Humility & learning lessons of lif/Bharat ji

[Guest guest]

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

 

, "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

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>