To Siva: moksha & Everything...

[Guest guest]

Venkat,

Thank you for your appreciation. These observations are not my own -

I am simply bringing them to everyone's attention since they can

benefit from them. I have similar musings to yours about the general

patterns. Unverified of course. About the gravitational forces, again

not my own observations, but they are the ones reasonably considered

by most scientists because the most significant thing about a planet

is it's size, not it's radiation, so the most logical place to look

would be forces influenced by size (gravity = GMm/r**2). There are

other forces too - atomic ones, but they drop off faster than gravity

or emr (i.e. faster than the inverse of the square of the distance).

 

Sundeep

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri. Siva,

The appended is your quest for knowledge, extracted from BPHS (ch.2)

3-4. "The unborn Lord has many incarnations. He has incarnated, as the 9 (Nava)

Planets to bestow on the living beings the results due to their 10ths. He is

Janardana. He assumed the auspicious form of Planets to destroy the demons

(evil forces) and sustain the divine beings"

With regards,

D.SathiyanarayanaGupta.

schinnas <schinnas > wrote:

Dear Sundeep,Thats a very good point about observing first and then predicting.

However, I am not sure about your second observation. I believe there are

instances in Jyotish classics where the authors (rishis) indicate that planets

cause so and so. For example, while talking about conjunction of planets and

when sun hides the planets, I remember reading something like "rays" of planets

dont reach the person, etc. Please note that I am just basing it on my memory

which may be incorrect.Such statements tend to give the opinion that the divine

force associated with these planets "cause" and not just indicate. Otherwise

remedies to Graha Lords may not make much sense. Now, here is a question for

all: Are there instances where it is clearly and unambiguously said anywhere in

classics that 1. Planets cause an

effect on us (based on our past karma) OR2. Planets just

denote/indicate.Nimittas is a very different story altogether. I am referring

to planetary astrology here.-Siva.vedic astrology,

"vedicastrostudent" <vedicastrostudent> wrote:> Siva,> I am forced to

comment on one statement of yours, because I see > people misinterpreting this

all the time. This is not directed at > you, but a general attitude I have seen

which I think needs to be > corrected:> > > For me and probably many others,

seeing is believing and we > believe > > in astrology but I dont think there

has ever been a *complete* > > explanation of how Jyotish works. > > > The

true scientist values empiricism above all else. This is the > unalterable

sequence for any true scientist: OBSERVATION comes first, > then

HYPOTHESIS, then PREDICTION based on hypothesis, then promotion > of HYPOTHESIS

to EXPLANATION based on the VALIDATION of it's > PREDICTIONS. What I see many

many people doing is debunking Jyotish > falsely under the covers of "science".

When they say "how can a > planet millions of miles away affect our destiny",

they are not being > scientific because they are FIRST looking for an

EXPLANATION, BEFORE > accepting the OBSERVATIONS. A true scientist always

observes first, > even if he has no theories or explanations, or worse, even if

the > observations flatly contradict his pre-existing beliefs and theories. >

Einstein for example OBSERVED that the speed of light was a dead > constant in

all directions BEFORE he hypothesized the theory that > explained it. The

constancy of the speed of light was in stark > contradiction to then existing

theories, but that didnt stop

Einstein > from observing that constancy as a FACT.> > The true scientific

approach to Jyotish is to observe first. *IS* > there a correlation between the

movement of planets and our lives? > Once you get PAST that i.e have answered

the question in YES or NO, > you can proceed to the hypothesis. People

frequently go the other > way - they cant find a comfortable hypothesis, so

they deny the > facts. That is not scientific.> > Secondly, the next biggest

mistake I see people making, and yes I > have not seen ONE person point out

this mistake is that when they see > a correlation between A and B, they

automatically assume that A > CAUSES B. That is an assumption - it is only ONE

possibility of > potentially more. Case in point: Jyotish. When they see the

movement > of planets correlating directly with the events in the lives of >

people, people automatically

assume that the movement of planets > CAUSES those events. Huh? Why? Say for

example the mail in your house > comes at 2pm. You keep watching the clock on

the wall, and when it > hits 2pm you run to your mailbox and sure enough, there

is the mail. > Did the movement of the clock to the position 2pm CAUSE the mail

to > come? No! Both the mailman and you are using a synchronized clock. >

Neither caused the other. The same MAY be the case for JYOTISH. It > MAY - I

dont know, I am simply not eliminating it as a possibility. > The planets may

be like a complex clock in the sky (that can be read > only by competent

astrologers of course), keeping time of events that > occur in your life. They

may only be the clock, not necessarily the > process that causes the event. I

find it funny when people say - we > know all the material forces e.g. gravity

that emanate from all

> planets, and none has enough magnitude to affect anything on earth. > My

answer - So what? The planets may not be CAUSING the things on > earth, simply

TIMING them.> > > SundeepArchives:

vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us .......