Subject: 20th mumbai meeting discussions

June 4, 2003

Om Gurave Namah

Hare Rama Krishna

Pujya Gurudev,

I have been following this thread on atmakaraka and also went

through the links. But, some doubts persist. If possible, can you

please dispel my ignorance?

1) From your links on gita extracts, i am able to understand that

lagna represents buddhi, moon - mind, sun - ahamkara - false ego.

But, we also know (from Srimad Bhagavatham and Bhagavad Gita) that

the soul after entering this material world is covered by gross and

subtle elements. From subtlest to grossest these are : false ego,

intellect, mind, body. You said that intelligence is lagna. i was

under the impression that lagna being the first house represents the

body and the intellect is represented by paka lagna. intelligence, in

my understanding is just an attribute of intellect. can you kindly

clear my (mis)understanding regarding attributing intelligence being

attributed to paka lagna vis-a-vis lagna (In COVA, you do give

intelligence as being seen from 1st house. But, i am not able to

discriminate between paka lagna and lagna in this matter).

2)If Sun represents false ego, what is the place of arudha lagna in

the arrangement of the concomitant identities of the soul (intellect,

mind, body) from subtlest to grossest? Being the maya associated with

the living entity and having moon as its significator, is Arudha

Lagna between mind and body? can we say that arudha lagna represents

the identification of mind with physical elements.

3) What is the difference between false ego (Sun) and Arudha Lagna?

Does false ego represent the rebellious tendency of the jiva due to

which it is placed in the material world and arudha lagna represent

its identification with matter?

At this point, you may very well realize that i am confused. Please

dispel my doubts.

Your sishya

k.n.sriram

vedic astrology, "Sanjay Rath"

<daivagyna@s...> wrote:

>

> |brihaspatim varenyam|

> Dear Chandrasekharji

> Namaste.

> Did you go through the links? I am giving them again

> http://srath.com/lesson/gita_extracts.htm

> http://srath.com/lesson/atmakaraka.htm

> Other comments below

> ~ om tat sat ~

> Yours truly,

> Sanjay Rath

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

>

> [Rath:] Tripod means three points of reference. Dharma and

Bhagya are both in the ninth house while Buddhi is the variable in

lagna. what are the Jyotish symbols for this? Are they not Lagna, Sun

and Moon at the most basic level to represent the Body, soul and Mind

respectively.

> Now the next intelligent question shall be - if the Sun

represents the atma in all charts then how do we differentiate

between one chart and another in terms of the sin/karma attached?

Since the Sun is naisargika AK, it shows that all jivatma are like

the paramatma and are in fact a small or fractional representation of

the paramatma, and this is indicated by the Sun. But how do we

differentiate the karma of one individual with another? And if

jyotish did not have this answer, then why would it be a vedanga. Of

course yogas etc are there to show the karma but I am specifically

talking about the symbolism necessary to differentiate the jivatma

from the paramatma. How would you do it then?

>

> If you feel that I am crossing my limits, kindly tell me. I

am merely trying

> to put my view and understanding across, in search of truth.

I am not

> disputing anybody's knowledge.

> With warm regards,

> Chandrashekhar.

> [Rath:] No you are definitely not. This is a serious topic

and sometimes we have to be blunt. You are among the most decent

people I have met (in the net). Its fine. Please go through those

links I have given above.

>

> ----

>

> vedic astrology

> Monday, June 02, 2003 01:44:02 PM

> vedic astrology

> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: 20th mumbai meeting

discussions - to Mr.

> Amol

>

> ----

>

> vedic astrology

> Sunday, June 01, 2003 10:19:10 AM

> vedic astrology

> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: 20th mumbai meeting

discussions - to Mr.

