Guest guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 Dear Sanjay, > [s.Rath:] But that is what I said when I asked everyone to start taking > names based on Parasara/Jaimini's teaching of planet in the 12th house from > Karakamsa. Did I not give this very list? That this is not also referring to > a Vishnu avatara is perhaps a limitation of not connecting the third chapter > of Parasara with the other chapters. Why this limitation? I have no issue with connecting the third chapter and using Vishnu's avataras. My only problem is with insisting that only Vishnu's avataras should be prescribed and, moreover, attributing that view to Parasara. > In another chapter Parasara talks of Agni and Jala as the deities of the Sun > and Moon. Does it seem contradictory to this where he talks of different > deities as Rama and Krishna for Sun and Moon and then again in another > chapter he talks of Shiva and Gouri as the deities of Sun and Moon. We have millions of deities, but only nine planets!! Obviously, each planet must show many many deities. > In any case, strictly speaking, Parasara has never talked of Kali for any of > the planets. Then how can we explain the case of Ramakrishna? Should we > assume then that since he did not worship any of the deities mentioned by > Parasara then he did not get moksha? Parasara's list is obviously not exhaustive and merely a guidance. I object to eliminating deities explicitly listed by Parasara (e.g. insisting on only Vishnu's avataras and hence eliminating Shiva, Gouri etc), but obviously not to extending the list by treating it as a guideline. Secondly, Parasara did not specifically mention Kaali, but he did say that Saturn in a malefic sign shows devotion to taamasik deities. Here Saturn is in Aquarius, a malefic sign. > This would be a pathetic deduction as > if anyone deserves moksha in the recent history then he alone does so. I completely agree with the sentiment. And I am sure Ramakrishna got moksha. Humans may have the fortune of having Swami Vivekananda among them again, but Ramakrishna will not walk this earth again. > Should we take Kali to be the deity of the Moon or the deity of Saturn? > Prasna Marga at least is very clear about Saturn but puts a condition of the > Moon being in a Saturn's sign. Moon shows Divine Mother in general. Saturn's influence on him can show a Saturnine form of Divine Mother, i.e. Kaali. > When Ramakrishna finally obtained nirvikalpa samadhi, merging into the > formless reality, the deity he sought permission to do so was Kaali. Also, > the "form" that acted as the "final barrier" to merging with the "formless > reality" was Kaali - the form that he had to cut to reach nirviklapa samadhi > was that of Mother Kaali. > [s.Rath:] I think it was Ma Bhava Taarini, whom He called Kali and then the > whole of Bengal calls Her Kaali. Should I also do so? I think differently > and perhaps that is one flaw in me. > Narasimha, if I start calling you Ramachandra, do you become Ramachandra or > are you still Narasimha? And just because I start calling you Ramachandra > out of my dearest feelings for you and know how much I like you won't you > encourage me to do so and endure all my tantrums? Perhaps that is what Ma > Bhava Taarini did for Thakur. Suppose there is a stone idol that everybody calls "Ganesha". Suppose a great saint sees "Hanuman" in that stone and worships the stone as Hanuman. Suppose he worships Hanuman with the highest devotion. Won't Hanuman come and bless him? If that happens, is it Ganesha who blesses him or Hanuman? Is it the stone he worshipped that blesses him or the "Hanuman" that he sees in the stone that blesses him? Is the power in the stone or in the thoughts of devotion in the worshipper when he sees the stone? You can trust Ramakrishna to know the devata he saw!! If he thought he saw Kaali, it must be Kaali. Period. What the original idol he worshipped was called before is, IMHO, grossly irrelevant. Like I said earlier, "Taarana Kaali" who was with Ramakrishna is a variation of Kaali with some energy of Taara. It is Saturn in Aq with Jupiter that shows Her. > And, yet, you claim that Kaali is not his ishta devata!!!! Hmmm... > [s.Rath:] That was something worth thinking about. I try to go beyond the > border sometimes. And I try to get you back within the border. :-) > So I went and looked up Mantramahodadhih...and then I am again floored. > Completely stumped this time. > He says " Kalika is like a thousand SUN's ablaze...and she is best > worshipped on SUNDAYS!!!" > Thats it - enough for today. > What do you think Narasimha? I hope you are not considering Sun to show Kaali now! The dasa maha vidya verse you quoted associates Kaali with Saturn. If you see the desctiption of Kaali in Sapta shati, Sapta shati rahasyam etc, then also the association with Saturn makes great sense. You cannot expect each deity to be exactly like a planet and have every quality matching that of a specific planet. There may be similarity to several planets in several characteristics, but one planet may dominantly show the deity. For example, Kaali may have the radiance of Sun, speed of Mars, wisdom of Jupiter etc, but, if we have to pick one planet, it is Saturn. May the light of Brahman shine within, Narasimha ------------------------------- Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org ------------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Dear "Anuj" of Rama, :-) > "As what you wear is recognized as Ma, and what you desire is also > recognized as Ma" > > Wear=Fear in the above sentence. > > Please pardon the typos. Too many in one email. Yaar, sometimes profound statements come out of even mistakes made by learned people! At the core, we are just Brahman, the Atman. We "wear" many layers of conditioning that make us who we are now (or "aren't" really, depending on your perspective). All those layers of conditioning are indeed part of Ma. It is Ma who covers us with all those layers of conditioning (and hence it is Ma who can be the key to unravelling them). Thus, your typo is IMHO a very profound statement! > > Ma Kali is therefore, not Tamas and Ma is not afflicted by Gunas. She has > > lordship over them, being the Prakriti herself. Yes, She is the Prakriti Herself. Though Lakshmi, Saraswati and Kaali are all Prakriti only, they have lordship over different gunas within the Prakriti. However, it is correct that She is "not affected by Gunas". I completely agree with you. I now understand why some people were upset when I associated Kaali with tamas! Thanks for your mail. What you said above is true of most heigher deities. They are personifications of various guna combinations, but not affected by gunas. They are all muktas (already liberated). Being muktas, they are untouched by the gunas of the specific form they occupy. They do the work of the form they occupy, with the most perfect realization that they are the formless Brahman. Thus, the form they occupy has gunas but they are untouched by them. They exist in a form like that for a specific time and then they get moksha, i.e. their form merges with the formless Brahman. For example, Maharshi Vasishtha described the time periods of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. During the lifetime of one Vishnu, so many Brahmas come, do their job and get moksha (don't confuse this creator Brahma with formless Brahman). Similarly, during the lifetime of one Shiva, so many Vishnus come, do their job and get moksha. That is what Vasishtha taught Sri Ramachandra. All these heigher deities have long time periods to spend in a form and do so as muktas who are untouched by the gunas of the form they occupy. All these heigher deities who are muktas while existing in a form have the ability to operate at the low level and grant low level wishes or operate close to formlessness and give moksha. For example, Sanjay keeps on writing about the 12th house, Pisces and aakaasa tattva link to argue that only Vishnu gives moksha. But what the 12th house, Pisces and aakaasa tattva links suggests is that any deity who gives moksha is of aakaasa tattva and is close to formlessness. By worshipping Shiva as merely the giver of marriage (as Souvik wrote) or by worshipping Ganesha as merely the remover of obstacles or Mahaalakshmi as merely the giver of wealth or Mahaasaraswati as merely the giver of knowledge or Mahaakaali as merely the giver of victory in battles (as Sanjay wrote), you are merely worshipping a low level form of the deity and can only get limited results. But, as you worship them and get close to them, you may start realizing the unlimited nature of those deities. For example, if you worship Ganesha with Atharva Seersham and understand the meaning, you will see that he is lauded as the one from whom the whole universe originates, in whom the whole universe is stationed and into whom the whole universe merges at the time of Destruction, the one who also takes the forms of Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Indra, Agni etc etc. Only if you imagine such a higher aakaasa tattva form of Ganesha that is close to formlessness can Ganesha give you moksha. Similarly, with all higher deities who are muktas even as they exist in a form, you can worship the lower form for specific limited results or worship the higher forms that are close to formlessness and get moksha from them. Enough for today.. May the light of Brahman shine within, Narasimha ------------------------------- Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org ------------------------------- > "As what you wear is recognized as Ma, and what you desire is also > recognized as Ma" > > Wear=Fear in the above sentence. > > Please pardon the typos. Too many in one email. > > Thanks and Regards > Bharat > > On 6/8/06, Bharat Hindu Astrology <hinduastrology wrote: > > > > Namaskaar Sri Sanjay and Sri Narasimha > > > > Just a small note regarding Gunas and Ma: > > > > Ma Kali is not Tamas. All Tamas is Ma Kali. Like Ma lakshmi is not wealth > > but all wealth is Ma lakshmi. Ma Saraswati is not knowledge, but all > > knowledge is Ma Saraswati. > > > > Whatever we in the world, is nothing but the Lord. In Tantra, the > > expression of the Lord is Ma. All things that scare us are joined in Tamas. > > Hence, understand them to be nothing but Ma. Call her Ma Kaali if you wish. > > All that is desired, that attracts you is nothing but the same Ma. Call he > > Ma Lakshmi if you wish. By doing so, fears and desire vanish. As what you > > wear is recognized as Ma, and what you desire is also recognized as Ma. This > > makes one free from the same and understand that the objects of the world > > are nothing but Ma. > > > > Ma Kali is therefore, not Tamas and Ma is not afflicted by Gunas. She has > > lordship over them, being the Prakriti herself. > > > > Thanks and Regards > > Bharat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Dear Lakshmi, > Im asking ..Can you please show me the chart of someone that was > liberated by Ganesh? Or Sri Lakshmi? I quoted Parasara earlier w.r.t. ishta devata. Lonely Ketu with benefic aspects in the 12th from Karakamsa shows liberation through the worship of Ganesha according to Parasara. Ketu and Venus with benefic aspects in the 12th from karakamsa shows liberation through the worship of Lakshmi. Please refer to my first mail on this topic for the verses and meanings. > and also how do you know for sure they were "liberated"can you show > me in their chart, that they worshipped Ganesh and were liberated.? Of course, I cannot give examples for Ganesha or any specific gods. How can I (or anybody) "know for sure" in a matter such as this? All one can do is to consider various scriptures and Jyotish classics and the teachings of one's spiritual guru and come to a conclusion. > What do you mean by "liberated", from what , and from where? By liberation, I mean "moksha" or "saayujya" - the two words used by Parasara. Both are different, but one will be lucky to get either! * * * My basic premises are the following: (1) Saying that only a specific god gives moksha is wrong, as Parasara lists several deities and scriptures laud several deities as the givers of moksha. (2) An astrologer has to come out of his/her own samskaras and try to understand the samskaras of the client when giving advice in spiritual matters. If one devotes oneself to a specific deity so much that all other deities seem much less important, it may be excellent for individual sadhana. But, if an astrologer who gives advice in spiritual matters has such attitude, it may not be ideal. BTW, I am not giving any clear formulas for giving ishta devata. I am simply trying to inspire people to be more flexible, to not follow formulas (e.g. "Vishnu avataras only") blindly and to not ignore the teachings of Parasara. May the light of Brahman shine within, Narasimha ------------------------------- Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org ------------------------------- > Hare Krishna > Dear Narsimha, > Pranams. > You said "" For example, if you worship Ganesha with Atharva > Seersham and understand the meaning, you will see that he is lauded > as the one from whom the whole universe originates, in whom the > whole universe is stationed and into whom the whole universe merges > at the time of Destruction, the one who also takes the forms of > Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Indra, Agni etc etc. Only if you imagine such > a higher aakaasa tattva form of Ganesha that is close to > formlessness can Ganesha give you moksha. > > Similarly, with all higher deities who are muktas even as they exist > in a form, you can worship the lower form for specific limited > results or worship the higher forms that are close to formlessness > and get moksha from them."" > > Im asking ..Can you please show me the chart of someone that was > liberated by Ganesh? Or Sri Lakshmi? > and also how do you know for sure they were "liberated"can you show > me in their chart, that they worshipped Ganesh and were liberated.? > What do you mean by "liberated", from what , and from where? > thank-you, > Lakshmi > > > sohamsa, "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" <pvr@> > wrote: > > > > Dear "Anuj" of Rama, :-) > > > > > "As what you wear is recognized as Ma, and what you desire is > also > > > recognized as Ma" > > > > > > Wear=Fear in the above sentence. > > > > > > Please pardon the typos. Too many in one email. > > > > Yaar, sometimes profound statements come out of even mistakes made > by learned people! > > > > At the core, we are just Brahman, the Atman. We "wear" many layers > of conditioning that make us who we are now (or "aren't" really, > depending on your perspective). All those layers of conditioning are > indeed part of Ma. It is Ma who covers us with all those layers of > conditioning (and hence it is Ma who can be the key to unravelling > them). > > > > Thus, your typo is IMHO a very profound statement! > > > > > > Ma Kali is therefore, not Tamas and Ma is not afflicted by > Gunas. She has > > > > lordship over them, being the Prakriti herself. > > > > Yes, She is the Prakriti Herself. Though Lakshmi, Saraswati and > Kaali are all Prakriti only, they have lordship over different gunas > within the Prakriti. > > > > However, it is correct that She is "not affected by Gunas". I > completely agree with you. I now understand why some people were > upset when I associated Kaali with tamas! Thanks for your mail. > > > > What you said above is true of most heigher deities. They are > personifications of various guna combinations, but not affected by > gunas. They are all muktas (already liberated). Being muktas, they > are untouched by the gunas of the specific form they occupy. They do > the work of the form they occupy, with the most perfect realization > that they are the formless Brahman. Thus, the form they occupy has > gunas but they are untouched by them. They exist in a form like that > for a specific time and then they get moksha, i.e. their form merges > with the formless Brahman. > > > > For example, Maharshi Vasishtha described the time periods of > Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. During the lifetime of one Vishnu, so many > Brahmas come, do their job and get moksha (don't confuse this > creator Brahma with formless Brahman). Similarly, during the > lifetime of one Shiva, so many Vishnus come, do their job and get > moksha. That is what Vasishtha taught Sri Ramachandra. > > > > All these heigher deities have long time periods to spend in a > form and do so as muktas who are untouched by the gunas of the form > they occupy. > > > > All these heigher deities who are muktas while existing in a form > have the ability to operate at the low level and grant low level > wishes or operate close to formlessness and give moksha. > > > > For example, Sanjay keeps on writing about the 12th house, Pisces > and aakaasa tattva link to argue that only Vishnu gives moksha. But > what the 12th house, Pisces and aakaasa tattva links suggests is > that any deity who gives moksha is of aakaasa tattva and is close to > formlessness. > > > > By worshipping Shiva as merely the giver of marriage (as Souvik > wrote) or by worshipping Ganesha as merely the remover of obstacles > or Mahaalakshmi as merely the giver of wealth or Mahaasaraswati as > merely the giver of knowledge or Mahaakaali as merely the giver of > victory in battles (as Sanjay wrote), you are merely worshipping a > low level form of the deity and can only get limited results. But, > as you worship them and get close to them, you may start realizing > the unlimited nature of those deities. > > > > For example, if you worship Ganesha with Atharva Seersham and > understand the meaning, you will see that he is lauded as the one > from whom the whole universe originates, in whom the whole universe > is stationed and into whom the whole universe merges at the time of > Destruction, the one who also takes the forms of Brahma, Vishnu, > Rudra, Indra, Agni etc etc. Only if you imagine such a higher > aakaasa tattva form of Ganesha that is close to formlessness can > Ganesha give you moksha. > > > > Similarly, with all higher deities who are muktas even as they > exist in a form, you can worship the lower form for specific limited > results or worship the higher forms that are close to formlessness > and get moksha from them. > > > > Enough for today.. > > > > May the light of Brahman shine within, > > Narasimha > > ------------------------------- > > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net > > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org > > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org > > ------------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Dear all, I am relatively new to learning jyotish. I have a small question regarding which house to look for ishta devata. If Atma Karaka sign in Navamsha is known, then 12th house from it is taken in Navamsa chart? or Rasi chart? If we look at karakamsha (AK's sign in navamsa chart) in the Rasi chart, should we consider the planetary positions "as is" in Rasi chart? or should the new rasi's be superimposed over rasi chart's planetary positions? I apologize if I am asking an obviously basic question. Here is an example on how I got confused. Birth details: 15 May 1979, time: 10.58am place:14N26,79E58 The AK is Mercury: In rasi chart, mercury is in aries in 10th house. In Navamsa, mercury is in leo in 11 house. Now I deduce, leo is the karakamsa, should I look at planets in cancer in navamsa chart? should I look at planets in cancer in rasi chart? Should I move leo to 10th house in rasi chart and look at my 9th house planet in rasi chart? Your advice and clarifications are much appreciated. best regards, sk vedic astrology, "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" <pvr wrote: > > Dear Lakshmi, > > I appreciate what you wrote in your mail. But, I want to strike a different note on the following thing you wrote: > > > THere is so much variation, but now we read Parasara advocates > > offering a Vishnu form for Isthadevata , but modernizing it for > > different cultures and religions we can. > > [background for non-SJC people: In the SJC tradition, the devata corresponding to a planet in the 12th house from AK in navamsa is called ishta devata and supposed to take one towards moksha.] > > Can you please quote the verse in which Parasara advocates offering a Vishnu form for ishtadevata? I missed that verse when I studied BPHS. > > Parasara did associate planets with Vishnu's avataras at the beginning of BPHS. But, as far as I know, Parsara he did not talk about Vishnu's avataras when he talked about worshipping a devata based on the planets in the 12th house from karakamsa. > > The following verses are from the 33rd chapter in BPHS (on Karakamsa): > > kArakAMshAd.h vyayasthAne svabhochchasthe shubhagrahe | > sad.hgatirjAyate tasya shubhalokamavApnuyAt.h || 64|| > kArakAMshAd.h vyaye ketau shubhakheTayutexite | > tadA tu jAyate muktiH sAyujyapadamApnuyAt.h || 65|| > meshhe dhanushhi vA ketau kArakAMshAt.h vyaye sthite | > shubhakheTena sandR^ishhTe sAyujapadamApnuyAt.h || 66|| > vyaye cha kevale ketau pApayuktexitepi vA | > na tadA jAyate muktiH shubhalokaM na pashyati || 67|| > raviNA saMyute ketau kArakAMshAd.h vyayasthite | > shivabhaktirbhavesyatta nirvishaMkaM dvijottama || 68|| > chandreNa saMyute ketau kArakAMshAd.h vyayasthite | > gauryAM bhaktirbhavettasya shAktiko jAyate naraH || 69|| > shukreNa saMyute ketau kArakAMshAd.h vyayasthite | > laxmyAM saJNjAyate bhaktirjAtako sau samR^iddhimAn.h || 70|| > kujena saMyute ketau skandabhaktau bhavennaraH | > vaishhNavo budhasauribhyAM guruNA shivabhaktimAn.h || 71|| > rAhuNA tAmasIM durgAM sevate xudradevatAm.h | > bhaktiH skande.atha herabhbhe shikhinA kevalena vA || 72|| > kArakAMshAd.h vyaye sauriH pAparAshau yadA bhavet.h | > tadA.api xudradevasya bhaktistasya na saMshayaH || 73|| > > Here is a rough translation: > > "If a benefic planet is in own sign or exaltation sign in the 12th house from karakamsa (AK in navamsa), the native will reach an auspicious loka. If Ketu is there, with benefic planet conjunction or aspect, then moksha/sayujya is obtained. If such a Ketu is in Aries or Sagittarius, aspected by a benefic planet, then sayujya (joining one of the deities - different from moksha, but almost as good) is obtained. If Ketu in 12th is alone or conjoined/aspected by malefics, the native neither gets moksha nor reaches higher lokas. If Ketu is with Sun in the 12th from karakamsa, devotion to Shiva is suggested without doubt. If Ketu is with Moon in the 12th from karakamsa, devotion to Gouri is suggested and a Shaakta is born. If Ketu is with Venus in the 12th from karakamsa, devotion to Lakshmi is caused and the native is blessed. If Ketu is with Mars, native will be a devotee of Skanda. Mercury and Saturn make one a Vaishnava, while Jupiter makes one a devotee of Shiva. In the case of Rahu, native worships tamasi form Durga or kshudra devatas. If Ketu is alone, then devotion is to Skanda or Ganesha. If Saturn in the 12th from karakamsa is in a malefic sign, then native devotes to a kshudra devata [instead of Vishnu] without doubt. " > > The way we find ishta devata in the SJC tradition is NOT from Parasara. It has similarities, but you will see what Parasara said above and it is not the same as what SJC tradition teaches. Moreover, there is no reference to Vishnu's avataras here. > > I have no disrespect for either tradition, but, as Parasara's name was brought up, I wanted to throw light on what I believe Parasara advocated. > > May the light of Brahman shine within, > Narasimha > ------------------------------- > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org > ------------------------------- > > sohamsa, "lakshmikary" <lakshmikary@> wrote: > > > > Jaya Jagannatha, > > Dear Sundeep, > > Rather you making judgements on each other etc,or decided yu are > > right or wrong, lets accept it is a personal thing/path ,isnt > > everyone on a unique path of self realization of life,? Just because > > I beleive this or that what does that mean to some catholic nun? > > > > THere is so much variation, but now we read Parasara advocates > > offering a Vishnu form for Isthadevata , but modernizing it for > > different cultures and religions we can. > > The 12th rashi from AK in navamsa can have so many influences to it. > > Also D-20 itself shows so much potential for variation,about ones > > attitude,devotion etc. > > So one is the same ! Thank-God.So there is no "ONE path" or God that > > we ARE ALL rigidly following.(or not following) > > Depends on our free will and individuality and our unique connection > > to the universe. > > Why dont you post your chart and show us your Isthadevata and > > palanadeveta and give some astro analysis, as this is an astro forum. > > I heard that some SJC people were compiling a number of charts of > > catholics and others and showing ishtadeveta ,etc//as a good study. > > For example at one time I did many buddists and inpersonalists chart > > and many had Sun in the 12th house in rasi and as their ISthadeveta. > > A big area of study as people from a wide variety of cultural back > > ground consults an astrologer. > > With regards, > > Lakshmi > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.