> So, given the above considerations, do you really think more testing > of jyotish is worth anyone's time? > > Edg
Hey Man, I do agree with most of what you said,(I couldn't follow the god argument) and have basically come to the same conclusions for my own beliefs. But I thought it would be a blast if John could nail a few and throw a wrench into my surety. It wouldn't be conclusive or change much, but I would enjoy that experience if he could pull it off. OTOH I would gain something if a person was unable to pull it off. It would throw a wrench into their surety that gave them internal permission to jazz up good common sense advice with a little "joitish says so" epistemological push-up bra. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_re...@...> 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 > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > I think this is a great idea and people's objections can be worked > > into the test. If someone has a problem with Turq's credibility then > > let's add some more people with medical and birth date examples. The > > medical details can be emailed in advance to someone we all vote that > > we trust, or better yet two people who get different names. I think > > we need 4 people's charts. > > > > We just need someone who could be trusted not to skew the test. I am > > too biased for such job but someone like Marek isn't. > > > > Of course the person doing the Joitish is doing the heavy lifting, but > > I hope this would be interesting enough for them too. I mean even > > without this being a scientifically valid test it is very interesting. > > > > I am biased against believing that humans know this kind of stuff. I > > would love to have a few examples blow my mind in such a test. It > > would certainly lead to me looking into it further. > > > > Even working out the protocol for such a test would be fun IMO. > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > > > Your friend was born under the sign of Leo according to jyotish > > > > rules, and the Moon is under the asterism or nakshatra of Revati. > > > > > > > > In the main chart or rashi kundali, The 7th house signifying the > > > > prostrate gland is under heavy malefic influence with the Sun and > > > > Mercury in it and aspected by Mars and Saturn (both are malefic). > > > > > > > > The subsidiary chart or navamsha kundali shows that the cancer > > > > growth is located at the entrance to the prostate gland. This > > > > area of the gland is under heavy malefic influence as well. > > > > > > > > The treatment may include surgery (due to the influence of Mars) > > > > and radiation treatment (due to the influence of Rahu in the > > > > navamsha chart). > > > > > > > > Recommendation > > > > > > > > 1. Take aggressive action to treat the cancer growth. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > John R. > > > > > > John, > > > > > > While I understand that you believe in this > > > Jyotish stuff, and actually believe that the > > > information you post above is 1) valid, 2) > > > useful, and 3) not based on having been told > > > ahead of time what the medical problem was, > > > I am less than convinced. > > > > > > So I propose another test. Here is the birth > > > data for a friend who is having a medical > > > issue. The nature of it will remain unstated, > > > for obvious reasons, but suffice it to say > > > that it is serious enough that it has required > > > and still requires attention from doctors, and > > > has the possibility of requiring surgery. > > > > > > Born: Suffern, New York, USA > > > September 18, 1965 18:06 (6:06 p.m.) > > > > > > So what is my friend's medical issue, and > > > what is the prognosis and best course of care, > > > according to Jyotish? > > > > > > Waiting with 'bated breath... > > > > > > Turq > > > > > >
