Tantra, Veda, Linguistics, Derrida, Rahu (to Sarbani ji)

[Guest guest]

Aum Namah Shivaya

 

Dear Sarbani ji,

 

Nice thoughts. It is probably impossible to tell which is original or

atleast which came first. Veda or the regional texts? By regional I

assume you mean the entire body of literature that now goes by the

name Tantra. While most agamas and tantras have been written in

periods that are relatively recent, some atleast in their seed form

as ideas and concepts have their nebulous beginnings in pre-historic

times. The Tantra as old as the Veda, if not older! I know some may

find it hard to even consider. But each day convinces me more of how

ancient this Tantra is. And how universal it is. It seems to have

been spread out through out the world, of course in its nebulous

beginnings. It is embedded deep within the psyche of man. I will

leave it there. Since you referred to Jacques Derrida, I assume that

you are familiar with his ideas. JD (Jacques Derrida) is to

Linguistics what JK was to spirituality, rather philosophy in the

modern times. Wonder if you have JD's birth details by any chance. I

suspect that Rahu and Mars, especially Rahu has a major role in his

chart. Rahu is often misunderstood as the chandala, the one who

corrupts things, as anti- to Jupiter. But a deeper study of many

charts only convinces me that all grahas have their higher side, the

spiritual. From that perspective, in some charts, Rahu can be mind

boggling. Rahu does not only corrupt or spoil Jupiter, he CHECKS

Jupiter. Yes Rahu can be the chandala that is seen as against

tradition. But he is also the one who knocks us when tradition

becomes BINDING! See JK's chart. While Jupiter is more about the so

called 'pure' Vedic path, Rahu is more Tantric in his workings. If

you know anything about Vasishta Ganapati Muni's life (he was a great

poet, tapaswi, vedic as well as tantric scholar, a man who was held

in esteem by Ramana Maharshi, a free- thinker, an intellectual

giant .... It is well known that he had actually attained KAPALA

BHEDA and it seems people actually heard the cracking of the skull

(actually the fontenelles I believe) and saw this smoky light

emanating from the top of his head for a few days after this. He had

GURU-CHANDALA YOGA in his 12th house if I remember correctly. And all

this happened during RAHU'S PERIOD!

 

Well my point is that while it is true that Rahu can be corrupting in

his influence, a much neglected side (I am yet to read a single

modern author writing anything on this side)of Rahu is that he also

could be about DEMOLISHING BELIEFS , STRUCTURES, THE PAST

CONDITIONING, etc in a way that can actually be spiritually

liberating. But since a majority do not see this side open in their

charts, and also because most people get frightened by this

demolishing of the past beliefs and structures if one is not prepared

or insecure internally, they just sperak of his negative side. All

energy is neutral in itself. It cannot be good or bad. It is how we

harness it that the good and bad manifests. Sorry the diversion. But

speaking of Derrida reminds of JK, AND JK reminds me of Rahu, Rahu of

Ganapati muni, and so on. I see only Chamundi's energy here, nothing

less. Rahu brings the sound of Her BELLS and CONCHES and war HORNS as

the battle to demolish all falsehood starts. The nodes need a fresh

look.

 

 

Regards,

Satya

 

 

-- In vedic astrology, "Sarabani Sarkar"

<sarbani@s...> wrote:

> Dear Narasimha and others,

>

> Some thoughts:

> The question that arose in my mind was that since almost all written

> documentation irrespective of the publisher, the text or the year of

> publication, seem to write 'namo' separately, and if we go by as

you are

> saying that its a Kali yuga distortion, then it would be

interesting to know

> precisely when this distortion took place. Usually language

distortions

> first take place in the oral tradition (through pronunciation

glitches) and

> only much later in the written tradition. Of course once

introduced, texts

> 'alter' over generations in the hands of translators, editors and

> publishers. In fact 'reading' texts itself is a major field in

linguistic

> philosophy as championed by Jacques Derrida among others. So

linguists hold

> that there is nothing called a 'real' or 'original' text anymore.

