Guest guest Posted September 7, 1999 Report Share Posted September 7, 1999 Jai Jai Shri Jagannath Om Ganeshaya Namah Dear Moodley, I knew this would be your next doubt/question. Yes, in Vedic Astrology, only seven planets (till Saturn) are considered. We take Earth as static (as we live on it) and relate all other planets (including Sun - though a Star) to be moving around it. Since we are viewing the other planets from Earth, we see the planets as moving while we are static. Coming to the scheme of seven planets and two nodes (Rahu and Ketu), I must tell you that science, during the days of our Maharishis - the vedic period, was quite advanced and they could, right then, see and discover the asteroids belt between Saturn and Uranus. This asteroid belt actually works like a filter and distorts the travel of Sun's rays. The rays of the Sun actually bounces on the surface of the asteroids and there are too many refractions/reflections taking place which deteriorate the strength of Sun's rays that reach the earth from these outer planets. Jyotish considers these distorted rays as impure to be having any profound effect on the activities on earth. Hence, we follow only the seven planetary scheme which considers only the inner planets - Mercury, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn along with Sun, Moon and the two nodes. Yours, Sarat > " Moodley, Vissie " <VMoodley > " 'J. Sarat Chander' " <jsarat >RE: STARS >Mon, 6 Sep 1999 14:31:27 +0200 > >HARI OM >DEAR SARAT, > >THANKING YOU FOR IMPARTING SOME OF YOU KNOWLEDGE, >I WILL TAKE YOUR ADVISE & READ SOME HINDU ASTROLOGY BOOKS. >TELL ME WERE DOES PLUTO & THE OTHER PLANETS FIT IN ? >I KNOW ABOUT HINDU MYTHOLOGY BUT NOT EVEYTHING IN >DETAIL >HOW DOES THE " 9 PLANT RING " WORK? >BEST REGARDS >VISSIE > > Hindu Mythology > > ---------- > > J. Sarat Chander[sMTP:jsarat] > > Thursday, September 02, 1999 3:03 PM > > srath > > Cc: VMoodley > > Re: STARS > > > > Jai Jagannath Mahaprabhu Om Ganeshaya Namah > > > > > > Dear Sanjay ji, > > > > Gurupranams! Thanks for referring Mr.V Moodley to me. I shall try to > > live > > up to your expectations. > > > > Dear Mr. Moodley, > > > > You have desired to know about the 9 planets. Before explaining to you > > about the 9 planets in Vedic Astrology, I need to speak one thing. >Vedic > > Astrology is considered as one of the " Vedangas " meaning a part of the > > " Vedas " and has been given a divine status and is expected to be > > followed/practised with utmost divinity. It is called " Jyotish " in >India > > wherein, " Jyoti " means light and " Jyotish " means the study/science of > > light. > > It is so because you see the " Jyoti " (light) to guide the self and > > others > > towards God. By being a good astrologer one follows " Satwik " (pure and > > divine life) principles in life and help others rise in life with > " Satwik " > > > > qualities in pursuit of God. Our Vedas teach us the existence of " Atma " > > (Soul) and its importance in our life. Of course, understanding the > > " Atma " > > is not possible in a material world. You need to delve deep into > > spiritualism and philosophy to understand the " Atma " in its true sense. > > > > To understand " Jyotish " in its true and sublime form, you need to > > understand > > Indian Mythology (Hindu Mythology) and the Hindu Philosophy of >existence, > > coexistence, rebirth and, above all, " Karma " . So, to begin with, I >would > > suggest that you should get hold of some small books which contain >stories > > > > of Indian Mythology and works of great saints like Sri Ramakrishna > > Paramahamsa, Saint Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo and some great >philosophers > > like Jittu S. Krishnamurthy etc., from Indian centres in your country. > > These books will help you develop the other side of Jyotish > > simultaneously. > > > > As for the planets, here it is: > > > > Sun: > > > > Also known as Surya in India. He is the main giver of light on whom the > > entire science of Jyotish is based. Surya is also known as > " Suryanarayan " > > - > > the supreme of Maha Vishnu where he is seen as the giver of light. >Hence, > > > > Surya is classified as " Devata " meaning 'one who gives'. Sun represents > > the > > King and is central to the horoscope. He represents the " Atma " (Soul). > > Hence he is also called the king of the horoscope. He is a luminary. >He > > rules the zodiacal sign Leo (Simh in Jyotish) - the 5th sign. > > > > Moon: > > > > Moon is known as " Chandra " in India. Moon signifies the mind. It > > sustains > > the life and is hence known as " Tribhuvana Palan Karta " meaning the one > > who > > takes care like the mother. It rules the zodiacal sign Cancer (Kark in > > Jyotish) - the 4th sign. It is also a luminary as it reflects the light > > of > > Sun. > > > > > > Mars: > > > > Mars is known as " Mangal " and is known as the son of Earth. Hence he is > > also called " Bhoomiputra " where " Bhoomi " means earth and " Putra " means > > son. > > It is a very fiery planet and rules the signs Aries (Mesh in Jyotish) >and > > Scorpio (Vrishchik) - the 1st and 8th signs of the zodiac. It is very > > fiery > > in nature and warlike in nature. > > > > Mercury: > > > > Mercury is known as " Budh " and rules intelligence and is referred to as >an > > > > intellectual planet. It owns the signs Gemini (Mithuna) and Virgo >(Kanya) > > - > > the 3rd and 6th signs of the zodiac. > > > > Jupiter: > > > > Jupiter is known as " Brihaspati " or " Guru " and is considered a very > > important planet. He is equated with a guru (a spiritual teacher). He >is > > > > known as the Deva Guru meaning the Guru (adviser/teacher) of the " Devas " > > (smaller Gods). He is considered to represent God in the horoscope. > > After > > all somebody has to represent God in the life of a person so that he > > sticks > > to the path of righteousness (Dharma), sincerity, honesty etc. It is > > Jupiter who indicates that. He owns the signs Sagittarius (Dhanu) and > > Pisces (Meena) - the 9th and 12th signs of the zodiac. > > > > Venus: > > > > Venus is known as " Sukra " and is considered an " Asura Guru " meaning the > > adviser/Guru of the 'Asuras' (those who do not have Satwik qualities - > > Asuras, however, have popularly been interpreted as Rakshasas or Demons. > > But I beg to differ from this interpretation as we, as human beings, > > possess > > both the divinely and the demonly qualities within us. Too much of >desire > > > > and greed is a demonly activity. Hence Asura.). It is also a very > > important planet and it rules the signs Taurus (Rishabh) and Libra >(Thula) > > - > > the 2nd and 7th signs of the zodiac. > > > > Saturn: > > > > Known as " Shani " , is a key planet to know the weaknesses of the person. > > It > > is a planet associated with the theory of " Karma " and is the chief of >the > > Department of rebirths, or so you can say. He punishes those who do >wrong > > > > deeds (wrong Karma) and does not trouble anybody who has a clean record. > > Known to be the slowest, it has the longest duration to go round the >Sun. > > > > It rules Capricorn (Makar) and Aquarius (Kumbh) - the 10th and 11th >signs > > of > > the zodiac. > > > > Rahu: > > > > Rahu also known as the Dragon's head in the western astrology, is a > > mathematical point in the universe indicating one of the imaginary point > > of > > interception of the eliptical paths of the earth and Moon. However, in > > Hindu mythology, Rahu is considered as a very wily demon who was slain > > (was > > beheaded by the Sudarshan Chakra) by Sri Maha Vishnu after the great > > " Sagar > > Manthan " (churning of the ocean - to obtain nectare or " Amrit " ). It > > represents the head of the slain demon. He is considered a very > > diabolical > > character and is the co-ruler of the sign Aquarius (Kumbh) along with > > Saturn. > > > > Ketu: > > > > Ketu is the opposite of Rahu - also known as the Dragon's tail in >western > > astrology. Like Rahu, Ketu is the other end of the imaginary >mathematical > > > > point of interception of the eliptical paths of earth and Moon. Ketu > > usually signifies the opposite of whatever Rahu signifies. According to > > Hindu mythology, Ketu is the severed body of the demon Rahu. It is the > > co-ruler of the sign Scorpio along with Mars. > > > > For the time being, I think this is sufficient. It is only the very > > basics, > > rather a dot, that I have touched. To being with you can buy a few >books > > on > > Hindu Astrology and simultaneously read them while you learn from Guruji > > (Sanjay ji). I would recommend, as always taught to us, the books of >Dr. > > B.V. Raman - " Hindu Predictive Astrology " and " Astrology for Beginners " . > > These two books are the best to begin with. You can buy these from any >of > > > > the bookshops that sell Indian books. I am sure, once you read this and > > also start reading those books, you will not only find it interesting, >but > > > > many chapters of doubt would begin. Nothing to worry. Until next, > > > > Regards, > > Yours, > > Sarat. > > > > > > > > > " Sanjay Rath " <srath > > > " Sanjay Rath " <srath > > > " JNCircle " <sjvc-jyotish-news >, " Moodley, >Vissie " > > ><VMoodley > > >CC: <jsarat > > >Re: STARS > > >Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:11:02 +0530 > > > > > >I have already asked Sarat to look into this. Please expect his reply > > soon. > > >Best Regards, > > >Sanjay Rath > > >Sri Jagannath Vedic Center > > >152B Pocket C Mayur Vihar Phase-2, Delhi 110091 > > >Tel:+91-11-2489531;e-mail: srath > > >Webpage: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/9544/ > > >- > > >Moodley, Vissie <VMoodley > > >'Sanjay Rath' <srath > > >Tuesday, August 31, 1999 12:53 PM > > >STARS > > > > > > > > > > > NAMASTE TO YOU > > > > > > > > > PLEASE CAN U HELP ME WITH THE FOLLOWING : > > > > > I WANT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE 9 PLANTS > > > > > I KNOW THAT I BELONG TO THE GURU (JUPITER) PLANT & I FAST > > > > > ON THURSDAYS WHICH IS GURU'S DAY.I WAS BORN ON THE 12.08.1951 AT > > ABOUT > > > > > 22H35 > > > > > IN JOHANNESBURG SOTH AFRICA > > > > MY SAI RAMS TO U > > > > VISSIE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____ > > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > ____ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 1999 Report Share Posted September 8, 1999 Jai Jai Shri Jagannath Om Ganeshaya Namah Dear Manpreet, Hi! Good to see your mail. It's like being in the midst of the class. Yes. A vital point I missed out. Quite true that there is no need to consider any more planet. Have you seen the rest of the reply. Was it alright. Need your interaction too. Thanks! for adding a vital point and refreshing me too. Regards, Yours, Sarat. >gambhir (Manpreet Gambhir) >varahamihira >varahamihira > Re: STARS >Wed, 8 Sep 99 13:58:29 GMT+5:30 > > > > OM GURAVE NAMAH > > Just another point to ponder on ... > > Word Jyotish comes from the word Jyot meaning light. Jyotish is based > on light coming from the Sun. So if there were no Sun then Jyotish > wouldn't exist. Sunlight is composed of 9 rays, 7 of them are visible > (namely Violet, Indigo, Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange and Red) and 2 of > them invisible to naked eye (namely Ultra Violet and Infra red). > > Now compare this with 7 Grahas (planets) that are visible and 2 > that are not visible (i.e the nodes Rahu and Ketu). > > So in Jyotish can we ever consider more than 9 Grahas? > >regards >Manpreet > > > > I knew this would be your next doubt/question. Yes, in Vedic Astrology, > > only seven planets (till Saturn) are considered. We take Earth as >static > > (as we live on it) and relate all other planets (including Sun - though >a > > Star) to be moving around it. Since we are viewing the other planets >from > > Earth, we see the planets as moving while we are static. > > > > Coming to the scheme of seven planets and two nodes (Rahu and Ketu), I >must > > tell you that science, during the days of our Maharishis - the vedic >period, > > was quite advanced and they could, right then, see and discover the > > asteroids belt between Saturn and Uranus. This asteroid belt actually >works > > like a filter and distorts the travel of Sun's rays. The rays of the >Sun > > actually bounces on the surface of the asteroids and there are too many > > refractions/reflections taking place which deteriorate the strength of >Sun's > > rays that reach the earth from these outer planets. Jyotish considers >these > > distorted rays as impure to be having any profound effect on the >activities > > on earth. Hence, we follow only the seven planetary scheme which >considers > > only the inner planets - Mercury, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn along >with > > Sun, Moon and the two nodes. > >------ >MyPoints-Free Rewards When You're Online. >Start with up to 150 Points for joining! >http://clickhere./click/805 > > >eGroups.com home: varahamihira > - Simplifying group communications > > > > ____ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 1999 Report Share Posted September 8, 1999 OM GURAVE NAMAH Just another point to ponder on ... Word Jyotish comes from the word Jyot meaning light. Jyotish is based on light coming from the Sun. So if there were no Sun then Jyotish wouldn't exist. Sunlight is composed of 9 rays, 7 of them are visible (namely Violet, Indigo, Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange and Red) and 2 of them invisible to naked eye (namely Ultra Violet and Infra red). Now compare this with 7 Grahas (planets) that are visible and 2 that are not visible (i.e the nodes Rahu and Ketu). So in Jyotish can we ever consider more than 9 Grahas? regards Manpreet > I knew this would be your next doubt/question. Yes, in Vedic Astrology, > only seven planets (till Saturn) are considered. We take Earth as static > (as we live on it) and relate all other planets (including Sun - though a > Star) to be moving around it. Since we are viewing the other planets from > Earth, we see the planets as moving while we are static. > > Coming to the scheme of seven planets and two nodes (Rahu and Ketu), I must > tell you that science, during the days of our Maharishis - the vedic period, > was quite advanced and they could, right then, see and discover the > asteroids belt between Saturn and Uranus. This asteroid belt actually works > like a filter and distorts the travel of Sun's rays. The rays of the Sun > actually bounces on the surface of the asteroids and there are too many > refractions/reflections taking place which deteriorate the strength of Sun's > rays that reach the earth from these outer planets. Jyotish considers these > distorted rays as impure to be having any profound effect on the activities > on earth. Hence, we follow only the seven planetary scheme which considers > only the inner planets - Mercury, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn along with > Sun, Moon and the two nodes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 1999 Report Share Posted September 8, 1999 JAYA JAGANNATH Dear Manpreet, Thats an excellent point. I will add something. These colors are the most natural or basic colors of the sunlight that are sued for the Atmakaraka. The two extremes Ultraviolet and Infra red also represent the Most Cold and Most hot areas respectively. Thus Ultra-Violet is ruled by rahu and is very bad for all life on eaqrth and Infra-red is ruled by ketu. The others, on the basis of the heat balance are VIOLET-Saturn, Indigo-Moon, Blue (Sky)-Venus, Green-Mercury, Yellow-Jupiter, Orange-Sun and Red-Mars. Thus, use of a FEROZA stone (Light blue and opaque stone) is very good for increasing the rays of Venus. Best Wishes, Sanjay Rath - Manpreet Gambhir <gambhir <varahamihira > Wednesday, September 08, 1999 7:28 PM Re: STARS > > > OM GURAVE NAMAH > > Just another point to ponder on ... > > Word Jyotish comes from the word Jyot meaning light. Jyotish is based > on light coming from the Sun. So if there were no Sun then Jyotish > wouldn't exist. Sunlight is composed of 9 rays, 7 of them are visible > (namely Violet, Indigo, Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange and Red) and 2 of > them invisible to naked eye (namely Ultra Violet and Infra red). > > Now compare this with 7 Grahas (planets) that are visible and 2 > that are not visible (i.e the nodes Rahu and Ketu). > > So in Jyotish can we ever consider more than 9 Grahas? > > regards > Manpreet > > > > I knew this would be your next doubt/question. Yes, in Vedic Astrology, > > only seven planets (till Saturn) are considered. We take Earth as static > > (as we live on it) and relate all other planets (including Sun - though a > > Star) to be moving around it. Since we are viewing the other planets from > > Earth, we see the planets as moving while we are static. > > > > Coming to the scheme of seven planets and two nodes (Rahu and Ketu), I must > > tell you that science, during the days of our Maharishis - the vedic period, > > was quite advanced and they could, right then, see and discover the > > asteroids belt between Saturn and Uranus. This asteroid belt actually works > > like a filter and distorts the travel of Sun's rays. The rays of the Sun > > actually bounces on the surface of the asteroids and there are too many > > refractions/reflections taking place which deteriorate the strength of Sun's > > rays that reach the earth from these outer planets. Jyotish considers these > > distorted rays as impure to be having any profound effect on the activities > > on earth. Hence, we follow only the seven planetary scheme which considers > > only the inner planets - Mercury, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn along with > > Sun, Moon and the two nodes. > > ------ > MyPoints-Free Rewards When You're Online. > Start with up to 150 Points for joining! > http://clickhere./click/805 > > > eGroups.com home: varahamihira > - Simplifying group communications > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 1999 Report Share Posted September 8, 1999 JAYA JAGANNATH Dear Gauranga, They were parts of the whole. Jyotisha is a Vedanga. To see the entire scope of Vedic Astrology or Jyotisha, go to http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/3963 and click on the blue words which reads " scope of ... " . Best Wishes, Sanjay Rath - Gauranga Das <gauranga <varahamihira > Wednesday, September 08, 1999 9:34 AM Re: STARS > Dear Prabhus, > > Namaste. > > > I knew this would be your next doubt/question. Yes, in Vedic Astrology, > > only seven planets (till Saturn) are considered. We take Earth as static > > (as we live on it) and relate all other planets (including Sun - though a > > Star) to be moving around it. Since we are viewing the other planets from > > Earth, we see the planets as moving while we are static. > > > > Coming to the scheme of seven planets and two nodes (Rahu and Ketu), I must > > tell you that science, during the days of our Maharishis - the vedic period, > > was quite advanced and they could, right then, see and discover the > > asteroids belt between Saturn and Uranus. This asteroid belt actually works > > like a filter and distorts the travel of Sun's rays. The rays of the Sun > > actually bounces on the surface of the asteroids and there are too many > > refractions/reflections taking place which deteriorate the strength of Sun's > > rays that reach the earth from these outer planets. Jyotish considers these > > distorted rays as impure to be having any profound effect on the activities > > on earth. Hence, we follow only the seven planetary scheme which considers > > only the inner planets - Mercury, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn along with > > Sun, Moon and the two nodes. > > Sarat says that the Maharishis knew about Neptune, Uranus and Pluto. I was also thinking like this. But did they refer to them somehow (maybe astronomically or whatsoever). I've read in Lahiri's ephemeris him saying that Neptune is Varunaloka, Uranus is Indraloka, and Pluto is Yamaloka. Is this supported by any scripture? > > Plus there was a great debate elsewhere about Vedanga-jyotisha. Some were asying that the six vedangas really contained parts of Jyotisha dealing with Hora, but others said that it was mainly Ganita and some Muhurta ofr determining the right time for yajnas. I was thinking that the Jyotisha meaning Hora, Ganita and Samhita was a separate diescipline and was coexistent with Vedanga Jyotisha. Hence both Astronomy and Astrology bore the same title although being somewhat idfferent. Ws I correct or not? > > You servant, Gauranga das > > > ------ > MyPoints-Free Rewards When You're Online. > Start with up to 150 Points for joining! > http://clickhere./click/805 > > > eGroups.com home: varahamihira > - Simplifying group communications > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 1999 Report Share Posted September 10, 1999 Hare Krishna, just to add few small notes on Manpreet's answer: > > I knew this would be your next doubt/question. Yes, in Vedic Astrology, > > only seven planets (till Saturn) are considered. We take Earth as static > > (as we live on it) and relate all other planets (including Sun - though a > > Star) to be moving around it. Since we are viewing the other planets from > > Earth, we see the planets as moving while we are static. Not only 7 planets, but to be more accurate 9 grahas as Manpreet explained, upa grahas and special lagnas. All these grahas, upa grahas and lagnas (hora lagna, bhava lagna, ghatika lagna, sri lagna...) have profound influence on human life. Graha can be anything that has influence on human life and hence upa grahas and special lagnas are also considered in Vedic astrology. > > Coming to the scheme of seven planets and two nodes (Rahu and Ketu), I must > > tell you that science, during the days of our Maharishis - the vedic period, > > was quite advanced and they could, right then, see and discover the > > asteroids belt between Saturn and Uranus. This asteroid belt actually works > > like a filter and distorts the travel of Sun's rays. The rays of the Sun > > actually bounces on the surface of the asteroids and there are too many > > refractions/reflections taking place which deteriorate the strength of Sun's > > rays that reach the earth from these outer planets. Jyotish considers these > > distorted rays as impure to be having any profound effect on the activities > > on earth. No, this is not correct. First of all Sun's rays can never be impure, since Sun is purifying even the most impure things like urine and stool and is also purifying three worlds which is still on the material (physical) level. On the higher level we must know that the source of Sun's rays is the effulgence of Surya Narayana - presiding Deity of the Sun who is the expansion of Lord Vishnu who is the maintainer of the whole universe, so how Sun's rays can be impure? Second thing is that Sun's rays are not blocked by the asteroids but by Lokaloka mountain in the region of Golden land which as the name suggests is made of gold and is not inhabited. Other dvipas (islands) in the plane of Bhu Mandala are inhabited, but not Golden land. Because it is made of gold and it reflects Sun's rays to the highest extent anything that falls on region of golden land cannot be perceived or retrieved, therefore it is abandoned. Saturn's motion is passing in the inner region near boundary of the Lokaloka mountain and is the last heavenly body that is receiving Sun's rays. " By the supreme will of Krishna, the mountain known as Lokaloka has been installed as the outer border of the three worlds-Bhurloka, Bhuvarloka and Svarloka-to control the rays of the sun throughout the universe. All the luminaries, from the sun up to Dhruvaloka, distribute their rays throughout the three worlds, but only within the boundary formed by this mountain. Because it is extremely high, extending even higher than Dhruvaloka, it blocks the rays of the luminaries, which therefore can never extend beyond it. " (Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 5, chapter 20 verse 37). As this verse says Lokaloka mountain is also boundary of the 3 worlds Bhurloka, Bhuvarloka and Svarloka. Vedic astrology is concerned only with Bhurloka, Bhuvarloka and Svarloka and it doesn't goes beyond it. This doesn't means that Vedic sages were unaware of other planets like Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are heavenly bodies, but they don't fall in category of grahas and therefore don't have influence of human life. If follow the logic of western astrology that all heavenly bodies must have influence on human life (since they take into account also some asteroids) that would mean that whenever NASA puts new satellite in the orbit we would have to take it into account and include in it in the calculations. There are already probably more than 100 satellites in lower and higher orbits of the Earth. Third thing is that according to what I've learned in physics light cannot " deteriorate in the strength " so that the light from outer planets cannot reflect back to Earth especially in the outer space where there is no atmosphere. Since Lokaloka mountain is blocking Sun's rays light never reflects back from outer planets because it never reaches them, so there is no question of " deterioration in the strength " . Light is of dual nature, namely wave and particle according to the modern physics. Newton's physics and normal laws of motion do not apply to light. Albert Einstein has expounded it more in his theory of relativity. Light is only restricted by it's own speed - the speed of light which according to modern physics is the highest attainable speed in this universe. Ancient sages were talking of vimanas (space airplanes) that were traveling throughout universe by the speed of mind which is far greater than the speed of light, so again we can see how backward modern science is. I hope that this helps, Dina-natha Das. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 1999 Report Share Posted September 10, 1999 Jaya Jagannatha, Very perfect. I am delighted to see the high standards and level of discussion in this Jyotish Classroom. Just one point Dina-Nathji. How do we see the outer planets of Neptune Pluto etc.? The Sun's light falling on them is reflected back to the earth and then this is seen through Radio telescopes. This is not the normal Light, but Radio frequencies and as such does not have direct influence on Human life. Thus Srimad Bhagavatam is very correct in the concept of the Lokaloka Mountain being the physical limit of the visible and near visible spectrum of the solar rays. Hare Rama Krishna, Sanjay - Dina-natha Das <vmihira <varahamihira > Saturday, September 11, 1999 12:38 AM Re: STARS > Hare Krishna, > just to add few small notes on Manpreet's answer: > > > > I knew this would be your next doubt/question. Yes, in Vedic Astrology, > > > only seven planets (till Saturn) are considered. We take Earth as > static > > > (as we live on it) and relate all other planets (including Sun - though > a > > > Star) to be moving around it. Since we are viewing the other planets > from > > > Earth, we see the planets as moving while we are static. > > Not only 7 planets, but to be more accurate 9 grahas as Manpreet explained, > upa grahas and special lagnas. All these grahas, upa grahas and lagnas (hora > lagna, bhava lagna, ghatika lagna, sri lagna...) have profound influence on > human life. Graha can be anything that has influence on human life and hence > upa grahas and special lagnas are also considered in Vedic astrology. > > > > Coming to the scheme of seven planets and two nodes (Rahu and Ketu), I > must > > > tell you that science, during the days of our Maharishis - the vedic > period, > > > was quite advanced and they could, right then, see and discover the > > > asteroids belt between Saturn and Uranus. This asteroid belt actually > works > > > like a filter and distorts the travel of Sun's rays. The rays of the > Sun > > > actually bounces on the surface of the asteroids and there are too many > > > refractions/reflections taking place which deteriorate the strength of > Sun's > > > rays that reach the earth from these outer planets. Jyotish considers > these > > > distorted rays as impure to be having any profound effect on the > activities > > > on earth. > > No, this is not correct. First of all Sun's rays can never be impure, since > Sun is purifying even the most impure things like urine and stool and is > also purifying three worlds which is still on the material (physical) level. > On the higher level we must know that the source of Sun's rays is the > effulgence of Surya Narayana - presiding Deity of the Sun who is the > expansion of Lord Vishnu who is the maintainer of the whole universe, so how > Sun's > rays can be impure? > > Second thing is that Sun's rays are not blocked by the asteroids but by > Lokaloka mountain in the region of Golden land which as the name suggests is > made of gold and is not inhabited. Other dvipas (islands) in the plane of > Bhu Mandala are > inhabited, but not Golden land. Because it is made of gold and it reflects > Sun's rays to the highest extent anything that falls on region of golden > land cannot be perceived or retrieved, therefore it is abandoned. Saturn's > motion is passing in the inner region near boundary of the Lokaloka > mountain and is the last heavenly body that is receiving Sun's rays. > > " By the supreme will of Krishna, the mountain known as Lokaloka has been > installed as the outer border of the three worlds-Bhurloka, Bhuvarloka and > Svarloka-to control the rays of the sun throughout the universe. All the > luminaries, from the sun up to Dhruvaloka, distribute their rays throughout > the three worlds, but only within the boundary formed by this mountain. > Because it is extremely high, extending even higher than Dhruvaloka, it > blocks the rays of the luminaries, which therefore can never extend beyond > it. " (Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 5, chapter 20 verse 37). > > As this verse says Lokaloka mountain is also boundary of the 3 worlds > Bhurloka, Bhuvarloka and Svarloka. Vedic astrology is concerned only with > Bhurloka, Bhuvarloka and Svarloka and it doesn't goes beyond it. This > doesn't means that Vedic sages were unaware of other planets like Uranus, > Neptune and Pluto. > > Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are heavenly bodies, but they don't fall in > category > of grahas and therefore don't have influence of human life. If follow the > logic of western astrology that all heavenly bodies must have influence on > human life (since they take into account also some asteroids) that would > mean that whenever NASA puts new satellite in the orbit we would have to > take > it into account and include in it in the calculations. There are already > probably > more than 100 satellites in lower and higher orbits of the Earth. > > Third thing is that according to what I've learned in physics light cannot > " deteriorate in the strength " so that the light from outer planets cannot > reflect back to Earth especially in the outer space where there is no > atmosphere. Since Lokaloka mountain is blocking Sun's rays light never > reflects back from outer planets because it never reaches them, so there is > no question of " deterioration in the strength " . Light is of dual nature, > namely wave and particle according to the modern physics. Newton's physics > and normal laws of motion do not apply to light. Albert Einstein has > expounded it more in his theory of relativity. Light is only restricted by > it's own speed - the speed of light which according to modern physics is the > highest attainable speed in this universe. Ancient sages were talking of > vimanas (space airplanes) that were traveling throughout universe by the > speed of mind which is far greater than the speed of light, so again we can > see how backward modern science is. > > > I hope that this helps, > Dina-natha Das. > > > > > ------ > Was the salesman clueless? > Productopia has the answers. > http://clickhere./click/555 > > > > eGroups.com home: varahamihira > - Simplifying group communications > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 1999 Report Share Posted September 11, 1999 Hare Krishna, Sanjayji I don't understand 2 points from your answer: > Jaya Jagannatha, > Very perfect. I am delighted to see the high standards and level of > discussion in this Jyotish Classroom. Just one point Dina-Nathji. How do we > see the outer planets of Neptune Pluto etc.? The Sun's light falling on them > is reflected back to the earth and then this is seen through Radio > telescopes. I don't understand what do you mean when you say: " The Sun's light falling on them > is reflected back to the earth and then this is seen through Radio > telescopes. " > This is not the normal Light, but Radio frequencies and as such does not > have direct influence on Human life. What type of light that is? Dina-natha Das. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 1999 Report Share Posted September 11, 1999 Dear Gauranga! Hare Krsihna! Jai Jagannath! Just another point of comments >Sarat says that the Maharishis knew about Neptune, Uranus and Pluto. I was also thinking like this. But did they refer to them somehow (maybe astronomically or whatsoever). I've read in Lahiri's ephemeris him saying that Neptune is Varunaloka, Uranus is Indraloka, and Pluto is Yamaloka. Is this supported by any scripture? > According to Bhagavatam, Yamaloka is inhabited by Pitas and is situated in just near the surface of Garbhodaka Ocean - near the hellish planets. Indraloka is in the Swargaloka system and is in a different location. Varunaloka is also situated someplace else. So it is an artificial attempt to match Vedic and modern views. The modern view has it's right for existance but it has it's own limitation and it's own purpose which is completely different from the Vedic one. So why bother with that? Let it go it's own way. It may be helpful in some areas but it will in no way bring you closer to Krishna. your servant Yasomatinandana das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 1999 Report Share Posted September 11, 1999 JAYA JAGANNATH Dear YND , Sarat & Gauranga, Knowledge of the outer planets was definitely there as was of the elaborate system of Tara's and Abhijit. Understanding these from the Rig Veda is another thing altogether. In this Kali Yuga, we can only attempt with our little intellects. Indraloka is in the Eastern direction on the surface of the earth, and spatially speaking, directed towards the Sun as the Earth revolves around the Sun. Varuna Loka is exactly in the opposite or western direction on the surface of the earth and in space is directed away from the Sun. Yamaloka is in the southern direction and, in space is vertically below the earth. Swarga is composed of the term SWA or self. travelling in the eastern direction in space, we encounter the Indraloka before reaching the Sun where we encounter Surya Narayana. Thus SWARGA can be said to include both Indraloka and Surya. These are represented in the horoscope as Lagna and the Atmakaraka. Thus SWA means AK as well as Lagna and SWAMSA means the navamsa occupied by the atmakaraka as well as lagna. One is the Atma (loosely: the Soul) and the other is the Lagna (or Body). Best Wishes, Sanjay Rath - YND <vedant <varahamihira > Saturday, September 11, 1999 5:21 PM Re: STARS > Dear Gauranga! > > Hare Krsihna! Jai Jagannath! > > Just another point of comments > > > >Sarat says that the Maharishis knew about Neptune, Uranus and Pluto. I was > also thinking like this. But did they refer to them somehow (maybe > astronomically or whatsoever). I've read in Lahiri's ephemeris him saying > that Neptune is Varunaloka, Uranus is Indraloka, and Pluto is Yamaloka. Is > this supported by any scripture? > > > > > According to Bhagavatam, Yamaloka is inhabited by Pitas and is situated in > just near the surface of Garbhodaka Ocean - near the hellish planets. > Indraloka is in the Swargaloka system and is in a different location. > Varunaloka is also situated someplace else. So it is an artificial attempt > to match Vedic and modern views. The modern view has it's right for > existance but it has it's own limitation and it's own purpose which is > completely different from the Vedic one. So why bother with that? Let it go > it's own way. It may be helpful in some areas but it will in no way bring > you closer to Krishna. > > your servant > Yasomatinandana das > > > ------ > MyPoints-Free Rewards When You're Online. > Start with up to 150 Points for joining! > http://clickhere./click/805 > > > eGroups.com home: varahamihira > - Simplifying group communications > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2004 Report Share Posted September 10, 2004 In a message dated 9/9/2004 11:33:08 PM Central Daylight Time, eastwest writes: didn't think anyone on this list had much interest in stars, i used to be very much interested in stars, and read and re-read Ptolemy's Almagest and other ancient text dealing with the stars. /// wing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2004 Report Share Posted September 10, 2004 , Therese Hamilton <eastwest@s...> wrote: > Andrew, have you researched the stars very much? The stars and > constellations are my BIG interest at this time. I didn't think anyone on > this list had much interest in stars, but now I'll post my comments on a > new sky program I just purchased. You must have one or more sky programs > yourself....? No -- just a good astrology program. But stars and constellations are an interest of mine. Vivian Robson compiled the fixed star data from which most later authors borrowed quite liberally. He (Robson) was yet another old British astrologer who was a crypto-siderealist at heart. > I swear before I leave this earth I'm going to help put together a more > comprehensive star meaning catalog than we have available now. Do you use > only the ecliptic coordinates? There's the big controversy between > Bernadette Brady and others like Diana Rosenberg. Diana swears by the > ecliptic longitudes and Brady swears by parans. (All this will be old news > to you...I'm writing for the list.) It is ironic you should mention this as the thought occurred to me last night to post a note about the controversy between Brady and Rosenberg. I had the 'Brady Book' a couple of years ago but found its usefulness limited. I found she relied far too much on the questionable research of Barbara Walker and placed far too much emphasis on what Axel Harvey calls 'the bankruptcy of the Doctrine of Names.' See his article at: http://www.astrologymontreal.com/articles/ah_on_lilith.htm > A few years ago I entered a Kepler College acution and won Diana's huge > disk collection of stars and correlating events. It's all still on disk and > unfortunately it's in the Tropical zodiac. I've started to convert all her > positions, but get bogged down by the sheer number of stars, black holes, > etc. She has stars and sky objects for almost every degree of the zodiac, > multiple entries. I think Rosenberg takes the sidereal signs into consideration when she uses the tropical zodiac. She tends to see the fixed stars as 'links' between the two zodiacs. > My (mean) Rahu is 16+ Virgo. This is probably an astrological area as well. > Richard Houck swore by Jain's THE STARS AND YOUR FUTURE. (Which is an > outright copy of Kozminsky's ZODIACAL SYMBOLOGY AND ITS PLANETARY POWER > with a few added notes.) Rick insisted these degree symbols were sidereal. > Anyhow, Virgo 17 is: " An astrologer seated at a desk, his head resting on > his left hand, judging a nativity. " Interesting -- my Sun is there. Jain plagiarized almost everything. > Do you use mean or true node? I think I remember that my true node is 17+. > Too tired tonight to look it up. My Mercury is 5 Scorpio--Saturn's mansion > in a Mars-ruled sign. I have a technical and mathematical approach to > astrology. True Node. It is a just preference -- not a revealed truth. <grin> > So you have the Pleiades on your ascendant... Mmmm.... Andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2004 Report Share Posted September 10, 2004 , " kyuseiki " <kyuseiki> wrote: > It is ironic you should mention this as the thought occurred to me > last night to post a note about the controversy between Brady and > Rosenberg. I had the 'Brady Book' a couple of years ago but found its > usefulness limited. I found she relied far too much on the > questionable research of Barbara Walker and placed far too much > emphasis on what Axel Harvey calls 'the bankruptcy of the Doctrine of > Names.' See his article at: > > http://www.astrologymontreal.com/articles/ah_on_lilith.htm Here is a link to another article by Axel Harvey which discusses his ideas on the Doctrine of Names more thoroughly: http://www.urania.info/story/2002/4/17/14488/4418 Andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2004 Report Share Posted September 10, 2004 At 03:31 PM 9/10/04 -0000, Andrew wrote: >He (Robson) was yet another old British astrologer who was a crypto-siderealist at heart. The Astrology Center of America has recently re-published his fixed star book. (happily!) I had the 'Brady Book' a couple of years ago but found its >usefulness limited. I found she relied far too much on the >questionable research of Barbara Walker and placed far too much >emphasis on what Axel Harvey calls 'the bankruptcy of the Doctrine of >Names.' I'm relieved to read your comments. I also found the book of limited usefulness. See his article at: > >http://www.astrologymontreal.com/articles/ah_on_lilith.htm Will read it this evening. I copied the article into my mail program. The typeface so many are now using on the internet is way too small on my notebook computer. >Interesting -- my Sun is there [17 Virgo]. That's why I quoted Kozminsky's degree. Jain plagiarized almost everything. Yep...he was my houseguest once. One of his books lifted all the photographs from an astronomy book. Some years ago he died of leukimia. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2004 Report Share Posted September 10, 2004 , Therese Hamilton <eastwest@s...> wrote: > The Astrology Center of America has recently re-published his fixed star > book. (happily!) I also recommend 'Ballantrae Reprint.' John Ballantrae is a very kind and extremely helpful individual who operates a truly wonderful reprint service for those astrologers who like to explore the classics as well as texts by more 'recent' authors like Simmonite, Sepharial, Charubel, Robson, De Luce, De Vore, etc. He even carries a book by Cyril Fagan: http://www.globalserve.net/~ballantrae/ > I'm relieved to read your comments. I also found the book of limited > usefulness. It might have been better if she had explored the possibility that the parans represent an influence other than those traditionally associated with the fixed star longitudes. I feel that there might be validity in parans but I would like to see them differentiated from the traditional body of fixed star names and knowledge. Less reliance on mythology too and more actual 'case studies' would have been helpful. Her book about prediction was rather well done so I was disappointed with Fixed Stars. Andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2004 Report Share Posted September 10, 2004 Therese - " Therese Hamilton " <eastwest Friday, September 10, 2004 1:34 PM Re: Stars > At 03:31 PM 9/10/04 -0000, Andrew wrote: > >He (Robson) was yet another old British astrologer who was a > crypto-siderealist at heart. Do tell! > > The Astrology Center of America has recently re-published his fixed star > book. (happily!) > > I had the 'Brady Book' a couple of years ago but found its > >usefulness limited. I found she relied far too much on the > >questionable research of Barbara Walker and placed far too much > >emphasis on what Axel Harvey calls 'the bankruptcy of the Doctrine of > >Names.' > > I'm relieved to read your comments. I also found the book of limited > usefulness. > > See his article at: > > > >http://www.astrologymontreal.com/articles/ah_on_lilith.htm > > Will read it this evening. I copied the article into my mail program. The > typeface so many are now using on the internet is way too small on my > notebook computer. > > >Interesting -- my Sun is there [17 Virgo]. > > That's why I quoted Kozminsky's degree. > > Jain plagiarized almost everything. I've heard to charge also. I've also heard that he did not systematically convert the tropical degrees to the sidereal degrees. Any thoughts on this? For some of them, it may have been the case of making the reading for 17 Virgo tropical, the reading for 17 Virgo sidereal. I don't have info on any of these specifics just repeating some third and fourth hand accounts. Chris > > Yep...he was my houseguest once. One of his books lifted all the > photographs from an astronomy book. Some years ago he died of leukimia. > > Therese > > > > > > " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- > > Post message: > Subscribe: - > Un: - > List owner: -owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > / > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2004 Report Share Posted September 11, 2004 , " Christopher Kevill " <christopher.kevill@s...> wrote: > > At 03:31 PM 9/10/04 -0000, Andrew wrote: > > >He (Robson) was yet another old British astrologer who was a > > crypto-siderealist at heart. > > Do tell! See: http://www.solsticepoint.com/astrologersmemorial/siderealists.html Andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 At 05:27 PM 11/7/04 -0800, Dark*Star wrote: >The stars are a mess. >Some will have six commentaries giving as many rulerships. >Bush's SSR gives Moon-Uranus on the MC which means an >'engineered' presidency. The answer's right there in planets. >But looking to the 'fixed sterres' we find Sadalmelik, Formalhaut, >Skat each with a plethora of influences according to authorities and >confusing everyone. Dark*Star, Yes, most of the star commentary needs tons of work or perhaps should be thrown out. But still we have to start with a 'literature survey,' and Anne Wright has taken care of that for us for which I'm very grateful. She also lists over 700 stars on her web site that can be printed out, so at least we know where the stars are. (I changed them all to sidereal.) The stars do seem to relate to mundane events. I'm not sure how they work in personal charts. Anyhow, since I'm interested, I'll be looking at *the stars*. T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.