Reference of Planets in our Scriptures.

[Guest guest]

Respected Members,

 

This is not a question regarding Advaita, but a question regarding our

scriptures.

 

Was there any mention in our scriptures (that is Vedas or Upanishads)

about planets being spherical and not flat, and that Earth rotates

around sun and not the other way? From Stories we know that "Sun God"

travels on a Horse driven chariot. I presume that was metaphorical

reference only.

 

 

Thanks

 

Sudesh

(PS: I am curious to know if Copernicus was indeed the first one to

declare that Earth goes around sun and is not flat)

[Guest guest]

Sudeshiji ,

 

Thanks for asking this question.

 

here is what i found on this subject.

 

"The earliest traces of a counter-intuitive idea that it is the Earth

that is actually moving and the Sun that is at the centre of the

solar system (hence the concept of heliocentrism) is found in several

Vedic Sanskrit texts written in ancient India. Yajnavalkya (c. 9th–

8th century BC) recognized that the Earth was round and believed that

the Sun was "the centre of the spheres" as described in the Vedas at

the time. His astronomical text Shatapatha Brahmana (8.7.3.10)

states: "The sun strings these worlds - the earth, the planets, the

atmosphere - to himself on a thread." He recognized that the Sun was

much larger than the Earth, which would have influenced this early

heliocentric concept. He also accurately measured the relative

distances of the Sun and the Moon from the Earth as 108 times the

diameters of these heavenly bodies, almost close to the modern

measurements of 107.6 for the Sun and 110.6 for the Moon. The

calendar he described in the Shatapatha Brahmana corresponds to an

average tropical year of 365.2467 days, which was only 6 minutes

longer than the modern value of 365.2422 days.

 

The Vedic Sanskrit text Aitareya Brahmana (2.7) (c. 9th–8th century

BC) also states: "The Sun never sets nor rises. When people think the

sun is setting, it is not so; they are mistaken." This indicates that

the Sun is stationary (hence the Earth is moving around it), which is

elaborated in a later commentary Vishnu Purana (2.8) (c. 1st

century), which states: "The sun is stationed for all time, in the

middle of the day. [...] Of the sun, which is always in one and the

same place, there is neither setting nor rising."

 

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism

 

furthermore,

 

For example take Vedic hymns number Rig 1.164.11, 2.27.11 and Yajur

18.40 alongwith their meaning and essence, "The sun moves neither

right nor left, nor east nor west but around which this earth and its

satellites keep continuously moving and this secret only the serious

and intelligent alone can learn, let me live in the light without

fear."

 

It talks about Solar System, with sun in the centre and movement of

planets and their satellites held together by gravitational

forces. "The twelve spoke wheel of twelve months revolves round the

sun continuously. Seven hundred and twenty pairs of suns in the form

of day and night also remain present where the number of days and

nights are 360 each."

 

This shows that Rigvedic people knew fairly well about the movement

of the earth on its own axis and also around the Sun due to which

they were able to calculate time, seconds, minutes, hours, weeks,

months and year. "The moon gets light from the ray of the sun named

Susumna, indicating that the people knew that the moonlight was due

to the reflected light of the sun. The Vedic period ended at least

5,000 years ago. The learned people of western civilisation were

still grappling over the size and shape of the earth.

 

They were unaware of its gravitational force, whereas Vedic Scholars

calculated the time of the rotation of earth, developed the calendar

of twelve months in a year. "

 

http://www.hvk.org/articles/1105/13.html

 

 

Hope this helps.

 

regards

 

advaitin, "Sudesh Pillutla"

<sudeshpillutla wrote:

>

> Respected Members,

>

> This is not a question regarding Advaita, but a question regarding

our

> scriptures.

>

> Was there any mention in our scriptures (that is Vedas or

Upanishads)

> about planets being spherical and not flat, and that Earth rotates

> around sun and not the other way? >

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri. Sudesh,

 

> (PS: I am curious to know if Copernicus was indeed the first one to

> declare that Earth goes around sun and is not flat)

 

Aryabhatta had written about the round earth and Heliocentrism (Sun

being the center and the planets rotating around the sun) a thousand

years before Copernicus. Reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryabhatta

 

Best regards,

Ramachandra

[Guest guest]

sudeshji:

 

here is some more references to the Sun giod and mother earth in the

Vedas !

 

please read on :

 

Advanced Scientific Concepts in Hindu Literature

 

" O disciple, a student in the science of government, sail in oceans

in steamers, fly in the air in airplanes, know God the creator

through the Vedas, control thy breath through yoga, through astronomy

know the functions of day and night, know all the Vedas, Rig, Yajur,

Sama and Atharva, by means of their constituent parts."

 

" Through astronomy, geography, and geology, go thou to all the

different countries of the world under the sun. Mayest thou attain

through good preaching to statesmanship and artisanship, through

medical science obtain knowledge of all medicinal plants, through

hydrostatics learn the different uses of water, through electricity

understand the working of ever lustrous lightening. Carry out my

instructions willingly." (Yajur-veda 6.21).

 

" O royal skilled engineer, construct sea-boats, propelled on water

by our experts, and airplanes, moving and flying upward, after the

clouds that reside in the mid-region, that fly as the boats move on

the sea, that fly high over and below the watery clouds. Be thou,

thereby, prosperous in this world created by the Omnipresent God, and

flier in both air and lightning." (Yajur-veda 10.19).

 

" The atomic energy fissions the ninety-nine elements, covering its

path by the bombardments of neutrons without let or hindrance.

Desirous of stalking the head, ie. The chief part of the swift power,

hidden in the mass of molecular adjustments of the elements, this

atomic energy approaches it in the very act of fissioning it by the

above-noted bombardment. Herein, verily the scientists know the

similar hidden striking force of the rays of the sun working in the

orbit of the moon." (Atharva-veda 20.41.1-3).

 

(source: Searching for Vedic India - By Devamitra Swami p. 155 -

157). For more refer to chapter on Hindu Culture and Vimanas).

 

***-----------

 

The Rig Veda is the oldest Indian text and one of the oldest From

this approach it follows that the Rig Veda seers were scientists in

the modern sense. Pre-Rig Veda astronomers, had, in fact measured the

sphericity of the Earth, established the heliocentric theory in its

modern form, and explained the seasons astronomically. Advanced

concepts like the causes of auroral displays were also understood.

The Rig Veda is according to astronomical grounds, more than five

thousand years old. The Rig Veda repeatedly refers to Earth and the

heavens as "bowls" thus suggesting that the sphericity of Earth was

recognized. This can be confirmed by several hymns as well. Several

hymns are attributed to the Aswins, which are the planets Mercury and

Venus. A Rig Veda hymn to the Asvins, quoted in the Mahabharata, also

refers to the twelve zodiacal signs. Undoubtedly, the twelve zodiacal

signs were known. Thus, the earliest reference to the zodiacal signs

is, therefore, in the Rig Veda, not in the Babylonian literature.

 

Sphericity of Earth:

 

The existence of rather advanced concepts like the sphericity of

Earth and the cause of seasons is quite clear in Vedic literature.

For example, the Aitareya Brahmana (3.44) declares:

 

"The Sun does never set nor rise. When people think the Sun is

setting (it is not so). For after having arrived at the end of the

day it makes itself produce two opposite effects, making night to

what is below and day to what is on the other side…Having reached the

end of the night, it makes itself produce two opposite effects,

making day to what is below and night to what is on the other side.

In fact, the Sun never sets…."

 

Earth as Flat at Poles:

 

"Twenty-four centuries before Isaac Newton, the Hindu Rig-Veda

asserted that gravitation held the universe together. The Sanskrit

speaking Aryans d to the idea of a spherical earth in an era

when the Greeks believed in a flat one. The Indians of the fifth

century A.D. calculated the age of the earth as 4.3 billion years;

scientists in 19th century England were convinced it was 100 million

years."

 

(source: Lost Discoveries: The Ancient Roots of Modern Science - By

Dick Teresi p. 7 - 8).

 

It is quite remarkable that the Markandeya Purana (54.12) speaks of

Earth as being flattened at the poles and bulging at the equator,

that is, not perfectly spherical.

 

The Vishnu Purana, in an obvious elaboration of the above quotation

from the Aitareya Brahmana, also speaks of antipodes of Earth and

indeed implies the existence of Earth's rotation. In addition, even

more elementary concepts like the phases of Moon and the cause of

twilight were well understood, as was the fact that the blue sky is

nothing but scattered sunlight. (cf. Markandeya Purana, 78.8, or

103.9)

 

Sun the center of the Solar System:

 

Dick Teresi has observed that:

 

"The Vedas recognized the sun as the source of light and warmth, the

source of life, and center of creation, and the center of the

spheres. This perception may have planted a seed, leading Indian

thinkers to entertain the idea of heliocentricity long before some

Greeks thought of it. An ancient Sanskrit couplet also contemplates

the idea of multiple suns:

 

"Sarva Dishanaam, Suryaham Suryaha, Surya."

 

Roughly translated this means, "There are suns in all directions, the

night sky being full of them," suggesting that early sky watchers may

have realized that the visible stars are similar in kind to the sun.

A hymn of the Rig Veda, the Taittriya Brahmana, extols,

nakshatravidya (nakshatra means stars; vidya, knowledge)."

 

"Two thousand years before Pythagoras, philosophers in northern India

had understood that gravitation held the solar system together, and

that therefore the sun, the most massive object, had to be at its

center. "

 

(source: Lost Discoveries: The Ancient Roots of Modern Science - By

Dick Teresi p. 1 and 130).

 

One frequently encounters the concepts of the Sun being at the center

of the solar system (cf Markandeya Purana, 106. 41). All this pales,

however, before the concept, startlingly similar to the twentieth-

century model, of an oscillating universe, or more accurately, a

universe being cyclically created and destroyed, with just about the

right time period of about 10,000 million years.

 

(cf. Mahabharata Santi Parva, or Markandeya Purana, 81, 57-58).

 

The Rig Veda repeatedly asks, "How is it that though the Sun is not

bound and is directed downwards, it does not fall?" A question asked

by Isaac Newton more than three thousand years later, and no one

else, because the Greeks had furnished the crystal spheres to which

these objects were attached!

 

When we talk of gravity, Newton comes to our mind, but in the text

Surya Sidhantha dated around 400 AD, Bhaskaracharya described it

stated. "objects fall on the earth due to one force. The Earth,

planets, constellations, moon and sun are held in orbit because of

that one force".

 

"Seven horses draw the chariot of Surya". Rg Veda 5. 45. 9

 

These seven horses are the seven colors compromising light. These

seven colors become visible in a rainbow or when light passes through

a prism. "

 

to read the entire article , pl go to

 

http://www.atributetohinduism.com/Advanced_Concepts.htm

[Guest guest]

advaitin, KBS Ramachandra <ram wrote:

>

> Dear Sri. Sudesh,

>

> > (PS: I am curious to know if Copernicus was indeed the first one

to

> > declare that Earth goes around sun and is not flat)

>

> Aryabhatta had written about the round earth and Heliocentrism (Sun

> being the center and the planets rotating around the sun) a

thousand

> years before Copernicus. Reference:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryabhatta

 

Namaste,

 

A good introduction to the subject is at:

 

http://www.kamakoti.org/newlayout/template/hindudharma.html/10/1/hind

u/Jyotisa

 

OR

 

http://tinyurl.com/guu6f

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

dhynaasaraswati

 

PraNams. I enjoyed reading your two posts. I am copying them and

sending it to couple of my friends who are interested in the science in

vedic period.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

--- dhyanasaraswati <dhyanasaraswati > wrote:

 

> sudeshji:

>

> here is some more references to the Sun giod and mother earth in the

> Vedas !

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks to all of you. I am glad that I have chosen this group as

my "Guru".

 

I feel like I belong a lost generation (what ever the political

reason may be) for not learning these "Truths" about Sanathana Dharma

while growing up.

 

Thanks

 

Sudesh

 

 

advaitin, "dhyanasaraswati"

<dhyanasaraswati wrote:

>

> Sudeshiji ,

>

> Thanks for asking this question.

>

> here is what i found on this subject.

>

> "The earliest traces of a counter-intuitive idea that it is the

Earth

> that is actually moving and the Sun that is at the centre of the

> solar system (hence the concept of heliocentrism) is found in

several

> Vedic Sanskrit texts written in ancient India. Yajnavalkya (c. 9th–

> 8th century BC) recognized that the Earth was round and believed

that

> the Sun was "the centre of the spheres" as described in the Vedas

at

> the time. His astronomical text Shatapatha Brahmana (8.7.3.10)

> states: "The sun strings these worlds - the earth, the planets, the

> atmosphere - to himself on a thread." He recognized that the Sun

was

> much larger than the Earth, which would have influenced this early

> heliocentric concept. He also accurately measured the relative

> distances of the Sun and the Moon from the Earth as 108 times the

> diameters of these heavenly bodies, almost close to the modern

> measurements of 107.6 for the Sun and 110.6 for the Moon. The

> calendar he described in the Shatapatha Brahmana corresponds to an

> average tropical year of 365.2467 days, which was only 6 minutes

> longer than the modern value of 365.2422 days.