Each text

> has layers of sub-texts and the task of unravelling the original

text itself

> is a separate discipline by itself. In the case of Hinduism,

written texts

> are complemented by the living tradition of Hinduism making the

whole issue

> more complicated. So which is the authentic source? Yajur Veda

(including

> the Taittiriya and the Mahnarayana Upanishads which is full of

fabulous

> Rudra mantras) or the regional texts? What came first? Which

influenced

> which? Maybe both are right...these issues are highly debatable and

open to

> endless pontification, which of course need and must continue for

the sake

> of scholastic advancement. Hinduism as you know is a continuum, a

fluid,

> meandering cosmology, rather than a static text frozen in time and

space. It

> cannot be 'preserved' like an unchanging object or a pickle or a

stuffed

> animal, but being a living tradition it is continuously changing and

> re-inventing itself...although core principles and the grammar is

the same.

> It can be continued and saved from obsoletion. It is to be lived.

Not frozen

> in time. So we have a harder time to identify distortions and

> authentication. The lines truly get blurred.

>

> So including or not including Om...Mantra Maharnava does not

include Om when

> counting aksharas, while others do. Who is right? I simply follow my

> parampara being Sanjay's shishya and consider Om Namah Shivaya as

> shadakshari although I am open to debates and discussions. Perhaps

> unconsciously I make a separation between belief and scholarship,

> spirituality and grammar. I deal with them in separate spheres...at

least

> temporarily. There are many things in the spiritual plane that I

cannot

> account for in the scholastic, rational sphere. All I am trying to

say is,

> that it would be very interesting if we could probe deeper into the

whys and

> wherefores of the distortions. It might be a fruitful exercise. I

will

> definitely keep my eyes open on this and if I come across any

material on

> the issues discussed on mantra in the list...I will surely post

them, at

> least in the Varahamihira forum. So I would not really look at it

as a

> 'controversy' -

>

> Best regards,

>

> Sarbani

>

>

>

> pvr108 <pvr@c...> [pvr@c...]

> Tuesday, January 07, 2003 3:46 AM

> vedic astrology

> [vedic astrology] Summary of controversy (Re:

> Mantra-Query-Narsimhaji)

>

>

> Hi Chandrashekhar,

>

> One quick clarification. The number of letters is not the matter of

> controversy (so far). The controversy is regarding the number of

> words. If you have a compound word formed by a sandhi (e.g.

> parameswaraanugrahaaptyartham is made up of many words - parama +

> iswara + anugraha + aapti + artham, but it is technically one word)

> or samaasa (e.g. suragurubrihaspataye is made up of sura, guru and

> brihaspataye, but it is technically one word. It is equivalent

> to "suraanaam gurave brihaspataye"), it is technically becomes one

> word.

>

> Thus the controversy is regarding the number of words in the

> presence of sandhi/samaasa (conjoining/compounding) and not

> regarding the number of letters.

>

> As far as letters go, "Om Namassivaaya" has six letters

> and "Namassivaaya" has five letters. There is no controversy there.

> Namassivaaya IS the panchakshari mantra and some people add om to

> remove any bad results due to mispronunciation. Om always safeguards

> against mistakes.

>

> May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> Narasimha

>

> PS: Strictly speaking though, some people mispronounce these

> mantras, altering the number of LETTERS too. The Sanskrit word for

> letter/syllable is "akshara". To understand it, you have to know

> what is kshara (perishable) and what is akshara (imperishable). The

> sound "k" or "kl" cannot stand on its own and perishes (you cannot

> even properly pronounce it, if it is standing on its own). When an

> vowel comes, it makes it imperishable and gives life (you can

> pronounce it). So vowels (swaras) are called the lifeforce of a

> syllable. A syllable cannot be formed without an vowel.

> So "ka", "kah", "tat" etc are all aksharas (supported by a). In tat,

> you cannot consider the last "t" as a separate akshara as it does

> not have an vowel (life) to support it (the previous a supports the

> t coming before it). So "tat" is considered to be just one akshara

> and not two (that is how it is used in all Sanskrit slokas. If you

> know chhandas, you can verify what I mean). The number of aksharas

> in a word is equal to the number of separated vowels in it. So

> Sivaaya has 3 aksharas (si, vaa and ya). If one

> mispronounces "Sivaaya" as "Sivaay" (thanks to the Arabic influence

> on Hindi), it now has only 2 vowels instead of 3 and only two

> aksharas (si and vaay, the y here is analogous to the second t in

> tat - it cannot stand on its own as an akshara without an vowel

> coming after it). Still, you may get some results over the long run

> due to devotion. Anywya, I am less concerned about results etc here

> and I am concentrating on the technicalities that got lost due to

> the corruptions of Kali Yuga. I know what I am saying will not

> appeal to a lot of people, but this is based on sound technical

> considerations.

