Ketu Drishti or Not?

[Guest guest]

Namaskaar All " Andham tamah pravishanti ye' vidyaam-upaasateTato bhuuya ivaa te, tamo ya u vidyaayaam rataah " Those devoted to illusion enter blind darkness. Into greater darkness enter those who are solely attached to knowledge " - Isha Upanishad Verse 9

On June 14, 2005, in the list of Srijagannatha, we were discussing whether or not Ketu has a head. This was being done to find out, whether or not, Ketu had an aspect. I had mentioned a story that Ketu does have a head. It has the head of a snake. The story was that the demon was cut into by Lord Vishnu into two parts Rahu and Ketu, then, the Lord cut a snake and gave the body to Rahu and head to Ketu to complete them. (The discussion was between Sri Sarbani, Sri Lakshmi Kary, Sri Himanshu Mohan and some others and I was a part to it too)

Many think it is the other way round. They think Rahu is the head of the snake. Rahu has the head of a demon and not of a snake. Related to this was that was the argument, since Ketu does not have a head, it cannot cast a glance. Therefore, it cannot have a graha dristi or if can losely translate it as an aspect. Ketu is called the " Moksha Karaka " . Some believe that it signifies the moksha. If we say, that Ketu signifies Moksha, then, we are effectively saying that our Natal chart has a significator for Moksha. Which means we can find out from the chart, when and how Moksha will happen. Now, if we say that, then, we are saying that the Natalchart, that is born of Maya, is showing Moksha. Secondly, we are saying that the Moksha is shown by a Graha. The meaning of a Graha is that the one which seizes our thinking to believe the limited self. Can such a graha show Moksha? I doubt it. Therefore, what is the meaning of Moksha Karaka? How do you define it? Is it showing Moksha? Is it the cause of Moksha? Is it want for Moksha? Veda is clear. There is no cause for Moksha. That I am free is an already achieved end. There is nothing to be achieved. It is a question of realization. " Na Karmana, Na Prajaya Dhanena, Tyage naike, amritatvamanashuh

" (Upanishad) is the statment of the Veda. Nor by any action, nor by progeny or wealth (results), one realizes. It is through giving up of the thoughts, which strengthens the individuality, that one realizes the whole. Which essentially means, negating (neti, neti) all thoughts that pretain oneself to be a limited human being. So the argument that Ketu cannot have a desire (graha dristi), is currently unagreeable for me. Ketu, though having a desire - it is desire of not wanting other desires. Mumukshatvam is a desire for knowing the self. This desire is based on the understanding that Artha and Kama pursuits can only give oneself limited fulfillment.

It is very important to understand that every desire is a desire for liberation - only the goal is misplaced. Artha and Kama are misplaced as people seek fulfillment and yet try to achieve that through limited objects. But they too are desire for liberation. A liberation from " one's wanting self " . The goal of every desire is to cessate. In Mukumshatvam, this goal becomes clearer and one develops viveka - " Discrimination between the self and the non-self " - between Sat, chit, ananda and Naam -rupa (Drig Drshya Viveka). Veda is supreme. Purana is story form teaching of the Veda. If understanding of a story is incomplete and in conflict with the Veda, it cannot be accepted. In that sense, isn't it likely that Ketu is showing mumukshatvam and not Moksha? Since it is a desire, does it now show graha dristi? Should it not be the drishti, that destroyes the kama and the artha dristi of other grahas? A very learned and a very respected Guru of Astrology, jokingly remarked about ketu's dristi by saying " Maybe it has eyes in the stomach, and therefore, one walks in the direction of the stomach " . To whom, I would say I respect his views, but my search isn't rested. I would not accept this statement, unless it becomes crystal clear to me. I request everyone who has knowledge of the same to respond and give their views. It is my request to read my post with an open heart and, then, respond. Thanks and RegardsBharat

[Guest guest]

Om Gurave Namah

 

Namaste Bharat ji,

 

Thanks for initiating such a thought provoking thread. I just wanted

to contribute my two cents.

 

I think the term " drishti " or aspect implies exerting some kind of

outward influence in certain areas of life, the tone of influence and

the areas of focus being dependent on the nature of grahas and their

significations. 7th aspect is direct or involuntary aspect and is

possessed by all grahas. But the special aspects are based on the

nature of grahas. For example, Jupiter is the priest and his 5th and

9th aspect relate to the means (progeny) of continuation of dharma.

Saturn is the karma karaka, and his 3rd (arms/hands) and 10th aspects

similarly indicate the longevity (extent, reach) of his karma.

Incidentally, do you think that the term " aajaanubaahum " refers to

this connection between the 3rd and 10th houses? Mars is the bhratri

karaka and his karakatwa is furthered by his 4th (mother) and 8th

(5th from 4th…children of mother) aspects.

 

Why are special aspects restricted only to these planets and what

about others? Sun, being Tanu karaka is interested in 1st house, Moon

is the karaka for sustenance , again interested in 1st house, mercury

is buddhi (intelligence) karaka, and that's 1st house again, so no

special aspects are needed. Venus is Kalatra karaka and the natural

7th house aspect already takes care of it.

 

Now we have the case of nodes. Rahu is maya karaka or janma karaka

hence his 5th and 9th aspects one's past and future births. Some

opine that Rahu also has the 12th aspect, impacting moksha. In this

way, perhaps Rahu is more concerned about moksha than Ketu!!!

 

Now does ketu have drishti? I think the question should be more about

wither that " drishti " is directed rather than whether Ketu has eyes

or not. Even in real life, we have Gandharis, who despite having

eyes, choose not to see. We have great rishis with closed eyes, in a

perpetual state of meditation and still able too see things in a much

better fashion. We also have Viduras who are blessed with para normal

vision. We have Dhritarashtras too, who despite being granted vision,

refuse to extend the boon, because they just have no interest in

seeing the mundane after experiencing the divine.

 

Similarly, Ketu's drishti is inwards and not outwards, unlike that

of other grahas. Ketu's concern is about moksha, which if as you

say, is beyond the purview of natal chart, then there is no area of

interest left for Ketu to exert influence, hence it has no aspect. On

the other hand, if it is true that Paramatma dwells within us as a

thumb sized entity, indicating moksha is not an external goal but an

internal end, then also there's no outward aspect necessary, but an

inward one.

 

" Drishti " in another context can also mean to observe…and perhaps

draw conclusions. An absence of aspect could also imply that there's

no observation and no judgement….terrific for spirituality but

terrible for material things! Headlessness?

 

My statutory footnote is the usual one…could be wrong and request

corrections:--))

 

Regards,

Lakshmi

 

 

 

sohamsa , Bharat Hindu Astrology

<hinduastrology@g...> wrote:

>

> Namaskaar All

>

> " Andham tamah pravishanti ye' vidyaam-upaasate

> Tato bhuuya ivaa te, tamo ya u vidyaayaam rataah "

>

> Those devoted to illusion enter blind darkness. Into greater

darkness enter

> those who are solely attached to knowledge " - Isha Upanishad Verse 9

>

> On June 14, 2005, in the list of Srijagannatha, we were discussing

whether

> or not Ketu has a head. This was being done to find out, whether or

not,

> Ketu had an aspect. I had mentioned a story that Ketu does have a

head. It

> has the head of a snake. The story was that the demon was cut into

by Lord

> Vishnu into two parts Rahu and Ketu, then, the Lord cut a snake and

gave the

> body to Rahu and head to Ketu to complete them. (The discussion

was between

> Sri Sarbani, Sri Lakshmi Kary, Sri Himanshu Mohan and some others

and I was

> a part to it too)

>

> Many think it is the other way round. They think Rahu is the head

of the

> snake. Rahu has the head of a demon and not of a snake.

>

> Related to this was that was the argument, since Ketu does not

have a head,

> it cannot cast a glance. Therefore, it cannot have a graha dristi

or if can

> losely translate it as an aspect.

>

> Ketu is called the " Moksha Karaka " . Some believe that it signifies

the

> moksha. If we say, that Ketu signifies Moksha, then, we are

effectively

> saying that our Natal chart has a significator for Moksha. Which

means we

> can find out from the chart, when and how Moksha will happen. Now,

if we say

> that, then, we are saying that the Natalchart, that is born of

Maya, is

> showing Moksha. Secondly, we are saying that the Moksha is shown by

a Graha.

> The meaning of a Graha is that the one which seizes our thinking to

believe

> the limited self. Can such a graha show Moksha? I doubt it.

Therefore, what

> is the meaning of Moksha Karaka? How do you define it? Is it

showing Moksha?

> Is it the cause of Moksha? Is it want for Moksha?

>

> Veda is clear. There is no cause for Moksha. That I am free is an

already

> achieved end. There is nothing to be achieved. It is a question of

> realization. " Na Karmana, Na Prajaya Dhanena, Tyage naike,

amritatvamanashuh "

> (Upanishad) is the statment of the Veda. Nor by any action, nor by

progeny

> or wealth (results), one realizes. It is through giving up of the

thoughts,

> which strengthens the individuality, that one realizes the whole.

Which

> essentially means, negating (neti, neti) all thoughts that pretain

oneself

> to be a limited human being.

>

> So the argument that Ketu cannot have a desire (graha dristi), is

currently

> unagreeable for me. Ketu, though having a desire - it is desire of

not

> wanting other desires. Mumukshatvam is a desire for knowing the

self. This

> desire is based on the understanding that Artha and Kama pursuits

can only

> give oneself limited fulfillment.

>

> It is very important to understand that every desire is a desire

for

> liberation - only the goal is misplaced. Artha and Kama are

misplaced as

> people seek fulfillment and yet try to achieve that through limited

objects.

> But they too are desire for liberation. A liberation from " one's

wanting

> self " . The goal of every desire is to cessate. In Mukumshatvam,

this goal

> becomes clearer and one develops viveka - " Discrimination between

the self

> and the non-self " - between Sat, chit, ananda and Naam -rupa (Drig

Drshya

> Viveka).

>

> Veda is supreme. Purana is story form teaching of the Veda. If

understanding

> of a story is incomplete and in conflict with the Veda, it cannot be

> accepted.

>

> In that sense, isn't it likely that Ketu is showing mumukshatvam

and not

> Moksha? Since it is a desire, does it now show graha dristi? Should

it not

> be the drishti, that destroyes the kama and the artha dristi of

other

> grahas?

>

> A very learned and a very respected Guru of Astrology, jokingly

remarked

> about ketu's dristi by saying " Maybe it has eyes in the stomach, and

> therefore, one walks in the direction of the stomach " . To whom, I

would say

> I respect his views, but my search isn't rested. I would not accept

this

> statement, unless it becomes crystal clear to me.

>

> I request everyone who has knowledge of the same to respond and

give their

> views. It is my request to read my post with an open heart and,

then,

> respond.

>

> Thanks and Regards

> Bharat

>