TurquoiseB wrote: > > I said it because a number of people were displaying > attachment to systems that they personally believe > "work" for everyone. I do not share that belief. > > >> But then one is left with the notion that Turq's statement really >> didn't say much except something obvious, like "It doesn't rain >> EVERY day in Seattle." >> > > No, it was quite specific; it was about techniques > and systems. I quite honestly don't believe that > they work as advertised. I suspect that the reason > that people believe they work is that 1) as Curtis > said, there is a kind of codependent relationship > going on, in which the seekers *want* to believe in > a system, and thus project onto vague descriptions > of predictions or results from a technique what > they have been told to expect from them, and 2) the > techniques or systems sometimes *do* "work" to > trigger their own latent abilities. The techniques > don't *cause* these latent abilities to appear, in > my opinion; they just trick the practitioner into > the state of attention from which intuition about > the future or someone else's past is possible, or > from which the particular siddhi or other supposed > benefit happens. > You're doing the same thing as Judy reviewing "Apocalypto". She commented without ever seeing the movie and you've never done astrology. Your ignorance is showing as there are MANY schools and systems of jyotish, not just one. You will often get errors from the novices who for some reason after having a couple of workshops on the subject and set up shop charging for readings while many Indian astrologers went for years just practicing for nothing to craft their skills before hanging out a shingle.
A wiser person would have said "I haven't studied jyotish so I can't comment on its veracity." Likewise I haven't studied Buddhist Tantra so can't comment on its veracity.
