surya came to Thirumiyachoor, built the holy tank Surya

Pushkarini.

> Holding erukka leaf (calatropsis), Arukampul (cynadon dactylon)

and cow

> dung on his head, Surya bathed in the holy tank and prayed to

Shiva for

> seven months. Yet his skin colour did not change.

>

>

>

> Frustrated, Surya shouted, "Hey, Mihura!" (Thus, Lord Meghanatha

came to

> be known as Mihura Aruneswar in Thirumiyachchoor.) This disturbed

> Parvathi when she was in the company of Shiva. She rose to curse

Surya.

> Shiva pacified her saying that Surya shouted to get rid of his

curse and

> if cursed again, the earth would be engulfed in total darkness.

This

> scene is seen as Kshethra Puraneswarar at the Thirumiyachoor

temple

> Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu. The day, of Shiva absolving

the sins

> of Surya, is celebrated as Rathsapthami. It is considered

auspiciously

> equivalent to 1000 Solar Eclipses."

>

>

> It is not a question of considering authority of a spiritual

master

> versus a King. It is the nature of the King that is the topic

under

> discussion or rather Surya and his attributes.

>

>

> To assume that people love and respect the King being the reason

that

> another King is immediately designated is alright from the point

of view

> of thinking that all kings are divine. But the fact remains is

more

> administrative than love or respect. That, and the fear of someone

else

> usurping the power.

>

>

> About Sun's eclipse, I was quoting what the Mahabharata said. One

has

> either to take support of the scriptures and their stories or to

present

> scientific evidence. We can do what suits selectively. Since we

were

> discussing principles to be applied from Puranas and scriptures, I

stuck

> to the stories of scriptures. The moment we want to go to science

and

> mix them with scriptural references, we are in a gray area. For

example

> why should the Sun being Aatmaa, as in soul, be invisible for 1/2

of the

> Ahoratra, is something that will be difficult to answer.

>

>

> I am glad you could see the connection between strong sun and

problems

> to eye. I have read almost all the editions of B.P.H.S. barring

the C.G.

> Rajan version, and though as you said the word Satvam is used in

> different context for different planets, whether that will prove

Surya

> to be bereft of the qualities that were under discussions must

remain a

> moot point, to be interpreted by astrologers who may want t find

their

> own truth.

>

> take care,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

> b_lakshmi_ramesh wrote:

> >

> > Om Gurave Namah

> >

> > Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

> >

> > As i have left some queries of yours without answering, i

thought i

> > would revert back to the topic for a few more minutes.

> >

> > > I see no comment of the Curses received by Surya that I quoted

in

> > > respect of argument that Indra was cursed and Surya was not s

> > Surya is

> > > not the King in the same manner as Indra.

> >

> > Lakshmi: I did answer your query by stating a different version

from

> > puranas, which gave Viraja as the mother of sugriva and not

Aruna.

> > Knowing that physical relationship was not the only means to

father

> > sons, as given in many puranas, I tend to support that version

and

> > not this.

> >

> > The glaring difference between Vali and Sugriva also illustrates

the

> > difference between their fathers, Indra and Surya. While Sri Rama

> > killed Vali, he befriended and sought the help of Sugriva!!

> >

> > Anyway, what happened to the world when Surya turned dark and

till

> > he redeemed himself? Prior to the curse, was Aruna not preceding

the

> > Sun? In which Purana this episode was mentioned? I would like to

go

> > through it, so that i can understand the implications better.

> >

> > > Calling someone a King out of love and affection, and someone

> > being

> > > called a King as he collects taxes and rules over others with

> > total

> > > authority are different matter. many of the mothers in at least

> > > Maharashtra call their children King, that does not mean they

have

> > the

> > > authority of a King.

> >

> > Lakshmi: so, you consider the authority of a spiritual master

less

> > than that of a material master.

> >

> > >From that point of view too, a king is not only feared, he is

also

> > treated with love and respect due to a father and protector. His

> > presence is essential to the security of the people and to

prevent

> > anarchy and lawlessness in the country. Otherwise, why would

people

> > be in a hurry to designate another as a king as soon as the

reigning

> > king dies? If a king represents only egoism and avarice, wouldn't

> > people be happier without governance? Why are you not taking this

> > angle into account?

> >

> > Sir, I never said that Lord krishna prayed to Sun because

> > Sun was the king:--)) you were the one preoccupied with the royal

> > aspect of Sun and not me. Lord krishna prayed to Sun, because he

is

> > the Light and represented/represents Brahman!!

> >

> > At the time of death of Jayadratha, an eclipse was said to have

> > taken place, and this was verified by eminent scientists like Sri

> > Balakrishna, in trying to ascertain the timing of Mahabharata.

> > Karna, though undoubtedly a great man, suffered because of his

> > loyalty to the adharmic elements and in this regard, I am sure

you

> > have read the various commentaries on Maha Bharata written by

> > persons wiser and better equipped/authorised. Due to paucity of

time

> > and space I will not expand on this. So is the case with Janaka

> > rajarshi!! Who am I to question the wisdom of Vyasa and Valmiki?

It

> > shows that Bhagavan is unsparing/unbiased in his justice, and

this

> > scheme included Himself!!

> >

> > Regarding eye sight, the comment could be correct, because

excessive

> > light can also damage eye-sight and Sun is brilliant!!

> >

> > Parashara used the same word "satvam" to describe the governance

of

> > kuja and the guna of Sun, Moon and Jupiter. The word used is the

> > same, but the context differs. Please refer to the shlokas in

BPHS.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Lakshmi

> >

> > P.s.: Sundeep ji, I will answer your question as soon as i can

get

> > the computer back. Weekends are tough!

> >

> >

> > --------------------------------

-------

> >

> >

> >

> > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release

8/31/2006

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Divine Lakshmi,

 

This is precisely why I do not like to bring in Puranas and Mahabharata

in to astrological discussions. People tend to have preconceived notions

of a personality and rarely try to analyze the actions of the

mythological figure dispassionately.

 

As to Karna, it is well known that Duryodhana only made Karna the King

of Anga desha so that he could participate in the Draupadi Svayamwar and

defeat Arjuna. Their friendship developed later. Till that moment Karna

was treated as the son of charioteer by all including Duryodhana.

 

It is alright to attribute only the purest of the motives to Karna but

his deceiving Parshuram that he is a brahmin so that he can learn

archery from Parshuram and his being silent spectator to the Draupadi

Cheerharana (stripping) does not say very high about the purity of his

mind or upholding of Dharma.

 

If I remember right, Lord Krishna did ask Karna where was his observance

of Dharma when he was a mute spectator to stripping of Draupadi, as he

pleaded with Arjuna to hold his arrows and tried to remind him that

shooting at a chariot borne fighter when he is on ground is against Dharma.

 

I remember that the discussions started with Sun and ego and the

mythology was certainly not brought in by me. If I am wrong about this

as you seem to indicate, then I must stop the thread right now.

 

I remember that you began by saying :

"Sun as "Karma Saakshi" is said to be the most impartial & detached

observer of all. He represents pure awareness, which is not judgmental.

On the other opposite end, we have Rahu, which represents ego. Rahu can

give a warped, bloated and often false impression of oneself, unless he

is strong or with strong planets. The realization "Aham brahmaasmi" is

certainly not "ahamkaara"....infact far from it! " And then you referred

to Vishnu Purana and then what Lord Krishna said and so on.

 

However since you think I encroached upon the Puranas and scriptures, it

is better I stop right now as I am perhaps too dispassionate discussing

the Puranas and the shastras.

Chandrashekhar.

 

b_lakshmi_ramesh wrote:

>

> Om Gurave Namah

>

> Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

>

> I could then say that since Karna who was son of Surya always

> > stood by the side of Duryodhana, representing adharma, having been

> > crowned King of Anga desha by Duryodhana Sun sides by adharma for

> petty

> Ø gains.

>

> > That again is the reason I prefer not to justify astrological

> principles

> > by tortuous interpretation of Puranaic stories. I only use the

> stories

> > from Puranas to illustrate is stated principle of astrology in an

> easily

> > digested form, that to rarely.

>

> Lakshmi: Sir, any one, even with rudimentary acquaintance with

> Mahabharata knows what you have said just now is very unfair. Lord

> Krishna tried to tempt Karna to come over to Pandavas' side, with

> offer of becoming the Emperor (as Karna is elder to Dharmaraja),

> but Karna refused to desert Duryodhana at that crucial hour. Karna

> remained indebted / loyal to Duryodhana till the end, not because

> the latter made him a king, but because Duryodhana treated him

> fairly, on an equal footing and as a friend. Duryodhana too,

> perhaps started out cultivating Karna as an antidote to Arjuna, but

> I am sure he later grew to love Karna genuinely for his own merits.

> Theirs was a great friendship and let's not taint it !!

>

> One can see the stamp of sun in the selfless generosity of Karna and

> yet you accuse Daana Karna of avarice!! And, all for the sake of an

> argument! Perhaps the discussion should stop now.

>

> Talking of puranas and "tortuous" (mis)interpretations:--)), I

> request you to refer back to the discussions and see who first

> talked about Indra, Bhrigu, Durvasa etc. I quoted only Parashara's

> words earlier, and that too only in relation to surya as a planet

> and not as a deity.

>

> 2. Ratha saptami / Surya jayanthi is celebrated and Sun is

> worshipped on that day because it happens to be the birth day of the

> Sun. People rejoice at the birth of Light!!

>

> Can you please tell me, if the Sun is indeed redeemed from a curse

> on that day by Shiva, why do people worship Surya, on Ratha saptami,

> instead of Shiva? Do we worship the redeemer or the sinner? On

> Vinayaka Chaturthi day, who is worshipped? Lord Ganesha or Moon?

>

> I have already read the sthalapurana and if you read my few

> questions (in the previous email) a little more carefully, you'd

> notice that they are based on that sthalapurana. I also requested

> for a reference from a purana (not sthalapurana), because I wanted

> to go through it myself to fully understand the implications.

>

> Btw, Cancer represents Mother, womb, heart etc, and hence indicates

> attachments. If one should not distinguish among the water signs,

> because they all are the moksha trikona, why have you, at the

> beginning of this thread, talked about the differences among the

> fire signs, as they are all dharma trikona?

>

> Regards,

> Lakshmi

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Lakshmi,

> >

> > About Vali and Sugriva, I do not look at the nature of

> mythological

> > figures to determine the qualities of their fathers. That is a two

> edged

> > weapon. I could then say that since Karna who was son of Surya

> always

> > stood by the side of Duryodhana, representing adharma, having been

> > crowned King of Anga desha by Duryodhana Sun sides by adharma for

> petty

> > gains.

> >

> > That again is the reason I prefer not to justify astrological

> principles

> > by tortuous interpretation of Puranaic stories. I only use the

> stories

> > from Puranas to illustrate is stated principle of astrology in an

> easily

> > digested form, that to rarely.

> >

> > The story of Ratha Saptami is based on the curse received by

> Surya. I

> > give it for your reference, below. There is a temple in Tamilnadu

> whose

> > sthala purana mentions that fact.

> >

> > "The Sun God, the creator and sustainer of all lives in this

> world, is

> > worshiped for curing all diseases and bless us with good health,

> and for

> > the removal of all our enemies. He is prayed on Ratha Saptami day

> by

> > chanting Aruna Parayanam. Two kalashas, one representing Sun God

> and the

> > other representing His wifes, will be installed at the center.

> While a

> > priest is chanting, another priest will do 132 pradakshanams and

> do

> > sashtanga namaskrams (salutations) to the Kalashas on behalf of

> > devotees. For, the legendary saying for Sun God is "/Namaskara

> priyo

> > bhanu:/" All devotees are welcome to participate, listen to the

> chanting

> > and get theertha prasadam at the end and be blessed by the Sun God.

> >

> >

> >

> > Story of Ratha Sapthami

> >

> > Karthru and Vinathai, wives of sage Kasyapa, once prayed to Lord

> Shiva

> > for a child. Shiva gave each of them an andam (egg). After a year,

> > Vinathai's egg hatched and out flew a huge bird. Lord Shiva told a

> > worried Vinathai that the bird was Garuda who would be Lord

> Vishnu's

> > mount. Jealous Karthru broke open her egg from which appeared a

> lame

> > boy. Lord Shiva pacified her saying that the child, Aruna, would

> become

> > Surya's Sarathi (driver of the chariot) and would shed light on

> the earth.

> >

> >

> >

> > Later, Aruna told Surya that he wanted to visit Kailas. Surya said

> that

> > Nandhikeswara would not let him enter as he was lame. But Aruna

> prayed

> > to Lord Shiva. With the acquired power, Aruna took the form of

> charming

> > Mohini and headed towards Kailas. En route, Indra, infatuated by

> > Mohini's charm, molested her and Mohini gave birth to Vali. Shiva

> > pacified Aruna that Vali would derive half the strength of his

> enemy and

> > would attain salvation (moksha) at Lord Vishnu's hands. Shiva

> cursed

> > Indra that he would be cruelly treated by Mahabali Chakravarthi.

> >

> >

> >

> > When Surya heard this, he wanted to see Mohini and compelled Aruna

> to

> > take that form again. Surya also molested her and so was born

> Sugriva.

> > Following this incident, Shiva cursed Surya that he would turn

> black in

> > complexion, which would disappear only if he worshipped Shiva for

> seven

> > months. Lord Shiva told the devas that Aruna would shed light on

> the

> > earth by the power of his penance. Thus, light spreads on the

> earth as

> > Arunodhaya prior to Suryodhaya (sunrise).

> >

> >

> >

> > Surya came to Thirumiyachoor, built the holy tank Surya

> Pushkarini.

> > Holding erukka leaf (calatropsis), Arukampul (cynadon dactylon)

> and cow

> > dung on his head, Surya bathed in the holy tank and prayed to

> Shiva for

> > seven months. Yet his skin colour did not change.

> >

> >

> >

> > Frustrated, Surya shouted, "Hey, Mihura!" (Thus, Lord Meghanatha

> came to

> > be known as Mihura Aruneswar in Thirumiyachchoor.) This disturbed

> > Parvathi when she was in the company of Shiva. She rose to curse

> Surya.

> > Shiva pacified her saying that Surya shouted to get rid of his

> curse and

> > if cursed again, the earth would be engulfed in total darkness.

> This

> > scene is seen as Kshethra Puraneswarar at the Thirumiyachoor

> temple

> > Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu. The day, of Shiva absolving

> the sins

> > of Surya, is celebrated as Rathsapthami. It is considered

> auspiciously

> > equivalent to 1000 Solar Eclipses."

> >

> >

> > It is not a question of considering authority of a spiritual

> master

> > versus a King. It is the nature of the King that is the topic

> under

> > discussion or rather Surya and his attributes.

> >

> >

> > To assume that people love and respect the King being the reason

> that

> > another King is immediately designated is alright from the point

> of view

> > of thinking that all kings are divine. But the fact remains is

> more

> > administrative than love or respect. That, and the fear of someone

> else

> > usurping the power.

> >

> >

> > About Sun's eclipse, I was quoting what the Mahabharata said. One

> has

> > either to take support of the scriptures and their stories or to

> present

> > scientific evidence. We can do what suits selectively. Since we

> were

> > discussing principles to be applied from Puranas and scriptures, I

> stuck

> > to the stories of scriptures. The moment we want to go to science

> and

> > mix them with scriptural references, we are in a gray area. For

> example

> > why should the Sun being Aatmaa, as in soul, be invisible for 1/2

> of the

> > Ahoratra, is something that will be difficult to answer.

> >

> >

> > I am glad you could see the connection between strong sun and

> problems

> > to eye. I have read almost all the editions of B.P.H.S. barring

> the C.G.

> > Rajan version, and though as you said the word Satvam is used in

> > different context for different planets, whether that will prove

> Surya

> > to be bereft of the qualities that were under discussions must

> remain a

> > moot point, to be interpreted by astrologers who may want t find

> their

> > own truth.

> >

> > take care,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> > b_lakshmi_ramesh wrote:

> > >

> > > Om Gurave Namah

> > >

> > > Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

> > >

> > > As i have left some queries of yours without answering, i

> thought i

> > > would revert back to the topic for a few more minutes.

> > >

> > > > I see no comment of the Curses received by Surya that I quoted

> in

> > > > respect of argument that Indra was cursed and Surya was not s

> > > Surya is

> > > > not the King in the same manner as Indra.

> > >

> > > Lakshmi: I did answer your query by stating a different version

> from

> > > puranas, which gave Viraja as the mother of sugriva and not

> Aruna.

> > > Knowing that physical relationship was not the only means to

> father

> > > sons, as given in many puranas, I tend to support that version

> and

> > > not this.

> > >

> > > The glaring difference between Vali and Sugriva also illustrates

> the

> > > difference between their fathers, Indra and Surya. While Sri Rama

> > > killed Vali, he befriended and sought the help of Sugriva!!

> > >

> > > Anyway, what happened to the world when Surya turned dark and

> till

> > > he redeemed himself? Prior to the curse, was Aruna not preceding

> the

> > > Sun? In which Purana this episode was mentioned? I would like to

> go

> > > through it, so that i can understand the implications better.

> > >

> > > > Calling someone a King out of love and affection, and someone

> > > being

> > > > called a King as he collects taxes and rules over others with

> > > total

> > > > authority are different matter. many of the mothers in at least

> > > > Maharashtra call their children King, that does not mean they

> have

> > > the

> > > > authority of a King.

> > >

> > > Lakshmi: so, you consider the authority of a spiritual master

> less

> > > than that of a material master.

> > >

> > > >From that point of view too, a king is not only feared, he is

> also

> > > treated with love and respect due to a father and protector. His

> > > presence is essential to the security of the people and to

> prevent

> > > anarchy and lawlessness in the country. Otherwise, why would

> people

> > > be in a hurry to designate another as a king as soon as the

> reigning

> > > king dies? If a king represents only egoism and avarice, wouldn't

> > > people be happier without governance? Why are you not taking this

> > > angle into account?

> > >

> > > Sir, I never said that Lord krishna prayed to Sun because

> > > Sun was the king:--)) you were the one preoccupied with the royal

> > > aspect of Sun and not me. Lord krishna prayed to Sun, because he

> is

> > > the Light and represented/represents Brahman!!

> > >

> > > At the time of death of Jayadratha, an eclipse was said to have

> > > taken place, and this was verified by eminent scientists like Sri

> > > Balakrishna, in trying to ascertain the timing of Mahabharata.

> > > Karna, though undoubtedly a great man, suffered because of his

> > > loyalty to the adharmic elements and in this regard, I am sure

> you

> > > have read the various commentaries on Maha Bharata written by

> > > persons wiser and better equipped/authorised. Due to paucity of

> time

> > > and space I will not expand on this. So is the case with Janaka

> > > rajarshi!! Who am I to question the wisdom of Vyasa and Valmiki?

> It

> > > shows that Bhagavan is unsparing/unbiased in his justice, and

> this

> > > scheme included Himself!!

> > >

> > > Regarding eye sight, the comment could be correct, because

> excessive

> > > light can also damage eye-sight and Sun is brilliant!!

> > >

> > > Parashara used the same word "satvam" to describe the governance

> of

> > > kuja and the guna of Sun, Moon and Jupiter. The word used is the

> > > same, but the context differs. Please refer to the shlokas in

> BPHS.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Lakshmi

> > >

> > > P.s.: Sundeep ji, I will answer your question as soon as i can

> get

> > > the computer back. Weekends are tough!

> > >

> > >

> > > -------------------------

> -------

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date:

> 8/31/2006

> > >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Om Gurave Namah

 

Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

 

 

My sun dasa started when I was 9 years old, and ended when I was 15

years old. How come you didn't notice the second part? I was old

enough to understand the difference between success and failure, I

guess!

 

Anyway, if you agree that Rahu is giving Sun's results, and those

results are exceptionally good, then it automatically follows that

Sun is strong in my chart because according to Shri B.V Raman, evil

planets, especially when weak, give bad results (vide "a catechism

of astrology"), while strong planets, even if evil, give good

results. If my Sun were weak, he wouldn't be giving such good

results:--))

 

Since Mercury is hopelessly combust and inferior in shadbala

strength, the major results of Dharma karmadhipathi yoga are also

given by Sun, because according to "300 combinations" of Sri

Raman, a planet with higher shadbala is more likely to give the

results of a yoga.

 

Regarding Karna, I request you to read the Karna Parva of

Mahabharata again. When he died, the nature bowed in grief, because

he's one of the noblest persons in Mahabharata. Even the episode you

quoted happened because Parashurama would teach only Brahmins and

Karna desperately wanted to learn dhanurvidya from Parashurama so

that he can support Duryodhana. Deceit is certainly punishable and

Karna did pay dearly. But it's to be borne in mind that whatever

Karna did was only to please Duryodhana, his dearest friend. Karna

did not gain anything personally.

 

10th house is the 3rd house from 8th house (I think there was a typo

at your end). In the natural zodiac, the 10 th sign, being the

cardinal earth sign, represents south /dakshina disha. South is the

direction ruled by Yama, the lord of death, hence 10th house

represents burial grounds. So, the Rudras (Saturn, Sun and Mars) are

strong in south. Also, Sun resides in south and starts his

northern voyage from here. So he has digbala in 10th house.

 

I did clarify that when I referred to Surya as Karma saakshi, it's

only to his status as antaraatma and not as a deity. Perhaps this

escaped your attention.

 

This is my last post on the subject.

 

Regards,

Lakshmi

 

 

 

 

 

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Divine Lakshmi,

>

> You were too young for the results of the dasha to manifest,

though it

> is good news that your father had promotions and you received

> prizes/accolades during that time. It is interesting to know you

got

> these results at a young age of 9 or so as that is when Sun dasha

was

> operative. I am relieved you did not have any health problems in

> March-August 1970 period.

>

> But we are talking about Rahu and Rahu would give results of Sun

more

> prominently, by conjunction, as you guessed but also that of

Mercury

> (You have a Dharmakarmaadhipati yoga after all) and that is why I

said

> for understanding Sun its dasha instead of Rahu dasha needs to be

analyzed.

>

> Mercury is malefic not because I say so but because Jyotish says

that

> mercury is malefic when conjunct a papa graha and he is conjunct

two,

> Sun and Rahu.

>

> 10th house is the apex of Artha trikona and directly involved with

> efforts to earn money. Though claimed to be smashana/burial

ground, it

> is 4th from ayush sthana (8th) and its home that is why affliction

to it

> can give death. But 8th is more popularly called mrityu sthana and

hence

> 10th is called Smashana. If it is really smashana why would it be

called

> karma sthana and why would Sun be at its most brilliant there?

>

> I did not say he can not represent water bodies in temple, but not

only

> those.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> b_lakshmi_ramesh wrote:

> >

> > Om Gurave Namah

> >

> > Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

> >

> > My Sun dasa was excellent too. My father received promotion(s),

my

> > school/college days were great and i received wide acclaim/prizes

> > for my ability in creative writing, Veena, quiz contests etc,

apart

> > from studies. So, for a student, I guess that's excellent!!

> > How do you justify this, if Sun were weak? Rahu is certainly

giving

> > the yogakaraka results, but being in Sun's house and being

conjunct

> > Sun, don't you think Rahu is also giving the results of Sun? You

> > said that mercury is malefic and heavily combust too:--))

> >

> > 1th house also represent burial ground/smashaana. Is that a place

> > for attachment?

> >

> > Chandra represents all water bodies, so why can't he represent

> > temple tank?

> >

> > Regards,

> > Lakshmi

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Divine Lakshmi,

> > >

> > > Mercury with malefic planets is considered a malefic and he is

> > with

> > > rahu. Rahu being in MKS does not reduce the affliction to Sun,

as

> > far as

> > > I know. Rahu dasha will be good as rahu will give results of

Sun

> > whose

> > > house it occupies and with whom he is conjunct and also Mercury

> > who is

> > > conjunct and lord of the 10th. Ududaya Pradeep would call such

a

> > Rahu a

> > > Yogakaraka. So how does Rahu dasha being good prove that Sun is

> > good and

> > > strong? For that you have to analyze the Sun dasha I would say.

> > >

> > > Whether a detached person earns more respect is not the point.

> > Whether

> > > 10th bhava is Maana/ Rajya bhava is the point we were looking

at.

> > By the

> > > way 4th house being the apex of Moksha Trikona 10th would

> > certainly

> > > indicate great attachment being maraka to the 4th.

> > >

> > > Chandra is in all water bodies, not only in tanks of temples,

if I

> > > remember right.

> > >

> > > I see, so that was a typo.

> > >

> > > Yes the feeling is reciprocal.

> > >

> > > Take care,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > b_lakshmi_ramesh wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Om Gurave Namah

> > > >

> > > > Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > >

> > > > > About your Sun in the 9th, is it not weakened by Rahu and

> > aspected

> > > > by

> > > > > Guru , if memory serves me right. Where is it in strength.

> > > >

> > > > Lakshmi: Sir, my sun is in moolatrikona and vargottama. Rahu

is

> > in

> > > > MKS in 9th house. Sun is also conjoined Mercury, a benefic

and

> > > > aspected by guru, a benefic. Does that make my Sun, strong or

> > weak?

> > > > My Rahu das, running right now, is also excellent!!

> > > >

> > > > >10th house is also called Maana and Rajya bhava, certainly

> > nothing

> > > > to do

> > > > > with detachment. Please check if I am wrong in my

nomenclature

> > of

> > > > the

> > > > > 10th bhava as I am quoting from memory.

> > > >

> > > > Lakshmi: The 10th house is the 7th house (maraka house)from

4th

> > > > house, which rules attachments. Sun is also a maraka for

Cancer

> > and

> > > > Mars causes the debility of moon. That's why these 3 planets

act

> > > > against attachment and cause detachment and parivraja yoga.

> > > >

> > > > "Maana" is respect and a detached / objective person earns

more

> > > > respect than an attached person!!

> > > >

> > > > > But then we are veering away from Surya being in temple as

> > soul to

> > > > being

> > > > > ruler of structures. If this is all right, why should he

also

> > not

> > > > be a King?

> > > > >

> > > > > I may agree with that, but then why should a satva graha

not

> > be in

> > > > > temple? Can a devotee be considered to be in a temple,

truly,

> > if

> > > > his

> > > > > mind (ruled by Chandra) is not there?

> > > >

> > > > Lakshmi: Chandra is also there in the temple tanks etc, which

> > deal

> > > > with cleasing. An en"lightened" Chandra is definitely equal

to

> > Sun.

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Lakshmi, when did I say something that at the core of

your

> > > > being

> > > > > there's not something that is radiant, whole and pure? Did

my

> > mail

> > > > > appear to give you that impression? Why would I call you

Divine

> > > > Lakshmi

> > > > > if I did not think there is something that is radiant,

whole

> > and

> > > > Pure at

> > > > > the core of your heart? You know, I do not use words in

vain.

> > > > Please

> > > > > think about this, in depth.

> > > >

> > > > Lakshmi: Sir, I typed that sentence in a hurry and instead of

> > > > writing "our being" I ended up writing "my being"!! It's as

> > simple

> > > > as that!! "I" means "every one" ok:--))

> > > >

> > > > I do know your great affection for me, and I am sure you know

> > that I

> > > > heartily reciprocate it!!

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Lakshmi

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -------------------------

> > -------

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release

Date:

> > 8/31/2006

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Divine Lakshmi,

 

About Krura planets the saying is, that with strength the Krura grahas

become more Krura (Maha-krura) and the shubha grahas become more shubha.

Only Shani is more krura when weak and beneficial or less krura when

strong "Viparitama shaneH smritam".

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

b_lakshmi_ramesh wrote:

>

>

>

> Om Gurave Namah

>

> Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

>

> My sun dasa started when I was 9 years old, and ended when I was 15

> years old. How come you didn't notice the second part? I was old

> enough to understand the difference between success and failure, I

> guess!

>

> Anyway, if you agree that Rahu is giving Sun's results, and those

> results are exceptionally good, then it automatically follows that

> Sun is strong in my chart because according to Shri B.V Raman, evil

> planets, especially when weak, give bad results (vide "a catechism

> of astrology"), while strong planets, even if evil, give good

> results. If my Sun were weak, he wouldn't be giving such good

> results:--))

>

> Since Mercury is hopelessly combust and inferior in shadbala

> strength, the major results of Dharma karmadhipathi yoga are also

> given by Sun, because according to "300 combinations" of Sri

> Raman, a planet with higher shadbala is more likely to give the

> results of a yoga.

>

> Regarding Karna, I request you to read the Karna Parva of

> Mahabharata again. When he died, the nature bowed in grief, because

> he's one of the noblest persons in Mahabharata. Even the episode you

> quoted happened because Parashurama would teach only Brahmins and

> Karna desperately wanted to learn dhanurvidya from Parashurama so

> that he can support Duryodhana. Deceit is certainly punishable and

> Karna did pay dearly. But it's to be borne in mind that whatever

> Karna did was only to please Duryodhana, his dearest friend. Karna

> did not gain anything personally.

>

> 10th house is the 3rd house from 8th house (I think there was a typo

> at your end). In the natural zodiac, the 10 th sign, being the

> cardinal earth sign, represents south /dakshina disha. South is the

> direction ruled by Yama, the lord of death, hence 10th house

> represents burial grounds. So, the Rudras (Saturn, Sun and Mars) are

> strong in south. Also, Sun resides in south and starts his

> northern voyage from here. So he has digbala in 10th house.

>

> I did clarify that when I referred to Surya as Karma saakshi, it's

> only to his status as antaraatma and not as a deity. Perhaps this

> escaped your attention.

>

> This is my last post on the subject.

>

> Regards,

> Lakshmi

>

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Divine Lakshmi,

> >

> > You were too young for the results of the dasha to manifest,

> though it

> > is good news that your father had promotions and you received

> > prizes/accolades during that time. It is interesting to know you

> got

> > these results at a young age of 9 or so as that is when Sun dasha

> was

> > operative. I am relieved you did not have any health problems in

> > March-August 1970 period.

> >

> > But we are talking about Rahu and Rahu would give results of Sun

> more

> > prominently, by conjunction, as you guessed but also that of

> Mercury

> > (You have a Dharmakarmaadhipati yoga after all) and that is why I

> said

> > for understanding Sun its dasha instead of Rahu dasha needs to be

> analyzed.

> >

> > Mercury is malefic not because I say so but because Jyotish says

> that

> > mercury is malefic when conjunct a papa graha and he is conjunct

> two,

> > Sun and Rahu.

> >

> > 10th house is the apex of Artha trikona and directly involved with

> > efforts to earn money. Though claimed to be smashana/burial

> ground, it

> > is 4th from ayush sthana (8th) and its home that is why affliction

> to it

> > can give death. But 8th is more popularly called mrityu sthana and

> hence

> > 10th is called Smashana. If it is really smashana why would it be

> called

> > karma sthana and why would Sun be at its most brilliant there?

> >

> > I did not say he can not represent water bodies in temple, but not

> only

> > those.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > b_lakshmi_ramesh wrote:

> > >

> > > Om Gurave Namah

> > >

> > > Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

> > >

> > > My Sun dasa was excellent too. My father received promotion(s),

> my

> > > school/college days were great and i received wide acclaim/prizes

> > > for my ability in creative writing, Veena, quiz contests etc,

> apart

> > > from studies. So, for a student, I guess that's excellent!!

> > > How do you justify this, if Sun were weak? Rahu is certainly

> giving

> > > the yogakaraka results, but being in Sun's house and being

> conjunct

> > > Sun, don't you think Rahu is also giving the results of Sun? You

> > > said that mercury is malefic and heavily combust too:--))

> > >

> > > 1th house also represent burial ground/smashaana. Is that a place

> > > for attachment?

> > >

> > > Chandra represents all water bodies, so why can't he represent

> > > temple tank?

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Lakshmi

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Divine Lakshmi,

> > > >

> > > > Mercury with malefic planets is considered a malefic and he is

> > > with

> > > > rahu. Rahu being in MKS does not reduce the affliction to Sun,

> as

> > > far as

> > > > I know. Rahu dasha will be good as rahu will give results of

> Sun

> > > whose

> > > > house it occupies and with whom he is conjunct and also Mercury

> > > who is

> > > > conjunct and lord of the 10th. Ududaya Pradeep would call such

> a

> > > Rahu a

> > > > Yogakaraka. So how does Rahu dasha being good prove that Sun is

> > > good and

> > > > strong? For that you have to analyze the Sun dasha I would say.

> > > >

> > > > Whether a detached person earns more respect is not the point.

> > > Whether

> > > > 10th bhava is Maana/ Rajya bhava is the point we were looking

> at.

> > > By the

> > > > way 4th house being the apex of Moksha Trikona 10th would

> > > certainly

> > > > indicate great attachment being maraka to the 4th.

> > > >

> > > > Chandra is in all water bodies, not only in tanks of temples,

> if I

> > > > remember right.

> > > >

> > > > I see, so that was a typo.

> > > >

> > > > Yes the feeling is reciprocal.

> > > >

> > > > Take care,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > b_lakshmi_ramesh wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Om Gurave Namah

> > > > >

> > > > > Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > > About your Sun in the 9th, is it not weakened by Rahu and

> > > aspected

> > > > > by

> > > > > > Guru , if memory serves me right. Where is it in strength.

> > > > >

> > > > > Lakshmi: Sir, my sun is in moolatrikona and vargottama. Rahu

> is

> > > in

> > > > > MKS in 9th house. Sun is also conjoined Mercury, a benefic

> and

> > > > > aspected by guru, a benefic. Does that make my Sun, strong or

> > > weak?

> > > > > My Rahu das, running right now, is also excellent!!

> > > > >

> > > > > >10th house is also called Maana and Rajya bhava, certainly

> > > nothing

> > > > > to do

> > > > > > with detachment. Please check if I am wrong in my

> nomenclature

> > > of

> > > > > the

> > > > > > 10th bhava as I am quoting from memory.

> > > > >

> > > > > Lakshmi: The 10th house is the 7th house (maraka house)from

> 4th

> > > > > house, which rules attachments. Sun is also a maraka for

> Cancer

> > > and

> > > > > Mars causes the debility of moon. That's why these 3 planets

> act

> > > > > against attachment and cause detachment and parivraja yoga.

> > > > >

> > > > > "Maana" is respect and a detached / objective person earns

> more

> > > > > respect than an attached person!!

> > > > >

> > > > > > But then we are veering away from Surya being in temple as

> > > soul to

> > > > > being

> > > > > > ruler of structures. If this is all right, why should he

> also

> > > not

> > > > > be a King?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I may agree with that, but then why should a satva graha

> not

> > > be in

> > > > > > temple? Can a devotee be considered to be in a temple,

> truly,

> > > if

> > > > > his

> > > > > > mind (ruled by Chandra) is not there?

> > > > >

> > > > > Lakshmi: Chandra is also there in the temple tanks etc, which

> > > deal

> > > > > with cleasing. An en"lightened" Chandra is definitely equal

> to

> > > Sun.

> > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Lakshmi, when did I say something that at the core of

> your

> > > > > being

> > > > > > there's not something that is radiant, whole and pure? Did

> my

> > > mail

> > > > > > appear to give you that impression? Why would I call you

> Divine

> > > > > Lakshmi

> > > > > > if I did not think there is something that is radiant,

> whole

> > > and

> > > > > Pure at

> > > > > > the core of your heart? You know, I do not use words in

> vain.

> > > > > Please

> > > > > > think about this, in depth.

> > > > >

> > > > > Lakshmi: Sir, I typed that sentence in a hurry and instead of

> > > > > writing "our being" I ended up writing "my being"!! It's as

> > > simple

> > > > > as that!! "I" means "every one" ok:--))

> > > > >

> > > > > I do know your great affection for me, and I am sure you know

> > > that I

> > > > > heartily reciprocate it!!

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > > Lakshmi

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -------------------------

> > > -------

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release

> Date:

> > > 8/31/2006

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Chadrashekharji,

 

Can you say same for mangal. Mangal in karka becomes

more krura or less ?

 

Thanks

 

Satish

 

--- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 (AT) (DOT) co.uk>

wrote:

 

> Dear Divine Lakshmi,

>

> About Krura planets the saying is, that with

> strength the Krura grahas

> become more Krura (Maha-krura) and the shubha grahas

> become more shubha.

> Only Shani is more krura when weak and beneficial or

> less krura when

> strong "Viparitama shaneH smritam".

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> b_lakshmi_ramesh wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Om Gurave Namah

> >

> > Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

> >

> > My sun dasa started when I was 9 years old, and

> ended when I was 15

> > years old. How come you didn't notice the second

> part? I was old

> > enough to understand the difference between

> success and failure, I

> > guess!

> >

> > Anyway, if you agree that Rahu is giving Sun's

> results, and those

> > results are exceptionally good, then it

> automatically follows that

> > Sun is strong in my chart because according to

> Shri B.V Raman, evil

> > planets, especially when weak, give bad results

> (vide "a catechism

> > of astrology"), while strong planets, even if

> evil, give good

> > results. If my Sun were weak, he wouldn't be

> giving such good

> > results:--))

> >

> > Since Mercury is hopelessly combust and inferior

> in shadbala

> > strength, the major results of Dharma

> karmadhipathi yoga are also

> > given by Sun, because according to "300

> combinations" of Sri

> > Raman, a planet with higher shadbala is more

> likely to give the

> > results of a yoga.

> >

> > Regarding Karna, I request you to read the Karna

> Parva of

> > Mahabharata again. When he died, the nature bowed

> in grief, because

> > he's one of the noblest persons in Mahabharata.

> Even the episode you

> > quoted happened because Parashurama would teach

> only Brahmins and

> > Karna desperately wanted to learn dhanurvidya from

> Parashurama so

> > that he can support Duryodhana. Deceit is

> certainly punishable and

> > Karna did pay dearly. But it's to be borne in mind

> that whatever

> > Karna did was only to please Duryodhana, his

> dearest friend. Karna

> > did not gain anything personally.

> >

> > 10th house is the 3rd house from 8th house (I

> think there was a typo

> > at your end). In the natural zodiac, the 10 th

> sign, being the

> > cardinal earth sign, represents south /dakshina

> disha. South is the

> > direction ruled by Yama, the lord of death, hence

> 10th house

> > represents burial grounds. So, the Rudras (Saturn,

> Sun and Mars) are

> > strong in south. Also, Sun resides in south and

> starts his

> > northern voyage from here. So he has digbala in

> 10th house.

> >

> > I did clarify that when I referred to Surya as

> Karma saakshi, it's

> > only to his status as antaraatma and not as a

> deity. Perhaps this

> > escaped your attention.

> >

> > This is my last post on the subject.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Lakshmi

> >

> >

> >

> > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Divine Lakshmi,

> > >

> > > You were too young for the results of the dasha

> to manifest,

> > though it

> > > is good news that your father had promotions and

> you received

> > > prizes/accolades during that time. It is

> interesting to know you

> > got

> > > these results at a young age of 9 or so as that

> is when Sun dasha

> > was

> > > operative. I am relieved you did not have any

> health problems in

> > > March-August 1970 period.

> > >

> > > But we are talking about Rahu and Rahu would

> give results of Sun

> > more

> > > prominently, by conjunction, as you guessed but

> also that of

> > Mercury

> > > (You have a Dharmakarmaadhipati yoga after all)

> and that is why I

> > said

> > > for understanding Sun its dasha instead of Rahu

> dasha needs to be

> > analyzed.

> > >

> > > Mercury is malefic not because I say so but

> because Jyotish says

> > that

> > > mercury is malefic when conjunct a papa graha

> and he is conjunct

> > two,

> > > Sun and Rahu.

> > >

> > > 10th house is the apex of Artha trikona and

> directly involved with

> > > efforts to earn money. Though claimed to be

> smashana/burial

> > ground, it

> > > is 4th from ayush sthana (8th) and its home that

> is why affliction

> > to it

> > > can give death. But 8th is more popularly called

> mrityu sthana and

> > hence

> > > 10th is called Smashana. If it is really

> smashana why would it be

> > called

> > > karma sthana and why would Sun be at its most

> brilliant there?

> > >

> > > I did not say he can not represent water bodies

> in temple, but not

> > only

> > > those.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > b_lakshmi_ramesh wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Om Gurave Namah

> > > >

> > > > Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > >

> > > > My Sun dasa was excellent too. My father

> received promotion(s),

> > my

> > > > school/college days were great and i received

> wide acclaim/prizes

> > > > for my ability in creative writing, Veena,

> quiz contests etc,

> > apart

> > > > from studies. So, for a student, I guess

> that's excellent!!

> > > > How do you justify this, if Sun were weak?

> Rahu is certainly

> > giving

> > > > the yogakaraka results, but being in Sun's

> house and being

> > conjunct

> > > > Sun, don't you think Rahu is also giving the

> results of Sun? You

> > > > said that mercury is malefic and heavily

> combust too:--))

> > > >

> > > > 1th house also represent burial

> ground/smashaana. Is that a place

> > > > for attachment?

> > > >

> > > > Chandra represents all water bodies, so why

> can't he represent

> > > > temple tank?

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Lakshmi

>

=== message truncated ===