My attempt at reconciling the thinking of Bharatji,Lakshmiji with Pradeepji 's

[Guest guest]

Om Gurave Namah

 

Namaste Sundeep,

 

I am not self-realized.

 

 

Lakshmi: who is?? :--))

 

 

To support the existence

> of several levels of distinction within the illusory, I provided a

> piece of evidence - that apparently there are more than one levels

> of "I"ness - the everyday level of I, in which one has nothing

more

> than the desires and memories of one lifetime, and at least

another

> level of "I", achieved after at least some level of self-

realization

> in which the "I"ness remains, but envelops not one but several

> lifetimes

 

 

Lakshmi: Sundeep ji, let me state my understanding. Please excuse

the banking/technology talk that's bound to seep into my

explanation:--))I am sure that you are more tech savvy than me, so

please correct my suppositions wherever necessary.

 

Partha had gone to another person (an expert) for past life

regression. Partha's body is made up of sthoola/sookshma/karana

sareeras. We have already discussed that Karana shareera is the

gist/summary of poorva janma samskaaras/vaasanas. The detailed

memories/transactions of past life are stripped when the sookshma

shareera crosses "Vaitharini", and are most probably archived in

akashic records, indexed on karana shareera. The archives are

updated at the end of a session (lifetime).

 

Partha (bless him) reportedly had seen 200 past lives!!! And,

imagine the karana shareera carrying all that load around!!! I would

think Cosmic Intelligence is much more efficient and secure than

that:--))

 

The "balance" of karma is brought forward in a new body/mind in

which the karana shareera is also embedded. Now an expert only needs

to network Partha to the Central Database, and invoke the karana

shareera to download the archived data. Because Partha's body

contains the key (karana shareera), perhaps normally only Partha can

access all his historical data and no one else can....unless one has

access rights to the Central Database itself, and I would imagine

that it takes more than an expert to have those rights. Anyhow, this

is the tech philosophy presently at work in the largest bank in the

world:--))

 

So, my hunch is that the past life regression expert hypnotised

Partha, thus overcoming the resistance (firewall?) of present

body/mind, and linked Partha to the Akashic network...and voila!!

 

Realization

-----------

 

All that's fine. But is seeing all those lives flashing past going

to make any difference, unless one can undo all those mistakes? The

archived data is a read-only file and will not allow any

modifications. Any modifications/amendments can be made only in the

present birth. Don't we frankly know what our present problems and

phobias are, even without past life regressions? We may not openly

admit them, but don't we know them within ourselves? Why not take

measures to rectify them now?

 

Realization as I said earlier, is not a gigantic leap, but a path of

small positive steps. Realization is not an End, but a Process.

Realization is not about past, it's about the Present (past is

already embedded in this) and the Future. Each time we recognize an

internal error and set about correcting it, we have moved an inch

higher along the path. Perhaps that's enough to reduce one potential

birth:--))

 

I think, ultimately Realization is all about becoming a good human

being!!

 

Please pardon my impatience and occasional lecturing:--)) You are

already under the guidance of a Great Master. He will guide you to

The Destination at the right moment.

 

All the very best,

 

Regards,

Lakshmi

 

 

 

 

(and Parthasarathy has said that he has personally

> witnessed this level). So my point was that it is not as if self-

> realization automatically catapults you from "I"ness to Brahman,

but

> gradually increases the envelop of your "I"ness, thereby allowing

> the possibility that each new level of "I"ness has a distinct

> astrological significator. The real crux is that past life

> regressions are proof that the "I" is much more deeply esconced

than

> simply ordinary everyday ego, otherwise, if it were merely a

surface

> entity, the activity of past-life regressions would reveal a

> sprinkling of past-lives without an "I" binding them together.

They

> would not be X's, and only X's, past lives.

>

> Hope what I said makes sense. It will at least clarify my

> standpoint. I am completely sold on the essence of Ramana

> Maharishi's observations - that the only absolute indisputable

truth

> one knows is "I am". Everything else are "test"able hypothesis. I

> proceed strictly from that standpoint, not due to belief in that

> standpoint, but because of having no other choice. Hope I am not

> being offensive here, but I dont even treat scriptures/classics as

> the final, absolute truth, only as indicators to increase my own

> awareness. Not because they are not the final truth - they may

well

> be - but because my perception of them is always disputable.

> Scriptures/classics reach me through interpretation - by my mind,

or

> the minds of others that my mind respects. Whichever way I look at

> it, there is always a non-absolute quantity between the core me

and

> the truth. My mind is not the core me, that I have found out for

> myself - it changes based on additional/contradictory evidence, so

> none of its observations are final - at any time, I have no proof

> that I will not get more evidence.

>

> So in my quest, my only option is to question and question until

the

> non-absolutes within me fade away, and then I hope I will witness

> the truth. Consequently, I dont "believe" or "not believe". Past

> lives may exist, they may not exist. I will continue evaluating

both

> options until the core me witnesses the truth.

>

> Sundeep

>

> > The brain also has the complex capacity to control so many

organs.

> > When the eye sends it some signals, what get activated are the

> > relevant triggers and not the other mechanisms.

> >

> > Similarly, every living thing in the world perhaps has a unique

> > code, generated based on its aggregate karma/previous births. Is

> it

> > difficult for an appropriately skilled person to retrieve

> historical

> > data about a particular person using this unique code from the

> > Archives called Akashic records/Collective Unconscious?

