Research and tradition - Nicholas is absolutely correct

[Guest guest]

It is probably true that today's "jyotish researchers" are clearly

missing the whole idea. Those who talk about "verification by

practical experience" have a very ad-hoc idea as to how much

verification is enough. For example, take the example of testing of

medicines. How many tests should we conduct to say for sure that a

given medicine is going to work. The answer is: we can never conduct

enough tests. You may conduct the test on a hundred thousand people,

but there is always a chance that it might fail on some particular

instance.

 

So mathematicians/statisticians have the "statistical" concept of

testing, which is the very sophisticated (and perhaps, somewhat

fancy) science of "hypothesis testing" (some people study it under

the name of "design of experiments"). I cannot give details here in a

single email -- but what it essentially does is that it allows us to

calculate the "probability" or the "chance", that the medicine is

going to work based on how many experiments we have conducted, though

it can never tell us for sure whether it is going to work or not. We

then have to set a threshold. For example we may decide if there

is "atleast 90% chance that it is going to work", then the medicine

is acceptable. These are the kinds of criteria that FDA sets when it

approves a drug, or when an engineer tries to verify a new theory.

Virtually all scientific research/verification is based on this

concept.

 

Today's self-styled gurus talk about "verification by practical

experience" without really specifying how much verification is

sufficient -- they just go by their "feeling", I guess.

 

The result is that they end up in no-man's land, neither do they have

the same "divine intuition" like ancient seers to simply know the

truth without verification, nor are they being mathematically correct

about it.

 

We may never know what the truth about Jyotish's origins is, but I

feel it is better to assume it is a "divine" science that does not

lend itself to our perceptions of "research" or "verifications"

or "testing", or "logic" for that matter. So better try to follow

what the ancient master's have expounded (and accept their

statements' validity) -- even if it is hard -- rather than propose

your own new systems.

 

gjlist, "Nicholas" <jyotish108@h...> wrote:

> Dear List Members

>

> Since the arrival of the internet there has been opportunity for

> astrologers in different parts of the world to echange their ideas

on the

> subject of Vedic astrology .

> Here I would like to make a case that research should be something

that aims

> to illuminate the Vedic tradition not something separate from it .

>

> From what I have seen some writers are strongly advocating research

to

> evaluate each component of the Vedic astrology paradigm .By

emphasising

> research over tradition there is a danger that Vedic astrology will

be

> turned into the mess that is Western astrology .Something will be

used

> because it works but what works for one person will be different to

another

> and newcomers will be left with a morass of techniques but no

structure .

> Useful components may be discarded because they are not readily

understood .

>

> Nowhere does Parasara say that BPHS is the product of research but

rather

> that the material is divinely given . It's fairly likely that if

Vedic

> astrology was the product of someone's efforts then someone would

have

> claimed credit for it .

>

> There are many systems of divination : palmistry,forehead

reading ,tea

> leaves ,shell throwing,Chinese astrology , Mahabote , tarot

cards,the I

> ching and so on but the greatest masters have come from Vedic

astrology .

> That alone is a good reason to keep it intact rather than

introducing

> foreign material because "it works" and as a by product upsetting

the

> structure of Vedic astrology .

>

> Ultimately in Vedic thought there is a personality behind the

Vedas .

> Being personal the Veda is inclined to give forth her secrets when

she is

> venerated not when people take an aloof position .The mentality of

taking

> without reciprocation is not karmically sound .

>

> For those who are becoming confused as to what constitutes the

fundamentals

> of Vedic astrology I can recommend the books by B V Raman ,J N

Bhasin ,

> Ramakrishna Batt,Pandit Ojha or K N Rao . Although their methods

may be

> slightly different they represent a homogeneous standard approach

to Vedic

> astrology .

>

> It is commendable to have come to Vedic astrology and overcome the

bogeys of

> nihilism ,skepticism and mechanistic world views that are often

prevalent

> .

>

> Below is an excellent article by Wendy Vacisek which courageously

addresses

> the same issues .The item originally appeared on her list

> jyotishvidya and is reproduced here with permission and

> gratitude .

>

> ~

> Nicholas

>

>

> Dear Members,

>

> There's presently a lot of discussion on JyotishVidya and other

lists

> regarding the Krishnamurti system of astrology. One thing I might

say is

> that the extensional use of sub-lords to all grahas outside their

own dasa

> periods is something, I confess, may have some real practical value

as well

> as being completely in accord with the traditional teachings of the

Rishis;

> This however I'm unable to state with any certainty at the moment.

>

> What puts the whole system down however is the introduction of the

Western

> (placidus) system of house cusps.

>

> I've seen people state that the notion of Vedic astrology as

a "Divine

> Science" must be opposed at every opportunity. They state that Vedic

> astrology will forever be locked in pointless scriptural debates

unless it

> opens itself to external verifiable testing that only logical

experiment can

> provide.

>

> What the writers of such irreverent nonsense fail to realise is

that the

> Kundali is an act of Creation. Not only do the divine planets

(grahas)

> manifest as a new entity (a new creation) at the time of birth, so

too the

> Rasis (signs of the zodiac) manifest as the Bhavas (houses). When

we are

> born it's an act of Creation and, when the sign that's rising above

the

> horizon at the time of birth manifests as the first house, that too

is an

> act of Creation....the Rasi has BECOME the Bhava.

>

> Those who don't get this basic (profound) principle of jyotish and

flirt

> with the Western system of house division are not practising Vedic

astrology

> and they should (if they're honest at all) call it something else!

Jyotish

> (Vedic astrology) originates from the Rig Veda, the oldest of the

four

> Vedas...to say that Jyotish is not a "Divine Science" is to deny the

> divinity of the Vedas.

>

> To do this and still call yourself a Vedic astrologer is the

greatest

> hypocrisy imaginable and I will oppose it for as long as there's a

breath

> left in my body.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Wendy