Vic..your explanation of how all good and bad originated from Vishnu and the autonomous nature of living beings are simply out of the world to say the least...Parisa's highly intelligent questions make these weekly sessions very interesting indeed...many thanks
This is the Advaita philosophy of Ramanuja. The 'non-duality' or' oneness'. Evil is the other side of good. Good derives its meaning form evil and vice versa. They are coexistent. This concept is well explained through the character of Larry in Somerset Maugham's "Razor's Edge". It is the semi autobiographical depiction of the author's meeting with Ramana Maharishi of Thiruvannamalai.
I loved the way you described the light and darkness as a manifestation of his divine oneness into our world of duality. And that also explains the nature of Rahu and Ketu as the absence of light and shadowy manifestation which even with malefic in nature can bring benefit results and in this regard could it be more accurate to consider Saturn and Mars benefit in nature which tends to give malefic results? Maybe Saturn because of his limiting rings and Mars for his painful scars?
Great video. So evil is the absence and/or the opposite side of goodness - exemplified in the analogy between light and darkness (those who're on the other side of light are essentially facing darkness). But isn't Vishnu all-pervading? How can He not manifest even where there is darkness? Does He leave that space alone if we choose to exercise autonomy (asking this because He does uplift us from darkness)?
Yes. Vishnu is the light and the darkness. The darkness is a manifestation of Viṣṇu that is not yet completed. It is still figuring out its way to function best.
It is interesting you take the description of Zodiac and Nakshatra as backing up your thesis for Tropical Zodiac. However It is clear BPHS is talking about Planet moving against stars here. The fact that you can split up that same section in two different ways in no way implies that they are using a tropical zodiac and takes a leap of faith to assume he means this as he gives absolutely no reference to anything else here like seasons, solstice, tropical placements,etc.etc. It is not logical. Further on in shad bala he clearly tells the reader to take ayanamsha to the planets to get tropical positions for calculations, implying they are starting with sidereal positions for the text.
Certainly the planets move against the stars, as well as against the signs. I agree that this section does not directly imply tropical rashi. SS 7.14 and so many other reference explicitly do, however. Please see vicdicara.com/tropical
No this section does not imply tropical rashi, though that is what you say in the video when it in fact more implies sidereal rashi for what is actually discussed here. And please explain how you ignore that Parashara clearly details using sidereal zodiac in shad bala section? You do not really reference astrological literature in most of your evidences.
Seriously sir. You need to deal with these statement, otherwise you are just picking and choosing your evidence. Please tell why you ignore these statements of Parashara.
What have I not already addressed in the extensive explanations I have given here vicdicara.com/tropical - you are free do consider me ignorant if you like.
You claim on the web page that an argument for using tropical is that shad bala cant be calcualted without tropical. However BPHS clearly says to use ayanamsha to even get to the tropical placement for this calculation. So he was aware of the difference and this is only place he is using tropical in his text, hence the conversion. How do you ignore this or explain it away? Hopefully this is simple enough for you to understand now.
भचक्रस्य नगश्व्यंशा अश्विन्यादिसमाह्वयाः - this portion of the verse 4 from chapter 3 intrigues me... नगश्व्यंशा = नग् (not moving??) + अश्व्यंशा (portions of aswini etc. nakshatras).. some emphasis is being put on them not being movable?
Seriously sir, how come you will not explain why you choose to ignore that BPHS clearly is using sidereal zodiac if we look at shad bala calculations? In fact you use it to say tropical zodiac is being used when the text is clear otherwise! Please explain.
First please establish your claim that BPHS "uses the sidereal zodiac." Please begin by defining what you mean by "uses the sidereal zodiac" and then proceed to present the evidence and reasoning establishing your point.
For ayana bala, which is based on tropical zodiac, BPHS tells us to use ayanamsha in order to find out the tropical position. This means that they are starting from sidereal positions of the planets in the text, otherwise there is no reason to state this fact.
Still waiting over here. You've been sidestepping this for a week now. Perhaps trying to dream up some way to pretend like these statements don't exist or we can just ignore them?
I see that you only answer or engage in things that you can warp others brains around with your Sanskrit background and half baked astrological knowledge. RUclips is a good place for this.
Brilliant.Every time you do these Q&A's you both shed more light for us! Thankyou Vic and Parisa.
My favorite video yet. Please do more of these! Truly invaluable. Thank you!
Vic..your explanation of how all good and bad originated from Vishnu and the autonomous nature of living beings are simply out of the world to say the least...Parisa's highly intelligent questions make these weekly sessions very interesting indeed...many thanks
This is the Advaita philosophy of Ramanuja. The 'non-duality' or' oneness'. Evil is the other side of good. Good derives its meaning form evil and vice versa. They are coexistent. This concept is well explained through the character of Larry in Somerset Maugham's "Razor's Edge". It is the semi autobiographical depiction of the author's meeting with Ramana Maharishi of Thiruvannamalai.
I loved the way you described the light and darkness as a manifestation of his divine oneness into our world of duality. And that also explains the nature of Rahu and Ketu as the absence of light and shadowy manifestation which even with malefic in nature can bring benefit results and in this regard could it be more accurate to consider Saturn and Mars benefit in nature which tends to give malefic results? Maybe Saturn because of his limiting rings and Mars for his painful scars?
Great video. So evil is the absence and/or the opposite side of goodness - exemplified in the analogy between light and darkness (those who're on the other side of light are essentially facing darkness).
But isn't Vishnu all-pervading? How can He not manifest even where there is darkness? Does He leave that space alone if we choose to exercise autonomy (asking this because He does uplift us from darkness)?
Yes. Vishnu is the light and the darkness. The darkness is a manifestation of Viṣṇu that is not yet completed. It is still figuring out its way to function best.
Thank you.
Energy is all pervading
But still we have darkness despite having energy because wavelength isn't right
Great questions ......compelling answers
It is interesting you take the description of Zodiac and Nakshatra as backing up your thesis for Tropical Zodiac. However It is clear BPHS is talking about Planet moving against stars here. The fact that you can split up that same section in two different ways in no way implies that they are using a tropical zodiac and takes a leap of faith to assume he means this as he gives absolutely no reference to anything else here like seasons, solstice, tropical placements,etc.etc. It is not logical. Further on in shad bala he clearly tells the reader to take ayanamsha to the planets to get tropical positions for calculations, implying they are starting with sidereal positions for the text.
Certainly the planets move against the stars, as well as against the signs. I agree that this section does not directly imply tropical rashi. SS 7.14 and so many other reference explicitly do, however. Please see vicdicara.com/tropical
No this section does not imply tropical rashi, though that is what you say in the video when it in fact more implies sidereal rashi for what is actually discussed here. And please explain how you ignore that Parashara clearly details using sidereal zodiac in shad bala section? You do not really reference astrological literature in most of your evidences.
Seriously sir. You need to deal with these statement, otherwise you are just picking and choosing your evidence. Please tell why you ignore these statements of Parashara.
What have I not already addressed in the extensive explanations I have given here vicdicara.com/tropical - you are free do consider me ignorant if you like.
You claim on the web page that an argument for using tropical is that shad bala cant be calcualted without tropical. However BPHS clearly says to use ayanamsha to even get to the tropical placement for this calculation. So he was aware of the difference and this is only place he is using tropical in his text, hence the conversion. How do you ignore this or explain it away? Hopefully this is simple enough for you to understand now.
भचक्रस्य नगश्व्यंशा अश्विन्यादिसमाह्वयाः - this portion of the verse 4 from chapter 3 intrigues me... नगश्व्यंशा = नग् (not moving??) + अश्व्यंशा (portions of aswini etc. nakshatras).. some emphasis is being put on them not being movable?
it is very simple. the dots of light that move are the planets. the dots of light that don't move are the constellations (nakshatras).
Seriously sir, how come you will not explain why you choose to ignore that BPHS clearly is using sidereal zodiac if we look at shad bala calculations? In fact you use it to say tropical zodiac is being used when the text is clear otherwise! Please explain.
First please establish your claim that BPHS "uses the sidereal zodiac." Please begin by defining what you mean by "uses the sidereal zodiac" and then proceed to present the evidence and reasoning establishing your point.
For ayana bala, which is based on tropical zodiac, BPHS tells us to use ayanamsha in order to find out the tropical position. This means that they are starting from sidereal positions of the planets in the text, otherwise there is no reason to state this fact.
Still waiting over here. You've been sidestepping this for a week now. Perhaps trying to dream up some way to pretend like these statements don't exist or we can just ignore them?
I see that you only answer or engage in things that you can warp others brains around with your Sanskrit background and half baked astrological knowledge. RUclips is a good place for this.