Jyotish the language that describes human experience/reality

April 27, 2006

{Om Namo Narayanaya}

RR ji,

Well said. You could not have more poignantly described the feeling

of'alien amongst your own'.

Every thing is the 'perceived reality', empathy, experience.

Astrology, language what does it matter when the two are one?

Regards

Nalini

{OM Namah Shivaya Namah Mallikarjunaya}

, "crystal pages"

<jyotish_vani wrote:

>

> Mea culpa!

> I dared to compare jyotish/astrology with language

> Actually, I did not compare really, but called Jyotish the

language

> which describes human experience! Maybe it does more!

>

> Human experience is the perceived reality of most humans. Most

> languages, hindi, sanskrit, english, german etc describe aspects

of

> human reality through using symbols which by themselves mean

nothing

> but these alphabets when put together properly and close to

accepted

> convention (grammar) then enables others to understand what we are

> experiencing. Language makes the experience transferable from one

> human to another, what one human feels can be conveyed to another

> through language.

>

> If you see someone crying, you feel sad -- this is a visual

transfer

> of information coupled with your having experienced similar state

> (sadness)

>

> You hear someone express sorrow on the phone and again you get the

> same information transferred.

>

> But the above communication could be biased and not necessary

> language based, since you will see and hear the other person

express

> sorrow in non verbal or metaverbal (sobs) manner.

>

> But when you read a sentence to that effect, and feel the sorrow

(or

> other emotions) then language has managed to transfer experience

from

> one human to another.

>

> The alphabets and words are not 'sad' but have been vested with

that

> feeling tone and are understandable to the other.

>

> If you read a foreign language without knowing it, the transfer

will

> not happen!

>

> Astrology, similarly uses the alphabet of planets and signs and

its

> rule structure to transfer or translate experiences from one human

to

> another and also has the same attributes of communication (verbal,

> metaverbal and nonverbal!)

>

> There is no confusion, just a mindset change, not even quite the

> paradigm shift! Though in the case of some individual with long-

term

> set ways, it might be a drastic change. My condolences to them!

>

> Just as verse (product of language) can be predictive, prophetic

> (quatrains of a certain individual comes to mind!) so can

astrology

> be! It is a language that describes things which are beyond time.

The

> language itself may come with a time-stamp but that is really the

> style and coloration that makes it time-stamped (classic vs

modern,

> etc) but the language has the same purpose now as it had in all

> times. It provides yet another way of connecting human beings and

> demonstrating the commonness and connections!

>

> It is shameful that human beings have also used language to

separate

> human from another! I learned that very early when as a very small

> child raised in a bengali home in a hindi speaking region of

India, I

> made my first trip to Calcutta. That scary feeling of alienation

that

> little child felt (different way of speaking -- that 'you are

> foreign'stare from those who looked the same -- just sounded a bit

> different, but that faint smile of elitism I remember till this

day :-

> ) -- compared to that what some people may feel when they visit or

> move to a foreign country or culture, is nothing!

>

> language is very powerful, if we pay attention to it! So is

> astrology! Another similarity!!

>

> RR

>

> , "swazz_oyzter"

> <healingspaces@> wrote:

> >

> > Pranam to all Gurus and learned members.,

> >

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

others

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

from

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

> doors

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

> compare

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

and be

> > critical. A thought came to me when somebody compared jyotish

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

> > concrete reality since we cant accept the unmolded...so please

tell

> me

> > where i am wrong.

> >

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

> testament

> > of Bible, which talks of breaking down from the

langauage.Derrida

> and

> > Deleuze the most read philosphers of western sciences today

within

> the

> > postmodernist and deconstruction talking of discources of

breaking

> > away from linguistics, a thought of structuralism within works of

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

by

> man

> > which in itself has no meaning, other than culturally developed

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

we

> > should confuse ourselves of jyotish with language which is again

a

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

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

> > little knowledge)

> >

> > THE TOWER OF BABEL · Genesis 11:1-9

> >

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

And

> as

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

land

> of

> > Shinar and settled there. 3. And they said to one

another, "Come,

> let

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

for

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

> build

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

the

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

> language;

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

that

> they

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

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

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

> abroad

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

> building

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

LORD

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

LORD

> > scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.

> >

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

> > ourselves with jyotish as a structured language which has a

defined

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

making

> a

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

> concrete

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

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

U

> all

> > learned Guru's should guide me to that.

> >

> > Namaskar

> > Swati

> > {Om Guruv Namah}

> >

> > , Prashant Kumar G B

> > <gbp_kumar@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear readers

> > >

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

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

the

> art

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

> > grammer, syntax....

> > >

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

> > others to fill in.

> > >

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

sense

> > of deja vu about this topic!

> > > Why must language be better represented in the 3rd? Speech

is

> 2nd, is

> > > it not?

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

> planets as

> > > well, because language must have many anchors in the

> > > horoscope/astrology.

> > >

> > > RR

> > >

> > > , "auromirra19"

> > > <nalini2818@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > {Om Namo Narayanaya)

> > > >

> > > > RRji,

> > > > Third, I would say -

> > > >

> > > > Nalini

> > > > {Om Namah Shivaya Namah Mallikarjunaya}

> > > > , "crystal pages"

> > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > 2nd bhava or third?

> > > > >

> > > > > , "auromirra19"

> > > > > <nalini2818@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > {Om Namo Narayanaya}

> > > > > > RR ji,

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

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

> > > > > > Nalini

> > > > > > {Om Namah Shivaya Namah Mallikarjunaya}

> > > > > > , "crystal

pages"

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Actually, Naliniji, I was saying that astrology

itself

> is a

> > > > > > language!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > RR

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > --- In

, "auromirra19"

> > > > > > > <nalini2818@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > {Om Namo Narayanaya}

> > > > > > > > RRji,

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

change.

> > > > Semantics,

> > > > > > > > though frowned upon as frivolous do play a

part.How

> it

> > > > shapes

> > > > > > the

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

> relies on

> > > > > > his/her

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

> remedial.

> > > > The

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

> seeker

> > > > for

> > > > > > the

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

the

> > > > > > unpalatable,

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

from

> the

> > > > > > reality.

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

> even the

> > > > > > *Illusory

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

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

> gone to

> > > an

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

> > > > astrologer

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

widow

> would

> > > > > > remarry.

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

> original

> > > > quest,

> > > > > > he

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

his

> > > wife's

> > > > > > > > fidelity, in other words went

berserk.Understanding

> > > > > > the 'language'

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

the

> native

> > > > is

> > > > > > what

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

> > > > > > > > Now(:-

> > > > > > > > Regards

> > > > > > > > Nalini

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

> > > > > > > > , "crystal

> pages"

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

> > > > > > > > >

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

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

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

> times, and

> > > > > since

> > > > > > you

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

JYOTISH!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > RR

> > > > > > > > >

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

> , "rishi_2000in"

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> perception or

> > > > > > human

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

> understanding of

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > > language.Ye

> > > > > > > > > > of astrology.

> > > > > > > > > >

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

, "crystal

> > > pages"

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Swati ji,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Your questions are thought provoking!

> > > > > > > > > > > My personal opinions on the matter of

astrology

> and

> > > > how I

> > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > it,

> > > > > > > > > > > some would say wrongly because it may not

fit

> their

> > > > > > framework

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > reference and understanding, others may

agree

> and

> > > > still

> > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > even choose to remain silent!

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > To my perception astrology is a language.

Like

> any

> > > > other

> > > > > > > > language

> > > > > > > > > > > that basically uses symbols which to someone

> not

> > > > speaking

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > language may seem as meaningless noise or

> > > > > > random 'scratches on

> > > > > > > > > > sand',

> > > > > > > > > > > but to the one who knows conveys something.

> That

> > > > > something

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > directly represented, unless it is a

primitive

> > > picture-

> > > > > > script

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > caveman. Very few modern languages use

script

> that

> > > > > conveys

> > > > > > > > direct

> > > > > > > > > > > meaning but has to be studied, learned and

then

> the

> > > > > > symbols

> > > > > > > > > > > transformed into meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Astrological symbols, the planets and signs,

> > > > nakshatras

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > alphabets which then utilize the different

> grammars

> > > of

> > > > > > > > astrology:

> > > > > > > > > > > jyotish (Parashari, Jaimini), arabic,

> > > > tropical/western,

> > > > > > > > burmese,

> > > > > > > > > > > chinese, tibetan, tajik, etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The astrological sentence, such as a 'yoga'

> > > represents

> > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > describes

> > > > > > > > > > > a human experience! The language is not

> intuitive or

> > > > > > phonetic

> > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > graphic, hence one needs to study it hard

and

> its

> > > > grammar

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > complex

> > > > > > > > > > > hence the same words could mean different

ways

> > > > depending

> > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > sentence was structured.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Now switch to analogy 2:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > In any language, using the same words,

> alphabets,

> > > > perhaps

> > > > > > > > > slightly

> > > > > > > > > > > tighter or looser grammar and you can end up

> with a

> > > > > highly

> > > > > > > > terse

> > > > > > > > > > > scientific statement, using the same or

similar

> words

> > > > you

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > create

> > > > > > > > > > > a mystery prose, or a story full of pathos,

or

> even a

> > > > > > verse

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > take you through depths of emotional

experience

> you

> > > > did

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > was

> > > > > > > > > > > possible. The alphabet did not change, the

> words were

> > > > > from

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > dictionary, the grammar was followed but the

> human

> > > > > > experience

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > the language or sample thereof described

varied

> so

> > > > > > enormously -

> > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > described science, it described fiction, it

> described

> > > > a

> > > > > > > > touching

> > > > > > > > > > > recounting of a real event, it took you to

the

> mystic

> > > > > > limits

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > beyond that only a poet can. Same language,

> different

> > > > > > > > > experiences.

> > > > > > > > > > > Would you call that holistic?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The language of astrology has the same power

> and

> > > scope!

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > RR

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Please read if you wish:

> > > > > > > > > > > http://www.boloji.com/astro/00329.htm

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > , "swazz_oyzter"

> > > > > > > > > > > <healingspaces@> wrote:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pranam to all Learned Guru's and

Astrologers.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > How could jyotish be holistic and yet not

> married

> > > to

> > > > > > either

> > > > > > > > > > > physical,

> > > > > > > > > > > > mental or the spiritual. I think jyotish

> could be

> > > > the

> > > > > > root

> > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > > > fruits, manifesting in these forms.We cant

at

> one

> > > > point

> > > > > > > > detach

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > contend that jyotish is

holistic.Definitely

> what

> > > > > > > > differentiates

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > what Rohini ji said that jyotish allows

one

> to go

> > > > > > outside

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > matrix

> > > > > > > > > > > > of illusions and see it from a far vantage

> > > > Point.While

> > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > sciences, remain percieving the projected

> images

> > > > within

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > hologram,

> > > > > > > > > > > > which remain "hollow" to the common man.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > For those who move away for a moment,

start

> > > > realizing

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > fluidity

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > connectivity, the whole-flow within the

nano-

> > > > moment.Not

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > the minute outcomes of the flow is

determined

> by

> > > > > > destiny, but

> > > > > > > > > > > > definitely giving the probability of its

> flowing

> > > > path.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > I think jyotish at one point has a belief

> that

> > > there

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > still

> > > > > > > > > > scope

> > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > creativity in universe, I think thats why

> remedies

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > mantras

> > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > given.What it does is change the way we

tune

> > > > (recieve ,

> > > > > > > > store

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > transmit) to that given information,since

we

> are

> > > all

> > > > > > finally

> > > > > > > > > > > > holographic projectors projecting

illusionay

> images

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > concrete

> > > > > > > > > > > > reality. Jyotish promises one to detach

> itself

> > > from

> > > > > > these

> > > > > > > > > > standing

> > > > > > > > > > > > waves, and go to the depths of the ocean,

> which

> > > > allows

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > > multidimensional planes, beyong time and

> space.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > U all Guru's are those chosen ones, who

have

> > > > > > magnificient

> > > > > > > > > controls

> > > > > > > > > > > > which render 'Chance' to come to their

> terms,where

> > > > > > > > determisnism

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > free choice have no place...We are alas

> evolving

> > > and

> > > > > > > > creating

> > > > > > > > > > anew

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected...If not the life would be

> monotonus.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Swati

> > > > > > > > > > > > Hope u will correct me and guide me.

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

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

> > > > , "rishi_2000in"

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Aren't destiny and free will terms

coined

> by our

> > > > own

> > > > > > > > > > limitations?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us take it us a maze where a mouse

is

> left in

> > > > at

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > start

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > wants to reach the end where there is no

> more

> > > > > > confusion,

> > > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > > > total

> > > > > > > > > > > > > freedom , where there is only sunshine

and

> no

> > > > > > grumbling

> > > > > > > > > clouds

> > > > > > > > > > > > > wherein sun and moon move in cycles of

time.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Free will exists in the choice of paths

> which the

> > > > > > mouse

> > > > > > > > > > chooses,

> > > > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > > times sliding back to the start, at

times

> > > reaching

> > > > a

> > > > > > place

> > > > > > > > > > where

> > > > > > > > > > > > > there is some freedom. The mouse has to

> exercise

> > > > this

> > > > > > > > choice.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Destiny is the guide which whispers..hey

> take

> > > this

> > > > > > > > shortcut

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > > > move faster.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > The mind confused, the mouse often

chasing

> its

> > > own

> > > > > > tail,

> > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > time

> > > > > > > > > > > > > which controls the mouse.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > A state of dynamic flux.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > And cycles go on and on.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > A scientist...on the path of knowledge,

A

> poet on

> > > > the

> > > > > > path

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > nature'

> > > > > > > > > > > > > A philospher trying to make two and

> two ..twnety

> > > > two

> > > > > > and A

> > > > > > > > > > > devotee

> > > > > > > > > > > > > lost in his worship.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Fire and Earth and Air and Water.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > More confusion yet clarity, maynot be

20/20

> > > > though!!

