Jyotish the language that describes human experience/reality

[Guest guest]

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , "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.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > , "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.

> >

> >

> >

>