There is the "consciousness" theory to astrology but there is also very corresponding natural patterns which roughly correlate to the returns of planets. This more so with the Sun, the Moon, Saturn and Jupiter. So I would think what one would do is start tracking natural patterns on other planets which may just for the sake of simplicity correlate with planetary returns.

But you are arguing with people who see nature as random and believe in free will. I think they fear the idea that everything they do and think is a result of patterns set in motion at the beginning of the universe. Nothing to fear as it doesn't matter.

On 10/15/2014 12:41 PM, [FairfieldLife] wrote:


Tony Nader wrote a book showing where the nine planets or grahas can be found in our brain. He is saying that there is a physical manifestation of the "impulses of intelligence" that are present in the human conciousness.

IMO, any intelligent being anywhere in the universe would have to have an equivalent "impulses of intelligence" in its own physiology and consciousness in order to be called sentient.

But one argue that even rocks here on earth have consciousness--albeit a very low one-- by its mere existence as a clump of matter in a form of the various elements and their resulting atomic structures.

---In, <> wrote :

---In, <jr_esq@...> wrote :

IMO, yes. The 12 houses and the zodiac would apply on any of those distant worlds. Their solar system may or may not have the same nine planets that we're using here on Earth. But the same "impulses of intelligence" would have to be calculated in its own solar system.

I believe this is the reason why Patanjali wrote in his yoga sutras that samyama on the sun brings forth knowledge of the world. IOW, life on these earthlike exoplanets can be described by the same zodiac signs that are pertinent here on our earth. Doesn't that make sense?

It depends on how astrology might work. Consciousness requires a sophisticated brain to operate, maybe they are affected by gravity which is the only known force to be infinite in extent, and therefore affects things at great distance unlike the other known forces which are locally contained like the ones that hold atoms apart.

Trouble is, if gravity is the culprit then planets are out of the picture because they are too distant to affect us more than, say, a lorry going past on the road. And the extra distances put between us and them at various times in our orbit - that the ancients didn't know about - would affect any charts too much for them to be reliable, not that they are. So you can cross gravity off the list of influences, and any other field for the same reasons.

John Hagelin claims there is a link between planets and parts of the brain forged by quantum superposition between atoms during the big bang. John Hagelin should be stripped of his PHD and publicly ridiculed for even daring to utter bullshit like this that he /knows/ is complete bollocks. But he wants you to continue coughing up for yagyas and charts. Or maybe he's so dumb he believes it? Nah, it's all part of the con of using science ideas to justify their beliefs.

If astrology is real - and there is absolutely no reason to suppose it is - I would avoid travelling to other planets. Just think what being on Mars would do to someone with Jupiter strong in their chart! You're about 100 million miles closer to it! And what affect will Earth have on us? Just think if there is some physical force connecting us to planets surely the one we stand on would swamp any effect from the others, or doesn't ours count?

So your question makes sense if astrological affects are real, different worlds around different stars will have different types of influences according to however the types of planets and their distance from brains might affect their owners. It would have to be a universal effect. Trouble is, I think it's an ancient superstition that clings on into the modern world by virtue of it's malleable vagueness. I don't think it's a very good explanation for anything at all, especially destiny and personality. Probably why NASA left it out of the equation when they planned the trip to the moon.

Fun concept to ponder though...

Reply via email to