Two plus two

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar Sa'ab:

 

" When 'prarabdh' hijacks our 'kriyamaan', we are caught unawares. Elf

smiles and vanishes.// I like that statement. Its a smart one. " I am

not quoting myself through you out of self-gratification. I have a

certain point to make.

 

It's a smart one, you say. But you liked it -- why? Just because of the

way I put it? Or the thought behind it? Poetry? Did the well-dress

thought make the reader wince? Or it warmed him up to quote and say

'good'. Please particularly point out where I have been particularly

vague or woolly. Astrology suffered? Did it suffer in the hand of

Kalidasa?

 

Poet: Kalidasa (U.K.)

 

Poet almost: Mantreshwara (Phaladepikaa)

 

Poet: Surya Kant Tripathy Nirala (Well-versed in astrology)

 

?? : You & Me (...)

 

Is astrology pottery and caliper-wielding? Measuring, computing? Were

astrologers of excellence mere computers, 'gaNaka'? Putting two and two

together to get five.

 

I think, 'five' is what astrology demands of its knower, not 'four'.

 

" Particular pointers " , of course. We need them. We are working

ourselves to a sweat. A consistent set of particular and, yes crisp,

pointers. I " agree " we have to deal with what is readily comprehensible

to the logical mind. But remmber it is about 'five', the extra value

addition that goes beyond two plus two. Is it just about dressing up the

thought? Or the Ah element?

 

Prove me wrong. I may be wrong. By the way, what has prompted you to

slice your prose lines? I am bemused (thank you).

 

RK

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri RK Babu,

 

The lines were smart,hence they

were rewarded with a " Good "

No other meaning may be attributed

to this. They were timed well,

and put at the right juncture.

They warmed and did not make

one wince. No Sir, not at all.

That was reality put in

the right manner and way,

bringing a smile on the face

(Genuine Smile).

 

Poetry is a integral part of this

science. The shlokas , the enveloped

meanings in these shlokas, are

'all poetry '.

You have missed the author of

Lal Kitab who has written very well

in poetic lines, the effect of the

planets.

 

About the number " 5 " , I have said'the

same thing in the direct parlance that

astrology requires, When, What and How ?

Anything less than that

or other discussions not related to

this, would be 4 or 3, but not 5.

 

I am not here to point anyone wrong

when none of you were wrong.

Even if you were,I am no one to pass

judgements,and nor have the right to

do so.

 

I have sliced my prose lines b'coz

someone here is pretentious,and

wants to keep me contained, which

would lead me to leaving you all,

and also lead many of you to

follow me.

 

best regards,

and cheers.

 

Bhaskar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vedic Astrologyandhealing , " arkaydash "

<arkaydash wrote:

>

>

> Dear Bhaskar Sa'ab:

>

> " When 'prarabdh' hijacks our 'kriyamaan', we are caught unawares.

Elf

> smiles and vanishes.// I like that statement. Its a smart one. " I

am

> not quoting myself through you out of self-gratification. I have a

> certain point to make.

>

> It's a smart one, you say. But you liked it -- why? Just because

of the

> way I put it? Or the thought behind it? Poetry? Did the well-dress

> thought make the reader wince? Or it warmed him up to quote and say

> 'good'. Please particularly point out where I have been

particularly

> vague or woolly. Astrology suffered? Did it suffer in the hand of

> Kalidasa?

>

> Poet: Kalidasa (U.K.)

>

> Poet almost: Mantreshwara (Phaladepikaa)

>

> Poet: Surya Kant Tripathy Nirala (Well-versed in astrology)

>

> ?? : You & Me (...)

>

> Is astrology pottery and caliper-wielding? Measuring, computing?

Were

> astrologers of excellence mere computers, 'gaNaka'? Putting two

and two

> together to get five.

>

> I think, 'five' is what astrology demands of its knower,

not 'four'.

>

> " Particular pointers " , of course. We need them. We are working

> ourselves to a sweat. A consistent set of particular and, yes

crisp,

> pointers. I " agree " we have to deal with what is readily

comprehensible

> to the logical mind. But remmber it is about 'five', the extra

value

> addition that goes beyond two plus two. Is it just about dressing

up the

> thought? Or the Ah element?

>

> Prove me wrong. I may be wrong. By the way, what has prompted you

to

> slice your prose lines? I am bemused (thank you).

>

> RK

>