Depends on what is meant by "earthlike exoplanets". They would need to
have the same distance from their star as earth does from the sun, the
same direction for rotation and the same orbital period.
Remember that astronomy was born of a need for knowing planetary
positions in astrology. Kepler made his living by drawing up charts for
astrologers. So it is a good idea for *any* astrologer to become
knowledgeable about astronomy. There could be planets with living
beings who have two suns and even more than one moon. I would say any
use of "astrology" there might take on completely different cycles
especially if astrology is just a primitive method of tracking natural
You are much safer to assert the use of planets as cycle markers than
going into their connection with consciousness which is still a bit out
of reach for science to research yet.
As for the skeptics here, none of them are scientists so don't worry
On 10/15/2014 01:47 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
IMO, this is what Patanjali was saying in the sutra that's mentioned
in this thread. That is, on earthlike exoplanets, the same annual
patterns that are found here on earth can be found there. IOW, those
exoplanets would have an equivalent to spring, summer, autumn and winter.
As sentient beings, we have to realize that the annual patterns on
earth affect us physiologically and mentally. We are part of the
earth's life cycle. Or, one can look at it in another way: we are
part of the celebration of life here on earth.
But logic and self-introspection show us that we all have a unique
self that knows it knows, independent of nature's mechanical functions.
This is the reason why I believe that the various states of human
consciousness are the natural extension of space and time. IOW, the
various states of consciousness are the higher dimensions above
spacetime. These higher dimensions are not hidden or curled up in
space. Rather, they are the potential that are inherent in nature.
It's a story of the Self creating matter in order to develop to know
Itself. The Bhagavad Gita has mentioned this eternal cycle of
creativity of the Self.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <noozguru@...> wrote :
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, jr_esq@... <mailto:jr_esq@...>
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
<mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :
<mailto: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
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...