Astrology Vs Hypnosis

[pawan]

Hello friends,
My name is Pawan and I am from India.

The purpose of mine to tell you about my country is actually related to my post.

As you all know astrology is well studied and well accepted science in India and so majority believes that all that is happening or will happen to their lives are due to the planetary positions at their birth time.

So I want to discuss the topic "astrology vs hypnosis" and want your views on it.

But before you give your views on it I want to discuss my experiences of astrology.

From my childhood I with my parents go to astrologer and I have found that most n most of the things astrologer says about us is true.

Even many of my deepest habits or thoughts or behaviors of mine that only a person can know about himself was revealed by him(my astrologer) by just watching a piece of paper and that is my horoscope.

Even many of my mind problems that I am noticing now or noticed earlier(even presently searching for a hypnotist for them) is already told by him to me.

And I have hundreds of examples showing that astrology completely effects human being in his behavior, his success, his thinking and everything.

and only planets rule our thinking.

Otherwise what is the reason that one child is by birth genius and one is by birth duffer?

and even astrology can easily predict that this child is going to be a genius or a duffer or a person with good nature or a very short tempered person or a person with good sense of humor or even a person with good skin or bad skin and all the things will correctly and completely be applied to the child when he would grown up(even in my case I don't have good skin and the same thing my horoscope says from my birth)

so I want to know that if my horoscope says that I will always have negative thoughts,jealousy and very uncomfortable state of mind (and that is reality) then still is it possible for me or anyone to get good state of mind by hypnotism?
:confused:

Thanks.

[Don]

Okay, let's assume that astrology is accurate (which I happen to do).

Most people, including yourself (and others who have not studied astrology), seems to assume that the basic assumption of astrology is that the positions of the planets have a direct effect on the individual, an effect that must take place.

However, I know of no astrology or student of astrology who believes this. Rather, the concept is either a) the stars simply reflect what is taking place (leading to a psychological interpretation of astrology), or b) "the stars impel, they don't compel." For the sake of argument, let's assume it's the latter.

That would mean other things could also impel us. Since you say you're from India, I'm surprised you don't know this. Here, in the West, the attitude about astrology tends to be, "here's the situation according to the stars; deal with it." In Vedic astrology (actually it would be more accurate to say Tantric astrology, as the study of jyotish or astrology belongs to the Tantras and is even mentioned in the earliest spiritual book, the Rg Veda, which is very magical and Tantric in nature), there are many "remedies" for astrological "problems," ranging from working with yantras and mantras to the popular wearing of prescribed stones based on the navagraha system.

So if there are all of these remedies available for changing our lives, why not also harness the power of the mind?

Remember, the stars are not what is called "fate." They do not indicate what "must" happen. They indicate the challenges you are faced with due to your personal Sanchita Karma. Thus, the natal horoscope indicates not what is fated to happen, but the challenges which, if overcome, will get rid of karma leading to enlightenment and the ability to get off the wheel of samskara--if that is your goal.

[pawan]

Thanks for replying

But the answer is not clear to me,means I am not getting the moral of the answer.

As you said it depends on our karmas, but still if it depends on our karmas then how can we cure the things with hypnosis ,we have to do anti-karmas to get rid of our bad karmas not a hypnotic session.


And yes there are remedies in our vedas but still they are not as fast as hypnosis and they dont provide the solutions for many of the things for which hypnosis says that there is a solution.

If stars dont say what is going to be happened then how any person can be able to predict about the future?

our vedas generally say about the acceptance of life what is given to us,but hypnosis gives solution for them.

so pls if u can kindly make me clear what u were trying to say.

Thanks.:confused:

[Don]

Thanks for replying

But the answer is not clear to me,means I am not getting the moral of the answer.

As you said it depends on our karmas, but still if it depends on our karmas then how can we cure the things with hypnosis ,we have to do anti-karmas to get rid of our bad karmas not a hypnotic session.

Most people in the West think of karma as being a system of rewards and punishments based on our thoughts and deeds. In actuality, karma is only based on deeds/actions and not our thoughts at all. The purpose of karma is not rewards/punishments, but education. This leads the knowledge of what actions lead to enlightenment and what actions lead away from enlightenment.

According to the traditional understanding of karma, merely discharging past karma (through yantra, mantra, etc.) really isn't very valuable unless you get to the cause of the accumulation of that karma. Otherwise, you'll just start building up unwanted karma based on repetition of the same (or same type) of actions that got you into this situation in the first place.

Therefore, the true purpose of karma in knowledge: vidya. And traditionally, vidya removes karma.

The implication of vidya (knowledge), however, is not just information. Rather, it is the understanding of that information. That understanding is indicated by the cessation of actions that would result in unwanted karma.

I would hope that you are understanding what I am writing based on concepts common to Sanatana Dharma, what is commonly called "Hinduism."

However, to bring it back to hypnotherapy—People who know more about dieting than any other group are people who are overweight. They have read about every diet under and over the sun. The problem they are having is not the knowledge of how to normalize their weight. Rather, it is putting that knowledge into action. With hypnotherapy, a person is more easily able to actualize the concepts of weight normalization. Similarly, with properly applied hypnosis and suggestions, a person can get an intuitive understanding of how avoid actions that lead to unwanted karma and put that understanding into action.

If stars dont say what is going to be happened then how any person can be able to predict about the future?

The same way stock market analysts, weather forecasters, sport(s) analysts, etc. can predict the future. They look at all of the information available and come to a conclusion. An astrologer bases his or her predictions on using the information they gain from the positions of the planets against the stars. Just as the best stock market analysts, weather forecasters, sport(s) analysts, etc. are somewhat reliable, so, too, are the best astrologers somewhat reliable. As their expertise (including their ability to interpret the information they obtain) decreases, their success ratio decreases.

Yantra, mantra, and other remedies can take some time to achieve their desired effects. However, in some instances they can achieve their goals quickly. Similarly, a trained and experienced hypnotherapist is more likely to help a person achieve his/her goals quickly while a hypnotherapist without training or experience may not be so successful.

our vedas generally say about the acceptance of life what is given to us,but hypnosis gives solution for them.

Which is why I'm not a follower of the Vedas. ;D

The Mahanirvana Tantra, in discussion of time (especially the vast ages known as yugas) clearly states that the current age, the Kali Yuga is one in which the Vedas are no longer effective and it is the Tantras that will lead to enlightenment. :eek:

Unfortunately, most Westerners think that Tantra is only about sex and even most people in India think that Tantra is either about sex or "black magic." :cry:

[TTDEEB]

Most people in the West think of karma as being a system of rewards and punishments based on our thoughts and deeds. In actuality, karma is only based on deeds/actions and not our thoughts at all. The purpose of karma is not rewards/punishments, but education. This leads the knowledge of what actions lead to enlightenment and what actions lead away from enlightenment.

No, karma means cause and effect. This includes the "laws of causalities" in the actions of bodies as well as in the actions of minds.

Therefore, the true purpose of karma in knowledge: vidya. And traditionally, vidya removes karma.

The implication of vidya (knowledge), however, is not just information. Rather, it is the understanding of that information. That understanding is indicated by the cessation of actions that would result in unwanted karma.

Yes, I agree.

Cool post Don. Nice information.

[Don]

Respectfully, TTDEEB, traditional concepts of karma have nothing to do with the actions of mind, only with physical actions. The idea of karma being associated with actions of the mind leads to the concept that if I harm someone but either didn't mean to or did so "for the greater good," it would ameliorate the effects of my physical action. Thus, harming you to stop you from harming others would result in less negative karma (or no negative karma or even positive karma) for me. This is entirely foreign to traditional concepts of karma and, in fact, is a Westernized interpretation of karma.

If you wish to follow that belief, that is fine. However, it is not traditional karma.

[TTDEEB]

I'll have to take your word for it Don. I just don't see why Buddha would exclude mental events from the law of karma, especially since Right View and Right Intention are the first two steps of the Eightfold Path.

[skip]

Could it be because they tend to lead to 'RIGHT' ACTION?

[TTDEEB]

Could it be because they tend to lead to 'RIGHT' ACTION?

Well that is obvious. :)

But that doesn't answer as to why the Buddha would still exclude the law of cause and effect to only physical and not mental events.

Found my answer on Wikipedia, apparently karma is not the entire set of laws of causality:

Other causal categories [in Buddhism]


As karma is not the only causal law, the commentarial tradition classifed causal mechanisms taught in the early texts in five categories, known as Niyama Dhammas:[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Buddhism#cite_note-7)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Buddhism#cite_note-8)


Kamma Niyama — Consequences of one's actions
Utu Niyama — Seasonal changes and climate
Biija Niyama — Laws of heredity
Citta Niyama — Will of mind
Dhamma Niyama — Nature's tendency to produce a perfect type




Although apparently other definitions of karma (such as in Hinduism) are considered the entire set of causality, more from the infamous Wikipedia:

Karma means "deed" or "act" and more broadly names the universal principle of cause and effect, action and reaction that governs all life

According to Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda, we produce Karma in four ways:

* through thoughts
* through words
* through actions that we perform ourselves
* through actions others do under our instructions

[Don]

The concept of karma existed long before Buddhism evolved.

There are 4 kinds of karma. They are:

Sanchita Karma: This is what most people think of as being karma because it is the name given to the karma that you have accumulated from all of your actions during past lives (The very notion of karma is based on concepts that evolved during the pre-Hindu, proto-Tantric era known as the Harrapan Culture. These people believed in reincarnation as a fact, not as a metaphor.)

Prarabdha Karma: Although given a separate name, parabdha karma is actually that part of your sanchita karma you are working on during your current life. Your karmic "goal" in this life is to perform actions that help you overcome past actions (balancing out the karma) and thus educate you so you will not perform the negative actions again.

Agami Karma: Simply put, this is the karma that is "earned" during your current life and applied to future lives because you are unaware of the karmic impact of what you are doing. In a sense, then, it part of your the sanchita karma of the future.

Kriyamana Karma: This is what has been called "instant karma." It is the immediate (or very rapid) working off of karma created in this life. Speed in your car, get a ticket: Instant karma.

The word "karma" means action, act, or deed. It has nothing to do with thought, save that some form of thought comes before a deed. Following the concept that karma has anything directly to do with the thought rather than the deed yields difficult problems:

If you think about adultery you are as guilty of adultery as someone who actually commits the act of adultery. If you see money hanging out of a woman's purse and think of how easy it would be to take it and use it you are a guilty as someone who actually takes the money. If you kill 100 people and then feel truly sorry about it you are as innocent as a person who never killed. If you kill 1,000 people because you think it will save 1,000,000 people, but then discover you killings saved nobody, you are blameless for your killings because you thought it would save lives.

I realize it upsets many people to learn that according to traditional karma your actions are not ameliorated by your thoughts. This is especially true of some Christians who look for universality in spirituality and assume that concepts such as "lusting in the heart" are the same as acting on that emotion must permeate all other spiritual traditions. It's just not so.

Of course, you're free to believe what you will. My only objection is to make a claim that the modified version of karma that you are presenting is the traditional view of karma. It is not.



What does Wikipedia think of Wikipedia?

It is never a good idea to use Wikipedia as a source. Recently, at a training given by the owner of this forum, Matt talked about how he received his doctorate and how one of his professors ripped a student who used Wikipedia because it is a horrible resource. It's good to start at, but never to finish.

However, that's third-hand information. Let's look at what Wikipedia thinks of their own validity. Don't take my word for it: check out the URLs for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer

...Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information...

...Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields.

...all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever. Even articles that have been vetted by informal peer review or featured article processes may later have been edited inappropriately, just before you view them.

None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer
...Wikipedia is a work in progress, and many articles contain errors, bias, [or] duplication...The great majority of articles are written primarily or solely by individuals who are not subject matter experts, and may lack academic or professional credentials in the area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer

USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK
PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING, DANGEROUS, ADDICTIVE, UNETHICAL OR ILLEGAL.

DO NOT RELY UPON ANY INFORMATION FOUND IN WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION.

[TTDEEB]

Interesting, thanks - in what philosophy did this "traditional" concept of karma emerge?

[Don]

The difficulty in answering that question is two-fold.

First, the translation of the language of the Harrapan culture is not agreed upon. I have seen at least two different claims as to what some of the words mean. Since we don't know exactly what they said, we have to go to secondary sources.

The second difficulty is a religious attitude rather than an historic attitude among many historians of the Indian subcontinent. Rather than looking at the evidence and determining history from the evidence, many authorities have a preconceived attitude--specifically, everything came from the Vedas and the Vedas are the source of Hinduism--and thus everything has to come from that viewpoint.

So if it clear that there is something that came before the Vedas and before Hinduism, this is denied. This is curious since the deities found in much of the Vedas, such as Indra, have few temples dedicated to them, while the deities found among the Tantrics--Shiva, Kali, Durga, Ganesh, etc.--are found everywhere.

Many Vedic Hindus believe that the Tantra where an outgrowth of Hinduism much in the way that Buddhism grew out of Hinduism. However history indicates just the opposite, that the many traditions of what is commonly called Hinduism (more appropriately Sanatana Dharma), came out of Tantra or the sources of Tantra.

Here in the West, most people who have heard of Tantra think of it as "that sex stuff." The more enlightened think of it as "spiritualized sexuality." Even in India, many people think of Tantra as being "sex stuff and black magic." In actuality, Tantra is an ancient spiritual system, complete with theologies, philosophies, and science, much of which has become adopted into other cultures. Concepts such as astrology/astronomy, acupuncture, martial arts, feng shui, the chakras, kundalini, the spiritual bodies, reincarnation, etc., all began with the ancient Tantrics. This is not to say that other cultures may not have further developed these concepts or independently came up with them, but it is possible to trace acupuncture back to India before there was Hinduism.

Unfortunately, we don't yet have first hand information on what the ancient Proto-Tantrics of the Harrapan culture actually did, we only have second hand information. Specifically, the oldest spiritual book from India, the Rg Veda.

Although most scholars date the Rg Veda (or Rig Veda) to around 1500 b.c.e. or more recently, I have to challenge that. That date was suggested by Max Mueller, a linguist who believed in Rev. Ussher's statement that the world was only about 6,000 years old. Other scholars suggest that 4,000-5,000 b.c.e. would be more appropriate for this book. Internal information in the book includes astronomical descriptions that only with modern computers have we been able to put at 8,000 b.c.e., so either that description was an amazing coincidence, people were able to do math with paper that is impossible today, they somehow managed to remember those positions of the planets and stars for some 3,000-5,000 years(!), or the Rig Veda should actually be dated much earlier.

As stated, the Rg Veda is far more associated with the concepts of the Proto-Tantrics than the later Vedics who adopted some of the beliefs of the Proto-Tantrics after the fall of the Harrapan culture. So what does this ancient book tell us about karma and about the Proto-Tantric's ideas of karma? Here are some quotes:

"One should, perform karma with nonchalance without expecting the benefits because sooner or later one shall definitely gets the fruits." [You don't "perform" thoughts, you perform acts. Here, it is stating that you should perform what you do naturally and not because you intend (i.e. have a thought about) gaining benefit from doing things that should give positive karma. The word in Sanskrit for following a natural path is sahaja, and following such a path is intrinsic to many Tantric paths.]

"People accept only that person as their leader who is radiant with good knowledge and karma." [Knowledge has to do with the mind. Karma has to do with deeds or actions. Here the Rg Veda is talking about leaders who should ideally be glowing with positive thoughts and positive deeds. Note that they are considered separate.]

"A person who performs good Karma is always held in high esteem." [It would be difficult to "perform" thoughts. Besides, why should we hold in high esteem someone who does horrible things but has good thoughts?]

"The real happiness of life is in doing karma." [Once again, you do actions and think thoughts. Traditional karma is about doing, not thinking.]

"Why shall he perform bad Karma who has been properly nurtured for many a thousand months and years?" As a result of learning from the results of karma through many lifetimes, you will no longer "perform" actions that result in "bad karma" because doing such actions is no longer a part of that person's consciousness.]

I hope this answers your question.

[skip]

Quote:
Originally Posted by skip
Could it be because they tend to lead to 'RIGHT' ACTION?

"Well that is obvious.

But that doesn't answer as to why the Buddha would still exclude the law of cause and effect to only physical and not mental events."

You asked the question, and I offered an answer that seemed plausible.

Now you say it is obvious but still doesnt explain Budda's mind.

Im not sure how you know that.

Could it be that you are making things too complicated?

skip

[TTDEEB]

Skip, we were talking about karma as defined as the "entire cycle of cause and effect."

Your observation that Right View and Right Intention may lead to Right Action doesn't clarify anything as to what "karma" actually means; nor does it answer as to why "karma" would or would not include the laws of causality of mental events and not just physical ones (as taught by Buddha or anyone else).

Nothing complicated about it.

[skip]

Ah I see you dont understand my anwer.

skip

[Docresults]

Don,

Thanks for the solid information.

The mind and beliefs are fascinating creations are they not.

It is interesting to watch Master Teachers (i.e. teachings) seemingly be at odds with each other, at least in what they teach.

I am toying with the idea (I'm sensing internally) of approaching a few publishers to see if they might be interested in something along the lines of... working title at present: "The Forgotten Fundamentals of Life, Play the Game without Limits".

After reading your post I may wind up quoting you as a published expert.

The longer I live the more I am fascinated by what we have come up with to explain how and what we create.

To Your Best,
Doc Houston

[Don]

Doc, even though we haven't always agreed, I do recognize and acknowledge your skill, expertise, and knowledge.

Therefore, if I can help you with your book in any way, please let me know.