Tropical on one hand, sidereal on the other

[Guest guest]

To even a casual observer, it would become very obvious that tropical

astrologers going all the way back to Alan Leo, one of the pioneers

in tropical astrology and who injected a lot of energy into that

discipline and many after him have focused a lot on the value of

aspects and houses (bhavas). Many different house division systems

have been created and tested and even prescribed for different

situations. They remind me of the conditional dashas of jyotish. Or

the use of vargas, for different but often specific purposes, for

instance. It is like being in a house surrounded by the same total

reality, but one window allows one to see the playing children, the

other offers a view of one's beloved, a third allows one to view

one's work (this happens to be a computer screen) and yet another

allowing one to tap into memories of how one was raised -- one's

parents [looks like a family album and a collection of letters from

one's parents] and there is the board of achievements where one's

strengths were displayed -- enough of this -- you get the picture!

 

As we jyotishis have been taken by and enamoured and even enslaved by

this wonderfully elusive ayanamsha -- how come we have not been

equally taken by bhavas while our tropical/western brethren have been?

 

Now mind you, this seems obvious to me but may not to others who have

really thought deeply about the matter and even tested some theories

and burnt the proverbial midnight oil longer than I have on this

topic, so please do not attack me if you find my idea unacceptable!

The idea is not me and I am not just this idea!

 

The jyotish zodiac is about celestial constellations, the star

clusters as your see them up and above, the what you see is what you

get zodiac -- if the glowing embers of mars planet are streaking

across the 'scorpion formation' in the sky, mars is in vrischika! We

can quibble about boundaries and exact thresholds but it is difficult

to call that mangal graha as being in sagittarius when it is in

vrishchika as we see it when we look up! The jyotish zodiac is

therefore up in the sky, for all to see, give or take a few degrees.

 

The tropical zodiac starts with the first point of aries that hails

the onset of spring! The vernal equinox!! Yes, there would be a bit

of quibbling there too in terms of the exact day of the equinox which

is not what the weather channel girl reminds us each year, but the

point is: the tropical zodiac used by tropical/western astrologers is

earth-bound, season-bound and therefore an entirely different

orientation!

 

The houses and bhavas are earthbound! Depending on where one is,

latitudes and so on, the shape and sizes of the bhavas and houses

will vary! The higher one goes, the bhavas will vary to a large

extent. It makes sense because the zodiac is earth-bound! The earth

and where it is at, and where one is on the earth is linked tightly

to the tropical zodiac and so one cannot ignore the houses, the

bhavas.

 

The sidereal zodiac is up in the heavens, regardless of where you are

on the earth, the heavens are far enough to not change! In that

celestial framework, the bhavas, one would think are the rashis,

hence the whole sign system seems to work for jyotishis.

 

The binding limitations seem to be that we are allowed 12 slices, 12

compartments to divide our entire human experience into. Now that may

not be the right axiom to follow, but that is all we have got and

that is all we are going to use for now! Depending on whether you are

using the western or the eastern framework, the PIZZA comes in many

different flavours and combinations. The only limitation is that

there are 12 slices to each pizza!

 

I am not saying that it is the only verity! I am also not saying that

there may not be many in this jyotish universe who might have

actually proof that my postulate is wrong.

 

The keyboard is now yours!

 

RR

[Guest guest]

I am but a novice on the keyboard

Prefer the pen but time controls me

as it controls zodiacs and pizzas

the path zigzagging ne'er straight

many a turns and many a tosses

a maze of veritable verities and

no guide to push me strongly

here I float and duck and look

at the time which controls me....

 

Many roads,Sir, many a twists in the tale but you give the answer

yourself, the proof of the pudding is in eating or something

rishi

 

 

 

-- In , "crystal pages"

<jyotish_vani wrote:

>

> To even a casual observer, it would become very obvious that

tropical

> astrologers going all the way back to Alan Leo, one of the pioneers

> in tropical astrology and who injected a lot of energy into that

> discipline and many after him have focused a lot on the value of

> aspects and houses (bhavas). Many different house division systems

> have been created and tested and even prescribed for different

> situations. They remind me of the conditional dashas of jyotish. Or

> the use of vargas, for different but often specific purposes, for

> instance. It is like being in a house surrounded by the same total

> reality, but one window allows one to see the playing children, the

> other offers a view of one's beloved, a third allows one to view

> one's work (this happens to be a computer screen) and yet another

> allowing one to tap into memories of how one was raised -- one's

> parents [looks like a family album and a collection of letters from

> one's parents] and there is the board of achievements where one's

> strengths were displayed -- enough of this -- you get the picture!

>

> As we jyotishis have been taken by and enamoured and even enslaved

by

> this wonderfully elusive ayanamsha -- how come we have not been

> equally taken by bhavas while our tropical/western brethren have

been?

>

> Now mind you, this seems obvious to me but may not to others who

have

> really thought deeply about the matter and even tested some

theories

> and burnt the proverbial midnight oil longer than I have on this

> topic, so please do not attack me if you find my idea unacceptable!

> The idea is not me and I am not just this idea!

>

> The jyotish zodiac is about celestial constellations, the star

> clusters as your see them up and above, the what you see is what

you

> get zodiac -- if the glowing embers of mars planet are streaking

> across the 'scorpion formation' in the sky, mars is in vrischika!

We

> can quibble about boundaries and exact thresholds but it is

difficult

> to call that mangal graha as being in sagittarius when it is in

> vrishchika as we see it when we look up! The jyotish zodiac is

> therefore up in the sky, for all to see, give or take a few degrees.

>

> The tropical zodiac starts with the first point of aries that hails

> the onset of spring! The vernal equinox!! Yes, there would be a bit

> of quibbling there too in terms of the exact day of the equinox

which

> is not what the weather channel girl reminds us each year, but the

> point is: the tropical zodiac used by tropical/western astrologers

is

> earth-bound, season-bound and therefore an entirely different

> orientation!

>

> The houses and bhavas are earthbound! Depending on where one is,

> latitudes and so on, the shape and sizes of the bhavas and houses

> will vary! The higher one goes, the bhavas will vary to a large

> extent. It makes sense because the zodiac is earth-bound! The earth

> and where it is at, and where one is on the earth is linked tightly

> to the tropical zodiac and so one cannot ignore the houses, the

> bhavas.

>

> The sidereal zodiac is up in the heavens, regardless of where you

are

> on the earth, the heavens are far enough to not change! In that

> celestial framework, the bhavas, one would think are the rashis,

> hence the whole sign system seems to work for jyotishis.

>

> The binding limitations seem to be that we are allowed 12 slices,

12

> compartments to divide our entire human experience into. Now that

may

> not be the right axiom to follow, but that is all we have got and

> that is all we are going to use for now! Depending on whether you

are

> using the western or the eastern framework, the PIZZA comes in many

> different flavours and combinations. The only limitation is that

> there are 12 slices to each pizza!

>

> I am not saying that it is the only verity! I am also not saying

that

> there may not be many in this jyotish universe who might have

> actually proof that my postulate is wrong.

>

> The keyboard is now yours!

>

> RR

>

[Guest guest]

Not me, Rishi, those words come from no one lesser than Late Prof.

B.V. Raman. Perhaps they go back even further back than him but it is

the content and not the source that matters in this context!

 

RR

 

, "rishi_2000in"

<rishi_2000in wrote:

>

>

> I am but a novice on the keyboard

> Prefer the pen but time controls me

> as it controls zodiacs and pizzas

> the path zigzagging ne'er straight

> many a turns and many a tosses

> a maze of veritable verities and

> no guide to push me strongly

> here I float and duck and look

> at the time which controls me....

>

> Many roads,Sir, many a twists in the tale but you give the answer

> yourself, the proof of the pudding is in eating or something

> rishi

>

>

>

> -- In , "crystal pages"

> <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> >

> > To even a casual observer, it would become very obvious that

> tropical

> > astrologers going all the way back to Alan Leo, one of the

pioneers

> > in tropical astrology and who injected a lot of energy into that

> > discipline and many after him have focused a lot on the value of

> > aspects and houses (bhavas). Many different house division

systems

> > have been created and tested and even prescribed for different

> > situations. They remind me of the conditional dashas of jyotish.

Or

> > the use of vargas, for different but often specific purposes, for

> > instance. It is like being in a house surrounded by the same

total

> > reality, but one window allows one to see the playing children,

the

> > other offers a view of one's beloved, a third allows one to view

> > one's work (this happens to be a computer screen) and yet another

> > allowing one to tap into memories of how one was raised -- one's

> > parents [looks like a family album and a collection of letters

from

> > one's parents] and there is the board of achievements where one's

> > strengths were displayed -- enough of this -- you get the picture!

> >

> > As we jyotishis have been taken by and enamoured and even

enslaved

> by

> > this wonderfully elusive ayanamsha -- how come we have not been

> > equally taken by bhavas while our tropical/western brethren have

> been?

> >

> > Now mind you, this seems obvious to me but may not to others who

> have

> > really thought deeply about the matter and even tested some

> theories

> > and burnt the proverbial midnight oil longer than I have on this

> > topic, so please do not attack me if you find my idea

unacceptable!

> > The idea is not me and I am not just this idea!

> >

> > The jyotish zodiac is about celestial constellations, the star

> > clusters as your see them up and above, the what you see is what

> you

> > get zodiac -- if the glowing embers of mars planet are streaking

> > across the 'scorpion formation' in the sky, mars is in vrischika!

> We

> > can quibble about boundaries and exact thresholds but it is

> difficult

> > to call that mangal graha as being in sagittarius when it is in

> > vrishchika as we see it when we look up! The jyotish zodiac is

> > therefore up in the sky, for all to see, give or take a few

degrees.

> >

> > The tropical zodiac starts with the first point of aries that

hails

> > the onset of spring! The vernal equinox!! Yes, there would be a

bit

> > of quibbling there too in terms of the exact day of the equinox

> which

> > is not what the weather channel girl reminds us each year, but

the

> > point is: the tropical zodiac used by tropical/western

astrologers

> is

> > earth-bound, season-bound and therefore an entirely different

> > orientation!

> >

> > The houses and bhavas are earthbound! Depending on where one is,

> > latitudes and so on, the shape and sizes of the bhavas and houses

> > will vary! The higher one goes, the bhavas will vary to a large

> > extent. It makes sense because the zodiac is earth-bound! The

earth

> > and where it is at, and where one is on the earth is linked

tightly

> > to the tropical zodiac and so one cannot ignore the houses, the

> > bhavas.

> >

> > The sidereal zodiac is up in the heavens, regardless of where you

> are

> > on the earth, the heavens are far enough to not change! In that

> > celestial framework, the bhavas, one would think are the rashis,

> > hence the whole sign system seems to work for jyotishis.

> >

> > The binding limitations seem to be that we are allowed 12 slices,

> 12

> > compartments to divide our entire human experience into. Now that

> may

> > not be the right axiom to follow, but that is all we have got and

> > that is all we are going to use for now! Depending on whether you

> are

> > using the western or the eastern framework, the PIZZA comes in

many

> > different flavours and combinations. The only limitation is that

> > there are 12 slices to each pizza!

> >

> > I am not saying that it is the only verity! I am also not saying

> that

> > there may not be many in this jyotish universe who might have

> > actually proof that my postulate is wrong.

> >

> > The keyboard is now yours!

> >

> > RR

> >

>

[Guest guest]

RRji,

An article in todays newspaper for your perusal, it has some

relevance to what we are discussing. Written by Jug Suraiya, a

popular columnist out here who is more renowned for his humor.

 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1494959.cms

 

" Is the paper that you are reading really a paper — or

any 'thing' at all — or is it merely the 'appearance' of a paper?

Further, are 'you' really you, or just another 'appearance'? Such

questions could be put to you not by an other-worldly spiritual

seer, but by a very matter-of-fact scientist.

 

Indeed, scientists are increasingly asking whether 'matter'

or 'facts' actually exist in and of themselves. Investigations of

the subatomic world have shown that what we in the everyday world

take to be tangible matter — this newspaper, your hand holding it —

is largely composed of emptiness.

 

All material things — a flea, an elephant, an ice-cream cone, Mt

Everest — are made not of discrete particles — like tiny bricks —

but of 'events' which slip in and out of existence and are

inseparable from our consciousness of them.

 

One way of looking at it is that they 'exist' because we perceive

them to exist. Contrarywise, do 'we' really exist other than by and

through our act of perception?

 

So if all matter is illusion, or at heart insubstantial, why is it

that your hand does not go straight through the appearance of the

paper you're reading? Or, conversely, why doesn't the paper go

through the appearance of your hand?

 

The scientist would say that is because though matter is

insubstantial (not made up of any finally irreducible substance) it

is held together by interwoven force fields, or 'relationships'

between the 'events', that make up the unfolding narrative of the

universe.

 

This is beginning to sound not like physics but metaphysics,

specifically Buddhist metaphysics that talks about samskara, the

world of appearance or phenomena, of which we are an inextricable

part, and which is based on the principle of total interdependence.

....(This paper is a paper because you are a reader, and you are a

reader because it is a paper.) The interdependence of all phenomena

is the under-pinning of the Buddhist concept of universal

compassion.

 

If all phenomena — a grain of sand, a galaxy, Salman Khan, a

blackbuck — are part and parcel of the same shimmering interplay of

appearance, it is not so much 'morally' wrong to seek to harm

another entity as just plain illogical because what you are trying

to harm is only a reflection of you, and vice versa.

 

A seer might call it the interdependence of all phenomena. A

scientist might term it as Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty, by

which through seeking to discover we change what is sought to be

discovered.

 

A poet, who deals in metaphors, might describe it as inter-

penetrative consciousness. A metaphor is a way of inter-relating two

apparently dissimilar phenomena. 'Shall I compare thee to a summer's

day?'

 

A metaphor is a bridge, a force field, which links together two or

more seemingly disparate phenomena: one's beloved and the warmth and

splendour of sunlight.

 

The poet's job is to reveal such linkages, which is why Octavio Paz

described a poem as a cosmos complete in itself, as 'real' as the

universe 'out there'. So is this paper that you are reading,

really 'real' or 'really' just an appearance?

 

A scientist, a seer and a poet might give three separate answers,

which are but one. Just as are the poet, the seer and the scientist.

And this paper, and you."

[Guest guest]

Interesting read ...

 

If you ask me I would say everything is real, only the perception of what/how

it is is unreal ... universe by itself is both random and planned ... random in

the sense that everything that happens is only an emergent phenomenon that we

percieve and planned in the sense that there was a primodal purpose to be served

ultimately ...

 

I would say that "universe was a chance ... god played a big gamble"

 

Surya.

 

 

rishi_2000in <rishi_2000in wrote:

RRji,

An article in todays newspaper for your perusal, it has some

relevance to what we are discussing. Written by Jug Suraiya, a

popular columnist out here who is more renowned for his humor.

 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1494959.cms

 

" Is the paper that you are reading really a paper — or

any 'thing' at all — or is it merely the 'appearance' of a paper?

Further, are 'you' really you, or just another 'appearance'? Such

questions could be put to you not by an other-worldly spiritual

seer, but by a very matter-of-fact scientist.

 

Indeed, scientists are increasingly asking whether 'matter'

or 'facts' actually exist in and of themselves. Investigations of

the subatomic world have shown that what we in the everyday world

take to be tangible matter — this newspaper, your hand holding it —

is largely composed of emptiness.

 

All material things — a flea, an elephant, an ice-cream cone, Mt

Everest — are made not of discrete particles — like tiny bricks —

but of 'events' which slip in and out of existence and are

inseparable from our consciousness of them.

 

One way of looking at it is that they 'exist' because we perceive

them to exist. Contrarywise, do 'we' really exist other than by and

through our act of perception?

 

So if all matter is illusion, or at heart insubstantial, why is it

that your hand does not go straight through the appearance of the

paper you're reading? Or, conversely, why doesn't the paper go

through the appearance of your hand?

 

The scientist would say that is because though matter is

insubstantial (not made up of any finally irreducible substance) it

is held together by interwoven force fields, or 'relationships'

between the 'events', that make up the unfolding narrative of the

universe.

 

This is beginning to sound not like physics but metaphysics,

specifically Buddhist metaphysics that talks about samskara, the

world of appearance or phenomena, of which we are an inextricable

part, and which is based on the principle of total interdependence.

....(This paper is a paper because you are a reader, and you are a

reader because it is a paper.) The interdependence of all phenomena

is the under-pinning of the Buddhist concept of universal

compassion.

 

If all phenomena — a grain of sand, a galaxy, Salman Khan, a

blackbuck — are part and parcel of the same shimmering interplay of

appearance, it is not so much 'morally' wrong to seek to harm

another entity as just plain illogical because what you are trying

to harm is only a reflection of you, and vice versa.

 

A seer might call it the interdependence of all phenomena. A

scientist might term it as Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty, by

which through seeking to discover we change what is sought to be

discovered.

 

A poet, who deals in metaphors, might describe it as inter-

penetrative consciousness. A metaphor is a way of inter-relating two

apparently dissimilar phenomena. 'Shall I compare thee to a summer's

day?'

 

A metaphor is a bridge, a force field, which links together two or

more seemingly disparate phenomena: one's beloved and the warmth and

splendour of sunlight.

 

The poet's job is to reveal such linkages, which is why Octavio Paz

described a poem as a cosmos complete in itself, as 'real' as the

universe 'out there'. So is this paper that you are reading,

really 'real' or 'really' just an appearance?

 

A scientist, a seer and a poet might give three separate answers,

which are but one. Just as are the poet, the seer and the scientist.

And this paper, and you."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SURRENDER JOYFULLY TO THE WILL OF THE ULTIMATE DIVINITY AND RELISH THE TASTE OF

ABSOLUTE BLISS.

 

 

 

 

 

Vedic astrology Astrology chart Astrology software Vedic

astrology software

 

 

 

 

Visit your group "" on the web.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min

with Messenger with Voice.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Surya ji,

 

If I may add a comment, I wonder if the random vs planned is not also

a product of perception. What some may perceive as random may to

others who know better, seem planned/destined/organized/based on some

logic!

 

Stuff happens to people and they say, "Why me?". They perceive those

events as random.

 

To the jyotishi, on the other hand, who sees the planetary

correlations that reflect that event astrologically would happen at

that time, the phenomenon is planned/destined and not random!

 

A querent comes and says that another astrologer always indicated

that I have mahapurusha yoga and everything should be hunky dory but

it is not, hence astrology is hogwash (another name for random!). To

another jyotishi who has slightly more time to ponder upon the chart

and no need or urgency to rush to the next client, the mahapurusha

yoga has problems and so again to him it seems planned. What unfolded

in the nativity's life was not random!

 

Randomness reduces as our horizon expands!

 

RR

 

 

, surya vishnu

<surya_prakashvi wrote:

>

> Interesting read ...

>

> If you ask me I would say everything is real, only the perception

of what/how it is is unreal ... universe by itself is both random and

planned ... random in the sense that everything that happens is only

an emergent phenomenon that we percieve and planned in the sense that

there was a primodal purpose to be served ultimately ...

>

> I would say that "universe was a chance ... god played a big

gamble"

>

> Surya.

>

>

> rishi_2000in <rishi_2000in wrote:

> RRji,

> An article in todays newspaper for your perusal, it has some

> relevance to what we are discussing. Written by Jug Suraiya, a

> popular columnist out here who is more renowned for his humor.

>

> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1494959.cms

>

> " Is the paper that you are reading really a paper — or

> any 'thing' at all — or is it merely the 'appearance' of a paper?

> Further, are 'you' really you, or just another 'appearance'? Such

> questions could be put to you not by an other-worldly spiritual

> seer, but by a very matter-of-fact scientist.

>

> Indeed, scientists are increasingly asking whether 'matter'

> or 'facts' actually exist in and of themselves. Investigations of

> the subatomic world have shown that what we in the everyday world

> take to be tangible matter — this newspaper, your hand holding it —

> is largely composed of emptiness.

>

> All material things — a flea, an elephant, an ice-cream cone, Mt

> Everest — are made not of discrete particles — like tiny bricks —

> but of 'events' which slip in and out of existence and are

> inseparable from our consciousness of them.

>

> One way of looking at it is that they 'exist' because we perceive

> them to exist. Contrarywise, do 'we' really exist other than by and

> through our act of perception?

>

> So if all matter is illusion, or at heart insubstantial, why is it

> that your hand does not go straight through the appearance of the

> paper you're reading? Or, conversely, why doesn't the paper go

> through the appearance of your hand?

>

> The scientist would say that is because though matter is

> insubstantial (not made up of any finally irreducible substance) it

> is held together by interwoven force fields, or 'relationships'

> between the 'events', that make up the unfolding narrative of the

> universe.

>

> This is beginning to sound not like physics but metaphysics,

> specifically Buddhist metaphysics that talks about samskara, the

> world of appearance or phenomena, of which we are an inextricable

> part, and which is based on the principle of total interdependence.

> ...(This paper is a paper because you are a reader, and you are a

> reader because it is a paper.) The interdependence of all phenomena

> is the under-pinning of the Buddhist concept of universal

> compassion.

>

> If all phenomena — a grain of sand, a galaxy, Salman Khan, a

> blackbuck — are part and parcel of the same shimmering interplay of

> appearance, it is not so much 'morally' wrong to seek to harm

> another entity as just plain illogical because what you are trying

> to harm is only a reflection of you, and vice versa.

>

> A seer might call it the interdependence of all phenomena. A

> scientist might term it as Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty,

by

> which through seeking to discover we change what is sought to be

> discovered.

>

> A poet, who deals in metaphors, might describe it as inter-

> penetrative consciousness. A metaphor is a way of inter-relating

two

> apparently dissimilar phenomena. 'Shall I compare thee to a

summer's

> day?'

>

> A metaphor is a bridge, a force field, which links together two or

> more seemingly disparate phenomena: one's beloved and the warmth

and

> splendour of sunlight.

>

> The poet's job is to reveal such linkages, which is why Octavio Paz

> described a poem as a cosmos complete in itself, as 'real' as the

> universe 'out there'. So is this paper that you are reading,

> really 'real' or 'really' just an appearance?

>

> A scientist, a seer and a poet might give three separate answers,

> which are but one. Just as are the poet, the seer and the

scientist.

> And this paper, and you."

>

>

>

SURRENDER JOYFULLY TO THE WILL OF THE ULTIMATE DIVINITY AND RELISH

THE TASTE OF ABSOLUTE BLISS.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Vedic astrology Astrology chart Astrology software

Vedic astrology software

>

>

>

>

>

> Visit your group "" on the web.

>

>

>

>

> Terms of

Service.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for

just 2¢/min with Messenger with Voice.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Rishi -- nice posting.

 

Here is a prediction for you!

 

You will find the Jane Roberts/Seth literature very interesting!

 

RR

 

, "rishi_2000in"

<rishi_2000in wrote:

>

> RRji,

> An article in todays newspaper for your perusal, it has some

> relevance to what we are discussing. Written by Jug Suraiya, a

> popular columnist out here who is more renowned for his humor.

>

> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1494959.cms

>

> " Is the paper that you are reading really a paper — or

> any 'thing' at all — or is it merely the 'appearance' of a paper?

> Further, are 'you' really you, or just another 'appearance'? Such

> questions could be put to you not by an other-worldly spiritual

> seer, but by a very matter-of-fact scientist.

>

> Indeed, scientists are increasingly asking whether 'matter'

> or 'facts' actually exist in and of themselves. Investigations of

> the subatomic world have shown that what we in the everyday world

> take to be tangible matter — this newspaper, your hand holding it —

> is largely composed of emptiness.

>

> All material things — a flea, an elephant, an ice-cream cone, Mt

> Everest — are made not of discrete particles — like tiny bricks —

> but of 'events' which slip in and out of existence and are

> inseparable from our consciousness of them.

>

> One way of looking at it is that they 'exist' because we perceive

> them to exist. Contrarywise, do 'we' really exist other than by and

> through our act of perception?

>

> So if all matter is illusion, or at heart insubstantial, why is it

> that your hand does not go straight through the appearance of the

> paper you're reading? Or, conversely, why doesn't the paper go

> through the appearance of your hand?

>

> The scientist would say that is because though matter is

> insubstantial (not made up of any finally irreducible substance) it

> is held together by interwoven force fields, or 'relationships'

> between the 'events', that make up the unfolding narrative of the

> universe.

>

> This is beginning to sound not like physics but metaphysics,

> specifically Buddhist metaphysics that talks about samskara, the

> world of appearance or phenomena, of which we are an inextricable

> part, and which is based on the principle of total interdependence.

> ...(This paper is a paper because you are a reader, and you are a

> reader because it is a paper.) The interdependence of all phenomena

> is the under-pinning of the Buddhist concept of universal

> compassion.

>

> If all phenomena — a grain of sand, a galaxy, Salman Khan, a

> blackbuck — are part and parcel of the same shimmering interplay of

> appearance, it is not so much 'morally' wrong to seek to harm

> another entity as just plain illogical because what you are trying

> to harm is only a reflection of you, and vice versa.

>

> A seer might call it the interdependence of all phenomena. A

> scientist might term it as Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty,

by

> which through seeking to discover we change what is sought to be

> discovered.

>

> A poet, who deals in metaphors, might describe it as inter-

> penetrative consciousness. A metaphor is a way of inter-relating

two

> apparently dissimilar phenomena. 'Shall I compare thee to a

summer's

> day?'

>

> A metaphor is a bridge, a force field, which links together two or

> more seemingly disparate phenomena: one's beloved and the warmth

and

> splendour of sunlight.

>

> The poet's job is to reveal such linkages, which is why Octavio Paz

> described a poem as a cosmos complete in itself, as 'real' as the

> universe 'out there'. So is this paper that you are reading,

> really 'real' or 'really' just an appearance?

>

> A scientist, a seer and a poet might give three separate answers,

> which are but one. Just as are the poet, the seer and the

scientist.

> And this paper, and you."

>

[Guest guest]

RRji,

A prediction is something which has to happen in future. It is

related to time. Therefore, I refuse to give you the pleasure of

saying....."I told you so"

 

rishi

 

, "crystal pages"

<jyotish_vani wrote:

>

> Rishi -- nice posting.

>

> Here is a prediction for you!

>

> You will find the Jane Roberts/Seth literature very interesting!

>

> RR

>

> , "rishi_2000in"

> <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> >

> > RRji,

> > An article in todays newspaper for your perusal, it has some

> > relevance to what we are discussing. Written by Jug Suraiya, a

> > popular columnist out here who is more renowned for his humor.

> >

> > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1494959.cms

> >

> > " Is the paper that you are reading really a paper — or

> > any 'thing' at all — or is it merely the 'appearance' of a paper?

> > Further, are 'you' really you, or just another 'appearance'? Such

> > questions could be put to you not by an other-worldly spiritual

> > seer, but by a very matter-of-fact scientist.

> >

> > Indeed, scientists are increasingly asking whether 'matter'

> > or 'facts' actually exist in and of themselves. Investigations of

> > the subatomic world have shown that what we in the everyday world

> > take to be tangible matter — this newspaper, your hand holding

it —

> > is largely composed of emptiness.

> >

> > All material things — a flea, an elephant, an ice-cream cone, Mt

> > Everest — are made not of discrete particles — like tiny bricks —

> > but of 'events' which slip in and out of existence and are

> > inseparable from our consciousness of them.

> >

> > One way of looking at it is that they 'exist' because we perceive

> > them to exist. Contrarywise, do 'we' really exist other than by

and

> > through our act of perception?

> >

> > So if all matter is illusion, or at heart insubstantial, why is

it

> > that your hand does not go straight through the appearance of the

> > paper you're reading? Or, conversely, why doesn't the paper go

> > through the appearance of your hand?

> >

> > The scientist would say that is because though matter is

> > insubstantial (not made up of any finally irreducible substance)

it

> > is held together by interwoven force fields, or 'relationships'

> > between the 'events', that make up the unfolding narrative of the

> > universe.

> >

> > This is beginning to sound not like physics but metaphysics,

> > specifically Buddhist metaphysics that talks about samskara, the

> > world of appearance or phenomena, of which we are an inextricable

> > part, and which is based on the principle of total

interdependence.

> > ...(This paper is a paper because you are a reader, and you are a

> > reader because it is a paper.) The interdependence of all

phenomena

> > is the under-pinning of the Buddhist concept of universal

> > compassion.

> >

> > If all phenomena — a grain of sand, a galaxy, Salman Khan, a

> > blackbuck — are part and parcel of the same shimmering interplay

of

> > appearance, it is not so much 'morally' wrong to seek to harm

> > another entity as just plain illogical because what you are

trying

> > to harm is only a reflection of you, and vice versa.

> >

> > A seer might call it the interdependence of all phenomena. A

> > scientist might term it as Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty,

> by

> > which through seeking to discover we change what is sought to be

> > discovered.

> >

> > A poet, who deals in metaphors, might describe it as inter-

> > penetrative consciousness. A metaphor is a way of inter-relating

> two

> > apparently dissimilar phenomena. 'Shall I compare thee to a

> summer's

> > day?'

> >

> > A metaphor is a bridge, a force field, which links together two

or

> > more seemingly disparate phenomena: one's beloved and the warmth

> and

> > splendour of sunlight.

> >

> > The poet's job is to reveal such linkages, which is why Octavio

Paz

> > described a poem as a cosmos complete in itself, as 'real' as the

> > universe 'out there'. So is this paper that you are reading,

> > really 'real' or 'really' just an appearance?

> >

> > A scientist, a seer and a poet might give three separate answers,

> > which are but one. Just as are the poet, the seer and the

> scientist.

> > And this paper, and you."

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Now: Good evening ;-)

 

, "rishi_2000in"

<rishi_2000in wrote:

>

> RRji,

> A prediction is something which has to happen in future. It is

> related to time. Therefore, I refuse to give you the pleasure of

> saying....."I told you so"

>

> rishi

>

> , "crystal pages"

> <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> >

> > Rishi -- nice posting.

> >

> > Here is a prediction for you!

> >

> > You will find the Jane Roberts/Seth literature very interesting!

> >

> > RR

> >

> > , "rishi_2000in"

> > <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> > >

> > > RRji,

> > > An article in todays newspaper for your perusal, it has some

> > > relevance to what we are discussing. Written by Jug Suraiya, a

> > > popular columnist out here who is more renowned for his humor.

> > >

> > > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1494959.cms

> > >

> > > " Is the paper that you are reading really a paper — or

> > > any 'thing' at all — or is it merely the 'appearance' of a

paper?

> > > Further, are 'you' really you, or just another 'appearance'?

Such

> > > questions could be put to you not by an other-worldly spiritual

> > > seer, but by a very matter-of-fact scientist.

> > >

> > > Indeed, scientists are increasingly asking whether 'matter'

> > > or 'facts' actually exist in and of themselves. Investigations

of

> > > the subatomic world have shown that what we in the everyday

world

> > > take to be tangible matter — this newspaper, your hand holding

> it —

> > > is largely composed of emptiness.

> > >

> > > All material things — a flea, an elephant, an ice-cream cone,

Mt

> > > Everest — are made not of discrete particles — like tiny

bricks —

> > > but of 'events' which slip in and out of existence and are

> > > inseparable from our consciousness of them.

> > >

> > > One way of looking at it is that they 'exist' because we

perceive

> > > them to exist. Contrarywise, do 'we' really exist other than by

> and

> > > through our act of perception?

> > >

> > > So if all matter is illusion, or at heart insubstantial, why is

> it

> > > that your hand does not go straight through the appearance of

the

> > > paper you're reading? Or, conversely, why doesn't the paper go

> > > through the appearance of your hand?

> > >

> > > The scientist would say that is because though matter is

> > > insubstantial (not made up of any finally irreducible

substance)

> it

> > > is held together by interwoven force fields, or 'relationships'

> > > between the 'events', that make up the unfolding narrative of

the

> > > universe.

> > >

> > > This is beginning to sound not like physics but metaphysics,

> > > specifically Buddhist metaphysics that talks about samskara,

the

> > > world of appearance or phenomena, of which we are an

inextricable

> > > part, and which is based on the principle of total

> interdependence.

> > > ...(This paper is a paper because you are a reader, and you are

a

> > > reader because it is a paper.) The interdependence of all

> phenomena

> > > is the under-pinning of the Buddhist concept of universal

> > > compassion.

> > >

> > > If all phenomena — a grain of sand, a galaxy, Salman Khan, a

> > > blackbuck — are part and parcel of the same shimmering

interplay

> of

> > > appearance, it is not so much 'morally' wrong to seek to harm

> > > another entity as just plain illogical because what you are

> trying

> > > to harm is only a reflection of you, and vice versa.

> > >

> > > A seer might call it the interdependence of all phenomena. A

> > > scientist might term it as Heisenberg's principle of

uncertainty,

> > by

> > > which through seeking to discover we change what is sought to

be

> > > discovered.

> > >

> > > A poet, who deals in metaphors, might describe it as inter-

> > > penetrative consciousness. A metaphor is a way of inter-

relating

> > two

> > > apparently dissimilar phenomena. 'Shall I compare thee to a

> > summer's

> > > day?'

> > >

> > > A metaphor is a bridge, a force field, which links together two

> or

> > > more seemingly disparate phenomena: one's beloved and the

warmth

> > and

> > > splendour of sunlight.

> > >

> > > The poet's job is to reveal such linkages, which is why Octavio

> Paz

> > > described a poem as a cosmos complete in itself, as 'real' as

the

> > > universe 'out there'. So is this paper that you are reading,

> > > really 'real' or 'really' just an appearance?

> > >

> > > A scientist, a seer and a poet might give three separate

answers,

> > > which are but one. Just as are the poet, the seer and the

> > scientist.

> > > And this paper, and you."

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Seth says that neither then, nor now , nor the time to come is

permanent, everything is mutable.

Reverting back to the tropical vs sidereal, there seem to be

interesting common patterns in vargas, nakshatra padas and the

calculations in tropical. Your postulate,therefore, as difficult top

prove or to disprove!

regards

rishi

 

 

, "crystal pages"

<jyotish_vani wrote:

>

> Now: Good evening ;-)

>

> , "rishi_2000in"

> <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> >

> > RRji,

> > A prediction is something which has to happen in future. It is

> > related to time. Therefore, I refuse to give you the pleasure of

> > saying....."I told you so"

> >

> > rishi

> >

> > , "crystal pages"

> > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Rishi -- nice posting.

> > >

> > > Here is a prediction for you!

> > >

> > > You will find the Jane Roberts/Seth literature very interesting!

> > >

> > > RR

> > >

> > > , "rishi_2000in"

> > > <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > RRji,

> > > > An article in todays newspaper for your perusal, it has some

> > > > relevance to what we are discussing. Written by Jug Suraiya,

a

> > > > popular columnist out here who is more renowned for his humor.

> > > >

> > > > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1494959.cms

> > > >

> > > > " Is the paper that you are reading really a paper — or

> > > > any 'thing' at all — or is it merely the 'appearance' of a

> paper?

> > > > Further, are 'you' really you, or just another 'appearance'?

> Such

> > > > questions could be put to you not by an other-worldly

spiritual

> > > > seer, but by a very matter-of-fact scientist.

> > > >

> > > > Indeed, scientists are increasingly asking whether 'matter'

> > > > or 'facts' actually exist in and of themselves.

Investigations

> of

> > > > the subatomic world have shown that what we in the everyday

> world

> > > > take to be tangible matter — this newspaper, your hand

holding

> > it —

> > > > is largely composed of emptiness.

> > > >

> > > > All material things — a flea, an elephant, an ice-cream cone,

> Mt

> > > > Everest — are made not of discrete particles — like tiny

> bricks —

> > > > but of 'events' which slip in and out of existence and are

> > > > inseparable from our consciousness of them.

> > > >

> > > > One way of looking at it is that they 'exist' because we

> perceive

> > > > them to exist. Contrarywise, do 'we' really exist other than

by

> > and

> > > > through our act of perception?

> > > >

> > > > So if all matter is illusion, or at heart insubstantial, why

is

> > it

> > > > that your hand does not go straight through the appearance of

> the

> > > > paper you're reading? Or, conversely, why doesn't the paper

go

> > > > through the appearance of your hand?

> > > >

> > > > The scientist would say that is because though matter is

> > > > insubstantial (not made up of any finally irreducible

> substance)

> > it

> > > > is held together by interwoven force fields,

or 'relationships'

> > > > between the 'events', that make up the unfolding narrative of

> the

> > > > universe.

> > > >

> > > > This is beginning to sound not like physics but metaphysics,

> > > > specifically Buddhist metaphysics that talks about samskara,

> the

> > > > world of appearance or phenomena, of which we are an

> inextricable

> > > > part, and which is based on the principle of total

> > interdependence.

> > > > ...(This paper is a paper because you are a reader, and you

are

> a

> > > > reader because it is a paper.) The interdependence of all

> > phenomena

> > > > is the under-pinning of the Buddhist concept of universal

> > > > compassion.

> > > >

> > > > If all phenomena — a grain of sand, a galaxy, Salman Khan, a

> > > > blackbuck — are part and parcel of the same shimmering

> interplay

> > of

> > > > appearance, it is not so much 'morally' wrong to seek to harm

> > > > another entity as just plain illogical because what you are

> > trying

> > > > to harm is only a reflection of you, and vice versa.

> > > >

> > > > A seer might call it the interdependence of all phenomena. A

> > > > scientist might term it as Heisenberg's principle of

> uncertainty,

> > > by

> > > > which through seeking to discover we change what is sought to

> be

> > > > discovered.

> > > >

> > > > A poet, who deals in metaphors, might describe it as inter-

> > > > penetrative consciousness. A metaphor is a way of inter-

> relating

> > > two

> > > > apparently dissimilar phenomena. 'Shall I compare thee to a

> > > summer's

> > > > day?'

> > > >

> > > > A metaphor is a bridge, a force field, which links together

two

> > or

> > > > more seemingly disparate phenomena: one's beloved and the

> warmth

> > > and

> > > > splendour of sunlight.

> > > >

> > > > The poet's job is to reveal such linkages, which is why

Octavio

> > Paz

> > > > described a poem as a cosmos complete in itself, as 'real' as

> the

> > > > universe 'out there'. So is this paper that you are reading,

> > > > really 'real' or 'really' just an appearance?

> > > >

> > > > A scientist, a seer and a poet might give three separate

> answers,

> > > > which are but one. Just as are the poet, the seer and the

> > > scientist.

> > > > And this paper, and you."

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Rishiji,

 

It is not *my* postulate -- as I have stated in many an earlier

message or article here or elsewhere!

 

Because *i* do not exist really, nor for ever!

 

*CAse* closed, shall we say?

 

In that earlier message on this forum -- space was mentioned, time

was mentioned but one thing was missed -- directly!

 

RELATIVITY! A la Einstein!!

 

Time and space though as different as siblings who fight and hate

each other -- are R-E-L-A-T-E-D whether they like it or not!

 

Yes, it has astrological relevance!

 

RR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, "rishi_2000in"

<rishi_2000in wrote:

>

> Seth says that neither then, nor now , nor the time to come is

> permanent, everything is mutable.

> Reverting back to the tropical vs sidereal, there seem to be

> interesting common patterns in vargas, nakshatra padas and the

> calculations in tropical. Your postulate,therefore, as difficult

top

> prove or to disprove!

> regards

> rishi

>

>

> , "crystal pages"

> <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> >

> > Now: Good evening ;-)

> >

> > , "rishi_2000in"

> > <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> > >

> > > RRji,

> > > A prediction is something which has to happen in future. It is

> > > related to time. Therefore, I refuse to give you the pleasure

of

> > > saying....."I told you so"

> > >

> > > rishi

> > >

> > > , "crystal pages"

> > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Rishi -- nice posting.

> > > >

> > > > Here is a prediction for you!

> > > >

> > > > You will find the Jane Roberts/Seth literature very

interesting!

> > > >

> > > > RR

> > > >

> > > > , "rishi_2000in"

> > > > <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > RRji,

> > > > > An article in todays newspaper for your perusal, it has

some

> > > > > relevance to what we are discussing. Written by Jug

Suraiya,

> a

> > > > > popular columnist out here who is more renowned for his

humor.

> > > > >

> > > > > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1494959.cms

> > > > >

> > > > > " Is the paper that you are reading really a paper — or

> > > > > any 'thing' at all — or is it merely the 'appearance' of a

> > paper?

> > > > > Further, are 'you' really you, or just

another 'appearance'?

> > Such

> > > > > questions could be put to you not by an other-worldly

> spiritual

> > > > > seer, but by a very matter-of-fact scientist.

> > > > >

> > > > > Indeed, scientists are increasingly asking whether 'matter'

> > > > > or 'facts' actually exist in and of themselves.

> Investigations

> > of

> > > > > the subatomic world have shown that what we in the everyday

> > world

> > > > > take to be tangible matter — this newspaper, your hand

> holding

> > > it —

> > > > > is largely composed of emptiness.

> > > > >

> > > > > All material things — a flea, an elephant, an ice-cream

cone,

> > Mt

> > > > > Everest — are made not of discrete particles — like tiny

> > bricks —

> > > > > but of 'events' which slip in and out of existence and are

> > > > > inseparable from our consciousness of them.

> > > > >

> > > > > One way of looking at it is that they 'exist' because we

> > perceive

> > > > > them to exist. Contrarywise, do 'we' really exist other

than

> by

> > > and

> > > > > through our act of perception?

> > > > >

> > > > > So if all matter is illusion, or at heart insubstantial,

why

> is

> > > it

> > > > > that your hand does not go straight through the appearance

of

> > the

> > > > > paper you're reading? Or, conversely, why doesn't the paper

> go

> > > > > through the appearance of your hand?

> > > > >

> > > > > The scientist would say that is because though matter is

> > > > > insubstantial (not made up of any finally irreducible

> > substance)

> > > it

> > > > > is held together by interwoven force fields,

> or 'relationships'

> > > > > between the 'events', that make up the unfolding narrative

of

> > the

> > > > > universe.

> > > > >

> > > > > This is beginning to sound not like physics but

metaphysics,

> > > > > specifically Buddhist metaphysics that talks about

samskara,

> > the

> > > > > world of appearance or phenomena, of which we are an

> > inextricable

> > > > > part, and which is based on the principle of total

> > > interdependence.

> > > > > ...(This paper is a paper because you are a reader, and you

> are

> > a

> > > > > reader because it is a paper.) The interdependence of all

> > > phenomena

> > > > > is the under-pinning of the Buddhist concept of universal

> > > > > compassion.

> > > > >

> > > > > If all phenomena — a grain of sand, a galaxy, Salman Khan,

a

> > > > > blackbuck — are part and parcel of the same shimmering

> > interplay

> > > of

> > > > > appearance, it is not so much 'morally' wrong to seek to

harm

> > > > > another entity as just plain illogical because what you are

> > > trying

> > > > > to harm is only a reflection of you, and vice versa.

> > > > >

> > > > > A seer might call it the interdependence of all phenomena.

A

> > > > > scientist might term it as Heisenberg's principle of

> > uncertainty,

> > > > by

> > > > > which through seeking to discover we change what is sought

to

> > be

> > > > > discovered.

> > > > >

> > > > > A poet, who deals in metaphors, might describe it as inter-

> > > > > penetrative consciousness. A metaphor is a way of inter-

> > relating

> > > > two

> > > > > apparently dissimilar phenomena. 'Shall I compare thee to a

> > > > summer's

> > > > > day?'

> > > > >

> > > > > A metaphor is a bridge, a force field, which links together

> two

> > > or

> > > > > more seemingly disparate phenomena: one's beloved and the

> > warmth

> > > > and

> > > > > splendour of sunlight.

> > > > >

> > > > > The poet's job is to reveal such linkages, which is why

> Octavio

> > > Paz

> > > > > described a poem as a cosmos complete in itself, as 'real'

as

> > the

> > > > > universe 'out there'. So is this paper that you are

reading,

> > > > > really 'real' or 'really' just an appearance?

> > > > >

> > > > > A scientist, a seer and a poet might give three separate

> > answers,

> > > > > which are but one. Just as are the poet, the seer and the

> > > > scientist.

> > > > > And this paper, and you."

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>