Humility & learning lessons of lif/Bhara

[Guest guest]

Dear Bharat ji

 

It is ok.Ramanarayanan ji once told Parker and company is the

manufacturer of Parker pens.But Parker and company does not sit inside

parker pens.It is the intelligence of parker company that is inherent

in the pens.If parker pens start thinking i am parker and company -is

the pen ignorant ot parker & company?

Similarly one cannot equate jeevatma and Paramatma -it is ignorance or

pride.Jeevatma is part of paramatma.

I have not seen your chart ,but i feel you have an exalted or

swakshethra sun for sure.Those who understand the concept of jeevatma

will learn from everyone as they know it is the same chaitanya that

enlivens every jeevashareera.Others are not prepared to learn from others.

 

Ignorance to one is knowledge for other and vice-versa.Thus let the

learned decide.

 

Thanks a lot for your discussions.

 

Pradeep

 

, "Bharat Hindu Astrology"

<hinduastrology wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Pradeep

>

> I would like to stop discussing any matter with you. You can ignore my

> messages and I can do that to yours. It is not my duty to deal with your

> ignorance or Knowledge about various subjects. You can choose to

take this

> message in any way you may want to.

>

> Thanks and Regards

> Bharat

>

> On 9/2/06, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Bharat ji

> >

> > You are well read in Vedanta and there is no doubt about it.Brahman is

> > undivided,everything is Brahman etc is known to everyone and can be

> > found in numerous text books and no body is disputing this.It was only

> > for this reason i had requested you not to repeat this again and

again.

> >

> > Now let us take a small example.Hand is also part of body but hand

> > cannot say i am the full body.Full body feeling is a collective

> > feeling of all organs.Human body(Pindanda) is simalr to

> > Prapancha(Brahmanda).The way Maya is to Brahmanda, Mind is to

Pindanda.

> > We cannot say Pindanda is not existing!!!.Initially there was just

> > Pure consciousness.When Kalpana arose this consciousness resulted in

> > Maya.Similarly each Paindanda has jeevatma(which is an amsha of the

> > undivided Brahman) surrounded by mind and body.When Bodha or true

> > knowledge happens mind is erased(outside maya is not perceived) and we

> > realize that i am also part(CONTINOUS AND UNDIVIDED) of HIM.Similarly

> > when Kalpana ceases,Maya shrinks and everything goes back to original

> > state of consciousness.(Principle behind Pralaya etc).Even before

> > creation the consciousness has the creation inherent within.Also

> > collective simulataneous bodha of all jeevatmas can be called as

> > Brahman -it is not the sum of jeevatmas,but colelctive feeling.

> > It is very easy to say there is no jeevatma,but that is not the

> > case.When jeeavtma tries to equate himself with Lord it is like hand

> > equating it with full BODY.This is a result of self-pride and self

> > -pride is incomplete knowledge.

> >

> > Sages have proclaimed the TRUTH they have

> > realized(Tat-Twam-Asi).Similarly each jeevatma has to experinece and

> > become that.Of course become is a confusing word ,but it is so.A child

> > '' becomes'' tall though, it is the same being,which is becoming

> > tall.Similarly regarding consciousness and spiritual culmination there

> > are heights.When we become tall,we Realize.

> >

> > Whatever i am telling has to be experienced by me for Realization-Long

> > way to go.I am only happy with these discussions as we are mutually

> > learning.

> >

> > Thanks

> > Pradeep

> > <%40>,

> > "Bharat Hindu Astrology"

> > <hinduastrology@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Namaste Sri Pradeep

> > >

> > > Since it is a question of realization, it is not a question of

> > becoming...

> > > but a question of being. Whenever, you think of becoming - there is

> > a change

> > > is state and there will be two - the start and the end. Parmatma is

> > here and

> > > now and it is undivided. It is therefore, our error to not to

see it as

> > > thus. To call Atman and Brahman different is a mistake. This is

what Sri

> > > Sankara and Sri Vyasa resolve through Bhashya and Sutra (Brahma).

> > >

> > > For me, whereever teaching comes from, it is Bhagwan Shiva who is

> > teaching.

> > > For me, my master is always realized. Perhaps you make such

> > distinctions.

> > >

> > > Thanks and Regards

> > > Bharat

> > >

> > > On 9/2/06, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Bharat ji

> > > >

> > > > Namaste.Kindly pardon if my words were trying to put

restrictions.My

> > > > intention was only the following -

> > > >

> > > > Realization is the culmination of a necessary journey, needed from

> > > > Jeevatma.''Tatwam Asi'' ,''Aham Brahmasmi'' etc is that

> > > > destination.Questions 2 & 3 had a reason connected to the above

> > > > said.Unfortunately those were skipped.Self(Jeevatma) cannot

start from

> > > > his goal(Paramatma) but has to Reach/Realize.Understanding one

to one

> > > > correspondence between - (Mana /jeeva shareera - Maya/

Parapancha) is

> > > > worthy,if you wish.

> > > >

> > > > Vedanta is not an easy topic and repeating Aatma

Satyas(realized by

> > > > Yogis) alone is of no help.Thus i had requested for brevity.So

far i

> > > > have not requested you or for that matter anyone to cut down

> > > > thoughts/words ( i have no right).For this topic, i thought

,those who

> > > > are ''realized'' can explain in brevity,which can never be

understood

> > > > otherwise,no matter how many kilometers of paper or electronic

editor

> > > > ,you consume.I am just abeginner looking at this vast ocean.

> > > >

> > > > Kindly read my mail addressed to Lakshmi ji.

> > > >

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

<%40><%40>,

> > > > "Bharat Hindu Astrology"

> > > > <hinduastrology@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Namaskaar Sri Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > > With your statements, you imply that I write which is written

> > already in

> > > > > another book.

> > > > >

> > > > > I ignore your such references and try and explain since these

> > > > questions have

> > > > > been referred to me. Furthermore, you cannot limit my words by

> > > > asking me to

> > > > > write in 2 or 3 sentences only. So I shall write what I shall

> > want to.

> > > > > Please see my response in Blue

> > > > >

> > > > > 1)What is Jeevatma and Paramatma and how are they related to

> > > > > Brahmanda and Pindanda.

> > > > > Your question is resolved once you understand whether

Paramatma is

> > > > undivided

> > > > > or not. Jeevatma is only used as a reference since the

> > individual thinks

> > > > > oneself to be different. Jeevatma has no separate existence.

> > > > Brahmanda and

> > > > > Pindanda is Macrocosm and Microcosm. The attempt is to show that

> > > > whatever

> > > > > exists within is without too. Pointing out the indivisibility of

> > > > Paramatma.

> > > > >

> > > > > 4)If Moon is just Prakrithi -Name the Chethana which creates 'I'

> > > > > feeling.I think you too agree that moon cannot think of its

own.If

> > > > > self is body/mind/soul -and body and mind are Prakrithi -Who

is left

> > > > > with to ignite this feeling of Self in Jeeva shareera?

> > > > > You need to a realize one thing: Other than Parmatma, there is

> > > > nothing else.

> > > > > First be clear on this. Now we check about our "imaginations"-

> > > > >

> > > > > Now, let us come to Mind - what is mind? - It is a collection of

> > > > thoughts.

> > > > > Not realizing Parmatma, there is thought of "me" and a thought

> > of the

> > > > > "other". The "me" is defined by a collection of thoughts.

Thoughts

> > > > require

> > > > > expression and the Lord has been kind enough to bestow a

sharira.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now, how are thoughts or anything coignized - In the light

of the

> > > > Parmatma,

> > > > > everything is coignized. Parmatma is indivisible. The same

Parmatma

> > > > > "enlivens" the "me" feeling or the "small I" feeling. Just be

> > > > enlivening a

> > > > > thought of "me" or "I", Parmatma does not become the cause

of ego.

> > > > >

> > > > > Moon can think on its own, in light of Parmatma. So please

> > > > understand these

> > > > > small things before deciding that Surya, representing

Parmatma or

> > > > > consciousness, is the cause for ego. For example, the

electricity

> > > > enlivens a

> > > > > television - can you say the sound and sight you see is

"caused" by

> > > > > electricity. The nature of thoughts, and thinking is dependent

> > upon the

> > > > > collection of thoughts that IS the mind. Similarly, the

thought of

> > > > "I" is

> > > > > the nature of the thought and not that of Parmatma - the

undivisible

> > > > SELF.

> > > > >

> > > > > Hope this helps. Having said this, as I suggested to you

earlier too

> > > > that I

> > > > > do not intend to teach or preach Vedanta here. Kindly study

under an

> > > > able

> > > > > and a traditional guru with Sankara's Bhashya.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks and Regards

> > > > > Bharat

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > On 8/31/06, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Bharat ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As you have studied Vedanta,kindly clear my following doubts.

> > > > > > 1)What is Jeevatma and Paramatma and how are they related to

> > > > > > Brahmanda and Pindanda.

> > > > > > 2)Does (Mana Vs Jeevashareera) has any similarity with

(Maya Vs

> > > > > > Prapancha).Who is the connecting Link.

> > > > > > 4)If Moon is just Prakrithi -Name the Chethana which

creates 'I'

> > > > > > feeling.I think you too agree that moon cannot think of

its own.If

> > > > > > self is body/mind/soul -and body and mind are Prakrithi -Who

> > is left

> > > > > > with to ignite this feeling of Self in Jeeva shareera?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Kindly do not give long explanations present in Vedantic text

> > books

> > > > > > or Quotations as i can read them as well.i am interested

in small

> > > > > > answers,which you were revealed with ,during your slef seeking

> > > > > > procedure.Say 2 or max 3 sentences per question.Kindly

share your

> > > > > > wisdom as gems of brevity.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thanks

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --- In

<%40>

> > <%40><%40>,

> > > > > > "Bharat Hindu Astrology"

> > > > > > <hinduastrology@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Namaskaar Sri Lakshmi

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It is clear to one who understands Vedanta, that it is the

> > > > > > misinterpretation

> > > > > > > of the ego that makes it say - "that the consciousness is in

> > me".

> > > > > > The ego

> > > > > > > does not understand that, all that is, is Consciousness.

This

> > > > > > separative

> > > > > > > self, called ego, creates the individuality. The chart is

> > cast for

> > > > > > an

> > > > > > > individual. The Sun represents the consciousness mistakenly

> > > > > > considered by

> > > > > > > ego to be it's own. Therefore, it is the very fault of the

> > ego to

> > > > > > call Sun

> > > > > > > the ego. Sun, just, enlivens the ego as it enlivens

everything

> > > > > > else.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > That which is self effulgent and in whose light all is

seen, is

> > > > > > not ego. Sun

> > > > > > > is that self effulgence. It is the universal spirit and

has been

> > > > > > called so.

> > > > > > > Take any chart, where Sun is weak, that person will not

see the

> > > > > > > consciousness shining but will always remain more

interested in

> > > > > > maya. Take

> > > > > > > any chart with Surya to be strong and more importantly,

> > > > > > unafflicted and you

> > > > > > > will see there would be constant rememberance of

consciousness

> > > > > > with each

> > > > > > > thought and action. The light of consciousness will make a

> > person

> > > > > > aware of

> > > > > > > many things - even of his/her own ego -if he/she has due to

> > other

> > > > > > reasons.

> > > > > > > The quality of awareness will be there.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I am sure you have heard the Kalia story - where the

sarpa was

> > > > > > asked to

> > > > > > > leave the pond by Lord Krishna. The pond is the mind, Kalia

> > > > > > represents ego

> > > > > > > and its illusory manifestations including anger,

lust,etc.....

> > > > > > When Krishna

> > > > > > > jumps into the water, kalia wakes up - which represents

that the

> > > > > > ego is

> > > > > > > ruffled as soon as light of consciousness falls on it. Kalia

> > tries

> > > > > > to stifle

> > > > > > > Krishna - which is an impossible task. The Unbound can

never be

> > > > > > bound. In

> > > > > > > the mind of the individual when Krishna is found, then

it dances

> > > > > > with every

> > > > > > > action and thought that the egoistic self takes place

(akin to

> > > > > > Prabhu

> > > > > > > Krishna dancing on Kalia's hood). The entire pond -the mind

> > - then

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > purified as each karma and thought is dedicated and awareful

> > of the

> > > > > > > consciousness. All the poison is sucked and finally Kalia

> > leaves.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Surya Devta or Sun is Krura since it only wants the

Truth and

> > > > > > rejects all

> > > > > > > else as false. Moreover, Sun represents Vision (as in

> > direction) -

> > > > > > can tamas

> > > > > > > and rajas have vision? Their vision is limited to the

joys of

> > > > > > senses or

> > > > > > > sleep. Can awareness or vision come out of ego?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I stopped discussing on this topic since I felt there is no

> > point

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > changing anyone's views. Everyone can have their own.

However, I

> > > > > > refuse to

> > > > > > > accept that Sun represents Ego, like you have very rightly

> > pointed

> > > > > > out.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thanks and Regards

> > > > > > > Bharat

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > On 8/31/06, b_lakshmi_ramesh <b_lakshmi_ramesh@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Om Gurave Namah

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Namaste Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > First of all let me express how much I admire the sagacity

> > with

> > > > > > > > which you patiently field our endless queries/arguments. I

> > > > > > certainly

> > > > > > > > wish I had that quality, so please bless me that I can

> > learn the

> > > > > > > > same from you one day:--)) I am certainly benefitting a

> > lot from

> > > > > > > > this thread and thank you for every thing.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrasekhar ji: As I said let us not bring the

> > > > > > > > > deities into the discussion as their actions can be

> > > > > > interpreted in

> > > > > > > > many

> > > > > > > > > ways. If you remember the story of Bhrigu rishi and the

> > Gods,

> > > > > > > > including,

> > > > > > > > > Vishnu you will find him punishing the gods for their

> > ego. One

> > > > > > > > finds

> > > > > > > > > similar story about Durvasa and Indra, in Padma Purana,

> > where

> > > > > > > > Indra

> > > > > > > > > exhibited the highest form of ego and he is King of

Gods.

> > > > > > > > > But let us keep it a separate issue.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Lakshmi: Sir, I only brought in the deities who were

expressly

> > > > > > > > mentioned by Parashara in BPHS. Infact, the very first

> > chapters

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > BPHS deal with these divinities and I feel that the Sage

> > intended

> > > > > > > > the students to understand his astrological treatise

> > against this

> > > > > > > > background. If we ignore this background and the exalted

> > > > > > pace/tone

> > > > > > > > it sets, I sincerely feel that our knowledge of jyotish is

> > > > > > > > incomplete / flawed. I am sure it's for this reason that

> > Sanjay

> > > > > > ji

> > > > > > > > also insists on mandatory reading of these chapters.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Anyway, if Parashara wanted to compare Sun to Indra,

he would

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > certainly done so himself, because it is not as though

he was

> > > > > > > > unaware of Indra. He had not done that because Indra is

> > changing,

> > > > > > > > whereas Sun is unchanging. If a person acquires great

> > merit, he

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > eligible to become Indra, so Indra is forever subject to

> > > > > > > > insecurities of the terrestrial kings and is afraid of

> > losing his

> > > > > > > > position. It's never the case with Sun. He is constant.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Secondly, thanks for bringing in the topic of Bhrigu.

That's

> > > > > > indeed

> > > > > > > > most appropriate to this argument. Lord Vishnu was indeed

> > tested

> > > > > > > > among others, but was found to be totally saattwik and was

> > > > > > > > apportioned havirbhaga. Contrary to what you said, it

is Sage

> > > > > > Bhrigu

> > > > > > > > who was found to be egoistic and Lord Vishnu punctured his

> > ego by

> > > > > > > > piercing the eye in the Sage's foot. This story indeed

> > > > > > illustrates

> > > > > > > > the nature of ego wonderfully. If Sun were to represent

> > ego, then

> > > > > > > > Lord should have pierced the regular eyes of Bhrigu,

but those

> > > > > > eyes

> > > > > > > > reflect the sage's steady, balanced & illumined

intelligence,

> > > > > > > > whereas the eye in the foot indicated a perspective, a

drishti

> > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > is shifting, unsteady, lopsided and conveys a

> > disproportionate,

> > > > > > > > larger than life impression.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrasekhar ji: > But think about it why would then

> > Chandra be

> > > > > > > > described as Kaami and

> > > > > > > > > Surya as Paapa? This does not fit in with the

description of

> > > > > > > > Satvik as

> > > > > > > > > in pious but does with satva as strength. But if we

look at

> > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > strength then the principle that the strength of

Grahas is

> > > > > > derived

> > > > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > strength of Moon does indicate that the satva

attributed to

> > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > could relate to its strength as opposed to pious

> > > > > > > > behavior.Similarly

> > > > > > > > > strength of Sun being related to the self confidence

of a

> > > > > > person

> > > > > > > > its

> > > > > > > > > strength is also relevant for a chart and not its being

> > Pious.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Lakshmi: If Sun were indeed related malefic

tendencies, why is

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > abode of sun given as temple and all places of

> > worship(shloka 32

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > BPHS)? If Sun is only the cruel King as you interpreted,

> > wouldn't

> > > > > > > > the Palace, the Royal court or the battle field be

more likely

> > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > the abode of Sun? Was the venerable Sage foolish to

allot a

> > > > > > pious,

> > > > > > > > pure place like the temple to the egoist Sun? Please tell

> > me Sir,

> > > > > > > > what is more compatible�the saattwik soul and the temple

> > �or the

> > > > > > > > egoist king and the temple?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If you feel that temples were power centres in ancient

> > times and

> > > > > > > > hence Sun was allotted the temples, then Jupiter/venus

as the

> > > > > > > > priests would be more powerful than the Sun, which is

> > clearly not

> > > > > > > > the case�so this particular angle stands dismissed.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Moon is subject to changes/the play of gunas because it

> > > > > > represents

> > > > > > > > prakriti. A bright moon is never considered a paapi,

> > because it's

> > > > > > > > full of light at that time...like the Sun. When the

moon is

> > > > > > bright,

> > > > > > > > it gives out light like the Sun, rises in the east like

> > the sun.

> > > > > > > > When a Moon which is like the Sun is cinsidered a great

> > benefic,

> > > > > > > > why is Sun considered krura? It's because he's brilliant

> > to the

> > > > > > > > exclusion of the others and perhaps lacks the compassion

> > of the

> > > > > > > > watery planets.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrasekhar ji: > talk of pure Atma till it is born

but once

> > > > > > born

> > > > > > > > it comes under control

> > > > > > > > > of Mana and no longer remains unsullied. By the way in

> > Sanskrit

> > > > > > > > Atma has

> > > > > > > > > many meanings besides soul, as I am sure you are

aware. On

> > > > > > birth

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > atma gets the feeling o f Ahamkar and I am sure you also

> > know

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > of the meaning of Ahamkar is egoism besides ignorance

> > etc. So

> > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > Surya

> > > > > > > > > is the sarvatmaa then he is the one who gives ego. Or at

> > least

> > > > > > > > that is

> > > > > > > > > how I would look at the interpretation of the words.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Lakshmi: Sir, Lord Krishna in Bhagavadgita says "aham

aatma

> > > > > > > > gudakesa sarvabhuta-ashayasthitah" �which is a mere

> > statement of

> > > > > > > > fact like "sarvaatma cha divaanathaH" and not an egoistic

> > > > > > > > assertion. I again quote from the Chapter II - Sankhya

> > yoga from

> > > > > > > > Bhagavad gita, about the nature of Aatma.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I also do not think that Parashara was talking about Aatma

> > > > > > > > as "self", because "self" is a combination of

soul+manah+body

> > > > > > > > (lagna), while the muni was careful enough to specify

> > > > > > significator

> > > > > > > > for each separately.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The aatma is neither born nor does it die. Coming into

> > being, and

> > > > > > > > ceasing to be do not take place in it. Unborn, eternal,

> > constant

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > ancient, it is not killed when the body is slain.

.....it is

> > > > > > > > changeless and invulnerable. Atma, by definition, is

pure and

> > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > remains so.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Further on, the Gita also talks of how the aatma can

> > animate the

> > > > > > > > being, be a witness to all its actions and yet remain

> > > > > > > > untouched....like the Sun, who animates the entire

world and

> > > > > > > > witnesses everything and yet remains unaffected &

above all!

> > > > > > And, I

> > > > > > > > am only talking of Sun the planet, please.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > On the other hand, "change" is the name of the

Ego...it can

> > > > > > appear,

> > > > > > > > disappear, grow to gigantic proportions and

> > diminish�.every small

> > > > > > > > thing appallingly affects it. How can can the Soul and Ego

> > be the

> > > > > > > > one and same thing?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrasekhar ji: > I would not give humility as

opposed to a

> > > > > > King.

> > > > > > > > It is not for nothing he

> > > > > > > > > sits on a throne, wears a crown and expects everyone to

> > salute

> > > > > > him

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > also worship him as an amsha of Vishnu. I would say this

> > is the

> > > > > > > > height

> > > > > > > > > of ego for a human being, to think himself to be on

par with

> > > > > > god.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Lakshmi: One can sit on the throne, because that's the

> > appointed

> > > > > > > > place for him to sit, yet not get swayed by it and all

that it

> > > > > > > > signifies. You have Janaka Rajarshi as a shining

example, even

> > > > > > among

> > > > > > > > mortals. King Akbar is a more recent example. Human

> > history is as

> > > > > > > > replete with the legends of humble humane kings as it is

> > of vile

> > > > > > > > egoistic kings. I think it's unfair to impute "ego" to a

> > person

> > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > because he happens to be king!! Even beggars may have

massive

> > > > > > egos

> > > > > > > > and may not be averse to engage bhats to sing their

> > praises, if

> > > > > > they

> > > > > > > > can afford it:--))

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Is there any law that bars a king from being

> > enlightened/detached

> > > > > > > > and a beggar from being egoistic or the other way round? I

> > think

> > > > > > > > it's incorrect/inconclusive to arrogate qualities to

people

> > > > > > based on

> > > > > > > > their station in life. I really can't understand how

Sun is

> > > > > > equated

> > > > > > > > to ego... and just because he's the king of the planetary

> > > > > > system!!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Anyway, why ignore what Parashara had so clearly and

> > > > > > unambiguously

> > > > > > > > stated and instead look for convoluted interpretations?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrasekhar ji: > But leaving the interpretation of what

> > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > wanted to say and how

> > > > > > > > > scriptures are to be interpreted, we find that Bhava

Manjari

> > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > attribute Abhimana (pride/ego) to Surya and so does

Bhuvan

> > > > > > Deepak.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Lakshmi: Thank you for your clarification. I am glad

that your

> > > > > > > > statement is not quoted from BPHS, because such a

statement

> > > > > > coming

> > > > > > > > from Parashara would be very inconsistent & out of

character.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Though I have nothing against other astrological texts, I

> > > > > > personally

> > > > > > > > find many of them with their pithy and catchy dictums,

lacking

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > maturity and ethical depth of BPHS.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > As you have correctly observed, a Sanskrit word has

multiple

> > > > > > > > meanings, and from my view point the word "Abhimaan"

can also

> > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > self-respect, which is a positive quality and needs to be

> > > > > > > > encouraged/cultivated. Humbleness does not mean being

> > obsequious

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > groveling at some one else's feet. In my thinking a true

> > humble

> > > > > > > > person is a dignified person who can respect others in the

> > same

> > > > > > way

> > > > > > > > he respects himself�for then he sees no difference

between

> > > > > > himself

> > > > > > > > and others, and sees Narayana everywhere.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sir, I may have made many mistakes in my long mail. Please

> > pardon

> > > > > > > > them and correct me.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > Lakshmi

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >