Time, Space, Matter, Energy, relativity........language!

April 24, 2006

Swati ji,

Your questions are thought provoking!

My personal opinions on the matter of astrology and how I see it,

some would say wrongly because it may not fit their framework of

reference and understanding, others may agree and still others may

even choose to remain silent!

To my perception astrology is a language. Like any other language

that basically uses symbols which to someone not speaking that

language may seem as meaningless noise or random 'scratches on sand',

but to the one who knows conveys something. That something is not

directly represented, unless it is a primitive picture-script of the

caveman. Very few modern languages use script that conveys direct

meaning but has to be studied, learned and then the symbols

transformed into meaning.

Astrological symbols, the planets and signs, nakshatras are the

alphabets which then utilize the different grammars of astrology:

jyotish (Parashari, Jaimini), arabic, tropical/western, burmese,

chinese, tibetan, tajik, etc etc.

The astrological sentence, such as a 'yoga' represents then describes

a human experience! The language is not intuitive or phonetic or

graphic, hence one needs to study it hard and its grammar is complex

hence the same words could mean different ways depending on how the

sentence was structured.

Now switch to analogy 2:

In any language, using the same words, alphabets, perhaps slightly

tighter or looser grammar and you can end up with a highly terse

scientific statement, using the same or similar words you can create

a mystery prose, or a story full of pathos, or even a verse that can

take you through depths of emotional experience you did not think was

possible. The alphabet did not change, the words were from the same

dictionary, the grammar was followed but the human experience that

the language or sample thereof described varied so enormously -- it

described science, it described fiction, it described a touching

recounting of a real event, it took you to the mystic limits and

beyond that only a poet can. Same language, different experiences.

Would you call that holistic?

The language of astrology has the same power and scope!

RR

Please read if you wish:

http://www.boloji.com/astro/00329.htm

, "swazz_oyzter"

<healingspaces wrote:

>

> Pranam to all Learned Guru's and Astrologers.

>

> How could jyotish be holistic and yet not married to either

physical,

> mental or the spiritual. I think jyotish could be the root giving

> fruits, manifesting in these forms.We cant at one point detach and

> contend that jyotish is holistic.Definitely what differentiates is

> what Rohini ji said that jyotish allows one to go outside the matrix

> of illusions and see it from a far vantage Point.While all other

> sciences, remain percieving the projected images within the

hologram,

> which remain "hollow" to the common man.

>

> For those who move away for a moment, start realizing the fluidity

and

> connectivity, the whole-flow within the nano-moment.Not to say that

> the minute outcomes of the flow is determined by destiny, but

> definitely giving the probability of its flowing path.

>

> I think jyotish at one point has a belief that there is still scope

of

> creativity in universe, I think thats why remedies and mantras are

> given.What it does is change the way we tune (recieve , store and

> transmit) to that given information,since we are all finally

> holographic projectors projecting illusionay images of concrete

> reality. Jyotish promises one to detach itself from these standing

> waves, and go to the depths of the ocean, which allows one to see

> multidimensional planes, beyong time and space.

>

> U all Guru's are those chosen ones, who have magnificient controls

> which render 'Chance' to come to their terms,where determisnism and

> free choice have no place...We are alas evolving and creating anew

the

> unexpected...If not the life would be monotonus.

>

> Swati

> Hope u will correct me and guide me.

>

> , "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."

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

April 24, 2006

Swati ji,

You may find it relevant if I quote some body and say"Astrology is a science

of tendencies and probabilities.No fatalism is implied in it's content or

context.....

The astrological beliefs stemming out of societal needs of copromises and

compulsions------------------- have no such compulsions in the basic

postulates of predictive astrology

Astrology as got promoted with 'regional variations,drastically different and

mutually contradictory at times,drive home a point that many primary

astrological rules had to succumb to religiousor regional pressures based on

conventions or convictions.

Satyam Vada is vedic rule.Astrology can not conceal any truth,however

unsavoury,if it can help one adopt behavioural tactics to overcome any problem

or crisis predicted.

In Raman's words(author of modern Astrology)"Astrology has much more utility

and scientific base than than many theories built around it on theological

beliefs"

krishnan

crystal pages <jyotish_vani wrote: