Duveyoung wrote:
> Curtis,
>
> Just about everyone in the movement has had their jyotish done --
> probably more than once by more than one astrologer. And, I say,
> that's enough experimenting, let's draw some conclusions now from the
> data we have.
>
> And, I'm willing to bet a serious chunk of dough that everyone has
> experienced the same general results as I have; namely, that jyotishi
> advice has zero predictive power, zero insight into the past of the
> person, and zero ability to tell a person what to do "next or right now."
>
> I paid (thousands of bucks spent) about a dozen of these "experts" to
> advise me repeatedly over a span of years -- not one of them hit any
> nail on the head. Stupid me for trying so hard and paying so much when
> my divorce, my parents' deaths, the number of my children, my business
> life, "moments at a crossroad of great import," none of the advice
> concerning these aspects of life ever amounted to "deep insight or
> how-could-they-know-that? moments." No astrologer ever told me
> something about my past that could only have been discovered by "some
> magic process." They always use phrases of great fuzziness like "you
> probably have more than one child," and if you say, "I'm childless,"
> then they say, "Oh, I see now that you will use the children of the
> world as if your own." And on and on the con goes.
>
> I say it's time to call the emperor naked. If jyotish works, then
> where's all the millionaires in the movement, where's the 90%
> staying-married rate, where's the tragedies-avoided by timely advice,
> where's any insight of the least specificity like, say, "you had a
> great negativity on August 12th, 1968," or, hey, how about, "India is
> a golden country of exquisite harmony and peace." Like hovering,
> jyotish has had enough time to prove itself, and it's fallen on it's
> face every time.
>
> It's all crystal ball reading -- and by that I mean, some person with
> a robe on at a Renaissance Fair who says pleasant things to you inside
> a musty tent...yeah, that tawdry of a con. It's a "fool me in some
> way that I like and I'll pay you without a complaint" service. And
> that's it.
>
> In 5,000 years of tens of thousands of begging-bowl folks sitting on
> the sides of roads trying to figure out what can be offered the
> passers-by, it's no wonder that the "seers" of the world have figured
> out how to con the rubes with ego stroking.
>
> Funnily enough, scientifically speaking, the truth is that everything
> is infinitely referential, and ultimately, some giant computer on some
> planet somewhere can be so advanced and so intimate with the "vibes of
> manifestation," that any question can be answered.
>
> Ask the machine, "who is Curtis," and it instantly can surmise from
> the tiniest of tiny irregularities that, BAM, there, there's the
> entirety of Curtisness. I expect such a machine to be able to "read
> quarks" like you and I do these words. It is this concept that,
> amazingly to me, yields up a "god" that is omniscient and
> omnipresence, and that's a good start on godness, eh? If ya want a
> "heaven," there it is -- merely think of this machine being able to do
> some sort of Star Trek Hollideck thingy, and there you are in your
> fullest expression for anyone to interact with....a reincarnation of
> significant substantiality if we are relegating ourselves to physical
> manifestation only and ignoring the "witness" dynamic. This scenario
> doesn't answer the question: is the witness that experiences "Curtis
> now" the same witness that would experience "Computer generated
> Curtis." I'd say "yes," but the proof of that conclusion would be
> difficult to establish with mere words.
>
> So, given the above considerations, do you really think more testing
> of jyotish is worth anyone's time?
>
> Edg
>
Jyotish is meant to be more a "weather report" anyway, nothing exact.
It is close enough that each ascendant can give an idea of what the
person's career path should be and what periods are going to be bad or
good for them and in what way. It is more likely based on the planets
being markers for naturally occurring cycles than they (outside of the
sun and moon) have any direct effect.
