Subha/Paapa and Soumya/Kroora (On Seeing Deities from the 12th..)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Karu,

 

> So krura+Tamas=Papa.

 

> 5. Now we have 3 categories. Saumya, Krura and Papa. There is nothing

> to confuse here.

 

You declared that only Sun is a kroora graha, while Parasara explicitly

mentioned several. Now you are saying paapa graha is a kroora+taamasik graha,

while Parasara explicitly defined subha and paapa grahas based on house

ownerships. For example, he explicitly mentioned in verses 23-24 of the chapter

on " Yogakarakas " that Jupiter, Venus and Moon are " paapa " grahas and Sun and

Saturn are " subha " grahas for a Taurus lagna native. He defined subha and paapa

grahas for each lagna.

 

You ARE mixing up terminology and making assertions that contradict Parasara's

clear teachings.

 

Whenever we encounter the words subha and paapa in BPHS, we should interpret

them based on how Parasara defined them and not how someone else did.

 

* * *

 

There are 3 categories and each has a purpose:

 

(1) Soumya vs Kroora (gentle vs harsh)

(2) Saattwika vs Raajasika vs Taamasika (pure vs active vs dull)

(3) Subha vs Paapa (auspicious vs inauspicious)

 

However, these parameters are independent and your formula " krura+Tamas=Papa " is

inconsistent with Parasara's teaching.

 

Best regards,

Narasimha

 

Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam

Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana

Spirituality:

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

 

 

sohamsa , " Karu Heenkenda " <heen wrote:

>

>

>

> Dear Narasimha,

> This mail sliped to the list somehow before I write it. Flease forget the

> first one.

>

>

>

> Hare Rama Krishna

>

> Namaskar Narasimha,

>

> 1. This is the first definition of the nature of the planets given by

> Parasara, at the start of the Grahaguna Swarupadiya, and I have no argument

> on it. This sloka just explains the way the Grahas give and not consider any

> relaitive concepts like GOD or BAD, + or -, malefic or benefic. Saumya and

> Krura both can give results but Saumya with compassion, Krura without

> imotion.

> So from here we have two groups Saumya and Krura. The best

> way to understand the meaning of krura is understand Sun. Sun rules Law, and

> highst form of low is natural low; Dharma. It has no imotion and we all have

> to accept it wether we like it or not.

>

> 2. Then we come to end of the chapter, Parasara explains Guna of grahas

> and we apply it to above explanation.

> Let's take Satvik Grahas Guru, Chandra and Ravi. Guru and

> Chandra are Saumya and Satvik. They are not only most protective grahas, but

> gives name, fame and all. Only these two grahas considered best as they

> always GIVE AWAY to this world. Sun satvik, but krura. It also give, but no

> immotion or compassion associate with him.

>

> 3. Take 2 Krura Graha, Saturn and Mars. They are Thamasik and always

> taking from the world and destroy where they are placed as well as where

> they are aspect. So krura+Tamas=Papa.

>

> 4. Take Rajas Graha Sukra and unaflicted Budda. This two always have

> desire and they give but they expecting something in return. These two have

> special role in the chart controlling rajasik guna. They are important for

> creation so not considered as bad.

> 5. Now we have 3 categories. Saumya, Krura and Papa. There is nothing

> to confuse here.

> 6. What planets gives so called GOOD or BAD results, under what

> circumstances etc is clearly explained in Prasna Marga. From that we can

> understand any graha, even papa can give very " GOOD " results and the most

> benefic GURU can give worst results.

> Thanks and Best Wishes

> Karu

>

>

> Namaste Karu,

>

> Well, Parasara clearly said:

>

> tatraarkashanibhUputraaH kShINenduraahuketavaH.

> krUraaH sheShagrahaaH saumyaaH krUraH krUrayuto budhaH..

>

> Meaning: Sun, Saturn, Mars, waning Moon, Rahu and Ketu are kroora (harsh)

> planets and the rest are soumya (gentle). When with kroora planets, Mercury

> is also kroora.

>

> The soumya planets are the so-called natural benefics and kroora planets are

> the so-called natural malefics.

>

> Parasara defined shubha and paapa specifically based on the houses owned

> from lagna. Subha clearly means functional benefic and paapa clearly means

> functional malefic.

>

> There seems to be a lot of confusion today regarding subha/paapa and

> soumya/kroora planets. But this is fundamental issue and Parasara's

> teachings are crystal clear.

>

> Best regards,

> Narasimha

>

> Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam

> Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana

> Spirituality:

> 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

>

>

> sohamsa , " Karu Heenkenda " <heen@> wrote:

> >

> > Hare Rama Krishna

> > Dear Narasimha,

> > There is only one Kroora graha. It is Sun who protect dharma without

> emotions. Others are not Kroora, but Papa because their tamasic nature. Sun

> is Satvik and not a Papi unless weak.

> > Functional nature of planets is another thing.

> > Best Wishes

> > Karu

> >

> > sohamsa , Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sundeep,

> >

> > Great question!

> >

> > Even if Rahu and Ketu are together, their influence on the 12th house may

> be different. One may dominate. So Rahu and Ketu can still give different

> results.

> >

> > > So, no one can ever attain enlightenment, since if

> > > Ketu is there, so must Rahu..

> >

> > The verse you refer to says:

> >

> > kArakAMshAd.h vyaye ketau shubhakheTayutexite |

> > tadA tu jAyate muktiH sAyujyapadamApnuyAt.h || 65||

> >

> > Literal translation is: " If Ketu is in the 12th house from AK's amsa,

> conjoined or aspected by a subha planet, then liberation occurs and one

> joins god's lotus feet. "

> >

> > The words used in this verse and the next one are " subha " and " paapa " .

> >

> > When Parasara defined these terms, he defined soumya (gentle) and kroora

> (harsh) grahas withOUT reference to ascendant and he defined subha

> (auspicious/benefic) and paapa (inauspicious/malefic) grahas with reference

> to ascendant. These terms are translated as natural benefic/malefic and

> functional benefic/malefic in English. Because both pairs of phrases are

> similar, people mix them up.

> >

> > Jupiter is soumya, but he need not be subha. That depends on lagna (or

> other reference used). Saturn is kroora, but he need not be paapa. That

> depends on lagna.

> >

> > Parasara used the terms soumya and kroora in some combinations and subha

> and asubha/paapa in some. Please note that they are not interchangable!

> Unfortunately, translators of Parasara weren't always consistent in their

> translation, but I don't think a maharshi would mix up the two pairs of

> words and use the wrong word. Take it as a functional benefic when he says

> subha and take it as a functional malefic when he says paapa.

> >

> > Soumya means one who is gentle and kroora means one who is harsh. Subha

> means one who does good and asubha/paapa means one who does bad. A harsh

> person can do you good and a gentle person can harm you.

> >

> > Rahu is a kroora graha, but he can certainly be a subha graha in a chart!

> >

> > I will leave it to you to figure out from which reference the

> functionality (beneficence or maleficence) of a planet joining or aspecting

> Ketu in 12th should be judged - lagna or AK, in rasi or vimsamsa etc.

> >

> > Best regards,

> > Narasimha

> >

> > sohamsa , " vedicastrostudent " <vedicastrostudent@>

> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Narasimhaji,

> > > While what you say sounds compelling, you know that Rahu and Ketu are

> always together in D-20. Did Parasara have verses that gave distinct results

> for Rahu and for Ketu in 12th from AK? Why would he do so if he knew for

> certain that they'll always be together? Please explain in detail. At least

> in one translation I have:

> > >

> > > " If Ketu is in the 12th from Karak & #257; & #324; & #347;, receiving a

> Drishti from a malefic, or is there yuti with a malefic, one will not attain

> full enlightenment. "

> > >

> > > Clearly, he is talking about worship and spiritual practices here. So he

> must be talking about D-20 according to your rules of inference. So, no one

> can ever attain enlightenment, since if Ketu is there, so must Rahu..

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > >

> > > Sundeep

> > > >

> > > > In the chapter called " kaarakaamsa phala " in BPHS, Parasara mentioned

> the deities worshipped based on the planets in the 12th from kaarakaamsha.

> For example, Sun in 12th from AK shows a worshipper of Shiva and Moon in

> 12th from AK shows a worshipper of Gouri.

> > > >

> > > > The term " kaarakaamsa " means " AK's amsa " . Amsa only means division.

> Which amsa or division is Parasara referring to?

> > > >

> > > > Though people jumped to the conclusion that amsa means navaamsa by

> default, there is one more important thing to consider here. At the onset

> itself, Parasara clarified which amsas (divisions) are used for which

> purposes. He clearly said " upaasanaayaaH viGYaanaM saadhyaM viMshati

> bhaagake " , meaning " the knowledge of one's worship and spiritual practices

> is possible in D-20 " .

> > > >

> > > > If, having said that at the onset, he defines which deities are

> worshipped based on the 12th house from AK in an " amsa " , can the amsa in

> question be anything other than D-20?! After all, he clearly said one's

> upaasanaa is seen from D-20. So the principles laid out later by Parasara

> for upaasanaa *must* be referring to D-20 by " amsa " and *not* D-9 as people

> normally take.