Soul's Inclination

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

It is the ātmkāraka that has the final say...

And it is rāhu's ~business~ that keeps one attached to this earth.

iti śivaṁ

Pranam,

But if we admit that ātmkāraka indeed means "soul's desire", then these two sentences converge to:-- "Rahu is the ātmkāraka".

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


I'd also just like to add this note... ātman (soul/Self) is without passion. It has no likes or dis-likes; it is stainless, infinite and breathless.


iti śivaṁ

AFAIK ātmā is slightly different from ātma (ātman), and jyotish talks about ātmā, not ātma.

As per Dharma, I suppose ātmā is indeed "finite", can be even "created and destroyed", and needs to "evolve" to attain ātma.

Asat is not mythya, neither is the journey from Asat to Sat. It is all REAL.

If anything, the sole purpose of Jyotish is to illuminate us about this path.

That's why Rahu is ātmkāraka, and therefore the most important graha.
I am not a Jyotishi, but there is a concern that it should conform to the basics, that's why we call it "Vedic Astrology".

Rahu is the most auspicious graha. But it also relates to Effort. Effort-- as the soul's mandate in the present incarnation. Mandate-- to move from Asat to Sat, to complete this births' long journey of evolution. Unfortunately in India, effort began to be seen as inferior to other things such as birth, prosperity, "luck", etc.


Shri Ram

[Mana]

Namaste,

... I hope this helps in some small way....

Very much so Yajvan Ji I always appreciate your wise input, the fortune of dharma bhāva is smiling upon me in your postings.

I am I think trying to find the correct sanskrit word for a phenomenon that I perceive, as such it can be a tricky affair; In thought today it occurred to me "deva" is much more befitting the description I am seeking and is perhaps more apt for this thread to say that we are for filling the desires of the graha, and thus the devata.

Thank you for your clarification,

Kind regards.

[Mana]

Namaste Rohiniranjan Ji,

In both the BPHS versions (there are about half a dozen of those if not more!) I have the above-cited slokas are in the context of vimshopaka bala and I could not find any mention of 'acchādana drṣṭi' term there (or neighbouring slokas in both versions!)

I am recapitulating the way in which I have learnd these sloka from my Jyotish guru, we were taught about acchādana drṣṭi just before these sloka so as to properly understand them; we are taught to interlink many concepts. This one is I think quite logical really; ties in nicely with the previous thread on combustion, combustion originating from this principle.

But all credit for unlocking this wisdom goes to my Jyotish guru Pandit Sanjay Rath.

Mana ji,

BRAVO! More power to you and hopefully more messages from you to us! I (and I am sure other friends too) had been missing your invigorating presence here during your bouts of silence! :-)

Regards,

Rohiniranjan

Why thank you RR, I feel chatty some times more than others. Though I always keep an eye on the forum for its regular deep insights.

Kind regards.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

Jeeva (closer to the meaning of the SELF which too is perceptible but yet somewhat intangible) and Sharira (wrappings; body; tangible)! Perhaps someone knowledgeable may wish to steer our discussion boat towards these two terms, namely Jeeva and Sharira which have been described in Jyotish, as estimable attributes? I have not studied or tested it enough to serve as a 'teller', hence I shall patiently listen to what others have to share about Jeeva and Sharira concepts within the body of Jyotish.

I'd like to offer just a bit more on this matter so our terms are aligned.

jīva is the body-mind dynamic of the animated human. Self ( when spelled with a capital 'S' ) is aligned to svātman or just ātman.
When self is spelled with a lower case 's' , it now is closer to jīva and more aligned to ahaṁkāra or one's individuality , self-consciousness , 'me'-ness.

Now that said it allows me to offer that the Self is not perceived by any utility other then its-Self. It is the final perceiver ( for lack of a better term). The Self comes to know it Self by it Self. Even the peretrating intellect cannot perceive it, because the raw materials of perception is Self - so the only thing that can perceive Self is Self.

This gets many a seeker ( again poor word) into long and ardent practices thinking this Self is an object of perception. As if there is two things to look at: the Self and the viewer of the Self. But there is no two.
Your eyes see and look to the world all day. Yet does the eye see itself as it perceives the world ? No. One immediately thinks well if I have a mirror I can see my eye. Yes, this is true. But let me ask, who or what is perceiving the eyes that are looking at the eyes ?
That is why the wise say, what are looking for is where you are looking from... you are looking from consciousness - and the root of waking state of consciousness is pure consciousness ( some prefer to call turīya).
So, one cannot perceive Self, one can only Be Self. This takes some getting use to ( undersanding) but is the truth no less.

Now, where does jyotish fit in ? It fits with regard to the ātmakāraka. We know within the rules of jyotish how to calculate this. But do we understand its meaning as to its function ? Just as a compass points to the North, it ( the compass) itself is NOT North. The ātmakāraka is like this. It gives us all indications of this Self (ātman) but in and of itself it is not the Self. See the difference?

iti śivaṁ

1. turīya - technically means the 4th ; yet in succession of wake , dream and sleep, turīya is next or the 4th. It is this pure state of awareness. When this is established and is there as one's awareness 7x24x365 the wise then call it turīyātīta - meaning beyond the 4th. Why so ? We will leave this to another post.

[Rohiniranjan]

Namaste Rohiniranjan Ji,

I am recapitulating the way in which I have learnd these sloka from my Jyotish guru, we were taught about acchādana drṣṭi just before these sloka so as to properly understand them; we are taught to interlink many concepts. This one is I think quite logical really; ties in nicely with the previous thread on combustion, combustion originating from this principle.

But all credit for unlocking this wisdom goes to my Jyotish guru Pandit Sanjay Rath.

...
Kind regards.

Oh okay! I thought the A.D. was in the BPHS shloK and I missed it, somehow! It was additional material, as you have now clarified. Thanks

RR

[Rohiniranjan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté



I'd like to offer just a bit more on this matter so our terms are aligned.

jīva is the body-mind dynamic of the animated human. Self ( when spelled with a capital 'S' ) is aligned to svātman or just ātman.
When self is spelled with a lower case 's' , it now is closer to jīva and more aligned to ahaṁkāra or one's individuality , self-consciousness , 'me'-ness.

Now that said it allows me to offer that the Self is not perceived by any utility other then its-Self. It is the final perceiver ( for lack of a better term). The Self comes to know it Self by it Self. Even the peretrating intellect cannot perceive it, because the raw materials of perception is Self - so the only thing that can perceive Self is Self.

This gets many a seeker ( again poor word) into long and ardent practices thinking this Self is an object of perception. As if there is two things to look at: the Self and the viewer of the Self. But there is no two.
Your eyes see and look to the world all day. Yet does the eye see itself as it perceives the world ? No. One immediately thinks well if I have a mirror I can see my eye. Yes, this is true. But let me ask, who or what is perceiving the eyes that are looking at the eyes ?
That is why the wise say, what are looking for is where you are looking from... you are looking from consciousness - and the root of waking state of consciousness is pure consciousness ( some prefer to call turīya).
So, one cannot perceive Self, one can only Be Self. This takes some getting use to ( undersanding) but is the truth no less.

Now, where does jyotish fit in ? It fits with regard to the ātmakāraka. We know within the rules of jyotish how to calculate this. But do we understand its meaning as to its function ? Just as a compass points to the North, it ( the compass) itself is NOT North. The ātmakāraka is like this. It gives us all indications of this Self (ātman) but in and of itself it is not the Self. See the difference?

iti śivaṁ

1. turīya - technically means the 4th ; yet in succession of wake , dream and sleep, turīya is next or the 4th. It is this pure state of awareness. When this is established and is there as one's awareness 7x24x365 the wise then call it turīyātīta - meaning beyond the 4th. Why so ? We will leave this to another post.

Yes Yajvan ji, I do get it and that is why like a parrot, I have been reminding folks that planets are not the cause of our karma or misery, but (we are!)! Planets are simply the indicators, like the needle of a magnetic compass, or the hour and minute hands of a clock! {:->

Not sure if my thinking is in line with others, but I sense simply two major entities. One is the self (without slicing and dicing it into portions of *i* or "I" but those are simply different functioning levels of self. Distinct from this is the Witness Self that is mostly silent, until we begin paying attention to it and begin listening to it voice which is not silent at all, but initially seems feeble and somehow (at least to me) paying attention to it makes its silent-feeble-barely audible speech/thoughts clearer and unmistakably audible. Thankfully, it became available to me through the Grace of experiential reality! {{:->

Regards,

Rohiniranjan

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

But if we admit that ātmkāraka indeed means "soul's desire", then these two sentences converge to:-- "Rahu is the ātmkāraka".

AFAIK ātmā is slightly different from ātma (ātman), and jyotish talks about ātmā, not ātma.

As per Dharma, I suppose ātmā is indeed "finite", can be even "created and destroyed", and needs to "evolve" to attain ātma.

Asat is not mythya, neither is the journey from Asat to Sat. It is all REAL.

If anything, the sole purpose of Jyotish is to illuminate us about this path.

That's why Rahu is ātmkāraka, and therefore the most important graha.
I am not a Jyotishi, but there is a concern that it should conform to the basics, that's why we call it "Vedic Astrology".

Rahu is the most auspicious graha. But it also relates to Effort. Effort-- as the soul's mandate in the present incarnation. Mandate-- to move from Asat to Sat, to complete this births' long journey of evolution. Unfortunately in India, effort began to be seen as inferior to other things such as birth, prosperity, "luck", etc.

I can see why you may say this... but from my point of view, a bit off the mark.

ātmakāraka indeed means "soul's desire"

kāraka - means 'instrumental in bringing about the action' . It is not the desire.
That is why the ātmkāraka is called king; nothing gets done without its okay ( simplified here). The King is instrumental to all the land; the king of the chart is instrumental to all of the charts and sub charts ( divisional charts).

regarding rāhu
If any thing where to be a stand-in defacto ātmakāraka it would be the sun ( sūrya ) - it is the natural (sahaja) ātmakāraka called out by jaimini. Rāhu is just interested in mischief. To align rāhu to ātman is like aligning space (ākāśa) to lead (sīsa).

Yet there are those that have rāhu as their ātmakāraka and there are those that have the sun as their ātmakāraka; both paths in life will be different. Multiple examples can be offered. The blessing comes when one's ātmkāraka is the same as one's iṣṭadevatā¹ - then there is nothing to be done.

regarding ātmā and ātman
I'd ask you for references on this; that is, please point out the differences . I will offer mine.

ātmā is slightly different from ātma (ātman), and jyotish talks about ātmā, not ātma

If we consider ātmā as atti iti ātmā - ātmā thus (iti) eats (atti). This is used when we consider the root to be 'at' and thus atti. Yet this ātmā is rooted in āta which has its root in 'tan' . This brings us to a meaning ād vyāpana to pervade; ' 'tan' also means to stretch , extend, bend.
So, with this ātmā we have that which extends, pervades. And we have that which eats. These are from the upaniṣad-s and do not contradict each other , even though they may look as so on the surface. The key insight is who is the final eater ? It is ātmā that is non different from ātman.

Yet if you ~pushed~ me to say if jyotish is aligned ( or applied) to one over the other , I would select ( only under pressure) to ātman.
Why so ? Because I can align ātman to 'an' which is to breathe ( like a human). Hence it is aligned to something that comes and goes; Jyotish ( and one of its branches ) is the alignment to all that has birth and therefore has death.
Yet If you look to classical definitions of ātman you will find soul; in fact 'individual soul' which IMHO is an oxymoron.


iti śivaṁ

1. atma-kārakā indicates kārakāṁśa and the 12th there from will help identify the iṣṭadevatā

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté
I can see why you may say this... but from my point of view, a bit off the mark.

Pranam,
Thank you Yajvan-ji for considering these concerns.

kāraka - means 'instrumental in bringing about the action' . It is not the desire.

"instrument in bringing about the action", in other words, "the pathfinder". Now, Rāhu comes from rāha राह (path/ पथ), and thus means "pathfinder".

That is why the ātmkāraka is called king; nothing gets done without its okay ( simplified here). The King is instrumental to all the land; the king of the chart is instrumental to all of the charts and sub charts ( divisional charts).

That is the offer here. Namely, Rāhu indeed is the Origin-point, the identity element, of the chart, the A in the alphabet.

regarding rāhu
If any thing where to be a stand-in defacto ātmakāraka it would be the sun ( sūrya ) - it is the natural (sahaja) ātmakāraka called out by jaimini. Rāhu is just interested in mischief. To align rāhu to ātman is like aligning space (ākāśa) to lead (sīsa).

Sūrya can be secondary ātmakāraka. I mean, Sūrya is to Rāhu what ātma is to ātmā, roughly speaking.

Yet there are those that have rāhu as their ātmakāraka and there are those that have the sun as their ātmakāraka; both paths in life will be different. Multiple examples can be offered. The blessing comes when one's ātmkāraka is the same as one's iṣṭadevatā¹ - then there is nothing to be done.

I think the story runs thus:-
Somewhere in the history Surya was mistakenly assigned the main ātmakāraka. Subsequently it was found that this rule isn't working perfectly. So, as is usual in Jyotisha, simply more degree-of-freedoms were added (in order to make a workable theory) where even other graha-s could become ātmakāraka based on some rule. So somewhere we forgot about the basics, that is, Rahu.

regarding ātmā and ātman
I'd ask you for references on this; that is, please point out the differences . I will offer mine.
~~~~~~~~~
Yet if you ~pushed~ me to say if jyotish is aligned ( or applied) to one over the other , I would select ( only under pressure) to ātman.
Why so ? Because I can align ātman to 'an' which is to breathe ( like a human). Hence it is aligned to something that comes and goes; Jyotish ( and one of its branches ) is the alignment to all that has birth and therefore has death.
Yet If you look to classical definitions of ātman you will find soul; in fact 'individual soul' which IMHO is an oxymoron.

Indeed, "individual soul" for ātma/ ātman is an oxymoron.

Additionally, when we look into nuts-and-bolts, ātman आत्मन् is prātipadika (root). That is, it isn't even a proper word.
However, from ātman two separate nominatives are constructed:- ātma आत्म, and ātmā आत्मा. These two nominatives further take on their respective vibhakti-s.
Scholars have posited that in the original Sanskrit (Vedic) we have actually two pratipadika-s:- Átman and Atmán (the accented letter differs). From Átman comes the nominative Atma (ātma) and from Atmán comes the nominative AtmA (ātmā).
According to this, ātma is an abstract noun (like, "Self") and ātmā is more of an agent noun ("possessor of ātma").

This is in the same way as, say:- brhama ब्रह्म is abstract, whereas brahmā ब्रह्मा is the deity who "carries" brahma, and both the nominatives coming from the pratipadika brahman ब्रह्मन् (though, again from slightly different pratipadika-s originally, bráhman and brahmán).

A more common example is that of ammi and ammā. ammi strictly is used for one's mother. But ammā can refer to any woman (the possessor of motherhood).

***********
***********

What I am proposing here is that Rahu is the ātmakāraka and the center of the universe that Jyotisha truly is. At the same time, this knowledge is the deepest secret of Jyotish, as well as its very foundation to which - as a law- there simply isn't, can't be, any exceptions.

*********
*********
Once again thanking for your consideration,


Jai Hanuman


P.S.: I have avoided using any Vedic terminology, considering this isn't Veda subforum.

[Rohiniranjan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté



I can see why you may say this... but from my point of view, a bit off the mark.
kāraka - means 'instrumental in bringing about the action' . It is not the desire.
That is why the ātmkāraka is called king; nothing gets done without its okay ( simplified here). The King is instrumental to all the land; the king of the chart is instrumental to all of the charts and sub charts ( divisional charts).

regarding rāhu
If any thing where to be a stand-in defacto ātmakāraka it would be the sun ( sūrya ) - it is the natural (sahaja) ātmakāraka called out by jaimini. Rāhu is just interested in mischief. To align rāhu to ātman is like aligning space (ākāśa) to lead (sīsa).

Yet there are those that have rāhu as their ātmakāraka and there are those that have the sun as their ātmakāraka; both paths in life will be different. Multiple examples can be offered. The blessing comes when one's ātmkāraka is the same as one's iṣṭadevatā¹ - then there is nothing to be done.

regarding ātmā and ātman
I'd ask you for references on this; that is, please point out the differences . I will offer mine.

If we consider ātmā as atti iti ātmā - ātmā thus (iti) eats (atti). This is used when we consider the root to be 'at' and thus atti. Yet this ātmā is rooted in āta which has its root in 'tan' . This brings us to a meaning ād vyāpana to pervade; ' 'tan' also means to stretch , extend, bend.
So, with this ātmā we have that which extends, pervades. And we have that which eats. These are from the upaniṣad-s and do not contradict each other , even though they may look as so on the surface. The key insight is who is the final eater ? It is ātmā that is non different from ātman.

Yet if you ~pushed~ me to say if jyotish is aligned ( or applied) to one over the other , I would select ( only under pressure) to ātman.
Why so ? Because I can align ātman to 'an' which is to breathe ( like a human). Hence it is aligned to something that comes and goes; Jyotish ( and one of its branches ) is the alignment to all that has birth and therefore has death.
Yet If you look to classical definitions of ātman you will find soul; in fact 'individual soul' which IMHO is an oxymoron.


iti śivaṁ

1. atma-kārakā indicates kārakāṁśa and the 12th there from will help identify the iṣṭadevatā

Yajvan ji,

Firstly, let me commend you from heart, and to Krishna ji too, for picking up and highlighting this very important topic and to Manaji and others who have been participating in this discussion from time to time, and others too who are silently reading this thread, presumably. That is great!

I sometimes get the feeling that we all jumped into the deep-end of the swimming pool! :-(

Let us back-track to the beginning if we can, for a moment. We all talk about three karakas, natural, fixed and movable (naisargic, sthira and chara) and of course there are other types of karakas too, yogakarakas for instance but those are at a secondary level and perhaps can be parked for now.

So, what did Rishi intend to mean by the terms Natural, Fixed, Movable? I mean there is the literal meaning that we all know, but in terms of translating the astrological symbolism to a reading for instance, what do these terms really imply and mean?

This question is to ALL friends who use these three types in their regular use.

Love and Light,

Rohiniranjan

[KrishnaTVM]

RR Ji,

Thanks for the Kudo's.

I have noticed that Lagnathipathi and 8th Lord shapes ones inner searches.

Again just an observation after going through few charts.

Also 5th & 9th Lords has tendency for pushing one towards spirtitual and Religious etc.

Thanks
Krishna