Guest guest Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 mixed metaphor, dear friend! The analogy was comparing between 'psychic perception leading to divination' with the other track more readily available to most of us, i.e., using logical or technical (transferable from one to another) methods to divine something. Seriously, though, in practice neither is a mutually exclusive state or approach since most jyotishis perhaps use both intuition/psychic perception as well as logical framework. The degree of awareness and admission of the same may vary from one to another, if you catch my drift. And yes, it is not just beginners (in a sense we all are ...) that would keep fighting with all these variables. Particularly in the face of Heisenbergian uncertainty which might be throwing in its monkey wrench into the works from time to time, as well. Let us just carry on sifting through the thoughts and ideas, claims and illustrations (if any) and at the end of the day, each of us is left with just one thing: our direct and personal perceptions of the reality. , rishi shukla <rishi_2000in wrote: > > The parrot is a good learner. > Us beginners in Jyotish not so good as parrots so we > get confused with ayanamshas, the nodes, the vargas, > the dasha years ..the list can go on merely > illustrative and not exhaustive. > So there we go again, counting the stars in the skies > till eons. > regards > > rishi > > > > --- crystal pages <jyotish_vani wrote: > > > I hate it when it comes to duel between the psychic > > parrot or the pot- > > bellied astropundit! The parrot in some instances > > may be more > > accurate, demands fewer resources, a few fistfuls of > > bengal gram, a > > few pecks at the gulabi amrud and a few handfuls of > > green chillies as > > opposed to the pundit (let us not go there, > > please!)--- In > > , rishi shukla > > <rishi_2000in@> > > wrote: > > > > > > True, Sir, but that exactly is the point, either > > you > > > predict through a set of principles or you predict > > > through intutive methods. The prediction through a > > set > > > of principles need an understanding of the > > principles > > > and when a variety of views float, which is but > > > natural then confusion gets compounded. > > > regards > > > > > > rishi > > > > > > --- crystal pages <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Rishi ji and interested others, > > > > > > > > As Shri K.N. Rao ji has expressed on Ben's list > > a > > > > few times and I > > > > hope I am not quoting him incorrectly or out of > > > > context: The only > > > > true test for jyotish and jyotishi is through > > > > prediction and only > > > > through consistently correct predictions. To > > which I > > > > add -- who needs > > > > further proof or discussion and only silence can > > > > prevail! > > > > > > > > Yes -- difficult to impossible for most of us > > but > > > > something to strive > > > > for by those who respect and admire Mr. K.N. > > Rao. > > > > > > > > rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > , > > > > "rishi_2000in" > > > > <rishi_2000in@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Welcome, naliniji, to the club wherein > > realities > > > > and shadows merge > > > > > and create confusion for beginners like us. > > > > > > > > > > It is so interesting that while various > > approaches > > > > to Jyotish can > > > > > glibly explain the same chart accurately in > > > > various forms, its > > > > still > > > > > contending with major issues > > > > > > > > > > regards > > > > > Rishi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , > > > > "auromirra19" > > > > > <nalini2818@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > -[Om Namo Narayanaya] > > > > > > Dear Divya, > > > > > > When it comes to learning or knowledge, age > > is > > > > no criterion. I > > > > > > welcome your advice. Yes I have been mixing > > up > > > > too many things. I > > > > > > thought it prudent to start my study of > > jyotish > > > > diligently, > > > > > > systematically on a particular muhurta. I > > shall > > > > certainly , as > > > > > > advised by you start only from the > > > > basics/classics. > > > > > > I did read a couple of articles/lectures of > > > > learned members in > > > > the > > > > > > fora, both of Jaimini and Parashara. The > > > > assimilation part was > > > > ok, > > > > > > should have slotted them in the respective > > > > places but > > > > > inexperienced > > > > > > that I am, have bungled. And you know the > > net > > > > result, confusion. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > God Bless > > > > > > Nalini > > > > > > -- In , > > Divya > > > > <touchbase_divya@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ||Hare Rama Krsna|| > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Naliniji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I am writing is little off the > > topic of > > > > discussion. > > > > Also, > > > > > I > > > > > > am no expert on the topic. But, being a > > beginner > > > > student myself, > > > > I > > > > > > am able to understand why you are feeling > > > > confused. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The topic of discussion was whether Rahu > > and > > > > Ketu have > > > > > aspects. > > > > > > > You felt that since Ketu is described as > > > > Mokshakaraka, it > > > > must > > > > > > be important. Also you wondered if it is > > > > considered as a planet > > > > at > > > > > > all. Later you have also added the word > > Chara > > > > Karaka. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should go step by step. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is important is - What is a Graha > > and > > > > what forms the > > > > > basis > > > > > > of aspects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why did you feel that being a Karaka, is > > > > related to aspects? > > > > I > > > > > > thought Karaka was a separate topic. Are we > > not > > > > mixing up too > > > > many > > > > > > things? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason I wrote the earlier mail > > (asking > > > > you to > > > > > concentrate > > > > > > more on the word Graha rather than 'planet') > > > > was, that I feel > > > > > > sometimes the English words (which do not > > > > exactly fit) take our > > > > > line > > > > > > of thought in a different direction. Later > > they > > > > cause more > > > > doubts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, if we concentrate on 'Graha', their > > > > nature, why Rahu - > > > > > Ketu > > > > > > are called Chaya Graha, also their nature, > > then > > > > it is a little > > > > > > easier to grasp the concept. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, one thing I have realised (the > > hard > > > > way) is that if I > > > > > > study basics first and then read the > > comments of > > > > learned members > > > > > > here, I am able to learn and understand > > better > > > > than if I try the > > > > > > other way round. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought I'll share my experience with > > you. > > > > If there's > > > > > anything > > > > > > you didn't like, then being elder to me, > > please > > > > forgive it as my > > > === message truncated === > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 RRji, Yes, Sir, i concur with your point. But you began a new thread with: "and at the end of the day, each of us is left with just one thing: our direct and personal perceptions of the reality". But what is reality, what we experience through the five sensory organs and the personal interpretations. And at the end of the day do we conclude that reality is only perceptional or is there something which is true in all cases. regards rishi , "crystal pages" and at the end of the day, each of us is > left with just one thing: our direct and personal perceptions of the > reality. <jyotish_vani wrote: > > mixed metaphor, dear friend! The analogy was comparing > between 'psychic perception leading to divination' with the other > track more readily available to most of us, i.e., using logical or > technical (transferable from one to another) methods to divine > something. > > Seriously, though, in practice neither is a mutually exclusive state > or approach since most jyotishis perhaps use both intuition/psychic > perception as well as logical framework. The degree of awareness and > admission of the same may vary from one to another, if you catch my > drift. > > And yes, it is not just beginners (in a sense we all are ...) that > would keep fighting with all these variables. Particularly in the > face of Heisenbergian uncertainty which might be throwing in its > monkey wrench into the works from time to time, as well. > > Let us just carry on sifting through the thoughts and ideas, claims > and illustrations (if any) > > > > , rishi shukla > <rishi_2000in@> wrote: > > > > The parrot is a good learner. > > Us beginners in Jyotish not so good as parrots so we > > get confused with ayanamshas, the nodes, the vargas, > > the dasha years ..the list can go on merely > > illustrative and not exhaustive. > > So there we go again, counting the stars in the skies > > till eons. > > regards > > > > rishi > > > > > > > > --- crystal pages <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > I hate it when it comes to duel between the psychic > > > parrot or the pot- > > > bellied astropundit! The parrot in some instances > > > may be more > > > accurate, demands fewer resources, a few fistfuls of > > > bengal gram, a > > > few pecks at the gulabi amrud and a few handfuls of > > > green chillies as > > > opposed to the pundit (let us not go there, > > > please!)--- In > > > , rishi shukla > > > <rishi_2000in@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > True, Sir, but that exactly is the point, either > > > you > > > > predict through a set of principles or you predict > > > > through intutive methods. The prediction through a > > > set > > > > of principles need an understanding of the > > > principles > > > > and when a variety of views float, which is but > > > > natural then confusion gets compounded. > > > > regards > > > > > > > > rishi > > > > > > > > --- crystal pages <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Rishi ji and interested others, > > > > > > > > > > As Shri K.N. Rao ji has expressed on Ben's list > > > a > > > > > few times and I > > > > > hope I am not quoting him incorrectly or out of > > > > > context: The only > > > > > true test for jyotish and jyotishi is through > > > > > prediction and only > > > > > through consistently correct predictions. To > > > which I > > > > > add -- who needs > > > > > further proof or discussion and only silence can > > > > > prevail! > > > > > > > > > > Yes -- difficult to impossible for most of us > > > but > > > > > something to strive > > > > > for by those who respect and admire Mr. K.N. > > > Rao. > > > > > > > > > > rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , > > > > > "rishi_2000in" > > > > > <rishi_2000in@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Welcome, naliniji, to the club wherein > > > realities > > > > > and shadows merge > > > > > > and create confusion for beginners like us. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is so interesting that while various > > > approaches > > > > > to Jyotish can > > > > > > glibly explain the same chart accurately in > > > > > various forms, its > > > > > still > > > > > > contending with major issues > > > > > > > > > > > > regards > > > > > > Rishi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , > > > > > "auromirra19" > > > > > > <nalini2818@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -[Om Namo Narayanaya] > > > > > > > Dear Divya, > > > > > > > When it comes to learning or knowledge, age > > > is > > > > > no criterion. I > > > > > > > welcome your advice. Yes I have been mixing > > > up > > > > > too many things. I > > > > > > > thought it prudent to start my study of > > > jyotish > > > > > diligently, > > > > > > > systematically on a particular muhurta. I > > > shall > > > > > certainly , as > > > > > > > advised by you start only from the > > > > > basics/classics. > > > > > > > I did read a couple of articles/lectures of > > > > > learned members in > > > > > the > > > > > > > fora, both of Jaimini and Parashara. The > > > > > assimilation part was > > > > > ok, > > > > > > > should have slotted them in the respective > > > > > places but > > > > > > inexperienced > > > > > > > that I am, have bungled. And you know the > > > net > > > > > result, confusion. > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > God Bless > > > > > > > Nalini > > > > > > > -- In , > > > Divya > > > > > <touchbase_divya@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ||Hare Rama Krsna|| > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Naliniji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I am writing is little off the > > > topic of > > > > > discussion. > > > > > Also, > > > > > > I > > > > > > > am no expert on the topic. But, being a > > > beginner > > > > > student myself, > > > > > I > > > > > > > am able to understand why you are feeling > > > > > confused. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The topic of discussion was whether Rahu > > > and > > > > > Ketu have > > > > > > aspects. > > > > > > > > You felt that since Ketu is described as > > > > > Mokshakaraka, it > > > > > must > > > > > > > be important. Also you wondered if it is > > > > > considered as a planet > > > > > at > > > > > > > all. Later you have also added the word > > > Chara > > > > > Karaka. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should go step by step. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is important is - What is a Graha > > > and > > > > > what forms the > > > > > > basis > > > > > > > of aspects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why did you feel that being a Karaka, is > > > > > related to aspects? > > > > > I > > > > > > > thought Karaka was a separate topic. Are we > > > not > > > > > mixing up too > > > > > many > > > > > > > things? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason I wrote the earlier mail > > > (asking > > > > > you to > > > > > > concentrate > > > > > > > more on the word Graha rather than 'planet') > > > > > was, that I feel > > > > > > > sometimes the English words (which do not > > > > > exactly fit) take our > > > > > > line > > > > > > > of thought in a different direction. Later > > > they > > > > > cause more > > > > > doubts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, if we concentrate on 'Graha', their > > > > > nature, why Rahu - > > > > > > Ketu > > > > > > > are called Chaya Graha, also their nature, > > > then > > > > > it is a little > > > > > > > easier to grasp the concept. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, one thing I have realised (the > > > hard > > > > > way) is that if I > > > > > > > study basics first and then read the > > > comments of > > > > > learned members > > > > > > > here, I am able to learn and understand > > > better > > > > > than if I try the > > > > > > > other way round. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought I'll share my experience with > > > you. > > > > > If there's > > > > > > anything > > > > > > > you didn't like, then being elder to me, > > > please > > > > > forgive it as my > > > > > === message truncated === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2006 Report Share Posted April 2, 2006 Interesting question about the absolute vs relative reality. The bhoot that lives on the bargad tree, that everyone in the village knows about and believes in becomes their reality. But we are in the Jyotish_remedies forum! Let us not talk about imaginary being and things here! , "rishi_2000in" <rishi_2000in wrote: > > RRji, > > Yes, Sir, i concur with your point. > But you began a new thread with: > "and at the end of the day, each of us is left with just one > thing: our direct and personal perceptions of the reality". > But what is reality, what we experience through the five sensory > organs and the personal interpretations. And at the end of the day > do we conclude that reality is only perceptional or is there > something which is true in all cases. > regards > > rishi > > > > > > , "crystal pages" and at the > end of the day, each of us is > > left with just one thing: our direct and personal perceptions of > the > > reality. > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > mixed metaphor, dear friend! The analogy was comparing > > between 'psychic perception leading to divination' with the other > > track more readily available to most of us, i.e., using logical or > > technical (transferable from one to another) methods to divine > > something. > > > > Seriously, though, in practice neither is a mutually exclusive > state > > or approach since most jyotishis perhaps use both > intuition/psychic > > perception as well as logical framework. The degree of awareness > and > > admission of the same may vary from one to another, if you catch > my > > drift. > > > > And yes, it is not just beginners (in a sense we all are ...) that > > would keep fighting with all these variables. Particularly in the > > face of Heisenbergian uncertainty which might be throwing in its > > monkey wrench into the works from time to time, as well. > > > > Let us just carry on sifting through the thoughts and ideas, > claims > > and illustrations (if any) > > > > > > > , rishi shukla > > <rishi_2000in@> wrote: > > > > > > The parrot is a good learner. > > > Us beginners in Jyotish not so good as parrots so we > > > get confused with ayanamshas, the nodes, the vargas, > > > the dasha years ..the list can go on merely > > > illustrative and not exhaustive. > > > So there we go again, counting the stars in the skies > > > till eons. > > > regards > > > > > > rishi > > > > > > > > > > > > --- crystal pages <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > I hate it when it comes to duel between the psychic > > > > parrot or the pot- > > > > bellied astropundit! The parrot in some instances > > > > may be more > > > > accurate, demands fewer resources, a few fistfuls of > > > > bengal gram, a > > > > few pecks at the gulabi amrud and a few handfuls of > > > > green chillies as > > > > opposed to the pundit (let us not go there, > > > > please!)--- In > > > > , rishi shukla > > > > <rishi_2000in@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > True, Sir, but that exactly is the point, either > > > > you > > > > > predict through a set of principles or you predict > > > > > through intutive methods. The prediction through a > > > > set > > > > > of principles need an understanding of the > > > > principles > > > > > and when a variety of views float, which is but > > > > > natural then confusion gets compounded. > > > > > regards > > > > > > > > > > rishi > > > > > > > > > > --- crystal pages <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rishi ji and interested others, > > > > > > > > > > > > As Shri K.N. Rao ji has expressed on Ben's list > > > > a > > > > > > few times and I > > > > > > hope I am not quoting him incorrectly or out of > > > > > > context: The only > > > > > > true test for jyotish and jyotishi is through > > > > > > prediction and only > > > > > > through consistently correct predictions. To > > > > which I > > > > > > add -- who needs > > > > > > further proof or discussion and only silence can > > > > > > prevail! > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes -- difficult to impossible for most of us > > > > but > > > > > > something to strive > > > > > > for by those who respect and admire Mr. K.N. > > > > Rao. > > > > > > > > > > > > rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , > > > > > > "rishi_2000in" > > > > > > <rishi_2000in@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Welcome, naliniji, to the club wherein > > > > realities > > > > > > and shadows merge > > > > > > > and create confusion for beginners like us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is so interesting that while various > > > > approaches > > > > > > to Jyotish can > > > > > > > glibly explain the same chart accurately in > > > > > > various forms, its > > > > > > still > > > > > > > contending with major issues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards > > > > > > > Rishi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , > > > > > > "auromirra19" > > > > > > > <nalini2818@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -[Om Namo Narayanaya] > > > > > > > > Dear Divya, > > > > > > > > When it comes to learning or knowledge, age > > > > is > > > > > > no criterion. I > > > > > > > > welcome your advice. Yes I have been mixing > > > > up > > > > > > too many things. I > > > > > > > > thought it prudent to start my study of > > > > jyotish > > > > > > diligently, > > > > > > > > systematically on a particular muhurta. I > > > > shall > > > > > > certainly , as > > > > > > > > advised by you start only from the > > > > > > basics/classics. > > > > > > > > I did read a couple of articles/lectures of > > > > > > learned members in > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > fora, both of Jaimini and Parashara. The > > > > > > assimilation part was > > > > > > ok, > > > > > > > > should have slotted them in the respective > > > > > > places but > > > > > > > inexperienced > > > > > > > > that I am, have bungled. And you know the > > > > net > > > > > > result, confusion. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > God Bless > > > > > > > > Nalini > > > > > > > > -- In , > > > > Divya > > > > > > <touchbase_divya@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ||Hare Rama Krsna|| > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Naliniji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I am writing is little off the > > > > topic of > > > > > > discussion. > > > > > > Also, > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > am no expert on the topic. But, being a > > > > beginner > > > > > > student myself, > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > am able to understand why you are feeling > > > > > > confused. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The topic of discussion was whether Rahu > > > > and > > > > > > Ketu have > > > > > > > aspects. > > > > > > > > > You felt that since Ketu is described as > > > > > > Mokshakaraka, it > > > > > > must > > > > > > > > be important. Also you wondered if it is > > > > > > considered as a planet > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > all. Later you have also added the word > > > > Chara > > > > > > Karaka. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should go step by step. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is important is - What is a Graha > > > > and > > > > > > what forms the > > > > > > > basis > > > > > > > > of aspects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why did you feel that being a Karaka, is > > > > > > related to aspects? > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > thought Karaka was a separate topic. Are we > > > > not > > > > > > mixing up too > > > > > > many > > > > > > > > things? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason I wrote the earlier mail > > > > (asking > > > > > > you to > > > > > > > concentrate > > > > > > > > more on the word Graha rather than 'planet') > > > > > > was, that I feel > > > > > > > > sometimes the English words (which do not > > > > > > exactly fit) take our > > > > > > > line > > > > > > > > of thought in a different direction. Later > > > > they > > > > > > cause more > > > > > > doubts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, if we concentrate on 'Graha', their > > > > > > nature, why Rahu - > > > > > > > Ketu > > > > > > > > are called Chaya Graha, also their nature, > > > > then > > > > > > it is a little > > > > > > > > easier to grasp the concept. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, one thing I have realised (the > > > > hard > > > > > > way) is that if I > > > > > > > > study basics first and then read the > > > > comments of > > > > > > learned members > > > > > > > > here, I am able to learn and understand > > > > better > > > > > > than if I try the > > > > > > > > other way round. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought I'll share my experience with > > > > you. > > > > > > If there's > > > > > > > anything > > > > > > > > you didn't like, then being elder to me, > > > > please > > > > > > forgive it as my > > > > > > > === message truncated === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.