Guest guest Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Hare Krishna Dear Souvic, I think Robert answered my post, as my point was that I dont think it is possible for us mortal souls to say whether someone was liberated or not. I think only a pure devotee or highly elevated person can see or know who is or isnt. Certainly we are all " liberated " from our bodies at the time of death.And for almost ALL of us, we move on to another loka and continue in this way.So is that what Jaimini was referring to? Was Jaimini a liberated soul? Im not one who has memorized exactly which phrase , where I read something, but Ive understood from my readings of Srimad Bhagavatam and the teachings of Srila Prabhupada that persons killed by Vishnu, Krishna etc are " liberated " from the material domain, in this loka and the next material loka. For example, Ravana was constanly meditating on Rama.And when he was killed he was uttering the name of " Rama " in fact he took birth to perform this lila. There are so many stories wherein souls are liberated by serving the lord in any capacity, even seeing the Lord is enough to liberate a person.!So Achyuta Das in the parampara we follow at SJC must have been liberated, or been a liberated person to have the Lila with Lord Caitanya. >>>>>>>Anyway in regards to these great souls that are having pastimes with Vishnu/Krishna/Shiva etc we cant even BEGIN to compare ourselves with them!<<<<<<<<< Now in regards to Jaimini and all of that, personally I have my own thoughts im working on in regrds to 12thhouse, the isthadevata etc. I need to look at more charts, but in general my thoughts are like this,. We all have shad-ripus and attachments and all sorts of karmas and things that keep us in bondage to this body and this material domain. Now is the ishadeveta actually showing us the things that are binding us? Does worship of the " isthadevata " help " purify " us of those significations that are binding us here and in the future?.To HELP PREPARE US for elevation or progression on the path of self realization? If each planet represents some things we need to work on for example. My AK is saturn, so I am needed to serve and also need to suffer and accept suffering of others. Now 12th from that in navamsa (place of isthadevata) should be what I need to " give up " isnt it? I dont know I think there is more too this whole worship of isthadevata etc. Krishna has incarnated in so many forms to attract according to time and place and circumstance and to appeal to every type of soul so that everyone has opportunity, not just hindus in india ,etc. My major point is there are many ideas of what is lberation and liberation from what and from where, first before we discuss , we need to know what JAImini meant, He specifically mentioned other lokas. Well what lokas?? anyway there is much more to be known, and im sure we dont know it all. We need to pray and learn more, that is why i took spiritual initiation, as from reading Bhagavad- Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam, Teachings of Lord Chaitanya ,etc. I could understood that the ultimate liberation is almost impossible (unless you are killed etc by Vishnu) from this material world as we are always creating more karma for ourselves,and that unless we have the blessings of a real spiritual master, a pure devotee, to guide us, bless us than we are going to be cycling up and down this universe through various lokas etc for an infinite period of time. Its all based on desire, and then that take us back to our 6th house,Rahu, attachments and such,,,,, and on it goes. Im praying Sanjay has some more realizations about AK, isthadevata, etc and can illuminate all of us in regards to astrology. With best wishes, Lakshmi -- In sohamsa , " Souvik Dutta " <explore_vulcan wrote: > > Pranam Lakshmiji, > > Again apologize for poking in..but I had some views on this. > > Would you consider death at the hands of Vishnu form as a means of > liberation? > > If you would, please let me know if Shishupal worshipped any Vishnu > form? > > Guru Sanjay Rathji said that Vishnu had to come down in the form of > Rama to liberate Ravana because of his continuous worship of Shiva > by Shiva tandava stotra. Ravana did not worship Vishnu or any of his > forms. > > Maharaja Bali was a great devotee of Lakshmi. Vishnu took Vamana > avataar to liberate him and make him the ruler of Patala. Did he > worhip Vishnu forms? > > Kamsa, Hiranyakhashyap, Sugriv's brother Bali-please let me know > which of these people worship Vishnu? > > Did Ahalaya worship Vishnu or any of his forms? Then why did Rama > liberate her? > > Please do let me know your views on these questions. > > Thanks > > Souvik > > sohamsa , " lakshmikary " <lakshmikary@> > wrote: > > > > Hare Krishna > > Dear Narsimha, > > Pranams. > > You said " " For example, if you worship Ganesha with Atharva > > Seersham and understand the meaning, you will see that he is > lauded > > as the one from whom the whole universe originates, in whom the > > whole universe is stationed and into whom the whole universe > merges > > at the time of Destruction, the one who also takes the forms of > > Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Indra, Agni etc etc. Only if you imagine > such > > a higher aakaasa tattva form of Ganesha that is close to > > formlessness can Ganesha give you moksha. > > > > Similarly, with all higher deities who are muktas even as they > exist > > in a form, you can worship the lower form for specific limited > > results or worship the higher forms that are close to formlessness > > and get moksha from them. " " > > > > Im asking ..Can you please show me the chart of someone that was > > liberated by Ganesh? Or Sri Lakshmi? > > and also how do you know for sure they were " liberated " can you > show > > me in their chart, that they worshipped Ganesh and were liberated.? > > What do you mean by " liberated " , from what , and from where? > > thank-you, > > Lakshmi > > > > > > sohamsa , " Narasimha P.V.R. Rao " <pvr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear " Anuj " of Rama, :-) > > > > > > > " As what you wear is recognized as Ma, and what you desire is > > also > > > > recognized as Ma " > > > > > > > > Wear=Fear in the above sentence. > > > > > > > > Please pardon the typos. Too many in one email. > > > > > > Yaar, sometimes profound statements come out of even mistakes > made > > by learned people! > > > > > > At the core, we are just Brahman, the Atman. We " wear " many > layers > > of conditioning that make us who we are now (or " aren't " really, > > depending on your perspective). All those layers of conditioning > are > > indeed part of Ma. It is Ma who covers us with all those layers of > > conditioning (and hence it is Ma who can be the key to unravelling > > them). > > > > > > Thus, your typo is IMHO a very profound statement! > > > > > > > > Ma Kali is therefore, not Tamas and Ma is not afflicted by > > Gunas. She has > > > > > lordship over them, being the Prakriti herself. > > > > > > Yes, She is the Prakriti Herself. Though Lakshmi, Saraswati and > > Kaali are all Prakriti only, they have lordship over different > gunas > > within the Prakriti. > > > > > > However, it is correct that She is " not affected by Gunas " . I > > completely agree with you. I now understand why some people were > > upset when I associated Kaali with tamas! Thanks for your mail. > > > > > > What you said above is true of most heigher deities. They are > > personifications of various guna combinations, but not affected by > > gunas. They are all muktas (already liberated). Being muktas, they > > are untouched by the gunas of the specific form they occupy. They > do > > the work of the form they occupy, with the most perfect > realization > > that they are the formless Brahman. Thus, the form they occupy has > > gunas but they are untouched by them. They exist in a form like > that > > for a specific time and then they get moksha, i.e. their form > merges > > with the formless Brahman. > > > > > > For example, Maharshi Vasishtha described the time periods of > > Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. During the lifetime of one Vishnu, so > many > > Brahmas come, do their job and get moksha (don't confuse this > > creator Brahma with formless Brahman). Similarly, during the > > lifetime of one Shiva, so many Vishnus come, do their job and get > > moksha. That is what Vasishtha taught Sri Ramachandra. > > > > > > All these heigher deities have long time periods to spend in a > > form and do so as muktas who are untouched by the gunas of the > form > > they occupy. > > > > > > All these heigher deities who are muktas while existing in a > form > > have the ability to operate at the low level and grant low level > > wishes or operate close to formlessness and give moksha. > > > > > > For example, Sanjay keeps on writing about the 12th house, > Pisces > > and aakaasa tattva link to argue that only Vishnu gives moksha. > But > > what the 12th house, Pisces and aakaasa tattva links suggests is > > that any deity who gives moksha is of aakaasa tattva and is close > to > > formlessness. > > > > > > By worshipping Shiva as merely the giver of marriage (as Souvik > > wrote) or by worshipping Ganesha as merely the remover of > obstacles > > or Mahaalakshmi as merely the giver of wealth or Mahaasaraswati as > > merely the giver of knowledge or Mahaakaali as merely the giver of > > victory in battles (as Sanjay wrote), you are merely worshipping a > > low level form of the deity and can only get limited results. But, > > as you worship them and get close to them, you may start realizing > > the unlimited nature of those deities. > > > > > > For example, if you worship Ganesha with Atharva Seersham and > > understand the meaning, you will see that he is lauded as the one > > from whom the whole universe originates, in whom the whole > universe > > is stationed and into whom the whole universe merges at the time > of > > Destruction, the one who also takes the forms of Brahma, Vishnu, > > Rudra, Indra, Agni etc etc. Only if you imagine such a higher > > aakaasa tattva form of Ganesha that is close to formlessness can > > Ganesha give you moksha. > > > > > > Similarly, with all higher deities who are muktas even as they > > exist in a form, you can worship the lower form for specific > limited > > results or worship the higher forms that are close to formlessness > > and get moksha from them. > > > > > > Enough for today.. > > > > > > May the light of Brahman shine within, > > > Narasimha > > > ------------------------------ - > > > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net > > > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org > > > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org > > > ------------------------------ - > > > > > > > " As what you wear is recognized as Ma, and what you desire is > > also > > > > recognized as Ma " > > > > > > > > Wear=Fear in the above sentence. > > > > > > > > Please pardon the typos. Too many in one email. > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards > > > > Bharat > > > > > > > > On 6/8/06, Bharat Hindu Astrology <hinduastrology@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Namaskaar Sri Sanjay and Sri Narasimha > > > > > > > > > > Just a small note regarding Gunas and Ma: > > > > > > > > > > Ma Kali is not Tamas. All Tamas is Ma Kali. Like Ma lakshmi > is > > not wealth > > > > > but all wealth is Ma lakshmi. Ma Saraswati is not knowledge, > > but all > > > > > knowledge is Ma Saraswati. > > > > > > > > > > Whatever we in the world, is nothing but the Lord. In > Tantra, > > the > > > > > expression of the Lord is Ma. All things that scare us are > > joined in Tamas. > > > > > Hence, understand them to be nothing but Ma. Call her Ma > Kaali > > if you wish. > > > > > All that is desired, that attracts you is nothing but the > same > > Ma. Call he > > > > > Ma Lakshmi if you wish. By doing so, fears and desire > vanish. > > As what you > > > > > wear is recognized as Ma, and what you desire is also > > recognized as Ma. This > > > > > makes one free from the same and understand that the objects > > of the world > > > > > are nothing but Ma. > > > > > > > > > > Ma Kali is therefore, not Tamas and Ma is not afflicted by > > Gunas. She has > > > > > lordship over them, being the Prakriti herself. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards > > > > > Bharat > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Dear Souvik, Pranam - Pardon me for answering this before you, Lakshmi, but the post is very interesting and thank you for raising these points, Souvik. The two door-keepers of Vaikuntha who guarded the gates before the palace of Narayana (Vishnu) were Jaya and Vijaya, and they were eternally liberated associates of Vishnu in the spiritual world. This, so says, the Srimad Bhagavatam as well as Vishnu Purana. Due to an offense committed at the feet of the Four Kumaras, however, they were cursed to either (1) take 7 births as pure Vaishnavas in the material world, following which they would again be re-instated in Vaikuntha; or (2), three births as demons who would fight against the incarnations (Avataras) of Vishnu in His various Lila in this world, and following which they would be again re-instated in their eternal positions. Given that they were pure devotees, they took the latter option, preferring to even take births as demons three times in order that they could attain their positions in the spiritual sky more quickly. Thus In the first of three births as demons, they appeared as Hiranyakasipu and Hiranyaksa, both of whom were killed by Vishnu in the form of Lord Narasimhadeva and in the form of Lord Varaha respectively; In the second of three births, they appeared as Ravana and his brother Kumbakarna who were respectively killed by Lord Sri Rama (Vishnu) and Lakshman; In the of third of three births, they appeared as Kamsa and Sishupala during Krsna's Lila, and were killed by Sri Krsna in his Vraja-lila. After the latter of the three births as demons, they were again re-instated in the spiritual sky in their eternal forms as servants of Lord Narayana. So these demons: Hiranyakasipu, Hiranyaksa, Ravana and Kumbakarna, Kamsa, and Sishupala were already liberated and their being killed by Vishnu in His various incarnations were part of His lila to re-instate his devotees in their eternal positions. In the final analysis, being killed by the hand of Vishnu was their salvation, not just because they had worshipped lord Shiva. Further, to whom Vishnu grants liberation, and to whom he doesn't, is not dependent on any other factors, only His divine will. Others such as Maharaja Bali were also eternal associates of the Lord, Who, in his manifested pastimes, liberated them, either by His inconceivable potencies, or simply by killing them. The Bhagavatam explains that at the end of Kali-yuga, the Lord appears as the Kalki Avatara who, from his white horse, will kill every human being in sight by his sword. Those who thus receive this unexplainable mercy, will be immediately transferred to the spiritual world. In His form as Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, the entire universe was liberated simply by his indiscriminate dispensation of the Holy Names in the form of the Maha mantra. Those who simply saw him were liberated, what then to speak of those who followed Him. So yes, whether one worships Vishnu or not, the fact is that by his Will, all souls coming into His proximity by way of His various Lilas will be liberated. It is for this reason that he appears, millennium after millennium, and I don't need to quote the famous verse from the Gita, because I am sure you already know it. Best wishes, Robert At 10:56 AM 6/11/2006, you wrote: Pranam Lakshmiji, Again apologize for poking in..but I had some views on this. Would you consider death at the hands of Vishnu form as a means of liberation? If you would, please let me know if Shishupal worshipped any Vishnu form? Guru Sanjay Rathji said that Vishnu had to come down in the form of Rama to liberate Ravana because of his continuous worship of Shiva by Shiva tandava stotra. Ravana did not worship Vishnu or any of his forms. Maharaja Bali was a great devotee of Lakshmi. Vishnu took Vamana avataar to liberate him and make him the ruler of Patala. Did he worhip Vishnu forms? Kamsa, Hiranyakhashyap, Sugriv's brother Bali-please let me know which of these people worship Vishnu? Did Ahalaya worship Vishnu or any of his forms? Then why did Rama liberate her? Please do let me know your views on these questions. Thanks Souvik sohamsa , " lakshmikary " <lakshmikary wrote: > > Hare Krishna > Dear Narsimha, > Pranams. > You said " " For example, if you worship Ganesha with Atharva > Seersham and understand the meaning, you will see that he is lauded > as the one from whom the whole universe originates, in whom the > whole universe is stationed and into whom the whole universe merges > at the time of Destruction, the one who also takes the forms of > Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Indra, Agni etc etc. Only if you imagine such > a higher aakaasa tattva form of Ganesha that is close to > formlessness can Ganesha give you moksha. > > Similarly, with all higher deities who are muktas even as they exist > in a form, you can worship the lower form for specific limited > results or worship the higher forms that are close to formlessness > and get moksha from them. " " > > Im asking ..Can you please show me the chart of someone that was > liberated by Ganesh? Or Sri Lakshmi? > and also how do you know for sure they were " liberated " can you show > me in their chart, that they worshipped Ganesh and were liberated.? > What do you mean by " liberated " , from what , and from where? > thank-you, > Lakshmi > > > sohamsa , " Narasimha P.V.R. Rao " <pvr@> > wrote: > > > > Dear " Anuj " of Rama, :-) > > > > > " As what you wear is recognized as Ma, and what you desire is > also > > > recognized as Ma " > > > > > > Wear=Fear in the above sentence. > > > > > > Please pardon the typos. Too many in one email. > > > > Yaar, sometimes profound statements come out of even mistakes made > by learned people! > > > > At the core, we are just Brahman, the Atman. We " wear " many layers > of conditioning that make us who we are now (or " aren't " really, > depending on your perspective). All those layers of conditioning are > indeed part of Ma. It is Ma who covers us with all those layers of > conditioning (and hence it is Ma who can be the key to unravelling > them). > > > > Thus, your typo is IMHO a very profound statement! > > > > > > Ma Kali is therefore, not Tamas and Ma is not afflicted by > Gunas. She has > > > > lordship over them, being the Prakriti herself. > > > > Yes, She is the Prakriti Herself. Though Lakshmi, Saraswati and > Kaali are all Prakriti only, they have lordship over different gunas > within the Prakriti. > > > > However, it is correct that She is " not affected by Gunas " . I > completely agree with you. I now understand why some people were > upset when I associated Kaali with tamas! Thanks for your mail. > > > > What you said above is true of most heigher deities. They are > personifications of various guna combinations, but not affected by > gunas. They are all muktas (already liberated). Being muktas, they > are untouched by the gunas of the specific form they occupy. They do > the work of the form they occupy, with the most perfect realization > that they are the formless Brahman. Thus, the form they occupy has > gunas but they are untouched by them. They exist in a form like that > for a specific time and then they get moksha, i.e. their form merges > with the formless Brahman. > > > > For example, Maharshi Vasishtha described the time periods of > Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. During the lifetime of one Vishnu, so many > Brahmas come, do their job and get moksha (don't confuse this > creator Brahma with formless Brahman). Similarly, during the > lifetime of one Shiva, so many Vishnus come, do their job and get > moksha. That is what Vasishtha taught Sri Ramachandra. > > > > All these heigher deities have long time periods to spend in a > form and do so as muktas who are untouched by the gunas of the form > they occupy. > > > > All these heigher deities who are muktas while existing in a form > have the ability to operate at the low level and grant low level > wishes or operate close to formlessness and give moksha. > > > > For example, Sanjay keeps on writing about the 12th house, Pisces > and aakaasa tattva link to argue that only Vishnu gives moksha. But > what the 12th house, Pisces and aakaasa tattva links suggests is > that any deity who gives moksha is of aakaasa tattva and is close to > formlessness. > > > > By worshipping Shiva as merely the giver of marriage (as Souvik > wrote) or by worshipping Ganesha as merely the remover of obstacles > or Mahaalakshmi as merely the giver of wealth or Mahaasaraswati as > merely the giver of knowledge or Mahaakaali as merely the giver of > victory in battles (as Sanjay wrote), you are merely worshipping a > low level form of the deity and can only get limited results. But, > as you worship them and get close to them, you may start realizing > the unlimited nature of those deities. > > > > For example, if you worship Ganesha with Atharva Seersham and > understand the meaning, you will see that he is lauded as the one > from whom the whole universe originates, in whom the whole universe > is stationed and into whom the whole universe merges at the time of > Destruction, the one who also takes the forms of Brahma, Vishnu, > Rudra, Indra, Agni etc etc. Only if you imagine such a higher > aakaasa tattva form of Ganesha that is close to formlessness can > Ganesha give you moksha. > > > > Similarly, with all higher deities who are muktas even as they > exist in a form, you can worship the lower form for specific limited > results or worship the higher forms that are close to formlessness > and get moksha from them. > > > > Enough for today.. > > > > May the light of Brahman shine within, > > Narasimha > > ------------------------------- > > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net > > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org > > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org > > ------------------------------- > > > > > " As what you wear is recognized as Ma, and what you desire is > also > > > recognized as Ma " > > > > > > Wear=Fear in the above sentence. > > > > > > Please pardon the typos. Too many in one email. > > > > > > Thanks and Regards > > > Bharat > > > > > > On 6/8/06, Bharat Hindu Astrology <hinduastrology@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Namaskaar Sri Sanjay and Sri Narasimha > > > > > > > > Just a small note regarding Gunas and Ma: > > > > > > > > Ma Kali is not Tamas. All Tamas is Ma Kali. Like Ma lakshmi is > not wealth > > > > but all wealth is Ma lakshmi. Ma Saraswati is not knowledge, > but all > > > > knowledge is Ma Saraswati. > > > > > > > > Whatever we in the world, is nothing but the Lord. In Tantra, > the > > > > expression of the Lord is Ma. All things that scare us are > joined in Tamas. > > > > Hence, understand them to be nothing but Ma. Call her Ma Kaali > if you wish. > > > > All that is desired, that attracts you is nothing but the same > Ma. Call he > > > > Ma Lakshmi if you wish. By doing so, fears and desire vanish. > As what you > > > > wear is recognized as Ma, and what you desire is also > recognized as Ma. This > > > > makes one free from the same and understand that the objects > of the world > > > > are nothing but Ma. > > > > > > > > Ma Kali is therefore, not Tamas and Ma is not afflicted by > Gunas. She has > > > > lordship over them, being the Prakriti herself. > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards > > > > Bharat > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Hare Krishna Dear Souvic, Please look at this chart, let us say this person came to us. What isthadevata would you recommend? Moon and Venus are in taurus. I doubt this person get liberated but anyway, please check for his istadevata.. With regards, Lakshmi who is isthadevata Natal Chart Body Longitude Nakshatra Pada Rasi Navamsa Lagna 7 Cp 07' 41.09 " USha 4 Cp Pi Sun - AK 28 Aq 17' 37.37 " PBha 3 Aq Ge Moon - BK 14 Cp 54' 12.52 " Srav 2 Cp Ta Mars - DK 0 Ar 59' 34.14 " Aswi 1 Ar Ar Mercury ® - PiK 9 Pi 02' 30.94 " UBha 2 Pi Vi Jupiter - AmK 24 Ar 23' 17.57 " Bhar 4 Ar Sc Venus - PK 5 Ar 57' 13.23 " Aswi 2 Ar Ta Saturn ® - GK 3 Li 02' 58.63 " Chit 3 Li Li Rahu - MK 17 Cp 08' 45.61 " Srav 3 Cp Ge Ketu 17 Cn 08' 45.61 " Asre 1 Cn Sg Maandi 6 Cp 17' 24.48 " USha 3 Cp Aq Gulika 23 Sg 06' 46.89 " PSha 3 Sg Li Uranus ® 21 Ge 16' 33.47 " Puna 1 Ge Ar Neptune ® 0 Li 07' 02.23 " Chit 3 Li Li Pluto ® 28 Cn 09' 50.39 " Asre 4 Cn Pi Bhava Lagna 22 Cp 49' 02.80 " Srav 4 Cp Cn Hora Lagna 18 Sg 14' 36.54 " PSha 2 Sg Vi Ghati Lagna 4 Vi 31' 17.77 " UPha 3 Vi Aq Vighati Lagna 25 Pi 54' 43.94 " Reva 3 Pi Aq Varnada Lagna 7 Li 07' 41.09 " Aswi 1 Li Le Rasi +--------------+ | \ / \ Gk / | | \ Su / \ HL / | | \ / \ / | | \ / Mo \ / | | \ / \ / | |MeR x Md As x | | / \ / \ | | / \ Ra / \ | | / \ / \ | | / Ju \ 10 / \ | | / \ / \ | | AL Ma x SaR | | \ / \ / | | \ Ve / \ / | | \ / \ / | | \ / \ / | | \ / \ / | | x Ke x GL | | / \ / \ | | / \ / \ | | / \ / \ | | / \ / \ | | / \ / \ | +--------------+ Vimsottari Dasa (started from Moon): Moon Moon 1949-07-09 Mars 1950-05-08 Rah 1950-12-09 Jup 1952-06-08 Sat 1953-10-10 Merc 1955-05-08 Ket 1956-10-10 Ven 1957-05-08 Sun 1959-01-08 Mars Mars 1959-07-10 Rah 1959-12-07 Jup 1960-12-24 Sat 1961-11-30 Merc 1963-01-08 Ket 1964-01-05 Ven 1964-06-02 Sun 1965-08-04 Moon 1965-12-09 Rah Rah 1966-07-10 Jup 1969-03-20 Sat 1971-08-17 Merc 1974-06-21 Ket 1977-01-08 Ven 1978-01-26 Sun 1981-01-25 Moon 1981-12-21 Mars 1983-06-21 Jup Jup 1984-07-09 Sat 1986-08-29 Merc 1989-03-08 Navamsa Navamsa D-9 +--------------+ | \ / \ Md / | | \ Ma / \ GL / | | \ / \ / | | \ / \ / | | \ / \ / | |Mo Ve x As x | | / \ / \ | | / \ / \ | | / \ / \ | | / Ra \ 12 / \ | | / \ / \ | | Su x Ke | | \ / \ / | | \ / \ / | | \ / \ / | | \ / HL \ / | | \ / \ / | |AL x MeR x Ju | | / \ / \ | | / \ / \ | | / \ / \ | | / \ / SaR \ | | / \ / Gk \ | +--------------+ -- In sohamsa , " Souvik Dutta " <explore_vulcan wrote: > > Pranam Lakshmiji, > > Again apologize for poking in..but I had some views on this. > > Would you consider death at the hands of Vishnu form as a means of > liberation? > > If you would, please let me know if Shishupal worshipped any Vishnu > form? > > Guru Sanjay Rathji said that Vishnu had to come down in the form of > Rama to liberate Ravana because of his continuous worship of Shiva > by Shiva tandava stotra. Ravana did not worship Vishnu or any of his > forms. > > Maharaja Bali was a great devotee of Lakshmi. Vishnu took Vamana > avataar to liberate him and make him the ruler of Patala. Did he > worhip Vishnu forms? > > Kamsa, Hiranyakhashyap, Sugriv's brother Bali-please let me know > which of these people worship Vishnu? > > Did Ahalaya worship Vishnu or any of his forms? Then why did Rama > liberate her? > > Please do let me know your views on these questions. > > Thanks > > Souvik > > sohamsa , " lakshmikary " <lakshmikary@> > wrote: > > > > Hare Krishna > > Dear Narsimha, > > Pranams. > > You said " " For example, if you worship Ganesha with Atharva > > Seersham and understand the meaning, you will see that he is > lauded > > as the one from whom the whole universe originates, in whom the > > whole universe is stationed and into whom the whole universe > merges > > at the time of Destruction, the one who also takes the forms of > > Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Indra, Agni etc etc. Only if you imagine > such > > a higher aakaasa tattva form of Ganesha that is close to > > formlessness can Ganesha give you moksha. > > > > Similarly, with all higher deities who are muktas even as they > exist > > in a form, you can worship the lower form for specific limited > > results or worship the higher forms that are close to formlessness > > and get moksha from them. " " > > > > Im asking ..Can you please show me the chart of someone that was > > liberated by Ganesh? Or Sri Lakshmi? > > and also how do you know for sure they were " liberated " can you > show > > me in their chart, that they worshipped Ganesh and were liberated.? > > What do you mean by " liberated " , from what , and from where? > > thank-you, > > Lakshmi > > > > > > sohamsa , " Narasimha P.V.R. Rao " <pvr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear " Anuj " of Rama, :-) > > > > > > > " As what you wear is recognized as Ma, and what you desire is > > also > > > > recognized as Ma " > > > > > > > > Wear=Fear in the above sentence. > > > > > > > > Please pardon the typos. Too many in one email. > > > > > > Yaar, sometimes profound statements come out of even mistakes > made > > by learned people! > > > > > > At the core, we are just Brahman, the Atman. We " wear " many > layers > > of conditioning that make us who we are now (or " aren't " really, > > depending on your perspective). All those layers of conditioning > are > > indeed part of Ma. It is Ma who covers us with all those layers of > > conditioning (and hence it is Ma who can be the key to unravelling > > them). > > > > > > Thus, your typo is IMHO a very profound statement! > > > > > > > > Ma Kali is therefore, not Tamas and Ma is not afflicted by > > Gunas. She has > > > > > lordship over them, being the Prakriti herself. > > > > > > Yes, She is the Prakriti Herself. Though Lakshmi, Saraswati and > > Kaali are all Prakriti only, they have lordship over different > gunas > > within the Prakriti. > > > > > > However, it is correct that She is " not affected by Gunas " . I > > completely agree with you. I now understand why some people were > > upset when I associated Kaali with tamas! Thanks for your mail. > > > > > > What you said above is true of most heigher deities. They are > > personifications of various guna combinations, but not affected by > > gunas. They are all muktas (already liberated). Being muktas, they > > are untouched by the gunas of the specific form they occupy. They > do > > the work of the form they occupy, with the most perfect > realization > > that they are the formless Brahman. Thus, the form they occupy has > > gunas but they are untouched by them. They exist in a form like > that > > for a specific time and then they get moksha, i.e. their form > merges > > with the formless Brahman. > > > > > > For example, Maharshi Vasishtha described the time periods of > > Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. During the lifetime of one Vishnu, so > many > > Brahmas come, do their job and get moksha (don't confuse this > > creator Brahma with formless Brahman). Similarly, during the > > lifetime of one Shiva, so many Vishnus come, do their job and get > > moksha. That is what Vasishtha taught Sri Ramachandra. > > > > > > All these heigher deities have long time periods to spend in a > > form and do so as muktas who are untouched by the gunas of the > form > > they occupy. > > > > > > All these heigher deities who are muktas while existing in a > form > > have the ability to operate at the low level and grant low level > > wishes or operate close to formlessness and give moksha. > > > > > > For example, Sanjay keeps on writing about the 12th house, > Pisces > > and aakaasa tattva link to argue that only Vishnu gives moksha. > But > > what the 12th house, Pisces and aakaasa tattva links suggests is > > that any deity who gives moksha is of aakaasa tattva and is close > to > > formlessness. > > > > > > By worshipping Shiva as merely the giver of marriage (as Souvik > > wrote) or by worshipping Ganesha as merely the remover of > obstacles > > or Mahaalakshmi as merely the giver of wealth or Mahaasaraswati as > > merely the giver of knowledge or Mahaakaali as merely the giver of > > victory in battles (as Sanjay wrote), you are merely worshipping a > > low level form of the deity and can only get limited results. But, > > as you worship them and get close to them, you may start realizing > > the unlimited nature of those deities. > > > > > > For example, if you worship Ganesha with Atharva Seersham and > > understand the meaning, you will see that he is lauded as the one > > from whom the whole universe originates, in whom the whole > universe > > is stationed and into whom the whole universe merges at the time > of > > Destruction, the one who also takes the forms of Brahma, Vishnu, > > Rudra, Indra, Agni etc etc. Only if you imagine such a higher > > aakaasa tattva form of Ganesha that is close to formlessness can > > Ganesha give you moksha. > > > > > > Similarly, with all higher deities who are muktas even as they > > exist in a form, you can worship the lower form for specific > limited > > results or worship the higher forms that are close to formlessness > > and get moksha from them. > > > > > > Enough for today.. > > > > > > May the light of Brahman shine within, > > > Narasimha > > > ------------------------------ - > > > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net > > > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org > > > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org > > > ------------------------------ - > > > > > > > " As what you wear is recognized as Ma, and what you desire is > > also > > > > recognized as Ma " > > > > > > > > Wear=Fear in the above sentence. > > > > > > > > Please pardon the typos. Too many in one email. > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards > > > > Bharat > > > > > > > > On 6/8/06, Bharat Hindu Astrology <hinduastrology@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Namaskaar Sri Sanjay and Sri Narasimha > > > > > > > > > > Just a small note regarding Gunas and Ma: > > > > > > > > > > Ma Kali is not Tamas. All Tamas is Ma Kali. Like Ma lakshmi > is > > not wealth > > > > > but all wealth is Ma lakshmi. Ma Saraswati is not knowledge, > > but all > > > > > knowledge is Ma Saraswati. > > > > > > > > > > Whatever we in the world, is nothing but the Lord. In > Tantra, > > the > > > > > expression of the Lord is Ma. All things that scare us are > > joined in Tamas. > > > > > Hence, understand them to be nothing but Ma. Call her Ma > Kaali > > if you wish. > > > > > All that is desired, that attracts you is nothing but the > same > > Ma. Call he > > > > > Ma Lakshmi if you wish. By doing so, fears and desire > vanish. > > As what you > > > > > wear is recognized as Ma, and what you desire is also > > recognized as Ma. This > > > > > makes one free from the same and understand that the objects > > of the world > > > > > are nothing but Ma. > > > > > > > > > > Ma Kali is therefore, not Tamas and Ma is not afflicted by > > Gunas. She has > > > > > lordship over them, being the Prakriti herself. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards > > > > > Bharat > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Dear Lakshmi, > Im asking ..Can you please show me the chart of someone that was > liberated by Ganesh? Or Sri Lakshmi? I quoted Parasara earlier w.r.t. ishta devata. Lonely Ketu with benefic aspects in the 12th from Karakamsa shows liberation through the worship of Ganesha according to Parasara. Ketu and Venus with benefic aspects in the 12th from karakamsa shows liberation through the worship of Lakshmi. Please refer to my first mail on this topic for the verses and meanings. > and also how do you know for sure they were "liberated"can you show > me in their chart, that they worshipped Ganesh and were liberated.? Of course, I cannot give examples for Ganesha or any specific gods. How can I (or anybody) "know for sure" in a matter such as this? All one can do is to consider various scriptures and Jyotish classics and the teachings of one's spiritual guru and come to a conclusion. > What do you mean by "liberated", from what , and from where? By liberation, I mean "moksha" or "saayujya" - the two words used by Parasara. Both are different, but one will be lucky to get either! * * * My basic premises are the following: (1) Saying that only a specific god gives moksha is wrong, as Parasara lists several deities and scriptures laud several deities as the givers of moksha. (2) An astrologer has to come out of his/her own samskaras and try to understand the samskaras of the client when giving advice in spiritual matters. If one devotes oneself to a specific deity so much that all other deities seem much less important, it may be excellent for individual sadhana. But, if an astrologer who gives advice in spiritual matters has such attitude, it may not be ideal. BTW, I am not giving any clear formulas for giving ishta devata. I am simply trying to inspire people to be more flexible, to not follow formulas (e.g. "Vishnu avataras only") blindly and to not ignore the teachings of Parasara. May the light of Brahman shine within, Narasimha ------------------------------- Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org ------------------------------- > Hare Krishna> Dear Narsimha,> Pranams.> You said "" For example, if you worship Ganesha with Atharva > Seersham and understand the meaning, you will see that he is lauded > as the one from whom the whole universe originates, in whom the > whole universe is stationed and into whom the whole universe merges > at the time of Destruction, the one who also takes the forms of > Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Indra, Agni etc etc. Only if you imagine such > a higher aakaasa tattva form of Ganesha that is close to > formlessness can Ganesha give you moksha.> > Similarly, with all higher deities who are muktas even as they exist > in a form, you can worship the lower form for specific limited > results or worship the higher forms that are close to formlessness > and get moksha from them.""> > Im asking ..Can you please show me the chart of someone that was > liberated by Ganesh? Or Sri Lakshmi?> and also how do you know for sure they were "liberated"can you show > me in their chart, that they worshipped Ganesh and were liberated.?> What do you mean by "liberated", from what , and from where?> thank-you,> Lakshmi> > > sohamsa , "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" <pvr@> > wrote:> >> > Dear "Anuj" of Rama, :-)> > > > > "As what you wear is recognized as Ma, and what you desire is > also> > > recognized as Ma"> > > > > > Wear=Fear in the above sentence.> > > > > > Please pardon the typos. Too many in one email.> > > > Yaar, sometimes profound statements come out of even mistakes made > by learned people!> > > > At the core, we are just Brahman, the Atman. We "wear" many layers > of conditioning that make us who we are now (or "aren't" really, > depending on your perspective). All those layers of conditioning are > indeed part of Ma. It is Ma who covers us with all those layers of > conditioning (and hence it is Ma who can be the key to unravelling > them).> > > > Thus, your typo is IMHO a very profound statement!> > > > > > Ma Kali is therefore, not Tamas and Ma is not afflicted by > Gunas. She has> > > > lordship over them, being the Prakriti herself.> > > > Yes, She is the Prakriti Herself. Though Lakshmi, Saraswati and > Kaali are all Prakriti only, they have lordship over different gunas > within the Prakriti.> > > > However, it is correct that She is "not affected by Gunas". I > completely agree with you. I now understand why some people were > upset when I associated Kaali with tamas! Thanks for your mail.> > > > What you said above is true of most heigher deities. They are > personifications of various guna combinations, but not affected by > gunas. They are all muktas (already liberated). Being muktas, they > are untouched by the gunas of the specific form they occupy. They do > the work of the form they occupy, with the most perfect realization > that they are the formless Brahman. Thus, the form they occupy has > gunas but they are untouched by them. They exist in a form like that > for a specific time and then they get moksha, i.e. their form merges > with the formless Brahman.> > > > For example, Maharshi Vasishtha described the time periods of > Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. During the lifetime of one Vishnu, so many > Brahmas come, do their job and get moksha (don't confuse this > creator Brahma with formless Brahman). Similarly, during the > lifetime of one Shiva, so many Vishnus come, do their job and get > moksha. That is what Vasishtha taught Sri Ramachandra.> > > > All these heigher deities have long time periods to spend in a > form and do so as muktas who are untouched by the gunas of the form > they occupy.> > > > All these heigher deities who are muktas while existing in a form > have the ability to operate at the low level and grant low level > wishes or operate close to formlessness and give moksha.> > > > For example, Sanjay keeps on writing about the 12th house, Pisces > and aakaasa tattva link to argue that only Vishnu gives moksha. But > what the 12th house, Pisces and aakaasa tattva links suggests is > that any deity who gives moksha is of aakaasa tattva and is close to > formlessness.> > > > By worshipping Shiva as merely the giver of marriage (as Souvik > wrote) or by worshipping Ganesha as merely the remover of obstacles > or Mahaalakshmi as merely the giver of wealth or Mahaasaraswati as > merely the giver of knowledge or Mahaakaali as merely the giver of > victory in battles (as Sanjay wrote), you are merely worshipping a > low level form of the deity and can only get limited results. But, > as you worship them and get close to them, you may start realizing > the unlimited nature of those deities.> > > > For example, if you worship Ganesha with Atharva Seersham and > understand the meaning, you will see that he is lauded as the one > from whom the whole universe originates, in whom the whole universe > is stationed and into whom the whole universe merges at the time of > Destruction, the one who also takes the forms of Brahma, Vishnu, > Rudra, Indra, Agni etc etc. Only if you imagine such a higher > aakaasa tattva form of Ganesha that is close to formlessness can > Ganesha give you moksha.> > > > Similarly, with all higher deities who are muktas even as they > exist in a form, you can worship the lower form for specific limited > results or worship the higher forms that are close to formlessness > and get moksha from them.> > > > Enough for today..> > > > May the light of Brahman shine within, > > Narasimha> > -------------------------------> > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net> > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org> > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org> > ------------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Om Gurave Namah Namaste Friends, I seem to have missed out on this interesting thread because I was away vacationing. ofcourse, I did go through most of it over past couple of days and felt like sharing the following. Narayana/Vishnu is definitely is the kaaraka for moksha, because being the Admin of network " maaya " He alone has the power to include/withdraw users in/from it. For it's only those actions committed under the influence of maaya that accrue karma phala and lead to the interminable birth cycle. It is for this reason that Adi Shankara advised the studious grammarian to instead chant " bhaja govindam " . The fact that Shankara enabled his mother to attain Vishnu saayujyam is also a point supporting this. Now does this mean that other deities are redundant ? I do not think so. Narayana is the karaka for moksha and the 12th house, and all deities who play the role of ishta devatas take on the hue of Narayana. Doesn't the chara putrakaraka discharge the duties of sthira putrakaraka (Jupiter) even though the planet in question might be Saturn? And if the saying aakaashaath pathitham thoyam,yathaa gachhathi saagaram, sarva deva namaskaaram, Kesavam prathigachhathi is true, then irrespective of which form one worships one will ultimately get moksha, because all worship ultimately settles at the feet of Narayana. Sarva vyapakesha Narayana, who is there in an ant and atom, must be present in Shiva, Gauri and Skandha too. Why delimit Him only to certain forms and names? He's forms, his own and others' too, He's the summation of all forms, He's also formless. I think one must cherish Him in all possible ways. To the question whether other deities can bestow moksha, the answer is an unambiguous " yes " . Arjuna reincarnated as Tinna or Kannappa and received moksha from Shiva. Not only he, but animals like a spider, an elephant and a snake also got moksha, so it may be incorrect to say that only humans or those beings belonging to the higher echelons of evolution are eligible for moksha. Hiranyaksha, Hiranyakashipa, Kumbhakarna, and Ravana did not get moksha despite being killed by Vishnu, because their destiny was decided otherwise. My feeling is that unless one's karmic debt is completed, one is not eligible for moksha and when that time comes, all ishta forms get vested with the powers of Narayana to grant liberation. It's has been also suggested that since moksha is the domain of Narayana, one should concentrate only on Vishnu forms and not the other deities. It has been my experience that one has no conscious role in selecting the deity. As Narasimha garu mentioned, based on previous samskaras and when the punyaphalam ripens, the ishta devata suggests Itself. It is largely an unconscious, intuitive and natural choice, like love. And, when the choice happens it's usually irreversible. The pull of Ishta devata is such that one is drawn irresistibly towards the deity. I firmy believe that the " ishtam " or the liking is mutual and the deity loves the devotee equally. Ofcourse, the ishta can be suggested by a spiritually advanced personage too. But then I guess there would be a marked difference in the degree of passion and commitment experienced, despite sincere cultivation:--)) For Hari: On a different note, we have been away for more than a fortnight holidaying and pilgrimaging! As Bharat ji suggested, I got panchamrita abhishekam performed in Palani in Sanjay ji's name. We have visited 14 places in all and I would like to share with you one or two experiences. The weather was extremely pleasant throughout and was even raining heavily in many places. The verdant beauty of tangled forests, gurgling streams, clouds, waterfalls, rainbows…it was all so beautiful and so very eloquently evidenced the grandeur of His vision and creation. Vasundhara in full bloom, infact, and at one time I was playfully thinking that though the Lord overtly stated that He comes down to uplift Dharma, the real reason must be because He loves Her…Mother Earth. I was intrigued by the fact that the Atma linga (a flame shaped lingam) in Gokarnam was installed and worshipped within Vishnu Saligramam. There's no other " paanavattam " or " base " usually associated with Shivalingam. A very ancient temple and we had the good fortune of performing Rudraabhishekam. The lingam was installed in Tretayuga, by Ganesha, who is worshipped with abhishekam. Abhishekam is especially performed at the spot where Ravana has hit Ganesha on the head…right on the Brahma Randhra. Given the nature of linga, I am sure there's more spiritual symbolism to all this than meets the eye. Ramdas Raoji and other friends might be able to add more insights. Ofcourse, I loved the Udipi Krishna! Which mother wouldn't!! The massive statue of Shiva at Murudeshwar on the sea was also a wonderful sight. But a really puzzling and profound experience occurred at Sringeri. It was 4 pm on June 1st (Thursday)when we reached Sringeri from Udipi. It was raining heavily and we were informed that the temple would open only at 5pm. So all of us donned umbrellas and went around appreciating the surroundings of the temple. There were quite a few others engaged likewise. Around 4.30pm another hall was opened and we all trooped in. The Hall had illustrations from Shankara's life and seeing all this I stepped into a courtyard behind. The courtyad was rectangular/square in shape and had a covered verandah running on all four sides. The middle portion was without any roof. In the verandah there were various photographs of HH Bharati Tirtha Swamiji and was going around looking at them. All of a sudden, I felt strangely detached and curiously " alone " . There was also a feeling of rootlessness and then I heard it. The Omkara. Soft yet persistent, like the language of the soul, it went on….drawing me out, filling me up. I thought it went on for a long time, but was later startled to note that the entire experience perhaps lasted just a couple of minutes. The time was 4.50pm. and we rushed back to the temple and waited. I was shaken up inside and the the inane buzz floating around had no impact on me. I was outwardly talking, making appropriate responses, but inside I was mulling over those sacred seconds. At 5pm the temple opened and we all rushed in for darshan of Sri Sharadamba. She was glorious and while praying to Her, I heard the sound of Omkara again. They were playing it in the temple. Could I have heard it, a clear 10 minutes, before the temple opened? The courtyard and the temple are separated and there is another temple of Sri Rama between them, so is it possible? The questions remain, but what remains more with me is the profound validity of the experience. I cast a chart for that date/time after coming back to tirupati and I found Jupiter on the ascendant both in rasi and navamsa. The chart was interesting in other ways too. Moon (8th lord)was in own sign with Mars and Saturn, my natal 8th house. Moon is also my ishta devata. Apologies for the longish mail. Regards, Lakshmi sohamsa , " lakshmikary " <lakshmikary wrote: > > Hare Krishna > Dear Souvic, > I think Robert answered my post, as my point was that I dont think > it is possible for us mortal souls to say whether someone was > liberated or not. I think only a pure devotee or highly elevated > person can see or know who is or isnt. > Certainly we are all " liberated " from our bodies at the time of > death.And for almost ALL of us, we move on to another loka and > continue in this way.So is that what Jaimini was referring to? > Was Jaimini a liberated soul? > Im not one who has memorized exactly which phrase , where I read > something, but Ive understood from my readings of Srimad Bhagavatam > and the teachings of Srila Prabhupada that persons killed by Vishnu, > Krishna etc are " liberated " from the material domain, in this loka > and the next material loka. > For example, Ravana was constanly meditating on Rama.And when he was > killed he was uttering the name of " Rama " in fact he took birth to > perform this lila. > There are so many stories wherein souls are liberated by serving the > lord in any capacity, even seeing the Lord is enough to liberate a > person.!So Achyuta Das in the parampara we follow at SJC must have > been liberated, or been a liberated person to have the Lila with > Lord Caitanya. > > >>>>>>>Anyway in regards to these great souls that are having > pastimes with Vishnu/Krishna/Shiva etc we cant even BEGIN to compare > ourselves with them!<<<<<<<<< > Now in regards to Jaimini and all of that, personally I have my own > thoughts im working on in regrds to 12thhouse, the isthadevata etc. > I need to look at more charts, > but in general my thoughts are like this,. > We all have shad-ripus and attachments and all sorts of karmas and > things that keep us in bondage to this body and this material domain. > Now is the ishadeveta actually showing us the things that are > binding us? Does worship of the " isthadevata " help " purify " us of > those significations that are binding us here and in the future?.To > HELP PREPARE US for elevation or progression on the path of self > realization? > If each planet represents some things we need to work on for > example. My AK is saturn, so I am needed to serve and also need to > suffer and accept suffering of others. Now 12th from that in navamsa > (place of isthadevata) should be what I need to " give up " isnt it? > I dont know I think there is more too this whole worship of > isthadevata etc. > Krishna has incarnated in so many forms to attract according to time > and place and circumstance and to appeal to every type of soul so > that everyone has opportunity, not just hindus in india ,etc. > > My major point is there are many ideas of what is lberation and > liberation from what and from where, first before we discuss , we > need to know what JAImini meant, > > He specifically mentioned other lokas. Well what lokas?? > anyway there is much more to be known, > and im sure we dont know it all. > We need to pray and learn more, > that is why i took spiritual initiation, as from reading Bhagavad- > Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam, Teachings of Lord Chaitanya ,etc. > I could understood that the ultimate liberation is almost impossible > (unless you are killed etc by Vishnu) from this material world as we > are always creating more karma for ourselves,and that unless we have > the blessings of a real spiritual master, a pure devotee, to guide > us, bless us than we are going to be cycling up and down this > universe through various lokas etc for an infinite period of time. > Its all based on desire, and then that take us back to our 6th > house,Rahu, attachments and such,,,,, and on it goes. > Im praying Sanjay has some more realizations about AK, isthadevata, > etc and can illuminate all of us in regards to astrology. > With best wishes, > Lakshmi > > > > > > -- In sohamsa , " Souvik Dutta " <explore_vulcan@> > wrote: > > > > Pranam Lakshmiji, > > > > Again apologize for poking in..but I had some views on this. > > > > Would you consider death at the hands of Vishnu form as a means of > > liberation? > > > > If you would, please let me know if Shishupal worshipped any > Vishnu > > form? > > > > Guru Sanjay Rathji said that Vishnu had to come down in the form > of > > Rama to liberate Ravana because of his continuous worship of Shiva > > by Shiva tandava stotra. Ravana did not worship Vishnu or any of > his > > forms. > > > > Maharaja Bali was a great devotee of Lakshmi. Vishnu took Vamana > > avataar to liberate him and make him the ruler of Patala. Did he > > worhip Vishnu forms? > > > > Kamsa, Hiranyakhashyap, Sugriv's brother Bali-please let me know > > which of these people worship Vishnu? > > > > Did Ahalaya worship Vishnu or any of his forms? Then why did Rama > > liberate her? > > > > Please do let me know your views on these questions. > > > > Thanks > > > > Souvik > > > > sohamsa , " lakshmikary " <lakshmikary@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hare Krishna > > > Dear Narsimha, > > > Pranams. > > > You said " " For example, if you worship Ganesha with Atharva > > > Seersham and understand the meaning, you will see that he is > > lauded > > > as the one from whom the whole universe originates, in whom the > > > whole universe is stationed and into whom the whole universe > > merges > > > at the time of Destruction, the one who also takes the forms of > > > Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Indra, Agni etc etc. Only if you imagine > > such > > > a higher aakaasa tattva form of Ganesha that is close to > > > formlessness can Ganesha give you moksha. > > > > > > Similarly, with all higher deities who are muktas even as they > > exist > > > in a form, you can worship the lower form for specific limited > > > results or worship the higher forms that are close to > formlessness > > > and get moksha from them. " " > > > > > > Im asking ..Can you please show me the chart of someone that > was > > > liberated by Ganesh? Or Sri Lakshmi? > > > and also how do you know for sure they were " liberated " can you > > show > > > me in their chart, that they worshipped Ganesh and were > liberated.? > > > What do you mean by " liberated " , from what , and from where? > > > thank-you, > > > Lakshmi > > > > > > > > > sohamsa , " Narasimha P.V.R. Rao " <pvr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear " Anuj " of Rama, :-) > > > > > > > > > " As what you wear is recognized as Ma, and what you desire > is > > > also > > > > > recognized as Ma " > > > > > > > > > > Wear=Fear in the above sentence. > > > > > > > > > > Please pardon the typos. Too many in one email. > > > > > > > > Yaar, sometimes profound statements come out of even mistakes > > made > > > by learned people! > > > > > > > > At the core, we are just Brahman, the Atman. We " wear " many > > layers > > > of conditioning that make us who we are now (or " aren't " really, > > > depending on your perspective). All those layers of conditioning > > are > > > indeed part of Ma. It is Ma who covers us with all those layers > of > > > conditioning (and hence it is Ma who can be the key to > unravelling > > > them). > > > > > > > > Thus, your typo is IMHO a very profound statement! > > > > > > > > > > Ma Kali is therefore, not Tamas and Ma is not afflicted by > > > Gunas. She has > > > > > > lordship over them, being the Prakriti herself. > > > > > > > > Yes, She is the Prakriti Herself. Though Lakshmi, Saraswati > and > > > Kaali are all Prakriti only, they have lordship over different > > gunas > > > within the Prakriti. > > > > > > > > However, it is correct that She is " not affected by Gunas " . I > > > completely agree with you. I now understand why some people were > > > upset when I associated Kaali with tamas! Thanks for your mail. > > > > > > > > What you said above is true of most heigher deities. They are > > > personifications of various guna combinations, but not affected > by > > > gunas. They are all muktas (already liberated). Being muktas, > they > > > are untouched by the gunas of the specific form they occupy. > They > > do > > > the work of the form they occupy, with the most perfect > > realization > > > that they are the formless Brahman. Thus, the form they occupy > has > > > gunas but they are untouched by them. They exist in a form like > > that > > > for a specific time and then they get moksha, i.e. their form > > merges > > > with the formless Brahman. > > > > > > > > For example, Maharshi Vasishtha described the time periods of > > > Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. During the lifetime of one Vishnu, so > > many > > > Brahmas come, do their job and get moksha (don't confuse this > > > creator Brahma with formless Brahman). Similarly, during the > > > lifetime of one Shiva, so many Vishnus come, do their job and > get > > > moksha. That is what Vasishtha taught Sri Ramachandra. > > > > > > > > All these heigher deities have long time periods to spend in a > > > form and do so as muktas who are untouched by the gunas of the > > form > > > they occupy. > > > > > > > > All these heigher deities who are muktas while existing in a > > form > > > have the ability to operate at the low level and grant low level > > > wishes or operate close to formlessness and give moksha. > > > > > > > > For example, Sanjay keeps on writing about the 12th house, > > Pisces > > > and aakaasa tattva link to argue that only Vishnu gives moksha. > > But > > > what the 12th house, Pisces and aakaasa tattva links suggests is > > > that any deity who gives moksha is of aakaasa tattva and is > close > > to > > > formlessness. > > > > > > > > By worshipping Shiva as merely the giver of marriage (as > Souvik > > > wrote) or by worshipping Ganesha as merely the remover of > > obstacles > > > or Mahaalakshmi as merely the giver of wealth or Mahaasaraswati > as > > > merely the giver of knowledge or Mahaakaali as merely the giver > of > > > victory in battles (as Sanjay wrote), you are merely worshipping > a > > > low level form of the deity and can only get limited results. > But, > > > as you worship them and get close to them, you may start > realizing > > > the unlimited nature of those deities. > > > > > > > > For example, if you worship Ganesha with Atharva Seersham and > > > understand the meaning, you will see that he is lauded as the > one > > > from whom the whole universe originates, in whom the whole > > universe > > > is stationed and into whom the whole universe merges at the time > > of > > > Destruction, the one who also takes the forms of Brahma, Vishnu, > > > Rudra, Indra, Agni etc etc. Only if you imagine such a higher > > > aakaasa tattva form of Ganesha that is close to formlessness can > > > Ganesha give you moksha. > > > > > > > > Similarly, with all higher deities who are muktas even as they > > > exist in a form, you can worship the lower form for specific > > limited > > > results or worship the higher forms that are close to > formlessness > > > and get moksha from them. > > > > > > > > Enough for today.. > > > > > > > > May the light of Brahman shine within, > > > > Narasimha > > > > ---------------------------- -- > - > > > > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net > > > > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org > > > > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org > > > > ---------------------------- -- > - > > > > > > > > > " As what you wear is recognized as Ma, and what you desire > is > > > also > > > > > recognized as Ma " > > > > > > > > > > Wear=Fear in the above sentence. > > > > > > > > > > Please pardon the typos. Too many in one email. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards > > > > > Bharat > > > > > > > > > > On 6/8/06, Bharat Hindu Astrology <hinduastrology@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaskaar Sri Sanjay and Sri Narasimha > > > > > > > > > > > > Just a small note regarding Gunas and Ma: > > > > > > > > > > > > Ma Kali is not Tamas. All Tamas is Ma Kali. Like Ma > lakshmi > > is > > > not wealth > > > > > > but all wealth is Ma lakshmi. Ma Saraswati is not > knowledge, > > > but all > > > > > > knowledge is Ma Saraswati. > > > > > > > > > > > > Whatever we in the world, is nothing but the Lord. In > > Tantra, > > > the > > > > > > expression of the Lord is Ma. All things that scare us are > > > joined in Tamas. > > > > > > Hence, understand them to be nothing but Ma. Call her Ma > > Kaali > > > if you wish. > > > > > > All that is desired, that attracts you is nothing but the > > same > > > Ma. Call he > > > > > > Ma Lakshmi if you wish. By doing so, fears and desire > > vanish. > > > As what you > > > > > > wear is recognized as Ma, and what you desire is also > > > recognized as Ma. This > > > > > > makes one free from the same and understand that the > objects > > > of the world > > > > > > are nothing but Ma. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ma Kali is therefore, not Tamas and Ma is not afflicted by > > > Gunas. She has > > > > > > lordship over them, being the Prakriti herself. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards > > > > > > Bharat > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Dear Lakshmi, Just two points to add to the soup. Firstly, as discussed many times in the lists before, perception of the divine is multiple in India. That Vishnu is the sole giver of moksha is one such view point. Many consider a vedantic view point to be higher; they would hold the Upanishads to be a higher body of texts than the Bhagavatam. I am not stepping into any preferences here but just reminding you that which you already know, having been round the lists for long. Many of us believe that all deities are but different forms of the same God. Hence I can point to you the Nirankara Stotra of Ganesha, where he is worshipped as the formless Parabrahma. In the same context, Kali is worshipped as parabrahmaswarupini, just as Lakshmi is. So to consider one deity is lesser than the other is something that is not done. The form is considered an individual preference. Whether God comes down and gives moksha in the form of Vishnu, Ganehsa or Lakshmi or even a shudra, is immaterial, from this view point. Hence discussions, about Shiva vs.. Vishnu etc. can be considered quite redundant in this context. So you see, there will be many round here who would think that Ganesha or Lakshmi or Kali are givers of moksha. They would consider it merely as a form of the Supreme Absolute. Secondly, I was quite amused to see some discussions regarding 'formula'. None of us follow any formula while determining the ishta devata deity; and certainly not Sanjay! That too you know. But sometimes in a chart, where neither the inclination towards any deity is indicated, not does the client belong to any path of worship, or is completely indifferent to it, nor has the person taken any diksha; a spiritually flat chart I would say; then I do opt for a Vishnu rupa; GIVEN there are no other indications for any particular deity in the given chart. Best regards, Sarbani sohamsa [sohamsa ] On Behalf Of lakshmikary11 June 2006 22:23sohamsa Subject: Re: What Parasara Advocates... Hare KrishnaDear Narsimha,Pranams.You said "" For example, if you worship Ganesha with Atharva Seersham and understand the meaning, you will see that he is lauded as the one from whom the whole universe originates, in whom the whole universe is stationed and into whom the whole universe merges at the time of Destruction, the one who also takes the forms of Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Indra, Agni etc etc. Only if you imagine such a higher aakaasa tattva form of Ganesha that is close to formlessness can Ganesha give you moksha.Similarly, with all higher deities who are muktas even as they exist in a form, you can worship the lower form for specific limited results or worship the higher forms that are close to formlessness and get moksha from them.""Im asking ..Can you please show me the chart of someone that was liberated by Ganesh? Or Sri Lakshmi?and also how do you know for sure they were "liberated"can you show me in their chart, that they worshipped Ganesh and were liberated.?What do you mean by "liberated", from what , and from where?thank-you,Lakshmisohamsa , "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" <pvr wrote:>> Dear "Anuj" of Rama, :-)> > > "As what you wear is recognized as Ma, and what you desire is also> > recognized as Ma"> > > > Wear=Fear in the above sentence.> > > > Please pardon the typos. Too many in one email.> > Yaar, sometimes profound statements come out of even mistakes made by learned people!> > At the core, we are just Brahman, the Atman. We "wear" many layers of conditioning that make us who we are now (or "aren't" really, depending on your perspective). All those layers of conditioning are indeed part of Ma. It is Ma who covers us with all those layers of conditioning (and hence it is Ma who can be the key to unravelling them).> > Thus, your typo is IMHO a very profound statement!> > > > Ma Kali is therefore, not Tamas and Ma is not afflicted by Gunas. She has> > > lordship over them, being the Prakriti herself.> > Yes, She is the Prakriti Herself. Though Lakshmi, Saraswati and Kaali are all Prakriti only, they have lordship over different gunas within the Prakriti.> > However, it is correct that She is "not affected by Gunas". I completely agree with you. I now understand why some people were upset when I associated Kaali with tamas! Thanks for your mail.> > What you said above is true of most heigher deities. They are personifications of various guna combinations, but not affected by gunas. They are all muktas (already liberated). Being muktas, they are untouched by the gunas of the specific form they occupy. They do the work of the form they occupy, with the most perfect realization that they are the formless Brahman. Thus, the form they occupy has gunas but they are untouched by them. They exist in a form like that for a specific time and then they get moksha, i.e. their form merges with the formless Brahman.> > For example, Maharshi Vasishtha described the time periods of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. During the lifetime of one Vishnu, so many Brahmas come, do their job and get moksha (don't confuse this creator Brahma with formless Brahman). Similarly, during the lifetime of one Shiva, so many Vishnus come, do their job and get moksha. That is what Vasishtha taught Sri Ramachandra.> > All these heigher deities have long time periods to spend in a form and do so as muktas who are untouched by the gunas of the form they occupy.> > All these heigher deities who are muktas while existing in a form have the ability to operate at the low level and grant low level wishes or operate close to formlessness and give moksha.> > For example, Sanjay keeps on writing about the 12th house, Pisces and aakaasa tattva link to argue that only Vishnu gives moksha. But what the 12th house, Pisces and aakaasa tattva links suggests is that any deity who gives moksha is of aakaasa tattva and is close to formlessness.> > By worshipping Shiva as merely the giver of marriage (as Souvik wrote) or by worshipping Ganesha as merely the remover of obstacles or Mahaalakshmi as merely the giver of wealth or Mahaasaraswati as merely the giver of knowledge or Mahaakaali as merely the giver of victory in battles (as Sanjay wrote), you are merely worshipping a low level form of the deity and can only get limited results. But, as you worship them and get close to them, you may start realizing the unlimited nature of those deities.> > For example, if you worship Ganesha with Atharva Seersham and understand the meaning, you will see that he is lauded as the one from whom the whole universe originates, in whom the whole universe is stationed and into whom the whole universe merges at the time of Destruction, the one who also takes the forms of Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Indra, Agni etc etc. Only if you imagine such a higher aakaasa tattva form of Ganesha that is close to formlessness can Ganesha give you moksha.> > Similarly, with all higher deities who are muktas even as they exist in a form, you can worship the lower form for specific limited results or worship the higher forms that are close to formlessness and get moksha from them.> > Enough for today..> > May the light of Brahman shine within, > Narasimha> -------------------------> Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net> Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org> Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org> -------------------------> > > "As what you wear is recognized as Ma, and what you desire is also> > recognized as Ma"> > > > Wear=Fear in the above sentence.> > > > Please pardon the typos. Too many in one email.> > > > Thanks and Regards> > Bharat> > > > On 6/8/06, Bharat Hindu Astrology <hinduastrology@> wrote:> > >> > > Namaskaar Sri Sanjay and Sri Narasimha> > >> > > Just a small note regarding Gunas and Ma:> > >> > > Ma Kali is not Tamas. All Tamas is Ma Kali. Like Ma lakshmi is not wealth> > > but all wealth is Ma lakshmi. Ma Saraswati is not knowledge, but all> > > knowledge is Ma Saraswati.> > >> > > Whatever we in the world, is nothing but the Lord. In Tantra, the> > > expression of the Lord is Ma. All things that scare us are joined in Tamas.> > > Hence, understand them to be nothing but Ma. Call her Ma Kaali if you wish.> > > All that is desired, that attracts you is nothing but the same Ma. Call he> > > Ma Lakshmi if you wish. By doing so, fears and desire vanish. As what you> > > wear is recognized as Ma, and what you desire is also recognized as Ma. This> > > makes one free from the same and understand that the objects of the world> > > are nothing but Ma.> > >> > > Ma Kali is therefore, not Tamas and Ma is not afflicted by Gunas. She has> > > lordship over them, being the Prakriti herself.> > >> > > Thanks and Regards> > > Bharat> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 |om|Dear Sarbani,Thats humor in jyotish! Amazing to note that whenever the discussion veers to istadevata, terms like yours ' a spiritually flat chart' or like mine ' co-istadevata' seem to sprout!!! Anyway the long and short of it is how do we define a spiritually flat chart?!!! :-)regardsHariOn 6/12/06, Sarbani Sarkar < sarbani wrote: Dear Lakshmi, " " ...But sometimes in a chart, where neither the inclination towards any deity is indicated, not does the client belong to any path of worship, or is completely indifferent to it, nor has the person taken any diksha; a spiritually flat chart... " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Reposting...since it didn't get posted earlier. Om Gurave Namah Namaste Friends, I seem to have missed out on this interesting thread because I was away vacationing. ofcourse, I did go through most of it over past couple of days and felt like sharing the following. Narayana/Vishnu is definitely is the kaaraka for moksha, because being the Admin of network " maaya " He alone has the power to include/withdraw users in/from it. For it's only those actions committed under the influence of maaya that accrue karma phala and lead to the interminable birth cycle. It is for this reason that Adi Shankara advised the studious grammarian to instead chant " bhaja govindam " . The fact that Shankara enabled his mother to attain Vishnu saayujyam is also a point supporting this. Now does this mean that other deities are redundant ? I do not think so. Narayana is the karaka for moksha and the 12th house, and all deities who play the role of ishta devatas take on the hue of Narayana. Doesn't the chara putrakaraka discharge the duties of sthira putrakaraka (Jupiter) even though the planet in question might be Saturn? And if the saying aakaashaath pathitham thoyam,yathaa gachhathi saagaram, sarva deva namaskaaram, Kesavam prathigachhathi is true, then irrespective of which form one worships one will ultimately get moksha, because all worship ultimately settles at the feet of Narayana. Sarva vyapakesha Narayana, who is there in an ant and atom, must be present in Shiva, Gauri and Skandha too. Why delimit Him only to certain forms and names? He's forms, his own and others' too, He's the summation of all forms, He's also formless. I think one must cherish Him in all possible ways. To the question whether other deities can bestow moksha, the answer is an unambiguous " yes " . Arjuna reincarnated as Tinna or Kannappa and received moksha from Shiva. Not only he, but animals like a spider, an elephant and a snake also got moksha, so it may be incorrect to say that only humans or those beings belonging to the higher echelons of evolution are eligible for moksha. Hiranyaksha, Hiranyakashipa, Kumbhakarna, and Ravana did not get moksha despite being killed by Vishnu, because their destiny was decided otherwise. My feeling is that unless one's karmic debt is completed, one is not eligible for moksha and when that time comes, all ishta forms get vested with the powers of Narayana to grant liberation. It's has been also suggested that since moksha is the domain of Narayana, one should concentrate only on Vishnu forms and not the other deities. It has been my experience that one has no conscious role in selecting the deity. As Narasimha garu mentioned, based on previous samskaras and when the punyaphalam ripens, the ishta devata suggests Itself. It is largely an unconscious, intuitive and natural choice, like love. And, when the choice happens it's usually irreversible. The pull of Ishta devata is such that one is drawn irresistibly towards the deity. I firmy believe that the " ishtam " or the liking is mutual and the deity loves the devotee equally. Ofcourse, the ishta can be suggested by a spiritually advanced personage too. But then I guess there would be a marked difference in the degree of passion and commitment experienced, despite sincere cultivation:--)) For Hari: On a different note, we have been away for more than a fortnight holidaying and pilgrimaging! As Bharat ji suggested, I got panchamrita abhishekam performed in Palani in Sanjay ji's name. We have visited 14 places in all and I would like to share with you one or two experiences. The weather was extremely pleasant throughout and was even raining heavily in many places. The verdant beauty of tangled forests, gurgling streams, clouds, waterfalls, rainbows…it was all so beautiful and so very eloquently evidenced the grandeur of His vision and creation. Vasundhara in full bloom, infact, and at one time I was playfully thinking that though the Lord overtly stated that He comes down to uplift Dharma, the real reason must be because He loves Her…Mother Earth. I was intrigued by the fact that the Atma linga (a flame shaped lingam) in Gokarnam was installed and worshipped within Vishnu Saligramam. There's no other " paanavattam " or " base " usually associated with Shivalingam. A very ancient temple and we had the good fortune of performing Rudraabhishekam. The lingam was installed in Tretayuga, by Ganesha, who is worshipped with abhishekam. Abhishekam is especially performed at the spot where Ravana has hit Ganesha on the head…right on the Brahma Randhra. Given the nature of linga, I am sure there's more spiritual symbolism to all this than meets the eye. Ramdas Raoji and other friends might be able to add more insights. Ofcourse, I loved the Udipi Krishna! Which mother wouldn't!! The massive statue of Shiva at Murudeshwar on the sea was also a wonderful sight. But a really puzzling and profound experience occurred at Sringeri. It was 4 pm when we reached Sringeri from Udipi. It was raining heavily and we were informed that the temple would open only at 5pm. So all of us donned umbrellas and went around appreciating the surroundings of the temple. There were quite a few others engaged likewise. Around 4.30pm another hall was opened and we all trooped in. The Hall had illustrations from Shankara's life and seeing all this I stepped into a courtyard behind. The courtyad was rectangular/square in shape and had a covered verandah running on all four sides. The middle portion was without any roof. In the verandah there were various photographs of HH Bharati Tirtha Swamiji and was going around looking at them. All of a sudden, I felt strangely detached and curiously " alone " . There was also a feeling of rootlessness and then I heard it. The Omkara. Soft yet persistent, like the language of the soul, it went on….drawing me out, filling me up. I thought it went on for a long time, but was later startled to note that the entire experience perhaps lasted just a couple of minutes. The time was 4.50pm. and we rushed back to the temple and waited. I was shaken up inside and the the inane buzz floating around had no impact on me. I was outwardly talking, making appropriate responses, but inside I was mulling over those sacred seconds. At 5pm the temple opened and we all rushed in for darshan of Sri Sharadamba. She was glorious and while praying to Her, I heard the sound of Omkara again. They were playing it in the temple. Could I have heard it, a clear 10 minutes, before the temple opened? The courtyard and the temple are separated and there is another temple of Sri Rama between them. The questions remain, but what remains more with me is the profound validity of the experience. I cast a chart after coming back to tirupati, it had Jupiter on the ascendant both in rasi and navamsa. There are certain other interesting features. Moon was transiting its own house, with Mars and Saturn. and Mars is my natal AK, Moon is the Ishta devata+AmK and Saturn is the BK. All in one house in Cancer, which is my natal 8th house and is the jeevanmuktamsa. Apologies for the longish mail. Regards, Lakshmi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 On 6/12/06, Sarbani Sarkar <sarbani wrote: > Many consider a vedantic view point to be higher; they would hold the > Upanishads to be a higher body of texts than the Bhagavatam. I am not stepping > into any preferences here but just reminding you that which you already know, > having been round the lists for long. Many of us believe that all deities are but > different forms of the same God. > On Behalf Of lakshmikary > 11 June 2006 22:23 > sohamsa > Re: What Parasara Advocates... > Im asking ..Can you please show me the chart of someone that was > liberated by Ganesh? Or Sri Lakshmi? > and also how do you know for sure they were " liberated " can you show > me in their chart, that they worshipped Ganesh and were liberated.? > What do you mean by " liberated " , from what , and from where? Ms.Lakshmi, Just as there are different viewpoints around divinities, there are different viewpoints about bondage, liberation. Not everybody takes an un-vedantic viewpoint on these issues, however popular such a viewpoint may be. Many viewpoints are expressed here, but none with an accompanying pramANa to substantiate the viewpoint. In fact, the concept of prAmANya is a big miss. Just to give an illustration, consider the point of divinity: Does Vedanta really talk of one Supreme, whose forms are deities such as Vishnu, Shiva etc? If there is one 'ekaM satviprA bahudhA vadanti' that seeks to 'equate' all gods, there are literally thousand others that put them on unequal pedestals. Why does the Kena Upanishad have some forms of the Supreme God display ignorance, with another form (Uma) preach knowledge? Why does the Rgveda (2nd Mandala) say one form of the Supreme (Rudra) cannot comprehend the actions of another (savitR)? How can one form of the Supreme be *afraid* of another (bhayaad asya agniH tapati)? There can be literally thousands of such statements which show 'inequality'. Given these two set of statements, there is a need for the reconciliation or harmonization. As you can see, not many take a cognizance of the issue, much less attempt to solve it. Most (esp the advaita leaning ones) bring in a gradation, extraneous to the Vedanta, into Vedanta to reconcile. The one delineating unity is considered more truthful, than those which imply inequality. The observation to note that this very idea is extraneous to Veda and is created by some, popularized by some others. Some say it is all mAyA (I hope you enjoyed the mail where mAyA was split as mA yA and explained this as that which is not! Obviously, propriety in sanskrit is nobody's concern). In other words, they are telling you that the Veda is a self-contradicting, inconsistent gibberish. Anyway, this mail was just to give another viewpoint. Hope you have some material to chew. Regards, Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Namaskaar AllThe pramana is Vedanta. The understanding is established by masters like Sri Adi Sankara. Kindly study under a qualified Guru for the correct understanding of Vedanta. If you think that the words of the Shruti are not explained properly by me in my posts, kindly ignore them. If you find errors, then, do correct me with proper reasoning. You shall find the student in me immediately, if your reasoning appeals. Further Thoughts (from my earlier email to Rafal)Apart from my musings in the last email on the same subject, here are further thoughts on the same: Most people who have studied Vedanta have asked this question and many thereafter, will ask this question. The question is – I feel I am bound and limited. So how this bondage has come about? This is a question by those who do not pay too much attention to the Shruti. The Shruti and teachers of Vedanta say = "You are free". This is not understood by the students and the above question is asked. Suppose, one was to believe that he is a cat. A person comes to him and tells him – "You are not a cat. You are human." Now the person asks – "Then, how did I become a cat?" Can you answer him? Therefore, this question is invalid. To find the cause of Bondage is like suggesting that it has an independent existence. This makes two realities – 1. Brahman which is free 2. Bondage which is not so free. If there are two realities, then, both are bound. Bound is a short for boundaries. If two realities exist, then, they have boundaries due to the presence of each other. The word boundary relates itself to space. That mean for two Realities to exist, one needs an endless space. That makes Space more real than the "two Realities". If you come to think about it, the above does not make sense and goes against the Shruti.To those who debate about Maya - I would like to ask the following questions:1. Does Maya have an independent Existence?2. What is its definition? 3. How do you explain the same in context of Vedanta? Cause for Moksha Moksha isn't an effect. It is discovery of one's real identity. - That the identity is same as that of Brahman. Since it is the real identity of even the ignorant, it is matter of discovery rather than reaching a destination. Many masters employ the word "marga" which is generally translated as a "path". I raise objection to use of this word, as it generates the thinking of reaching someplace where one is not. The right definition of the word marga is inquiry. Through inquiry again and again, the identity of oneself is known. Form of Inquiry Sravana, Manana and Niddhidhyasana are specified as inquiry. Sravana is listening to the Shruti or words of the Teacher; Manana is reasoning to remove doubts that are your own or by another system of philosophy and Niddhidhyasana is removal of past orientations that stand in the way using ego. The process is atma-anatma vichara. In which, all that is conceived by the senses, etc. is discussed and proven that only atma exists.For those who wish to study the texts, here is a small list (I strongly suggest seeking a Guru):1. Tatvabodha 2. Atmabodha3. Vivekachoodamani4. Srimad Bhagavad Gita with Sri Adi Sankara's commentary5. Aparokshanubhuti6. The Principal Upanishads with Sri Adi Sankara's commentary (Isa, Katha, Kena, Brihadaryanka, Chandogya, Aiterya, Taittirya, Mundaka, Mandukya (with Sri Gaupada's Karika), and Prahna). 7. Brahma Sutras.To the uninitiated, there is a list of books that one can study. I will not discuss the same here. Sri Krishna, hundreds of verses can be quoted as pramana. It is better not to discuss it here on the internet. Neither this is the medium nor does it show the intensity of the seeker. Beliefs and MoreBeliefs are endless and it isn't right to question someone else's belief. You have the right to question your own beliefs. It is with this attitude that learning or unlearning can happen. It can never happen by trying to establish superiority of one over the other OR trying to change other's beliefs to your own. Some beliefs are verifiable and some are non-verifiable. Many ideas presented in this thread are non-verifiable. Vedanta is a pramana and is verifiable. I would rather stick with the verifiable. Similarly, to suggest the superiority of one form over the other, isn't right. In my thinking, it " creates " divisions in the undivided Brahman. To others, it may give a different feeling and understanding. It is best one chooses his or her deity as per one's natural inclinations. Associations of the mind, have a strong role to play in choosing of the deity. Having said this, I shall refrain from speaking on this thread anymore. Thanks and RegardsBharatOn 6/12/06, Krishna K < krishna.kadiri wrote: On 6/12/06, Sarbani Sarkar <sarbani > wrote: > Many consider a vedantic view point to be higher; they would hold the > Upanishads to be a higher body of texts than the Bhagavatam. I am not stepping > into any preferences here but just reminding you that which you already know, > having been round the lists for long. Many of us believe that all deities are but > different forms of the same God. > On Behalf Of lakshmikary > 11 June 2006 22:23 > sohamsa > Re: What Parasara Advocates... > Im asking ..Can you please show me the chart of someone that was > liberated by Ganesh? Or Sri Lakshmi? > and also how do you know for sure they were " liberated " can you show > me in their chart, that they worshipped Ganesh and were liberated.? > What do you mean by " liberated " , from what , and from where? Ms.Lakshmi, Just as there are different viewpoints around divinities, there are different viewpoints about bondage, liberation. Not everybody takes an un-vedantic viewpoint on these issues, however popular such a viewpoint may be. Many viewpoints are expressed here, but none with an accompanying pramANa to substantiate the viewpoint. In fact, the concept of prAmANya is a big miss. Just to give an illustration, consider the point of divinity: Does Vedanta really talk of one Supreme, whose forms are deities such as Vishnu, Shiva etc? If there is one 'ekaM satviprA bahudhA vadanti' that seeks to 'equate' all gods, there are literally thousand others that put them on unequal pedestals. Why does the Kena Upanishad have some forms of the Supreme God display ignorance, with another form (Uma) preach knowledge? Why does the Rgveda (2nd Mandala) say one form of the Supreme (Rudra) cannot comprehend the actions of another (savitR)? How can one form of the Supreme be *afraid* of another (bhayaad asya agniH tapati)? There can be literally thousands of such statements which show 'inequality'. Given these two set of statements, there is a need for the reconciliation or harmonization. As you can see, not many take a cognizance of the issue, much less attempt to solve it. Most (esp the advaita leaning ones) bring in a gradation, extraneous to the Vedanta, into Vedanta to reconcile. The one delineating unity is considered more truthful, than those which imply inequality. The observation to note that this very idea is extraneous to Veda and is created by some, popularized by some others. Some say it is all mAyA (I hope you enjoyed the mail where mAyA was split as mA yA and explained this as that which is not! Obviously, propriety in sanskrit is nobody's concern). In other words, they are telling you that the Veda is a self-contradicting, inconsistent gibberish. Anyway, this mail was just to give another viewpoint. Hope you have some material to chew. Regards, Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Dear Hari, That was just my way of putting things. There is no definition. Best regards, Sarbani sohamsa [sohamsa ] On Behalf Of Jyotisa Shisya12 June 2006 16:41sohamsa Subject: Re: Re: What Parasara Advocates... |om|Dear Sarbani,Thats humor in jyotish! Amazing to note that whenever the discussion veers to istadevata, terms like yours ' a spiritually flat chart' or like mine ' co-istadevata' seem to sprout!!! Anyway the long and short of it is how do we define a spiritually flat chart?!!! :-)regardsHari On 6/12/06, Sarbani Sarkar < sarbani wrote: Dear Lakshmi, " "...But sometimes in a chart, where neither the inclination towards any deity is indicated, not does the client belong to any path of worship, or is completely indifferent to it, nor has the person taken any diksha; a spiritually flat chart..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2006 Report Share Posted June 30, 2006 | om gurave namah |Dear Hari That was a nice note on broad-minded spirituality and reminded me of the great muslim we pray to in Puri with the name 'Bhakta Salbeg' who won the heart of Jagannath with his prayers...but it still does not solve the problem of identifying the ista devata from the chart. Best wishes and warm regards,Sanjay RathPersonal: WebPages ¡ü Rath¡Çs Rhapsody SJC WebPages: Sri Jagannath Center ¡ü SJCERC ¡ü JIVAPublications: The Jyotish Digest ¡ü Sagittarius Publications---- sohamsa [sohamsa ] On Behalf Of Jyotisa ShisyaWednesday, June 07, 2006 9:17 PMsohamsa Subject: Re: Re: What Parasara Advocates... |om| Dear Jyotisas, I found this story when surfing the net for Sringeri Sankaracharya...the text which follows is the words of Sri Abhinav Vidyateertha Mahaswamigal and may be relevant to the debate. " To which deity should a person pray? A Brahmin stood hesitant on the banks of a river in spate, waiting to cross over. He enquired of a Muslim who happened to come that way about the means to reach the farther shore. "Trust in God and jump in, my friend", said the latter. "He will take you across." But the Brahmin shrewd. He did not want to take unnecessary risks. So he told the Muslim, "You dive in first then I will follow.Very well", said the Muslim. Catching hold of his beard and saying, "Allah-Ho-Akbar", he took off. Somehow he managed to ferry himself across. Now, the Brahmin mustered a little courage. He prayed to Ganesha, the destroyer of obstacles. No sooner did he jump than the thought struck him that he would have a greater chance of survival if he prayed to Shiva, Ganesha's father. He, therefore, sought refuge in Shiva as he plunged. Ganesha thought that His great father would protect the Brahmin. Shiva, on the other hand, expected Ganesha, who had jurisdiction over obstacles, to save the man. Neither offered help. The doubting Brahmin had his fatal trip. A person should realize that it is the same Lord who has manifested as Shiva, Vishnu, Ganesha etc. Hence he should not imagine that one deity is less potent to help him than another. It is, however, perfectly legitimate for a person to have an Ishta-Devata, a preferred deity, such as Shiva. He ought to think, "It is my beloved Shiva who has taken the forms of all the other divinities, such as Vishnu", rather than, "Vishnu is different form and inferior to Shiva." A person with such an outlook will be fully at ease in any duly-consecrated temple and will not be troubled by thoughts, such as, "If I pray to Vishnu, will Shiva be displeased with me?" best regards Hari On 6/7/06, Sanjay Rath <guruji wrote: avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0626-3, 06/29/2006Tested on: 7/1/2006 12:25:53 AMavast! - copyright © 1988-2006 ALWIL Software. 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.