Why Guru shows Dual character (Some reasons can be given)

[Guest guest]

Dear Learned Friends ,

Self has done some work on both Rahu, Guru and Rashis which clearly

shows there is more to it than meets the eye.

If interested to know, undersigned can post some articles of research

here which may throw some light on this issue.

 

Rgds

Tatvam-Asi

 

 

 

 

vedic astrology, "Sarajit Poddar"

<sarajit@s...> wrote:

> || Jaya Jagannath ||

> Dear Chandrashekhar,

>

> Thank you for the comment from the puranas.

> " Lord Rama had to undergo vanvaas on account of Guru in Lagna,

Guru in third sent Bali to Patala. Guru in fourth tested Satwa of

King Harishchandra, Guru in sixth made Draupadi face Cheerharana.

Guru in eighth destroyed (Nasha) Ravana, Tenth house Guru killed

Duryodhana and 12th house Guru sent Pandu to forest." It further says

that Bhishma was deprived of Kingdom on account of Guru in 2nd, King

Dasharath had to loose his Son Rama (Putrashoka) on account of Guru

in 5th. Aja Raja had to suffer separation from his wife on account of

Guru in Seventh. Vishwamitra had to consume non eatables (Abhakshya)

on account of his Guru in 9th."

>

> Regards

> Sarajit

> -

> Chandrashekhar

> PNRazdan

> Cc: Prafulla Gang ; vedic astrology

> Wednesday, September 22, 2004 5:00 AM

> Re: [vedic astrology] Re: 2nd house Jup in various roles-

-to Chandraji

>

>

> Dear Razdan,

>

> Read BPHS again, Sage Parashara states opinion of Narada in

Ghatika Lagna shloka, refers to opinions of the learned (not Brahma)

in shloka 15 Ch.11, shloka 15 Ch.12. First shloka of Bhava Pada

Adhyaya again mentions that he is telling the special effects of Pada

as told by other Sages (again not Brahma). He he also mentions

opinion of others in first shloka of Karaka Adhyaya. The great Sage

has in almost all Adhyayas given credit to other learneds in one or

other of the shlokas, besides what Maitreya himself said to Sage

Parashara in the beginning of Ashtakavarga Adhyaya. In Shloka 1 of

that Adhyaya Maitreya clearly says that Parashara has given opinions

of many Rishis and Acharyas. So saying that Parashara only told what

had been revealed to him by Lord Brahma would be showing disrespect

to the Great sage who had the magnanimity to give credit to other

Rishis and Acharyas.

>

> Since you are questioning veracity and authority of the shlokas

that I quoted, I would like to give you the Texts in which the

shlokas appear. If you read Tatvapradeepjataka and Chamatkaar

Chintamani you will find them. The first text has the shlokas and the

later again mentions same shlokas. If you read Chamatkar Chintamani

further you will find Jupiter giving harm to at least one indication

of each of the houses/bhavas he occupies. It also mentions a shloka

from Purana which says:

>

> " Lord Rama had to undergo vanvaas on account of Guru in Lagna,

Guru in third sent Bali to Patala. Guru in fourth tested Satwa of

King Harishchandra, Guru in sixth made Draupadi face Cheerharana.

Guru in eighth destroyed (Nasha) Ravana, Tenth house Guru killed

Duryodhana and 12th house Guru sent Pandu to forest." It further says

that Bhishma was deprived of Kingdom on account of Guru in 2nd, King

Dasharath had to loose his Son Rama (Putrashoka) on account of Guru

in 5th. Aja Raja had to suffer separation from his wife on account of

Guru in Seventh. Vishwamitra had to consume non eatables (Abhakshya)

on account of his Guru in 9th."

>

> I would not like to respond to your other comments but would like

to mention here that the group is formed with an intention of

learning and discussing principles of astrology. I do not

to your assumption of astrology being a rigid science not open to

interpretation. Some of your comments are uncalled for.

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> PNRazdan wrote:

>

> Dear Chandarshekhar,

> There is nothing amusing in my reasoning. Parashara is quoting no

> ordinary Muni but Lord Brahma himself which gave us the

BPHS.Similarly

> Prithuysas is quoting his father the great Vrahmihir which gave us

the

> Horasastra. Equating your shaloka quoting a nameless sage (not

sages as

> I said earlier, but only one sage-I was incorrect because the noun

and

> verb is singular) would be like showing candle to the Sun.

> I dont think this discussion is going to serve any purpose. You are

not

> prepared to reveal the origin of the shalok you are so much

depending

> upon. By now it seems it is something casually said to which I

attached

> more than necessary importance. You seem to have attained the role

of

> some sort of a master in this group wanting your disciples to hunt

for

> themselves what you hint at. But I dont think this is an Ashram.

This

> is a forum of discussion where an academic discussion takes place

> openly without reservations. Or possibly there may be other reasons

for

> you not to come out openly.

> The moral of this story however is clear. Astrology is a science. It

> has a method. Under this method several books have all along treated

> Jup as a benefic planet and all interpretations are based on this

> principle with modifications depending on its functionality, place,

> lordship, strength etc etc. If you now put forth a crazy idea that

> Jupiter is a malefic or malefic like planet ( destroys the house it

is

> placed in), it turns the science from a method into a madness. It

will

> put doubts into the minds of all astrologists while interpreting its

> effects, particularly on young minds aspiring to learn jyotish.

Already

> I see a discussion started on these lines on this group which in my

> opinion is energy wasted on a wrong notion. Everytime one sees Jup

in a

> house, a doubt will arise as to whether it is good or bad. Some will

> associate it with good they had in that house and others with

whatever

> bad they had.

>

> So if you are determined to reap cheap publicity by making radical,

> unauthenticated and unconventional "advices", you may do so as this

is

> a free forum. But the least I can say is that this would be the

> greatest disservice to the field of Vedic Astrology.

> My humble suggestion to learned members would be to accept any

advice

> only after their own study and research and use dependable

commentators

> like Raman, Rao etc.for clarifications. It would be fair to treat

any

> advice seriously only if it is backed up by its source so as to make

> independent verification possible unless the author says it to be

his

> own research/ experience.

>

> Chandarshekharji, so let us decide to close this discussion as

friends

> (not by coincidence are we both having Jup as lagnesh).

> So far I didnot discuss specifics with you since I was on a

headlines

> discussion.

> Let me now respond to your last two queries.The reference to Jup in

the

> Second house discussion of BPHS has to be read in totality i.e all

the

> three shalokas 1,2 and 3 and not the 3rd only. Let me give a gist of

> each here

> First shaloka: Dhanesh in second, quadrants, trines is

dhanvridhikarak

> (wealth giving) in 6,8,12 opposite.

> Second Shaloka: Benefics in 2nd house, conjunct or aspected by

> benefics- wealth giving. Malefics in 2nd house opposite effect.

Nowhere

> is jupiter separated out as you claim to be.So long as it is known

as a

> benefic, it qualifies to be a wealth giver according to this

shaloka.

> Third Shaloka: If 2nd lord is Jupiter and is also posited in the

same

> house. And if Mars is also placed with it, then the subject becomes

> wealthy. Period.

> This does not mean that if Mars is not there, Jupiter alone will

harm

> the house. This is an implication which you are trying to make out

> probably to make your Muni's dictum hold good. Parashara never

means

> it. He means to say that while a swagrahi jupiter in second is

enough

> to make one rich but with Mars there it adds to ones wealth. Mark

the

> sanskrit words "Vapi" meaning 'in addition".

> And then you are contradicting your own self since even without

Mars,

> Jupiter would still be swagrahi which as per your shaloka is not

bad.

> So why Mars becomes necessary to support?

> As regards your second point, I am unfortunately not getting the

> shaloka since I have a different edition. There is no chapter on

> Kakshya and I took it as Karkanshya Phal Adhyay which has no shalok

> wanting Jup to have support of benefics to give good results.

> Sorry for the long mail. Regards

> Pran Razdan

>

>

> --- Chandrashekhar <boxdel> wrote:

>

>

> Dear Razdan,

> I am amused at the reasoning put forward by you that if some author

> quotes some other authority, he is not an authority on the subject.

> If

> that be so all those you treat as authorities, including Parashara,

> Varahamihira (By the way I have not heard of Mantracharya) would

also

> be

> reduced to the status of ignoramus. All of those who are treated as

> authorities have given opinions of others by either referring to

> their

> names or saying precisely what the shloka says that is "so say

> Munis".

> So rest assured none of the Acharyas and Pravartakas will tremble

at

> what I have stated. The reason I am not giving the name of the

> authority

> is I want people to read various texts and find out for themselves.

> There are numerous texts and it takes time to remember the name of

> author of each and every shloka one quotes is the other reason.

> If you do not want to read commentaries, your choice of

astrological

> texts would be reduced to almost one or two as every author of

note,

> states at the beginning of his text that he is only telling what

> others

> have told before him in a more concise form, including Varaha

Mihira.

>

> Maitreya also asks Parashara that as he has till now told principles

> of

> astrology on the basis of what others have told he should give a

> relatively easy method so that transit of planets could be used for

> prediction by those slow of grasp in the chapter on Ashtakavarga in

> BPHS.

>

> Could you explain the reason of shloka3 Chapter 13 of BPHS? What is

> the

> reason for Parashara to qualify Jupiter's being Lord of the 2nd

when

> placed in 2nd or needing to be with Mars there to make one wealthy,

> implying that Jupiter in other cases by its mere presence in 2nd

> would

> not be capable of conferring wealth on one. I hope you do not

dispute

>

> knowledge of Parashara himself or think he is quoting without

> authority.

> While at BPHS you may also like to reason out why CH.43 shloka 48

> tells

> that for Jupiter to give Kakshya Vridhi it has to be aspected by a

> benefic when in Lagna or 7th house. Think why Jupiter by himself

does

>

> not give Kakshya Vriddhi in longevity.

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> PNRazdan wrote:

>

>

> Dear Chandarshekhar,

>

> As already informed I have already read the shalok quoted by you in

> support of your contention.

>

> jIv> SvSwanhNta vdit muinvra +iòrSy àzSta,

> saEir SvSwanpal> prmÉykir +iòrSy ànòa.

>

> But please understand, this shaloka by itself does not establish the

> thesis you are trying to put forward. It has to be backed up by the

> author, his standing in the astrological field, the time when it was

> said and the context in which it was said. Literally translated, the

> Shalok means "Guru destroys the house it is placed in and dignifies

>

> the

>

> house it aspects, so say the sages. Saturn protects the house it is

>

> in

>

> while its dangerous aspect destroys it". Mark the words "vdit

>

> muinvra"

>

> i.e.so say the sages. This means that this shaloka too is somebody

> else's quote and not that of its author. Who is the author of this

> blatant theory after all?

>

> Chandarshekharji, you are making an important and revolutionary

> statement which if followed shall change the entire structure of

>

> Vedic

>

> Astrology. (I am sure Parasara, Varamihir, Mantracharya all must

>

> have

>

> stumbled in swargloka after hearing this shaloka). You have

>

> therefore

>

> to back it up equally strongly. Sanskrit shalokas can be written by

> anybody, even a primary class student studying sanskrit. It does not

> mean we should accept any shalok blindly simply because it is

>

> written

>

> in sanskrit.

>

> At one stage you said this is a shaloka and we need not go into its

> reasoning. OK but tell us the name of the author who is so respected

>

> in

>

> this field that we donot question his authority.

> In your other mail you have advised me to read commentaries of Pt.

> Gopeshkumar Oza and Pt. Kedardatt Joshi. Why should I read

>

> commentaries

>

> and not the original shalokas if I know sanskrit very well.

>

> So, as a learned Guru please favour all of us with the background

> information on the shaloka complete with your masterly reasoning why

> you are so convinced of its truth and applicability in the lives of

> human beings.

> I shall not go into the discussion of individual charts as it is

>

> common

>

> knowledge that results depend on many factors. If you are now

>

> holding

>

> Jup responsible for any bad thing that happened in the lives of

>

> these

>

> people, then the debate would be endless. Besides Lakshmi has very

> nicely handled this issue and replied the post point by point.

>

> Pran Razdan

>

> --- Chandrashekhar <boxdel> wrote:

>

>

>

>

> Dear Razdan,

> I have already given the relevant shloka and others have given

>

> other

>

> shlokas too. I have already advised you to go through the archives

> but

> it appears you have not done so. Have you found shloka about

> Jupiter's

> position in certain Rasis giving problems in progeny at least?

>

> You have mentioned many personalities, how much do you know about

> their

> personal lives to say that Jupiter has not harmed the house that

> occupies? Does A.B. Vajpayee has his own family? Check up. Also

>

> check

>

> up

> what lata Mangeshkar did to her sister to understand what Guru in

> Lagna

> can do.

>

> I have not made any sweeping statement. If you read the list, many

> have

> agreed to what I have said from their own experience. I have also

> said

> that one has to apply the dictum in proper perspective to get

>

> correct

>

> results. For this one has to know all the dictums, like all planets

> give

> good results in own house and all planets are capable of giving

>

> good

>

> results in 11th house. I think I have written umpteen times that no

>

> principle can be applied on standalone basis but has to be applied

> after

> taking into consideration all variables.

> The case mentioned by dear Lakshmi have Jupiter in own house or

> Saturn

> who protects the house is also conjunct Jupiter, if I remember

>

> right.

>

> The dictum being Sthana Bhrashta karoti JeevaH , sthana rakshati

> mandaH,

> the results that are stated to be obtained are in keeping with the

> dictum.

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

> PNRazdan wrote:

>

>

>

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar,

> I have been reading your posts on this subject all along but

>

> failed

>

>

>

>

> to

>

>

>

> get your source of conviction.

> We all agree that Jup too has its unfavourable positions and

>

>

>

> traits.

>

>

>

> We know it is a stronger Maraka, we also know that it is a

>

>

>

> functional

>

>

>

> malefic in Taurus, Libra, Capri etc laganas. We also know that it

>

>

>

> gets

>

>

>

> KP dosh in quadrant lordship, although KPdosh means only holding

> beneficial/malefic qualities, nothing more, but we extend the

>

>

>

> argument

>

>

>

> further by making them good or bad. These are well established

>

>

> === message truncated ===

>

>

>

>

> _______________________________

>

> Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.

> http://messenger.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-

 

>

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

>

>

>

>

> Sponsor

>

>

>

>

>

>

> --

----------

> Links

>

>

> vedic astrology/

>

> b..

> vedic astrology

>

> c.. Terms of

Service.