Soul's Inclination

[Mana]

namast�,

Thank you Yajvan Ji, how fascinating the etymology, and magical all in the same ...

By super soul I wish to express the ātman as an entity out side of our perception of I, perhaps supra soul would have been better, with larger limits and upon larger timescales than that of any perception of singularity that might appear to the self as me, a function of kāla tattva and puruṣa; The form in and of which we are reborn.

Thank you for your consideration.

[Rohiniranjan]

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

Dear Yajvan ji,

Believe it or not, upon reading Krishna ji's first post about soul's desire, this was exactly the thought that arose in my mind a lot punier than yours what with your solid dharmic background (or so it appears to me as your background), but then I figured that we all here use Atmaa and Atma kind of interchangeably and somewhat confusingly if not confusedly! There is Soul, there is Self and there is OVERSOUL, to use three separative terms! I understand the latter as GOD, THE ONE SOLE SOUL SOURCE! Soul is a somewhat more individualized fragment of that which many consider as my atmaan, your atmaan etc, that too never dies but carries impressions gathered from birth to birth. And there is the SELF which is a more tangible portion of the individualized soul, and the sense of *I* which is probably the very last or distant thing captured in a horoscope. It is in the context of that I-self that we (or I was) were discussing the 'soul' as utilized by Krishna ji and which I believe, atmakarak represents. In fact, growingly, my understanding is crystallizing that chara karakas are not about people (physical and in flesh) like father, mother, children, colleagues and advisors, spouse, etc etc though named so, but the mental-psychological-?? attributes thereof. I am not yet able to describe exactly those but the words used by me are close to my concepts and conceptualizations of chara karakas at this time!

Regards,

Rohiniranjan

[Rohiniranjan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


The notion of ~ super soul~ suggests there is something that is sub-super. And the ~ super soul~ as a group suggests there are 'parts' that come together that form a group.

While these ideas may be fine to convey some point it does not suggest how the infinite is portrayed by the wise i.e. that of wholeness , and hence no sub or no parts.

And the notion of nārāyaṇa. The answer to your question comes from dissecting nārāyaṇa : nāra + āyaṇa (or ayana )
-or- nā +ra (from rā ) +ayaṇa.

iti śivaṁ

Then again, Yajvan ji, in all fairness, how can the INFINITE be captured in finite words and terms? And yet, all of us can when we completely silence our minds and rid it from all hooks and tangles and 'businesses' etc, we all do sense glimpses of that INFINITE! Do we not?

How can the fleeting perceptions which are for the individual extremely powerful and convincing reality be EVER translated into finite words? Perception can either be transferred by shaktipat that a Guru can, or it can be perceived subjectively, personally and individually but difficult to transfer to another through finite words ALONE! I think we are trekking very close to that realm where the inexplicable is visible but indescribable in *finite words*!

Love, Light and Reality,

Rohiniranjan

[Rohiniranjan]

Oh dear, I seem to have unwittingly found the keyboard shortcut for posting on the go ...

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

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

in all fairness, how can the INFINITE be captured in finite words and terms?

What you say is no doubt correct... The Supreme is niṣkalaṅka - stainless; without blemish ; yet we come to grips with the notion that paramaśiva is uccārarahitaṁ vastu; It is the Reality (vastu) deprived (rahitam) of pronunciation (ucāra). In short, It cannot be described through words.

iti śivaṁ

[KrishnaTVM]

Om Tat Sat,
Thank you all for your guidance....

RR Ji - I accept your notion of treating Atmakaraka andVenus. I've seen lot of enlightened souls have Venus in Meena Rasi. One commonexample is Kanchi Sankaracharya ( Swami Chandrasekara Saraswathy).
Yajvan Ji - I see a bit of contradiction in your comments.(May be my ignorance). How come Passionless Atamakaraka can indicate the Soul'spassion?

Mana Ji - I think you are referring to basics of HinduReligion ( Dvaitha, Advaitha & Vishitadvaitha). As per these concepts soul& Super Soul can be one and the same, entirely different & relativelysame.

Thanks
Krishna

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

By super soul I wish to express the ātman as an entity out side of our perception of I, perhaps supra soul would have been better, with larger limits and upon larger timescales than that of any perception of singularity that might appear to the self as me, a function of kāla tattva and puruṣa; The form in and of which we are reborn.

Let me add just a bit more to this notion. I do this to crack some the concepts that we have established - it is not to find fault.

If one calls it super or supra so be it, because it does not matter.

• One needs to know ātman is not an entity . If it were then it would have some dimension to it; if it has a dimension then it is limited in some way. Even if you said it is the same size as our galaxy or it has been around since the big bang. From a human proportion that seems really big. But from the stand point of the Supreme it is mere child's play.
• "with larger limits and upon larger timescales than that of any perception of singularity that might appear to the self as me"
  It is without limits.
• "out side of our perception of I" - yes, because the Supreme is the raw materials of perception - pure awareness. Yet without it there would be no wake, dream or sleep consciousness.
• "The form in and of which we are reborn" - yes, some call this twice born. But here is the pickle - we are this already. We are not apart from it. Reality surrounds (within and without) every particle of every being of every thing. Some call all this nothing more then compressed consciousness ( pure Being taking shape); and who does the compressing ? None other then Being itself, as it is aware of Itself ( spanda principle of ~vibration~).
  When the Infinite vibrates creation arises.

So what can you say about Infinite Being ? It is avācya - unspeakable ( or by definition of this word, not distinctly expressed ).

Yet that said, if you are talking ~individual~ , it has come to pass that people use the word jīva. It means 'living, alive', but over time has come to connote the individual soul. I am not fond of this because IMHO it mis-represents the underlying truth of wholeness, fullness or pūrṇapātrapratibhaṭa ( fullness or a full vessel i.e. overflowing , supreme).

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

iti śivaṁ

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

Yajvan Ji - I see a bit of contradiction in your comments.(May be my ignorance). How come Passionless Atamakaraka can indicate the Soul's passion?

I have never offered that the soul has passion... this would be a limitation and the Supreme is without limits. This Supreme in you has come to be known as ātman¹ . Passion is a thing of the ego, of the notion of 'me', of limits, and constraints.

iti śivaṁ

1. From where do I get my support ? The aitareya upaniṣad.
1st śloka
auṁ ātmā va idam eka cuā gra āsti |
nāyat kiñ cana miṣat |
sa aikṣata lokān nu sṛjā iti ||

auṁ, ātmā alone was the one that existed (here) in the beginning...

• The ṛṣi of the aitareya upaniṣad is aitareya mahīdāsa. Aitareya mahīdāsa is also called out in the chandogya upaniṣad saying he lived to 116 years of age.
  • It is said he was the incarnation of viṣṇu. He is known as aitareya mahīdāsa. Aitareya means the descendent of itarā his mother, and mahīdāsa is the servent (dāsa) of mahī or bhūmi devī. It is he aitareya mahīdāsa, that has brought the wisdom of the aitareya brāhmaṇa , aitareya āraṇyaka, and the aitareya upaniṣad to mankind

[Rohiniranjan]

...
Yet that said, if you are talking ~individual~ , it has come to pass that people use the word jīva. It means 'living, alive', but over time has come to connote the individual soul. I am not fond of this because IMHO it mis-represents the underlying truth of wholeness, fullness or pūrṇapātrapratibhaṭa ( fullness or a full vessel i.e. overflowing , supreme).

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

iti śivaṁ

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.

Regards,

Rohiniranjan

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


This was offered in post 17 above....

The ṛṣi of the aitareya upaniṣad is aitareya mahīdāsa. Aitareya mahīdāsa is also called out in the chandogya upaniṣad saying he lived to 116 years of age.

I thought to take the liberty and 'connect the dots' on this 116 year time frame offered. This post will review it:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2839

It is offered as a value add, as I find no number offered within our upaniṣad-s without significance.

iti śivaṁ