Crystalpages
Well-known member
Dada,
Ah! That sounds good, about theorizing and even changing concepts if need be., and that we shouldn't remain stuck in our self created prison like the frog.
Yes. Creation and Destruction is momentary (sometimes 'true' may sound 'dirty'), like Brahma & Maheswar are; while sustenance is more visual and permeating during the lifetime, and we have Vishnu Avatar Krishna writing Gita regarding the way & why we should sustain the lifetime.
I am not aware of the reasoning given by the Sanjay Rath School on the guna equation with karaks, and anyways, I do leave the option open that gunas may or may not be married to karaks in reality.
Charakarakas are movable karaks, which show how the less fixed like naisargika & shtira karaks prosper/sustain/'move from birth to death' during the natives lifetime (rather the final equation/relation between the karak and the self).
Thus I find this to be the logical clarity. Of course, any logic may be incorrect as a better logic can exist.
Now, about/between the sthira & Naisargik karaks, I am not sure.....
Rishi
Rishi,
I for one am not allergic to theorizing etc, because without that as the basis, no practical and no practice ;-)
I am not sufficiently aware of the reasoning accepted in Sanjay's school or any other schools for that matter, other than a bit of what is in public domain.
Without waxing profoundly philosophical, my interpretation of the three categories is much simpler and does not involve invoking Gods who have more important things to deal with as opposed to jyotish, namely, how to preserve humanity from self-destruction and destroying one another! :-(
The categories so named (Naisargika, Sthira, Chara) are perhaps just related to their utilization in horoscopy. Naisargika karakas apply uniformly to all nativities in the same manner and hence are more global; Chara karakas are more individually applicable and hence are nativity specific; Sthira are mixed and are uniform for different charts but with certain variabilities specified (in the method of determination). With poetical-philosophical license, one may think of those somewhat akin to Fixed:Movable:Mutable categories. Extrapolating that to rashis, gunas, tattwas would be somewhat of a 'stretch', no matter how 'be-FIT-ting' it may sound or made to sound and some may even see logic in such extrapolations!
Not against stretching of thinking or imagination, of course but each leap thereof must not be taken to indicate some kind of a paradigm-shift! With or without having to drag in Gods or religious analogies. It is like erecting an edifice of belief on the foundation which is another belief on another and so forth. Such to me sounds anything but logic-based and obfuscates the very basis of logic.
Regards,
Rohiniranjan