> Amol

>

> |brihaspatim varenyam|

> Dear Chandrasekharji

>

> No it is not so. The Atma is like the Sun but it is not the

Sun that is why

> the Sun is the naisargika Atmakaraka and for all purposes

shall represent

> the native (self), Father (through whom the atma comes) as

well as the

> ultimate father (Vishnu)...among Aditya's I am Vishnu extolls

Sri Krishna in

> the Gita. This is its nature i.e. the nature of the atman is

like that of

> pure light, a spark is what the rishi's say. Chara atmakaraka

is the

> representation of the jivatma or what we call the individual

atman. This is

> also of the nature of pure light and the color of the light

shall be one of

> the colors of the visible spectrum (7) or darkness (1) and

that is why there

> are eight chara atmakaraka for animate beings. Imagine there

is a room where

> two lamps are burning - one of pure white light and the other

is say red.

> The brighter the red light is, to that extent the white light

is suppressed

> or ignored. The jivatma is like that red (or some color)

light that tends to

> *bask in the glory* of its own light and this is ahamkara.

The brighter the

> light of the individual atma, the lower shall be its focus on

the other pure

> light in the room. Thus, Rahu does not have any original

light as a chara

> karaka and is darkness, so such a jivatma is always looking

at the pure

> light of the paramatma.

>

> Now coming to the point about karakamsa, interaction between

the atman

> (jiva) and the prakriti can only be through the laws of

dharma. The Jiva

> having evolved from Brahma, is pramarily of Rajas guna and

has a lot of

> desire as Rajas guna is associated with desire. No individual

jivaatman, no

> matter how spiritually evolved it maybe, can claim to be

Vishnu (paramatma)

> because of this. The interaction of such an atma represented

by the

> Atmakaraka with nature is seen in the signs and divisions it

is placed in.

> We all know the basic result of such an interaction between

two entities,

> where one is of Rajas predominantly, shall always be painful.

the pain is

> not due to the nature of the signs etc but is due to the

interaction of the

> AK with the sign while being in Rajas guna. Had the guna of

the atma changed

> through severe tapasya or blessings, then the interaction

becomes very

> beneficial for both the jiva and nature. Lets say it was the

jivatma of

> Parasara muni, then it has evolved from the Rajas guna

displayed in

> childhood when Parasara wanted to kill all the Rakshasa who

killed his

> father to pure satva when he forgave them due to the

blessings of his

> grandfather Sri Vasistha.

>

> To the point about many people with AK Rahu not being

spiritual - About

> one-eighth portion of the world population shall have rahu as

AK, so this

> factor alone cannot determine the factum of the native being

spiritual.

> Spirituality is at many levels and each level has to be

examined from the

> concerned factors in the chart. Take the same case of Sri

Prabhupada. Here

> the AK is Rahu, but such a Rahu is (a) well placed in

Aquarius having sthana

> bala - atma bala is there (b) related to Upapada -

renunciation of spouse

> will be the key to renunciation and so many other factors.

Next is the

> physical manifestation. For this look at the Arudha Lagna.

Here Mercury and

> venus determine strong spiritual inclinations being in the

6th from AL. So,

> the physical manifestation will be in the worship of Krishna

(Mercury

> exalted) and Radha (Venus debilitated with neechabhanga..very

crucial).

>

> Let us take another chart. Say Sri Caitanya mahaprabhu. Here

AK is Saturn.

> So can we say that Sri Caitanya was less spiritual than

Prabhupada?!!

> Definitely not. Here the theme is "taking sorrow - giving

joy". Here the AK

> Saturn is (a) not very well placed in Scorpio but is in a

Kendra and (b) Not

> directly linked to the main Arudhas. So can we say Sri

Caitanya was less

> spiritual? What are we missing out? Look at the karakamsa and

see the merger

> of the AK and Ista...you will find this in the chart of Sri

Krishna as well.

> There the AK is Sun in Leo.

>

> There is a lot lot more to this thread, but for all practical

purposes, the

> AK is the representative of the individual Jivatma in a chart

as the Ista

> (paramatma) shall also be represented by another planet. It

is a difficult

> job, but then Jyotish is all about understanding these

symbols.

>

> ~ om tat sat ~

> Yours truly,

> Sanjay Rath

>

June 7, 2003

Dear Sanjayji,

Thank you for agreeing with some of my points and bearing with me.

I think where we are disagreeing is ,whether Chara atmakaraka has Adhikaara over

Atma (as you seem to indicate ". The interaction of such an atma represented by

the Atmakaraka ") or whether Chara Atmakaraka has Adhikaara over Atmabala

(which has been my contention). As in any lengthy discussion, this basic point

on which we started the discussion is getting diluted.

I will try to convey what I mean by only taking the points we differ on. You responded,

"[Rath:] Of course. Karaka means significator. How can a graha become my Atma!

It only signifies the atma. That is why its dasa is generally painful - why

because the significator of the atma teaches you not to feel pain, not to feel

sorrow and to realise your real self."

If we assume that Atma or his significator is trying to teach us, then how do we

interprete Shrimadbhagvadgita adhyaaya 2 shloka 25 where the Lord tells Arjuna

about swaroopa and swabhava of Atma aswhere he calls Atma as Avyakta Achintya

and Avikaari.. Now why would the Avikaari Atma want to teach us whether or not

to feel pain as he has no attachment with the Jeeva? I think the reason could

be because the Atmakaraka being the planet with most degrees passed in the

house would be the weakest of the planets and the results would depend on the

degrees past. If in Sandhi the results suggested are possible. I think the

Sages were very learned. As you are also an engineer, you will understand what

I am trying to say. They indicated the Naisargik and Sthira Karaka as the

strongest link and Atmakaraka as the wekest link. The failure of a chain is

dependent on weakest Link and hence the importance indicated for him.

[Rath:] My father has Saturn AK in Capricorn, I have Saturn AK in Capricorn, my

daughter has Saturn AK in Capricorn. Saturn rules the area calles Saurashtra

where Somanath was established. Anyway to the point. My father never earned any

livelihood from the traditional family knowledge, I did earn and continue to do

so, don't know about my daughter. Difference I have it in 11th house.

I have quoted what has been said by Parashara. I have also given what I feel is

more likely. I am certain your father was spiritually inclined and so shall be

your daughter. Placement of Atmakaraka would definitely make a difference as

rightly pointed out by you. The degrees past in house and their proximity or

otherwise to the Bhava Madhya would also modify the results.

[Rath:] ..Anyway, that still does not answer the question. How are you going to

see the jivatma and paramatma in the chart? can you give an illustration?

I have many a times said that I am not an expert in matters spiritual, as

understood now a days. However, the Lord said that

Adhyaya 8:3. Akshar is Bramha, Jeevatma is Swbhava and the Tyaga which gives

rise to bhava amongst being is Karma. Further about Paratman he says,

Adhyaya8.20 that there is also another Divya parama bhava beyond this and that

Divya Purusha is not subject to destruction even after all beings are

destroyed.

To my limited intellect the indication is available in the way Atmakaraka(Chara)

and 12th from Karakamsha are treated. The first indicates Jeevatma being subject

to and capable of giveng Dukkha and the second indicating the diety.

[Rath:] Why would the rishi use these words specifically if he simply wanted

people to compare degrees and minutes as well. Even if he did not say so

specifically, comparision of longitudes implies comparision of degrees, minutes

and seconds. I don't think the rishi's wasted precious words. The verse is clear

about two schemes of 7 and eight chara karaka. The basic creation is of the 7

chara karaka and some superiod beings are created with eight charakaraka. I

will give a simple example - no matter how much of breeding the human being

does, they can never be more than the number of stones in this world. When it

comes to numbers, the inanimate world outnumbers the animate world many times.

To me the reason to mention this to avoid confusion as to when to allow Rahu/

Naisargika Karakas to take place of a blank created by two planets getting the

same karakatwas. In earlier verses the sage had told about greatest of the

degrees and so on. Here he must have wanted to indicate that he wants the

student to understand that if the minutes and second are different , degrees

being identical, the Karakatwas will not merge. Their order is indicated by the

different terms used. Or at least this is my interpretation of the written words

available. I am not able to understand the concept of superior being being

created with 8 Karaka scheme. The sage has not said that these are to be

applied to Animate being s and 7 Karakas to inanimate beings. Again has not the

Lord saidVidyavinya sampanne bramhane gavi hastini. shuni ca shvapaake ca

panditaaH samdarshinaH .." ( Adhyaya 5 shloka18)As you are of the opinion that

Chara Atmakaraka is a causative factor for Jeevatma and Parmatma,why would the

Sage give a theory of lesser and superior beings animate or inanimate. I know

that in the shloka the lord does not say about inanimate objects. But he has

said that in adhyaya8 shloka 18 and again adhyaya 9. sh16 and in Adhyaya 10

again the Lord reiterates this. Of course, in earlier post too I had stated

that I have never reffered to 7 or 8 Karaka scheme but Grahas.This is just in

response to your question.

[Rath:] Are you sure. Lets see off hand I give you a quote - if the lord of the

Moon sign were the Atmakaraka and was strong or in Kendra or Kona the native

shall have Rajyoga in his late life. Now this relates to the rasi chart. (I

thank my Gurudeva for this great blessing of memory..His mantra never fails

me).

But this is applicable even when Moon is not an atmakaraka. Again would this be

applicable if the moon is in rashi sandhi as being Atmakaraka he can well be. I

think you will agree that the ancient texts we have received were based on

eforts taken by reowned astrologers to collect shlokas from who so ever had

them, and the shloka might have been from some other source. You are aware that

there are 4 or more different publications of BPHS and some have new shlokas

coming into it with every new edition.

Also the copy of BPHS(R Santanam) I have has no mention of such yoga when

Parashara deals with karakamsha and Chara karakas. The only reference to

Rasi(and not Rasi Chart) and Arudha Lagna that he has made is in Sh. 94 to 99

Chapter 33 where he indicates that the position should be in Karakamsha, Arudha

Lagna and 2nd and 8th from these and while indicating results forDasha of

Chandra with this placement, he talks about Dasha of Rasi but not Rasi Chart.

[Rath:] Of course the Sun is sarvaatma and that is why the atma is the svarupa

of the sun. Ideally it is supposed to be of perfect satva guna like the sun,

but is it really? If it were then why did it incarnate?

But Parashara says in Chapter 2 that Rama and Krishna are also incarnation of

Planets and says Rama from Sun and Krishna from moon. He further calrifies that

they were Parmatmanshas and othe planets's incarnation s with some Jevamshas are

also quoted. So where is the question of incarnation suggesting lack of

Satvaguna. From Guru incarnated Vaman having Jeevamsha says Parashara, so the

theory of Parmatmansh being exception is also not applicable.

[Rath:] Not clear. Can you rephrase this please.

I was trying to convey that moksha being result of success in search of Atman

within had atmakaraka been indicative of Atman (which began our discussion in

the first place), Sun in 12th and mot Ketu in 12th would have been assigned the

power to confer Moksha in a chart, whereas Sun alone is indicated to cause

expenses and only in association with Ketu he is said to indicate worship of

Shiva and Chandra but not Moksha.

[Rath:] Krura and saumya is a svabhava attributed to the feelings of the mana

when there is an interaction. At the atma level there is no such feeling. It is

krura as it burns. Moon is saumya as it soothes. Here the burning and soothing

sensation is the interaction of the senses and the mana is getting a feedback.

In fact burning is the best spiritual remedy that is why Tapas is said to be

the ignition of the spiritual fire.

I was trying to say that endowed with Satvaguna and being Atman, why would he

have to be krura? But if we take Atmabala as understood by me then coupled with

Royalty it is perfectly logical. I remenber Shankaracharya(Badrinath Math, I

think but am not certain) once saying that "Raja ko garam, Mata ko naram aur

stree ko sharam honi chahiye".

[Rath:] Royalty today has come to mean enjoyment and acquisition. The minds of

people have become biased due to the media coverage of the Royal family of

England. However, Royal means ruling power i.e. the power to decide and direct.

The Atma decides how long it wishes to stay in the sinful body and leaves as it

pleases. The atma is the boss no doubt.

It also means power to punish, but as you said atman does not have anger or affection being Avikari.

[Rath:] Much before visiting Saturn, the Sun also married, so how can the atma

marry, the Sun also had children, how can the atma have children, and the atma

was also born!! so how can the atma have a father. And if the atma was not born

then he does not have a father, and this contradicts the basic statement of

Krishna (or Shiva or Holy father) that He is the father of all...you see where

this logic is going. So the Sun is not the Atma! Now now where are we heading.

Chandrasekhar ji there are different planes of consciousness and these grahas

are only SYMBOLIC - what is called NIMITTA. The Sun is not my Atma but is

symbolic of my atma. I can see very clearly that the sun that rises every

morning is quite different from me and I am within my body and the Sun

(physical) is coutside my body. When the temperature touched 46C today and

there was no electricity for two days now (we have intermittent periods of

electricity for 1 hour now and then), then I realised what the rishi meant by

saying Sun is a krura graha!!! Here it was the physical consciousness level.

Then I took a bath and sat down for the prayers and todays meditation was a

debate on which of the three Brhma Vishnu or Mahesha should be the naisargika

atmakaraka as this is the king...the spiritual king as well. Debated on the

great secret mantra "Shivohamasmi"..wondered a lot. still wondering.

Sanjayji, I understand the symbolism. I was just trying to make the point that

Atman is different from Atmabala and advancing the reasons thereof. The moment

we say Atmakaraka represents Atman, he cannot disociate from the Gunas of atma.

Arepresentative has to represent and not present his own views. However when we

take Atmakaraka to represent Atmabala of a Jataka, obviously tha atmabala would

be in proportion to influence of other planetary influences. This is what Ihave

been trying to say.

[Rath:] No Jupiter in all signs represents the presence of divinity (Prasna

Marga) but Jupiter cannot be the Karaka for the self. There is a difference

between the benediction of God (Jupiter) and God (Sun).

Sanajayji, you are saying the same thing that I have been trying to say. As

Atman and its attributes remain the same in all beings ( Vidya Vinaya

sampanne..) so does his representative Jupiter in all signs indicates presence

of Divinity whose infinitesimal portion is the Atman, as you quoted from

Prashna Marga.

[Rath:] That true that the Lagna trikona are vital but then how did Dharma come

from the first house?? I think this was a slip, its ok. leave it.

No it was not a slip. You have said we should try to relate the Dharma to

Horoscope too. Now here is my reasoning. Horoscope represents the complete

purushartha as intended by Dharma(Meaning Religion or better Hindu philosophy

here).The planetary position creates aberrations in the way a Jatak will

fulfill his Dharma(duty here).

What are the Four pillars( or if you prefer, steps leading to Moksha the

ultimate aim of followers of Dharma) of Purushartha? Dharma , Karma/Artha, Kama

and Moksha. Again what should be the correct direction? From uditaa part to

un-udita part of horoscope(Birth to death).So when we talk of Trikona other

three being obvious (Karma/Artha with 10th house as apex, Kama with 7th house

in similar position and Moksha with 4th house at top and 12th and 8th forming

the base) , the Ascendant at Apex Trikona could only be rightly called Dharma

trikona. Kindly correct me if my understanding or application is wrong.

[Rath:] My gurudeva said that he who can understand the Jyotish in the Gita

shall be a Daivagyna. That is why I extoll all my students to work on 3 books

Gita, BPHS and Jaimini sutra. Gita seems easy but is the most challenging.

I agree . The reason being with one's evolution one understands the finer

nuances of shlokas and the hidden wisdom within. I remember that when I quoted

the shloka "Vidyavinaya sampanne..." to support my argument that Atman is in

every being(charaachara) and of the same form and proportion, many on the list

could not relate it to that concept. I too advice puzzled people to read gita

and when they tell me that they have read it and remember it by heart, I ask

them if they have understood it. This sets them thinking and then they come to

me teling me every time they understaand different meaning of the same shloka,

their problems also start seeming light to them around the same time.

[Rath:] Dhanyavad Chandrasekhar ji. We know that the word/name of Jupiter is

Jiva as given by Siva and hence the bijakshara JUM is the Mrityunjaya Bija

mantra. Now we should not confuse. Jupiter is not Jivatma but the protector of

the Jivatma like He protected Indra (another Aditya-Sun) from the anger of

Shiva in the form of the Avadhuta Brahmana.

Sanjayji, I agree. Jeevatma is composed of Atman and Prakriti. I hope you will

not find what I have said ramblings of an old man. Thanks again for bearing with

me.

With Warm Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

-

Sanjay Rath

vedic astrology

Thursday, June 05, 2003 6:43 AM

RE: [vedic astrology] Re: 20th mumbai meeting discussions

|brihaspatim varenyam|

Dear Chandrasekhar ji

Dear Sanjayji,

Thank you for your patience. I am still of the opinion that the word Karaka

means significator and not Atman. That is why Chara Karaka, Nasargika Karaka

and Yoga Karaka are the terms used by Maharshi Parashara.[Rath:] Of course.

Karaka means significator. How can a graha become my Atma! It only signifies

the atma. That is why its dasa is generally painful - why because the

significator of the atma teaches you not to feel pain, not to feel sorrow and

to realise your real self.

In the first instance. Saturn being Atmakaraka Lively-hood due to native's

family is indicated says parashara. However, the person is more likely to

turn to spiritualism as Saturn also gives deep philosophical and analytical

thinking. Of course much would depend in Natal house tenanted as well as

Karakamsha occupied by Saturn and the Ascendant(Apex of Dharma Trikona)

Lord.for the reasons I have already put forward i.e. these are

interacting.[Rath:] My father has Saturn AK in Capricorn, I have Saturn AK in

Capricorn, my daughter has Saturn AK in Capricorn. Saturn rules the area calles

Saurashtra where Somanath was established. Anyway to the point. My father never

earned any livelihood from the traditional family knowledge, I did earn and

continue to do so, don't know about my daughter. Difference I have it in 11th

house.

Sun would always remain as naisargik Karaka so his position in natal

chart and strength as well as house tenanted and ownership of specific bhava

would decide what the results would be for a native. Jaimini also says

"Prasiddhakarma JeevaH Shanau". He is also likely to put himself to trouble on

account of others and would rarely give troubles to others. Mars as Atmakaraka

on the other hand could either steer one to Medicines , preparations dependent

on fire or Arms and would also make him like visual manifestations of whatever

he belives in (Dambha). [Rath:] I am aware of all this. Anyway, that still does

not answer the question. How are you going to see the jivatma and paramatma in

the chart? can you give an illustration?

I do not mean that Naisargika karaka does not influence bhava, I mean

House ownership of Naisargika karaka and his own placement in house, and its

relation with ascendant would decide the results that he would give. I agree

with you entirely with you that planets and bhavas affect each other. I have

actually said that the sages understood relative effects.[Rath:] OK we agree

on this

About scheme of 7 or 8 atmakarakas. I was not, talking about the number

of Karrakas but about the number of planets to be considered for Chara Karaka

ownership. Parashara himself indicates that he favours 7 planet scheme in

Adhyaaya32 shloka 1 line 2 when he says"saptaravyaadishanyantaan rvhntaan vaa

STsaMkhyakaan." or at least this is how R. Santanam has translated the shloka.

He also indicates that according to some Rahu replaces next in order when there

is degree similarity between two planets thus making both Karaka of a particular

bhava and further says that some say that Rahu be considered irrespective of

such a state. He then ,quite logically goes on to explain that when degrees are

equal one should go on to minutes and when they are so then to seconds. He also

gives the terms Antyakaraka, Madhya Karaka and Upkheta as the terms for these

variations.He also states that Atmakaraka has principal say in matters of

Native(Jataka).[Rath:] Why would the rishi use these words specifically if he

simply wanted people to compare degrees and minutes as well. Even if he did not

say so specifically, comparision of longitudes implies comparision of degrees,

minutes and seconds. I don't think the rishi's wasted precious words. The verse

is clear about two schemes of 7 and eight chara karaka. The basic creation is of

the 7 chara karaka and some superiod beings are created with eight charakaraka.

I will give a simple example - no matter how much of breeding the human being

does, they can never be more than the number of stones in this world. When it

comes to numbers, the inanimate world outnumbers the animate world many times.

I think my lack of communication skills made you think that I am disputing

wisdom of Parashara. I do not to the view that one or other scheme

narrated is wrong. I think one should try them out in horoscopes and decide for

oneself which he has been able to decipher better. About whether to use 7 or 8

charakarakas, I think if K.N. Rao says one or other is wrong he has ,may be,

his own logic. I am unable to see logic behind this, The reason is that if

three or more planets merge in to one karakatwa, what is to be done for the

rest karaka bhavas according to him would be interesting to know. The sages say

that in such cases the naisargik Karkas are to be used in vacant places. So

obviously 8 Karaka ownerships would remain, whether 7 or 8 planets are used. Or

at least this is what my Viveka tells me. I rather think that becoming one

charakaraka or other does not deprive any planet of his naisargika karakatwa

and planets are given karakatwas of all 12 bhavas.[Rath:] SMILE..Chandrasekhar

ji. That was a nice one. Of course the karakatva is co-existant.

Having said that where I differ from others is that, I think the Sage has

clearly indicated that the Charakarakas results for a native are to be

deciphered from their position in navamsha occupied by them and relative

position from karakamsha of other planets wrt Karakamsha, whereas what I find

is that Charakaraktwa is being applied to Natal chart. Either my knowledge is

defficient or I have not come accross any such reference during the course of

my studies.[Rath:] Are you sure. Lets see off hand I give you a quote - if the

lord of the Moon sign were the Atmakaraka and was strong or in Kendra or Kona

the native shall have Rajyoga in his late life. Now this relates to the rasi

chart. (I thank my Gurudeva for this great blessing of memory..His mantra never

fails me).

My own view of interpreting atma of Kalapurusha with reference to Jyotish is

to take the term to mean the Atmbala of the Jataka, this at least for me is

different and distinct from Atman,which is in every living being..The reson for

this thinking is that Sun is said to be atma of Kalapurusha(Sarvatmaa ca

divaanatho), [Rath:] Of course the Sun is sarvaatma and that is why the atma is

the svarupa of the sun. Ideally it is supposed to be of perfect satva guna like

the sun, but is it really? If it were then why did it incarnate?

Moon the Mana and so on while describing various organs of the Kalapurusha. Had

that Atman, Sun would not have been attributed rulership over father and Ketu

over Moksha. [Rath:] Not clear. Can you rephrase this please.

Sun would also not have been classified as Krura Graha being Naisargika

Atmakaraka. [Rath:] Krura and saumya is a svabhava attributed to the feelings

of the mana when there is an interaction. At the atma level there is no such

feeling. It is krura as it burns. Moon is saumya as it soothes. Here the

burning and soothing sensation is the interaction of the senses and the mana is

getting a feedback. In fact burning is the best spiritual remedy that is why

Tapas is said to be the ignition of the spiritual fire.

Even according to mythology Sun got the sunholes when he went to see his Son

Saturn, his sarathi got paralysed and Horses became blind. This therefore could

not be the atman within the Jevatma described by the Lord when he says" Nainan

Chndanti shastraaNi, nainan dahati paavaka...". [Rath:] Much before visiting

Saturn, the Sun also married, so how can the atma marry, the Sun also had

children, how can the atma have children, and the atma was also born!! so how

can the atma have a father. And if the atma was not born then he does not have

a father, and this contradicts the basic statement of Krishna (or Shiva or Holy

father) that He is the father of all...you see where this logic is going. So the

Sun is not the Atma! Now now where are we heading.