जब भी कोई व्यक्ति बहुत परेशानियों में घिर जाता है (चाहे उस परेशानी का कारण कुछ भी हो) तब ज्योतिषी, जन्मकुंडली के आधार पर सबसे पहले यह जानने का प्रयास करते हैं कि
27 नक्षत्रों के 27 वृक्ष (नक्षत्र राशि तथा ग्रह के लिए निर्धारित पेड़ पौधे)
जिस प्रकार प्रत्येक ग्रह और राशियों के अपने-अपने वृक्ष होते हैं ठीक बैसे ही प्रत्येक नक्षत्र के भी अपने वृक्ष होते हैं। अपने वृक्ष होने का अर्थ है जो उस ग्रह या नक्षत्रों के प्रतिनिधि हों।
#Thread
जब भी कोई व्यक्ति बहुत परेशानियों में घिर जाता है (चाहे उस परेशानी का कारण कुछ भी हो) तब ज्योतिषी, जन्मकुंडली के आधार पर सबसे पहले यह जानने का प्रयास करते हैं कि
पुनः उस ग्रह अथवा राशि के कारकत्व को आधार बनाकर जातक के परेशानी को दूर करता है। उन कारकतत्व में पेड़-पौधे भी आते है। जन्म कुंडली में बुरे ग्रहो के प्रभाव को कम करने के लिए तथा शुभ ग्रहो के शुभत्त्व को बढ़ाने के लिए
More from Vशुद्धि
More from All
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".