Does astrology matter to you?

[Astus]

No, I just find it ironic that astrology gets questioned as fictitious in the same thread where the wholly fictitious entity called "an individual person" is used as some sort of substantial basis.

Dependent origination is how the world works. To say that emptiness equals nothingness, that is, the disappearance of everything, is an annihilationist approach. Interdependence is emptiness and there is no emptiness outside of phenomena. A person is a mistaken idea as long as one doesn't understand that it is actually the functioning of the five aggregates, and the aggregates are mistaken as long as they are viewed as independent entities. The law of causality is dependent origination and it is the clear proof that all appearances are without an inherent nature. To say that there is no causality either as the function of things is to say that by eliminating all appearances one gains liberation, and not by realisation of emptiness.

[PadmaVonSamba]

No, of course phenomena is not actually experienced as having substantial, inherent reality. It is imagined to have substantial, inherent reality.

What I mean is, reading these words on your computer screen is perceived as an experience.
The human realm is what we experience, whether imagined or not.
imagining this experience as intrinsically real is what established the context
for everything else, including astrology.
Imagining that where the stars and planets were on the day you were born impacts you
is the same as dreaming that you have been hit by a meteor.
A dream is experience. We experience dreams
even though experience may be nothing more than
mind imputing various qualities upon phenomena
and then believing that those qualities
are intrinsically real.

.
.
.

[Karma Dorje]

No, I just find it ironic that astrology gets questioned as fictitious in the same thread where the wholly fictitious entity called "an individual person" is used as some sort of substantial basis.

Dependent origination is how the world works. To say that emptiness equals nothingness, that is, the disappearance of everything, is an annihilationist approach. Interdependence is emptiness and there is no emptiness outside of phenomena. A person is a mistaken idea as long as one doesn't understand that it is actually the functioning of the five aggregates, and the aggregates are mistaken as long as they are viewed as independent entities. The law of causality is dependent origination and it is the clear proof that all appearances are without an inherent nature. To say that there is no causality either as the function of things is to say that by eliminating all appearances one gains liberation, and not by realisation of emptiness.

Where have I said that emptiness equals nothingness or that there is no causality? How could one stop appearance even if one wanted to? Individual persons never have existed. What is mistaken for individual loci are merely obsessive thoughts and cognitive patterns based on them. Never came into existence in the first place.

[Karma Dorje]

No, of course phenomena is not actually experienced as having substantial, inherent reality. It is imagined to have substantial, inherent reality.

What I mean is, reading these words on your computer screen is perceived as an experience.
The human realm is what we experience, whether imagined or not.
imagining this experience as intrinsically real is what established the context
for everything else, including astrology.
Imagining that where the stars and planets were on the day you were born impacts you
is the same as dreaming that you have been hit by a meteor.
A dream is experience. We experience dreams
even though experience may be nothing more than
mind imputing various qualities upon phenomena
and then believing that those qualities
are intrinsically real.

That's a perfect example of how embedded imagination is in experience. Perhaps the sheer moment of perception prior to interpretation is experience, but once one begins to translate marks and symbols into semantic content, one is quite obviously abstracted from experience. The human realm is what we may experience if we are habituated to imagine it as such. Remove the habituation, one may experience it as a buddhafield.

Astrology doesn't depend on intrinsic reality, merely certain regular patterns much like any other model. One doesn't have to reject scientific method simply because we say the world is illusory. There is regularity and the models of science are useful for dealing with gross phenomena. Similarly, one doesn't have to reject astrology simply because we say the world is illusory. Astrology is useful for those that practice it for dealing with subtle phenomena. And there is a world of difference between horrorscopes in a news paper, and the precision of jyotish and Kalachakra astrology.

Dreams are certainly not mind imputing qualities upon phenomena. Dreams are entirely imagined (which does not mean non-existent). That's quite obvious, isn't it?

[Astus]

My response is based on another of your replies here where you explain your original point regarding the illusoriness of a person.

Neither is a person. Neither is a cause nor a condition. In fact, no tangible "thing" can be found at all. Treating persons as if they are anything more than a designation and that there is some sort of fixed line between them is incoherent. I agree with your points that a being will experience the results of the causes they have accumulated. However, those causes require particular secondary conditions to manifest, and it is to these conditions that dedication of merit and the four magical activities are directed.

Saying that there are no actual persons and then equating it with magical influence to me does not add up, unless you deny causality and say that anything works.

[Karma Dorje]

My response is based on another of your replies here where you explain your original point regarding the illusoriness of a person.

Neither is a person. Neither is a cause nor a condition. In fact, no tangible "thing" can be found at all. Treating persons as if they are anything more than a designation and that there is some sort of fixed line between them is incoherent. I agree with your points that a being will experience the results of the causes they have accumulated. However, those causes require particular secondary conditions to manifest, and it is to these conditions that dedication of merit and the four magical activities are directed.

Saying that there are no actual persons and then equating it with magical influence to me does not add up, unless you deny causality and say that anything works.

Are you saying that there are actual persons? You do not agree that imagining that there are persons (viz. discrete entities) in the first place is simply delusion?

I haven't said a thing about magical influence. I have only discussed astrology.

[Astus]

Are you saying that there are actual persons? You do not agree that imagining that there are persons (viz. discrete entities) in the first place is simply delusion?

I haven't said a thing about magical influence. I have only discussed astrology.

There is a distinct stream of causal factors, the series of the aggregates, that can be simply called a person. One continuum cannot be confused by another.

Astrology is the magical influence of constellations on people.

[Karma Dorje]

Are you saying that there are actual persons? You do not agree that imagining that there are persons (viz. discrete entities) in the first place is simply delusion?

I haven't said a thing about magical influence. I have only discussed astrology.

There is a distinct stream of causal factors, the series of the aggregates, that can be simply called a person. One continuum cannot be confused by another.

Astrology is the magical influence of constellations on people.

Please tell me how you distinguish one stream of causal factors from another. Where is the boundary that makes each distinct?

Astrology is most certainly not the magical influence of constellations on people. No jyotish has ever said it is. Rather one can take the seemingly external mandala of the time of birth as an indication of the karmic continuum of the seeming individual. Constellations are a signpost, not a causal factor.

[Astus]

Please tell me how you distinguish one stream of causal factors from another. Where is the boundary that makes each distinct?

Astrology is most certainly not the magical influence of constellations on people. No jyotish has ever said it is. Rather one can take the seemingly external mandala of the time of birth as an indication of the karmic continuum of the seeming individual. Constellations are a signpost, not a causal factor.

From one apple seed one apple tree grows, and not another one nor a pear tree or a dolphin. That is, it is a distinct causal continuum. What I do, say and think comes from my mind and leaves impression on my mind. Mixing the continuum would mean that what I think is what you remember, etc.

What causes the stars to reflect a person's karmic seeds? What makes one set of stars more important than others?

[Karma Dorje]

Please tell me how you distinguish one stream of causal factors from another. Where is the boundary that makes each distinct?

Astrology is most certainly not the magical influence of constellations on people. No jyotish has ever said it is. Rather one can take the seemingly external mandala of the time of birth as an indication of the karmic continuum of the seeming individual. Constellations are a signpost, not a causal factor.

From one apple seed one apple tree grows, and not another one nor a pear tree or a dolphin. That is, it is a distinct causal continuum. What I do, say and think comes from my mind and leaves impression on my mind. Mixing the continuum would mean that what I think is what you remember, etc.

What causes the stars to reflect a person's karmic seeds? What makes one set of stars more important than others?

All you are saying is that certain causes produce certain results. They do so in dependence on an infinite number of contributing conditions. There is no need to imagine that each seed has a separate continuum. If I throw a brick in the air, I don't have to posit that it falls to earth in its own causal continuum. You are habituated to identifying with a certain vortex of accumulating causes and conditions. It is your attachment to these causes and conditions that give rise to your opinion that it is completely distinct and nothing else.

We see time and again throughout the Buddhist teachings where Buddha and his followers like Maudgalyayana are able to read the minds of others. How do you propose this is possible if everything is distinct?

The stars don't reflect anything. The constellations merely indicate the gestalt at the time of birth, and no star is any more important than any other (aside from the Sun, for obvious reasons).

[Astus]

We see time and again throughout the Buddhist teachings where Buddha and his followers like Maudgalyayana are able to read the minds of others. How do you propose this is possible if everything is distinct?

The stars don't reflect anything. The constellations merely indicate the gestalt at the time of birth, and no star is any more important than any other (aside from the Sun, for obvious reasons).

Mind reading is only one of the many magical elements of stories, an embellishment for entertainment. If the Buddha could have read others' minds then for instance the monks who got themselves killed would not have received instruction on corpse meditation. Also, one mind connecting directly to another mind would allow the possibility of telepathy and thus transferring enlightenment without saying a word, or the whole system would have to collapse into a single consciousness.

What is indicating the gestalt?

[PadmaVonSamba]

Dreams are certainly not mind imputing qualities upon phenomena. Dreams are entirely imagined (which does not mean non-existent). That's quite obvious, isn't it?

The mind imputes a sense of reality to dreams.
When we dream, usually, the dreams seem real.
Likewise, it is the mind which imputes a sense of reality to both astrology itself,
and anything established such as "auspicious days" based on astrology.
If something turns out the way we want them to, it's because of what we want.
not because of where rocks and gasses are--or were, thousands of millions of miles way.
Otherwise, the same divination could be gained by simply scattering potatoes across the floor
and ascribing their random placement as meaningful.
Any meaning would be imputed. The potatoes have nothing to do with it.
There is no evidence to support astrology.
I think it is, after deism, the greatest form of self-flattery.
.
.
.

[Karma Dorje]

Mind reading is only one of the many magical elements of stories, an embellishment for entertainment. If the Buddha could have read others' minds then for instance the monks who got themselves killed would not have received instruction on corpse meditation. Also, one mind connecting directly to another mind would allow the possibility of telepathy and thus transferring enlightenment without saying a word, or the whole system would have to collapse into a single consciousness.

So all of the common siddhis are all just more made up stuff? Well, if you are just going to dismiss anything in the teachings that doesn't accord with your current worldview and you think that conventional reality is actual, there's not much chance of common ground for us in this discussion.

[Karma Dorje]

Dreams are certainly not mind imputing qualities upon phenomena. Dreams are entirely imagined (which does not mean non-existent). That's quite obvious, isn't it?

The mind imputes a sense of reality to dreams.
When we dream, usually, the dreams seem real.
Likewise, it is the mind which imputes a sense of reality to both astrology itself,
and anything established such as "auspicious days" based on astrology.
If something turns out the way we want them to, it's because of what we want.
not because of where rocks and gasses are--or were, thousands of millions of miles way.
Otherwise, the same divination could be gained by simply scattering potatoes across the floor
and ascribing their random placement as meaningful.
Any meaning would be imputed. The potatoes have nothing to do with it.
There is no evidence to support astrology.
I think it is, after deism, the greatest form of self-flattery.
.
.
.

Likewise it is the mind which imputes a sense of reality to reason, to empiricism, to anything else.

The point is not where rocks and gasses are, light years away. What matters is where one *is*, and that is determined in relation to reference points. Constellations are reference points not causal agents. All you have demonstrated is that you are unacquainted with the underlying principles of the system you presume to critique. If you are truly concerned with reducing self-flattery, you might want to add dismissing things you don't understand without proper investigation to the list. I am sure you can quite happily practice Buddhism without learning astrology. However, dismissing out of hand practices that other sincere and intelligent buddhists make use of as self-flattery is a little beyond the pale.

[PadmaVonSamba]

If you are truly concerned with reducing self-flattery, you might want to add dismissing things you don't understand without proper investigation to the list. I am sure you can quite happily practice Buddhism without learning astrology. However, dismissing out of hand practices that other sincere and intelligent buddhists make use of as self-flattery is a little beyond the pale.

Z I N G !
.
.

[PadmaVonSamba]

The point is not where rocks and gasses are, light years away. What matters is where one *is*

Yes. Exactly what I am saying. Thank you.

.
.
.

[Ramon1920]

Conventionally it matters a little, because it sets the calendar for some things. But otherwise, no; my life is largely the same day in and day out, I'm not an event planner, I don't try to divine things. I am skeptical of astrology, but it's not like I've put any effort into investigating it's validity.

[Astus]

So all of the common siddhis are all just more made up stuff? Well, if you are just going to dismiss anything in the teachings that doesn't accord with your current worldview and you think that conventional reality is actual, there's not much chance of common ground for us in this discussion.

Here is my view about it: Buddhist Magic.

[Indrajala]

Mind reading is only one of the many magical elements of stories, an embellishment for entertainment.

That's a pretty bold statement.

You're basically saying that plenty of adepts, many living today, who have spent their life practising and who some believe actually do read minds to some extent, are just superstitious believing in such embellished entertainment.

[Astus]

That's a pretty bold statement.

You're basically saying that plenty of adepts, many living today, who have spent their life practising and who some believe actually do read minds to some extent, are just superstitious believing in such embellished entertainment.

Basically, yes, although I wouldn't say it's purely superstition. You might be interested in this one, from Ven. Analayo: The Buddha and Omniscience (PDF).