Guest guest Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 Hare Rama Krishna Dear Gurudeva, This is the first time I have seen you use this manthra Om Srim Dhlim Jyotir-Brahmaaya Namah in your posts. Can you kindly explain the significance and why now? Many thanks. your servant sudharsanSanjay Rath <srath wrote: Om Srim Dhlim Jyotir-Brahmaaya Namah Dear Anna Bhava Lagna or BL is based on the circle equidistant house zodiac i.e. One bhava = 2 hours exact formula. However, the Lagna is different as it is based on the ellipse. Brendan is right and this is a very basic concept. With Best Regards Sanjay Rath ---- varahamihira Tuesday, September 23, 2003 05:21:21 PM varahamihira Re: |Sri Varaha| Bhava Lagna ? Dear Chandrashekhar and Brendan,My programs give Bhava L. Taurus, consistently, and Cn Lagna-that's obviously what Brendan was referring to. I am wondering now why should any calculation be done if Bhava L=Lagna? As it seems to be the case in what Chandrashekhar is referring to. I would also appreciate if you and Brendan would give more details on Bhava L area of influence and its subtleties /one different from Lagna/And if you don't mind my asking Chandrashekhar, what is Ganita part of astrology?And sure, nobody can know everything.Warmest wishes,Annavarahamihira@gro ups.com, "Chandrashekhar Sharma" <boxdel> wrote:> Dear Brendan,> I think you are reffering to Chapter 5 shloka 2 and 3.Kindly try to> calculate bhava lagna as given therein.As I have always said I am not very> good at Ganita part of astrology, but I am certain you will get what is> known as Ascendant or Lagna only. Use Nirayana spashta Sun rising degrees.> Correct me if I am wrong as it will add to my knowledge.> Regards,> Chandrashekhar.> > Bpfeeley@A... [bpfeeley@A...]> Tuesday, September 23, 2003 3:37 AM> varahamihira > Re: |Sri Varaha| Bhava Lagna ?> > > In a message dated 9/22/2003 4:05:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,> boxdel writes:> > Dear Chandrashekar & Rao,> > See BPHS, Ch 6 for GL, BL and HL. The calculation is based on Udaya lagna,> the Sun's position at sunrise. It is not the same as lagna and is not the> same as the lagna in Bhava Chalit chakra.> > The BL moves at the same speed as the lagna but is not the same. It moves> through 12 signs or 12 bhavas in 24 hours and hence its name. The HL moves> twice as fast as the BL, and the GL moves 2.5 times faster than the HL.> > This is what I understand.> > Regards,> Brendan> > > Dear Brendan/Rao,> Bhava lagna, logically should be same as Lagna.Bhava and sthana(House)> are used interchaneably in standard texts.The term is also used in case of> Bhavachalit Kundali, where 15degrees either of riising sign degree is taken> to be one Bhava.That this (Bhavachalita) is not the standard Vedic method,> is my personal opinion.> Regards,> Chandrashekhar.> > > > > Sponsor> > > > > > |Om Tat Sat|> http://www.varahamihira> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 Namaste Sudharsan and Sanjay, There seems to be something wrong with the source of this mantra. The word " Jyotirbrahmaaya " is definitely wrong. The root of Brahma is " Brahman " . The chaturthi vibhakti form of Brahma is " Brahmane " and most certainly not " Brahmaaya " . Sanjay may want to kindly correct " Jyotir-brahmaaya " to " Jyotir-brahmane " . As for the significance of " dhleem " beeja after the saattwik sreem beeja, I'll leave it to the beejaakshara expert - Sanjay - to answer! May Jupiter's light shine on us, Narasimha > Hare Rama Krishna > > Dear Gurudeva, > > This is the first time I have seen you use this manthra > > Om Srim Dhlim Jyotir-Brahmaaya Namah > > > in your posts. Can you kindly explain the significance and why now? Many thanks. > > your servant > > sudharsan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2003 Report Share Posted September 26, 2003 Om Srim Dhlim Jyotir-Brahmaaya Namah Dear Narasimha & sudarshan There are two issues involved out here. First is the beejakshara dhliiM which is perhaps, more satvika than the bijakshara shriiM (note this is different from shliiM which has a 'la' instead of 'ra'). More on this later but be assured that this is one of the panca tatva bijakshara as taught by Sri Acyuta Dasa in the Chayalisa Patala. Second is the address 'Brahmaaya' as taught by Sri Achyuta Dasa. The reference is to the Personal 'Brahma' and not to the impersonal Brahman. In the latter case it should have been Brahmane and the mantra should have been jyotir-Brahmane namah... The followers of Sri Caitanya did not worship the impersonal Brahman. Instead, they regarded Sri Brahma the creator as sitting in the Brahma Loka (seventh spiritual plane - see my conference papers west coast on this issue). Now I am not sure why Achyuta wanted this to be Brahmaaya instead of Brahmane. Perhaps he may have wanted to differentiate the personal Brahma from the impersonal Brahman. If the name of the deity is just 'Brahma' then Brahmaaya seems to be fine. Brahamanaspati as derived from Brahman is different from this Brahma Whose sons are the Narada etc. Narasimha, the mantra has been stated exactly as given for the astrologers to recite by Sri Achyuta Das. I have been thinking a lot about it. B.T.W Shreem is the bija that creates the Prithvi tatva...very interesting indeed, but this is perhaps out of the Jyotish context. Also Achyuta never used the HriiM or shriim (i.e. with the 'R' or agni bija). Instead he always used HliiM or shliim with the 'La' so that the attitude of the sadhaka is like a pure vaishnava where he visualises himself as fallen and too weak and Jagannath comes down to rescue him. More later next weekend when we meet. Bye for now. Sanjay ---- varahamihira Thursday, September 25, 2003 11:24:44 AM varahamihira |Sri Varaha| Re: Manthra-Gurudeva Namaste Sudharsan and Sanjay,There seems to be something wrong with the source of this mantra.The word "Jyotirbrahmaaya" is definitely wrong. The root of Brahma is "Brahman". The chaturthi vibhakti form of Brahma is "Brahmane" and most certainly not "Brahmaaya". Sanjay may want to kindly correct "Jyotir-brahmaaya" to "Jyotir-brahmane".As for the significance of "dhleem" beeja after the saattwik sreem beeja, I'll leave it to the beejaakshara expert - Sanjay - to answer!May Jupiter's light shine on us,Narasimha> Hare Rama Krishna> > Dear Gurudeva,> > This is the first time I have seen you use this manthra> > Om Srim Dhlim Jyotir-Brahmaaya Namah> > > in your posts. Can you kindly explain the significance and why now? Many thanks.> > your servant > > sudharsan|Om Tat Sat|http://www.varahamihira Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2003 Report Share Posted September 26, 2003 Pranaam Sanjay, Yes, it will be excellent to learn more about various beejaaksharas from you, during the next few weeks! Regarding personal or impersonal form, that does not matter as far as the word is concerned. The word is the same in both cases. Brahman is the root form for Brahmaa (like " aatman " is for " aatmaa " and " raama " is for " raamah " ). They are not two different words. Whether you are talking about impersonal or personal form, the 1st vibhakti form is brahmaa only. The word brahman is only the root and cannot be used in a sentence. There is no " brahmah " like " raamah " . If there is, " brahmaaya " will be legal like " raamaaya " . Just like you say " paramaatmaa " in 1st vibhakti and " paramaatmane " in 4th vibhakti, you have to say " jyotirbrahmaa " in 1st vibhakti and " jyotirbrahmane " in 4th vibhakti. I am reasonably confident there was an error in the transmission of this mantra from Achyutananda to you. May Jupiter's light shine on us, Narasimha > Om Srim Dhlim Jyotir-Brahmaaya Namah > Dear Narasimha & sudarshan > > There are two issues involved out here. First is the beejakshara dhliiM > which is perhaps, more satvika than the bijakshara shriiM (note this is > different from shliiM which has a 'la' instead of 'ra'). More on this later > but be assured that this is one of the panca tatva bijakshara as taught by > Sri Acyuta Dasa in the Chayalisa Patala. > Second is the address 'Brahmaaya' as taught by Sri Achyuta Dasa. The > reference is to the Personal 'Brahma' and not to the impersonal Brahman. In > the latter case it should have been Brahmane and the mantra should have been > jyotir-Brahmane namah... > > The followers of Sri Caitanya did not worship the impersonal Brahman. > Instead, they regarded Sri Brahma the creator as sitting in the Brahma Loka > (seventh spiritual plane - see my conference papers west coast on this > issue). Now I am not sure why Achyuta wanted this to be Brahmaaya instead of > Brahmane. Perhaps he may have wanted to differentiate the personal Brahma > from the impersonal Brahman. If the name of the deity is just 'Brahma' then > Brahmaaya seems to be fine. > > Brahamanaspati as derived from Brahman is different from this Brahma Whose > sons are the Narada etc. > > Narasimha, the mantra has been stated exactly as given for the astrologers > to recite by Sri Achyuta Das. I have been thinking a lot about it. > B.T.W Shreem is the bija that creates the Prithvi tatva...very interesting > indeed, but this is perhaps out of the Jyotish context. Also Achyuta never > used the HriiM or shriim (i.e. with the 'R' or agni bija). Instead he always > used HliiM or shliim with the 'La' so that the attitude of the sadhaka is > like a pure vaishnava where he visualises himself as fallen and too weak and > Jagannath comes down to rescue him. More later next weekend when we meet. > > Bye for now. > > Sanjay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2003 Report Share Posted September 26, 2003 |Brihaspatim Varenyam| Dear Narasimha, Namaste. I have a request in this regard. There are various mantras; Om Paramatmane... Om Atmane.. etc. However as you have taught in the past, any offerings to the deity must have the ending syllable -aya, i.e. atmaaya, or paramatmaaya. Why are these excluded in these cases? As you mentioned presently - Brahmane. If indeed these mantras should be 'brahmane, atmane, paramatmane...' then are they still an offering to the deity in its name? Best wishes, Visti. - pvr108 varahamihira Thursday, September 25, 2003 7:13 PM |Sri Varaha| Re: Manthra-Gurudeva Pranaam Sanjay,Yes, it will be excellent to learn more about various beejaaksharas from you, during the next few weeks!Regarding personal or impersonal form, that does not matter as far as the word is concerned. The word is the same in both cases. Brahman is the root form for Brahmaa (like "aatman" is for "aatmaa" and "raama" is for "raamah"). They are not two different words.Whether you are talking about impersonal or personal form, the 1st vibhakti form is brahmaa only. The word brahman is only the root and cannot be used in a sentence.There is no "brahmah" like "raamah". If there is, "brahmaaya" will be legal like "raamaaya". Just like you say "paramaatmaa" in 1st vibhakti and "paramaatmane" in 4th vibhakti, you have to say "jyotirbrahmaa" in 1st vibhakti and "jyotirbrahmane" in 4th vibhakti.I am reasonably confident there was an error in the transmission of this mantra from Achyutananda to you.May Jupiter's light shine on us,Narasimha> Om Srim Dhlim Jyotir-Brahmaaya Namah> Dear Narasimha & sudarshan> > There are two issues involved out here. First is the beejakshara dhliiM> which is perhaps, more satvika than the bijakshara shriiM (note this is> different from shliiM which has a 'la' instead of 'ra'). More on this later> but be assured that this is one of the panca tatva bijakshara as taught by> Sri Acyuta Dasa in the Chayalisa Patala.> Second is the address 'Brahmaaya' as taught by Sri Achyuta Dasa. The> reference is to the Personal 'Brahma' and not to the impersonal Brahman. In> the latter case it should have been Brahmane and the mantra should have been> jyotir-Brahmane namah...> > The followers of Sri Caitanya did not worship the impersonal Brahman.> Instead, they regarded Sri Brahma the creator as sitting in the Brahma Loka> (seventh spiritual plane - see my conference papers west coast on this> issue). Now I am not sure why Achyuta wanted this to be Brahmaaya instead of> Brahmane. Perhaps he may have wanted to differentiate the personal Brahma> from the impersonal Brahman. If the name of the deity is just 'Brahma' then> Brahmaaya seems to be fine.> > Brahamanaspati as derived from Brahman is different from this Brahma Whose> sons are the Narada etc.> > Narasimha, the mantra has been stated exactly as given for the astrologers> to recite by Sri Achyuta Das. I have been thinking a lot about it.> B.T.W Shreem is the bija that creates the Prithvi tatva...very interesting> indeed, but this is perhaps out of the Jyotish context. Also Achyuta never> used the HriiM or shriim (i.e. with the 'R' or agni bija). Instead he always> used HliiM or shliim with the 'La' so that the attitude of the sadhaka is> like a pure vaishnava where he visualises himself as fallen and too weak and> Jagannath comes down to rescue him. More later next weekend when we meet.> > Bye for now.> > Sanjay|Om Tat Sat|http://www.varahamihira Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2003 Report Share Posted September 26, 2003 Om Srim Dhlim Jyotir-Brahmaaya Namah Dear Narasimha This is exactly as published in the book. I have been following it as it is given irrespective of whether it maybe right or not as there seems to be more to the order of the akshara than just grammar. Sometimes i have found the mantra difficult to understand like the one for the removal of Badhaka ' Om AbaaDaaya svaaha'. Now this seems to be quite meaningless for me. Yet I use it with the hope that someday the meaning shall come. I believe that the pundits had criticised the mahamantra as well as not following the perfect rules during the times of achyuta das. He mentions this in the patala-17 but goes on to confirm that the mantra is to be done exactly as given and that this can give samadhi (he actually got samadhi). Please someone from orissa can help translate and explain this for the benefit of the list. paöala-17 kalira mahämantra hare kåñëa hare kåñëa kåñëa kåñëa hare hare| hare räma hare räma räma räma hare hare|| çuëa acyuta mana dayi| kalira mahämantra ehi|| kali prabhaba heba düra| präëé saàsäru taripäre|| hakära rakära bhedare| malä saàyoga rüpa ghare|| äsuchi jäuchi pavana| sai ajapä mane ghena|| präëa pavane mantra misi| ruddha kariba ravi çaçé|| mürkha kahibe kete kathä| rakära hakära vyavasthä|| sethire nahin kichi phala| samädhi patha dåòha kara|| e mantra patha heba sthira| samädhi patha heba sära|| äge e mantra bhäva dhari| prema sägare jäo buòi|| lakña lakña ku mana balä| äpe tu hoibu bäulä|| ñola näma e mahämantra| niçväse heba ätajäta|| omkäru mantrara utpatti| japare prakäçiba jyoti|| antara heba våndävana| puëi ayodhyä käçé dhäma|| dekhibu kåñëa lélä mäna| e mantra améya vacana|| With Best Regards Sanjay Rath ---- varahamihira Thursday, September 25, 2003 07:17:05 PM varahamihira |Sri Varaha| Re: Manthra-Gurudeva Pranaam Sanjay,Yes, it will be excellent to learn more about various beejaaksharas from you, during the next few weeks!Regarding personal or impersonal form, that does not matter as far as the word is concerned. The word is the same in both cases. Brahman is the root form for Brahmaa (like "aatman" is for "aatmaa" and "raama" is for "raamah"). They are not two different words.Whether you are talking about impersonal or personal form, the 1st vibhakti form is brahmaa only. The word brahman is only the root and cannot be used in a sentence.There is no "brahmah" like "raamah". If there is, "brahmaaya" will be legal like "raamaaya". Just like you say "paramaatmaa" in 1st vibhakti and "paramaatmane" in 4th vibhakti, you have to say "jyotirbrahmaa" in 1st vibhakti and "jyotirbrahmane" in 4th vibhakti.I am reasonably confident there was an error in the transmission of this mantra from Achyutananda to you.May Jupiter's light shine on us,Narasimha __ IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here 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.