> >

> > Regards,

> > Lakshmi

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , "vedicastrostudent"

> > <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Bharatji,

> > > I understand what you say purely from a spirituality and self-

> > > realization point of view. Your core stance is that there are

> only

> > 2

> > > levels - illusion and truth. Rid "your"self of the illusion

> (ego),

> > > and you see the truth (Brahman) that was always there.

> > >

> > > However, astrology does, at the very least, deal with more

than

> 1

> > > level of illusion does it not? There seems to be an "I"

inherent

> > in

> > > conscious ego (whatever the Karaka might be, Rahu or whatever

> > else).

> > > There also seems to be an "I" inherent in the Chara

Atmakaraka,

> > > which is NOT an all pervading Brahman kind of "I", yet still

> > > different from the ego's "I", no?

> > >

> > > See, even in your own writeups, you do refer to Sookshma

> Sareera.

> > > This entity, Sookshma Sareera, in a sense has an identity too,

> > does

> > > it not? Surely it isnt the same for everyone? At my current

> level

> > > of "I", at least I, Sundeep, have no sense of my Sookshma

> Sareera.

> > > Does there exist an intermediate state of realization where I

> have

> > > sense of my Sookshma Sareera, but not of Brahman, so that I

> > > understand the karmas I am carrying with myself from past

> births?

> > > Would you still call this state ordinary everyday "ego"? If

> there

> > > existed such a level of realization, wouldnt that correspond

to

> > the

> > > level of "I" referred to by the Chara Atmakaraka? I do

remember

> > > someone, perhaps it was Parthasarathy, who did talk of having

> past-

> > > life regressions. So I (perhaps wrongly) concluded that there

is

> > an

> > > intermediate level of realization in which the "I" is not

lost,

> > > since Partha remembered "HIS" past lives, not a sprinkling of

> past

> > > lives of all and sundry.

> > >

> > > Putting all this together, it does seem to me that while you

> > > definitely correctly define the core states as illusory and

> real,

> > > still at the illusory level there appear to be more than 1

> > distinct

> > > sheaths of illusion - one that is felt as a per-lifetime

sheath,

> > and

> > > a deeper one that is felt as a multiple-lifetime sheath. As

the

> > > process of self-realization moves one from sheath to deeper

> > sheath,

> > > motivations and desires change to what is consistent with the

> > > current sheath, giving different senses of "I", which is

perhaps

> > why

> > > astrology seems to treat them as distinct entities.

> > >

> > >

> > > Sundeep

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , "Bharat Hindu Astrology"

> > > <hinduastrology@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Namaste Sri Sundeep

> > > >

> > > > There are a few important points and you'd understand

clearly:

> > > >

> > > > 1. Ignorance is non-existent for the Atman or Brahman

> (whatever

> > > you may call

> > > > it). Ignorance is only evident to the ego self!

> > > > 2. Secondly, the ego is the individuality. Once it is

> understood

> > > to be

> > > > non-existent, there is nothing which it has confined that

will

> > > come out and

> > > > merge with Brahman. This isn't rocket science that the

capsule

> > > will come out

> > > > once the outer covering is dropped!

> > > > 3. The Jeevatma refers to the ego which thinks the thoughts

and

> > > > consciousness belongs to its limited being. It does not

refer

> to

> > > an Atman in

> > > > bondage by the ego!

> > > > 4. Aham Brahmasmi is a statement of Truth. It is not a

> statement

> > of

> > > > Becoming.

> > > > 5. Ego in the light of consciousness and enlivened by it,

> > > continues to be

> > > > separate. Upon its dropping, no separate capsule is left to

be

> > > merged with

> > > > the consciousness. This is a fundamental mistake in

> > understanding

> > > the words

> > > > of the Upanishads by many.

> > > > 6. This can be understood by dream, waking example. I am

sure

> > you

> > > understand

> > > > what I am referring to.

> > > >

> > > > Hope this helps in your understanding.

> > > >

> > > > Thanks and Regards

> > > > Bharat

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > On 9/23/06, vedicastrostudent <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Bharatji, Lakshmiji and Pradeepji,

> > > > > I have read your conversations and that you are at an

> impasse

> > is

> > > > > quite clear. At the core of my thinking, I resonate with

> > > Bharatji's

> > > > > and Lakshmiji's approach. However, despite his (I feel

> > uncalled

> > > for)

> > > > > usage of sarcasm, I feel Pradeepji correctly at least

points

> > > towards

> > > > > some haziness/lack-of-clarity/lack-of-detail in the

> > presentation

> > > of

> > > > > the ideas that Bharatji and Lakshmiji are trying to

> elaborate.

> > > > >

> > > > > First, let me clarify what Bharatji has been trying to say

> > with

> > > a very

> > > > > simple analogy, which I can (with a good amount of

certainty)

> > > > > attribute to the late Nisargadatta Maharaj (NM), that will

> > > quickly

> > > > > illuminate everyone who is confused. It will also serve as

> the

> > > COMMON

> > > > > base from which the thoughts of Pradeepji and Bharatji can

be

> > > > > analysed, and hopefully which will make their differences

> come

> > > into

> > > > > sharper relief so that they can be resolved.

> > > > >

> > > > > NM, from his personal experience of the enlightened state,

> > > likened

> > > > > what I think we can safely call the non dual Brahman to

> light,

> > > as you

> > > > > all have also done (no big deal yet, read on). Now imagine

> two

> > > large

> > > > > opaque screens. There is a source of light, then one

opaque

> > > screen,

> > > > > then the second opaque screen. The second opaque screen is

> > > completely

> > > > > dark because the first opaque screen completely occludes

the

> > > light

> > > > > from it. Next, say we make pinpoint holes on the first

> opaque

> > > screen.

> > > > > What happens? The light from the light source goes through

> > these

> > > holes

> > > > > and makes little circles of light on the second opaque

> screen.

> > > Little

> > > > > cones of light extend from the pinpoint holes on the first

> > > screen to

> > > > > the second screen where they make the little circles.

> > > > >

> > > > > NM likened this to what a person is. Brahman is the light.

> The

> > > little

> > > > > circles of light on the second opaque screen is what

defines

> > the

> > > > > consciousness of an average person. It is limited by the

> > circle

> > > and

> > > > > assumes its center to be the center of the circle.

> > > > >

> > > > > From this basis, you can understand what Bharatji and

> > Lakshmiji

> > > are

> > > > > trying to say - they are simply saying that the circle of

> > light

> > > is an

> > > > > illusion created by the confinement of the light - the

truth

> > is

> > > the

> > > > > light - it is never separated from its source, which is

the

> > > source of

> > > > > light behind the first screen. Pradeepji, on a slightly

> > different

> > > > > angle, is trying to say that the circle of light on the

> second

> > > screen

> > > > > is mind, and the pinpoint of light, which is the

> > supposed "next"

> > > true

> > > > > source of light, on the first screen, is the Jeevatma. But

> > > however, he

> > > > > talks about Jeevatma following/not-following the mind, to

> which

> > > > > Bharatji counters that the whole separation is an illusion

> (as

> > is

> > > > > supported by NM's analogy, since there is no question of

the

> > > circle

> > > > > following/not-following the pinpoint).

> > > > >

> > > > > Jungian psychology (I am sorry but I keep bringing that

in)

> > > would call

> > > > > the circle of light ego, and the pinpoint of light on the

> > second

> > > > > screen the "self". The ego is not conscious of the self.

> > > > >

> > > > > These are the specific things that need to be resolved in

my

> > > mind, and

> > > > > perhaps in some of yours, in order make this discussion

move

> > > forward:

> > > > > 1) First, there is the question of accrued karma. I assume

in

> > > > > Pradeepji's thinking, this is carried by the Jeevatma. In

> > > Bharatji's

> > > > > thinking, this is carried by the Sookshma Sareera (SS).

What

> is

> > > > > unclear is - at what level of reality does SS exist? What

is

> > its

> > > > > astrological signification? There is pure centerless light

> > > ("Brahman")

> > > > > and the material existence which is vivified by it (our

> bodies

> > > etc).

> > > > > SS is neither material existence, nor Brahman. At what

level

> of

> > > > > experience does it exist?

> > > > > 2) Second, everyday experience confirms the ego - we need

no

> > > further

> > > > > proof of it. We have no problems experiencing ourselves as

> > > an "I".

> > > > > Psychology evidences the existence of a "self", a deeper

> > center

> > > in

> > > > > each individual. This also, it seems to me, is

astrologically

> > > > > confirmed and corresponds to Jeevatma. Only through deep

> > > experiences

> > > > > is it "uncovered". Consequently, one would assume, that

> > > enlightenment

> > > > > follow a two stage process - From the ego level to the

first

> > > level of

> > > > > enlightenment would bring knowledge of this self, and the

> > second

> > > and

> > > > > true level of enlightenment would bring the centerless

> > > realization of

> > > > > being pure Brahman. Bharatji and Lakshmiji's views seem to

> > > reflect

> > > > > only the ego level and the pure centerless realization

> levels.

> > > > > Astrology, psychology and Pradeepji (hope I got a laugh

out

> of

> > > you

> > > > > here :-), do seem to evidence this third intermediate

level.

> I

> > > dont

> > > > > clearly understand Bharatji's and Lakshmiji's viewpoint on

> > this.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sundeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Om Gurave Namah

 

Namaste Mahalakshmi garu,

 

Sorry for my delayed response. I am sure you understand that the

pleasure and pressure of Navaratri are doubled when one happens to

be in Tirupati, because it also happens to be brahmotsavam time for

Lord Venkateshwara:--))

 

I can only recount what Shri Raman already said about trikaalagnaana

yoga.

 

Trikkalagnaana yoga

---------------------------

 

Definition: Jupiter should occupy Mrudwamsa in his own navamsa, or

Gopuramsa and be aspected by a benefic.

 

Results: The native becomes capable of reading the past, present and

future.

 

Remarks: an astrologer with the aid of his art can read the past,

present and future. But here the reference is to "trikaalagnaana" or

the faculty of seership which enables a man to intuitively to

prophecy things.

 

Readers must be aware of the Shastiamsa or 1/60th division of a

rasi. Mrudwamsa will be the 19th part (9-9.5 degrees) of this

division in an odd sign or the 42nd (20.5-21 degrees) part in an

even sign. Jupiter can have Mrudwamsa in his own navamsa provided

his longitude is between 9-9.5 degrees in Mithuna, Thula or kumbha.

When he's in any other sign other than the above, he can not have

Mrudwamsa consistently with his situation in a swa-navamsa because

of the fact that 20.5-21 degrees, which means the 7th navamsa, can

never fall under Jupiter.

 

The other combination denoting the same yoga requires the situation

of Jupiter in Gopuramsa. A planet is said to attain Gopuramsa if he

occupies his own varga 4 times.

(perhaps the aspect of a benefic is also vital)

 

Shri Raman's Example: Native born on 30-9-1946, 5.30am, Lat 25 N,

long 82 E 30 (perhaps using Raman ayanamsa?)

 

In the said chart Jupiter's longitude being 9 degrees 16' in Tula,

an odd sign, he occupies his own navamsa consistent with the

longitude falling in Mrudwamsa.

 

I personally find that the chart of Shirdi Sai Baba contains this

yoga. Jupiter occupies gopuramsa and is aspected by Venus.

 

I am sure others can provide more charts:--))

 

Regards,

Lakshmi

 

 

 

 

, mahaluxmi iyer

<astromahaluxmi wrote:

>

> dear lakshmamma

> you have in passing mentioned about 'trikaala jnana'

> may i request you to expand this a bit further for my benefit

please? if there are some trikaala jnaanis, egs or even mention of

their names would be helpful.

> happy dassera and best wishes to all members

> mahalakshmi

>

> b_lakshmi_ramesh <b_lakshmi_ramesh wrote:

> Om Gurave Namah

>

> Namaste Sundeep ji,

>

> If I may interject, perhaps you are talking about causal body

> (kaarana shareera) here.

>

> According to my limited understanding, Illusion to Self-

realization

> is not a one-step procedure. Though a giant leap sounds more

> interesting/dramatic, self-realization is a slow internal process

> that may take several births to mature.

>

> From a yogic point of view, perhaps one, whose kundalini has

passed

> Agnya chakra can see past, present, future...not only of himself

but

> of all the others too. Astrologically, according to shri BV Raman

> (300 imp. combinations) a person, whose Jupiter occupies mridwamsa

> in own navamsa, or gopuramsha and is aspected by a benefic planet

> can have this ability (trikaala jnana yoga).

>

> About past life regression...my juvenile two cents.

>

> Suppose you have met an old friend after a long time. Doesn't the

> mind automatically retrieve all information pertinent to him?

That's

> unless you are as forgetful as I am!:--))

>

> The brain also has the complex capacity to control so many organs.

> When the eye sends it some signals, what get activated are the

> relevant triggers and not the other mechanisms.

>

> Similarly, every living thing in the world perhaps has a unique

> code, generated based on its aggregate karma/previous births. Is

it

> difficult for an appropriately skilled person to retrieve

historical

> data about a particular person using this unique code from the

> Archives called Akashic records/Collective Unconscious?

>

> Regards,

> Lakshmi

>

> , "vedicastrostudent"

> <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Bharatji,

> > I understand what you say purely from a spirituality and self-

> > realization point of view. Your core stance is that there are

only

> 2

> > levels - illusion and truth. Rid "your"self of the illusion

(ego),

> > and you see the truth (Brahman) that was always there.

> >

> > However, astrology does, at the very least, deal with more than

1

> > level of illusion does it not? There seems to be an "I" inherent

> in

> > conscious ego (whatever the Karaka might be, Rahu or whatever

> else).

> > There also seems to be an "I" inherent in the Chara Atmakaraka,

> > which is NOT an all pervading Brahman kind of "I", yet still

> > different from the ego's "I", no?

> >

> > See, even in your own writeups, you do refer to Sookshma

Sareera.

> > This entity, Sookshma Sareera, in a sense has an identity too,

> does

> > it not? Surely it isnt the same for everyone? At my current

level

> > of "I", at least I, Sundeep, have no sense of my Sookshma

Sareera.

> > Does there exist an intermediate state of realization where I

have

> > sense of my Sookshma Sareera, but not of Brahman, so that I

> > understand the karmas I am carrying with myself from past

births?

> > Would you still call this state ordinary everyday "ego"? If

there

> > existed such a level of realization, wouldnt that correspond to

> the

> > level of "I" referred to by the Chara Atmakaraka? I do remember

> > someone, perhaps it was Parthasarathy, who did talk of having

past-

> > life regressions. So I (perhaps wrongly) concluded that there is

> an

> > intermediate level of realization in which the "I" is not lost,

> > since Partha remembered "HIS" past lives, not a sprinkling of

past

> > lives of all and sundry.

> >

> > Putting all this together, it does seem to me that while you

> > definitely correctly define the core states as illusory and

real,

> > still at the illusory level there appear to be more than 1

> distinct

> > sheaths of illusion - one that is felt as a per-lifetime sheath,

> and

> > a deeper one that is felt as a multiple-lifetime sheath. As the

> > process of self-realization moves one from sheath to deeper

> sheath,

> > motivations and desires change to what is consistent with the

> > current sheath, giving different senses of "I", which is perhaps

> why

> > astrology seems to treat them as distinct entities.

> >

> >

> > Sundeep

> >

> >

> >

> > , "Bharat Hindu Astrology"

> > <hinduastrology@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Namaste Sri Sundeep

> > >

> > > There are a few important points and you'd understand clearly:

> > >

> > > 1. Ignorance is non-existent for the Atman or Brahman

(whatever

> > you may call

> > > it). Ignorance is only evident to the ego self!

> > > 2. Secondly, the ego is the individuality. Once it is

understood

> > to be

> > > non-existent, there is nothing which it has confined that will

> > come out and

> > > merge with Brahman. This isn't rocket science that the capsule

> > will come out

> > > once the outer covering is dropped!

> > > 3. The Jeevatma refers to the ego which thinks the thoughts and

> > > consciousness belongs to its limited being. It does not refer

to

> > an Atman in

> > > bondage by the ego!

> > > 4. Aham Brahmasmi is a statement of Truth. It is not a

statement

> of

> > > Becoming.

> > > 5. Ego in the light of consciousness and enlivened by it,

> > continues to be

> > > separate. Upon its dropping, no separate capsule is left to be

> > merged with

> > > the consciousness. This is a fundamental mistake in

> understanding

> > the words

> > > of the Upanishads by many.

> > > 6. This can be understood by dream, waking example. I am sure

> you

> > understand

> > > what I am referring to.

> > >

> > > Hope this helps in your understanding.

> > >

> > > Thanks and Regards

> > > Bharat

> > >

> > >

> > > On 9/23/06, vedicastrostudent <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Bharatji, Lakshmiji and Pradeepji,

> > > > I have read your conversations and that you are at an

impasse

> is

> > > > quite clear. At the core of my thinking, I resonate with

> > Bharatji's

> > > > and Lakshmiji's approach. However, despite his (I feel

> uncalled

> > for)

> > > > usage of sarcasm, I feel Pradeepji correctly at least points

> > towards

> > > > some haziness/lack-of-clarity/lack-of-detail in the

> presentation

> > of

> > > > the ideas that Bharatji and Lakshmiji are trying to

elaborate.

> > > >

> > > > First, let me clarify what Bharatji has been trying to say

> with

> > a very

> > > > simple analogy, which I can (with a good amount of certainty)

> > > > attribute to the late Nisargadatta Maharaj (NM), that will

> > quickly

> > > > illuminate everyone who is confused. It will also serve as

the

> > COMMON

> > > > base from which the thoughts of Pradeepji and Bharatji can be

> > > > analysed, and hopefully which will make their differences

come

> > into

> > > > sharper relief so that they can be resolved.

> > > >

> > > > NM, from his personal experience of the enlightened state,

> > likened

> > > > what I think we can safely call the non dual Brahman to

light,

> > as you

> > > > all have also done (no big deal yet, read on). Now imagine

two

> > large

> > > > opaque screens. There is a source of light, then one opaque

> > screen,

> > > > then the second opaque screen. The second opaque screen is

> > completely

> > > > dark because the first opaque screen completely occludes the

> > light

> > > > from it. Next, say we make pinpoint holes on the first

opaque

> > screen.

> > > > What happens? The light from the light source goes through

> these

> > holes

> > > > and makes little circles of light on the second opaque

screen.

> > Little

> > > > cones of light extend from the pinpoint holes on the first

> > screen to

> > > > the second screen where they make the little circles.

> > > >

> > > > NM likened this to what a person is. Brahman is the light.

The

> > little

> > > > circles of light on the second opaque screen is what defines

> the

> > > > consciousness of an average person. It is limited by the

> circle

> > and

> > > > assumes its center to be the center of the circle.

> > > >

> > > > From this basis, you can understand what Bharatji and

> Lakshmiji

> > are

> > > > trying to say - they are simply saying that the circle of

> light

> > is an

> > > > illusion created by the confinement of the light - the truth

> is

> > the

> > > > light - it is never separated from its source, which is the

> > source of

> > > > light behind the first screen. Pradeepji, on a slightly

> different

> > > > angle, is trying to say that the circle of light on the

second

> > screen

> > > > is mind, and the pinpoint of light, which is the

> supposed "next"

> > true

> > > > source of light, on the first screen, is the Jeevatma. But

> > however, he

> > > > talks about Jeevatma following/not-following the mind, to

which

> > > > Bharatji counters that the whole separation is an illusion

(as

> is

> > > > supported by NM's analogy, since there is no question of the

> > circle

> > > > following/not-following the pinpoint).

> > > >

> > > > Jungian psychology (I am sorry but I keep bringing that in)

> > would call

> > > > the circle of light ego, and the pinpoint of light on the

> second

> > > > screen the "self". The ego is not conscious of the self.

> > > >

> > > > These are the specific things that need to be resolved in my

> > mind, and

> > > > perhaps in some of yours, in order make this discussion move

> > forward:

> > > > 1) First, there is the question of accrued karma. I assume in

> > > > Pradeepji's thinking, this is carried by the Jeevatma. In

> > Bharatji's

> > > > thinking, this is carried by the Sookshma Sareera (SS). What

is

> > > > unclear is - at what level of reality does SS exist? What is

> its

> > > > astrological signification? There is pure centerless light

> > ("Brahman")

> > > > and the material existence which is vivified by it (our

bodies

> > etc).

> > > > SS is neither material existence, nor Brahman. At what level

of

> > > > experience does it exist?

> > > > 2) Second, everyday experience confirms the ego - we need no

> > further

> > > > proof of it. We have no problems experiencing ourselves as

> > an "I".

> > > > Psychology evidences the existence of a "self", a deeper

> center

> > in

> > > > each individual. This also, it seems to me, is astrologically

> > > > confirmed and corresponds to Jeevatma. Only through deep

> > experiences

> > > > is it "uncovered". Consequently, one would assume, that

> > enlightenment

> > > > follow a two stage process - From the ego level to the first

> > level of

> > > > enlightenment would bring knowledge of this self, and the

> second

> > and

> > > > true level of enlightenment would bring the centerless

> > realization of

> > > > being pure Brahman. Bharatji and Lakshmiji's views seem to

> > reflect

> > > > only the ego level and the pure centerless realization

levels.

> > > > Astrology, psychology and Pradeepji (hope I got a laugh out

of

> > you

> > > > here :-), do seem to evidence this third intermediate level.

I

> > dont

> > > > clearly understand Bharatji's and Lakshmiji's viewpoint on

> this.

> > > >

> > > > Sundeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

I am sure there *are* those!

Perhaps we should look ~elsewhere~ for them?

Collectively or individually?

 

RR

 

, "b_lakshmi_ramesh"

<b_lakshmi_ramesh wrote:

>

> Om Gurave Namah

>

> Namaste Sundeep,

>

> I am not self-realized.

>

>

> Lakshmi: who is?? :--))

>

>

> To support the existence

> > of several levels of distinction within the illusory, I provided

a

> > piece of evidence - that apparently there are more than one

levels

> > of "I"ness - the everyday level of I, in which one has nothing

> more

> > than the desires and memories of one lifetime, and at least

> another

> > level of "I", achieved after at least some level of self-

> realization

> > in which the "I"ness remains, but envelops not one but several

> > lifetimes

>

>

> Lakshmi: Sundeep ji, let me state my understanding. Please excuse

> the banking/technology talk that's bound to seep into my

> explanation:--))I am sure that you are more tech savvy than me, so

> please correct my suppositions wherever necessary.

>

> Partha had gone to another person (an expert) for past life

> regression. Partha's body is made up of sthoola/sookshma/karana

> sareeras. We have already discussed that Karana shareera is the

> gist/summary of poorva janma samskaaras/vaasanas. The detailed

> memories/transactions of past life are stripped when the sookshma

> shareera crosses "Vaitharini", and are most probably archived in

> akashic records, indexed on karana shareera. The archives are

> updated at the end of a session (lifetime).

>

> Partha (bless him) reportedly had seen 200 past lives!!! And,

> imagine the karana shareera carrying all that load around!!! I

would

> think Cosmic Intelligence is much more efficient and secure than

> that:--))

>

> The "balance" of karma is brought forward in a new body/mind in

> which the karana shareera is also embedded. Now an expert only

needs

> to network Partha to the Central Database, and invoke the karana

> shareera to download the archived data. Because Partha's body

> contains the key (karana shareera), perhaps normally only Partha

can

> access all his historical data and no one else can....unless one

has

> access rights to the Central Database itself, and I would imagine

> that it takes more than an expert to have those rights. Anyhow,

this

> is the tech philosophy presently at work in the largest bank in the

> world:--))

>

> So, my hunch is that the past life regression expert hypnotised

> Partha, thus overcoming the resistance (firewall?) of present

> body/mind, and linked Partha to the Akashic network...and voila!!

>

> Realization

> -----------

>

> All that's fine. But is seeing all those lives flashing past going

> to make any difference, unless one can undo all those mistakes? The

> archived data is a read-only file and will not allow any

> modifications. Any modifications/amendments can be made only in the

> present birth. Don't we frankly know what our present problems and

> phobias are, even without past life regressions? We may not openly

> admit them, but don't we know them within ourselves? Why not take

> measures to rectify them now?

>

> Realization as I said earlier, is not a gigantic leap, but a path

of

> small positive steps. Realization is not an End, but a Process.

> Realization is not about past, it's about the Present (past is

> already embedded in this) and the Future. Each time we recognize an

> internal error and set about correcting it, we have moved an inch

> higher along the path. Perhaps that's enough to reduce one

potential

> birth:--))

>

> I think, ultimately Realization is all about becoming a good human

> being!!

>

> Please pardon my impatience and occasional lecturing:--)) You are

> already under the guidance of a Great Master. He will guide you to

> The Destination at the right moment.

>

> All the very best,

>

> Regards,

> Lakshmi

>

>

>

>

> (and Parthasarathy has said that he has personally

> > witnessed this level). So my point was that it is not as if self-

> > realization automatically catapults you from "I"ness to Brahman,

> but

> > gradually increases the envelop of your "I"ness, thereby allowing

> > the possibility that each new level of "I"ness has a distinct

> > astrological significator. The real crux is that past life

> > regressions are proof that the "I" is much more deeply esconced

> than

> > simply ordinary everyday ego, otherwise, if it were merely a

> surface

> > entity, the activity of past-life regressions would reveal a

> > sprinkling of past-lives without an "I" binding them together.

> They

> > would not be X's, and only X's, past lives.

> >

> > Hope what I said makes sense. It will at least clarify my

> > standpoint. I am completely sold on the essence of Ramana

> > Maharishi's observations - that the only absolute indisputable

> truth

> > one knows is "I am". Everything else are "test"able hypothesis. I

> > proceed strictly from that standpoint, not due to belief in that

> > standpoint, but because of having no other choice. Hope I am not

> > being offensive here, but I dont even treat scriptures/classics

as

> > the final, absolute truth, only as indicators to increase my own

> > awareness. Not because they are not the final truth - they may

> well

> > be - but because my perception of them is always disputable.

> > Scriptures/classics reach me through interpretation - by my mind,

> or

> > the minds of others that my mind respects. Whichever way I look

at

> > it, there is always a non-absolute quantity between the core me

> and

> > the truth. My mind is not the core me, that I have found out for

> > myself - it changes based on additional/contradictory evidence,

so

> > none of its observations are final - at any time, I have no proof

> > that I will not get more evidence.

> >

> > So in my quest, my only option is to question and question until

> the

> > non-absolutes within me fade away, and then I hope I will witness

> > the truth. Consequently, I dont "believe" or "not believe". Past

> > lives may exist, they may not exist. I will continue evaluating

> both

> > options until the core me witnesses the truth.

> >

> > Sundeep

> >

> > > The brain also has the complex capacity to control so many

> organs.

> > > When the eye sends it some signals, what get activated are the

> > > relevant triggers and not the other mechanisms.

> > >

> > > Similarly, every living thing in the world perhaps has a unique

> > > code, generated based on its aggregate karma/previous births.

Is

> > it

> > > difficult for an appropriately skilled person to retrieve

> > historical

> > > data about a particular person using this unique code from the

> > > Archives called Akashic records/Collective Unconscious?

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Lakshmi

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , "vedicastrostudent"

> > > <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Bharatji,

> > > > I understand what you say purely from a spirituality and

self-

> > > > realization point of view. Your core stance is that there are

> > only

> > > 2

> > > > levels - illusion and truth. Rid "your"self of the illusion

> > (ego),

> > > > and you see the truth (Brahman) that was always there.

> > > >

> > > > However, astrology does, at the very least, deal with more

> than

> > 1

> > > > level of illusion does it not? There seems to be an "I"

> inherent

> > > in

> > > > conscious ego (whatever the Karaka might be, Rahu or whatever

> > > else).

> > > > There also seems to be an "I" inherent in the Chara

> Atmakaraka,

> > > > which is NOT an all pervading Brahman kind of "I", yet still

> > > > different from the ego's "I", no?

> > > >

> > > > See, even in your own writeups, you do refer to Sookshma

> > Sareera.

> > > > This entity, Sookshma Sareera, in a sense has an identity

too,

> > > does

> > > > it not? Surely it isnt the same for everyone? At my current

> > level

> > > > of "I", at least I, Sundeep, have no sense of my Sookshma

> > Sareera.

> > > > Does there exist an intermediate state of realization where I

> > have

> > > > sense of my Sookshma Sareera, but not of Brahman, so that I

> > > > understand the karmas I am carrying with myself from past

> > births?

> > > > Would you still call this state ordinary everyday "ego"? If

> > there

> > > > existed such a level of realization, wouldnt that correspond

> to

> > > the

> > > > level of "I" referred to by the Chara Atmakaraka? I do

> remember

> > > > someone, perhaps it was Parthasarathy, who did talk of having

> > past-

> > > > life regressions. So I (perhaps wrongly) concluded that there

> is

> > > an

> > > > intermediate level of realization in which the "I" is not

> lost,

> > > > since Partha remembered "HIS" past lives, not a sprinkling of

> > past

> > > > lives of all and sundry.

> > > >

> > > > Putting all this together, it does seem to me that while you

> > > > definitely correctly define the core states as illusory and

> > real,

> > > > still at the illusory level there appear to be more than 1

> > > distinct

> > > > sheaths of illusion - one that is felt as a per-lifetime

> sheath,

> > > and

> > > > a deeper one that is felt as a multiple-lifetime sheath. As

> the

> > > > process of self-realization moves one from sheath to deeper

> > > sheath,

> > > > motivations and desires change to what is consistent with the

> > > > current sheath, giving different senses of "I", which is

> perhaps

> > > why

> > > > astrology seems to treat them as distinct entities.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sundeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > , "Bharat Hindu Astrology"

> > > > <hinduastrology@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Namaste Sri Sundeep

> > > > >

> > > > > There are a few important points and you'd understand

> clearly:

> > > > >

> > > > > 1. Ignorance is non-existent for the Atman or Brahman

> > (whatever

> > > > you may call

> > > > > it). Ignorance is only evident to the ego self!

> > > > > 2. Secondly, the ego is the individuality. Once it is

> > understood

> > > > to be

> > > > > non-existent, there is nothing which it has confined that

> will

> > > > come out and

> > > > > merge with Brahman. This isn't rocket science that the

> capsule

> > > > will come out

> > > > > once the outer covering is dropped!

> > > > > 3. The Jeevatma refers to the ego which thinks the thoughts

> and

> > > > > consciousness belongs to its limited being. It does not

> refer

> > to

> > > > an Atman in

> > > > > bondage by the ego!

> > > > > 4. Aham Brahmasmi is a statement of Truth. It is not a

> > statement

> > > of

> > > > > Becoming.

> > > > > 5. Ego in the light of consciousness and enlivened by it,

> > > > continues to be

> > > > > separate. Upon its dropping, no separate capsule is left to

> be

> > > > merged with

> > > > > the consciousness. This is a fundamental mistake in

> > > understanding

> > > > the words

> > > > > of the Upanishads by many.

> > > > > 6. This can be understood by dream, waking example. I am

> sure

> > > you

> > > > understand

> > > > > what I am referring to.

> > > > >

> > > > > Hope this helps in your understanding.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks and Regards

> > > > > Bharat

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > On 9/23/06, vedicastrostudent <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Bharatji, Lakshmiji and Pradeepji,

> > > > > > I have read your conversations and that you are at an

> > impasse

> > > is

> > > > > > quite clear. At the core of my thinking, I resonate with

> > > > Bharatji's

> > > > > > and Lakshmiji's approach. However, despite his (I feel

> > > uncalled

> > > > for)

> > > > > > usage of sarcasm, I feel Pradeepji correctly at least

> points

> > > > towards

> > > > > > some haziness/lack-of-clarity/lack-of-detail in the

> > > presentation

> > > > of

> > > > > > the ideas that Bharatji and Lakshmiji are trying to

> > elaborate.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > First, let me clarify what Bharatji has been trying to

say

> > > with

> > > > a very

> > > > > > simple analogy, which I can (with a good amount of

> certainty)

> > > > > > attribute to the late Nisargadatta Maharaj (NM), that

will

> > > > quickly

> > > > > > illuminate everyone who is confused. It will also serve

as

> > the

> > > > COMMON

> > > > > > base from which the thoughts of Pradeepji and Bharatji

can

> be

> > > > > > analysed, and hopefully which will make their differences

> > come

> > > > into

> > > > > > sharper relief so that they can be resolved.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > NM, from his personal experience of the enlightened

state,

> > > > likened

> > > > > > what I think we can safely call the non dual Brahman to

> > light,

> > > > as you

> > > > > > all have also done (no big deal yet, read on). Now

imagine

> > two

> > > > large

> > > > > > opaque screens. There is a source of light, then one

> opaque

> > > > screen,

> > > > > > then the second opaque screen. The second opaque screen

is

> > > > completely

> > > > > > dark because the first opaque screen completely occludes

> the

> > > > light

> > > > > > from it. Next, say we make pinpoint holes on the first

> > opaque

> > > > screen.

> > > > > > What happens? The light from the light source goes

through

> > > these

> > > > holes

> > > > > > and makes little circles of light on the second opaque

> > screen.

> > > > Little

> > > > > > cones of light extend from the pinpoint holes on the

first

> > > > screen to

> > > > > > the second screen where they make the little circles.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > NM likened this to what a person is. Brahman is the

light.

> > The

> > > > little

> > > > > > circles of light on the second opaque screen is what

> defines

> > > the

> > > > > > consciousness of an average person. It is limited by the

> > > circle

> > > > and

> > > > > > assumes its center to be the center of the circle.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > From this basis, you can understand what Bharatji and

> > > Lakshmiji

> > > > are

> > > > > > trying to say - they are simply saying that the circle of

> > > light

> > > > is an

> > > > > > illusion created by the confinement of the light - the

> truth

> > > is

> > > > the

> > > > > > light - it is never separated from its source, which is

> the

> > > > source of

> > > > > > light behind the first screen. Pradeepji, on a slightly

> > > different

> > > > > > angle, is trying to say that the circle of light on the

> > second

> > > > screen

> > > > > > is mind, and the pinpoint of light, which is the

> > > supposed "next"

> > > > true

> > > > > > source of light, on the first screen, is the Jeevatma.

But

> > > > however, he

> > > > > > talks about Jeevatma following/not-following the mind, to

> > which

> > > > > > Bharatji counters that the whole separation is an

illusion

> > (as

> > > is

> > > > > > supported by NM's analogy, since there is no question of

> the

> > > > circle

> > > > > > following/not-following the pinpoint).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Jungian psychology (I am sorry but I keep bringing that

> in)

> > > > would call

> > > > > > the circle of light ego, and the pinpoint of light on the

> > > second

> > > > > > screen the "self". The ego is not conscious of the self.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > These are the specific things that need to be resolved in

> my

> > > > mind, and

> > > > > > perhaps in some of yours, in order make this discussion

> move

> > > > forward:

> > > > > > 1) First, there is the question of accrued karma. I

assume

> in

> > > > > > Pradeepji's thinking, this is carried by the Jeevatma. In

> > > > Bharatji's

> > > > > > thinking, this is carried by the Sookshma Sareera (SS).

> What

> > is

> > > > > > unclear is - at what level of reality does SS exist? What

> is

> > > its

> > > > > > astrological signification? There is pure centerless

light

> > > > ("Brahman")

> > > > > > and the material existence which is vivified by it (our

> > bodies

> > > > etc).

> > > > > > SS is neither material existence, nor Brahman. At what

> level

> > of

> > > > > > experience does it exist?

> > > > > > 2) Second, everyday experience confirms the ego - we need

> no

> > > > further

> > > > > > proof of it. We have no problems experiencing ourselves

as

> > > > an "I".

> > > > > > Psychology evidences the existence of a "self", a deeper

> > > center

> > > > in

> > > > > > each individual. This also, it seems to me, is

> astrologically

> > > > > > confirmed and corresponds to Jeevatma. Only through deep

> > > > experiences

> > > > > > is it "uncovered". Consequently, one would assume, that

> > > > enlightenment

> > > > > > follow a two stage process - From the ego level to the

> first

> > > > level of

> > > > > > enlightenment would bring knowledge of this self, and the

> > > second

> > > > and

> > > > > > true level of enlightenment would bring the centerless

> > > > realization of

> > > > > > being pure Brahman. Bharatji and Lakshmiji's views seem

to

> > > > reflect

> > > > > > only the ego level and the pure centerless realization

> > levels.

> > > > > > Astrology, psychology and Pradeepji (hope I got a laugh

> out

> > of

> > > > you

> > > > > > here :-), do seem to evidence this third intermediate

> level.

> > I

> > > > dont

> > > > > > clearly understand Bharatji's and Lakshmiji's viewpoint

on

> > > this.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sundeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >