Astrological challange beyond your wildest fantasy

[Guest guest]

Dear Jay,

 

Hare Rama Krsna!

 

>What does any learned astrologer have to say about such a challenge ?

 

The answer is simple, Jay. The mother is the person who is giving birth to

the child. No matter where egg, fertilisation etc came from. Can they do

the entire process of nourishing the embryo and letting it grow from

fertilisation till a newborn baby in the laboratorium? I guess they would

wish they could... then what about cloning, an even further confusion?

 

We have the case of Gandhari, who had 100 sons at one time. They were put

into vats of ghee and were born after having been fully developed in

there, but still the lump of flesh that had been divided into 100 pieces

had been born from Gandhari herself. Therefore wasn't she the mother?

 

Balarama was in the womb of Devaki as her 7th child, but was transported

by Yogamaya after some months of pregnancy into the womb of Rohini, and

Devaki appeared to have had a miscarriage. Now isn't Rohini been

considered as Balarama's mother? Confusing indeed, but still it's clear

the mother is the one who is giving 'birth' to the child.

 

The rest we have to see in the lines of adoption.

 

Yours,

Dhira Krsna dasa,

Jyotishi

http://www.radhadesh.com

[Guest guest]

Dear Dhira Krsna dasa,

Not that simple as you say in my opinion. I may agree with you to the term

" mother " when connected with " birth " but not when it comes to genes and

inherited qualities it will not be " the mother " . What remains is the

question of blood, of which I am still waiting for a qualifies medical

response.

Besides, only a careful study of such a child's chart, will reveal which

" mother " is shown there.

 

Regards

/Jay Weiss

http://www.alvicomm.com

http://www.alvicomm.com/privat.htm

 

 

-

" Dhira Krsna BCS " <Dhira.Krsna.BCS

<varahamihira >; ;

<vedic astrology >

Friday, February 06, 2004 9:48 PM

|Sri Varaha| Astrological challange beyond your wildest fantasy

 

 

> Dear Jay,

>

> Hare Rama Krsna!

>

> >What does any learned astrologer have to say about such a challenge ?

>

> The answer is simple, Jay. The mother is the person who is giving birth to

> the child. No matter where egg, fertilisation etc came from. Can they do

> the entire process of nourishing the embryo and letting it grow from

> fertilisation till a newborn baby in the laboratorium? I guess they would

> wish they could... then what about cloning, an even further confusion?

>

> We have the case of Gandhari, who had 100 sons at one time. They were put

> into vats of ghee and were born after having been fully developed in

> there, but still the lump of flesh that had been divided into 100 pieces

> had been born from Gandhari herself. Therefore wasn't she the mother?

>

> Balarama was in the womb of Devaki as her 7th child, but was transported

> by Yogamaya after some months of pregnancy into the womb of Rohini, and

> Devaki appeared to have had a miscarriage. Now isn't Rohini been

> considered as Balarama's mother? Confusing indeed, but still it's clear

> the mother is the one who is giving 'birth' to the child.

>

> The rest we have to see in the lines of adoption.

>

> Yours,

> Dhira Krsna dasa,

> Jyotishi

> http://www.radhadesh.com

>

>

> |Om Tat Sat|

> http://www.varahamihira

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Jay, Dhira,

You must have read recently the story of identical twins /excellent for psy and astro-researches!/ who met after 20 years- adopted by diff. families after birth- Both lost /adopted/ fathers from cancer at the same time.

Genes-blood, on the other hand, are no doubt 'our destiny', more than anything else- as per what we positivelly know.

Seems there is at least one more form of 'destiny', as well- say, "by role" /don't marry a widow, as a saying goes?/

And how many yet? /to become aware of..?/

Regards,

Anna

-"J.Weiss" Fri, 6 Feb 2004 22:58:53 +0100Re: |Sri Varaha| Astrological challange beyond your wildest fantasyDear Dhira Krsna dasa,Not that simple as you say in my opinion. I may agree with you to the term"mother" when connected with "birth" but not when it comes to genes andinherited qualities it will not be "the mother". What remains is thequestion of blood, of which I am still waiting for a qualifies medicalresponse.Besides, only a careful study of such a child's chart, will reveal which"mother" is shown there.Regards/Jay Weisshttp://www.alvicomm.comhttp://www.alvicomm.com/privat.htm- "Dhira Krsna BCS" <Dhira.Krsna.BCS<varahamihira@y

ahoogroups.com>; ;<vedic astrology >Friday, February 06, 2004 9:48 PM|Sri Varaha| Astrological challange beyond your wildest fantasy> Dear Jay,>> Hare Rama Krsna!>> >What does any learned astrologer have to say about such a challenge ?>> The answer is simple, Jay. The mother is the person who is giving birth to> the child. No matter where egg, fertilisation etc came from. Can they do> the entire process of nourishing the embryo and letting it grow from> fertilisation till a newborn baby in the laboratorium? I guess they would> wish they could... then what about cloning, an even further confusion?>> We have the case of Gandhari, who had 100 sons at one time. They were put> into vats of ghee and were born after having been fully developed in> there, but still the lump of flesh that had been divided into 100 pieces> had been born from Gandhari herself. Therefore wasn't she the mother?>> Balarama was in the womb of Devaki as her 7th child, but was transported> by Yogamaya after some months of pregnancy into the womb of Rohini, and> Devaki appeared to have had a miscarriage. Now isn't Rohini been> considered as Balarama's mother? Confusing indeed, but still it's clear> the mother is the one who is giving 'birth' to the child.>> The rest we have to see in the lines of adoption.>> Yours,> Dhira Krsna dasa,> Jyotishi> http://www.radhadesh.com>>> |Om Tat Sat|> http://www.varahamihira>