Time, Space, Matter, Energy, relativity........language! 26/4

April 26, 2006

Dear readers

AS i know spoken language/s is from 2nd

written, or visible form of language/communication is 3rd. the art of writing

sculpting, painting, modelling/gestures/expression, grammer, syntax....

I am sure there rcan be other functions to these, so left to others to fill

in.

crystal pages <jyotish_vani wrote: I am getting a sense of

deja vu about this topic!

Why must language be better represented in the 3rd? Speech is 2nd, is

it not?

What do others think? And please suggest other houses and planets as

well, because language must have many anchors in the

horoscope/astrology.

RR

, "auromirra19"

<nalini2818 wrote:

>

> {Om Namo Narayanaya)

>

> RRji,

> Third, I would say -

>

> Nalini

> {Om Namah Shivaya Namah Mallikarjunaya}

> , "crystal pages"

> <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> >

> > 2nd bhava or third?

> >

> > , "auromirra19"

> > <nalini2818@> wrote:

> > >

> > > {Om Namo Narayanaya}

> > > RR ji,

> > > Yes, you did, and one so difficult,contradictory,

> > > addictive.....could go on.

> > > Nalini

> > > {Om Namah Shivaya Namah Mallikarjunaya}

> > > , "crystal pages"

> > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Actually, Naliniji, I was saying that astrology itself is a

> > > language!

> > > >

> > > > RR

> > > >

> > > > , "auromirra19"

> > > > <nalini2818@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > {Om Namo Narayanaya}

> > > > > RRji,

> > > > > Language is so powerful, it has the power to change.

> Semantics,

> > > > > though frowned upon as frivolous do play a part.How it

> shapes

> > > the

> > > > > experience of the astrologer, his perception, so relies on

> > > his/her

> > > > > prowess, in the ability to deliver-predictive, remedial.

> The

> > > > > ability to "change" the quality of the life of the seeker

> for

> > > the

> > > > > better.Language has the inherent ability to cloak the

> > > unpalatable,

> > > > > render it coated with palatable truth- not away from the

> > > reality.

> > > > > One cannot divest language of its importance, not even the

> > > *Illusory

> > > > > fact* that it has nothening to do with astrology.

> > > > > I have read a post in a forum, where a native had gone to

an

> > > > > astrologer seeking a remedy for childlessness. The

> astrologer

> > > > > delivered a bombshell that he would die and his widow would

> > > remarry.

> > > > > Needless to say the native forgot all about his original

> quest,

> > > he

> > > > > posted queries worrying about his longevity- even his

wife's

> > > > > fidelity, in other words went berserk.Understanding

> > > the 'language'

> > > > > of astrology and conveying it in the language of the native

> is

> > > what

> > > > > a successful jyotishi is about.

> > > > > Now(:-

> > > > > Regards

> > > > > Nalini

> > > > > (Om Namah Shivaya Namah Mallikarjunaya)

> > > > > , "crystal pages"

> > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > i think you have got it, finally!

> > > > > > And so as humans change, so does astrology!

> > > > > > Just look around, from the classics to modern times, and

> > since

> > > you

> > > > > > said "astrology" no need to stay limited to JYOTISH!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > RR

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , "rishi_2000in"

> > > > > > <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Astrology then should be summed up as the perception or

> > > human

> > > > > > > experience of the astrologer, his/her understanding of

> the

> > > > > > language.Ye

> > > > > > > of astrology.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , "crystal

pages"

> > > > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 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

> > > > > > > >

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

> , "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.

> > > > > > > > >

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

> , "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

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

> > > , "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

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

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

> , "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

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

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

> > > > > , "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

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

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

> > > , "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

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

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

> > > > > , "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.

Prashantkumar G B

-*- The services of this astrologer are free on group but

off the group consultations are chargeable by chat, mail or phone.

Please fix times for this in advance -*-

09840051861

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

Messenger with Voice.

April 26, 2006

Pranam to all Gurus and learned members.,

Krishnanji, Sreenadh ji, Arjun ji, Prashant ji, Rishiji and others

whom i have not mentioned thanks for ur readings and thoughts from

Indian scriptures in different posts .... I am trying to open my doors

to it and assimlation of it may take time. Yet i am stuck and compare

it with western philosphy and sciences at times in my own way and be

critical. A thought came to me when somebody compared jyotish

to language, which i thought was human way of getting hold to the

concrete reality since we cant accept the unmolded...so please tell me

where i am wrong.

Please read the quote below....This is a quote from the old testament

of Bible, which talks of breaking down from the langauage.Derrida and

Deleuze the most read philosphers of western sciences today within the

postmodernist and deconstruction talking of discources of breaking

away from linguistics, a thought of structuralism within works of

Levi-Struass and Noam Chomsky.language is just a mere tool made by man

which in itself has no meaning, other than culturally developed

paradigms. They hold no meaning in and of itself. I dont know if we

should confuse ourselves of jyotish with language which is again a

man-made tool to give form to the acintya and advaita.(i am still

reading works of Sri Chaitanya and Adi Shankara from net and have

little knowledge)

THE TOWER OF BABEL · Genesis 11:1-9

1. Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. 2. And as

they migrated from the east (a), they came upon a plain in the land of

Shinar and settled there. 3. And they said to one another, "Come, let

us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly." 4. And they had brick for

stone, and bitumen for mortar. 5. Then they said, "Come, let us build

ourselves a city, and a tower, which mortals had built. 6. And the

LORD said, "Look, they are one people, and they have all one language;

and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they

propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7. Come, let us go

down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not

understand one another's speech." 8. So the LORD scattered them abroad

from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building

the city. 9. Therefore it was called Babel, because there the LORD

confused (b) the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD

scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.

I have not read a lot, but its important that we dont confuse

ourselves with jyotish as a structured language which has a defined

path and final teleological goals, which in end only ends up making a

bable of itself.Language is a tool that gives us illusion of concrete

reality, which we believe we are shaping.Our free will that we

believe we hold. I think we need a vedic perspective on this and U all

learned Guru's should guide me to that.

Namaskar

Swati

{Om Guruv Namah}

, Prashant Kumar G B

<gbp_kumar wrote:

>

> Dear readers

>

> AS i know spoken language/s is from 2nd

> written, or visible form of language/communication is 3rd. the art

of writing sculpting, painting, modelling/gestures/expression,

grammer, syntax....

>

> I am sure there rcan be other functions to these, so left to

others to fill in.

>

> crystal pages <jyotish_vani wrote: I am getting a sense

of deja vu about this topic!

> Why must language be better represented in the 3rd? Speech is 2nd, is

> it not?

> What do others think? And please suggest other houses and planets as

> well, because language must have many anchors in the

> horoscope/astrology.

>

> RR

>

> , "auromirra19"

> <nalini2818@> wrote:

> >

> > {Om Namo Narayanaya)

> >

> > RRji,

> > Third, I would say -

> >

> > Nalini

> > {Om Namah Shivaya Namah Mallikarjunaya}

> > , "crystal pages"

> > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > >

> > > 2nd bhava or third?

> > >

> > > , "auromirra19"

> > > <nalini2818@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > {Om Namo Narayanaya}

> > > > RR ji,

> > > > Yes, you did, and one so difficult,contradictory,

> > > > addictive.....could go on.

> > > > Nalini

> > > > {Om Namah Shivaya Namah Mallikarjunaya}

> > > > , "crystal pages"

> > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Actually, Naliniji, I was saying that astrology itself is a

> > > > language!

> > > > >

> > > > > RR

> > > > >

> > > > > , "auromirra19"

> > > > > <nalini2818@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > {Om Namo Narayanaya}

> > > > > > RRji,

> > > > > > Language is so powerful, it has the power to change.

> > Semantics,

> > > > > > though frowned upon as frivolous do play a part.How it

> > shapes

> > > > the

> > > > > > experience of the astrologer, his perception, so relies on

> > > > his/her

> > > > > > prowess, in the ability to deliver-predictive, remedial.

> > The

> > > > > > ability to "change" the quality of the life of the seeker

> > for

> > > > the

> > > > > > better.Language has the inherent ability to cloak the

> > > > unpalatable,

> > > > > > render it coated with palatable truth- not away from the

> > > > reality.

> > > > > > One cannot divest language of its importance, not even the

> > > > *Illusory

> > > > > > fact* that it has nothening to do with astrology.

> > > > > > I have read a post in a forum, where a native had gone to

> an

> > > > > > astrologer seeking a remedy for childlessness. The

> > astrologer

> > > > > > delivered a bombshell that he would die and his widow would

> > > > remarry.

> > > > > > Needless to say the native forgot all about his original

> > quest,

> > > > he

> > > > > > posted queries worrying about his longevity- even his

> wife's

> > > > > > fidelity, in other words went berserk.Understanding

> > > > the 'language'

> > > > > > of astrology and conveying it in the language of the native

> > is

> > > > what

> > > > > > a successful jyotishi is about.

> > > > > > Now(:-

> > > > > > Regards

> > > > > > Nalini

> > > > > > (Om Namah Shivaya Namah Mallikarjunaya)

> > > > > > , "crystal pages"

> > > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > i think you have got it, finally!

> > > > > > > And so as humans change, so does astrology!

> > > > > > > Just look around, from the classics to modern times, and

> > > since

> > > > you

> > > > > > > said "astrology" no need to stay limited to JYOTISH!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > RR

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , "rishi_2000in"

> > > > > > > <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Astrology then should be summed up as the perception or

> > > > human

> > > > > > > > experience of the astrologer, his/her understanding of

> > the

> > > > > > > language.Ye

> > > > > > > > of astrology.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > , "crystal

> pages"

> > > > > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 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

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > , "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.

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > , "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

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

> > > > , "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

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

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

> > , "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

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

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

> > > > > > , "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

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

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

> > > > , "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

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

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

> > > > > > , "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.

>

> Prashantkumar G B

>

> -*- The services of this astrologer are free on

group but

> off the group consultations are chargeable by chat, mail or phone.

> Please fix times for this in advance -*-

> 09840051861

>

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

Messenger with Voice.

>

Sign In

Time, Space, Matter, Energy, relativity........language! 26/4

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads