Time, Space, Matter, Energy, relativity....//what's in a name!....

[Guest guest]

Rishi ji,

 

Limitations are all we have today so we can only discuss through its

terminology and constructs! But through deliberating even with those

building blocks, again and again, as you must have been 'painfully'

aware of my approach -- there is hope for progress, or at least I

remain hopeful -- for myself and also others.

 

So even though say say, what's in a name, the hope of this ant was

that even through typing clarity2020 umpteen times daily, perhaps

some innersource will get the hint and make the name come alive ;-)

 

Childish -- some may say, but it is a beginning!

 

RR

 

, "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

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , "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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > , "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."

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Limitations,we know and accept.

Surprising are events which seem to circumscribe the known

limitations and one seeks new definitions and the process or the

progress goes on!

 

 

 

 

, "crystal pages"

<jyotish_vani wrote:

>

> Rishi ji,

>

> Limitations are all we have today so we can only discuss through

its

> terminology and constructs! But through deliberating even with

those

> building blocks, again and again, as you must have been 'painfully'

> aware of my approach -- there is hope for progress, or at least I

> remain hopeful -- for myself and also others.

>

> So even though say say, what's in a name, the hope of this ant was

> that even through typing clarity2020 umpteen times daily, perhaps

> some innersource will get the hint and make the name come alive ;-)

>

> Childish -- some may say, but it is a beginning!

>

> RR

>

> , "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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , "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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > , "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."

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

breaking the sabha maryada for a minute!

 

who are "we"?

 

:-)

 

, "rishi_2000in"

<rishi_2000in wrote:

>

> Limitations,we know and accept.

> Surprising are events which seem to circumscribe the known

> limitations and one seeks new definitions and the process or the

> progress goes on!

>

>

>

>

> , "crystal pages"

> <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> >

> > Rishi ji,

> >

> > Limitations are all we have today so we can only discuss through

> its

> > terminology and constructs! But through deliberating even with

> those

> > building blocks, again and again, as you must have

been 'painfully'

> > aware of my approach -- there is hope for progress, or at least I

> > remain hopeful -- for myself and also others.

> >

> > So even though say say, what's in a name, the hope of this ant

was

> > that even through typing clarity2020 umpteen times daily, perhaps

> > some innersource will get the hint and make the name come alive ;-

)

> >

> > Childish -- some may say, but it is a beginning!

> >

> > RR

> >

> > , "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."

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

It could be the royal "we" but that smacks of arrogance, it could also

mean most of us ordinary human folks who are limited in their ability to

understand things...

 

depends on the perciever, we suppose!

 

 

, "crystal pages"

<jyotish_vani wrote:

>

> breaking the sabha maryada for a minute!

>

> who are "we"?

>

> :-)

>

> , "rishi_2000in"

> rishi_2000in@ wrote:

> >

> > Limitations,we know and accept.

> > Surprising are events which seem to circumscribe the known

> > limitations and one seeks new definitions and the process or the

> > progress goes on!

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , "crystal pages"

> > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Rishi ji,

> > >

> > > Limitations are all we have today so we can only discuss through

> > its

> > > terminology and constructs! But through deliberating even with

> > those

> > > building blocks, again and again, as you must have

> been 'painfully'

> > > aware of my approach -- there is hope for progress, or at least I

> > > remain hopeful -- for myself and also others.

> > >

> > > So even though say say, what's in a name, the hope of this ant

> was

> > > that even through typing clarity2020 umpteen times daily, perhaps

> > > some innersource will get the hint and make the name come alive ;-

> )

> > >

> > > Childish -- some may say, but it is a beginning!

> > >

> > > RR

> > >

> > > , "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."

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>