Guest guest Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Dear Mr KAD, what said below is absolutely right and this is what a modern Astrologer with the help of his unique approach should get whe the problem is brought to his notice. with whatever astrological knowledge I have, I am UNABLE to read the chart. It is just a piece of paper then; whatever I decipher may/maynot be a failure, but dilute in nature, which querist may/maynot understand - rather misunderstand All of our members of the group should follow this dictum Thnx krishnan kadrudra <kadrudra wrote: Dear All, With someone asking for correct Ayanamsha, I felt like sharing a few points on Mathematics and Intuition. If one depends much only on astronomical accuracy but not on his mental capacity, the result would be total confusion! Astrology is a divine branch of knowledge and whether it is looked down upon by 'Forward' world or looked at with reverence, it has its own merits. Before, there was a theory to caculate planetary positions, be it SuryaSiddhanta, Vakya or Aryabhateeyam; and there was no dispute of Ayanamsha. Even with same charts, predictions would differ with different astro-schools of thought. Still, in those days, predictions would not fail like in now a days, because astrologers had much of intution, and cared less for a degree or two of mathematical angle! Just that MOMENT of TRIAD - astrologer, querist and tool would answer the querist. By tool, I mean chart/ kundali/Prashna/Number/Colour or whatever the astrologer could 'GRASP' for a quantum jump into querist's mind, not bound by time and space. That gave the answer, perfectly! Getting correct answer to one's query too is ruled by his own KARMA! I have always observed that whenever there is a 'good' moment of TRIAD, I could 'sense' or 'feel' everything about the native and the query even including time of birth and death exactly to seconds!!! THAT is a SURE indication that the querist is going to get the exact answer. On the other hand, I have sensed 'bad' moments of Triad, which never even make up the triad and with whatever astrological knowledge I have, I am UNABLE to read the chart. It is just a piece of paper then; whatever I decipher may/maynot be a failure, but dilute in nature, which querist may/maynot understand - rather misunderstand! So I have full belief that whatever Ayanamsha one uses, his INTUITION is the important part, without which even with ocean of astrology to his back, with accurate charts before him, he fails! This was strengthened after I worked with a Prof.of Maths who developed formulae to find the time of Marriage and death of a native! humbly, KAD ~! LIFE MEANS STRUGGLE, THE FITTEST WINS SURVIVAL !~ / Mail - You care about security. So do we. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Now we are talking ;-) , vattem krishnan <bursar_99> wrote: > Dear Mr KAD, > what said below is absolutely right and this is what a modern Astrologer with the help of his unique approach should get whe the problem is brought to his notice. > with whatever astrological knowledge I have, I am UNABLE > to read the chart. It is just a piece of paper then; whatever I > decipher may/maynot be a failure, but dilute in nature, which > querist may/maynot understand - rather misunderstand > All of our members of the group should follow this dictum > Thnx > krishnan > kadrudra <kadrudra> wrote: > > Dear All, > > With someone asking for correct Ayanamsha, I felt like sharing a few > points on Mathematics and Intuition. > > If one depends much only on astronomical accuracy but not on his > mental capacity, the result would be total confusion! > Astrology is a divine branch of knowledge and whether it is looked > down upon by 'Forward' world or looked at with reverence, > it has its own merits. Before, there was a theory to caculate > planetary positions, be it SuryaSiddhanta, Vakya or Aryabhateeyam; > and there was no dispute of Ayanamsha. Even with same charts, > predictions would differ with different astro-schools of thought. > Still, in those days, predictions would not fail like in now a days, > because astrologers had much of intution, and cared less > for a degree or two of mathematical angle! Just that MOMENT of TRIAD - > astrologer, querist and tool would answer the querist. > By tool, I mean chart/ kundali/Prashna/Number/Colour or whatever the > astrologer could 'GRASP' for a quantum jump into querist's > mind, not bound by time and space. That gave the answer, perfectly! > > Getting correct answer to one's query too is ruled by his own KARMA! > I have always observed that whenever there is a 'good' > moment of TRIAD, I could 'sense' or 'feel' everything about the > native and the query even including time of birth and death > exactly to seconds!!! THAT is a SURE indication that the querist is > going to get the exact answer. On the other hand, I have > sensed 'bad' moments of Triad, which never even make up the triad and > with whatever astrological knowledge I have, I am UNABLE > to read the chart. It is just a piece of paper then; whatever I > decipher may/maynot be a failure, but dilute in nature, which > querist may/maynot understand - rather misunderstand! > > So I have full belief that whatever Ayanamsha one uses, his INTUITION > is the important part, without which even with ocean of > astrology to his back, with accurate charts before him, he fails! > This was strengthened after I worked with a Prof.of Maths > who developed formulae to find the time of Marriage and death of a > native! > > humbly, > KAD ~! LIFE MEANS STRUGGLE, THE FITTEST WINS SURVIVAL !~ > > > > > Links > > > / > > > > > Terms of Service. > > > > > > Mail - You care about security. So do we. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Kad ji, Seriously though (although I still mean what I posted earlier, "Now we are talking!") -- your post brings out a very pithy fact. Jyotish is not something that can be explained on the model that science uses (or at least used so far) to explain and describe "physical" reality. Jyotish has some physical components but it cannot all be described using the "engineering" model. NOW, this is where I am treading thin ice and do not wish to offend anyone or attack anyone, but I see a very strange similarity between western astrology and jyotish. This is just an observation so do not kill the observer ;-) When decades ago I was viewing the growth of western astrology more as an observer than a participant, I was struck by the heavy 'psychological' emphasis in the explanations used. It suddenly made sense to me one day when I realized that most of the 'brains' involved were really psychologists and those with clinical psychology backgrounds. I use the term 'brain' not in the deregatory sense that many spiritualist, soft science type critics use. Brains strive to analyze, dissect, break down and reconstitute models and "reality". The psychologists, from Jung to all the way down to whoever is ruling the roost tonight, western astrological symbolism experienced the influence of these psychologists and little wonder that the astro- symbolism got explained using psychological model and terminology. Jyotish primarily experienced the influence of religious, spiritual doyens and it had a heavy spiritual theme, and structure. Then more recently it attracted individuals who were from a practical, organizational background and so we saw the systems approach and it naturally led to the background which attracted many engineers and programmers/mathematicians. We see, thus, a resurgence and revival of techniques, and the current mainstream jyotish is very much based on the engineering model. None of any of these are right or wrong and we should stop reacting in a knee jerk manner that the current dominant theme is driving the entire field or that it is annihilating or overwriting what we hold dear or think of as the truth, at least in so far as we see it. I see all of these different takes, the different windows as progress and without being deregatory as the five blind men as they see the elephant. Unless we gain instant and full vision, and that is but a pipe dream for most of us, other than a few who actually have gone beyond jyotish through gaining such vision (!), we need all five blind men and their views and opinions and their construct of the reality, because if it is indeed the elephant that we shortsighted individuals are trying to figure out, within our short lifetimes, the Elephant the dark and large, time incarnate, can further reduce our lifetime for us, with one careless sway of its mighty trunk or by deciding to roll over right where we stand making our myopic observations. We will come back, of course, I have full trust! RR , "kadrudra" <kadrudra> wrote: > > Dear All, > > With someone asking for correct Ayanamsha, I felt like sharing a few > points on Mathematics and Intuition. > > If one depends much only on astronomical accuracy but not on his > mental capacity, the result would be total confusion! > Astrology is a divine branch of knowledge and whether it is looked > down upon by 'Forward' world or looked at with reverence, > it has its own merits. Before, there was a theory to caculate > planetary positions, be it SuryaSiddhanta, Vakya or Aryabhateeyam; > and there was no dispute of Ayanamsha. Even with same charts, > predictions would differ with different astro-schools of thought. > Still, in those days, predictions would not fail like in now a days, > because astrologers had much of intution, and cared less > for a degree or two of mathematical angle! Just that MOMENT of TRIAD - > astrologer, querist and tool would answer the querist. > By tool, I mean chart/ kundali/Prashna/Number/Colour or whatever the > astrologer could 'GRASP' for a quantum jump into querist's > mind, not bound by time and space. That gave the answer, perfectly! > > Getting correct answer to one's query too is ruled by his own KARMA! > I have always observed that whenever there is a 'good' > moment of TRIAD, I could 'sense' or 'feel' everything about the > native and the query even including time of birth and death > exactly to seconds!!! THAT is a SURE indication that the querist is > going to get the exact answer. On the other hand, I have > sensed 'bad' moments of Triad, which never even make up the triad and > with whatever astrological knowledge I have, I am UNABLE > to read the chart. It is just a piece of paper then; whatever I > decipher may/maynot be a failure, but dilute in nature, which > querist may/maynot understand - rather misunderstand! > > So I have full belief that whatever Ayanamsha one uses, his INTUITION > is the important part, without which even with ocean of > astrology to his back, with accurate charts before him, he fails! > This was strengthened after I worked with a Prof.of Maths > who developed formulae to find the time of Marriage and death of a > native! > > humbly, > KAD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Another of my tangents: I am reminded of a dialogue from Mostly Harmless, Douglas Adams' fifth book in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series. Tricia, a TV anchor, is talking to Gail, an astrologer she has savaged in an interview. ----------------------- "I know that astrology isn't a science,' said Gail. "Of course it isn't. It's just an arbitrary set of rules like chess or tennis or, what's that strange thing you British play?' "Er, cricket? Self-loathing?" "Parliamentary democracy. The rules just kind of got there. They don't make any kind of sense except in terms of themselves. But when you start to exercise those rules, all sorts of processes start to happen and you start to find out all sorts of stuff about people. In astrology the rules happen to be about stars and planets, but they could be about ducks and drakes for all the difference it would make. **It's just a way of thinking about a problem which lets the shape of that problem begin to emerge. The more rules, the tinier the rules, the more arbitrary they are, the better. It's like throwing a handful of fine graphite dust on a piece of paper to see where the hidden indentations are. It lets you see the words that were written on the piece of paper above it that's now been taken away and hidden. The graphite's not important. It's just the means of revealing their indentations.** So you see, astrology's nothing to do with astronomy. It's just to do with people thinking about people. (Emphasis mine) ------------------------ You can read the whole book here: http://flag.blackened.net/dinsdale/dna/book5.html Ram , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> wrote: > > Kad ji, > > Seriously though (although I still mean what I posted earlier, "Now > we are talking!") -- your post brings out a very pithy fact. > > Jyotish is not something that can be explained on the model that > science uses (or at least used so far) to explain and > describe "physical" reality. > > Jyotish has some physical components but it cannot all be described > using the "engineering" model. NOW, this is where I am treading thin > ice and do not wish to offend anyone or attack anyone, but I see a > very strange similarity between western astrology and jyotish. This > is just an observation so do not kill the observer ;-) > > When decades ago I was viewing the growth of western astrology more > as an observer than a participant, I was struck by the > heavy 'psychological' emphasis in the explanations used. It suddenly > made sense to me one day when I realized that most of the 'brains' > involved were really psychologists and those with clinical psychology > backgrounds. I use the term 'brain' not in the deregatory sense that > many spiritualist, soft science type critics use. Brains strive to > analyze, dissect, break down and reconstitute models and "reality". > The psychologists, from Jung to all the way down to whoever is ruling > the roost tonight, western astrological symbolism experienced the > influence of these psychologists and little wonder that the astro- > symbolism got explained using psychological model and terminology. > > Jyotish primarily experienced the influence of religious, spiritual > doyens and it had a heavy spiritual theme, and structure. Then more > recently it attracted individuals who were from a practical, > organizational background and so we saw the systems approach and it > naturally led to the background which attracted many engineers and > programmers/mathematicians. We see, thus, a resurgence and revival of > techniques, and the current mainstream jyotish is very much based on > the engineering model. > > None of any of these are right or wrong and we should stop reacting > in a knee jerk manner that the current dominant theme is driving the > entire field or that it is annihilating or overwriting what we hold > dear or think of as the truth, at least in so far as we see it. > > I see all of these different takes, the different windows as progress > and without being deregatory as the five blind men as they see the > elephant. > > Unless we gain instant and full vision, and that is but a pipe dream > for most of us, other than a few who actually have gone beyond > jyotish through gaining such vision (!), we need all five blind men > and their views and opinions and their construct of the reality, > because if it is indeed the elephant that we shortsighted individuals > are trying to figure out, within our short lifetimes, the Elephant > the dark and large, time incarnate, can further reduce our lifetime > for us, with one careless sway of its mighty trunk or by deciding to > roll over right where we stand making our myopic observations. We > will come back, of course, I have full trust! > > RR > > , "kadrudra" <kadrudra> > wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > With someone asking for correct Ayanamsha, I felt like sharing a > few > > points on Mathematics and Intuition. > > > > If one depends much only on astronomical accuracy but not on his > > mental capacity, the result would be total confusion! > > Astrology is a divine branch of knowledge and whether it is looked > > down upon by 'Forward' world or looked at with reverence, > > it has its own merits. Before, there was a theory to caculate > > planetary positions, be it SuryaSiddhanta, Vakya or Aryabhateeyam; > > and there was no dispute of Ayanamsha. Even with same charts, > > predictions would differ with different astro-schools of thought. > > Still, in those days, predictions would not fail like in now a > days, > > because astrologers had much of intution, and cared less > > for a degree or two of mathematical angle! Just that MOMENT of > TRIAD - > > astrologer, querist and tool would answer the querist. > > By tool, I mean chart/ kundali/Prashna/Number/Colour or whatever > the > > astrologer could 'GRASP' for a quantum jump into querist's > > mind, not bound by time and space. That gave the answer, perfectly! > > > > Getting correct answer to one's query too is ruled by his own > KARMA! > > I have always observed that whenever there is a 'good' > > moment of TRIAD, I could 'sense' or 'feel' everything about the > > native and the query even including time of birth and death > > exactly to seconds!!! THAT is a SURE indication that the querist is > > going to get the exact answer. On the other hand, I have > > sensed 'bad' moments of Triad, which never even make up the triad > and > > with whatever astrological knowledge I have, I am UNABLE > > to read the chart. It is just a piece of paper then; whatever I > > decipher may/maynot be a failure, but dilute in nature, which > > querist may/maynot understand - rather misunderstand! > > > > So I have full belief that whatever Ayanamsha one uses, his > INTUITION > > is the important part, without which even with ocean of > > astrology to his back, with accurate charts before him, he fails! > > This was strengthened after I worked with a Prof.of Maths > > who developed formulae to find the time of Marriage and death of a > > native! > > > > humbly, > > KAD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Dear brother of the sword (more like, the laser that cuts through realities!) 'Take life as it presents itself in all its seriousness and true worth' BUT "talk about it as if it matters not one whit -- on the surface!" This, to me, seems to be what the British influence of hundreds of years on the Indian scene/psyche is all about. It is true that this almost seems 'phoney' and in-genuine to some, to many? But that is what much of parenthood has been about in the modern (post-war II) about. Parents would not trust us to be mature enough to let us handle reality, as it stands ... Yet if you are smart, you KNOW that you can go forth and make a mistake and remain assured that Dad or Mom will be watching you and jump in to help out of love or maybe out of guilt! But help comes only or at least often -- when there is complete surrender, complete supplication. How is this any different from that we are told by the "spirit-ual" amongst us? That we must surrender completely before we are blessed and annointed by our Spiritual Pop and Mom? You know, even those few hundreds of years of British rule or Moghul/Persian rule were supposed to have told us Indians, to have made us realize that === well something! I ask, though, today, in this moment -- I ask myself -- If all I have discussed here and elsewhere in this or the other jyotish fora and all the religious/spiritual fora for the last many decades -- am I truly a pure Indian? What does that mean? Have I never been born in the last thousand years, as anything other than an Indian? It bothers me and yet when I think of it and voice it so openly, it is so inconsequential, so superficial. Surely I being alone must alone be wrong, for how can the millions of you, out there be wrong? Ranjan , "vargottama" <vargottama> wrote: > > Another of my tangents: I am reminded of a dialogue from Mostly > Harmless, Douglas Adams' fifth book in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the > Galaxy series. Tricia, a TV anchor, is talking to Gail, an > astrologer she has savaged in an interview. > > ----------------------- > > "I know that astrology isn't a science,' said Gail. "Of course it > isn't. It's just an arbitrary set of rules like chess or tennis or, > what's that strange thing you British play?' > > "Er, cricket? Self-loathing?" > > "Parliamentary democracy. The rules just kind of got there. They > don't make any kind of sense except in terms of themselves. But when > you start to exercise those rules, all sorts of processes start to > happen and you start to find out all sorts of stuff about people. In > astrology the rules happen to be about stars and planets, but they > could be about ducks and drakes for all the difference it would > make. **It's just a way of thinking about a problem which lets the > shape of that problem begin to emerge. The more rules, the tinier > the rules, the more arbitrary they are, the better. It's like > throwing a handful of fine graphite dust on a piece of paper to see > where the hidden indentations are. It lets you see the words that > were written on the piece of paper above it that's now been taken > away and hidden. The graphite's not important. It's just the means > of revealing their indentations.** So you see, astrology's nothing > to do with astronomy. It's just to do with people thinking about > people. > > (Emphasis mine) > ------------------------ > > You can read the whole book here: > > http://flag.blackened.net/dinsdale/dna/book5.html > > Ram > > > , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> > wrote: > > > > Kad ji, > > > > Seriously though (although I still mean what I posted earlier, > "Now > > we are talking!") -- your post brings out a very pithy fact. > > > > Jyotish is not something that can be explained on the model that > > science uses (or at least used so far) to explain and > > describe "physical" reality. > > > > Jyotish has some physical components but it cannot all be > described > > using the "engineering" model. NOW, this is where I am treading > thin > > ice and do not wish to offend anyone or attack anyone, but I see a > > very strange similarity between western astrology and jyotish. > This > > is just an observation so do not kill the observer ;-) > > > > When decades ago I was viewing the growth of western astrology > more > > as an observer than a participant, I was struck by the > > heavy 'psychological' emphasis in the explanations used. It > suddenly > > made sense to me one day when I realized that most of the 'brains' > > involved were really psychologists and those with clinical > psychology > > backgrounds. I use the term 'brain' not in the deregatory sense > that > > many spiritualist, soft science type critics use. Brains strive to > > analyze, dissect, break down and reconstitute models and > "reality". > > The psychologists, from Jung to all the way down to whoever is > ruling > > the roost tonight, western astrological symbolism experienced the > > influence of these psychologists and little wonder that the astro- > > symbolism got explained using psychological model and terminology. > > > > Jyotish primarily experienced the influence of religious, > spiritual > > doyens and it had a heavy spiritual theme, and structure. Then > more > > recently it attracted individuals who were from a practical, > > organizational background and so we saw the systems approach and > it > > naturally led to the background which attracted many engineers and > > programmers/mathematicians. We see, thus, a resurgence and revival > of > > techniques, and the current mainstream jyotish is very much based > on > > the engineering model. > > > > None of any of these are right or wrong and we should stop > reacting > > in a knee jerk manner that the current dominant theme is driving > the > > entire field or that it is annihilating or overwriting what we > hold > > dear or think of as the truth, at least in so far as we see it. > > > > I see all of these different takes, the different windows as > progress > > and without being deregatory as the five blind men as they see the > > elephant. > > > > Unless we gain instant and full vision, and that is but a pipe > dream > > for most of us, other than a few who actually have gone beyond > > jyotish through gaining such vision (!), we need all five blind > men > > and their views and opinions and their construct of the reality, > > because if it is indeed the elephant that we shortsighted > individuals > > are trying to figure out, within our short lifetimes, the Elephant > > the dark and large, time incarnate, can further reduce our > lifetime > > for us, with one careless sway of its mighty trunk or by deciding > to > > roll over right where we stand making our myopic observations. We > > will come back, of course, I have full trust! > > > > RR > > > > , "kadrudra" > <kadrudra> > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > With someone asking for correct Ayanamsha, I felt like sharing a > > few > > > points on Mathematics and Intuition. > > > > > > If one depends much only on astronomical accuracy but not on his > > > mental capacity, the result would be total confusion! > > > Astrology is a divine branch of knowledge and whether it is > looked > > > down upon by 'Forward' world or looked at with reverence, > > > it has its own merits. Before, there was a theory to caculate > > > planetary positions, be it SuryaSiddhanta, Vakya or > Aryabhateeyam; > > > and there was no dispute of Ayanamsha. Even with same charts, > > > predictions would differ with different astro-schools of > thought. > > > Still, in those days, predictions would not fail like in now a > > days, > > > because astrologers had much of intution, and cared less > > > for a degree or two of mathematical angle! Just that MOMENT of > > TRIAD - > > > astrologer, querist and tool would answer the querist. > > > By tool, I mean chart/ kundali/Prashna/Number/Colour or whatever > > the > > > astrologer could 'GRASP' for a quantum jump into querist's > > > mind, not bound by time and space. That gave the answer, > perfectly! > > > > > > Getting correct answer to one's query too is ruled by his own > > KARMA! > > > I have always observed that whenever there is a 'good' > > > moment of TRIAD, I could 'sense' or 'feel' everything about the > > > native and the query even including time of birth and death > > > exactly to seconds!!! THAT is a SURE indication that the querist > is > > > going to get the exact answer. On the other hand, I have > > > sensed 'bad' moments of Triad, which never even make up the > triad > > and > > > with whatever astrological knowledge I have, I am UNABLE > > > to read the chart. It is just a piece of paper then; whatever I > > > decipher may/maynot be a failure, but dilute in nature, which > > > querist may/maynot understand - rather misunderstand! > > > > > > So I have full belief that whatever Ayanamsha one uses, his > > INTUITION > > > is the important part, without which even with ocean of > > > astrology to his back, with accurate charts before him, he > fails! > > > This was strengthened after I worked with a Prof.of Maths > > > who developed formulae to find the time of Marriage and death of > a > > > native! > > > > > > humbly, > > > KAD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Dear RR, I can see your stand point that Jyotish can not be explained by 'Scientific or Engg Models'. Simply, we do not need any model to 'explain' astrology because it is 'felt and understood' always. Nor do I stress that astrology is in 'scientific model' as it is understood today. I just want to turn a thinker's eye on this subject, with a view that it is not superstition nor magic, but really 'a systematised body of knowledge'(which makes me call it science in a broad sense; not by models). I just want 'scientists' to have astrology as spiritual 'eyes'- thats what Vedas meant by calling Jyotisha as EYES of Vedas. As far as scientific models are concerned, they were developed after a thorough study of the subject, which is yet to start in astrology!(Perhaps KP system went a foot ahead) Unlike other subjects, Jyotish is difficult to be modelised as you rightly said. So there is no way that one can simply say that astrology = science. But one day, it would entirely change the system of models. We need all five ignorant persons trying to know the elephant, for this to happen. For I believe, all are not blinds but lack different 'sense organs'. Perhaps they are PANCHA- INDRIYA (five sense organs) separated! :-) We really need all the five! yours KAD , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> wrote: > > Kad ji, > > Seriously though (although I still mean what I posted earlier, "Now > we are talking!") -- your post brings out a very pithy fact. > > Jyotish is not something that can be explained on the model that > science uses (or at least used so far) to explain and > describe "physical" reality. > > Jyotish has some physical components but it cannot all be described > using the "engineering" model. NOW, this is where I am treading thin > ice and do not wish to offend anyone or attack anyone, but I see a > very strange similarity between western astrology and jyotish. This > is just an observation so do not kill the observer ;-) > > When decades ago I was viewing the growth of western astrology more > as an observer than a participant, I was struck by the > heavy 'psychological' emphasis in the explanations used. It suddenly > made sense to me one day when I realized that most of the 'brains' > involved were really psychologists and those with clinical psychology > backgrounds. I use the term 'brain' not in the deregatory sense that > many spiritualist, soft science type critics use. Brains strive to > analyze, dissect, break down and reconstitute models and "reality". > The psychologists, from Jung to all the way down to whoever is ruling > the roost tonight, western astrological symbolism experienced the > influence of these psychologists and little wonder that the astro- > symbolism got explained using psychological model and terminology. > > Jyotish primarily experienced the influence of religious, spiritual > doyens and it had a heavy spiritual theme, and structure. Then more > recently it attracted individuals who were from a practical, > organizational background and so we saw the systems approach and it > naturally led to the background which attracted many engineers and > programmers/mathematicians. We see, thus, a resurgence and revival of > techniques, and the current mainstream jyotish is very much based on > the engineering model. > > None of any of these are right or wrong and we should stop reacting > in a knee jerk manner that the current dominant theme is driving the > entire field or that it is annihilating or overwriting what we hold > dear or think of as the truth, at least in so far as we see it. > > I see all of these different takes, the different windows as progress > and without being deregatory as the five blind men as they see the > elephant. > > Unless we gain instant and full vision, and that is but a pipe dream > for most of us, other than a few who actually have gone beyond > jyotish through gaining such vision (!), we need all five blind men > and their views and opinions and their construct of the reality, > because if it is indeed the elephant that we shortsighted individuals > are trying to figure out, within our short lifetimes, the Elephant > the dark and large, time incarnate, can further reduce our lifetime > for us, with one careless sway of its mighty trunk or by deciding to > roll over right where we stand making our myopic observations. We > will come back, of course, I have full trust! > > RR > > , "kadrudra" <kadrudra> > wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > With someone asking for correct Ayanamsha, I felt like sharing a > few > > points on Mathematics and Intuition. > > > > If one depends much only on astronomical accuracy but not on his > > mental capacity, the result would be total confusion! > > Astrology is a divine branch of knowledge and whether it is looked > > down upon by 'Forward' world or looked at with reverence, > > it has its own merits. Before, there was a theory to caculate > > planetary positions, be it SuryaSiddhanta, Vakya or Aryabhateeyam; > > and there was no dispute of Ayanamsha. Even with same charts, > > predictions would differ with different astro-schools of thought. > > Still, in those days, predictions would not fail like in now a > days, > > because astrologers had much of intution, and cared less > > for a degree or two of mathematical angle! Just that MOMENT of > TRIAD - > > astrologer, querist and tool would answer the querist. > > By tool, I mean chart/ kundali/Prashna/Number/Colour or whatever > the > > astrologer could 'GRASP' for a quantum jump into querist's > > mind, not bound by time and space. That gave the answer, perfectly! > > > > Getting correct answer to one's query too is ruled by his own > KARMA! > > I have always observed that whenever there is a 'good' > > moment of TRIAD, I could 'sense' or 'feel' everything about the > > native and the query even including time of birth and death > > exactly to seconds!!! THAT is a SURE indication that the querist is > > going to get the exact answer. On the other hand, I have > > sensed 'bad' moments of Triad, which never even make up the triad > and > > with whatever astrological knowledge I have, I am UNABLE > > to read the chart. It is just a piece of paper then; whatever I > > decipher may/maynot be a failure, but dilute in nature, which > > querist may/maynot understand - rather misunderstand! > > > > So I have full belief that whatever Ayanamsha one uses, his > INTUITION > > is the important part, without which even with ocean of > > astrology to his back, with accurate charts before him, he fails! > > This was strengthened after I worked with a Prof.of Maths > > who developed formulae to find the time of Marriage and death of a > > native! > > > > humbly, > > KAD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 While it would be easy and convenient for me to 'agree' to some of the suppositions you made in your response, Kad, they are opinions and as vacuuous as many of the books and articles written for unsuspecting students of astrology, over the last fifty (maybe longer?) years. If you are telling the truth, the onus is on you to prove it to us, or else you are just another, one of them! The ONLY proof and demonstration for most of us is through consistent demonstration of the astrological truth, case after case, horoscope after another -- something that NO astrologer has given and therefore, astrology remains a big questionmark and a questionable. Anyone can take up the challenge, Lord knows THEY did not all these many decades and centuries! Are you game? Unconditionally? RR , "kadrudra" <kadrudra> wrote: > > Dear RR, > > I can see your stand point that Jyotish can not be explained > by 'Scientific or Engg Models'. > Simply, we do not need any model to 'explain' astrology because it > is 'felt and understood' always. > Nor do I stress that astrology is in 'scientific model' as it is > understood today. I just want to > turn a thinker's eye on this subject, with a view that it is not > superstition nor magic, but really > 'a systematised body of knowledge'(which makes me call it science in > a broad sense; not by models). > I just want 'scientists' to have astrology as spiritual 'eyes'- thats > what Vedas meant by calling > Jyotisha as EYES of Vedas. > > As far as scientific models are concerned, they were developed after > a thorough study of the subject, > which is yet to start in astrology!(Perhaps KP system went a foot > ahead) Unlike other subjects, Jyotish > is difficult to be modelised as you rightly said. So there is no way > that one can simply say that > astrology = science. But one day, it would entirely change the system > of models. We need all five > ignorant persons trying to know the elephant, for this to happen. For > I believe, all are not blinds > but lack different 'sense organs'. Perhaps they are PANCHA- INDRIYA > (five sense organs) separated! :-) > We really need all the five! > > yours > KAD > > > > > , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> > wrote: > > > > Kad ji, > > > > Seriously though (although I still mean what I posted earlier, "Now > > we are talking!") -- your post brings out a very pithy fact. > > > > Jyotish is not something that can be explained on the model that > > science uses (or at least used so far) to explain and > > describe "physical" reality. > > > > Jyotish has some physical components but it cannot all be described > > using the "engineering" model. NOW, this is where I am treading > thin > > ice and do not wish to offend anyone or attack anyone, but I see a > > very strange similarity between western astrology and jyotish. This > > is just an observation so do not kill the observer ;-) > > > > When decades ago I was viewing the growth of western astrology more > > as an observer than a participant, I was struck by the > > heavy 'psychological' emphasis in the explanations used. It > suddenly > > made sense to me one day when I realized that most of the 'brains' > > involved were really psychologists and those with clinical > psychology > > backgrounds. I use the term 'brain' not in the deregatory sense > that > > many spiritualist, soft science type critics use. Brains strive to > > analyze, dissect, break down and reconstitute models and "reality". > > The psychologists, from Jung to all the way down to whoever is > ruling > > the roost tonight, western astrological symbolism experienced the > > influence of these psychologists and little wonder that the astro- > > symbolism got explained using psychological model and terminology. > > > > Jyotish primarily experienced the influence of religious, spiritual > > doyens and it had a heavy spiritual theme, and structure. Then more > > recently it attracted individuals who were from a practical, > > organizational background and so we saw the systems approach and it > > naturally led to the background which attracted many engineers and > > programmers/mathematicians. We see, thus, a resurgence and revival > of > > techniques, and the current mainstream jyotish is very much based > on > > the engineering model. > > > > None of any of these are right or wrong and we should stop reacting > > in a knee jerk manner that the current dominant theme is driving > the > > entire field or that it is annihilating or overwriting what we hold > > dear or think of as the truth, at least in so far as we see it. > > > > I see all of these different takes, the different windows as > progress > > and without being deregatory as the five blind men as they see the > > elephant. > > > > Unless we gain instant and full vision, and that is but a pipe > dream > > for most of us, other than a few who actually have gone beyond > > jyotish through gaining such vision (!), we need all five blind men > > and their views and opinions and their construct of the reality, > > because if it is indeed the elephant that we shortsighted > individuals > > are trying to figure out, within our short lifetimes, the Elephant > > the dark and large, time incarnate, can further reduce our lifetime > > for us, with one careless sway of its mighty trunk or by deciding > to > > roll over right where we stand making our myopic observations. We > > will come back, of course, I have full trust! > > > > RR > > > > , "kadrudra" <kadrudra> > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > With someone asking for correct Ayanamsha, I felt like sharing a > > few > > > points on Mathematics and Intuition. > > > > > > If one depends much only on astronomical accuracy but not on his > > > mental capacity, the result would be total confusion! > > > Astrology is a divine branch of knowledge and whether it is > looked > > > down upon by 'Forward' world or looked at with reverence, > > > it has its own merits. Before, there was a theory to caculate > > > planetary positions, be it SuryaSiddhanta, Vakya or Aryabhateeyam; > > > and there was no dispute of Ayanamsha. Even with same charts, > > > predictions would differ with different astro-schools of thought. > > > Still, in those days, predictions would not fail like in now a > > days, > > > because astrologers had much of intution, and cared less > > > for a degree or two of mathematical angle! Just that MOMENT of > > TRIAD - > > > astrologer, querist and tool would answer the querist. > > > By tool, I mean chart/ kundali/Prashna/Number/Colour or whatever > > the > > > astrologer could 'GRASP' for a quantum jump into querist's > > > mind, not bound by time and space. That gave the answer, > perfectly! > > > > > > Getting correct answer to one's query too is ruled by his own > > KARMA! > > > I have always observed that whenever there is a 'good' > > > moment of TRIAD, I could 'sense' or 'feel' everything about the > > > native and the query even including time of birth and death > > > exactly to seconds!!! THAT is a SURE indication that the querist > is > > > going to get the exact answer. On the other hand, I have > > > sensed 'bad' moments of Triad, which never even make up the triad > > and > > > with whatever astrological knowledge I have, I am UNABLE > > > to read the chart. It is just a piece of paper then; whatever I > > > decipher may/maynot be a failure, but dilute in nature, which > > > querist may/maynot understand - rather misunderstand! > > > > > > So I have full belief that whatever Ayanamsha one uses, his > > INTUITION > > > is the important part, without which even with ocean of > > > astrology to his back, with accurate charts before him, he fails! > > > This was strengthened after I worked with a Prof.of Maths > > > who developed formulae to find the time of Marriage and death of > a > > > native! > > > > > > humbly, > > > KAD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Dear RR, I do not compell anyone to agree with my opinions, nor do I preach something new. I want everyone to come out and have a look at the Heavens but with spiritual eyes. If it comes to 'proving' results of astrology, it can certainly be done, while 'proving' consistency of an astrologer certainly fails! The problem is, most of the world knows astrology through astrologers. For a pre-Marconi scientist, Radio or electro-magnetic wave theory was as 'unscientific' as astrology for now-a-days scientists. Before anything gets discovered, or invented, it is just an imaginary concept or a belief. If anyone talked of touching Moon in 1000 AD, one would certainly ask him to prove it then. Both were right but it could not be done then. Man has 'advanced' in his abilities and can reach Moon, feel Mars and it can be 'proved' now. It was not due to one but due to a collective effort of a large number people who dedicated themselves to do it. So is the case with astrology! I fully agree when you say about incosistent astrologers like all of us - no exception. But if only 'seeing is believing', then we can not prove existence of air or vacuum or space! My idea is to support astro-studies as equally as Physics or Mathematics. Whether student likes it or not, understands it or not is his KARMA, but keep the door widen open! Out of all scientists we have, there are only a few Newtons and Einsteins and Ramans. How can we expect all astrologers to be Mihiras or Bhaskaras or Neelakanthas? The problem before us is not a condition nor a game, but a collective challenge! If I can not, I support who can! :-) yours KAD , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> wrote: > > While it would be easy and convenient for me to 'agree' to some of > the suppositions you made in your response, Kad, they are opinions > and as vacuuous as many of the books and articles written for > unsuspecting students of astrology, over the last fifty (maybe > longer?) years. > > If you are telling the truth, the onus is on you to prove it to us, > or else you are just another, one of them! > > The ONLY proof and demonstration for most of us is through consistent > demonstration of the astrological truth, case after case, horoscope > after another -- something that NO astrologer has given and > therefore, astrology remains a big questionmark and a questionable. > > Anyone can take up the challenge, Lord knows THEY did not all these > many decades and centuries! > > Are you game? Unconditionally? > > RR > > , "kadrudra" <kadrudra> > wrote: > > > > Dear RR, > > > > I can see your stand point that Jyotish can not be explained > > by 'Scientific or Engg Models'. > > Simply, we do not need any model to 'explain' astrology because it > > is 'felt and understood' always. > > Nor do I stress that astrology is in 'scientific model' as it is > > understood today. I just want to > > turn a thinker's eye on this subject, with a view that it is not > > superstition nor magic, but really > > 'a systematised body of knowledge'(which makes me call it science > in > > a broad sense; not by models). > > I just want 'scientists' to have astrology as spiritual 'eyes'- > thats > > what Vedas meant by calling > > Jyotisha as EYES of Vedas. > > > > As far as scientific models are concerned, they were developed > after > > a thorough study of the subject, > > which is yet to start in astrology!(Perhaps KP system went a foot > > ahead) Unlike other subjects, Jyotish > > is difficult to be modelised as you rightly said. So there is no > way > > that one can simply say that > > astrology = science. But one day, it would entirely change the > system > > of models. We need all five > > ignorant persons trying to know the elephant, for this to happen. > For > > I believe, all are not blinds > > but lack different 'sense organs'. Perhaps they are PANCHA- INDRIYA > > (five sense organs) separated! :-) > > We really need all the five! > > > > yours > > KAD > > > > > > > > > > , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Kad ji, > > > > > > Seriously though (although I still mean what I posted > earlier, "Now > > > we are talking!") -- your post brings out a very pithy fact. > > > > > > Jyotish is not something that can be explained on the model that > > > science uses (or at least used so far) to explain and > > > describe "physical" reality. > > > > > > Jyotish has some physical components but it cannot all be > described > > > using the "engineering" model. NOW, this is where I am treading > > thin > > > ice and do not wish to offend anyone or attack anyone, but I see > a > > > very strange similarity between western astrology and jyotish. > This > > > is just an observation so do not kill the observer ;-) > > > > > > When decades ago I was viewing the growth of western astrology > more > > > as an observer than a participant, I was struck by the > > > heavy 'psychological' emphasis in the explanations used. It > > suddenly > > > made sense to me one day when I realized that most of > the 'brains' > > > involved were really psychologists and those with clinical > > psychology > > > backgrounds. I use the term 'brain' not in the deregatory sense > > that > > > many spiritualist, soft science type critics use. Brains strive > to > > > analyze, dissect, break down and reconstitute models > and "reality". > > > The psychologists, from Jung to all the way down to whoever is > > ruling > > > the roost tonight, western astrological symbolism experienced the > > > influence of these psychologists and little wonder that the astro- > > > symbolism got explained using psychological model and terminology. > > > > > > Jyotish primarily experienced the influence of religious, > spiritual > > > doyens and it had a heavy spiritual theme, and structure. Then > more > > > recently it attracted individuals who were from a practical, > > > organizational background and so we saw the systems approach and > it > > > naturally led to the background which attracted many engineers > and > > > programmers/mathematicians. We see, thus, a resurgence and > revival > > of > > > techniques, and the current mainstream jyotish is very much based > > on > > > the engineering model. > > > > > > None of any of these are right or wrong and we should stop > reacting > > > in a knee jerk manner that the current dominant theme is driving > > the > > > entire field or that it is annihilating or overwriting what we > hold > > > dear or think of as the truth, at least in so far as we see it. > > > > > > I see all of these different takes, the different windows as > > progress > > > and without being deregatory as the five blind men as they see > the > > > elephant. > > > > > > Unless we gain instant and full vision, and that is but a pipe > > dream > > > for most of us, other than a few who actually have gone beyond > > > jyotish through gaining such vision (!), we need all five blind > men > > > and their views and opinions and their construct of the reality, > > > because if it is indeed the elephant that we shortsighted > > individuals > > > are trying to figure out, within our short lifetimes, the > Elephant > > > the dark and large, time incarnate, can further reduce our > lifetime > > > for us, with one careless sway of its mighty trunk or by deciding > > to > > > roll over right where we stand making our myopic observations. We > > > will come back, of course, I have full trust! > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , "kadrudra" > <kadrudra> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > With someone asking for correct Ayanamsha, I felt like sharing > a > > > few > > > > points on Mathematics and Intuition. > > > > > > > > If one depends much only on astronomical accuracy but not on > his > > > > mental capacity, the result would be total confusion! > > > > Astrology is a divine branch of knowledge and whether it is > > looked > > > > down upon by 'Forward' world or looked at with reverence, > > > > it has its own merits. Before, there was a theory to caculate > > > > planetary positions, be it SuryaSiddhanta, Vakya or > Aryabhateeyam; > > > > and there was no dispute of Ayanamsha. Even with same charts, > > > > predictions would differ with different astro-schools of > thought. > > > > Still, in those days, predictions would not fail like in now a > > > days, > > > > because astrologers had much of intution, and cared less > > > > for a degree or two of mathematical angle! Just that MOMENT of > > > TRIAD - > > > > astrologer, querist and tool would answer the querist. > > > > By tool, I mean chart/ kundali/Prashna/Number/Colour or > whatever > > > the > > > > astrologer could 'GRASP' for a quantum jump into querist's > > > > mind, not bound by time and space. That gave the answer, > > perfectly! > > > > > > > > Getting correct answer to one's query too is ruled by his own > > > KARMA! > > > > I have always observed that whenever there is a 'good' > > > > moment of TRIAD, I could 'sense' or 'feel' everything about the > > > > native and the query even including time of birth and death > > > > exactly to seconds!!! THAT is a SURE indication that the > querist > > is > > > > going to get the exact answer. On the other hand, I have > > > > sensed 'bad' moments of Triad, which never even make up the > triad > > > and > > > > with whatever astrological knowledge I have, I am UNABLE > > > > to read the chart. It is just a piece of paper then; whatever I > > > > decipher may/maynot be a failure, but dilute in nature, which > > > > querist may/maynot understand - rather misunderstand! > > > > > > > > So I have full belief that whatever Ayanamsha one uses, his > > > INTUITION > > > > is the important part, without which even with ocean of > > > > astrology to his back, with accurate charts before him, he > fails! > > > > This was strengthened after I worked with a Prof.of Maths > > > > who developed formulae to find the time of Marriage and death > of > > a > > > > native! > > > > > > > > humbly, > > > > KAD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2005 Report Share Posted January 8, 2005 But seeing is not believing, cliché as it might be and overused or even wrongly used to distort the actual situation. 'seeing' not just in its concrete sense is what that adage implies, but through demonstrable senses, including gadgets. Some of the things, obviously, will remain subjective and might be difficult or impossible to be made objective, as in the experience being transferred to another one without experiencing it directly, such as the scent of a rose. And many of the spiritual experiences would remain that way, perhaps for a good cosmic reason. Astrology is a predominantly material tool and for worldly/material answers and therefore must not rely on subjective impressions whether these are sincere or mumbo-jumbo. No serious spiritual benefit or advancement has come through the output from astrology. It might sensitize the astrologer to spirituality over a length of time, but the same end would have been attained by that individual even if he was a dedicated scientist, surgeon, writer or painter. Astrology is nothing unique in that sense and it is the vessel (individual) that turns the contents into amrita or poison. Anyway, thanks for expressing your views, RR , "kadrudra" <kadrudra> wrote: > > Dear RR, > > I do not compell anyone to agree with my opinions, nor do I preach > something new. > I want everyone to come out and have a look at the Heavens but with > spiritual eyes. > If it comes to 'proving' results of astrology, it can certainly be > done, while 'proving' > consistency of an astrologer certainly fails! The problem is, most of > the world knows > astrology through astrologers. For a pre-Marconi scientist, Radio or > electro-magnetic > wave theory was as 'unscientific' as astrology for now-a-days > scientists. Before anything > gets discovered, or invented, it is just an imaginary concept or a > belief. > > If anyone talked of touching Moon in 1000 AD, one would certainly ask > him to prove it then. > Both were right but it could not be done then. Man has 'advanced' in > his abilities and can reach > Moon, feel Mars and it can be 'proved' now. It was not due to one but > due to a collective effort > of a large number people who dedicated themselves to do it. So is the > case with astrology! > I fully agree when you say about incosistent astrologers like all of > us - no exception. > But if only 'seeing is believing', then we can not prove existence of > air or vacuum or space! > > My idea is to support astro-studies as equally as Physics or > Mathematics. Whether student > likes it or not, understands it or not is his KARMA, but keep the > door widen open! Out of > all scientists we have, there are only a few Newtons and Einsteins > and Ramans. How can we expect > all astrologers to be Mihiras or Bhaskaras or Neelakanthas? > > The problem before us is not a condition nor a game, but a collective > challenge! If I can not, I support who can! :-) > > yours > KAD > > > , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> > wrote: > > > > While it would be easy and convenient for me to 'agree' to some of > > the suppositions you made in your response, Kad, they are opinions > > and as vacuuous as many of the books and articles written for > > unsuspecting students of astrology, over the last fifty (maybe > > longer?) years. > > > > If you are telling the truth, the onus is on you to prove it to us, > > or else you are just another, one of them! > > > > The ONLY proof and demonstration for most of us is through > consistent > > demonstration of the astrological truth, case after case, horoscope > > after another -- something that NO astrologer has given and > > therefore, astrology remains a big questionmark and a questionable. > > > > Anyone can take up the challenge, Lord knows THEY did not all these > > many decades and centuries! > > > > Are you game? Unconditionally? > > > > RR > > > > , "kadrudra" <kadrudra> > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear RR, > > > > > > I can see your stand point that Jyotish can not be explained > > > by 'Scientific or Engg Models'. > > > Simply, we do not need any model to 'explain' astrology because > it > > > is 'felt and understood' always. > > > Nor do I stress that astrology is in 'scientific model' as it is > > > understood today. I just want to > > > turn a thinker's eye on this subject, with a view that it is not > > > superstition nor magic, but really > > > 'a systematised body of knowledge'(which makes me call it science > > in > > > a broad sense; not by models). > > > I just want 'scientists' to have astrology as spiritual 'eyes'- > > thats > > > what Vedas meant by calling > > > Jyotisha as EYES of Vedas. > > > > > > As far as scientific models are concerned, they were developed > > after > > > a thorough study of the subject, > > > which is yet to start in astrology!(Perhaps KP system went a foot > > > ahead) Unlike other subjects, Jyotish > > > is difficult to be modelised as you rightly said. So there is no > > way > > > that one can simply say that > > > astrology = science. But one day, it would entirely change the > > system > > > of models. We need all five > > > ignorant persons trying to know the elephant, for this to happen. > > For > > > I believe, all are not blinds > > > but lack different 'sense organs'. Perhaps they are PANCHA- > INDRIYA > > > (five sense organs) separated! :-) > > > We really need all the five! > > > > > > yours > > > KAD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "rohiniranjan" > <rrgb@s...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Kad ji, > > > > > > > > Seriously though (although I still mean what I posted > > earlier, "Now > > > > we are talking!") -- your post brings out a very pithy fact. > > > > > > > > Jyotish is not something that can be explained on the model > that > > > > science uses (or at least used so far) to explain and > > > > describe "physical" reality. > > > > > > > > Jyotish has some physical components but it cannot all be > > described > > > > using the "engineering" model. NOW, this is where I am treading > > > thin > > > > ice and do not wish to offend anyone or attack anyone, but I > see > > a > > > > very strange similarity between western astrology and jyotish. > > This > > > > is just an observation so do not kill the observer ;-) > > > > > > > > When decades ago I was viewing the growth of western astrology > > more > > > > as an observer than a participant, I was struck by the > > > > heavy 'psychological' emphasis in the explanations used. It > > > suddenly > > > > made sense to me one day when I realized that most of > > the 'brains' > > > > involved were really psychologists and those with clinical > > > psychology > > > > backgrounds. I use the term 'brain' not in the deregatory sense > > > that > > > > many spiritualist, soft science type critics use. Brains strive > > to > > > > analyze, dissect, break down and reconstitute models > > and "reality". > > > > The psychologists, from Jung to all the way down to whoever is > > > ruling > > > > the roost tonight, western astrological symbolism experienced > the > > > > influence of these psychologists and little wonder that the > astro- > > > > symbolism got explained using psychological model and > terminology. > > > > > > > > Jyotish primarily experienced the influence of religious, > > spiritual > > > > doyens and it had a heavy spiritual theme, and structure. Then > > more > > > > recently it attracted individuals who were from a practical, > > > > organizational background and so we saw the systems approach > and > > it > > > > naturally led to the background which attracted many engineers > > and > > > > programmers/mathematicians. We see, thus, a resurgence and > > revival > > > of > > > > techniques, and the current mainstream jyotish is very much > based > > > on > > > > the engineering model. > > > > > > > > None of any of these are right or wrong and we should stop > > reacting > > > > in a knee jerk manner that the current dominant theme is > driving > > > the > > > > entire field or that it is annihilating or overwriting what we > > hold > > > > dear or think of as the truth, at least in so far as we see it. > > > > > > > > I see all of these different takes, the different windows as > > > progress > > > > and without being deregatory as the five blind men as they see > > the > > > > elephant. > > > > > > > > Unless we gain instant and full vision, and that is but a pipe > > > dream > > > > for most of us, other than a few who actually have gone beyond > > > > jyotish through gaining such vision (!), we need all five blind > > men > > > > and their views and opinions and their construct of the > reality, > > > > because if it is indeed the elephant that we shortsighted > > > individuals > > > > are trying to figure out, within our short lifetimes, the > > Elephant > > > > the dark and large, time incarnate, can further reduce our > > lifetime > > > > for us, with one careless sway of its mighty trunk or by > deciding > > > to > > > > roll over right where we stand making our myopic observations. > We > > > > will come back, of course, I have full trust! > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , "kadrudra" > > <kadrudra> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > > > With someone asking for correct Ayanamsha, I felt like > sharing > > a > > > > few > > > > > points on Mathematics and Intuition. > > > > > > > > > > If one depends much only on astronomical accuracy but not on > > his > > > > > mental capacity, the result would be total confusion! > > > > > Astrology is a divine branch of knowledge and whether it is > > > looked > > > > > down upon by 'Forward' world or looked at with reverence, > > > > > it has its own merits. Before, there was a theory to caculate > > > > > planetary positions, be it SuryaSiddhanta, Vakya or > > Aryabhateeyam; > > > > > and there was no dispute of Ayanamsha. Even with same charts, > > > > > predictions would differ with different astro-schools of > > thought. > > > > > Still, in those days, predictions would not fail like in now > a > > > > days, > > > > > because astrologers had much of intution, and cared less > > > > > for a degree or two of mathematical angle! Just that MOMENT > of > > > > TRIAD - > > > > > astrologer, querist and tool would answer the querist. > > > > > By tool, I mean chart/ kundali/Prashna/Number/Colour or > > whatever > > > > the > > > > > astrologer could 'GRASP' for a quantum jump into querist's > > > > > mind, not bound by time and space. That gave the answer, > > > perfectly! > > > > > > > > > > Getting correct answer to one's query too is ruled by his own > > > > KARMA! > > > > > I have always observed that whenever there is a 'good' > > > > > moment of TRIAD, I could 'sense' or 'feel' everything about > the > > > > > native and the query even including time of birth and death > > > > > exactly to seconds!!! THAT is a SURE indication that the > > querist > > > is > > > > > going to get the exact answer. On the other hand, I have > > > > > sensed 'bad' moments of Triad, which never even make up the > > triad > > > > and > > > > > with whatever astrological knowledge I have, I am UNABLE > > > > > to read the chart. It is just a piece of paper then; whatever > I > > > > > decipher may/maynot be a failure, but dilute in nature, which > > > > > querist may/maynot understand - rather misunderstand! > > > > > > > > > > So I have full belief that whatever Ayanamsha one uses, his > > > > INTUITION > > > > > is the important part, without which even with ocean of > > > > > astrology to his back, with accurate charts before him, he > > fails! > > > > > This was strengthened after I worked with a Prof.of Maths > > > > > who developed formulae to find the time of Marriage and death > > of > > > a > > > > > native! > > > > > > > > > > humbly, > > > > > KAD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2005 Report Share Posted January 8, 2005 Dear Mr Ranjanji, A Very interesting discussion is going on but waht made me to react is: "No serious spiritual benefit or advancement has come through the output from astrology". Certainly I have been of the view for the last so many years Astrology is the only fields that real guides and keeps the balance.This balance is infact to introduce spirtual approach as it brings out ' what evry one is destined" and leads the way for that fulfilment and reposing the element of confidence in evry one. Infact all planets together with houses and signs only harmonises various capabilities and leads to a balanced state. I believe that this is what every one has to understand(as an Astrologer) and not high a particular element of only jeev aspects leaving the nirjeev and vice versa.This expalnation is plausible for the great tribe of Astrologers! I find some kinf of void in the following.may be it is my view and open to advice further in this context "even if he was a dedicated scientist, surgeon, writer or painter" Certainly the kind of world is intutive and creative as they see in their own eyes but an Astrologer(ofcourse a Vedic) does not find any thing that fancies the native except what the Tripod of 1,5 and are able and capable to deliver.The Astrologer can only amend the intensity level by a proper mouth of selfless advice,as he does the job of counselling. Let us not forget the advice of complexity of the seers what makes one an Astrologer to delve the subject and willing to perforam what is expected of Him. Where as the creative artists in their world they see only a part of their creative effort but not something about the root that is cosmology and cosmic nature. Iam sure you will consider these views as only complementary for further elaborations made in this regard. sincerely krishnan rohiniranjan <rrgb wrote: But seeing is not believing, cliché as it might be and overused or even wrongly used to distort the actual situation. 'seeing' not just in its concrete sense is what that adage implies, but through demonstrable senses, including gadgets. Some of the things, obviously, will remain subjective and might be difficult or impossible to be made objective, as in the experience being transferred to another one without experiencing it directly, such as the scent of a rose. And many of the spiritual experiences would remain that way, perhaps for a good cosmic reason. Astrology is a predominantly material tool and for worldly/material answers and therefore must not rely on subjective impressions whether these are sincere or mumbo-jumbo. No serious spiritual benefit or advancement has come through the output from astrology. It might sensitize the astrologer to spirituality over a length of time, but the same end would have been attained by that individual even if he was a dedicated scientist, surgeon, writer or painter. Astrology is nothing unique in that sense and it is the vessel (individual) that turns the contents into amrita or poison. Anyway, thanks for expressing your views, RR , "kadrudra" <kadrudra> wrote: > > Dear RR, > > I do not compell anyone to agree with my opinions, nor do I preach > something new. > I want everyone to come out and have a look at the Heavens but with > spiritual eyes. > If it comes to 'proving' results of astrology, it can certainly be > done, while 'proving' > consistency of an astrologer certainly fails! The problem is, most of > the world knows > astrology through astrologers. For a pre-Marconi scientist, Radio or > electro-magnetic > wave theory was as 'unscientific' as astrology for now-a-days > scientists. Before anything > gets discovered, or invented, it is just an imaginary concept or a > belief. > > If anyone talked of touching Moon in 1000 AD, one would certainly ask > him to prove it then. > Both were right but it could not be done then. Man has 'advanced' in > his abilities and can reach > Moon, feel Mars and it can be 'proved' now. It was not due to one but > due to a collective effort > of a large number people who dedicated themselves to do it. So is the > case with astrology! > I fully agree when you say about incosistent astrologers like all of > us - no exception. > But if only 'seeing is believing', then we can not prove existence of > air or vacuum or space! > > My idea is to support astro-studies as equally as Physics or > Mathematics. Whether student > likes it or not, understands it or not is his KARMA, but keep the > door widen open! Out of > all scientists we have, there are only a few Newtons and Einsteins > and Ramans. How can we expect > all astrologers to be Mihiras or Bhaskaras or Neelakanthas? > > The problem before us is not a condition nor a game, but a collective > challenge! If I can not, I support who can! :-) > > yours > KAD > > > , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> > wrote: > > > > While it would be easy and convenient for me to 'agree' to some of > > the suppositions you made in your response, Kad, they are opinions > > and as vacuuous as many of the books and articles written for > > unsuspecting students of astrology, over the last fifty (maybe > > longer?) years. > > > > If you are telling the truth, the onus is on you to prove it to us, > > or else you are just another, one of them! > > > > The ONLY proof and demonstration for most of us is through > consistent > > demonstration of the astrological truth, case after case, horoscope > > after another -- something that NO astrologer has given and > > therefore, astrology remains a big questionmark and a questionable. > > > > Anyone can take up the challenge, Lord knows THEY did not all these > > many decades and centuries! > > > > Are you game? Unconditionally? > > > > RR > > > > , "kadrudra" <kadrudra> > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear RR, > > > > > > I can see your stand point that Jyotish can not be explained > > > by 'Scientific or Engg Models'. > > > Simply, we do not need any model to 'explain' astrology because > it > > > is 'felt and understood' always. > > > Nor do I stress that astrology is in 'scientific model' as it is > > > understood today. I just want to > > > turn a thinker's eye on this subject, with a view that it is not > > > superstition nor magic, but really > > > 'a systematised body of knowledge'(which makes me call it science > > in > > > a broad sense; not by models). > > > I just want 'scientists' to have astrology as spiritual 'eyes'- > > thats > > > what Vedas meant by calling > > > Jyotisha as EYES of Vedas. > > > > > > As far as scientific models are concerned, they were developed > > after > > > a thorough study of the subject, > > > which is yet to start in astrology!(Perhaps KP system went a foot > > > ahead) Unlike other subjects, Jyotish > > > is difficult to be modelised as you rightly said. So there is no > > way > > > that one can simply say that > > > astrology = science. But one day, it would entirely change the > > system > > > of models. We need all five > > > ignorant persons trying to know the elephant, for this to happen. > > For > > > I believe, all are not blinds > > > but lack different 'sense organs'. Perhaps they are PANCHA- > INDRIYA > > > (five sense organs) separated! :-) > > > We really need all the five! > > > > > > yours > > > KAD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "rohiniranjan" > <rrgb@s...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Kad ji, > > > > > > > > Seriously though (although I still mean what I posted > > earlier, "Now > > > > we are talking!") -- your post brings out a very pithy fact. > > > > > > > > Jyotish is not something that can be explained on the model > that > > > > science uses (or at least used so far) to explain and > > > > describe "physical" reality. > > > > > > > > Jyotish has some physical components but it cannot all be > > described > > > > using the "engineering" model. NOW, this is where I am treading > > > thin > > > > ice and do not wish to offend anyone or attack anyone, but I > see > > a > > > > very strange similarity between western astrology and jyotish. > > This > > > > is just an observation so do not kill the observer ;-) > > > > > > > > When decades ago I was viewing the growth of western astrology > > more > > > > as an observer than a participant, I was struck by the > > > > heavy 'psychological' emphasis in the explanations used. It > > > suddenly > > > > made sense to me one day when I realized that most of > > the 'brains' > > > > involved were really psychologists and those with clinical > > > psychology > > > > backgrounds. I use the term 'brain' not in the deregatory sense > > > that > > > > many spiritualist, soft science type critics use. Brains strive > > to > > > > analyze, dissect, break down and reconstitute models > > and "reality". > > > > The psychologists, from Jung to all the way down to whoever is > > > ruling > > > > the roost tonight, western astrological symbolism experienced > the > > > > influence of these psychologists and little wonder that the > astro- > > > > symbolism got explained using psychological model and > terminology. > > > > > > > > Jyotish primarily experienced the influence of religious, > > spiritual > > > > doyens and it had a heavy spiritual theme, and structure. Then > > more > > > > recently it attracted individuals who were from a practical, > > > > organizational background and so we saw the systems approach > and > > it > > > > naturally led to the background which attracted many engineers > > and > > > > programmers/mathematicians. We see, thus, a resurgence and > > revival > > > of > > > > techniques, and the current mainstream jyotish is very much > based > > > on > > > > the engineering model. > > > > > > > > None of any of these are right or wrong and we should stop > > reacting > > > > in a knee jerk manner that the current dominant theme is > driving > > > the > > > > entire field or that it is annihilating or overwriting what we > > hold > > > > dear or think of as the truth, at least in so far as we see it. > > > > > > > > I see all of these different takes, the different windows as > > > progress > > > > and without being deregatory as the five blind men as they see > > the > > > > elephant. > > > > > > > > Unless we gain instant and full vision, and that is but a pipe > > > dream > > > > for most of us, other than a few who actually have gone beyond > > > > jyotish through gaining such vision (!), we need all five blind > > men > > > > and their views and opinions and their construct of the > reality, > > > > because if it is indeed the elephant that we shortsighted > > > individuals > > > > are trying to figure out, within our short lifetimes, the > > Elephant > > > > the dark and large, time incarnate, can further reduce our > > lifetime > > > > for us, with one careless sway of its mighty trunk or by > deciding > > > to > > > > roll over right where we stand making our myopic observations. > We > > > > will come back, of course, I have full trust! > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , "kadrudra" > > <kadrudra> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > > > With someone asking for correct Ayanamsha, I felt like > sharing > > a > > > > few > > > > > points on Mathematics and Intuition. > > > > > > > > > > If one depends much only on astronomical accuracy but not on > > his > > > > > mental capacity, the result would be total confusion! > > > > > Astrology is a divine branch of knowledge and whether it is > > > looked > > > > > down upon by 'Forward' world or looked at with reverence, > > > > > it has its own merits. Before, there was a theory to caculate > > > > > planetary positions, be it SuryaSiddhanta, Vakya or > > Aryabhateeyam; > > > > > and there was no dispute of Ayanamsha. Even with same charts, > > > > > predictions would differ with different astro-schools of > > thought. > > > > > Still, in those days, predictions would not fail like in now > a > > > > days, > > > > > because astrologers had much of intution, and cared less > > > > > for a degree or two of mathematical angle! Just that MOMENT > of > > > > TRIAD - > > > > > astrologer, querist and tool would answer the querist. > > > > > By tool, I mean chart/ kundali/Prashna/Number/Colour or > > whatever > > > > the > > > > > astrologer could 'GRASP' for a quantum jump into querist's > > > > > mind, not bound by time and space. That gave the answer, > > > perfectly! > > > > > > > > > > Getting correct answer to one's query too is ruled by his own > > > > KARMA! > > > > > I have always observed that whenever there is a 'good' > > > > > moment of TRIAD, I could 'sense' or 'feel' everything about > the > > > > > native and the query even including time of birth and death > > > > > exactly to seconds!!! THAT is a SURE indication that the > > querist > > > is > > > > > going to get the exact answer. On the other hand, I have > > > > > sensed 'bad' moments of Triad, which never even make up the > > triad > > > > and > > > > > with whatever astrological knowledge I have, I am UNABLE > > > > > to read the chart. It is just a piece of paper then; whatever > I > > > > > decipher may/maynot be a failure, but dilute in nature, which > > > > > querist may/maynot understand - rather misunderstand! > > > > > > > > > > So I have full belief that whatever Ayanamsha one uses, his > > > > INTUITION > > > > > is the important part, without which even with ocean of > > > > > astrology to his back, with accurate charts before him, he > > fails! > > > > > This was strengthened after I worked with a Prof.of Maths > > > > > who developed formulae to find the time of Marriage and death > > of > > > a > > > > > native! > > > > > > > > > > humbly, > > > > > KAD ~! LIFE MEANS STRUGGLE, THE FITTEST WINS SURVIVAL !~ / Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Dear RR, Of course astrology is not the ONLY way to attain spiritual interests, but being one of the best means to understand KARMA theory, it stands ahead of most other ways. It is a minute binding permeable membrane between BHOGA(Materialistic) and MOKSHA(Eternal) and I do not see any reason why it should not be the BEST way to spiritualism. Even for a professional or KARMA YOGI, (with whatever 6th sense he has)to 'see' the light and to understand it, Jyotish the VEDIC EYE would be the better option! Well, thanks for your opinions. yours, KAD , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> wrote: > > But seeing is not believing, clichEas it might be and overused or > even wrongly used to distort the actual situation. > 'seeing' not just in its concrete sense is what that adage implies, > but through demonstrable senses, including gadgets. > > Some of the things, obviously, will remain subjective and might be > difficult or impossible to be made objective, as in the experience > being transferred to another one without experiencing it directly, > such as the scent of a rose. And many of the spiritual experiences > would remain that way, perhaps for a good cosmic reason. Astrology is > a predominantly material tool and for worldly/material answers and > therefore must not rely on subjective impressions whether these are > sincere or mumbo-jumbo. > > No serious spiritual benefit or advancement has come through the > output from astrology. It might sensitize the astrologer to > spirituality over a length of time, but the same end would have been > attained by that individual even if he was a dedicated scientist, > surgeon, writer or painter. Astrology is nothing unique in that sense > and it is the vessel (individual) that turns the contents into amrita > or poison. > > Anyway, thanks for expressing your views, > > RR > > , "kadrudra" <kadrudra> > wrote: > > > > Dear RR, > > > > I do not compell anyone to agree with my opinions, nor do I preach > > something new. > > I want everyone to come out and have a look at the Heavens but with > > spiritual eyes. > > If it comes to 'proving' results of astrology, it can certainly be > > done, while 'proving' > > consistency of an astrologer certainly fails! The problem is, most > of > > the world knows > > astrology through astrologers. For a pre-Marconi scientist, Radio > or > > electro-magnetic > > wave theory was as 'unscientific' as astrology for now-a-days > > scientists. Before anything > > gets discovered, or invented, it is just an imaginary concept or a > > belief. > > > > If anyone talked of touching Moon in 1000 AD, one would certainly > ask > > him to prove it then. > > Both were right but it could not be done then. Man has 'advanced' > in > > his abilities and can reach > > Moon, feel Mars and it can be 'proved' now. It was not due to one > but > > due to a collective effort > > of a large number people who dedicated themselves to do it. So is > the > > case with astrology! > > I fully agree when you say about incosistent astrologers like all > of > > us - no exception. > > But if only 'seeing is believing', then we can not prove existence > of > > air or vacuum or space! > > > > My idea is to support astro-studies as equally as Physics or > > Mathematics. Whether student > > likes it or not, understands it or not is his KARMA, but keep the > > door widen open! Out of > > all scientists we have, there are only a few Newtons and Einsteins > > and Ramans. How can we expect > > all astrologers to be Mihiras or Bhaskaras or Neelakanthas? > > > > The problem before us is not a condition nor a game, but a > collective > > challenge! If I can not, I support who can! :-) > > > > yours > > KAD > > > > > > , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> > > wrote: > > > > > > While it would be easy and convenient for me to 'agree' to some > of > > > the suppositions you made in your response, Kad, they are > opinions > > > and as vacuuous as many of the books and articles written for > > > unsuspecting students of astrology, over the last fifty (maybe > > > longer?) years. > > > > > > If you are telling the truth, the onus is on you to prove it to > us, > > > or else you are just another, one of them! > > > > > > The ONLY proof and demonstration for most of us is through > > consistent > > > demonstration of the astrological truth, case after case, > horoscope > > > after another -- something that NO astrologer has given and > > > therefore, astrology remains a big questionmark and a > questionable. > > > > > > Anyone can take up the challenge, Lord knows THEY did not all > these > > > many decades and centuries! > > > > > > Are you game? Unconditionally? > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , "kadrudra" > <kadrudra> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear RR, > > > > > > > > I can see your stand point that Jyotish can not be explained > > > > by 'Scientific or Engg Models'. > > > > Simply, we do not need any model to 'explain' astrology because > > it > > > > is 'felt and understood' always. > > > > Nor do I stress that astrology is in 'scientific model' as it > is > > > > understood today. I just want to > > > > turn a thinker's eye on this subject, with a view that it is > not > > > > superstition nor magic, but really > > > > 'a systematised body of knowledge'(which makes me call it > science > > > in > > > > a broad sense; not by models). > > > > I just want 'scientists' to have astrology as spiritual 'eyes'- > > > thats > > > > what Vedas meant by calling > > > > Jyotisha as EYES of Vedas. > > > > > > > > As far as scientific models are concerned, they were developed > > > after > > > > a thorough study of the subject, > > > > which is yet to start in astrology!(Perhaps KP system went a > foot > > > > ahead) Unlike other subjects, Jyotish > > > > is difficult to be modelised as you rightly said. So there is > no > > > way > > > > that one can simply say that > > > > astrology = science. But one day, it would entirely change the > > > system > > > > of models. We need all five > > > > ignorant persons trying to know the elephant, for this to > happen. > > > For > > > > I believe, all are not blinds > > > > but lack different 'sense organs'. Perhaps they are PANCHA- > > INDRIYA > > > > (five sense organs) separated! :-) > > > > We really need all the five! > > > > > > > > yours > > > > KAD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "rohiniranjan" > > <rrgb@s...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Kad ji, > > > > > > > > > > Seriously though (although I still mean what I posted > > > earlier, "Now > > > > > we are talking!") -- your post brings out a very pithy fact. > > > > > > > > > > Jyotish is not something that can be explained on the model > > that > > > > > science uses (or at least used so far) to explain and > > > > > describe "physical" reality. > > > > > > > > > > Jyotish has some physical components but it cannot all be > > > described > > > > > using the "engineering" model. NOW, this is where I am > treading > > > > thin > > > > > ice and do not wish to offend anyone or attack anyone, but I > > see > > > a > > > > > very strange similarity between western astrology and > jyotish. > > > This > > > > > is just an observation so do not kill the observer ;-) > > > > > > > > > > When decades ago I was viewing the growth of western > astrology > > > more > > > > > as an observer than a participant, I was struck by the > > > > > heavy 'psychological' emphasis in the explanations used. It > > > > suddenly > > > > > made sense to me one day when I realized that most of > > > the 'brains' > > > > > involved were really psychologists and those with clinical > > > > psychology > > > > > backgrounds. I use the term 'brain' not in the deregatory > sense > > > > that > > > > > many spiritualist, soft science type critics use. Brains > strive > > > to > > > > > analyze, dissect, break down and reconstitute models > > > and "reality". > > > > > The psychologists, from Jung to all the way down to whoever > is > > > > ruling > > > > > the roost tonight, western astrological symbolism experienced > > the > > > > > influence of these psychologists and little wonder that the > > astro- > > > > > symbolism got explained using psychological model and > > terminology. > > > > > > > > > > Jyotish primarily experienced the influence of religious, > > > spiritual > > > > > doyens and it had a heavy spiritual theme, and structure. > Then > > > more > > > > > recently it attracted individuals who were from a practical, > > > > > organizational background and so we saw the systems approach > > and > > > it > > > > > naturally led to the background which attracted many > engineers > > > and > > > > > programmers/mathematicians. We see, thus, a resurgence and > > > revival > > > > of > > > > > techniques, and the current mainstream jyotish is very much > > based > > > > on > > > > > the engineering model. > > > > > > > > > > None of any of these are right or wrong and we should stop > > > reacting > > > > > in a knee jerk manner that the current dominant theme is > > driving > > > > the > > > > > entire field or that it is annihilating or overwriting what > we > > > hold > > > > > dear or think of as the truth, at least in so far as we see > it. > > > > > > > > > > I see all of these different takes, the different windows as > > > > progress > > > > > and without being deregatory as the five blind men as they > see > > > the > > > > > elephant. > > > > > > > > > > Unless we gain instant and full vision, and that is but a > pipe > > > > dream > > > > > for most of us, other than a few who actually have gone > beyond > > > > > jyotish through gaining such vision (!), we need all five > blind > > > men > > > > > and their views and opinions and their construct of the > > reality, > > > > > because if it is indeed the elephant that we shortsighted > > > > individuals > > > > > are trying to figure out, within our short lifetimes, the > > > Elephant > > > > > the dark and large, time incarnate, can further reduce our > > > lifetime > > > > > for us, with one careless sway of its mighty trunk or by > > deciding > > > > to > > > > > roll over right where we stand making our myopic > observations. > > We > > > > > will come back, of course, I have full trust! > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > , "kadrudra" > > > <kadrudra> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > > > > > With someone asking for correct Ayanamsha, I felt like > > sharing > > > a > > > > > few > > > > > > points on Mathematics and Intuition. > > > > > > > > > > > > If one depends much only on astronomical accuracy but not > on > > > his > > > > > > mental capacity, the result would be total confusion! > > > > > > Astrology is a divine branch of knowledge and whether it is > > > > looked > > > > > > down upon by 'Forward' world or looked at with reverence, > > > > > > it has its own merits. Before, there was a theory to > caculate > > > > > > planetary positions, be it SuryaSiddhanta, Vakya or > > > Aryabhateeyam; > > > > > > and there was no dispute of Ayanamsha. Even with same > charts, > > > > > > predictions would differ with different astro-schools of > > > thought. > > > > > > Still, in those days, predictions would not fail like in > now > > a > > > > > days, > > > > > > because astrologers had much of intution, and cared less > > > > > > for a degree or two of mathematical angle! Just that MOMENT > > of > > > > > TRIAD - > > > > > > astrologer, querist and tool would answer the querist. > > > > > > By tool, I mean chart/ kundali/Prashna/Number/Colour or > > > whatever > > > > > the > > > > > > astrologer could 'GRASP' for a quantum jump into querist's > > > > > > mind, not bound by time and space. That gave the answer, > > > > perfectly! > > > > > > > > > > > > Getting correct answer to one's query too is ruled by his > own > > > > > KARMA! > > > > > > I have always observed that whenever there is a 'good' > > > > > > moment of TRIAD, I could 'sense' or 'feel' everything about > > the > > > > > > native and the query even including time of birth and death > > > > > > exactly to seconds!!! THAT is a SURE indication that the > > > querist > > > > is > > > > > > going to get the exact answer. On the other hand, I have > > > > > > sensed 'bad' moments of Triad, which never even make up the > > > triad > > > > > and > > > > > > with whatever astrological knowledge I have, I am UNABLE > > > > > > to read the chart. It is just a piece of paper then; > whatever > > I > > > > > > decipher may/maynot be a failure, but dilute in nature, > which > > > > > > querist may/maynot understand - rather misunderstand! > > > > > > > > > > > > So I have full belief that whatever Ayanamsha one uses, his > > > > > INTUITION > > > > > > is the important part, without which even with ocean of > > > > > > astrology to his back, with accurate charts before him, he > > > fails! > > > > > > This was strengthened after I worked with a Prof.of Maths > > > > > > who developed formulae to find the time of Marriage and > death > > > of > > > > a > > > > > > native! > > > > > > > > > > > > humbly, > > > > > > KAD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Dear KAD ji, In this : "Even for a professional or KARMA YOGI", I find some where we are mixing up whther with reference to(ASTROLOGY) or KARMAYOGI.Iam of the opinion that karma yogi is one who minds what is ordained to him(single minded work alcholic). Prof is different looking to aspect of where he feels he can excel. How do we link? kindly throw some light please krishnan kadrudra <kadrudra wrote: Dear RR, Of course astrology is not the ONLY way to attain spiritual interests, but being one of the best means to understand KARMA theory, it stands ahead of most other ways. It is a minute binding permeable membrane between BHOGA(Materialistic) and MOKSHA(Eternal) and I do not see any reason why it should not be the BEST way to spiritualism. Even for a professional or KARMA YOGI, (with whatever 6th sense he has)to 'see' the light and to understand it, Jyotish the VEDIC EYE would be the better option! Well, thanks for your opinions. yours, KAD , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> wrote: > > But seeing is not believing, clichEas it might be and overused or > even wrongly used to distort the actual situation. > 'seeing' not just in its concrete sense is what that adage implies, > but through demonstrable senses, including gadgets. > > Some of the things, obviously, will remain subjective and might be > difficult or impossible to be made objective, as in the experience > being transferred to another one without experiencing it directly, > such as the scent of a rose. And many of the spiritual experiences > would remain that way, perhaps for a good cosmic reason. Astrology is > a predominantly material tool and for worldly/material answers and > therefore must not rely on subjective impressions whether these are > sincere or mumbo-jumbo. > > No serious spiritual benefit or advancement has come through the > output from astrology. It might sensitize the astrologer to > spirituality over a length of time, but the same end would have been > attained by that individual even if he was a dedicated scientist, > surgeon, writer or painter. Astrology is nothing unique in that sense > and it is the vessel (individual) that turns the contents into amrita > or poison. > > Anyway, thanks for expressing your views, > > RR > > , "kadrudra" <kadrudra> > wrote: > > > > Dear RR, > > > > I do not compell anyone to agree with my opinions, nor do I preach > > something new. > > I want everyone to come out and have a look at the Heavens but with > > spiritual eyes. > > If it comes to 'proving' results of astrology, it can certainly be > > done, while 'proving' > > consistency of an astrologer certainly fails! The problem is, most > of > > the world knows > > astrology through astrologers. For a pre-Marconi scientist, Radio > or > > electro-magnetic > > wave theory was as 'unscientific' as astrology for now-a-days > > scientists. Before anything > > gets discovered, or invented, it is just an imaginary concept or a > > belief. > > > > If anyone talked of touching Moon in 1000 AD, one would certainly > ask > > him to prove it then. > > Both were right but it could not be done then. Man has 'advanced' > in > > his abilities and can reach > > Moon, feel Mars and it can be 'proved' now. It was not due to one > but > > due to a collective effort > > of a large number people who dedicated themselves to do it. So is > the > > case with astrology! > > I fully agree when you say about incosistent astrologers like all > of > > us - no exception. > > But if only 'seeing is believing', then we can not prove existence > of > > air or vacuum or space! > > > > My idea is to support astro-studies as equally as Physics or > > Mathematics. Whether student > > likes it or not, understands it or not is his KARMA, but keep the > > door widen open! Out of > > all scientists we have, there are only a few Newtons and Einsteins > > and Ramans. How can we expect > > all astrologers to be Mihiras or Bhaskaras or Neelakanthas? > > > > The problem before us is not a condition nor a game, but a > collective > > challenge! If I can not, I support who can! :-) > > > > yours > > KAD > > > > > > , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> > > wrote: > > > > > > While it would be easy and convenient for me to 'agree' to some > of > > > the suppositions you made in your response, Kad, they are > opinions > > > and as vacuuous as many of the books and articles written for > > > unsuspecting students of astrology, over the last fifty (maybe > > > longer?) years. > > > > > > If you are telling the truth, the onus is on you to prove it to > us, > > > or else you are just another, one of them! > > > > > > The ONLY proof and demonstration for most of us is through > > consistent > > > demonstration of the astrological truth, case after case, > horoscope > > > after another -- something that NO astrologer has given and > > > therefore, astrology remains a big questionmark and a > questionable. > > > > > > Anyone can take up the challenge, Lord knows THEY did not all > these > > > many decades and centuries! > > > > > > Are you game? Unconditionally? > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , "kadrudra" > <kadrudra> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear RR, > > > > > > > > I can see your stand point that Jyotish can not be explained > > > > by 'Scientific or Engg Models'. > > > > Simply, we do not need any model to 'explain' astrology because > > it > > > > is 'felt and understood' always. > > > > Nor do I stress that astrology is in 'scientific model' as it > is > > > > understood today. I just want to > > > > turn a thinker's eye on this subject, with a view that it is > not > > > > superstition nor magic, but really > > > > 'a systematised body of knowledge'(which makes me call it > science > > > in > > > > a broad sense; not by models). > > > > I just want 'scientists' to have astrology as spiritual 'eyes'- > > > thats > > > > what Vedas meant by calling > > > > Jyotisha as EYES of Vedas. > > > > > > > > As far as scientific models are concerned, they were developed > > > after > > > > a thorough study of the subject, > > > > which is yet to start in astrology!(Perhaps KP system went a > foot > > > > ahead) Unlike other subjects, Jyotish > > > > is difficult to be modelised as you rightly said. So there is > no > > > way > > > > that one can simply say that > > > > astrology = science. But one day, it would entirely change the > > > system > > > > of models. We need all five > > > > ignorant persons trying to know the elephant, for this to > happen. > > > For > > > > I believe, all are not blinds > > > > but lack different 'sense organs'. Perhaps they are PANCHA- > > INDRIYA > > > > (five sense organs) separated! :-) > > > > We really need all the five! > > > > > > > > yours > > > > KAD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "rohiniranjan" > > <rrgb@s...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Kad ji, > > > > > > > > > > Seriously though (although I still mean what I posted > > > earlier, "Now > > > > > we are talking!") -- your post brings out a very pithy fact. > > > > > > > > > > Jyotish is not something that can be explained on the model > > that > > > > > science uses (or at least used so far) to explain and > > > > > describe "physical" reality. > > > > > > > > > > Jyotish has some physical components but it cannot all be > > > described > > > > > using the "engineering" model. NOW, this is where I am > treading > > > > thin > > > > > ice and do not wish to offend anyone or attack anyone, but I > > see > > > a > > > > > very strange similarity between western astrology and > jyotish. > > > This > > > > > is just an observation so do not kill the observer ;-) > > > > > > > > > > When decades ago I was viewing the growth of western > astrology > > > more > > > > > as an observer than a participant, I was struck by the > > > > > heavy 'psychological' emphasis in the explanations used. It > > > > suddenly > > > > > made sense to me one day when I realized that most of > > > the 'brains' > > > > > involved were really psychologists and those with clinical > > > > psychology > > > > > backgrounds. I use the term 'brain' not in the deregatory > sense > > > > that > > > > > many spiritualist, soft science type critics use. Brains > strive > > > to > > > > > analyze, dissect, break down and reconstitute models > > > and "reality". > > > > > The psychologists, from Jung to all the way down to whoever > is > > > > ruling > > > > > the roost tonight, western astrological symbolism experienced > > the > > > > > influence of these psychologists and little wonder that the > > astro- > > > > > symbolism got explained using psychological model and > > terminology. > > > > > > > > > > Jyotish primarily experienced the influence of religious, > > > spiritual > > > > > doyens and it had a heavy spiritual theme, and structure. > Then > > > more > > > > > recently it attracted individuals who were from a practical, > > > > > organizational background and so we saw the systems approach > > and > > > it > > > > > naturally led to the background which attracted many > engineers > > > and > > > > > programmers/mathematicians. We see, thus, a resurgence and > > > revival > > > > of > > > > > techniques, and the current mainstream jyotish is very much > > based > > > > on > > > > > the engineering model. > > > > > > > > > > None of any of these are right or wrong and we should stop > > > reacting > > > > > in a knee jerk manner that the current dominant theme is > > driving > > > > the > > > > > entire field or that it is annihilating or overwriting what > we > > > hold > > > > > dear or think of as the truth, at least in so far as we see > it. > > > > > > > > > > I see all of these different takes, the different windows as > > > > progress > > > > > and without being deregatory as the five blind men as they > see > > > the > > > > > elephant. > > > > > > > > > > Unless we gain instant and full vision, and that is but a > pipe > > > > dream > > > > > for most of us, other than a few who actually have gone > beyond > > > > > jyotish through gaining such vision (!), we need all five > blind > > > men > > > > > and their views and opinions and their construct of the > > reality, > > > > > because if it is indeed the elephant that we shortsighted > > > > individuals > > > > > are trying to figure out, within our short lifetimes, the > > > Elephant > > > > > the dark and large, time incarnate, can further reduce our > > > lifetime > > > > > for us, with one careless sway of its mighty trunk or by > > deciding > > > > to > > > > > roll over right where we stand making our myopic > observations. > > We > > > > > will come back, of course, I have full trust! > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > , "kadrudra" > > > <kadrudra> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > > > > > With someone asking for correct Ayanamsha, I felt like > > sharing > > > a > > > > > few > > > > > > points on Mathematics and Intuition. > > > > > > > > > > > > If one depends much only on astronomical accuracy but not > on > > > his > > > > > > mental capacity, the result would be total confusion! > > > > > > Astrology is a divine branch of knowledge and whether it is > > > > looked > > > > > > down upon by 'Forward' world or looked at with reverence, > > > > > > it has its own merits. Before, there was a theory to > caculate > > > > > > planetary positions, be it SuryaSiddhanta, Vakya or > > > Aryabhateeyam; > > > > > > and there was no dispute of Ayanamsha. Even with same > charts, > > > > > > predictions would differ with different astro-schools of > > > thought. > > > > > > Still, in those days, predictions would not fail like in > now > > a > > > > > days, > > > > > > because astrologers had much of intution, and cared less > > > > > > for a degree or two of mathematical angle! Just that MOMENT > > of > > > > > TRIAD - > > > > > > astrologer, querist and tool would answer the querist. > > > > > > By tool, I mean chart/ kundali/Prashna/Number/Colour or > > > whatever > > > > > the > > > > > > astrologer could 'GRASP' for a quantum jump into querist's > > > > > > mind, not bound by time and space. That gave the answer, > > > > perfectly! > > > > > > > > > > > > Getting correct answer to one's query too is ruled by his > own > > > > > KARMA! > > > > > > I have always observed that whenever there is a 'good' > > > > > > moment of TRIAD, I could 'sense' or 'feel' everything about > > the > > > > > > native and the query even including time of birth and death > > > > > > exactly to seconds!!! THAT is a SURE indication that the > > > querist > > > > is > > > > > > going to get the exact answer. On the other hand, I have > > > > > > sensed 'bad' moments of Triad, which never even make up the > > > triad > > > > > and > > > > > > with whatever astrological knowledge I have, I am UNABLE > > > > > > to read the chart. It is just a piece of paper then; > whatever > > I > > > > > > decipher may/maynot be a failure, but dilute in nature, > which > > > > > > querist may/maynot understand - rather misunderstand! > > > > > > > > > > > > So I have full belief that whatever Ayanamsha one uses, his > > > > > INTUITION > > > > > > is the important part, without which even with ocean of > > > > > > astrology to his back, with accurate charts before him, he > > > fails! > > > > > > This was strengthened after I worked with a Prof.of Maths > > > > > > who developed formulae to find the time of Marriage and > death > > > of > > > > a > > > > > > native! > > > > > > > > > > > > humbly, > > > > > > KAD ~! LIFE MEANS STRUGGLE, THE FITTEST WINS SURVIVAL !~ / Mail - You care about security. So do we. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Dear Krishnan, Karmayogi is one who finds satisfaction in doing his KARMA(= work) and for him, the WORK IS WORSHIP. His god is his work. Of course sometimes Work is so beloved to him that he is work- alcoholic, like any Devotee to whom God is his friend! Nothing wrong! "If God exists in everything, why not in my WORK?" is the principle. So, a highly dedicated professional is a KARMAYOGI since he exists out of his PROFESSION(Karma). By professionals, I do not mean the class of people after money-prestige-fame etc. Perhaps you are aware of the famous story of Dharmavyadha the butcher, which makes the idea of Karmayogi clearer. When such a Karma-yogi is PURE, ie when he practises KARMA-PHALA-TYAAGA, he needs no aid to attain spiritual knowledge and such persons are very rarely found. When he has a materialistic bent ie works for a KARMA-PHALA, he really needs a tool to lead him to spiritualism. That tool may be anything including astrology. Since astrology is a medium connecting materialism and spiritualism, it is easier to understand 'Karma' using it. Most of us look for materialistic things in a chart but we do not realize that it is a time stamp of the level of Karma of the native! Thats how astrology for some is not a spiritual tool but a money- making technique! yours, KAD , vattem krishnan <bursar_99> wrote: > Dear KAD ji, > In this : > "Even for a professional or KARMA YOGI", > I find some where we are mixing up whther with reference to (ASTROLOGY) or KARMAYOGI.Iam of the opinion that karma yogi is one who minds what is ordained to him(single minded work alcholic). > Prof is different looking to aspect of where he feels he can excel. > How do we link? > kindly throw some light please > krishnan > > kadrudra <kadrudra> wrote: > > > Dear RR, > > Of course astrology is not the ONLY way to attain spiritual > interests, but being one of the best means to understand KARMA theory, > it stands ahead of most other ways. It is a minute binding permeable > membrane between BHOGA(Materialistic) and MOKSHA(Eternal) > and I do not see any reason why it should not be the BEST way to > spiritualism. Even for a professional or KARMA YOGI, > (with whatever 6th sense he has)to 'see' the light and to understand > it, Jyotish the VEDIC EYE would be the better option! > > Well, thanks for your opinions. > > yours, > KAD > > > > , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> > wrote: > > > > But seeing is not believing, clichEas it might be and overused or > > even wrongly used to distort the actual situation. > > 'seeing' not just in its concrete sense is what that adage implies, > > but through demonstrable senses, including gadgets. > > > > Some of the things, obviously, will remain subjective and might be > > difficult or impossible to be made objective, as in the experience > > being transferred to another one without experiencing it directly, > > such as the scent of a rose. And many of the spiritual experiences > > would remain that way, perhaps for a good cosmic reason. Astrology > is > > a predominantly material tool and for worldly/material answers and > > therefore must not rely on subjective impressions whether these are > > sincere or mumbo-jumbo. > > > > No serious spiritual benefit or advancement has come through the > > output from astrology. It might sensitize the astrologer to > > spirituality over a length of time, but the same end would have > been > > attained by that individual even if he was a dedicated scientist, > > surgeon, writer or painter. Astrology is nothing unique in that > sense > > and it is the vessel (individual) that turns the contents into > amrita > > or poison. > > > > Anyway, thanks for expressing your views, > > > > RR > > > > , "kadrudra" <kadrudra> > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear RR, > > > > > > I do not compell anyone to agree with my opinions, nor do I > preach > > > something new. > > > I want everyone to come out and have a look at the Heavens but > with > > > spiritual eyes. > > > If it comes to 'proving' results of astrology, it can certainly > be > > > done, while 'proving' > > > consistency of an astrologer certainly fails! The problem is, > most > > of > > > the world knows > > > astrology through astrologers. For a pre-Marconi scientist, Radio > > or > > > electro-magnetic > > > wave theory was as 'unscientific' as astrology for now-a-days > > > scientists. Before anything > > > gets discovered, or invented, it is just an imaginary concept or > a > > > belief. > > > > > > If anyone talked of touching Moon in 1000 AD, one would certainly > > ask > > > him to prove it then. > > > Both were right but it could not be done then. Man has 'advanced' > > in > > > his abilities and can reach > > > Moon, feel Mars and it can be 'proved' now. It was not due to one > > but > > > due to a collective effort > > > of a large number people who dedicated themselves to do it. So is > > the > > > case with astrology! > > > I fully agree when you say about incosistent astrologers like all > > of > > > us - no exception. > > > But if only 'seeing is believing', then we can not prove > existence > > of > > > air or vacuum or space! > > > > > > My idea is to support astro-studies as equally as Physics or > > > Mathematics. Whether student > > > likes it or not, understands it or not is his KARMA, but keep the > > > door widen open! Out of > > > all scientists we have, there are only a few Newtons and > Einsteins > > > and Ramans. How can we expect > > > all astrologers to be Mihiras or Bhaskaras or Neelakanthas? > > > > > > The problem before us is not a condition nor a game, but a > > collective > > > challenge! If I can not, I support who can! :-) > > > > > > yours > > > KAD > > > > > > > > > , "rohiniranjan" > <rrgb@s...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > While it would be easy and convenient for me to 'agree' to some > > of > > > > the suppositions you made in your response, Kad, they are > > opinions > > > > and as vacuuous as many of the books and articles written for > > > > unsuspecting students of astrology, over the last fifty (maybe > > > > longer?) years. > > > > > > > > If you are telling the truth, the onus is on you to prove it to > > us, > > > > or else you are just another, one of them! > > > > > > > > The ONLY proof and demonstration for most of us is through > > > consistent > > > > demonstration of the astrological truth, case after case, > > horoscope > > > > after another -- something that NO astrologer has given and > > > > therefore, astrology remains a big questionmark and a > > questionable. > > > > > > > > Anyone can take up the challenge, Lord knows THEY did not all > > these > > > > many decades and centuries! > > > > > > > > Are you game? Unconditionally? > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , "kadrudra" > > <kadrudra> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear RR, > > > > > > > > > > I can see your stand point that Jyotish can not be explained > > > > > by 'Scientific or Engg Models'. > > > > > Simply, we do not need any model to 'explain' astrology > because > > > it > > > > > is 'felt and understood' always. > > > > > Nor do I stress that astrology is in 'scientific model' as it > > is > > > > > understood today. I just want to > > > > > turn a thinker's eye on this subject, with a view that it is > > not > > > > > superstition nor magic, but really > > > > > 'a systematised body of knowledge'(which makes me call it > > science > > > > in > > > > > a broad sense; not by models). > > > > > I just want 'scientists' to have astrology as > spiritual 'eyes'- > > > > thats > > > > > what Vedas meant by calling > > > > > Jyotisha as EYES of Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > As far as scientific models are concerned, they were > developed > > > > after > > > > > a thorough study of the subject, > > > > > which is yet to start in astrology!(Perhaps KP system went a > > foot > > > > > ahead) Unlike other subjects, Jyotish > > > > > is difficult to be modelised as you rightly said. So there is > > no > > > > way > > > > > that one can simply say that > > > > > astrology = science. But one day, it would entirely change > the > > > > system > > > > > of models. We need all five > > > > > ignorant persons trying to know the elephant, for this to > > happen. > > > > For > > > > > I believe, all are not blinds > > > > > but lack different 'sense organs'. Perhaps they are PANCHA- > > > INDRIYA > > > > > (five sense organs) separated! :-) > > > > > We really need all the five! > > > > > > > > > > yours > > > > > KAD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "rohiniranjan" > > > <rrgb@s...> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Kad ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > Seriously though (although I still mean what I posted > > > > earlier, "Now > > > > > > we are talking!") -- your post brings out a very pithy fact. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jyotish is not something that can be explained on the model > > > that > > > > > > science uses (or at least used so far) to explain and > > > > > > describe "physical" reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jyotish has some physical components but it cannot all be > > > > described > > > > > > using the "engineering" model. NOW, this is where I am > > treading > > > > > thin > > > > > > ice and do not wish to offend anyone or attack anyone, but > I > > > see > > > > a > > > > > > very strange similarity between western astrology and > > jyotish. > > > > This > > > > > > is just an observation so do not kill the observer ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > When decades ago I was viewing the growth of western > > astrology > > > > more > > > > > > as an observer than a participant, I was struck by the > > > > > > heavy 'psychological' emphasis in the explanations used. It > > > > > suddenly > > > > > > made sense to me one day when I realized that most of > > > > the 'brains' > > > > > > involved were really psychologists and those with clinical > > > > > psychology > > > > > > backgrounds. I use the term 'brain' not in the deregatory > > sense > > > > > that > > > > > > many spiritualist, soft science type critics use. Brains > > strive > > > > to > > > > > > analyze, dissect, break down and reconstitute models > > > > and "reality". > > > > > > The psychologists, from Jung to all the way down to whoever > > is > > > > > ruling > > > > > > the roost tonight, western astrological symbolism > experienced > > > the > > > > > > influence of these psychologists and little wonder that the > > > astro- > > > > > > symbolism got explained using psychological model and > > > terminology. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jyotish primarily experienced the influence of religious, > > > > spiritual > > > > > > doyens and it had a heavy spiritual theme, and structure. > > Then > > > > more > > > > > > recently it attracted individuals who were from a > practical, > > > > > > organizational background and so we saw the systems > approach > > > and > > > > it > > > > > > naturally led to the background which attracted many > > engineers > > > > and > > > > > > programmers/mathematicians. We see, thus, a resurgence and > > > > revival > > > > > of > > > > > > techniques, and the current mainstream jyotish is very much > > > based > > > > > on > > > > > > the engineering model. > > > > > > > > > > > > None of any of these are right or wrong and we should stop > > > > reacting > > > > > > in a knee jerk manner that the current dominant theme is > > > driving > > > > > the > > > > > > entire field or that it is annihilating or overwriting what > > we > > > > hold > > > > > > dear or think of as the truth, at least in so far as we see > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > I see all of these different takes, the different windows > as > > > > > progress > > > > > > and without being deregatory as the five blind men as they > > see > > > > the > > > > > > elephant. > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless we gain instant and full vision, and that is but a > > pipe > > > > > dream > > > > > > for most of us, other than a few who actually have gone > > beyond > > > > > > jyotish through gaining such vision (!), we need all five > > blind > > > > men > > > > > > and their views and opinions and their construct of the > > > reality, > > > > > > because if it is indeed the elephant that we shortsighted > > > > > individuals > > > > > > are trying to figure out, within our short lifetimes, the > > > > Elephant > > > > > > the dark and large, time incarnate, can further reduce our > > > > lifetime > > > > > > for us, with one careless sway of its mighty trunk or by > > > deciding > > > > > to > > > > > > roll over right where we stand making our myopic > > observations. > > > We > > > > > > will come back, of course, I have full trust! > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > , "kadrudra" > > > > <kadrudra> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With someone asking for correct Ayanamsha, I felt like > > > sharing > > > > a > > > > > > few > > > > > > > points on Mathematics and Intuition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If one depends much only on astronomical accuracy but not > > on > > > > his > > > > > > > mental capacity, the result would be total confusion! > > > > > > > Astrology is a divine branch of knowledge and whether it > is > > > > > looked > > > > > > > down upon by 'Forward' world or looked at with reverence, > > > > > > > it has its own merits. Before, there was a theory to > > caculate > > > > > > > planetary positions, be it SuryaSiddhanta, Vakya or > > > > Aryabhateeyam; > > > > > > > and there was no dispute of Ayanamsha. Even with same > > charts, > > > > > > > predictions would differ with different astro-schools of > > > > thought. > > > > > > > Still, in those days, predictions would not fail like in > > now > > > a > > > > > > days, > > > > > > > because astrologers had much of intution, and cared less > > > > > > > for a degree or two of mathematical angle! Just that > MOMENT > > > of > > > > > > TRIAD - > > > > > > > astrologer, querist and tool would answer the querist. > > > > > > > By tool, I mean chart/ kundali/Prashna/Number/Colour or > > > > whatever > > > > > > the > > > > > > > astrologer could 'GRASP' for a quantum jump into querist's > > > > > > > mind, not bound by time and space. That gave the answer, > > > > > perfectly! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Getting correct answer to one's query too is ruled by his > > own > > > > > > KARMA! > > > > > > > I have always observed that whenever there is a 'good' > > > > > > > moment of TRIAD, I could 'sense' or 'feel' everything > about > > > the > > > > > > > native and the query even including time of birth and > death > > > > > > > exactly to seconds!!! THAT is a SURE indication that the > > > > querist > > > > > is > > > > > > > going to get the exact answer. On the other hand, I have > > > > > > > sensed 'bad' moments of Triad, which never even make up > the > > > > triad > > > > > > and > > > > > > > with whatever astrological knowledge I have, I am UNABLE > > > > > > > to read the chart. It is just a piece of paper then; > > whatever > > > I > > > > > > > decipher may/maynot be a failure, but dilute in nature, > > which > > > > > > > querist may/maynot understand - rather misunderstand! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I have full belief that whatever Ayanamsha one uses, > his > > > > > > INTUITION > > > > > > > is the important part, without which even with ocean of > > > > > > > astrology to his back, with accurate charts before him, > he > > > > fails! > > > > > > > This was strengthened after I worked with a Prof.of Maths > > > > > > > who developed formulae to find the time of Marriage and > > death > > > > of > > > > > a > > > > > > > native! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > humbly, > > > > > > > KAD > > > > > > ~! LIFE MEANS STRUGGLE, THE FITTEST WINS SURVIVAL !~ > > > > > Links > > > / > > > > > Terms of Service. > > > > > > Mail - You care about security. So do we. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2005 Report Share Posted January 11, 2005 Vattem ji, My thinking is that a workaholic is unbalanced and hence should not be considered a karmayogi. A karmayogi is often not goal-driven (as in can detatch himself from the goals and fruits of work), whereas workaholics are. rohiniranjan , vattem krishnan <bursar_99> wrote: > Dear KAD ji, > In this : > "Even for a professional or KARMA YOGI", > I find some where we are mixing up whther with reference to (ASTROLOGY) or KARMAYOGI.Iam of the opinion that karma yogi is one who minds what is ordained to him(single minded work alcholic). > Prof is different looking to aspect of where he feels he can excel. > How do we link? > kindly throw some light please > krishnan > > kadrudra <kadrudra> wrote: > > > Dear RR, > > Of course astrology is not the ONLY way to attain spiritual > interests, but being one of the best means to understand KARMA theory, > it stands ahead of most other ways. It is a minute binding permeable > membrane between BHOGA(Materialistic) and MOKSHA(Eternal) > and I do not see any reason why it should not be the BEST way to > spiritualism. Even for a professional or KARMA YOGI, > (with whatever 6th sense he has)to 'see' the light and to understand > it, Jyotish the VEDIC EYE would be the better option! > > Well, thanks for your opinions. > > yours, > KAD > > > > , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> > wrote: > > > > But seeing is not believing, clichEas it might be and overused or > > even wrongly used to distort the actual situation. > > 'seeing' not just in its concrete sense is what that adage implies, > > but through demonstrable senses, including gadgets. > > > > Some of the things, obviously, will remain subjective and might be > > difficult or impossible to be made objective, as in the experience > > being transferred to another one without experiencing it directly, > > such as the scent of a rose. And many of the spiritual experiences > > would remain that way, perhaps for a good cosmic reason. Astrology > is > > a predominantly material tool and for worldly/material answers and > > therefore must not rely on subjective impressions whether these are > > sincere or mumbo-jumbo. > > > > No serious spiritual benefit or advancement has come through the > > output from astrology. It might sensitize the astrologer to > > spirituality over a length of time, but the same end would have > been > > attained by that individual even if he was a dedicated scientist, > > surgeon, writer or painter. Astrology is nothing unique in that > sense > > and it is the vessel (individual) that turns the contents into > amrita > > or poison. > > > > Anyway, thanks for expressing your views, > > > > RR > > > > , "kadrudra" <kadrudra> > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear RR, > > > > > > I do not compell anyone to agree with my opinions, nor do I > preach > > > something new. > > > I want everyone to come out and have a look at the Heavens but > with > > > spiritual eyes. > > > If it comes to 'proving' results of astrology, it can certainly > be > > > done, while 'proving' > > > consistency of an astrologer certainly fails! The problem is, > most > > of > > > the world knows > > > astrology through astrologers. For a pre-Marconi scientist, Radio > > or > > > electro-magnetic > > > wave theory was as 'unscientific' as astrology for now-a-days > > > scientists. Before anything > > > gets discovered, or invented, it is just an imaginary concept or > a > > > belief. > > > > > > If anyone talked of touching Moon in 1000 AD, one would certainly > > ask > > > him to prove it then. > > > Both were right but it could not be done then. Man has 'advanced' > > in > > > his abilities and can reach > > > Moon, feel Mars and it can be 'proved' now. It was not due to one > > but > > > due to a collective effort > > > of a large number people who dedicated themselves to do it. So is > > the > > > case with astrology! > > > I fully agree when you say about incosistent astrologers like all > > of > > > us - no exception. > > > But if only 'seeing is believing', then we can not prove > existence > > of > > > air or vacuum or space! > > > > > > My idea is to support astro-studies as equally as Physics or > > > Mathematics. Whether student > > > likes it or not, understands it or not is his KARMA, but keep the > > > door widen open! Out of > > > all scientists we have, there are only a few Newtons and > Einsteins > > > and Ramans. How can we expect > > > all astrologers to be Mihiras or Bhaskaras or Neelakanthas? > > > > > > The problem before us is not a condition nor a game, but a > > collective > > > challenge! If I can not, I support who can! :-) > > > > > > yours > > > KAD > > > > > > > > > , "rohiniranjan" > <rrgb@s...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > While it would be easy and convenient for me to 'agree' to some > > of > > > > the suppositions you made in your response, Kad, they are > > opinions > > > > and as vacuuous as many of the books and articles written for > > > > unsuspecting students of astrology, over the last fifty (maybe > > > > longer?) years. > > > > > > > > If you are telling the truth, the onus is on you to prove it to > > us, > > > > or else you are just another, one of them! > > > > > > > > The ONLY proof and demonstration for most of us is through > > > consistent > > > > demonstration of the astrological truth, case after case, > > horoscope > > > > after another -- something that NO astrologer has given and > > > > therefore, astrology remains a big questionmark and a > > questionable. > > > > > > > > Anyone can take up the challenge, Lord knows THEY did not all > > these > > > > many decades and centuries! > > > > > > > > Are you game? Unconditionally? > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , "kadrudra" > > <kadrudra> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear RR, > > > > > > > > > > I can see your stand point that Jyotish can not be explained > > > > > by 'Scientific or Engg Models'. > > > > > Simply, we do not need any model to 'explain' astrology > because > > > it > > > > > is 'felt and understood' always. > > > > > Nor do I stress that astrology is in 'scientific model' as it > > is > > > > > understood today. I just want to > > > > > turn a thinker's eye on this subject, with a view that it is > > not > > > > > superstition nor magic, but really > > > > > 'a systematised body of knowledge'(which makes me call it > > science > > > > in > > > > > a broad sense; not by models). > > > > > I just want 'scientists' to have astrology as > spiritual 'eyes'- > > > > thats > > > > > what Vedas meant by calling > > > > > Jyotisha as EYES of Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > As far as scientific models are concerned, they were > developed > > > > after > > > > > a thorough study of the subject, > > > > > which is yet to start in astrology!(Perhaps KP system went a > > foot > > > > > ahead) Unlike other subjects, Jyotish > > > > > is difficult to be modelised as you rightly said. So there is > > no > > > > way > > > > > that one can simply say that > > > > > astrology = science. But one day, it would entirely change > the > > > > system > > > > > of models. We need all five > > > > > ignorant persons trying to know the elephant, for this to > > happen. > > > > For > > > > > I believe, all are not blinds > > > > > but lack different 'sense organs'. Perhaps they are PANCHA- > > > INDRIYA > > > > > (five sense organs) separated! :-) > > > > > We really need all the five! > > > > > > > > > > yours > > > > > KAD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "rohiniranjan" > > > <rrgb@s...> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Kad ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > Seriously though (although I still mean what I posted > > > > earlier, "Now > > > > > > we are talking!") -- your post brings out a very pithy fact. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jyotish is not something that can be explained on the model > > > that > > > > > > science uses (or at least used so far) to explain and > > > > > > describe "physical" reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jyotish has some physical components but it cannot all be > > > > described > > > > > > using the "engineering" model. NOW, this is where I am > > treading > > > > > thin > > > > > > ice and do not wish to offend anyone or attack anyone, but > I > > > see > > > > a > > > > > > very strange similarity between western astrology and > > jyotish. > > > > This > > > > > > is just an observation so do not kill the observer ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > When decades ago I was viewing the growth of western > > astrology > > > > more > > > > > > as an observer than a participant, I was struck by the > > > > > > heavy 'psychological' emphasis in the explanations used. It > > > > > suddenly > > > > > > made sense to me one day when I realized that most of > > > > the 'brains' > > > > > > involved were really psychologists and those with clinical > > > > > psychology > > > > > > backgrounds. I use the term 'brain' not in the deregatory > > sense > > > > > that > > > > > > many spiritualist, soft science type critics use. Brains > > strive > > > > to > > > > > > analyze, dissect, break down and reconstitute models > > > > and "reality". > > > > > > The psychologists, from Jung to all the way down to whoever > > is > > > > > ruling > > > > > > the roost tonight, western astrological symbolism > experienced > > > the > > > > > > influence of these psychologists and little wonder that the > > > astro- > > > > > > symbolism got explained using psychological model and > > > terminology. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jyotish primarily experienced the influence of religious, > > > > spiritual > > > > > > doyens and it had a heavy spiritual theme, and structure. > > Then > > > > more > > > > > > recently it attracted individuals who were from a > practical, > > > > > > organizational background and so we saw the systems > approach > > > and > > > > it > > > > > > naturally led to the background which attracted many > > engineers > > > > and > > > > > > programmers/mathematicians. We see, thus, a resurgence and > > > > revival > > > > > of > > > > > > techniques, and the current mainstream jyotish is very much > > > based > > > > > on > > > > > > the engineering model. > > > > > > > > > > > > None of any of these are right or wrong and we should stop > > > > reacting > > > > > > in a knee jerk manner that the current dominant theme is > > > driving > > > > > the > > > > > > entire field or that it is annihilating or overwriting what > > we > > > > hold > > > > > > dear or think of as the truth, at least in so far as we see > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > I see all of these different takes, the different windows > as > > > > > progress > > > > > > and without being deregatory as the five blind men as they > > see > > > > the > > > > > > elephant. > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless we gain instant and full vision, and that is but a > > pipe > > > > > dream > > > > > > for most of us, other than a few who actually have gone > > beyond > > > > > > jyotish through gaining such vision (!), we need all five > > blind > > > > men > > > > > > and their views and opinions and their construct of the > > > reality, > > > > > > because if it is indeed the elephant that we shortsighted > > > > > individuals > > > > > > are trying to figure out, within our short lifetimes, the > > > > Elephant > > > > > > the dark and large, time incarnate, can further reduce our > > > > lifetime > > > > > > for us, with one careless sway of its mighty trunk or by > > > deciding > > > > > to > > > > > > roll over right where we stand making our myopic > > observations. > > > We > > > > > > will come back, of course, I have full trust! > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > , "kadrudra" > > > > <kadrudra> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With someone asking for correct Ayanamsha, I felt like > > > sharing > > > > a > > > > > > few > > > > > > > points on Mathematics and Intuition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If one depends much only on astronomical accuracy but not > > on > > > > his > > > > > > > mental capacity, the result would be total confusion! > > > > > > > Astrology is a divine branch of knowledge and whether it > is > > > > > looked > > > > > > > down upon by 'Forward' world or looked at with reverence, > > > > > > > it has its own merits. Before, there was a theory to > > caculate > > > > > > > planetary positions, be it SuryaSiddhanta, Vakya or > > > > Aryabhateeyam; > > > > > > > and there was no dispute of Ayanamsha. Even with same > > charts, > > > > > > > predictions would differ with different astro-schools of > > > > thought. > > > > > > > Still, in those days, predictions would not fail like in > > now > > > a > > > > > > days, > > > > > > > because astrologers had much of intution, and cared less > > > > > > > for a degree or two of mathematical angle! Just that > MOMENT > > > of > > > > > > TRIAD - > > > > > > > astrologer, querist and tool would answer the querist. > > > > > > > By tool, I mean chart/ kundali/Prashna/Number/Colour or > > > > whatever > > > > > > the > > > > > > > astrologer could 'GRASP' for a quantum jump into querist's > > > > > > > mind, not bound by time and space. That gave the answer, > > > > > perfectly! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Getting correct answer to one's query too is ruled by his > > own > > > > > > KARMA! > > > > > > > I have always observed that whenever there is a 'good' > > > > > > > moment of TRIAD, I could 'sense' or 'feel' everything > about > > > the > > > > > > > native and the query even including time of birth and > death > > > > > > > exactly to seconds!!! THAT is a SURE indication that the > > > > querist > > > > > is > > > > > > > going to get the exact answer. On the other hand, I have > > > > > > > sensed 'bad' moments of Triad, which never even make up > the > > > > triad > > > > > > and > > > > > > > with whatever astrological knowledge I have, I am UNABLE > > > > > > > to read the chart. It is just a piece of paper then; > > whatever > > > I > > > > > > > decipher may/maynot be a failure, but dilute in nature, > > which > > > > > > > querist may/maynot understand - rather misunderstand! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I have full belief that whatever Ayanamsha one uses, > his > > > > > > INTUITION > > > > > > > is the important part, without which even with ocean of > > > > > > > astrology to his back, with accurate charts before him, > he > > > > fails! > > > > > > > This was strengthened after I worked with a Prof.of Maths > > > > > > > who developed formulae to find the time of Marriage and > > death > > > > of > > > > > a > > > > > > > native! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > humbly, > > > > > > > KAD > > > > > > ~! LIFE MEANS STRUGGLE, THE FITTEST WINS SURVIVAL !~ > > > > > Links > > > / > > > > > Terms of Service. > > > > > > Mail - You care about security. So do we. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Hello Ranjan ji, Later to this clarification some where u have clarified further on this.balance is a matter left to the karma yogi and to the divinity.As long as if we could serve to a cause to promote growth and development in the society,the relentless work and ceaseless work done(work alcoholic) shall ultimately benifit to all concerned.So balance or no balance let the yogi himself realise not a matter of judgement or to prescribe a dosage.so "that a workaholic is unbalanced and hence should not be considered a karmayogi." karmogi is one who continues and adopts this path also deserves to be given a place and recognise the contribution.certainly when the cause is good,i do not think a balance is to be worried.But a 'pro" is not a single minded persons as he haunts a subject for self recognition.where as the other one karmayogi(work alcoholic) is just what he performs jealously and finds no limits in promoting an issue for benifit of an Institution(univers) krishnan rohiniranjan <rrgb wrote: Vattem ji, My thinking is that a workaholic is unbalanced and hence should not be considered a karmayogi. A karmayogi is often not goal-driven (as in can detatch himself from the goals and fruits of work), whereas workaholics are. rohiniranjan , vattem krishnan <bursar_99> wrote: > Dear KAD ji, > In this : > "Even for a professional or KARMA YOGI", > I find some where we are mixing up whther with reference to (ASTROLOGY) or KARMAYOGI.Iam of the opinion that karma yogi is one who minds what is ordained to him(single minded work alcholic). > Prof is different looking to aspect of where he feels he can excel. > How do we link? > kindly throw some light please > krishnan > > kadrudra <kadrudra> wrote: > > > Dear RR, > > Of course astrology is not the ONLY way to attain spiritual > interests, but being one of the best means to understand KARMA theory, > it stands ahead of most other ways. It is a minute binding permeable > membrane between BHOGA(Materialistic) and MOKSHA(Eternal) > and I do not see any reason why it should not be the BEST way to > spiritualism. Even for a professional or KARMA YOGI, > (with whatever 6th sense he has)to 'see' the light and to understand > it, Jyotish the VEDIC EYE would be the better option! > > Well, thanks for your opinions. > > yours, > KAD > > > > , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> > wrote: > > > > But seeing is not believing, clichEas it might be and overused or > > even wrongly used to distort the actual situation. > > 'seeing' not just in its concrete sense is what that adage implies, > > but through demonstrable senses, including gadgets. > > > > Some of the things, obviously, will remain subjective and might be > > difficult or impossible to be made objective, as in the experience > > being transferred to another one without experiencing it directly, > > such as the scent of a rose. And many of the spiritual experiences > > would remain that way, perhaps for a good cosmic reason. Astrology > is > > a predominantly material tool and for worldly/material answers and > > therefore must not rely on subjective impressions whether these are > > sincere or mumbo-jumbo. > > > > No serious spiritual benefit or advancement has come through the > > output from astrology. It might sensitize the astrologer to > > spirituality over a length of time, but the same end would have > been > > attained by that individual even if he was a dedicated scientist, > > surgeon, writer or painter. Astrology is nothing unique in that > sense > > and it is the vessel (individual) that turns the contents into > amrita > > or poison. > > > > Anyway, thanks for expressing your views, > > > > RR > > > > , "kadrudra" <kadrudra> > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear RR, > > > > > > I do not compell anyone to agree with my opinions, nor do I > preach > > > something new. > > > I want everyone to come out and have a look at the Heavens but > with > > > spiritual eyes. > > > If it comes to 'proving' results of astrology, it can certainly > be > > > done, while 'proving' > > > consistency of an astrologer certainly fails! The problem is, > most > > of > > > the world knows > > > astrology through astrologers. For a pre-Marconi scientist, Radio > > or > > > electro-magnetic > > > wave theory was as 'unscientific' as astrology for now-a-days > > > scientists. Before anything > > > gets discovered, or invented, it is just an imaginary concept or > a > > > belief. > > > > > > If anyone talked of touching Moon in 1000 AD, one would certainly > > ask > > > him to prove it then. > > > Both were right but it could not be done then. Man has 'advanced' > > in > > > his abilities and can reach > > > Moon, feel Mars and it can be 'proved' now. It was not due to one > > but > > > due to a collective effort > > > of a large number people who dedicated themselves to do it. So is > > the > > > case with astrology! > > > I fully agree when you say about incosistent astrologers like all > > of > > > us - no exception. > > > But if only 'seeing is believing', then we can not prove > existence > > of > > > air or vacuum or space! > > > > > > My idea is to support astro-studies as equally as Physics or > > > Mathematics. Whether student > > > likes it or not, understands it or not is his KARMA, but keep the > > > door widen open! Out of > > > all scientists we have, there are only a few Newtons and > Einsteins > > > and Ramans. How can we expect > > > all astrologers to be Mihiras or Bhaskaras or Neelakanthas? > > > > > > The problem before us is not a condition nor a game, but a > > collective > > > challenge! If I can not, I support who can! :-) > > > > > > yours > > > KAD > > > > > > > > > , "rohiniranjan" > <rrgb@s...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > While it would be easy and convenient for me to 'agree' to some > > of > > > > the suppositions you made in your response, Kad, they are > > opinions > > > > and as vacuuous as many of the books and articles written for > > > > unsuspecting students of astrology, over the last fifty (maybe > > > > longer?) years. > > > > > > > > If you are telling the truth, the onus is on you to prove it to > > us, > > > > or else you are just another, one of them! > > > > > > > > The ONLY proof and demonstration for most of us is through > > > consistent > > > > demonstration of the astrological truth, case after case, > > horoscope > > > > after another -- something that NO astrologer has given and > > > > therefore, astrology remains a big questionmark and a > > questionable. > > > > > > > > Anyone can take up the challenge, Lord knows THEY did not all > > these > > > > many decades and centuries! > > > > > > > > Are you game? Unconditionally? > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , "kadrudra" > > <kadrudra> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear RR, > > > > > > > > > > I can see your stand point that Jyotish can not be explained > > > > > by 'Scientific or Engg Models'. > > > > > Simply, we do not need any model to 'explain' astrology > because > > > it > > > > > is 'felt and understood' always. > > > > > Nor do I stress that astrology is in 'scientific model' as it > > is > > > > > understood today. I just want to > > > > > turn a thinker's eye on this subject, with a view that it is > > not > > > > > superstition nor magic, but really > > > > > 'a systematised body of knowledge'(which makes me call it > > science > > > > in > > > > > a broad sense; not by models). > > > > > I just want 'scientists' to have astrology as > spiritual 'eyes'- > > > > thats > > > > > what Vedas meant by calling > > > > > Jyotisha as EYES of Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > As far as scientific models are concerned, they were > developed > > > > after > > > > > a thorough study of the subject, > > > > > which is yet to start in astrology!(Perhaps KP system went a > > foot > > > > > ahead) Unlike other subjects, Jyotish > > > > > is difficult to be modelised as you rightly said. So there is > > no > > > > way > > > > > that one can simply say that > > > > > astrology = science. But one day, it would entirely change > the > > > > system > > > > > of models. We need all five > > > > > ignorant persons trying to know the elephant, for this to > > happen. > > > > For > > > > > I believe, all are not blinds > > > > > but lack different 'sense organs'. Perhaps they are PANCHA- > > > INDRIYA > > > > > (five sense organs) separated! :-) > > > > > We really need all the five! > > > > > > > > > > yours > > > > > KAD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "rohiniranjan" > > > <rrgb@s...> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Kad ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > Seriously though (although I still mean what I posted > > > > earlier, "Now > > > > > > we are talking!") -- your post brings out a very pithy fact. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jyotish is not something that can be explained on the model > > > that > > > > > > science uses (or at least used so far) to explain and > > > > > > describe "physical" reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jyotish has some physical components but it cannot all be > > > > described > > > > > > using the "engineering" model. NOW, this is where I am > > treading > > > > > thin > > > > > > ice and do not wish to offend anyone or attack anyone, but > I > > > see > > > > a > > > > > > very strange similarity between western astrology and > > jyotish. > > > > This > > > > > > is just an observation so do not kill the observer ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > When decades ago I was viewing the growth of western > > astrology > > > > more > > > > > > as an observer than a participant, I was struck by the > > > > > > heavy 'psychological' emphasis in the explanations used. It > > > > > suddenly > > > > > > made sense to me one day when I realized that most of > > > > the 'brains' > > > > > > involved were really psychologists and those with clinical > > > > > psychology > > > > > > backgrounds. I use the term 'brain' not in the deregatory > > sense > > > > > that > > > > > > many spiritualist, soft science type critics use. Brains > > strive > > > > to > > > > > > analyze, dissect, break down and reconstitute models > > > > and "reality". > > > > > > The psychologists, from Jung to all the way down to whoever > > is > > > > > ruling > > > > > > the roost tonight, western astrological symbolism > experienced > > > the > > > > > > influence of these psychologists and little wonder that the > > > astro- > > > > > > symbolism got explained using psychological model and > > > terminology. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jyotish primarily experienced the influence of religious, > > > > spiritual > > > > > > doyens and it had a heavy spiritual theme, and structure. > > Then > > > > more > > > > > > recently it attracted individuals who were from a > practical, > > > > > > organizational background and so we saw the systems > approach > > > and > > > > it > > > > > > naturally led to the background which attracted many > > engineers > > > > and > > > > > > programmers/mathematicians. We see, thus, a resurgence and > > > > revival > > > > > of > > > > > > techniques, and the current mainstream jyotish is very much > > > based > > > > > on > > > > > > the engineering model. > > > > > > > > > > > > None of any of these are right or wrong and we should stop > > > > reacting > > > > > > in a knee jerk manner that the current dominant theme is > > > driving > > > > > the > > > > > > entire field or that it is annihilating or overwriting what > > we > > > > hold > > > > > > dear or think of as the truth, at least in so far as we see > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > I see all of these different takes, the different windows > as > > > > > progress > > > > > > and without being deregatory as the five blind men as they > > see > > > > the > > > > > > elephant. > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless we gain instant and full vision, and that is but a > > pipe > > > > > dream > > > > > > for most of us, other than a few who actually have gone > > beyond > > > > > > jyotish through gaining such vision (!), we need all five > > blind > > > > men > > > > > > and their views and opinions and their construct of the > > > reality, > > > > > > because if it is indeed the elephant that we shortsighted > > > > > individuals > > > > > > are trying to figure out, within our short lifetimes, the > > > > Elephant > > > > > > the dark and large, time incarnate, can further reduce our > > > > lifetime > > > > > > for us, with one careless sway of its mighty trunk or by > > > deciding > > > > > to > > > > > > roll over right where we stand making our myopic > > observations. > > > We > > > > > > will come back, of course, I have full trust! > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > , "kadrudra" > > > > <kadrudra> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With someone asking for correct Ayanamsha, I felt like > > > sharing > > > > a > > > > > > few > > > > > > > points on Mathematics and Intuition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If one depends much only on astronomical accuracy but not > > on > > > > his > > > > > > > mental capacity, the result would be total confusion! > > > > > > > Astrology is a divine branch of knowledge and whether it > is > > > > > looked > > > > > > > down upon by 'Forward' world or looked at with reverence, > > > > > > > it has its own merits. Before, there was a theory to > > caculate > > > > > > > planetary positions, be it SuryaSiddhanta, Vakya or > > > > Aryabhateeyam; > > > > > > > and there was no dispute of Ayanamsha. Even with same > > charts, > > > > > > > predictions would differ with different astro-schools of > > > > thought. > > > > > > > Still, in those days, predictions would not fail like in > > now > > > a > > > > > > days, > > > > > > > because astrologers had much of intution, and cared less > > > > > > > for a degree or two of mathematical angle! Just that > MOMENT > > > of > > > > > > TRIAD - > > > > > > > astrologer, querist and tool would answer the querist. > > > > > > > By tool, I mean chart/ kundali/Prashna/Number/Colour or > > > > whatever > > > > > > the > > > > > > > astrologer could 'GRASP' for a quantum jump into querist's > > > > > > > mind, not bound by time and space. That gave the answer, > > > > > perfectly! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Getting correct answer to one's query too is ruled by his > > own > > > > > > KARMA! > > > > > > > I have always observed that whenever there is a 'good' > > > > > > > moment of TRIAD, I could 'sense' or 'feel' everything > about > > > the > > > > > > > native and the query even including time of birth and > death > > > > > > > exactly to seconds!!! THAT is a SURE indication that the > > > > querist > > > > > is > > > > > > > going to get the exact answer. On the other hand, I have > > > > > > > sensed 'bad' moments of Triad, which never even make up > the > > > > triad > > > > > > and > > > > > > > with whatever astrological knowledge I have, I am UNABLE > > > > > > > to read the chart. It is just a piece of paper then; > > whatever > > > I > > > > > > > decipher may/maynot be a failure, but dilute in nature, > > which > > > > > > > querist may/maynot understand - rather misunderstand! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I have full belief that whatever Ayanamsha one uses, > his > > > > > > INTUITION > > > > > > > is the important part, without which even with ocean of > > > > > > > astrology to his back, with accurate charts before him, > he > > > > fails! > > > > > > > This was strengthened after I worked with a Prof.of Maths > > > > > > > who developed formulae to find the time of Marriage and > > death > > > > of > > > > > a > > > > > > > native! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > humbly, > > > > > > > KAD > > > > > > ~! LIFE MEANS STRUGGLE, THE FITTEST WINS SURVIVAL !~ > > > > > Links > > > / > > > > > Terms of Service. > > > > > > Mail - You care about security. So do we. > > ~! LIFE MEANS STRUGGLE, THE FITTEST WINS SURVIVAL !~ / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.