Time, Space, Matter, Energy, relativity........

April 21, 2006

And then, Sir, I revert back to my earlier question, is everything

relative to time, space and lets say matter and energy?

I seem to be persistent in asking this.

What is eternal then or shashwat, isit only my relative perception or

yours or for that matter anyone else's..their individual experience

and perception..is that what is reality finally?

Empirical observations tend to push us in this thought that there is

nothing eternal or absolute.

Yet one seeks that very timeless, limitless, absolute, eternal.

Or is it what science says more......that we can tend to reach to the

limits of infinity but never the infinity; that we can get

verrrrrrrry near to zero but never reach zero.

Loud thoughts, for there can never be any acceptable answers to such

queries.

regards

rishi

, "crystal pages"

<jyotish_vani wrote:

>

> 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."

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

April 22, 2006

Bharatji,

I will seek your indulgence on this and post a few lines Of

Jemauddin Rumi, a Sufi Saint of the middle ages:

" By day I prised you

and never knew it

by night I stayed with you

and never knew it.

I always thought that

I was me - but no,

I was you

and I never knew it"

regards

rishi

, "Bharat Hindu Astrology"

<hinduastrology wrote:

>

> Namaskaar Sri Rishi

>

> There is a time when you see no time, space or causation. This is

the time

> you are deep sleeping. Everyone knows that there is nothing in

deep sleep.

> Who registers this fact, that there is nothing in deep sleep. That

means you

> were awake yet time, space and causation slept on.

>

> Answers you may not get but questions can still be dissolved.

>

> Thanks and Regards

> Bharat

>

> On 4/22/06, rishi_2000in <rishi_2000in wrote:

> >

> > And then, Sir, I revert back to my earlier question, is

everything

> > relative to time, space and lets say matter and energy?

> > I seem to be persistent in asking this.

> > What is eternal then or shashwat, isit only my relative

perception or

> > yours or for that matter anyone else's..their individual

experience

> > and perception..is that what is reality finally?

> > Empirical observations tend to push us in this thought that

there is

> > nothing eternal or absolute.

> > Yet one seeks that very timeless, limitless, absolute, eternal.

> > Or is it what science says more......that we can tend to reach

to the

> > limits of infinity but never the infinity; that we can get

> > verrrrrrrry near to zero but never reach zero.

> > Loud thoughts, for there can never be any acceptable answers to

such

> > queries.

> > regards

> > rishi

> >

> > , "crystal pages"

> > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > >

> > > 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."

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

> > SURRENDER JOYFULLY TO THE WILL OF THE ULTIMATE DIVINITY AND

RELISH THE

> > TASTE OF ABSOLUTE BLISS.

> >

> > ------------------------------

> >

> > - Visit your

group "<Jyotish_Remedie

s>"

> > on the web.

> >

> > -

<-

?subject=Un>

> >

> > - Terms of

> > Service <>.

> >

> > ------------------------------

> >

>

April 22, 2006

Namaskaar Sri Rishi

Beautiful words - You is the Consciousness. me is the ego.

By day I prised you and never knew it

Means the Consciousness empowered his whole being through waking world but

the individual did not pay attention to it or "see" IT or "know" IT

By night I stayed with and never knew it.

One can never be away from it and it is the one that makes us aware of

"nothingness" in the deep sleep.

I always thought that

I was me - but no,

I was you

and I never knew it"

The ego thinks it possesses the consciousness and it has a separate

existence. But ego cannot be right. "I was you" is a wrong usage by Rumi -

Let me correct it - "I am you". He must have used "was" to be grammatically

correct. But in these matters, break the grammar rules and "Bhaja Govindam"!

and I never knew it

As long as you take time to torment you, you will never know it. Acceptance

of its only superficial appearance helps you know it.

Much more can be elaborated. In a Jyotish forum, people will raise swords

against me if I carry on.

Thanks and Regards

Bharat

On 4/22/06, rishi_2000in <rishi_2000in wrote:

>

> Bharatji,

> I will seek your indulgence on this and post a few lines Of

> Jemauddin Rumi, a Sufi Saint of the middle ages:

> " By day I prised you

> and never knew it

> by night I stayed with you

> and never knew it.

> I always thought that

> I was me - but no,

> I was you

> and I never knew it"

> regards

>

> rishi

>

> , "Bharat Hindu Astrology"

>

> <hinduastrology wrote:

> >

> > Namaskaar Sri Rishi

> >

> > There is a time when you see no time, space or causation. This is

> the time

> > you are deep sleeping. Everyone knows that there is nothing in

> deep sleep.

> > Who registers this fact, that there is nothing in deep sleep. That

> means you

> > were awake yet time, space and causation slept on.

> >

> > Answers you may not get but questions can still be dissolved.

> >

> > Thanks and Regards

> > Bharat

> >

> > On 4/22/06, rishi_2000in <rishi_2000in wrote:

> > >

> > > And then, Sir, I revert back to my earlier question, is

> everything

> > > relative to time, space and lets say matter and energy?

> > > I seem to be persistent in asking this.

> > > What is eternal then or shashwat, isit only my relative

> perception or

> > > yours or for that matter anyone else's..their individual

> experience

> > > and perception..is that what is reality finally?

> > > Empirical observations tend to push us in this thought that

> there is

> > > nothing eternal or absolute.

> > > Yet one seeks that very timeless, limitless, absolute, eternal.

> > > Or is it what science says more......that we can tend to reach

> to the

> > > limits of infinity but never the infinity; that we can get

> > > verrrrrrrry near to zero but never reach zero.

> > > Loud thoughts, for there can never be any acceptable answers to

> such

> > > queries.

> > > regards

> > > rishi

> > >

> > > , "crystal pages"

> > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > 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."

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > SURRENDER JOYFULLY TO THE WILL OF THE ULTIMATE DIVINITY AND

> RELISH THE

> > > TASTE OF ABSOLUTE BLISS.

> > >

> > > ------------------------------

> > >

> > > - Visit your

> group "<Jyotish_Remedie

> s>"

>

> > > on the web.

> > >

> > > -

> <-

> ?subject=Un>

> > >

> > > - Terms of

> > > Service <>.

> > >

> > > ------------------------------

> > >

> >

>

> >

>

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

> TASTE OF ABSOLUTE BLISS.

>

> ------------------------------

>

> - Visit your group

"<>"

> on the web.

>

> -

>

<-@g\

roups.com?subject=Un>

>

> - Terms of

> Service <>.

>

> ------------------------------

>

April 22, 2006

The mind is capable of viewing not only what is there but also what

is not there through imagination as we call it. Our thought framework

contains and believes in there being the possibility of states or

things like shashwat, absolute permanence, infinity, etc. The atom

was thought to be the unit at one time, but now we know that there

are finer particles etc that exist too, naturally or artificially.

Since absolute shashwat is difficult to perceive, or demonstrate,

other than scriptural references which essentially are a culture's

thought-reality, thought-framework expressed in words -- one would

have to focus on relativity, which is demonstrable and easier to

perceive and understand.

These comments are relative to where I am, currently, and not my

absolute or final position :-)

Growth is real, perceptible,demonstrable and relative!

RR

, "rishi_2000in"

<rishi_2000in wrote:

>

> And then, Sir, I revert back to my earlier question, is everything

> relative to time, space and lets say matter and energy?

> I seem to be persistent in asking this.

> What is eternal then or shashwat, isit only my relative perception

or

> yours or for that matter anyone else's..their individual experience

> and perception..is that what is reality finally?

> Empirical observations tend to push us in this thought that there

is

> nothing eternal or absolute.

> Yet one seeks that very timeless, limitless, absolute, eternal.

> Or is it what science says more......that we can tend to reach to

the

> limits of infinity but never the infinity; that we can get

> verrrrrrrry near to zero but never reach zero.

> Loud thoughts, for there can never be any acceptable answers to

such

> queries.

> regards

> rishi

>

> , "crystal pages"

> <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> >

> > 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."

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

April 22, 2006

Sir,

Even the theory of Einstein is being revisited.Known to be theory of

relativity and the evolution of infinetity and algorithym there of is gradually

getting defined with nano particles etc.Considering shaswat as an inductive

process the rest are all at micro level can be deduced.otherwise beginning with

micro level(fathomless) we can proceed to shaswat or infenity.i mean what was

"only written in cultures" through untested ideas,imaginations and fantasies are

now being probed to find realtivity

All these factors comprise a very large imaginative and figurative world in

terms of universe. seen by legendary yasoda in in the tiny mouth of Bala Gopal.

krishnan

crystal pages <jyotish_vani wrote: