Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

is it true?

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Dear Charles,

you have asked, (1)If there is a situation where

your belief fails,would you still argue that it is 100% true?

(2)are you willing to accept that your views might be wrong and

that you could be in fact deluding yourself?

MY ANSWER--If I thought my belief was 100% true,I would not ask

"IS IT TRUE?".----I remembered reading this thing long back and

decided to ask list members for their

opinion.What is wrong with that?----VIVEK.

 

On Thu, 16 May 2002 Charles Patirana wrote :

>Dear Vivek,

>

>Whether Jyotish is an empirical science or not is a moot point.

>My drift

>though, is a concern about polluting the field with false views

>by their

>acceptance on mere faith.

>

>You claimed in your initial post that you had learned that the

>moon sign at

>birth is the lagna at conception. Throughout the subsequent posts

>by

>yourself and other list-members, it became more than evident that

>you wanted

>some degree of affirmation in your views. However, just because

>the majority

>agrees or disagrees with a viewpoint does not make it correct.

>This

>incidentally, is the principal failing of many theistic faiths.

>There's a

>famous anecdote involving Albert Einstein and the Nazi regime

>that

>illustrates this as well. Since Einstein was Jewish, his views on

>relativity

>were persecuted by the Nazis. Hitler convened a conference of

>some 100 Nazi

>scientists to disprove Einstein's theory. Einstein shrugged it

>off, and

>responded laughingly that if he were wrong, just one scientist

>would be

>sufficient to disprove his views.

>

>I proposed a logical method to test your belief by means of a

>twin study. If

>there is in fact a situation where your belief fails, would you

>still argue

>that it is 100% true? That's like what Ptolemy did with his

>geocentric view

>of the universe - trying to use ever more complicated systems of

>epicycles

>and so on to account for planetary motion, when in fact he was

>wrong from

>the outset - the planets revolve around the sun - not the

>earth.

>

>Are you willing to accept that your views might be wrong and that

>you could

>be in fact deluding yourself?

>

>Charles

>

>

> >"Vivek " <keviv90

> >gjlist

> >gjlist

> >Re: Re: [GJ] is it true?

> >16 May 2002 07:57:12 -0000

> >

> >DEAR CHARLES---Empirical means ascending process ,where you

>do

> >research,experiment,and form theories backed by experimental

> >proof. Here you require proof first--then you accept.

> >In vedic astrology,the process is descending--that is you have

>to

> >first accept the whole thing with faith without asking for

> >proof.

> >Now,if an empirical scientist were told to learn

>astrology---He

> >would immediately ask--(1)what proof is there that the sun is

>the

> >indicator of soul and moon,mind? (2)why should I accept that

> >certain houses have certain traits? (3)what basis do you have

>for

> >vimshottari dasha? SHOW ME THE PROOF--ONLY THEN CAN I ACCEPT.

> >It is only after learning the whole thing without

>questioning--and

> >then applying it,you realise that it works.THUS ASTROLOGY IS

>NOT

> >AN EMPIRICAL SCIENCE.

> > REGARDS,VIVEK.

> >

> >On Wed, 15 May 2002 Charles Patirana wrote :

> > >Dear Vivek:

> > >

> > >Regarding "proving things" according to your interpretation -

>If

> > >you admit

> > >that Jyotish is not an empirical science where you do

>research

> > >and "prove"

> > >things, what is the point of your whole argument? How can

>you

> > >tell that your

> > >are not deluding yourself with some preconceived notion you

> > >have

> > >assimilated? Here's one I just made up - "I believe a

>person's

> > >sun sign at

> > >conception to be the moon sign at death."

> > >

> > >IMHO, Jyotish is in fact a fairly accurate science with l

> >_______

> >Click below to visit monsterindia.com and review jobs in India

>or

> >Abroad

> >http://monsterindia.rediff.com/jobs

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat

> >:

>gjlist-

> >

> >

> >

> >Your use of is subject to

>

> >

> >

>

>

>_______________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

>http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

>

>

>

>

>Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat

>:

>gjlist-

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

 

_______

Click below to visit monsterindia.com and review jobs in India or

Abroad

http://monsterindia.rediff.com/jobs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Dear Vivek,

 

You have a point. In the case of Jyotish, where there is a lot of

"fuzziness", I suppose that mass concurrence does matter.

I can accept a lot of the axioms Jyotish has to offer. But I must admit that

I, personally, am still a little skeptical about the Moon sign at birth

being the Lagna at conception, just because there are most likely going to

be exceptions to this rule. And how do we explain humans whose Moon signs at

birth differ from the Lagna at conception? Are they at all inferior or

different in any way from the other group? I would be willing to accept your

viewpoint if you could provide me with a satisfactory answer to this.

 

Regards,

Charles

 

 

>"Vivek " <keviv90

>gjlist

>gjlist

>Re: Re: Re: [GJ] is it true?

>17 May 2002 02:39:31 -0000

>

>Dear Charles,

> you have asked, (1)If there is a situation where

>your belief fails,would you still argue that it is 100% true?

>(2)are you willing to accept that your views might be wrong and

>that you could be in fact deluding yourself?

>MY ANSWER--If I thought my belief was 100% true,I would not ask

>"IS IT TRUE?".----I remembered reading this thing long back and

>decided to ask list members for their

> opinion.What is wrong with that?----VIVEK.

>

>On Thu, 16 May 2002 Charles Patirana wrote :

> >Dear Vivek,

> >

> >Whether Jyotish is an empirical science or not is a moot point.

> >My drift

> >though, is a concern about polluting the field with false views

> >by their

> >acceptance on mere faith.

> >

> >You claimed in your initial post that you had learned that the

> >moon sign at

> >birth is the lagna at conception. Throughout the subsequent posts

> >by

> >yourself and other list-members, it became more than evident that

> >you wanted

> >some degree of affirmation in your views. However, just because

> >the majority

> >agrees or disagrees with a viewpoint does not make it correct.

> >This

> >incidentally, is the principal failing of many theistic faiths.

> >There's a

> >famous anecdote involving Albert Einstein and the Nazi regime

> >that

> >illustrates this as well. Since Einstein was Jewish, his views on

> >relativity

> >were persecuted by the Nazis. Hitler convened a conference of

> >some 100 Nazi

> >scientists to disprove Einstein's theory. Einstein shrugged it

> >off, and

> >responded laughingly that if he were wrong, just one scientist

> >would be

> >sufficient to disprove his views.

> >

> >I proposed a logical method to test your belief by means of a

> >twin study. If

> >there is in fact a situation where your belief fails, would you

> >still argue

> >that it is 100% true? That's like what Ptolemy did with his

> >geocentric view

> >of the universe - trying to use ever more complicated systems of

> >epicycles

> >and so on to account for planetary motion, when in fact he was

> >wrong from

> >the outset - the planets revolve around the sun - not the

> >earth.

> >

> >Are you willing to accept that your views might be wrong and that

> >you could

> >be in fact deluding yourself?

> >

> >Charles

> >

> >

> > >"Vivek " <keviv90

> > >gjlist

> > >gjlist

> > >Re: Re: [GJ] is it true?

> > >16 May 2002 07:57:12 -0000

> > >

> > >DEAR CHARLES---Empirical means ascending process ,where you

> >do

> > >research,experiment,and form theories backed by experimental

> > >proof. Here you require proof first--then you accept.

> > >In vedic astrology,the process is descending--that is you have

> >to

> > >first accept the whole thing with faith without asking for

> > >proof.

> > >Now,if an empirical scientist were told to learn

> >astrology---He

> > >would immediately ask--(1)what proof is there that the sun is

> >the

> > >indicator of soul and moon,mind? (2)why should I accept that

> > >certain houses have certain traits? (3)what basis do you have

> >for

> > >vimshottari dasha? SHOW ME THE PROOF--ONLY THEN CAN I ACCEPT.

> > >It is only after learning the whole thing without

> >questioning--and

> > >then applying it,you realise that it works.THUS ASTROLOGY IS

> >NOT

> > >AN EMPIRICAL SCIENCE.

> > > REGARDS,VIVEK.

> > >

> > >On Wed, 15 May 2002 Charles Patirana wrote :

> > > >Dear Vivek:

> > > >

> > > >Regarding "proving things" according to your interpretation -

> >If

> > > >you admit

> > > >that Jyotish is not an empirical science where you do

> >research

> > > >and "prove"

> > > >things, what is the point of your whole argument? How can

> >you

> > > >tell that your

> > > >are not deluding yourself with some preconceived notion you

> > > >have

> > > >assimilated? Here's one I just made up - "I believe a

> >person's

> > > >sun sign at

> > > >conception to be the moon sign at death."

> > > >

> > > >IMHO, Jyotish is in fact a fairly accurate science with l

> > >_______

> > >Click below to visit monsterindia.com and review jobs in India

> >or

> > >Abroad

> > >http://monsterindia.rediff.com/jobs

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat

> > >:

> >gjlist-

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >Your use of is subject to

> >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >_______________

> >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

> >http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat

> >:

> >gjlist-

> >

> >

> >

> >Your use of is subject to

> >

> >

> >

>

>_______

>Click below to visit monsterindia.com and review jobs in India or

>Abroad

>http://monsterindia.rediff.com/jobs

>

>

>

>

>Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat

>: gjlist-

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>

 

 

_______________

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...