>

> The Vedic Sanskrit text Aitareya Brahmana (2.7) (c. 9th–8th century

> BC) also states: "The Sun never sets nor rises. When people think

the

> sun is setting, it is not so; they are mistaken." This indicates

that

> the Sun is stationary (hence the Earth is moving around it), which

is

> elaborated in a later commentary Vishnu Purana (2.8) (c. 1st

> century), which states: "The sun is stationed for all time, in the

> middle of the day. [...] Of the sun, which is always in one and the

> same place, there is neither setting nor rising."

>

> http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism

>

> furthermore,

>

> For example take Vedic hymns number Rig 1.164.11, 2.27.11 and Yajur

> 18.40 alongwith their meaning and essence, "The sun moves neither

> right nor left, nor east nor west but around which this earth and

its

> satellites keep continuously moving and this secret only the

serious

> and intelligent alone can learn, let me live in the light without

> fear."

>

> It talks about Solar System, with sun in the centre and movement of

> planets and their satellites held together by gravitational

> forces. "The twelve spoke wheel of twelve months revolves round the

> sun continuously. Seven hundred and twenty pairs of suns in the

form

> of day and night also remain present where the number of days and

> nights are 360 each."

>

> This shows that Rigvedic people knew fairly well about the movement

> of the earth on its own axis and also around the Sun due to which

> they were able to calculate time, seconds, minutes, hours, weeks,

> months and year. "The moon gets light from the ray of the sun named

> Susumna, indicating that the people knew that the moonlight was due

> to the reflected light of the sun. The Vedic period ended at least

> 5,000 years ago. The learned people of western civilisation were

> still grappling over the size and shape of the earth.

>

> They were unaware of its gravitational force, whereas Vedic

Scholars

> calculated the time of the rotation of earth, developed the

calendar

> of twelve months in a year. "

>

> http://www.hvk.org/articles/1105/13.html

>

>

> Hope this helps.

>

> regards

>

> advaitin, "Sudesh Pillutla"

> <sudeshpillutla@> wrote:

> >

> > Respected Members,

> >

> > This is not a question regarding Advaita, but a question

regarding

> our

> > scriptures.

> >

> > Was there any mention in our scriptures (that is Vedas or

> Upanishads)

> > about planets being spherical and not flat, and that Earth

rotates

> > around sun and not the other way? >

>

[Guest guest]

namaskaram to all

when i read the question raised by shri Sudeshji, i was thinking in my mind what sort of question it is....

we all know that our scriptures never considered earth as flat and they new a lot about all these since they had what we call " panchanga" etc..

But now first i must say thanks - thanks a lot - for sending such a question as

without an iota of doubt i can say that never would have i come to know of what we were able to read now ....

and thanks a lot to Dhyanaasaraswatiji...

how fortunate i am to live at a time and have an opportunity to have come across this site and thru this site all of you...

my pranams to you

and look forward to more such querries and more informative- educative- replies..

i too have copied your replies and sent to many of my friends who- i am sure will be surprised to read what u have stated...

and to know that how ignorant we are about our this beautiful country...

and how fortunate are we to have born atleast in this birth in this country...

namaskaram once again

 

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada > wrote:

dhynaasaraswati

 

PraNams. I enjoyed reading your two posts. I am copying them and

sending it to couple of my friends who are interested in the science in

vedic period.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

--- dhyanasaraswati <dhyanasaraswati > wrote:

 

> sudeshji:

>

> here is some more references to the Sun giod and mother earth in the

> Vedas !

>

 

 

 

 

 

India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new Click here

Send free SMS to your Friends on Mobile from your Messenger Download now

[Guest guest]

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> dhynaasaraswati

>

> PraNams. I enjoyed reading your two posts. I am copying them and

> sending it to couple of my friends who are interested in the

science in

> vedic period.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

> --- dhyanasaraswati <dhyanasaraswati wrote:

>

> > sudeshji:

> >

> > here is some more references to the Sun giod and mother earth in

the

> > Vedas !

 

Namaste All,

 

Why not include pushpaks and vimanas as well? There are many

references in Sankrit texts.

 

http://www.atributetohinduism.com/Vimanas.htm

 

It is a rather, not so kept secret, that the ancients used flying

machines and all kind of technology. There are pictures of flying

machines on the Egyptian pyramids and throughout Hindu Art. It has

always been strange to my mind that in the many millions of years of

intelligent beings, not necessarily the modern human, we were only

supposed to have developed technology recently.

 

It seems to me that the Vedas are writing about a common knowledge

at one time, as is indicated by the Egyptian year, which is about

7000. It is not strictly 'Indian' or 'Hindu' in the modern sense of

understanding, nor strictly Egyptian etc.

 

The tales of Hiranyakasipu from a couple of million years ago have

the ring of truth in legend. If one takes a type of man on the

planet for 10 million years and perhaps other forms for 20 million,

basing civilisation on Sumerian agriculture 6,000 years ago seems to

me to be preposterous.

 

There is one truth though and that is the modern human is 98%

genetic ape, and this may be the history of that particular breed's

civilisation, which apparantly according to Lovelock is going to

disappear within 50-100 years to be replaced by atlantis type fables

of our technology...........ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ram mohan anantha pai <pairamblr

wrote:

>

If somebody reads Brahma Gupta-Arya bhatta-VaraahaMihira-Bhaskara-I-

Bhasskara-II-Dasa Kittika etc-this question would not have arisen at

all-The "Nomenclature of Macro Units of Time" in the treatises

mentioned above are very Scientific and Rational--

The "Nomenclature"(Gregorian Nomenclature) to which we are accustomed,

including the one in this Message Board -such as June 21,2006-is

absolutely Un-scientific and totally Irrational-Instead-Uttaraayane-

Vaisaaka Maase-Krishna Pakshe-Dasamyam-Uttara Bhaadrapadha Nakshathire

is absolutely Scientific and very Rational--Similarly-Paraardham-

Kalpam-Manvantaram-Tamam-Yugam etc are also very Scientific and

Rational--If somebody has will to know,I have time to explain-Somayaji

[Guest guest]

namaskaram to Shri Somayaji and all others who are participating in

this satsang.

 

Shri Somayaji may please pardon people like me who have not been

fortunate to know or opportunity to read and understand what is

stated in your posting.

 

this site brings to the notice of people like me a lot of

information which otherwise remain unknown to us.

 

we shall be very greatful if Shri Somayaji takes the trouble to

write in as much detail as lay men like me would understand and that

will help us to remove some more part of the large sheet of

ignorance that we have...

 

namaskaram once again

 

to one and all

 

ram mohan

 

 

-- In advaitin, "ssrvj" <ssrvj wrote:

>

> advaitin, ram mohan anantha pai

<pairamblr@>

> wrote:

> >

> If somebody reads Brahma Gupta-Arya bhatta-VaraahaMihira-Bhaskara-

I-

> Bhasskara-II-Dasa Kittika etc-this question would not have arisen

at

> all-The "Nomenclature of Macro Units of Time" in the treatises

> mentioned above are very Scientific and Rational--

> The "Nomenclature"(Gregorian Nomenclature) to which we are

accustomed,

> including the one in this Message Board -such as June 21,2006-is

> absolutely Un-scientific and totally Irrational-Instead-

Uttaraayane-

> Vaisaaka Maase-Krishna Pakshe-Dasamyam-Uttara Bhaadrapadha

Nakshathire

> is absolutely Scientific and very Rational--Similarly-Paraardham-

> Kalpam-Manvantaram-Tamam-Yugam etc are also very Scientific and

> Rational--If somebody has will to know,I have time to explain-

Somayaji

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Advaitins,

 

The facts and figures brought to light on the above topic by our

members is fascinating. I have some questions which require some

reconciliation:

 

In the navagraha scheme there are nine grahas, planets: sUrya,

chandra, mangala, budha, brihaspati, shukra, shanaishchara, rahu and

ketu.

 

Why is the sun included in the planet list?

What about moon, chandra? Modern science holds moon as a satellite of

earth.

Why is Earth not included in the navagraha list? Earth is a member in

the Mercury, Venus...list.

Jyotisha shastra people talk about 'graha-gati' or graha-chaara or

movement of planets. Is sun also included in the 'graha-gati'? If

yes, how can we reconcile this with the 'stationery' status of sun,

even as told in our scriptures, as was quoted here?

 

In the sandhyavandana mantras, during maadhyaahnikam upasthaanam, the

mantra 'Asatyena rajasaaa vartamaanaH...' is chanted. Herein, surya

is said to move about. He is said to be carried aloft in his chariot

by the horses that are his rays. This imagery of surya's movement, i

understand, is about the Surya as the Devataa that presides over the

heavenly body the Sun. While the heavenly body the physical Sun

could be the Devataa's abode, the Devataa himself could have mobility

as he is a concious being in our scriptures. This much could be

reconciled by me.

 

Will knowledgible members throw light on these matters?

 

Regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Subbu,

 

> ... While the heavenly body the physical Sun

> could be the Devataa's abode, the Devataa himself could have mobility

> as he is a concious being in our scriptures. This much could be

> reconciled by me.

>

 

Here is my reconciliation of your analogy. At the "adiBUta" level Sun is

a heavenly body that gives light and life. At the "adidaiva" level, the

sun god is personified so that we may express our gratitude / prayers to

him (or rather we may bond with him better). At the "AdhyAtma" level, (I

only know the words here -- don't have the real knowledge) one would

realize that the Sun is nothing but the light in oneself.

 

Best regards,

Ramachandra

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v

wrote:

>

> Namaste Advaitins,

>

>> Jyotisha shastra people talk about 'graha-gati' or graha-chaara or

> movement of planets. Is sun also included in the 'graha-gati'? If

> yes, how can we reconcile this with the 'stationery' status of sun,

> even as told in our scriptures, as was quoted here?

>

>> Regards,

> subbu

>

 

Kindly read the word 'stationery' as 'stationary'. The error is

regretted.

 

subbu

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

The interesting facts about this topic from the various scriptures

are of great worth. Let me add one more to the compendium:

 

The Krishna Yajur Veda Surya Namaskara prashna contains a whole

treatise about the Sun.

 

I would like to draw the attention of the members to the following.

The seventh anuvAka of the chapter mentions and names seven Suns;

Does it mean these are the seven colours in the spectrum of the Sun?

It does not say so. But throughout the chapter and throughout the

entire body of scriptures, whenever the Sun-God is mentioned, the

number sev en goes along with it in the form of the number of horses

in His chariot or to these sev en suns. The names mentioned

are: "Aroga,brAja, paTara, patanga, swarnara, jyotishhImAn,

vibhAsa".

'These heat the entire space' goes the text, 'in such a way that no

damage is done but they enrich everything with the downpour of

strength-giving rain, etc.'. Then it says -- and here comes the

surprise -- 'There is an eighth Sun: Kashyapa, by name. He never

leaves the mahA-meru.

There is a lot more information in the chapter, which needs further

research from modern scientists, if they want to understand about

how much the ancients knew.

 

You may also refer to a short article by me in the Wikepedia

on 'Surya Namaskara chapter'

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

> In the navagraha scheme there are nine grahas, planets: sUrya,

> chandra, mangala, budha, brihaspati, shukra, shanaishchara, rahu and

> ketu.

>

> Why is the sun included in the planet list?

> What about moon, chandra? Modern science holds moon as a satellite of

> earth.

> Why is Earth not included in the navagraha list? Earth is a member in

> the Mercury, Venus...list.

 

 

 

I cannot claim to be knowledgeable on these issues, but here is what I

think. The word planet is in English and the word "graha" is in

Sanskrit. I dont think the ancients had the nine planets (English) of

the solar system in mind when they were talking of grahas (Sanskrit).

The number nine is probably a coincidence. And the translation of

grahas to planets is definitely a relatively modern one.

 

As an example, the planet Pluto was not discovered till recently but

the Greeks had a God with the name Pluto in ancient days.

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

> Aryabhatta had written about the round earth and Heliocentrism (Sun

> being the center and the planets rotating around the sun) a thousand

> years before Copernicus.

 

When we say that Aryabhatta or Copernicus discovered that the earth

moves around the sun, we are bringing forth the concept of Absolute

motion. Absolute motion is made possible only by the idea of an

inertial system, for which the laws of nature are valid. What is an

inertial system- it is a coordinate system in which the laws of

mechanics are valid. A body on which no external forces are acting

moves uniformly in such a CS. The earth rotates, the sun rotates.

Where can such a system exist?. Classical physics seems to be built

on this very unstable assumption.

 

Can absolute motion ever exist?. By motion of a body we always mean

its change of position in relation to a second body. The motion of

Sun and Earth is relative and modern physics tell me that either can

be used as a frame of reference. Einstein says in the Evolution of

Physics pg 212 " the struggle, so violent in the early days of

Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS

(coordinate system) could be used with equal justification. The two

sentences, "the sun is at rest and the earth moves," or "the sun

moves and the earth is at rest," simply means two different

conventions concerning two different CS".

 

So modern physics seems to say that either statements (sun rotates

around earth or earth rotates around the sun) can be accepted, only

that there is a slight advantage in choosing the sun as it is more of

an inertial system than the earth. Both are moving about each other

and either can be taken as a frame of reference. Copernicus and

Ptolemy models are just that MODELS. Representative models of reality

created by man to understand nature. If it aids in understanding, it

is a good model. But like all models both are built on assumptions

which can be contradicted by further progress in mans intelligence.

 

 

Pranams

Hersh

[Guest guest]

The Krishna Yajur Veda Surya Namaskara prashna contains a whole

treatise about the Sun.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Is it aruNa prashna what you are referring here prabhuji?? kindly confirm.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin, KBS Ramachandra <ram wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Subbu,

>

> >

> Here is my reconciliation of your analogy. At the "adiBUta" level

Sun is

> a heavenly body that gives light and life. At the "adidaiva" level,

the

> sun god is personified so that we may express our gratitude /

prayers to

> him (or rather we may bond with him better). At the "AdhyAtma"

level, (I

> only know the words here -- don't have the real knowledge) one would

> realize that the Sun is nothing but the light in oneself.

>

> Best regards,

> Ramachandra

>

Namaste Sri Ramachandra ji,

 

Thank you very much for this truly Advaitic touch to the topic. From

the various pronouncements available in the Scriptures like 'Na tatra

Suryo bhaati, na chandra-taarakam'(the Sun does not illumine The

Supreme Atman, nor does the moon or do the stars) of the Upanishad

and a similar sounding verse in the Gita 15th chapter, it could be

understood that the Veda considers these heavenly bodies as luminous

ones and just that. That Its emphasis is on the Adhyaatma, like while

prescribing the Surya Upaasana in the Sandhyaa mantras,the Taittiriya

vaakyam 'sa yashcha ayam purushe, yashcha asau Aditye, sa ekaH'(the

Consciousness obtaining in the human being and the celestial Sun is

the same), the various other mantras on the other grahas and

nakshatras (in the udakashaanti portion of the Yajur Veda)can also be

inferred.

 

The Adhidaiva stress wherever found is also an aid to reach the

Adhyaatma alone, through upasana. The association of Devataa with

every one of these luminous bodies is a pointer to this. That the

taatparya, purport, is not in the adhibhuta, physical plane, is quite

clear. That is why there is not much use in considering whether Sun

is a star or a planet and whether it is stationary or moving. It is

said that the purpose of the Jyothisha shaastra, a veda-anga, is to

determine the appropriate time for the performing of the veda-

enjoined rites.

 

The opinion provided by Shri Hersh Bhasin makes a lot of sense.

Pranams to all,

subbu

[Guest guest]

advaitin, bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> The Krishna Yajur Veda Surya Namaskara prashna contains a whole

> treatise about the Sun.

>

> praNAms

> Hare Krishna

>

> Is it aruNa prashna what you are referring here prabhuji?? kindly

confirm.

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

Namaste, Bhaskar Prabhu-ji, it is the aruNa prashna.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namste:

 

However, we often see that suurya (SUN) is regarded as a planet

(Example - pa~ncaayatana puujaa). We now know that it is a star not

a planet and does not move relative to the Earth.

 

Another comment in this discussion is that Sun has been discussed as

the one that moves and this quality has been glorified.

 

suuryasya pashya shremaaNa.m yona tandrayate cara.nsh{}caraiveti

(etareya braahmaNa 33.3.15)

 

Thanks for a wonderful discussion.

 

Dr. Yadu

 

advaitin, "narayana_kl_71"

<narayana_kl_71 wrote:

>

> > In the navagraha scheme there are nine grahas, planets: sUrya,

> > chandra, mangala, budha, brihaspati, shukra, shanaishchara, rahu

and

> > ketu.

> >

> > Why is the sun included in the planet list?

> > What about moon, chandra? Modern science holds moon as a

satellite of

> > earth.

> > Why is Earth not included in the navagraha list? Earth is a

member in

> > the Mercury, Venus...list.

>

>

>

> I cannot claim to be knowledgeable on these issues, but here is

what I

> think. The word planet is in English and the word "graha" is in

> Sanskrit. I dont think the ancients had the nine planets (English)

of

> the solar system in mind when they were talking of grahas

(Sanskrit).

> The number nine is probably a coincidence. And the translation of

> grahas to planets is definitely a relatively modern one.

>

> As an example, the planet Pluto was not discovered till recently

but

> the Greeks had a God with the name Pluto in ancient days.

>

[Guest guest]

Shrimaan Sadaji :

 

Thank you for your kind words.

 

Sadaji writes:

 

(PraNams. I enjoyed reading your two posts. I am copying them and

sending it to couple of my friends who are interested in the science

in vedic period.)

 

i am not in the least surprised, sadaji! After all this group is

fortunate to have a great retired scientist in our midst writing a

commentary on 'mandukya' upanishad which contains the very essence of

Advaita philosophy! Science and Philosophy have a strong bond After

all, the world's best scientist Albert Einstein also was a great

philosopher!

 

" A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of

the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant

beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the

truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a

deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)!

 

SURYA OR SUN IS FULL OF MYSTERY ! Men have dared to go to the 'moon'

but has anyone dared to go to Suryaloka ? ( any pun intended is

unintentional - in rig veda, it is stated thast the journey from

mortality to immortslity is through 'suryaloka' ) ! who is the solar

deity in rig veda ? Pushan, of course!

 

Can we imagine a world without 'sun' or 'surya' ? Everywhere you

tuen, be it jyotisha shastra, tantra, ayurveda are all based on the

solar deity Sun! yes! the seven chakras, the seven nadis, the seven

colors, the seven sounds all have a close connection with the Sun!

 

UNLESS AND UNTIL WE LEARN TO WORSHIP THE OUTER SUN IN THE SKY , HOW

CAN THE 'INNER' SUN IN US GLOW?

 

"The Sun is, verily, the soul of all that moves, and that does not" -

Surya Aatmaa Jagatah Tastuushasca - Rig Veda: 1:115:1.

 

and the mother of all mantras, Gayathri mantra itself is addressed to

the Sun God ( savitur) !

 

" We look to the effulgent, crimson-red rays of the Lord of Light,

the Sun. May He inspire our thought-processes and guide us" -

 

MAY WE ALL MERGE OUR INNER LIGHT WITH THE COSMIC LIGHT !

 

LET THE DIVINE LAMP OF THE SUN LIGHT LIGHT THE INNER LIGHT IN ALL OF

US SO THAT WE FIND OUR WAY TO THE ABSOLUTE!

 

join me in saluting the teja swarupa surya bhagwan so He can KINDLE

THE 'DIVA JYOTI'. 'PREMA JYOTI' 'JNANA JYOTI' AND THE AKANDA JYOTI IN

US.

 

Sadaji, i am delighted to know you will be conducting the Gita

navaneetham series in Durga temple this summer - we are all looking

forward to this 'vara' prasadam! Wshington misses you and Mrinalini!

( THE HUSBAND SINGS THE CELESTIAL SONG OF GOD AND THE BELOVED WIFE

DANCES HER WAY INTO THE HEARTS OF EVERYONE WITH HER KUDHIPUDI

NUMBERS)!

 

WITH WARMEST REGARDS

 

 

 

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> dhynaasaraswati

>

> PraNams. I enjoyed reading your two posts. I am copying them and

> sending it to couple of my friends who are interested in the

science in

> vedic period.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Pranams to all,

 

I am new to the group. Was going thru these mails and got a dialoge between HH Sri Chandashekara Bharati and a devotee regarding Surya and Sandhya worship. Wanted to share the same.

 

Thanks,

Subramanya Datta G.

 

The Sandhya Worship

 

 

 

A touring Educational Officer once met His Holiness and said,

 

"I have occasions of being in constant touch with young boys, mostly Brahmanas, studying in schools which I have to inspect. I have found that even the boys who perform their sandhya do so more as a form than as real worship. I shall be very grateful if Your Holiness would give me some valuable hints which I could convey to them"

 

 

 

I am very glad to see that you are not content with mere official routine of inspection but desire to utilise the occasion for the betterment of the boys. It will be well if all educationists, inspecting officers or teachers, realise that they have been entrusted with the very grave responsibility of training up young men in the most impressionable period of their lives. In my opinion they are really to blame if they confine their attention only to the prescribed text books and neglect the spiritual side of the young generation.

 

 

 

I always keep that end before me and I don't miss any opportunity of talking to the boys and giving them some useful advice. It is mainly with a view to do that work better that i request Your Holiness to give some practical suggestions.

 

 

 

Even if the boys to whom you propose to convey such suggestions may not benefit by them, you will certainly be benefited.

 

 

 

Certainly.

 

 

 

You may therefore, for the present, ignore the boys and ask such questions the answers to which are likely to be useful to you.

 

 

 

The first question which suggests itself to me is with reference to the sandhya worship. What is the deity or upasya devata in the sandhya Worship?

 

 

 

Before we consider that, please tell me what you understand ordinarily by the sandhya worship?

 

 

 

By sandhya worship we mean the worship of the rising Sun, the setting Sun or Sun in the mid heavens.

 

 

 

Quite so. Comprehensively speaking, you mean worship of the Sun?

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

You tell me that sandhya is the worship of the Sun and yet you ask me what is worshipped in the sandhya. Don't you think it is an unnecessary question?

 

 

 

Put so, it may seem an unnecessary question, but my real question is, what is the Sun that is worshipped?

 

 

 

What do you understand ordinarily by the Sun?

 

We mean the bright celestial orb in the sky.

 

 

 

Then it is that bright celestial orb that is worshipped.

 

 

 

But that orb is, according to science, mere inert matter in a state of high combustion and is certainly not worthy of being worshipped by intelligent beings like ourselves. It can neither hear our prayers nor respond to them. I cannot believe that our ancestors were so ignorant as to address their prayers to a mere burning mass of matter

 

 

 

I quite agree with you. They could never have been so foolish.

 

 

 

What then did they see in the Sun to justify their prayers being addressed to it?

 

 

 

You said just now that addressing of prayers to inert matter cannot be justified by reason.

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

What then must be the nature of the entity to which a prayer is addressed?

 

 

 

The primary condition is that it must not be mere inert matter, but must be endowed with intelligence.

 

 

 

And the second condition?

 

 

 

That it must be able to hear our prayers and be powerful enough to answer them.

 

 

 

Quite so. If our ancients were not fools and yet addressed their prayers to the Sun, their conception of the Sun must have been quite different from that of mere inert matter, in a state of high combustion.

 

 

 

Yes, they must have also postulated of it intelligence, the capacity to hear us and the ability to help us.

 

 

 

The 'us' including not only all those who are now living to raise their hands in prayer to the Sun, but also the generations, past and future, infinite in number though they may be?

 

 

 

Of course.

 

 

 

The entity that is worshipped as the Sun is therefore one whose intelligence or ability knows no limitation of space or time.

 

 

 

It must be so.

 

 

 

You have now got your answer to the question as to who is worshipped in the sandhya? It is an intelligent Being, omniscient and omnipotent in the matter of hearing and responding to its votaries.

 

 

 

Your Holiness then means that it is a deva who has his habitation in the solar orb?

 

 

 

Quite so. He has not only his habitation there, but the solar orb itself is his physical body.

 

 

 

Your Holiness means that the deva enlivens the solar orb, just as we do our physical bodies?

 

 

 

Just so.

 

 

 

If then he is embodied just like us, how does he happen to have such high intelligence or power as to merit our obeisance?

 

 

 

He attained that status by virtue of the appropriate karma and upasana done by him in a previous life.

 

 

 

Does Your Holiness mean that he was at one time just like ourselves and that he attained that status by his endeavour?

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

Then he is no more than a jiva, which I aIso am. Why should a Jiva make prostration before another Jiva, howsoever superior?

 

 

 

Why should your son or pupil respect you and why should you show respect to your superior officers? Are not both of you jivas?

 

 

 

No doubt we are. But we respect our superiors as it is in their power to help us or injure us, if they so desire.

 

 

 

That is a very low kind of respect. Anyhow, taking even that kind of respect, we must respect Surya devata if it is in his power to help us or injure us, if he so desires.

 

 

 

Of course.

 

 

 

Being a jiva as much as your superior officers, he will help you if you appeal to him for help or injure you if you ignore or despise him. In your own interest then, you are bound to worship him and secure his goodwill.

 

 

 

But 1 need not court the favour nor fear the displeasure of my superior officer, if I carry out the duties of my office faithfully.

 

 

 

Quite so.

 

 

 

If I preserve that attitude, there is no reason why I should propitiate my superior officer

 

 

 

Certainly not.

 

 

 

Similarly, if l carry out strictly the duties enjoined on me by the

 

sastras, I need not propitiate any other jiva, be he the highest devil.

 

 

 

Quite so.

 

 

 

Then, should I not give up the worship of Surya devata?

 

 

 

Certainly you may, unless of course such a worship is part of the duties enjoined on you by the Sastras.

 

 

 

The Sandhya Worship 93

 

 

 

How can that be?

 

 

 

It is true that an honest and strict officer in performing the duties of his office need not mind the pleasure or the displeasure of his immediate superior. But the mere fact that he thinks it necessary or obligatory to perform those duties properly, shows that he has as the ultimate end the pleasure, or avoidance of the displeasure of a still higher officer who is superior to him as well as to his immediate superior. Even if he has no personal acquaintance with that higher officer, he always has in the background of his mind an undefined power, call it the King or the Government, when he performs the duties of his office. And that power has the ability to benefit him by a recognition of his services or to punish him by taking note of his delinquencies. Further, that power rules both him and his immediate superior officer. If therefore that power requires him to behave in a particular manner towards his superior officer, he cannot afford to disobey that injunction, for if he disobeys, not only does he incur the displeasure of that officer but also of the higher power.

 

 

 

That is so.

 

 

 

Similarly, if a power which rules both you as well as Surya devata requires you to conduct yourself in a particular manner towards that deva, you cannot afford to neglect that injunction, but must conform to it or take the risk of incurring the displeasure of that deva as also of the higher power.

 

 

 

It is no doubt so. But in that case, in prostrating myself before Surya devata, I shall be really worshipping the higher power even when my worship may seem addressed to the Surya.

 

 

 

What of that?

 

 

 

If I am able to conceive of such a higher power who rules even the Surya, that power is really the worshipped entity although to all appearances the worship is addressed to the Surya only.

 

 

 

Quite so.

 

 

 

But Your Holiness said that it, was Surya devata who was worshipped?

 

 

 

Yes. It is correct so far as persons who are not able to conceive of a higher power are concerned. To those however who can conceive of that power, He is the real upasya. That power is called Hiranyagarbha. He enlivens and ensouls not only the Surya, but all devils. He enlivens and inhabits not only the solar orb but all things. He is the cosmic personality who is the soul of all things.

 

 

 

I suppose just as we have the sense of I 'in our physical bodies, so does that cosmic personality has the sense of "I" in the entire cosmos.

 

He has.

 

 

 

If so, the difference between Him and me lies not in the presence or the absence of the sense of 'I' but only in the degree, the range or the magnitude of that sense. Mine is restricted, His is extended.

 

 

 

It is so.

 

 

 

if it is the sense of "I" that is responsible for the concept of a Jiva, he must be as much a jiva as myself

 

 

 

Quite so. In fact He is called the First Born.

 

 

 

Then, even if this higher power happens to belong to the category of Jivas, just like myself, the same objection which I mentioned against the worship of Surya devata holds good in his case also.

 

 

 

What then would you like to worship?

 

 

 

A transcendent power which is not a jiva.

 

 

 

Have it then that it is such a transcendent power that is worshipped in the sandhya. We give Him the name of lswara, the Lord, or the antaryami, the inner ruler.

 

 

 

But I have heard it mentioned that the terms Lord' and Ruler' are only relative terms which are used in regard to Him when we want to describe Him in relation to the universe, which is 'lorded over 'or 'ruled' by Him.

 

 

 

Yes, it is so.

 

 

 

It cannot be that we can have no conception of him apart from his relationship of some sort to the universe. His relationship to the universe can at best be only an extraneous circumstance. In His essence, He must have an independent existence quite unrelated to anything else.

 

 

 

You are right. We call that unrelated essential existence Brahman.

 

 

 

If it is so, that must be the real object of worship rather than the relative aspect called lshwara.

 

 

 

It is even as you say. It is really the unqualified Brahman that is worshipped in the sandhya.

 

 

 

I cannot really understand Your Holiness. You first said that it was the solar orb that was the objector worship, but when I pointed out that it was only inert matter, you said that it was Surya devata that was the object of worship; when again I pointed out that he was only a limited jiva like myself, you said it was Hiranyagarbha, the cosmic soul, that was the object of worship: when once again I pointed out that he was after all a jiva, however cosmic his sense of 'I' may be, you said that lswara the Lord and Ruler of the universe was really the object of worship; and lastly when I said that even he is but a relative aspect of Brahman, you said that the object of worship was Brahman itself

 

 

 

I did say so.

 

 

 

But I fail to see how all these statements can be reconciled.

 

 

 

Where is the difficulty?

 

 

 

The object in a particular worship can be only one. How can it be the solar orb or the deva enlivening it or Hiranyagarbha or Iswara or Brahman at the same time?

 

 

 

I never said that it was the solar orb or the devil and so on.

 

 

 

Does Your Holiness mean to say then that the object of worship is the solar orb and the devil and Hiranyagarbha and Iswara and Brahman all put together?

 

 

 

Nor did I say anything of that sort.

 

 

 

How then am I to understand Your Holiness' statements?

 

 

 

When did I tell you that the upasya was Surya?

 

 

 

When I mentioned that the physical mass of burning matter cannot be the object of worship.

 

 

 

Before you mentioned it, I said that it was even that mass that was the upasya.

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

I never mentioned that it was the solar body or the deva as an alternative. To one who cannot conceive of an enlivening soul, the upasya is the physical mass; to one, however, who declines to accept inert matter as an object of worship, I said the upasya was Surya devata. The upasya is ever one, but its exact nature varies with the competence of the worshipping aspirant. The upasya gets further refined when even the concept of a devil does not satisfy the enquiring devotee. We say then that it is Hiranyagarbha. When even such a concept seems meagre or unsatisfactory, we tell the devotee that he is really worshipping the Supreme Lord himself When he begins to feel that even the Lord-ness is a limitation of His essential nature, we tell him that it is the infinite Brahman itself that is really worshipped. Where is the difficulty?

 

 

 

Does Your Holiness then mean that it is not possible to definitely say what the object of worship in the sandhya is except with reference to the mental equipment or intellectual advancement of the worshipper?

 

 

 

How can there be an object of worship if we ignore the worshipper? The nature of the worshipped necessarily depends upon the nature of the worshipper.

 

 

 

How?

 

 

 

Take me for example. All of you show me respect. But the object of respect, though it is, roughly speaking, myself, does differ with each one of you. Ordinary people respect me and like to see me surrounded by glittering paraphernalia; their attention and respect are claimed by those articles rather than by my personality. Such people will show the same respect to others who have similar paraphernalia. Their homage is not therefore really paid to me but only to the paraphernalia. Some others respect me for the position that I hold or for the Asrama in which I am. Such people will equally respect others who are or may come to be in such a position or in such an Asrama, their homage is therefore not paid to me but to my position or to the Asrama. And some others may not care what position I hold or in what Asrama I am, but give me homage wherever I go and however I may be; their object of respect is my physical body. A few others will not mind if my body is dark or ugly or even diseased, but will nevertheless give me homage if by purity of mind and character or by the power of my intellect and learning or by any spiritual merit that I may possess I command their respect. Very few indeed will respect me for the spark of divine intelligence which inheres in me, as it does in all of you.

 

 

 

Of course it is not possible to say that all the devotees that approach Your Holiness are of the same mental equipment.

 

 

 

Quite so. But, ordinarily all these people, whether they really tender homage to the paraphernalia or to my status and Asrama or to my body or to my mind or to my intellect or to the divine spark in me, prostrate before me to show their respect. Can you tell me, apart from any reference to the several devotees, to whom or to what they prostrate?

 

 

 

It is no doubt very difficult to answer

 

 

 

Similarly, with every kind of worship. Externally viewed, there will be no appreciable difference between the one who respects me for the paraphernalia and another who respects me for the divine spark in me. Externally viewed, there will similarly be no appreciable difference between the devotee who in his blind faith is content to address his prayers to the luminous Sun and another who turns to it as a visible symbol of the infinite Brahman. The question as to what is the upasya in the sandhya worship can therefore be answered only in this way.

 

 

 

I now understand how in the simple worship of the Sun all possible stages in spiritual perception have been provided for

 

 

 

It is not only this, for you will find if you consider the matter still further, that all the three ways known as karma, bhakti and Gyana have been given places in the daily worship, but that is a different matter. Simple as the sandhya worship seems to be, it is sufficient to help us on to the highest stages. It is as useful to the highest aspirant as it is to the beginner. It is a folly, therefore, to belittle its value or to neglect it in practice.

 

 

=======================================================================

 

 

 

 

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 dhyanasaraswati wrote :

>Shrimaan Sadaji :

>

>Thank you for your kind words.

>

>Sadaji writes:

>

>(PraNams. I enjoyed reading your two posts. I am copying them and

> sending it to couple of my friends who are interested in the science

>in vedic period.)

>

>i am not in the least surprised, sadaji! After all this group is

>fortunate to have a great retired scientist in our midst writing a

>commentary on 'mandukya' upanishad which contains the very essence of

>Advaita philosophy! Science and Philosophy have a strong bond After

>all, the world's best scientist Albert Einstein also was a great

>philosopher!

>

>" A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of

>the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant

>beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the

>truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a

>deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)!

>

>SURYA OR SUN IS FULL OF MYSTERY ! Men have dared to go to the 'moon'

>but has anyone dared to go to Suryaloka ? ( any pun intended is

>unintentional - in rig veda, it is stated thast the journey from

>mortality to immortslity is through 'suryaloka' ) ! who is the solar

>deity in rig veda ? Pushan, of course!

>

>Can we imagine a world without 'sun' or 'surya' ? Everywhere you

>tuen, be it jyotisha shastra, tantra, ayurveda are all based on the

>solar deity Sun! yes! the seven chakras, the seven nadis, the seven

>colors, the seven sounds all have a close connection with the Sun!

>

>UNLESS AND UNTIL WE LEARN TO WORSHIP THE OUTER SUN IN THE SKY , HOW

>CAN THE 'INNER' SUN IN US GLOW?

>

> "The Sun is, verily, the soul of all that moves, and that does not" -

> Surya Aatmaa Jagatah Tastuushasca - Rig Veda: 1:115:1.

>

>and the mother of all mantras, Gayathri mantra itself is addressed to

>the Sun God ( savitur) !

>

>" We look to the effulgent, crimson-red rays of the Lord of Light,

>the Sun. May He inspire our thought-processes and guide us" -

>

>MAY WE ALL MERGE OUR INNER LIGHT WITH THE COSMIC LIGHT !

>

>LET THE DIVINE LAMP OF THE SUN LIGHT LIGHT THE INNER LIGHT IN ALL OF

>US SO THAT WE FIND OUR WAY TO THE ABSOLUTE!

>

>join me in saluting the teja swarupa surya bhagwan so He can KINDLE

>THE 'DIVA JYOTI'. 'PREMA JYOTI' 'JNANA JYOTI' AND THE AKANDA JYOTI IN

>US.

>

>Sadaji, i am delighted to know you will be conducting the Gita

>navaneetham series in Durga temple this summer - we are all looking

>forward to this 'vara' prasadam! Wshington misses you and Mrinalini!

>( THE HUSBAND SINGS THE CELESTIAL SONG OF GOD AND THE BELOVED WIFE

>DANCES HER WAY INTO THE HEARTS OF EVERYONE WITH HER KUDHIPUDI

>NUMBERS)!

>

>WITH WARMEST REGARDS

>

>

>

>

>advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

><kuntimaddisada wrote:

> >

> > dhynaasaraswati

> >

> > PraNams. I enjoyed reading your two posts. I am copying them and

> > sending it to couple of my friends who are interested in the

>science in

> > vedic period.

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Subramanya Datta" <dattags wrote:

>

>

> Pranams to all,

>

> I am new to the group. Was going thru these mails and got

a dialoge between HH Sri Chandashekara Bharati and a devotee regarding

Surya and Sandhya worship. Wanted to share the same.

>

> Thanks,

> Subramanya Datta G.

>

> The Sandhya Worship

>

>

>

 

Pranams Shri Datta,

 

Thank you for posting this dialogue full of great wisdom. The words of

the truly wise will have a salutory effect even when heard casually.

For the one who takes them as upadesha, the benefit is immense.

 

Regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

--- Subramanya Datta <dattags (AT) rediffmail (DOT) com> wrote:

 

>

> Pranams to all,

>

> I am new to the group. Was going thru these mails and got

> a dialoge between HH Sri Chandashekara Bharati and a devotee

> regarding Surya and Sandhya worship. Wanted to share the same.

 

Wonderful post. Thank you.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda