No 1 reads books any more Caution 2 Moderator: Potentially inflammatory!

[Guest guest]

Using the numerical shorthand to ensure that my longish header passes

through intact because has limits!

 

Sad as this may sound, I am apalled to notice over the last couple of

decades that people have become increasingly non-serious about

jyotish.

 

Why do I say so?

 

In the last 2+ internet decades in my lifetime that I have 'enjoyed'

jyotish charcha (discussions and conversations about jyotish) on

internet, I do not recall more than a few (I will not run out of

digits (fingers and thumbs) counting those and I only have the normal

allotment of ten!) -- demi-serious discussions utilizing material

people have read: Starting with classics, modern books, articles in

reputed magazines such as The Astrological Magazine, for starters, or

Times of Astrology,etc -- NADA, ZILCH (as they say!).

 

We have endless discussions and personal opinions expressed but no

cogent and critical discussions about the printed articles. Why such

intellectual apathy from otherwise very intelligent and even wise-

sounding individuals whose primary passion has been stated to lie

with astrology and particularly jyotish?

 

We have heard from time to time critiques of bookish knowledge, but

given that most individuals learn astrology from the printed word

(books, articles, their teachers' notes, web-material) but these have

been generally as deep as the cheesy jyotish software reviews

generally published in astrology magazines and I believe a book also

exists or used to!

 

Why this apathy and intellectual indolence -- people (YOU know who

you are!)?

 

Astrology is not Chess, Monopoly, Parcheezi, or even golf!

 

Am I missing something in my understanding of how jyotish must be

learned?

 

RR

[Guest guest]

It is not just the learning of Jyotish, the printed and published

word has lost out to the visual media, to the net in all spheres of

learning. Secondly, with the information explosion on the net, it has

become difficult for even discerning readers to seperate the shallow

and the deep.

Its just like when you began a thread on intelligence , it

was...Wikipedia!

Insufficient knowledge, at times, is enough to jump to conclusions!

A price one has to pay for change.

rishi

 

 

 

 

-- In , "Rohiniranjan"

<jyotish_vani wrote:

>

> Using the numerical shorthand to ensure that my longish header

passes

> through intact because has limits!

>

> Sad as this may sound, I am apalled to notice over the last couple

of

> decades that people have become increasingly non-serious about

> jyotish.

>

> Why do I say so?

>

> In the last 2+ internet decades in my lifetime that I

have 'enjoyed'

> jyotish charcha (discussions and conversations about jyotish) on

> internet, I do not recall more than a few (I will not run out of

> digits (fingers and thumbs) counting those and I only have the

normal

> allotment of ten!) -- demi-serious discussions utilizing material

> people have read: Starting with classics, modern books, articles in

> reputed magazines such as The Astrological Magazine, for starters,

or

> Times of Astrology,etc -- NADA, ZILCH (as they say!).

>

> We have endless discussions and personal opinions expressed but no

> cogent and critical discussions about the printed articles. Why

such

> intellectual apathy from otherwise very intelligent and even wise-

> sounding individuals whose primary passion has been stated to lie

> with astrology and particularly jyotish?

>

> We have heard from time to time critiques of bookish knowledge, but

> given that most individuals learn astrology from the printed word

> (books, articles, their teachers' notes, web-material) but these

have

> been generally as deep as the cheesy jyotish software reviews

> generally published in astrology magazines and I believe a book

also

> exists or used to!

>

> Why this apathy and intellectual indolence -- people (YOU know who

> you are!)?

>

> Astrology is not Chess, Monopoly, Parcheezi, or even golf!

>

> Am I missing something in my understanding of how jyotish must be

> learned?

>

> RR

>

[Guest guest]

Actually Rishi, the thread on intelligence came after the posting on

Wikipedia ;-)

 

Tsk tsk (or as we said in India in my childhood - tch tch!!

 

RR

 

, "rishi_2000in"

<rishi_2000in wrote:

>

> It is not just the learning of Jyotish, the printed and published

> word has lost out to the visual media, to the net in all spheres of

> learning. Secondly, with the information explosion on the net, it

has

> become difficult for even discerning readers to seperate the

shallow

> and the deep.

> Its just like when you began a thread on intelligence , it

> was...Wikipedia!

> Insufficient knowledge, at times, is enough to jump to conclusions!

> A price one has to pay for change.

> rishi

>

>

>

>

> -- In , "Rohiniranjan"

> <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> >

> > Using the numerical shorthand to ensure that my longish header

> passes

> > through intact because has limits!

> >

> > Sad as this may sound, I am apalled to notice over the last

couple

> of

> > decades that people have become increasingly non-serious about

> > jyotish.

> >

> > Why do I say so?

> >

> > In the last 2+ internet decades in my lifetime that I

> have 'enjoyed'

> > jyotish charcha (discussions and conversations about jyotish) on

> > internet, I do not recall more than a few (I will not run out of

> > digits (fingers and thumbs) counting those and I only have the

> normal

> > allotment of ten!) -- demi-serious discussions utilizing material

> > people have read: Starting with classics, modern books, articles

in

> > reputed magazines such as The Astrological Magazine, for

starters,

> or

> > Times of Astrology,etc -- NADA, ZILCH (as they say!).

> >

> > We have endless discussions and personal opinions expressed but

no

> > cogent and critical discussions about the printed articles. Why

> such

> > intellectual apathy from otherwise very intelligent and even wise-

> > sounding individuals whose primary passion has been stated to lie

> > with astrology and particularly jyotish?

> >

> > We have heard from time to time critiques of bookish knowledge,

but

> > given that most individuals learn astrology from the printed word

> > (books, articles, their teachers' notes, web-material) but these

> have

> > been generally as deep as the cheesy jyotish software reviews

> > generally published in astrology magazines and I believe a book

> also

> > exists or used to!

> >

> > Why this apathy and intellectual indolence -- people (YOU know

who

> > you are!)?

> >

> > Astrology is not Chess, Monopoly, Parcheezi, or even golf!

> >

> > Am I missing something in my understanding of how jyotish must be

> > learned?

> >

> > RR

> >

>

[Guest guest]

That, Sir, was just an illustration to the changing scenario where

the written word has a different context.

Intellligence or anything else you say, I type it in my search

engine and hey...there is the answer, instantly packaged and

delivered, so why should I go and search other books.

The instant age, delivery before even a query is asked!

rishi

 

 

 

, "Rohiniranjan"

<jyotish_vani wrote:

>

> Actually Rishi, the thread on intelligence came after the posting

on

> Wikipedia ;-)

>

> Tsk tsk (or as we said in India in my childhood - tch tch!!

>

> RR

>

> , "rishi_2000in"

> <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> >

> > It is not just the learning of Jyotish, the printed and

published

> > word has lost out to the visual media, to the net in all spheres

of

> > learning. Secondly, with the information explosion on the net,

it

> has

> > become difficult for even discerning readers to seperate the

> shallow

> > and the deep.

> > Its just like when you began a thread on intelligence , it

> > was...Wikipedia!

> > Insufficient knowledge, at times, is enough to jump to

conclusions!

> > A price one has to pay for change.

> > rishi

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > -- In , "Rohiniranjan"

> > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Using the numerical shorthand to ensure that my longish header

> > passes

> > > through intact because has limits!

> > >

> > > Sad as this may sound, I am apalled to notice over the last

> couple

> > of

> > > decades that people have become increasingly non-serious about

> > > jyotish.

> > >

> > > Why do I say so?

> > >

> > > In the last 2+ internet decades in my lifetime that I

> > have 'enjoyed'

> > > jyotish charcha (discussions and conversations about jyotish)

on

> > > internet, I do not recall more than a few (I will not run out

of

> > > digits (fingers and thumbs) counting those and I only have the

> > normal

> > > allotment of ten!) -- demi-serious discussions utilizing

material

> > > people have read: Starting with classics, modern books,

articles

> in

> > > reputed magazines such as The Astrological Magazine, for

> starters,

> > or

> > > Times of Astrology,etc -- NADA, ZILCH (as they say!).

> > >

> > > We have endless discussions and personal opinions expressed

but

> no

> > > cogent and critical discussions about the printed articles.

Why

> > such

> > > intellectual apathy from otherwise very intelligent and even

wise-

> > > sounding individuals whose primary passion has been stated to

lie

> > > with astrology and particularly jyotish?

> > >

> > > We have heard from time to time critiques of bookish

knowledge,

> but

> > > given that most individuals learn astrology from the printed

word

> > > (books, articles, their teachers' notes, web-material) but

these

> > have

> > > been generally as deep as the cheesy jyotish software reviews

> > > generally published in astrology magazines and I believe a

book

> > also

> > > exists or used to!

> > >

> > > Why this apathy and intellectual indolence -- people (YOU know

> who

> > > you are!)?

> > >

> > > Astrology is not Chess, Monopoly, Parcheezi, or even golf!

> > >

> > > Am I missing something in my understanding of how jyotish must

be

> > > learned?

> > >

> > > RR

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Rishi ---

 

You search, you question, you search some more, you even question the

sources that seemed credible a few days earlier, you even question

those who you trusted once and perhaps even loved or loved to trust!

 

Sources and guides and hamraahis come and go and so on, as do

confusions along the way and temptations and all the rest of nine

yards ...

 

But there can only be ONE TRUTH!

 

Each of us finds it for ourselves and then must live it -- FOREVER!

 

....

 

 

, "rishi_2000in"

<rishi_2000in wrote:

>

> That, Sir, was just an illustration to the changing scenario where

> the written word has a different context.

> Intellligence or anything else you say, I type it in my search

> engine and hey...there is the answer, instantly packaged and

> delivered, so why should I go and search other books.

> The instant age, delivery before even a query is asked!

> rishi

>

>

>

> , "Rohiniranjan"

> <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> >

> > Actually Rishi, the thread on intelligence came after the posting

> on

> > Wikipedia ;-)

> >

> > Tsk tsk (or as we said in India in my childhood - tch tch!!

> >

> > RR

> >

> > , "rishi_2000in"

> > <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> > >

> > > It is not just the learning of Jyotish, the printed and

> published

> > > word has lost out to the visual media, to the net in all

spheres

> of

> > > learning. Secondly, with the information explosion on the net,

> it

> > has

> > > become difficult for even discerning readers to seperate the

> > shallow

> > > and the deep.

> > > Its just like when you began a thread on intelligence , it

> > > was...Wikipedia!

> > > Insufficient knowledge, at times, is enough to jump to

> conclusions!

> > > A price one has to pay for change.

> > > rishi

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > -- In , "Rohiniranjan"

> > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Using the numerical shorthand to ensure that my longish

header

> > > passes

> > > > through intact because has limits!

> > > >

> > > > Sad as this may sound, I am apalled to notice over the last

> > couple

> > > of

> > > > decades that people have become increasingly non-serious

about

> > > > jyotish.

> > > >

> > > > Why do I say so?

> > > >

> > > > In the last 2+ internet decades in my lifetime that I

> > > have 'enjoyed'

> > > > jyotish charcha (discussions and conversations about jyotish)

> on

> > > > internet, I do not recall more than a few (I will not run out

> of

> > > > digits (fingers and thumbs) counting those and I only have

the

> > > normal

> > > > allotment of ten!) -- demi-serious discussions utilizing

> material

> > > > people have read: Starting with classics, modern books,

> articles

> > in

> > > > reputed magazines such as The Astrological Magazine, for

> > starters,

> > > or

> > > > Times of Astrology,etc -- NADA, ZILCH (as they say!).

> > > >

> > > > We have endless discussions and personal opinions expressed

> but

> > no

> > > > cogent and critical discussions about the printed articles.

> Why

> > > such

> > > > intellectual apathy from otherwise very intelligent and even

> wise-

> > > > sounding individuals whose primary passion has been stated to

> lie

> > > > with astrology and particularly jyotish?

> > > >

> > > > We have heard from time to time critiques of bookish

> knowledge,

> > but

> > > > given that most individuals learn astrology from the printed

> word

> > > > (books, articles, their teachers' notes, web-material) but

> these

> > > have

> > > > been generally as deep as the cheesy jyotish software reviews

> > > > generally published in astrology magazines and I believe a

> book

> > > also

> > > > exists or used to!

> > > >

> > > > Why this apathy and intellectual indolence -- people (YOU

know

> > who

> > > > you are!)?

> > > >

> > > > Astrology is not Chess, Monopoly, Parcheezi, or even golf!

> > > >

> > > > Am I missing something in my understanding of how jyotish

must

> be

> > > > learned?

> > > >

> > > > RR

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Ranjanda,

Well said.

All searches and quests finally need that quark of unchanging

unyielding personal truth. It is this foundation, this axiom which

allows for that FOREVER.......the transcending of time. The elements

of doubts creeping in insidiously also challenge that bedrock over

which torrents of flowing water rush through like moments of fleeting

time. When a person is able to hold this sacredness in whichever

personal form it is imbibed, tis only then that questions finally end.

And that little truth , that Forever becomes the focus of all purpose.

rishi

, "Rohiniranjan"

<jyotish_vani wrote:

>

> Rishi ---

>

> You search, you question, you search some more, you even question

the

> sources that seemed credible a few days earlier, you even question

> those who you trusted once and perhaps even loved or loved to trust!

>

> Sources and guides and hamraahis come and go and so on, as do

> confusions along the way and temptations and all the rest of nine

> yards ...

>

> But there can only be ONE TRUTH!

>

> Each of us finds it for ourselves and then must live it -- FOREVER!

>

> ...

>

>

> , "rishi_2000in"

> <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> >

> > That, Sir, was just an illustration to the changing scenario

where

> > the written word has a different context.

> > Intellligence or anything else you say, I type it in my search

> > engine and hey...there is the answer, instantly packaged and

> > delivered, so why should I go and search other books.

> > The instant age, delivery before even a query is asked!

> > rishi

> >

> >

> >

> > , "Rohiniranjan"

> > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Actually Rishi, the thread on intelligence came after the

posting

> > on

> > > Wikipedia ;-)

> > >

> > > Tsk tsk (or as we said in India in my childhood - tch tch!!

> > >

> > > RR

> > >

> > > , "rishi_2000in"

> > > <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > It is not just the learning of Jyotish, the printed and

> > published

> > > > word has lost out to the visual media, to the net in all

> spheres

> > of

> > > > learning. Secondly, with the information explosion on the

net,

> > it

> > > has

> > > > become difficult for even discerning readers to seperate the

> > > shallow

> > > > and the deep.

> > > > Its just like when you began a thread on intelligence , it

> > > > was...Wikipedia!

> > > > Insufficient knowledge, at times, is enough to jump to

> > conclusions!

> > > > A price one has to pay for change.

> > > > rishi

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -- In , "Rohiniranjan"

> > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Using the numerical shorthand to ensure that my longish

> header

> > > > passes

> > > > > through intact because has limits!

> > > > >

> > > > > Sad as this may sound, I am apalled to notice over the last

> > > couple

> > > > of

> > > > > decades that people have become increasingly non-serious

> about

> > > > > jyotish.

> > > > >

> > > > > Why do I say so?

> > > > >

> > > > > In the last 2+ internet decades in my lifetime that I

> > > > have 'enjoyed'

> > > > > jyotish charcha (discussions and conversations about

jyotish)

> > on

> > > > > internet, I do not recall more than a few (I will not run

out

> > of

> > > > > digits (fingers and thumbs) counting those and I only have

> the

> > > > normal

> > > > > allotment of ten!) -- demi-serious discussions utilizing

> > material

> > > > > people have read: Starting with classics, modern books,

> > articles

> > > in

> > > > > reputed magazines such as The Astrological Magazine, for

> > > starters,

> > > > or

> > > > > Times of Astrology,etc -- NADA, ZILCH (as they say!).

> > > > >

> > > > > We have endless discussions and personal opinions expressed

> > but

> > > no

> > > > > cogent and critical discussions about the printed articles.

> > Why

> > > > such

> > > > > intellectual apathy from otherwise very intelligent and

even

> > wise-

> > > > > sounding individuals whose primary passion has been stated

to

> > lie

> > > > > with astrology and particularly jyotish?

> > > > >

> > > > > We have heard from time to time critiques of bookish

> > knowledge,

> > > but

> > > > > given that most individuals learn astrology from the

printed

> > word

> > > > > (books, articles, their teachers' notes, web-material) but

> > these

> > > > have

> > > > > been generally as deep as the cheesy jyotish software

reviews

> > > > > generally published in astrology magazines and I believe a

> > book

> > > > also

> > > > > exists or used to!

> > > > >

> > > > > Why this apathy and intellectual indolence -- people (YOU

> know

> > > who

> > > > > you are!)?

> > > > >

> > > > > Astrology is not Chess, Monopoly, Parcheezi, or even golf!

> > > > >

> > > > > Am I missing something in my understanding of how jyotish

> must

> > be

> > > > > learned?

> > > > >

> > > > > RR

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

However, just to inject some subjectivity (I almost typed personal-

ity!) into my posted thoughts, here is a confession I will share:

 

When I first read a book on Jyotish, it made absolutely no sense to

me perhaps because it was the pithy, somewhat terse book Everyday

Astrology by V.A.K. Ayer. I had very young neurons then. Then I

started reading other books and though I kept collecting them despite

my meager means (pocket money of five rupees a month does not get you

very far even in those days when rupiya was a real rupiya!) and more

so after I began to earn some money. Then came a rather emotional

point in my life when I had to give up all my books (no money to

carry or ship them abroad and no custodian to leave them with!). A

trunkful of books and many years of Astrological Magazine, and

astrology and athrishta and others got distributed almost for free.

 

Many of the books did not feel like a real loss. I had always been

keeping good notes of important things and most books etc seemed like

rehashed knowledge anyway to me (at that time).

 

In my late 20s early 30s a little relief came in terms of some

savings and some time to regain my study of jyotish. Anyway, long

story short, this time I realized something. The same books that I

was reading and re-reading after a gap of a few to several years were

suddenly meaning a lot more, giving a lot more! What had changed. The

subsequent editions were generally of poorer quality in terms of

paper and ink and binding but the words were the same and giving a

lot more to me.

 

When the time is right, the same horoscope, the same nimitta, the

same written word suddenly acquires a new personality, a new image, a

new meaning!

 

What changed, who changed? Despite the poorer print quality and the

broken spine of the book!

 

The real question is: Who grew up?

 

RR

 

-- In , "rishi_2000in"

<rishi_2000in wrote:

>

> Ranjanda,

> Well said.

> All searches and quests finally need that quark of unchanging

> unyielding personal truth. It is this foundation, this axiom which

> allows for that FOREVER.......the transcending of time. The

elements

> of doubts creeping in insidiously also challenge that bedrock over

> which torrents of flowing water rush through like moments of

fleeting

> time. When a person is able to hold this sacredness in whichever

> personal form it is imbibed, tis only then that questions finally

end.

> And that little truth , that Forever becomes the focus of all

purpose.

> rishi

> , "Rohiniranjan"

> <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> >

> > Rishi ---

> >

> > You search, you question, you search some more, you even question

> the

> > sources that seemed credible a few days earlier, you even

question

> > those who you trusted once and perhaps even loved or loved to

trust!

> >

> > Sources and guides and hamraahis come and go and so on, as do

> > confusions along the way and temptations and all the rest of nine

> > yards ...

> >

> > But there can only be ONE TRUTH!

> >

> > Each of us finds it for ourselves and then must live it --

FOREVER!

> >

> > ...

> >

> >

> > , "rishi_2000in"

> > <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> > >

> > > That, Sir, was just an illustration to the changing scenario

> where

> > > the written word has a different context.

> > > Intellligence or anything else you say, I type it in my search

> > > engine and hey...there is the answer, instantly packaged and

> > > delivered, so why should I go and search other books.

> > > The instant age, delivery before even a query is asked!

> > > rishi

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , "Rohiniranjan"

> > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Actually Rishi, the thread on intelligence came after the

> posting

> > > on

> > > > Wikipedia ;-)

> > > >

> > > > Tsk tsk (or as we said in India in my childhood - tch tch!!

> > > >

> > > > RR

> > > >

> > > > , "rishi_2000in"

> > > > <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > It is not just the learning of Jyotish, the printed and

> > > published

> > > > > word has lost out to the visual media, to the net in all

> > spheres

> > > of

> > > > > learning. Secondly, with the information explosion on the

> net,

> > > it

> > > > has

> > > > > become difficult for even discerning readers to seperate

the

> > > > shallow

> > > > > and the deep.

> > > > > Its just like when you began a thread on intelligence , it

> > > > > was...Wikipedia!

> > > > > Insufficient knowledge, at times, is enough to jump to

> > > conclusions!

> > > > > A price one has to pay for change.

> > > > > rishi

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -- In , "Rohiniranjan"

> > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Using the numerical shorthand to ensure that my longish

> > header

> > > > > passes

> > > > > > through intact because has limits!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sad as this may sound, I am apalled to notice over the

last

> > > > couple

> > > > > of

> > > > > > decades that people have become increasingly non-serious

> > about

> > > > > > jyotish.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Why do I say so?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In the last 2+ internet decades in my lifetime that I

> > > > > have 'enjoyed'

> > > > > > jyotish charcha (discussions and conversations about

> jyotish)

> > > on

> > > > > > internet, I do not recall more than a few (I will not run

> out

> > > of

> > > > > > digits (fingers and thumbs) counting those and I only

have

> > the

> > > > > normal

> > > > > > allotment of ten!) -- demi-serious discussions utilizing

> > > material

> > > > > > people have read: Starting with classics, modern books,

> > > articles

> > > > in

> > > > > > reputed magazines such as The Astrological Magazine, for

> > > > starters,

> > > > > or

> > > > > > Times of Astrology,etc -- NADA, ZILCH (as they say!).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > We have endless discussions and personal opinions

expressed

> > > but

> > > > no

> > > > > > cogent and critical discussions about the printed

articles.

> > > Why

> > > > > such

> > > > > > intellectual apathy from otherwise very intelligent and

> even

> > > wise-

> > > > > > sounding individuals whose primary passion has been

stated

> to

> > > lie

> > > > > > with astrology and particularly jyotish?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > We have heard from time to time critiques of bookish

> > > knowledge,

> > > > but

> > > > > > given that most individuals learn astrology from the

> printed

> > > word

> > > > > > (books, articles, their teachers' notes, web-material)

but

> > > these

> > > > > have

> > > > > > been generally as deep as the cheesy jyotish software

> reviews

> > > > > > generally published in astrology magazines and I believe

a

> > > book

> > > > > also

> > > > > > exists or used to!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Why this apathy and intellectual indolence -- people (YOU

> > know

> > > > who

> > > > > > you are!)?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Astrology is not Chess, Monopoly, Parcheezi, or even golf!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Am I missing something in my understanding of how jyotish

> > must

> > > be

> > > > > > learned?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > RR

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>