>

> > Respected Narasimhaji/Ramdass Rao and other knowledgeable

teachers,

> > I have been watching this topic for some time.If I may intervene,

> as I understand "Om Namah Shivaay" has always been called as

> panchakshari mantra. Now if the line of reasoning in the ongoing

> discussion is to be accepted it would be counted as different number

> of words according to who is trying to decipher it.Were the ancient

> sages wrong in calling the above mantra as Panchakshari? Please

> enlighten me.

> > Reagrds,

> > Chandrashekhar.

>

>

>

> Sponsor

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-

 

>

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

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Satya,

 

I searched for Derrida's (he is an inheritance from my professional life) birth

data in Lois Rodden, but could not find it. It would be interesting to see his

chart no doubt. At SJC we have learnt that malefics, specially Rahu in trines

to the karakamsa makes one an adept in mantra, specially the 'black' kind. Also

those who have Rahu as their Atmakaraka are spiritually advanced souls.

Spiritual leaders like Ramakrishna for example and many others, have Rahu as

Atmakaraka. Rahu also gives one the ability to do research. Ketu's capacity to

grant moksha, contribute to one's spirituality and be a key planet for tapasvis

have been much discussed in these forums. So the role of the nodes in a native's

spiritual life is not unknown.

 

What is non-Vedic? That which is de-centralised and regional, also including the

folk, perhaps? And the vernaculars? Including both Brahministic and

non-Brahministic traditions? Interesting that you called the tantras as

regional...but the philosophy of tantra is highly based on the Vedas...to

understand the true Brahmaswarup of the Devata...

 

Best regards,

 

Sarbani

 

Dr Satya Prakash Choudhary

<satyaprakasika (AT) (DOT) co.uk> [satyaprakasika (AT) (DOT) co.uk]Sent:

Wednesday, January 08, 2003 4:36 PMvedic astrologySubject:

[vedic astrology] Tantra, Veda, Linguistics, Derrida, Rahu (to Sarbani ji)Aum

Namah ShivayaDear Sarbani ji,Nice thoughts. It is probably impossible to tell

which is original or atleast which came first. Veda or the regional texts? By

regional I assume you mean the entire body of literature that now goes by the

name Tantra. While most agamas and tantras have been written in periods that

are relatively recent, some atleast in their seed form as ideas and concepts

have their nebulous beginnings in pre-historic times. The Tantra as old as the

Veda, if not older! I know some may find it hard to even consider. But each day

convinces me more of how ancient this Tantra is. And how universal it is. It

seems to have been spread out through out the world, of course in its nebulous

beginnings. It is embedded deep within the psyche of man. I will leave it

there. Since you referred to Jacques Derrida, I assume that you are familiar

with his ideas. JD (Jacques Derrida) is to Linguistics what JK was to

spirituality, rather philosophy in the modern times. Wonder if you have JD's

birth details by any chance. I suspect that Rahu and Mars, especially Rahu has

a major role in his chart. Rahu is often misunderstood as the chandala, the one

who corrupts things, as anti- to Jupiter. But a deeper study of many charts only

convinces me that all grahas have their higher side, the spiritual. From that

perspective, in some charts, Rahu can be mind boggling. Rahu does not only

corrupt or spoil Jupiter, he CHECKS Jupiter. Yes Rahu can be the chandala that

is seen as against tradition. But he is also the one who knocks us when

tradition becomes BINDING! See JK's chart. While Jupiter is more about the so

called 'pure' Vedic path, Rahu is more Tantric in his workings. If you know

anything about Vasishta Ganapati Muni's life (he was a great poet, tapaswi,

vedic as well as tantric scholar, a man who was held in esteem by Ramana

Maharshi, a free- thinker, an intellectual giant .... It is well known that he

had actually attained KAPALA BHEDA and it seems people actually heard the

cracking of the skull (actually the fontenelles I believe) and saw this smoky

light emanating from the top of his head for a few days after this. He had

GURU-CHANDALA YOGA in his 12th house if I remember correctly. And all this

happened during RAHU'S PERIOD! Well my point is that while it is true that Rahu

can be corrupting in his influence, a much neglected side (I am yet to read a

single modern author writing anything on this side)of Rahu is that he also

could be about DEMOLISHING BELIEFS , STRUCTURES, THE PAST CONDITIONING, etc in

a way that can actually be spiritually liberating. But since a majority do not

see this side open in their charts, and also because most people get frightened

by this demolishing of the past beliefs and structures if one is not prepared or

insecure internally, they just sperak of his negative side. All energy is

neutral in itself. It cannot be good or bad. It is how we harness it that the

good and bad manifests. Sorry the diversion. But speaking of Derrida reminds of

JK, AND JK reminds me of Rahu, Rahu of Ganapati muni, and so on. I see only

Chamundi's energy here, nothing less. Rahu brings the sound of Her BELLS and

CONCHES and war HORNS as the battle to demolish all falsehood starts. The nodes

need a fresh look. Regards,Satya-- In vedic astrology, "Sarabani

Sarkar" <sarbani@s...> wrote:> Dear Narasimha and others,> > Some thoughts:> The

question that arose in my mind was that since almost all written> documentation

irrespective of the publisher, the text or the year of> publication, seem to

write 'namo' separately, and if we go by as you are> saying that its a Kali

yuga distortion, then it would be interesting to know> precisely when this

distortion took place. Usually language distortions> first take place in the

oral tradition (through pronunciation glitches) and> only much later in the

written tradition. Of course once introduced, texts> 'alter' over generations

in the hands of translators, editors and> publishers. In fact 'reading' texts

itself is a major field in linguistic> philosophy as championed by Jacques

Derrida among others. So linguists hold> that there is nothing called a 'real'

or 'original' text anymore. Each text> has layers of sub-texts and the task of

unravelling the original text itself> is a separate discipline by itself. In

the case of Hinduism, written texts> are complemented by the living tradition

of Hinduism making the whole issue> more complicated. So which is the authentic

source? Yajur Veda (including> the Taittiriya and the Mahnarayana Upanishads

which is full of fabulous> Rudra mantras) or the regional texts? What came

first? Which influenced> which? Maybe both are right...these issues are highly

debatable and open to> endless pontification, which of course need and must

continue for the sake> of scholastic advancement. Hinduism as you know is a

continuum, a fluid,> meandering cosmology, rather than a static text frozen in

time and space. It> cannot be 'preserved' like an unchanging object or a pickle

or a stuffed> animal, but being a living tradition it is continuously changing

and> re-inventing itself...although core principles and the grammar is the

same.> It can be continued and saved from obsoletion. It is to be lived. Not

frozen> in time. So we have a harder time to identify distortions and>

authentication. The lines truly get blurred.> > So including or not including

Om...Mantra Maharnava does not include Om when> counting aksharas, while others

do. Who is right? I simply follow my> parampara being Sanjay's shishya and

consider Om Namah Shivaya as> shadakshari although I am open to debates and

discussions. Perhaps> unconsciously I make a separation between belief and

scholarship,> spirituality and grammar. I deal with them in separate

spheres...at least> temporarily. There are many things in the spiritual plane

that I cannot> account for in the scholastic, rational sphere. All I am trying

to say is,> that it would be very interesting if we could probe deeper into the

whys and> wherefores of the distortions. It might be a fruitful exercise. I

will> definitely keep my eyes open on this and if I come across any material

on> the issues discussed on mantra in the list...I will surely post them, at>

least in the Varahamihira forum. So I would not really look at it as a>

'controversy' - > > Best regards,> > Sarbani> > > >

pvr108 <pvr@c...> [pvr@c...]> Tuesday, January 07, 2003 3:46

AM> vedic astrology> [vedic astrology] Summary of

controversy (Re:> Mantra-Query-Narsimhaji)> > > Hi Chandrashekhar,> > One quick

clarification. The number of letters is not the matter of> controversy (so far).

The controversy is regarding the number of> words. If you have a compound word

formed by a sandhi (e.g.> parameswaraanugrahaaptyartham is made up of many

words - parama +> iswara + anugraha + aapti + artham, but it is technically one

word)> or samaasa (e.g. suragurubrihaspataye is made up of sura, guru and>

brihaspataye, but it is technically one word. It is equivalent> to "suraanaam

gurave brihaspataye"), it is technically becomes one> word.> > Thus the

controversy is regarding the number of words in the> presence of sandhi/samaasa

(conjoining/compounding) and not> regarding the number of letters.> > As far as

letters go, "Om Namassivaaya" has six letters> and "Namassivaaya" has five

letters. There is no controversy there.> Namassivaaya IS the panchakshari

mantra and some people add om to> remove any bad results due to

mispronunciation. Om always safeguards> against mistakes.> > May Jupiter's

light shine on us,> Narasimha> > PS: Strictly speaking though, some people

mispronounce these> mantras, altering the number of LETTERS too. The Sanskrit

word for> letter/syllable is "akshara". To understand it, you have to know>

what is kshara (perishable) and what is akshara (imperishable). The> sound "k"

or "kl" cannot stand on its own and perishes (you cannot> even properly

pronounce it, if it is standing on its own). When an> vowel comes, it makes it

imperishable and gives life (you can> pronounce it). So vowels (swaras) are

called the lifeforce of a> syllable. A syllable cannot be formed without an

vowel.> So "ka", "kah", "tat" etc are all aksharas (supported by a). In tat,>

you cannot consider the last "t" as a separate akshara as it does> not have an

vowel (life) to support it (the previous a supports the> t coming before it).

So "tat" is considered to be just one akshara> and not two (that is how it is

used in all Sanskrit slokas. If you> know chhandas, you can verify what I

mean). The number of aksharas> in a word is equal to the number of separated

vowels in it. So> Sivaaya has 3 aksharas (si, vaa and ya). If one>

mispronounces "Sivaaya" as "Sivaay" (thanks to the Arabic influence> on Hindi),

it now has only 2 vowels instead of 3 and only two> aksharas (si and vaay, the y

here is analogous to the second t in> tat - it cannot stand on its own as an

akshara without an vowel> coming after it). Still, you may get some results

over the long run> due to devotion. Anywya, I am less concerned about results

etc here> and I am concentrating on the technicalities that got lost due to>

the corruptions of Kali Yuga. I know what I am saying will not> appeal to a lot

of people, but this is based on sound technical> considerations.> > > Respected

Narasimhaji/Ramdass Rao and other knowledgeable teachers,> > I have been

watching this topic for some time.If I may intervene,> as I understand "Om

Namah Shivaay" has always been called as> panchakshari mantra. Now if the line

of reasoning in the ongoing> discussion is to be accepted it would be counted

as different number> of words according to who is trying to decipher it.Were

the ancient> sages wrong in calling the above mantra as Panchakshari? Please>

enlighten me.> > Reagrds,> > Chandrashekhar.> > > >

Sponsor> > > > > > Archives:

vedic astrology> > Group info:

vedic astrology/info.html> > To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-> > ....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us .......> > || Om Tat Sat || Sarvam Sri Krishnaarpanamastu

||> > Terms of

Service.Archives: vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us .......

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Could you please give me the birthdata of Kavyakanta Ganapathi

Sastri? Based on your comments on Guru-Chandala in 12th and Rahu

dasa at the time of mystic experiences, you seem to have seen the

chart. I am extremely curious to see this chart and will be very

grateful to you for this chart.

 

You talked about tradition, tradition being binding, breaking

tradition etc. I understand your point, but there is another

perspecive to look at it:

 

Even what Ganapathi Muni followed was tradition. It was a different

kind of tradition.

 

Hinduism leaves scope for many totally different traditions. Why

does the universe exist? Who are we? Is God external or internal?

For all these vital questions, different _traditions_ of Hinduism

offer different answers. All of them are correct. None of them is

wrong. But the complete truth is so complicated that it is tough to

understand for most. So each tradition takes a narrow approach and

specializes in one aspect of this complete truth (which can be

viewed as a complete truth in itself).

 

Jupiter shows one spiritual approach, Mercury shows another approach

and Rahu shows yet another approach and so on.

 

One with a strong influence of Jupiter will associate with one

spiritual tradition and one with a strong influence of Rahu will

associate with another spiritual tradition.

 

So trantricism (occult mysticism), adwaitism (believing that god and

man are the same) etc are also traditions in their own right.

Nothing Ganapathi Muni did makes him anti-traditional. One can only

say that the tradition he followed is different from, say, the the

tradition Chaitanya followed or the tradition Swami Aurobindo

followed. Aurobindo had an extremely strong Sun (in Golokamsa!) and

his path was solar. From what you are saying, Ganapathi Muni was

highly influenced by Rahu. (Is it so really? I am curious to see the

chart. Ramana Maharshi had Jupiter in trines to lagna, Moon and AK

in rasi and navamsa).

 

Bottomline is that Jupiter shows a saattwik path and Rahu shows a

tamasik path (note: I don't mean "bad" by tamasik). We should be

clear about that.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

 

> Aum Namah Shivaya

>

> Dear Sarbani ji,

>

> Nice thoughts. It is probably impossible to tell which is original

or

> atleast which came first. Veda or the regional texts? By regional

I

> assume you mean the entire body of literature that now goes by the

> name Tantra. While most agamas and tantras have been written in

> periods that are relatively recent, some atleast in their seed

form

> as ideas and concepts have their nebulous beginnings in pre-

historic

> times. The Tantra as old as the Veda, if not older! I know some

may

> find it hard to even consider. But each day convinces me more of

how

> ancient this Tantra is. And how universal it is. It seems to have

> been spread out through out the world, of course in its nebulous

> beginnings. It is embedded deep within the psyche of man. I will

> leave it there. Since you referred to Jacques Derrida, I assume

that

> you are familiar with his ideas. JD (Jacques Derrida) is to

> Linguistics what JK was to spirituality, rather philosophy in the

> modern times. Wonder if you have JD's birth details by any chance.

I

> suspect that Rahu and Mars, especially Rahu has a major role in

his

> chart. Rahu is often misunderstood as the chandala, the one who

> corrupts things, as anti- to Jupiter. But a deeper study of many

> charts only convinces me that all grahas have their higher side,

the

> spiritual. From that perspective, in some charts, Rahu can be mind

> boggling. Rahu does not only corrupt or spoil Jupiter, he CHECKS

> Jupiter. Yes Rahu can be the chandala that is seen as against

> tradition. But he is also the one who knocks us when tradition

> becomes BINDING! See JK's chart. While Jupiter is more about the

so

> called 'pure' Vedic path, Rahu is more Tantric in his workings. If

> you know anything about Vasishta Ganapati Muni's life (he was a

great

> poet, tapaswi, vedic as well as tantric scholar, a man who was

held

> in esteem by Ramana Maharshi, a free- thinker, an intellectual

> giant .... It is well known that he had actually attained KAPALA

> BHEDA and it seems people actually heard the cracking of the skull

> (actually the fontenelles I believe) and saw this smoky light

> emanating from the top of his head for a few days after this. He

had

> GURU-CHANDALA YOGA in his 12th house if I remember correctly. And

all

> this happened during RAHU'S PERIOD!

>

> Well my point is that while it is true that Rahu can be corrupting

in

> his influence, a much neglected side (I am yet to read a single

> modern author writing anything on this side)of Rahu is that he

also

> could be about DEMOLISHING BELIEFS , STRUCTURES, THE PAST

> CONDITIONING, etc in a way that can actually be spiritually

> liberating. But since a majority do not see this side open in

their

> charts, and also because most people get frightened by this

> demolishing of the past beliefs and structures if one is not

prepared

> or insecure internally, they just sperak of his negative side. All

> energy is neutral in itself. It cannot be good or bad. It is how

we

> harness it that the good and bad manifests. Sorry the diversion.

But

> speaking of Derrida reminds of JK, AND JK reminds me of Rahu, Rahu

of

> Ganapati muni, and so on. I see only Chamundi's energy here,

nothing

> less. Rahu brings the sound of Her BELLS and CONCHES and war HORNS

as

> the battle to demolish all falsehood starts. The nodes need a

fresh

> look.

>

> Regards,

> Satya

[Guest guest]

Dear Sarbani ji,

 

 

 

 

 

>At SJC we have learnt that malefics, specially Rahu

> in trines to the karakamsa makes one an adept in mantra, specially

the

> 'black' kind. Also those who have Rahu as their Atmakaraka are

spiritually

> advanced souls. Spiritual leaders like Ramakrishna for example and

many

> others, have Rahu as Atmakaraka. Rahu also gives one the ability to

do

> research. Ketu's capacity to grant moksha, contribute to one's

spirituality

> and be a key planet for tapasvis have been much discussed in these

forums.

> So the role of the nodes in a native's spiritual life is not

unknown.

 

 

Oh I am aware of this side of classical astrology. But I am not

talking of the 'mantra' or 'black' or 'white' magic or even the

ability to do research. I am talking of **DEMOLISHING past

structures, beliefs, conditioning, even tradition, as the **MODUS

OPERANDI of Rahu in his spiritual role. While Rahu's role in mantra,

tantra and research, has been dealt with already by both classics and

modern authors to some extent, I am pointing out that the it has not

(to my knowledge) covered *DEMOLISHING STRUCTURES, PAST,

CONDITIONING, etc as a full-fledged independent mode of spiritual

functioning of Rahu as a *SPIRITUALLY LIBERATING exercise. Even

Indian Buddhism and Zen speak of eight stages (kinds too) of Gnana.

In the most advanced ones, the final DEMOLISHING or BREAKING away

seems to occur. Even the deity is seen as an obstruction (as in the

case of Sri Ramakrishna and Tota Puri advising him to cut Kali's ...

with the sword of discrimination) and one has to break away from this

attachment to the deity, in the most advanced stage.

 

 

Of course only *some traditions acknowledge this as you know and I am

speaking from this view. Even Adi Sankara had one IMPORTANT lesson

left after quite a few spiritual accomplishments. It was the

*CHANDALA who had to impart that lesson to Sankara. In Samkara'a case

it was LITERALLY a chandala (when he composed the Manisha panchakam).

While the role of Rahu in spiritual life is generally discussed, the

SPECIFIC role as I am trying to emphasise has not been covered in its

full-fledged independent role (to my knowledge). The difference

between what has been discussed and what I am emphasizing is a little

subtle, but nevertheless not negligible.

 

 

Based on such points, perhaps one's spiritual path could be

identified by the guru (adept) and accordingly the student could be

initiated. I have seen a few sad instances of highly spiritual souls

being sent away from a traditional matha just because of this

*demolishing effect of Rahu. Spirituality has not been just an

intellectual interest to me and from my teens I was in the company of

samnyasis (monks) for long periods at different mathas belonging in a

broad sense to the Sringeri tradition. Whether it is the Sri

Ramakrishna math (I was a student of none other than Swami

Ranganathananda, the spiritual head of SRK missions and mathas), or

the samnyasis of the Sringeri matha (direct parampara), or a few more

that I had been with, this sad event has occured whenever a monk

seemingly broke away from the tradition or whatever where their

beliefs. Anyway I guess this topic is not appropriate on this

forum.

 

>

> What is non-Vedic? That which is de-centralised and regional, also

including

> the folk, perhaps? And the vernaculars? Including both Brahministic

and

> non-Brahministic traditions? Interesting that you called the

tantras as

> regional...but the philosophy of tantra is highly based on the

Vedas...to

> understand the true Brahmaswarup of the Devata...

of Service.

 

 

Oh yes. The philosophy of Tantras has been *said to be based on the

Vedas. But at times that is to gain sanction. Some Tantras don't like

to affiliate themselves to the Veda. Moreover in India with the

orthodox definition of Astika being "one who accepts the Vedas", most

would like to somehow get this affiliation in a soft way.

 

Of course the Bauddhas and Jainas did not ackowledge the supremacy of

the Vedas and are clubbed together with the Charvakas (materialists)

as Nastikas (Atheists)! But the Bauddhas and Jainas too have their

Tantras. Jainism is said to be as old as Hinduism. Their early

Tirthankara Rishabha deva is said to be the one in Rig Veda. The Zend

Avesta (of the Parsis) too is as old as the Veda and as you might

know (being a student of linguistics) how close it is to the Rg veda

and how many vedic gods like Indra, Mitra, Varuna etc find a place in

the Zend Avesta. Of course while the vedic version depicts the devas

like Indra as *AMORAL at times, the Zend Avesta depicts them as

*IMMORAL. Even there the Soma ritual has a high place. Their Ahura

Mazda is Asura Medhas (both words are used by the Rg veda referring

to God). You know even the Rig veda refers to God as Asura in its

early hymns.

 

Anyway getting back to the Tantras, there are atleast seven acharas

within the Hindu fold.

 

1.Vedachara: rituals are based on the vedas.

2.Vaishnavachara: rituals are based on puranic discription

3.Dakshinachara: worship of the Goddess employing vedic hymns

4.Vamachara: worship employing the five M-s

5.Saivachara:worship of Shiva using vedic hymns

6.Siddhantachara: rituals are performed in crematoria

7.Kaulachara: secret worship of Kali

 

And there are some NON-HINDU Tantric schools too.

 

Again referring to the Tamil Siddhas, though later tradition puts

them within the Vedic fold, in its earliest forms the Siddhas and

Tantrics of the Tamil tradition are very close to the Babylonian,

cultures. Siva, Muruga, Linga, Serpent, alchemy, etc are common to

those "foreign" cultures and ancient Tamil tradition. Daksha'a yagna

and Siva being eventually allowed a share of offering in the Vedic

sacrifice intrigues me very much at times in the light of all the

other facts.

 

Of course as one who learnt the agamas under the guidance of a guru

of the Sringeri parampara, I have to go by the belief that the

tantras too are based on the Veda. But that is only wrt the tantras

that are accepted as part of the Vedic fold. But what of the other

tantras? The teachings and practices of Tantra are found scattered

through out the world cultures. The Vedic and its parallels like the

Zorastrian versions are fewer than the more wider Tantric versions.

So my reference here is not just to what the Vedics say or feel, but

from a wider perspective. Hinduism in its present form has embraced

many divergent and different schools whether vedic or non-vedic or

regional or tribal or folk beliefs and practices, over thousands of

years adapting itself and is what it is today. And infact this is the

beauty, grandeur and strength of Hinduism. Again this too being a

topic probably not appropriate for all the beginners here, I will

leave it there.

 

Regards,

Satya

[Guest guest]

Aum Namah Shivaya

 

Namaste,

 

> Could you please give me the birthdata of Kavyakanta Ganapathi

> Sastri? Based on your comments on Guru-Chandala in 12th and Rahu

> dasa at the time of mystic experiences, you seem to have seen the

> chart. I am extremely curious to see this chart and will be very

> grateful to you for this chart.

 

 

I will have to search in my library either here or in India.It was

also published in Astrological magazine many years back. But without

the degree of the ascendant or the time of birth. I have his

biography in Sanskrit as well as English here in Sydney with me.

Probably the one by Kapali sastriar could give the horoscope. If so I

can get back to you. Otherwise I will ask someone in India to search

and mail me within a week.

 

>

> You talked about tradition, tradition being binding, breaking

> tradition etc. I understand your point, but there is another

> perspecive to look at it:

>

> Even what Ganapathi Muni followed was tradition. It was a different

> kind of tradition.

>

> Hinduism leaves scope for many totally different traditions. Why

> does the universe exist? Who are we? Is God external or internal?

> For all these vital questions, different _traditions_ of Hinduism

> offer different answers. All of them are correct. None of them is

> wrong. But the complete truth is so complicated that it is tough to

> understand for most. So each tradition takes a narrow approach and

> specializes in one aspect of this complete truth (which can be

> viewed as a complete truth in itself).

>

> Jupiter shows one spiritual approach, Mercury shows another

approach

> and Rahu shows yet another approach and so on.

>

> One with a strong influence of Jupiter will associate with one

> spiritual tradition and one with a strong influence of Rahu will

> associate with another spiritual tradition.

>

> So trantricism (occult mysticism), adwaitism (believing that god

and

> man are the same) etc are also traditions in their own right.

> Nothing Ganapathi Muni did makes him anti-traditional. One can only

> say that the tradition he followed is different from, say, the the

> tradition Chaitanya followed or the tradition Swami Aurobindo

> followed. Aurobindo had an extremely strong Sun (in Golokamsa!) and

> his path was solar. From what you are saying, Ganapathi Muni was

> highly influenced by Rahu. (Is it so really? I am curious to see

the

> chart. Ramana Maharshi had Jupiter in trines to lagna, Moon and AK

> in rasi and navamsa).

 

Oh yes. Ganapati Muni was very much within the traditional path. I

was referring to the role of Rahu in his spiritual life and his chart

as a rare example of GURU-CHANDALA yoga in a different light. That is

the only point I am making wrt the muni's chart and Rahu. This will

brighten up all those people with Guru-Chandala yoga, who have been

freightened by some astrologers remarks. As far as the muni is

concerned, he was ver much traditional undoubtedly in most ways.

 

With respect to your remark on Rahu showing a tamasic way, I would

rephrase it and say it works *THROUGH tamas, tamas as a guna, with no

moralistic or any other basis (which you too mention), but purely as

a mode of prakriti. Tamas as RUDRA's energy, tamas as DEMOLISHING in

nature, tamas as MAHAKALA.

 

Unfortunately if one does not keep emphasising this the student often

gets caught in a wrong understanding of Tamas as dull, base etc.

 

I am also posting an old article of mine on Mahakala just for more on

so called Tamas (demolishing just like Rudra) But today tamas is

often used in a negative sense.

 

 

Regards,

Satya