# Astrology – technology of ancient science – Part 2

As I have written in the first part 1, astrology should have been an application of the science described in these Sanskrit literatures. Given that these literatures describes how manifestation occurs from that truth, creating a map of the individual paths of observables using this described science is equivalent to predicting the future(what we call future) which is astrology. If, these maps created can be appropriately transformed to show how this reality will progress and its progress matches the predicted path, then it also acts as a proof of the science. Scientific proof of a concept in modern science is given using controlled experiments where the concept is reduced down to some representative part of the whole. Given the variance we find in nature, such proofs are accompanied by a lot of assumptions, guidance and conditions for operation. The best proof is to work with all the variance of this reality as a whole system, which is what astrology must have been all about. We need to look at “this around us” as a system that changes and architects itself based on a logic that adapts itself as more information is available. If this architecture and logic can be abstracted and understood, then the course of the information can be mapped. If I knew the logic of an application, based on which it is working, then based on the inputs that are going into the application, I can trace the path of information, within the application. Astrology is similar to that, only I, am also a part of the application rather than external to it. Hence, I need to map taking into account myself as an observer.

There are a few things that need to be remembered when starting to map out the paths. As I have pointed out in the book “A Research of Shiva: The Enigma“, reality works with infinite recursions and equilibrium, where an abstract concept can be infinitely repeated on similar inputs and when these accumulate to some comfortable form an equilibrium is attained and retained steadily till an in-equilibrium is created, it then moves towards another equilibrium and the cycle continues. This allows for the creation of an analogous continuity and hence can easily switch between infinite and finite and vice-versa. For example if we look at space, we can take a finite piece of space and split it into smaller and smaller pieces infinitely, yet when we talk about matter occupying space we are talking of a finite space. Thus an infinite space has become finite because of limitation and finite space has become infinite because of splitting. A similar concept will be observed in just about any thing in reality.

The next to be remembered is similar but related to randomness. Everything in nature is random, yet random becomes ordered and ordered becomes random just as easily. This is due to the quality of observation. Observe a pattern in a random chaos, random becomes ordered, remove the observation and it becomes random again. While quantum science (e.g., Schrodinger’s cat) looks at this concept as “all possibilities exist until an observer is present”, ancient science looks at it is more an appropriate form which is “nothing exists, just the potential to exist, is present until an observer is present”. Why is this more appropriate is because the potential to be anything is infinite possibilities, when we are looking at an analogous system. Nature does not have finite possibilities as Schrodinger’s cat. For example, if I pick a plain piece of paper, it is possible to paint any picture on it, hence “no painting exists on a blank paper until something is painted” is an appropriate description as opposed to “all infinite painting possibilities exists on a blank paper until something is painted”. Thus, we view it as, there exists a base which is similar to the plain paper and observation causes randomness to fall into a particular order based on the observer.

The abstract concept that repeats to form this reality around us can be summed up as: There exists an immovable base with certain nature that varies in concentration, on this immovable base an ordered pattern of change can be observed (by the pattern itself) by limiting its range of observation hence triggering a movement of the pattern across the immovable base and acquiring a path. Many such paths come together in a network to form the next layer of immovable base on which the same concept of an ordered pattern of change being recognised to form paths, repeats to create individuals and so on infinite recursion occurs till an equilibrium is got. To note here is that while we talk about a path that is traversed by a pattern and an apex to that path, the path itself is not recognised by just the apex, but consists of the whole route from the origin to the apex. Thus, movement is not a motion of an object as we see, where it continuously disappears at one location and reappears at the next, but movement is just an extension of the path, the whole path existing as it extends. This extension when projected on just the space dimension appears as if there is growth with an apex at the current frame of space in the time that we define. Hence, as we see we cannot define a clear cut frame of space in time. There is no line that can be drawn between the previous instant and the current instant, it just extends into the current instant from the previous instant and space has changed.

As an example, if we look at a planet revolving around the sun, a projection of what exists in the pure space dimension is what we see as an elliptical orbit of a planet. But, if we add to this the dimension of change, earth’s path should really have been similar to a spinning, wobbling top whose height (distance from the start point to the current point) rises as it turns and the width of the elliptical path grows so its wobble increases in girth. This should appear as increasing elliptical path of the orbit as if the earth is moving away from the sun. It should also be remembered that the Sun itself is following a similar path with respect to its own centre of axis from which it should have started. A path similar to the below:

So, just measuring the distance of the earth from the Sun is no indication of what is actually existing. In fact any sort of measurement with respect to an “external reference” to this system cannot be used to understand what actually exists as the actual path of the planet or earth or Sun. Meaning, we cannot mark a single point in space, trace the path of earth around the Sun and claim that after a year, earth has returned to the same marked point from which we started measuring the year. There exists no stable points of references that can be used to show this claim. Even if we do pick up other stars and mark the position of earth w.r.t to three stars and re-compute the references after a year, we have no way to know whether the stars themselves have not changed and what their change is w.r.t earth. This is like have two tops spinning and wobbling at different speeds next to each other. The start position of the wobble of one top cannot be marked with the position of the other top as a reference. To do this, we need to know the speed of spin and wobble of the other top and compute the distance it has moved from the reference point.

What is needed are referential points within itself. Theoretically, if we are talking about an rising elliptical path, what is needed is a measurement of the shift in the two focal points of the elliptical orbit between multiple full orbits of the same planet to arrive at the angle of increase of spiral from its axis and the rise in the orbit which is a measure of the length of gap between the different spirals before the axis can be computed. Once this is computed, the spiral can be projected backward and forward to understand the path taken. This is assuming that it is a linearly increasing conical spiral. A logarithmically increasing conical spiral will need us to measure even the distance in gaps or the rise of orbit at multiple points to know this. But, then again, we need to understand that this computation is considering that it exists on an immovable base. If, the base is also moving, then we need to consider the movement of the base also along with computation. This is similar to having a spinning wobbling top on a moving surface say such as a “moving walkway” which is moving, hence the top has a spin, a wobble and a horizontal linear movement.

On a high level, creating a map of an existence of any path can be split into the following:

- Mapping the series of becomes i.e., changes that have already occurred and is stored,
- Identifying the where apex of the path is current present,
- Understanding the currents that drive the apex of the path
- Mapping out the further traversal of the series of changes till the path fades away.

To do this, what is required is an abstract understanding of the logic involved in movement of paths in reality around us and the origin of this path. The major question that arises here is “Can the logic that drives any path of existence be abstracted to a common algorithm, that can then be applied to map the path”? So, in the above we see that planets take a spiral, spinning, wobbling path of projected change when the property measured is the distance and direction. The question then is “what is that property of any existence when measured will have similar paths, which we can observe to know their paths of existence?”

If we can do it, then we can project the path and know the future of the being represented by that path of existence.

Read more on this topic in my upcoming book

Pingback: Exploring science in ancient scriptures | Research of Ancient Philosophy

Pingback: Astrology: Data-Accumulation systems vs Logic-based systems | Research of Ancient Philosophy