> > > > > > > > > > > > > regards

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rishi

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

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

> , "crystal

> > > > > > pages"

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rishi,

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just so that I feel confident that I

am

> > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > complex

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread :-)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > My statement was that 'mind' not

> only 'views'

> > > > what

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > > (object

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reality) but also that which is not

there

> > > > (through

> > > > > > > > > > > the 'faculty' of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > imagination).

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > your comment was that perhaps what we

> think as

> > > > > > > > imagination

> > > > > > > > > > > might

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already exist in one form or another,

so

> it was

> > > > > > already

> > > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > simply 'grasped' by the mind at the

> moment of

> > > > > > > > imagination.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I understood what you meant

correctly,

> then

> > > > yes

> > > > > > > > > certainly

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a possibility, but it also means

> > > > that 'creativity'

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > non-

> > > > > > > > > > > existent.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since what we call creative, born in

the

> moment

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > already

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there. If that is true then the next

> extension

> > > > of

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is really no role for free-will

> because

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > pattern

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > destiny,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already created is supreme and must

> govern all

> > > > of

> > > > > us.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The goat suddenly finds that the rope

> with

> > > which

> > > > it

> > > > > > was

> > > > > > > > > tied

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > pole is no more, since the animal is

now

> > > riveted

> > > > to

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > pole!

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR

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

> > > > > > , "rishi_2000in"

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can one assert that mins

> is "viewing"

> > > what

> > > > is

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > there.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could this not be mere ignorance on

the

> part

> > > > of

> > > > > > waking

> > > > > > > > > > > awareness

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it treats all what it cannot "view"

as

> > > > > imagination.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why should only what is

being "viewed"

> > > > (meaning:

> > > > > > > > viewed,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > heard,touched, tasted, smelt and

> processed

> > > > > through

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > rational

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > logical sequential mind) is real?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just because we assume our

limitations,

> > > should

> > > > we

> > > > > > > > accept

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rationale in a hypothesis which is

> limited in

> > > > its

> > > > > > > > > totality?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is not the sum of parts equal to the

> whole?

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am sure, the moderators will not

> frown on

> > > > these

> > > > > > > > > questions

> > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > they

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are not unlinked to the basic

philosphy

> of

> > > > > Jyotish

> > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the technique of Jyotish.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rishi

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

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

> > > > , "crystal

> > > > > > > > pages"

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The mind is capable of viewing not

> only

> > > what

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > but

> > > > > > > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not there through imagination

as

> we call

> > > > it.

> > > > > > Our

> > > > > > > > > > thought

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > framework

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains and believes in there

being

> the

> > > > > > possibility

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > states

> > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things like shashwat, absolute

> permanence,

> > > > > > infinity,

> > > > > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > atom

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was thought to be the unit at one

> time, but

> > > > now

> > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are finer particles etc that exist

> too,

> > > > > > naturally or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > artificially.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since absolute shashwat is

difficult

> to

> > > > > > perceive, or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstrate,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other than scriptural references

> which

> > > > > > essentially

> > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > culture's

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thought-reality, thought-framework

> > > expressed

> > > > in

> > > > > > > > words --

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to focus on relativity, which

is

> > > > > > demonstrable

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > easier

> > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > perceive and understand.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These comments are relative to

where

> I am,

> > > > > > > > currently,

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > absolute or final position :-)

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Growth is real,

> perceptible,demonstrable

> > > and

> > > > > > > > relative!

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR

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

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

> > > > > > > > , "rishi_2000in"

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And then, Sir, I revert back to

my

> > > earlier

> > > > > > > > question,

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relative to time, space and lets

> say

> > > > matter

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > energy?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I seem to be persistent in

asking

> this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is eternal then or

shashwat,

> isit

> > > > only

> > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > relative

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > perception

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours or for that matter anyone

> > > > else's..their

> > > > > > > > > > individual

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > experience

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and perception..is that what is

> reality

> > > > > > finally?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Empirical observations tend to

push

> us in

> > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > thought

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing eternal or absolute.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet one seeks that very

timeless,

> > > > limitless,

> > > > > > > > > absolute,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > eternal.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or is it what science says

> more......that

> > > > we

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > tend

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > reach

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > limits of infinity but never the

> > > infinity;

> > > > > > that we

> > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > get

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > verrrrrrrry near to zero but

never

> reach

> > > > zero.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Loud thoughts, for there can

never

> be any

> > > > > > > > acceptable

> > > > > > > > > > > answers

> > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > queries.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rishi

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

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

> > > > > > , "crystal

> > > > > > > > > > pages"

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rishiji,

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not *my* postulate -- as

I

> have

> > > > > stated

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > many

> > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > earlier

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > message or article here or

> elsewhere!

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because *i* do not exist

really,

> nor

> > > for

> > > > > > ever!

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *CAse* closed, shall we say?

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In that earlier message on

this

> forum --

> > >

> > > > > > space

> > > > > > > > was

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was mentioned but one thing

was

> missed -

> > > -

> > > >

> > > > > > > > directly!

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RELATIVITY! A la Einstein!!

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Time and space though as

> different as

> > > > > > siblings

> > > > > > > > who

> > > > > > > > > > > fight

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hate

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each other -- are R-E-L-A-T-E-

D

> whether

> > > > > they

> > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > not!

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it has astrological

> relevance!

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR

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

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

> > > > > > > > > >

, "rishi_2000in"

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seth says that neither then,

> nor

> > > now ,

> > > > > nor

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > time

> > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > come

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permanent, everything is

> mutable.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reverting back to the

tropical

> vs

> > > > > > sidereal,

> > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > > seem to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interesting common patterns

in

> > > vargas,

> > > > > > > > nakshatra

> > > > > > > > > > > padas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > calculations in tropical.

Your

> > > > > > > > > > postulate,therefore,

> > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difficult

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prove or to disprove!

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rishi

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

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

> > > > > > > > , "crystal

> > > > > > > > > > > pages"

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now: Good evening ;-)

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> , "rishi_2000in"

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RRji,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A prediction is

something

> which

> > > > has

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > > happen

> > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > future.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > related to time.

Therefore,

> I

> > > > refuse

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pleasure

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying....."I told you

so"

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rishi

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > , "crystal

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > pages"

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rishi -- nice posting.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a prediction

for

> you!

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You will find the Jane

> > > > Roberts/Seth

> > > > > > > > > > literature

> > > > > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interesting!

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR

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

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

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

> > > , "rishi_2000in"

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RRji,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An article in todays

> > > newspaper

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > perusal,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relevance to what we

> are

> > > > > > discussing.

> > > > > > > > > > Written

> > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jug

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Suraiya,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > popular columnist

out

> here

> > > who

> > > > is

> > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > > > renowned

> > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > his

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > humor.

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

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

> > > > > > > > >

> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1494959.cms

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Is the paper

that

> you are

> > > > > > reading

> > > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > paper —

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any 'thing' at all —

or

> > is it

> > > > > > merely

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 'appearance'

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > paper?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Further, are 'you'

> really

> > > you,

> > > > or

> > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another 'appearance'?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Such

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > questions could be

put

> to

> > you

> > > > not

> > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > other-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > worldly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spiritual

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seer, but by a very

> > matter-of-

> > > > > fact

> > > > > > > > > > scientist.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed, scientists

are

> > > > > > increasingly

> > > > > > > > > asking

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether 'matter'

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or 'facts' actually

> exist in

> > > > and

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > themselves.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Investigations

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the subatomic world

> have

> > > shown

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everyday

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > world

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > take to be tangible

> matter —

> > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > newspaper,

> > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hand

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > holding

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it —

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is largely composed

of

> > > > emptiness.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All material

things — a

> > flea,

> > > > an

> > > > > > > > > elephant,

> > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > ice-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cream

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cone,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mt

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everest — are made

not

> of

> > > > > discrete

> > > > > > > > > > particles —

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tiny

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bricks —

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but of 'events'

which

> > slip in

> > > > and

> > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > existence

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inseparable from our

> > > > > consciousness

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > them.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One way of looking

at

> it is

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > they 'exist'

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > because

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > perceive

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them to exist.

> Contrarywise,

> > > > > > do 'we'

> > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > exist

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > through our act of

> > > perception?

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So if all matter is

> > illusion,

> > > > or

> > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > heart

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > insubstantial,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that your hand does

not

> go

> > > > > > straight

> > > > > > > > > through

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > appearance

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > paper you're

reading?

> Or,

> > > > > > conversely,

> > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > doesn't

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > paper

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > through the

appearance

> of

> > > your

> > > > > > hand?

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The scientist would

> say that

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > because

> > > > > > > > > > > though

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > matter

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > insubstantial (not

made

> > up of

> > > > any

> > > > > > > > finally

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > irreducible

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > substance)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is held together by

> > > interwoven

> > > > > > force

> > > > > > > > > > fields,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or 'relationships'

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between

the 'events',

> that

> > > > make

> > > > > up

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > unfolding

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > narrative

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > universe.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is beginning to

> sound

> > > not

> > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > physics

> > > > > > > > > > > but

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > metaphysics,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > specifically

Buddhist

> > > > metaphysics

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > samskara,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > world of appearance

or

> > > > phenomena,

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inextricable

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > part, and which is

> based on

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > principle

> > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > total

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interdependence.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...(This paper is a

> paper

> > > > because

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > reader,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reader because it is

a

> > > paper.)

> > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > interdependence

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > phenomena

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the under-pinning

of

> the

> > > > > > Buddhist

> > > > > > > > > > concept

> > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > universal

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compassion.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If all phenomena — a

> > grain of

> > > > > > sand, a

> > > > > > > > > > galaxy,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Salman

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Khan,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > blackbuck — are part

> and

> > > > parcel

> > > > > of

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shimmering

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interplay

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > appearance, it is

not

> so

> > > > > > > > much 'morally'

> > > > > > > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > seek

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another entity as

just

> plain

> > > > > > illogical

> > > > > > > > > > > because

> > > > > > > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to harm is only a

> reflection

> > > > of

> > > > > > you,

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > vice

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > versa.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A seer might call it

> the

> > > > > > > > interdependence

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > phenomena.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scientist might term

it

> as

> > > > > > > > Heisenberg's

> > > > > > > > > > > principle

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uncertainty,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which through

seeking

> to

> > > > discover

> > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > change

> > > > > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sought

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discovered.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A poet, who deals in

> > > > metaphors,

> > > > > > might

> > > > > > > > > > > describe it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inter-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > penetrative

> consciousness. A

> > > > > > metaphor

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > way of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inter-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relating

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apparently

dissimilar

> > > > > > > > phenomena. 'Shall I

> > > > > > > > > > > compare

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thee

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > summer's

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > day?'

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A metaphor is a

bridge,

> a

> > > > force

> > > > > > field,

> > > > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > > > > > links

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more seemingly

> disparate

> > > > > > phenomena:

> > > > > > > > one's

> > > > > > > > > > > beloved

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > warmth

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > splendour of

sunlight.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The poet's job is to

> reveal

> > > > such

> > > > > > > > > linkages,

> > > > > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Octavio

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paz

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described a poem as

a

> cosmos

> > > > > > complete

> > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > itself,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as 'real'

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > universe 'out

there'.

> So is

> > > > this

> > > > > > paper

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reading,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really 'real'

> or 'really'

> > > just

> > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > appearance?

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A scientist, a seer

and

> a

> > > poet

> > > > > > might

> > > > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > > > three

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > answers,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which are but one.

Just

> as

> > > are

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > poet,

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > seer

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scientist.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And this paper, and

> you."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > SURRENDER JOYFULLY TO THE WILL OF THE ULTIMATE DIVINITY AND

> RELISH

> > THE TASTE OF ABSOLUTE BLISS.

> > >

> > > Vedic

> > astrology Astrology

> chart

> > Astrology

> software

> > Vedic

> > astrology

> software

> >

> > >

> > > Visit your group "" on the web.

> > >

> > > Terms of

> > Service.

> > >

> > > Prashantkumar G B

> > >

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

> > group but

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

> phone.

> > > Please fix times for this in advance -*-

> > > 09840051861

> > >

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

using

> > Messenger with Voice.

> > >

> >

>

April 27, 2006

Dear sister,

Without having had both the aid of the 'experience' and

the 'language' could I have described and could you have connected to

that and responded back?

Astrologers have both, the familiarity with the language of jyotish

and the experience of its power and still we often disagree and so

on. This forum has seen it all in it glory!

Now imagine how difficult it would be to explain and describe the

language of astrology to say a sceptic who does not know or care for

the language? :-)

The problems of any multilingual country become so understandable,

metaphorically!

RR

, "auromirra19"

<nalini2818 wrote:

>

> {Om Namo Narayanaya}

>

> RR ji,

> Well said. You could not have more poignantly described the feeling

> of'alien amongst your own'.

> Every thing is the 'perceived reality', empathy, experience.

> Astrology, language what does it matter when the two are one?

> Regards

> Nalini

> {OM Namah Shivaya Namah Mallikarjunaya}

> , "crystal pages"

> <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> >

> > Mea culpa!

> > I dared to compare jyotish/astrology with language

> > Actually, I did not compare really, but called Jyotish the

> language

> > which describes human experience! Maybe it does more!

> >

> > Human experience is the perceived reality of most humans. Most

> > languages, hindi, sanskrit, english, german etc describe aspects

> of

> > human reality through using symbols which by themselves mean

> nothing

> > but these alphabets when put together properly and close to

> accepted

> > convention (grammar) then enables others to understand what we

are

> > experiencing. Language makes the experience transferable from one

> > human to another, what one human feels can be conveyed to another

> > through language.

> >

> > If you see someone crying, you feel sad -- this is a visual

> transfer

> > of information coupled with your having experienced similar state

> > (sadness)

> >

> > You hear someone express sorrow on the phone and again you get

the

> > same information transferred.

> >

> > But the above communication could be biased and not necessary

> > language based, since you will see and hear the other person

> express

> > sorrow in non verbal or metaverbal (sobs) manner.

> >

> > But when you read a sentence to that effect, and feel the sorrow

> (or

> > other emotions) then language has managed to transfer experience

> from

> > one human to another.

> >

> > The alphabets and words are not 'sad' but have been vested with

> that

> > feeling tone and are understandable to the other.

> >

> > If you read a foreign language without knowing it, the transfer

> will

> > not happen!

> >

> > Astrology, similarly uses the alphabet of planets and signs and

> its

> > rule structure to transfer or translate experiences from one

human

> to

> > another and also has the same attributes of communication

(verbal,

> > metaverbal and nonverbal!)

> >

> > There is no confusion, just a mindset change, not even quite the

> > paradigm shift! Though in the case of some individual with long-

> term

> > set ways, it might be a drastic change. My condolences to them!

> >

> > Just as verse (product of language) can be predictive, prophetic

> > (quatrains of a certain individual comes to mind!) so can

> astrology

> > be! It is a language that describes things which are beyond time.

> The

> > language itself may come with a time-stamp but that is really the

> > style and coloration that makes it time-stamped (classic vs

> modern,

> > etc) but the language has the same purpose now as it had in all

> > times. It provides yet another way of connecting human beings and

> > demonstrating the commonness and connections!

> >

> > It is shameful that human beings have also used language to

> separate

> > human from another! I learned that very early when as a very

small

> > child raised in a bengali home in a hindi speaking region of

> India, I

> > made my first trip to Calcutta. That scary feeling of alienation

> that

> > little child felt (different way of speaking -- that 'you are

> > foreign'stare from those who looked the same -- just sounded a

bit

> > different, but that faint smile of elitism I remember till this

> day :-

> > ) -- compared to that what some people may feel when they visit

or

> > move to a foreign country or culture, is nothing!

> >

> > language is very powerful, if we pay attention to it! So is

> > astrology! Another similarity!!

> >

> > RR

> >

> > , "swazz_oyzter"

> > <healingspaces@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Pranam to all Gurus and learned members.,

> > >

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

> others

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

> from

> > > Indian scriptures in different posts .... I am trying to open

my

> > doors

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

> > compare

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

> and be

> > > critical. A thought came to me when somebody compared jyotish

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

the

> > > concrete reality since we cant accept the unmolded...so please

> tell

> > me

> > > where i am wrong.

> > >

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

> > testament

> > > of Bible, which talks of breaking down from the

> langauage.Derrida

> > and

> > > Deleuze the most read philosphers of western sciences today

> within

> > the

> > > postmodernist and deconstruction talking of discources of

> breaking

> > > away from linguistics, a thought of structuralism within works

of

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

> by

> > man

> > > which in itself has no meaning, other than culturally developed

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

if

> we

> > > should confuse ourselves of jyotish with language which is

again

> a

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

still

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

have

> > > little knowledge)

> > >

> > > THE TOWER OF BABEL · Genesis 11:1-9

> > >

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

> And

> > as

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

> land

> > of

> > > Shinar and settled there. 3. And they said to one

> another, "Come,

> > let

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

brick

> for

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

> > build

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

> the

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

> > language;

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

> that

> > they

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

go

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

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

> > abroad

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

> > building

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

> LORD

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

> LORD

> > > scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.

> > >

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

> > > ourselves with jyotish as a structured language which has a

> defined

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

> making

> > a

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

> > concrete

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

> > > believe we hold. I think we need a vedic perspective on this

and

> U

> > all

> > > learned Guru's should guide me to that.

> > >

> > > Namaskar

> > > Swati

> > > {Om Guruv Namah}

> > >

> > > , Prashant Kumar G B

> > > <gbp_kumar@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear readers

> > > >

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

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

> the

> > art

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

> > > grammer, syntax....

> > > >

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

> > > others to fill in.

> > > >

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

> sense

> > > of deja vu about this topic!

> > > > Why must language be better represented in the 3rd? Speech

> is

> > 2nd, is

> > > > it not?

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

> > planets as

> > > > well, because language must have many anchors in the

> > > > horoscope/astrology.

> > > >

> > > > RR

> > > >

> > > > , "auromirra19"

> > > > <nalini2818@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > {Om Namo Narayanaya)

> > > > >

> > > > > RRji,

> > > > > Third, I would say -

> > > > >

> > > > > Nalini

> > > > > {Om Namah Shivaya Namah Mallikarjunaya}

> > > > > , "crystal pages"

> > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 2nd bhava or third?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , "auromirra19"

> > > > > > <nalini2818@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > {Om Namo Narayanaya}

> > > > > > > RR ji,

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

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

> > > > > > > Nalini

> > > > > > > {Om Namah Shivaya Namah Mallikarjunaya}

> > > > > > > , "crystal

> pages"

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Actually, Naliniji, I was saying that astrology

> itself

> > is a

> > > > > > > language!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > RR

> > > > > > > >

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

> , "auromirra19"

> > > > > > > > <nalini2818@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > {Om Namo Narayanaya}

> > > > > > > > > RRji,

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

> change.

> > > > > Semantics,

> > > > > > > > > though frowned upon as frivolous do play a

> part.How

> > it

> > > > > shapes

> > > > > > > the

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

> > relies on

> > > > > > > his/her

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

> > remedial.

> > > > > The

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

the

> > seeker

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > the

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

> the

> > > > > > > unpalatable,

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

> from

> > the

> > > > > > > reality.

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

> > even the

> > > > > > > *Illusory

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

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

> > gone to

> > > > an

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

The

> > > > > astrologer

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

> widow

> > would

> > > > > > > remarry.

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

> > original

> > > > > quest,

> > > > > > > he

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

> his

> > > > wife's

> > > > > > > > > fidelity, in other words went

> berserk.Understanding

> > > > > > > the 'language'

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

> the

> > native

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > what

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

> > > > > > > > > Now(:-

> > > > > > > > > Regards

> > > > > > > > > Nalini

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

> > > > > > > > > , "crystal

> > pages"

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

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

> > times, and

> > > > > > since

> > > > > > > you

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

> JYOTISH!

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > RR

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > , "rishi_2000in"

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > perception or

> > > > > > > human

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

> > understanding of

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > language.Ye

> > > > > > > > > > > of astrology.

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> , "crystal

> > > > pages"

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Swati ji,

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Your questions are thought provoking!

> > > > > > > > > > > > My personal opinions on the matter of

> astrology

> > and

> > > > > how I

> > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > it,

> > > > > > > > > > > > some would say wrongly because it may not

> fit

> > their

> > > > > > > framework

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > reference and understanding, others may

> agree

> > and

> > > > > still

> > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > even choose to remain silent!

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > To my perception astrology is a language.

> Like

> > any

> > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > language

> > > > > > > > > > > > that basically uses symbols which to

someone

> > not

> > > > > speaking

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > language may seem as meaningless noise or

> > > > > > > random 'scratches on

> > > > > > > > > > > sand',

> > > > > > > > > > > > but to the one who knows conveys something.

> > That

> > > > > > something

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > directly represented, unless it is a

> primitive

> > > > picture-

> > > > > > > script

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > caveman. Very few modern languages use

> script

> > that

> > > > > > conveys

> > > > > > > > > direct

> > > > > > > > > > > > meaning but has to be studied, learned and

> then

> > the

> > > > > > > symbols

> > > > > > > > > > > > transformed into meaning.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Astrological symbols, the planets and

signs,

> > > > > nakshatras

> > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > alphabets which then utilize the different

> > grammars

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > > astrology:

> > > > > > > > > > > > jyotish (Parashari, Jaimini), arabic,

> > > > > tropical/western,

> > > > > > > > > burmese,

> > > > > > > > > > > > chinese, tibetan, tajik, etc etc.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > The astrological sentence, such as a 'yoga'

> > > > represents

> > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > describes

> > > > > > > > > > > > a human experience! The language is not

> > intuitive or

> > > > > > > phonetic

> > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > graphic, hence one needs to study it hard

> and

> > its

> > > > > grammar

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > complex

> > > > > > > > > > > > hence the same words could mean different

> ways

> > > > > depending

> > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > sentence was structured.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Now switch to analogy 2:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > In any language, using the same words,

> > alphabets,

> > > > > perhaps

> > > > > > > > > > slightly

> > > > > > > > > > > > tighter or looser grammar and you can end

up

> > with a

> > > > > > highly

> > > > > > > > > terse

> > > > > > > > > > > > scientific statement, using the same or

> similar

> > words

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > create

> > > > > > > > > > > > a mystery prose, or a story full of pathos,

> or

> > even a

> > > > > > > verse

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > take you through depths of emotional

> experience

> > you

> > > > > did

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > was

> > > > > > > > > > > > possible. The alphabet did not change, the

> > words were

> > > > > > from

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > dictionary, the grammar was followed but

the

> > human

> > > > > > > experience

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > the language or sample thereof described

> varied

> > so

> > > > > > > enormously -

> > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > described science, it described fiction, it

> > described

> > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > touching

> > > > > > > > > > > > recounting of a real event, it took you to

> the

> > mystic

> > > > > > > limits

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > beyond that only a poet can. Same language,

> > different

> > > > > > > > > > experiences.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Would you call that holistic?

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > The language of astrology has the same

power

> > and

> > > > scope!

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > RR

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Please read if you wish:

> > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.boloji.com/astro/00329.htm

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

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

> > > > > , "swazz_oyzter"

> > > > > > > > > > > > <healingspaces@> wrote:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pranam to all Learned Guru's and

> Astrologers.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > How could jyotish be holistic and yet not

> > married

> > > > to

> > > > > > > either

> > > > > > > > > > > > physical,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mental or the spiritual. I think jyotish

> > could be

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > root

> > > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > > > > fruits, manifesting in these forms.We

cant

> at

> > one

> > > > > point

> > > > > > > > > detach

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > contend that jyotish is

> holistic.Definitely

> > what

> > > > > > > > > differentiates

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > what Rohini ji said that jyotish allows

> one

> > to go

> > > > > > > outside

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > matrix

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of illusions and see it from a far

vantage

> > > > > Point.While

> > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > > sciences, remain percieving the projected

> > images

> > > > > within

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > hologram,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > which remain "hollow" to the common man.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > For those who move away for a moment,

> start

> > > > > realizing

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > fluidity

> > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > connectivity, the whole-flow within the

> nano-

> > > > > moment.Not

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the minute outcomes of the flow is

> determined

> > by

> > > > > > > destiny, but

> > > > > > > > > > > > > definitely giving the probability of its

> > flowing

> > > > > path.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think jyotish at one point has a belief

> > that

> > > > there

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > still

> > > > > > > > > > > scope

> > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > creativity in universe, I think thats why

> > remedies

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > mantras

> > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > given.What it does is change the way we

> tune

> > > > > (recieve ,

> > > > > > > > > store

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > transmit) to that given information,since

> we

> > are

> > > > all

> > > > > > > finally

> > > > > > > > > > > > > holographic projectors projecting

> illusionay

> > images

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > concrete

> > > > > > > > > > > > > reality. Jyotish promises one to detach

> > itself

> > > > from

> > > > > > > these

> > > > > > > > > > > standing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > waves, and go to the depths of the ocean,

> > which

> > > > > allows

> > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > > > multidimensional planes, beyong time and

> > space.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > U all Guru's are those chosen ones, who

> have

> > > > > > > magnificient

> > > > > > > > > > controls

> > > > > > > > > > > > > which render 'Chance' to come to their

> > terms,where

> > > > > > > > > determisnism

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > free choice have no place...We are alas

> > evolving

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > > creating

> > > > > > > > > > > anew

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > unexpected...If not the life would be

> > monotonus.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Swati

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope u will correct me and guide me.

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

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

> > > > > , "rishi_2000in"

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aren't destiny and free will terms

> coined

> > by our

> > > > > own

> > > > > > > > > > > limitations?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us take it us a maze where a mouse

> is

> > left in

> > > > > at

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > start

> > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wants to reach the end where there is

no

> > more

> > > > > > > confusion,

> > > > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > > > > total

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > freedom , where there is only sunshine

> and

> > no

> > > > > > > grumbling

> > > > > > > > > > clouds

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wherein sun and moon move in cycles of

> time.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Free will exists in the choice of paths

> > which the

> > > > > > > mouse

> > > > > > > > > > > chooses,

> > > > > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > times sliding back to the start, at

> times

> > > > reaching

> > > > > a

> > > > > > > place

> > > > > > > > > > > where

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is some freedom. The mouse has to

> > exercise

> > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > choice.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Destiny is the guide which

whispers..hey

> > take

> > > > this

> > > > > > > > > shortcut

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > move faster.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The mind confused, the mouse often

> chasing

> > its

> > > > own

> > > > > > > tail,

> > > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > time

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > which controls the mouse.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > A state of dynamic flux.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And cycles go on and on.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > A scientist...on the path of knowledge,

> A

> > poet on

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > path

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > nature'

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > A philospher trying to make two and

> > two ..twnety

> > > > > two

> > > > > > > and A

> > > > > > > > > > > > devotee

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > lost in his worship.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fire and Earth and Air and Water.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > More confusion yet clarity, maynot be

> 20/20

> > > > > though!!

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rishi

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

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

> > , "crystal

> > > > > > > pages"

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rishi,

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just so that I feel confident that I

> am

> > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > complex

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread :-)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My statement was that 'mind' not

> > only 'views'

> > > > > what

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > > > (object

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reality) but also that which is not

> there

> > > > > (through

> > > > > > > > > > > > the 'faculty' of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > imagination).

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your comment was that perhaps what we

> > think as

> > > > > > > > > imagination

> > > > > > > > > > > > might

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > already exist in one form or another,

> so

> > it was

> > > > > > > already

> > > > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > simply 'grasped' by the mind at the

> > moment of

> > > > > > > > > imagination.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I understood what you meant

> correctly,

> > then

> > > > > yes

> > > > > > > > > > certainly

> > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a possibility, but it also means

> > > > > that 'creativity'

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > non-

> > > > > > > > > > > > existent.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since what we call creative, born in

> the

> > moment

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > already

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there. If that is true then the next

> > extension

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is really no role for free-will

> > because

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > pattern

> > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > destiny,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > already created is supreme and must

> > govern all

> > > > > of

> > > > > > us.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The goat suddenly finds that the rope

> > with

> > > > which

> > > > > it

> > > > > > > was

> > > > > > > > > > tied

> > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pole is no more, since the animal is

> now

> > > > riveted

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > pole!

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR

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

> > > > > > > , "rishi_2000in"

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can one assert that mins

> > is "viewing"

> > > > what

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > there.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could this not be mere ignorance on

> the

> > part

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > waking

> > > > > > > > > > > > awareness

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it treats all what it cannot "view"

> as

> > > > > > imagination.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why should only what is

> being "viewed"

> > > > > (meaning:

> > > > > > > > > viewed,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > heard,touched, tasted, smelt and

> > processed

> > > > > > through

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > rational

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > logical sequential mind) is real?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just because we assume our

> limitations,

> > > > should

> > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > accept

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rationale in a hypothesis which is

> > limited in

> > > > > its

> > > > > > > > > > totality?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is not the sum of parts equal to

the

> > whole?

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am sure, the moderators will not

> > frown on

> > > > > these

> > > > > > > > > > questions

> > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are not unlinked to the basic

> philosphy

> > of

> > > > > > Jyotish

> > > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the technique of Jyotish.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rishi

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

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

> > > > > , "crystal

> > > > > > > > > pages"

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The mind is capable of viewing

not

> > only

> > > > what

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > but

> > > > > > > > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not there through imagination

> as

> > we call

> > > > > it.

> > > > > > > Our

> > > > > > > > > > > thought

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > framework

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains and believes in there

> being

> > the

> > > > > > > possibility

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > states

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things like shashwat, absolute

> > permanence,

> > > > > > > infinity,

> > > > > > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > atom

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was thought to be the unit at one

> > time, but

> > > > > now

> > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are finer particles etc that

exist

> > too,

> > > > > > > naturally or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > artificially.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since absolute shashwat is

> difficult

> > to

> > > > > > > perceive, or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstrate,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other than scriptural references

> > which

> > > > > > > essentially

> > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > culture's

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thought-reality, thought-

framework

> > > > expressed

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > words --

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to focus on relativity,

which

> is

> > > > > > > demonstrable

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > easier

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > perceive and understand.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These comments are relative to

> where

> > I am,

> > > > > > > > > currently,

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > absolute or final position :-)

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Growth is real,

> > perceptible,demonstrable

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > > relative!

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR

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

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

> > > > > > > > > , "rishi_2000in"

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And then, Sir, I revert back to

> my

> > > > earlier

> > > > > > > > > question,

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relative to time, space and

lets

> > say

> > > > > matter

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > energy?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I seem to be persistent in

> asking

> > this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is eternal then or

> shashwat,

> > isit

> > > > > only

> > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > relative

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > perception

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours or for that matter anyone

> > > > > else's..their

> > > > > > > > > > > individual

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > experience

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and perception..is that what is

> > reality

> > > > > > > finally?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Empirical observations tend to

> push

> > us in

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > thought

> > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing eternal or absolute.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet one seeks that very

> timeless,

> > > > > limitless,

> > > > > > > > > > absolute,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > eternal.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or is it what science says

> > more......that

> > > > > we

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > tend

> > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > limits of infinity but never

the

> > > > infinity;

> > > > > > > that we

> > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > get

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > verrrrrrrry near to zero but

> never

> > reach

> > > > > zero.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Loud thoughts, for there can

> never

> > be any

> > > > > > > > > acceptable

> > > > > > > > > > > > answers

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > queries.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rishi

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

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

> > > > > > > , "crystal

> > > > > > > > > > > pages"

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rishiji,

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not *my* postulate --

as

> I

> > have

> > > > > > stated

> > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > many

> > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > earlier

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > message or article here or

> > elsewhere!

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because *i* do not exist

> really,

> > nor

> > > > for

> > > > > > > ever!

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *CAse* closed, shall we say?

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In that earlier message on

> this

> > forum --

> > > >

> > > > > > > space

> > > > > > > > > was

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was mentioned but one thing

> was

> > missed -

> > > > -

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > > directly!

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RELATIVITY! A la Einstein!!

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Time and space though as

> > different as

> > > > > > > siblings

> > > > > > > > > who

> > > > > > > > > > > > fight

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hate

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each other -- are R-E-L-A-T-E-

> D

> > whether

> > > > > > they

> > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > not!

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it has astrological

> > relevance!

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> , "rishi_2000in"

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seth says that neither

then,

> > nor

> > > > now ,

> > > > > > nor

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > time

> > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > come

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permanent, everything is

> > mutable.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reverting back to the

> tropical

> > vs

> > > > > > > sidereal,

> > > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > > > seem to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interesting common patterns

> in

> > > > vargas,

> > > > > > > > > nakshatra

> > > > > > > > > > > > padas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > calculations in tropical.

> Your

> > > > > > > > > > > postulate,therefore,

> > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difficult

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prove or to disprove!

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rishi

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

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

> > > > > > > > > , "crystal

> > > > > > > > > > > > pages"

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now: Good evening ;-)

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

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

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

> > , "rishi_2000in"

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RRji,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A prediction is

> something

> > which

> > > > > has

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > happen

> > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > future.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > related to time.

> Therefore,

> > I

> > > > > refuse

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pleasure

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying....."I told you

> so"

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rishi

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > , "crystal

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pages"

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rishi -- nice posting.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a prediction

> for

> > you!

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You will find the

Jane

> > > > > Roberts/Seth

> > > > > > > > > > > literature

> > > > > > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interesting!

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR

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

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

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

> > > > , "rishi_2000in"

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RRji,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An article in

todays

> > > > newspaper

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > perusal,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relevance to what

we

> > are

> > > > > > > discussing.

> > > > > > > > > > > Written

> > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jug

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Suraiya,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > popular columnist

> out

> > here

> > > > who

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > > > > renowned

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > his

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > humor.

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

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1494959.cms

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Is the paper

> that

> > you are

> > > > > > > reading

> > > > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > paper —

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any 'thing' at

all —

> or

> > > is it

> > > > > > > merely

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 'appearance'

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > paper?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Further, are 'you'

> > really

> > > > you,

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another 'appearance'?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Such

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > questions could be

> put

> > to

> > > you

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > other-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worldly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spiritual

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seer, but by a very

> > > matter-of-

> > > > > > fact

> > > > > > > > > > > scientist.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed, scientists

> are

> > > > > > > increasingly

> > > > > > > > > > asking

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether 'matter'

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or 'facts'

actually

> > exist in

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > themselves.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Investigations

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the subatomic world

> > have

> > > > shown

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everyday

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > world

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > take to be

tangible

> > matter —

> > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > newspaper,

> > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hand

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > holding

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it —

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is largely composed

> of

> > > > > emptiness.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All material

> things — a

> > > flea,

> > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > elephant,

> > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > ice-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cream

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cone,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mt

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everest — are made

> not

> > of

> > > > > > discrete

> > > > > > > > > > > particles —

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tiny

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bricks —

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but of 'events'

> which

> > > slip in

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > existence

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inseparable from

our

> > > > > > consciousness

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > them.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One way of looking

> at

> > it is

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > they 'exist'

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > perceive

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them to exist.

> > Contrarywise,

> > > > > > > do 'we'

> > > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > exist

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > through our act of

> > > > perception?

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So if all matter is

> > > illusion,

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > heart

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > insubstantial,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that your hand does

> not

> > go

> > > > > > > straight

> > > > > > > > > > through

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > appearance

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > paper you're

> reading?

> > Or,

> > > > > > > conversely,

> > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > paper

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > through the

> appearance

> > of

> > > > your

> > > > > > > hand?

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The scientist

would

> > say that

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > because

> > > > > > > > > > > > though

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > matter

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > insubstantial (not

> made

> > > up of

> > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > finally

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > irreducible

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > substance)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is held together by

> > > > interwoven

> > > > > > > force

> > > > > > > > > > > fields,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or 'relationships'

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between

> the 'events',

> > that

> > > > > make

> > > > > > up

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > unfolding

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > narrative

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > universe.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is beginning

to

> > sound

> > > > not

> > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > physics

> > > > > > > > > > > > but

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > metaphysics,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > specifically

> Buddhist

> > > > > metaphysics

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > samskara,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > world of appearance

> or

> > > > > phenomena,

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inextricable

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > part, and which is

> > based on

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > principle

> > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > total

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interdependence.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...(This paper is a

> > paper

> > > > > because

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reader,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reader because it

is

> a

> > > > paper.)

> > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > interdependence

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > phenomena

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the under-

pinning

> of

> > the

> > > > > > > Buddhist

> > > > > > > > > > > concept

> > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > universal

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compassion.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If all phenomena —

a

> > > grain of

> > > > > > > sand, a

> > > > > > > > > > > galaxy,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Salman

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Khan,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > blackbuck — are

part

> > and

> > > > > parcel

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shimmering

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interplay

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > appearance, it is

> not

> > so

> > > > > > > > > much 'morally'

> > > > > > > > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seek

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harm

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another entity as

> just

> > plain

> > > > > > > illogical

> > > > > > > > > > > > because

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to harm is only a

> > reflection

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > you,

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > vice

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versa.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A seer might call

it

> > the

> > > > > > > > > interdependence

> > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > phenomena.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scientist might

term

> it

> > as

> > > > > > > > > Heisenberg's

> > > > > > > > > > > > principle

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uncertainty,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which through

> seeking

> > to

> > > > > discover

> > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > change

> > > > > > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sought

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discovered.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A poet, who deals

in

> > > > > metaphors,

> > > > > > > might

> > > > > > > > > > > > describe it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inter-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > penetrative

> > consciousness. A

> > > > > > > metaphor

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > way of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inter-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relating

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apparently

> dissimilar

> > > > > > > > > phenomena. 'Shall I

> > > > > > > > > > > > compare

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thee

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > summer's

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > day?'

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A metaphor is a

> bridge,

> > a

> > > > > force

> > > > > > > field,

> > > > > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > links

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more seemingly

> > disparate

> > > > > > > phenomena:

> > > > > > > > > one's

> > > > > > > > > > > > beloved

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > warmth

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > splendour of

> sunlight.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The poet's job is

to

> > reveal

> > > > > such

> > > > > > > > > > linkages,

> > > > > > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Octavio

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paz

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described a poem

as

> a

> > cosmos

> > > > > > > complete

> > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > itself,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as 'real'

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > universe 'out

> there'.

> > So is

> > > > > this

> > > > > > > paper

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reading,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really 'real'

> > or 'really'

> > > > just

> > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > appearance?

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A scientist, a seer

> and

> > a

> > > > poet

> > > > > > > might

> > > > > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > > > > three

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > answers,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which are but one.

> Just

> > as

> > > > are

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > poet,

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > seer

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scientist.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And this paper, and

> > you."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > SURRENDER JOYFULLY TO THE WILL OF THE ULTIMATE DIVINITY AND

> > RELISH

> > > THE TASTE OF ABSOLUTE BLISS.

> > > >

> > > > Vedic

> > > astrology Astrology

> > chart

> > > Astrology

> > software

> > >

Vedic

> > > astrology

> > software

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Visit your group "" on the web.

> > > >

> > > > Terms

of

> > > Service.

> > > >

> > > > Prashantkumar G B

> > > >

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

>

> > > group but

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

> > phone.

> > > > Please fix times for this in advance -*-

> > > > 09840051861

> > > >

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

> using

> > > Messenger with Voice.

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

Sign In

Jyotish the language that describes human experience/reality

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads