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

[Guest guest]

Very well concluded, Krishnanji

regards

rishi

 

 

 

, vattem krishnan

<bursar_99 wrote:

>

> Dear Madam and all others,

> before all of you feel my intervention as abrupt and otherwise

but the reaction arising out of the thread even

from 'hollography"made me further to add astro sense as RR ji

referred"Thank God I finally managed to inject forum-related

relevance into this thread

>

> Very interesting long thread(no doubt) is going :on mouses and

tails.

> Iam able to find the cream of the idea(hope so) of the thread.May

be it is relevant if I say few words as quoted by Utpala in A.M of

recent origin in news stands as of now.

>

> I just ibegin with "The Supreme Lord is directing the wanderings

of all living entities who are seated as on a machine(includes living

mouse and e-mouse) made of the material energy

> These preachings are to Arjuna from Lord Krishna as he says" The

Supreme Lord is situated in every one's

heart"

 

> Now Utpal's words"The Theological conviction is that for those

who are devotees of the Supreme,all the planets are good because the

devotees are more powerful than planets.As the great Tamil Saiva poet

put it:"Aayaval nalla naala adiyar avarakku mighave"

> Further:

> Astrological advice is more a mangement tool......Na bruyata

satyam apriyam...

>

> Iam sure with those few lines I will not be considered as an

intruder and able to connest with all wise saying and preachings

taking place around.

> Let me conclude with:Styam bruyat,priyam bruyat,Na bruyat

Staymapriyam"

> This must not be overlooked please

>

> regards to every one

> krishnan

>

>

> crystal pages <jyotish_vani wrote:

> and don't forget the fifth important form too, dear sister,

> ASTROLOGER! (Thank God I finally managed to inject forum-related

> relevance into this thread before someone looks askance! ;-)

>

> , "auromirra19"

> <nalini2818@> wrote:

> >

> > {Om Namo Narayanaya}

> >

> > Rishi ji,

> > Whatever do you mean by mouse? Mouse-mouse/Human mouse/e-mouse?

> > The only free will you can muster is the one allowed by destiny.

> > That is the paradox.

> > But you are right, there is always movement, be it chasing its

own

> > tail, what with the time-outs, through Air, Water, Fire and

earth,

> > always emerging wiser , with the knowledge of rainbows at the end

> of

> > the clouds, sunshine behind rumbling clouds, lots and lots of

> silver

> > lining- precisely with the 'clarity' you mentioned.So what if the

> > vision in not 20/20, dont we all have corrected vision,

birthtimes,

> > Navamshas and so on. Everything is OK as long as the 'Vani' is

> clear

> > enough and loud, so that the mouse can come scurrying back in

time

> > to safe, familiar havens.After all, we do have to rely on sound

> when

> > sight fails us.

> > It is going through the maze that gives the 'mouse' the much

needed

> > clarity to pass through the tests of life's school, so that it

can

> > become a scientist,poet, philosopher and what not.

> > Regards

> > Nalini

> > {Om Namah Shivaya Namah Mallikarjunaya}

> >

> > , "rishi_2000in"

> > <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Aren't destiny and free will terms coined by our own

limitations?

> > > Let us take it us a maze where a mouse is left in at the start

> and

> > > wants to reach the end where there is no more confusion, just

> > total

> > > freedom , where there is only sunshine and no grumbling clouds

> > > wherein sun and moon move in cycles of time.

> > > Free will exists in the choice of paths which the mouse

chooses,

> > at

> > > times sliding back to the start, at times reaching a place

where

> > > there is some freedom. The mouse has to exercise this choice.

> > > Destiny is the guide which whispers..hey take this shortcut you

> > will

> > > move faster.

> > > The mind confused, the mouse often chasing its own tail, always

> > time

> > > which controls the mouse.

> > > A state of dynamic flux.

> > > And cycles go on and on.

> > > I do not know.

> > > A scientist...on the path of knowledge, A poet on the path of

> > nature'

> > > A philospher trying to make two and two ..twnety two and A

> devotee

> > > lost in his worship.

> > > Fire and Earth and Air and Water.

> > > More confusion yet clarity, maynot be 20/20 though!!

> > > regards

> > > rishi

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , "crystal pages"

> > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Rishi,

> > > >

> > > > Just so that I feel confident that I am understanding this

> > complex

> > > > thread :-)

> > > > My statement was that 'mind' not only 'views' what is there

> > (object

> > > > reality) but also that which is not there (through

> the 'faculty'

> > of

> > > > imagination).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > your comment was that perhaps what we think as imagination

> might

> > > > already exist in one form or another, so it was already there

> > and

> > > > simply 'grasped' by the mind at the moment of imagination.

> > > >

> > > > If I understood what you meant correctly, then yes certainly

> > that

> > > is

> > > > a possibility, but it also means that 'creativity' is non-

> > existent.

> > > > Since what we call creative, born in the moment is really

> > already

> > > > there. If that is true then the next extension of that can be

> > that

> > > > there is really no role for free-will because the pattern of

> > > destiny,

> > > > already created is supreme and must govern all of us.

> > > >

> > > > The goat suddenly finds that the rope with which it was tied

to

> > the

> > > > pole is no more, since the animal is now riveted to the pole!

> > > >

> > > > RR

> > > > , "rishi_2000in"

> > > > <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > How can one assert that mins is "viewing" what is not there.

> > > > > Could this not be mere ignorance on the part of waking

> > awareness

> > > > that

> > > > > it treats all what it cannot "view" as imagination.

> > > > > Why should only what is being "viewed" (meaning: viewed,

> > > > > heard,touched, tasted, smelt and processed through the

> > rational

> > > > > logical sequential mind) is real?

> > > > > Just because we assume our limitations, should we accept

the

> > > > > rationale in a hypothesis which is limited in its totality?

> > > > > Is not the sum of parts equal to the whole?

> > > > >

> > > > > I am sure, the moderators will not frown on these questions

> > for

> > > > they

> > > > > are not unlinked to the basic philosphy of Jyotish which is

> > more

> > > > than

> > > > > the technique of Jyotish.

> > > > > regards

> > > > >

> > > > > rishi

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > , "crystal pages"

> > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > --- In

, "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 ;-)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > , "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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > --- In

, "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

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > > > , "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.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using

Messenger with Voice.

>

>

>