Bhaktivinode Thakur dasa explains

[Guest guest]

Bhaktivinode Thakur dasa explains :

 

 

Today I was teaching my son a lesson of English language and was

answering a

question raised by him: " Why in English language people have chosen to

speak in

third singular " has " instead of " have " ? Wouldn't it be more simple

otherwise? "

 

Most people think astrology is a " science " or " body of knowledge " about

how

movements of cellestial bodies influence our lives. Thus they think it

is

something to be proven and subject to modern school of " scientific "

thought,

like physics, astrophysics, mathematics, etc.

 

I would like to say I believe that Jyotish is not a science of karma in

a very

meaning of it. It is very close, but it is more than that.

If it would be, then in all the jyotish-sastras we would have lessons of

how

different planetary positions indicate that this is a cause (deed) in

the past

and that its result now or in the future. We can hardly find that stated

so

specificly in all sastras. It is more than that, because it shows how

the

planets moving in time are INDICATING (not causing) different situations

in the

material world, also in relation to every individual. A kundali or a

horoscope

is kala-cakra, or wheel of time. It is like a gigantic clock that we are

depicting in a symbolic way for our perception and understanding. If a

horoscope would show only karma, then how would it be possible that it

could

describe lives and activities of liberated beings like avataras and pure

devotees, who are not karma bound? Their life is akarma, free of

bondage, yet

described by Jyotish. We can't say that Lord Caitanya lost his first

wife due

to his papam - bad activities.

 

Krsna says in Bhagavad-gita: kalo'smi loka-ksaya-krt pravriddho " I am

time, the

great destroyer of the worlds " . We can't perceive the time directly - it

is

very subtle. We perceive it through changes, movements, creation,

duration and

destruction.

 

It is important to know that not only a symbolic depiction of stars and

planets

constitutes Jyotisha-vedanga. It also comprises nimitta (omens) and

laksanas

(bodily characteristics). It is interesting to see how in the

Prasna-marga are

given different methods of understanding including one's breath from

nostrils

that would give us a clue to see reality in a more " complete " way.

 

Therefore if we see that all things in material existence are connected

together

by God in his form of time, we do not need to prove how planets are

influencing

us or our lives. They are, like Sun and Moon, but it is not that which

Jyotish

is all about.

 

Jyotish is a divine knowledge of how certain things perceived by us in

this

creation can make us understand other things. It is like pieces of

knowledge

that carry meaning of other things. Like words. Planets, stars and other

celestial bodies or points are like words which are different parts of

speech:

noun, pronoun, verb, adverb, adjective, preposition, conjunction and

interjection. When connected together, according to proper grammar, they

can

carry a meaning far more advanced than separated pieces. There are many

levels

on which that language could be understood. Basic, intermediate,

advanced, etc.

But more important here is who is speaking for us to understand.

 

Knowledge of that language was given by God to Brahma, Siva and others.

Krsna

allowed living beings to feel separated form him in the material world,

if they

wish not to listen to Him and speak to Him, but also while creating this

world

He gave them means to renew conversation with Him, to understand many

things

which could help us to live in this world and to leave this world.

 

Now, if Jyotish is a language by using which we can understand what God

is

speaking to us, and He created it, it is really up to Him to choose what

would

it be like. What words He chose to use for us to see, what would grammar

be

like, etc. This is a reason why, coming back to the beginning of this

text,

your questions reminded me those of my son.

 

Regarding how to prove to somebody validity of Jyotish, it is very

difficult,

but entirely not due to any Jyotish shortcomings. If we want to

understand what

somebody is speaking, we have to first believe He exists. If we don't

believe

God exists and that He speaks, we can't perceive that speach. We would

probably

take His words for something else. Like astronomers do stare onto stars,

but

idea that God is there and we could listen to Him through stars and

planets

would make most of them think we are nuts.

 

Other requirements necessary for good communication and understanding

are:

faith, trust, empathy; seeking first to understand, then to be

understood, etc.

I we are not holding faith into somebody, are not willing to invest in

the

relationship, are not ready to be vulnerable for being really open, etc.

then

we are not going to listen and understand. Whatever would be

communicated won't

be actually perceived. Would the person who expects proof be willing to

do all

this?

 

Being tri-kala-jna - a knower of past, present and future - is very

dependent on

listening Paramatma from within our heart. That is closely related with

purity

of our mind, intentions, desires, etc. Being closer to God we can better

understand Him and what He meant by saying this or that word, i.e. this

or that

planetary yoga. Therefore it is quite difficult to expect that somebody

who

doesn't have any desire to learn that language along with a spiritual

culture,

could have been easly convinced about " truthfulness " of Jyotish.

 

Another point of view for challenge of " proving " is its intellectual

nature.

Proof is a process of logical reasoning. We assume something we know, we

declare a thesis that we want to " prove " and on the basis of assumptions

and

accepted standards of reasoning try to persuade that the thesis is

reasonable

and true. This process is purely Mercurian - it is like chasing one's

tail -

debilitated Mercury in mystical wisdom of Pisces - when applied to

higher

truths. All proofs have a lot of assumptions at the bottom, many of them

being

hidden or we are simply not aware of them. But an assumption is

something

accepted on faith. And if you want to prove the assumption form the

first

process of proving, you have to open another another process of proving,

which

has other assumptions, which would have to be proven again, again, and

again.

Thus we come to the level of axioms, which are assumptions laying at the

bottom

of all schools of thinking. Those axioms are not provable, they

constitute a

borderline of Mercurian, or intellectual knowledge.

 

This is why we can open a process of proving some thesis to somebody who

shares

with us axioms or assumptions necessary for that proof. Otherwise two

people

are speaking two different languages. They can't communicate, understand

each

other, what to speak about proving. What is a proof for one, it is not

for the

other.

 

Another thing is that a powerful acaryas or avataras, could change

axioms of

people right on the spot. Like Lord Caitanya, just by embracing someone,

would

change his heart, and in result of this would change his paradigm or

axiom,

laying at the basis of one's understanding. That's really impressive

proof!

 

Sorry for a quite long text.

 

Hare Krsna!

 

 

Bhaktivinode Thakur dasa

 

 

 

sb