Humility & learning lessons of lif/Bhar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bharat ji

 

I know for sure that i have no knowledge,because such is the vastness

and the universe is beyond my imagination.Knowing our limitations are

always helpful and hence it has helped me in gaining knowledge from

numerous truly learned members( i do not want to name them as everyone

knows).

 

Sorry for commenting on strength of Sun,it was just an intutive

guess.As you do not want to disclose ,it is fine.

 

I brought in Ramanarayan ji's refrence ,as i am ignorant, as a learned

persons views on the same topic.

 

But as you are already learned and realized our discussions are of no use.

 

I thank HIM for HIS grace for making me aware of my limitations.

 

Sorry for all the inconvenience caused.

 

I hope some learned souls will throw light on Jeevatma /Paramatama

concept.It is my request.

 

Pradeep

 

 

, "Bharat Hindu Astrology"

<hinduastrology wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Pradeep

>

> No need to comment upon my chart or anything else or trying to get

personal.

>

> I again ask you not to bring a pious person such as Sri Ramanarayanan in

> between your and my discussion.

>

> I stopped discussing with you because knowledge can be shared if one

wants

> to know and other has it. I, now, know for sure, you have nothing

much to

> give me in terms of knowledge. I know for sure, that you cannot take

from me

> any knowledge that I might possess.

>

> You are free to carry on with your beliefs or your "knowledge". It is

> acceptable to me. I do not seek to change you or your thinking.

>

> Hope I am more clear this time.

>

> Thanks and Regards

> Bharat

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Again,

>

> On 9/3/06, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > 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

> >

> > <%40>,

> > "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><%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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --- In

<%40>

> > <%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><%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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >