did 'people' on this thread ask for it?

anyways, those interested in what Satyacharya said in Satyajatakam re. use of lagna and chandra lagna - can refer to atleast Chapter1, sloka 12 for why both lagna and Mo-lagna have to be considered.

I would like to add from observation, that, people seldom "want" to look at things from 'souls's perspective' (surya lagna) - body (lagna) and mind (chandra-lagna) are more 'into this world' - so people usually end up or feel it's sufficient to see a chart wrt lagna and chandra-lagna (or whichever stronger) - most omit surya-lagna for that matter. For reading any house signifactions, we would see it atleast from the perspective of physical self and mind - that is what Satyacharya propounds - and we all know, that, mind and body are closely connected - both have their influence and are influenced in/by our daily to lifetime affairs.

Can anyone advise why Satyacharya missed out surya lagna, while Parashara indicated the how and why to use Sudarshana Chakra and what was his response when Maitreya questioned him on use of only lagna in rasi chart ...aaaw! common!!  

Maybe someone can say Satyacharya-ji was more "down to earth" than Parashar-ji.  

i am stuck with the 'soul' trailing 'astro'!



Hence, it is important to study the sudarshana chakra!

But you forgot to remind people of what Satyacharya advised in Satya Jatakam! What could that possibly be?[/quote][/quote][/quote]

[quote="astrosoul"] did 'people' on this thread ask for it?

anyways, those interested in what Satyacharya said in Satyajatakam re. use of lagna and chandra lagna - can refer to atleast Chapter1, sloka 12 for why both lagna and Mo-lagna have to be considered.

I would like to add from observation, that, people seldom "want" to look at things from 'souls's perspective' (surya lagna) - body (lagna) and mind (chandra-lagna) are more 'into this world' - so people usually end up or feel it's sufficient to see a chart wrt lagna and chandra-lagna (or whichever stronger) - most omit surya-lagna for that matter. For reading any house signifactions, we would see it atleast from the perspective of physical self and mind - that is what Satyacharya propounds - and we all know, that, mind and body are closely connected - both have their influence and are influenced in/by our daily to lifetime affairs.

Can anyone advise why Satyacharya missed out surya lagna, while Parashara indicated the how and why to use Sudarshana Chakra and what was his response when Maitreya questioned him on use of only lagna in rasi chart ...aaaw! common!!  

Maybe someone can say Satyacharya-ji was more "down to earth" than Parashar-ji.  

i am stuck with the 'soul' trailing 'astro'!

[quote="rohiniranjan"][/quote]

Hence, it is important to study the sudarshana chakra!

But you forgot to remind people of what Satyacharya advised in Satya Jatakam! What could that possibly be?[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

Interesting points AS!
Also someone should find out why Varahamihir used the lunar nodes in this treatise on mundane astrology but totally ignored them in his book on natal horoscopy.

If sun-oriented chart could simplistically indicate the 'soul's perspective' then there would be no need for other indicators of same, such as atmakaraka for starters.

The mind and body house the soul until moksha is attained - Sun also signifies Inner Self and Ego (most consider ego as synonymous with Inner self and inner self as synonymous with Soul until the fine line b/w the 2 is seen) - but perhaps someone can tell us why atmakaraka is used in mundane charts, , meanwhile pondering on the difference between chara, sthira and naisargika karakas    

Perhaps we can start a new thread on that one or the moderator will have to throw us out for digressing the topic  

[quote="astrosoul"]The mind and body house the soul until moksha is attained - Sun also signifies Inner Self and Ego (most consider ego as synonymous with Inner self and inner self as synonymous with Soul until the fine line b/w the 2 is seen) - but perhaps someone can tell us why atmakaraka is used in mundane charts, , meanwhile pondering on the difference between chara, sthira and naisargika karakas    

Perhaps we can start a new thread on that one or the moderator will have to throw us out for digressing the topic  
[/quote]


I do not believe there is any evidence of the mind and body 'housing' the soul, AS. In fact there is no evidence that the 'mind' exists within the body either! The two are connected but not in the same space. It is like the song coming out of your radio is emanating from a distant reality (radio station). The song (mind) does not live in the radio (body).

The concept of soul is even more ambiguous and though treated as a 'separate' entity in classic literature attributed to presumably Higher Minds from past may just be a way of explaining simply a rather complex phenomenon.

When we use these astrological correlates such as sun for soul (or whatever) it is best to do so with the realization that there is no way of proving or testing the correlation. Not everything about the mind is encapsulated in the moon and not everything about the body is captured by studying lagna.

As was mentioned by some members earlier, there is a lot of experimental and novel thinking going into jyotish and newer models being created or older models being revealed etc. The very necessity for so many models and nuances tell me that it is best not to oversimplify and put too much attributional responsibility on one or even three astrological indicators.

for that matter, everything is an Illusion - Maya.
Paramatman is all that there Is, our bodies, minds and everything else are just tiny -- whatever_s. Under influence of Maya we refer to each other as your mind my mind - your body my body - your soul my soul - when The Creation is Essentially ONE.
Proof of anything lies only in it's Realization - no-one can explain to the other what an apple tastes like - despite giving the best of explainations and logic - or even prove that there is any taste to it. Whatever we would say re. the taste of the apple would just be 'another explaination' - not 'the experience of the taste' that we would be ever able to give the other. At best it may incite the other to take a bite.