[astrology by natural selection or hard work?] was Vineet ji...

[Guest guest]

Dear Balaji,

 

If this was indeed the case and 80% was Destined, deity-chosen etc.,

then there would not be any need for the dire warnings sounded by

the classical teachers, who in their tomes which are often touted

and presented by debating jyotishis as the ultimate reference (!)

indicated that jyotish must not be taught to many, indiscriminately

or without some control. Because what this would apply to is just

the 10%. That would not be cause for concern.

 

If the Sages were right and jyotish should not be shared willy-

nilly, then what you call 'science' and what I feel comfortable

calling the rules, the grammer of this intriguing language of

astrology has got to be more than 10% in contribution and impact!

Does that make sense?

 

When percentages are bandied about as if they came from an actual

empirical study, and supposed to give some degree of credibility, I

must speak up. Just as I spoke up when a famous contemporary

teacher, great astrologer (undoubtedly) stated that the best

jyotishis can be 82% correct without giving proof for that 2%

precision, let alone the reamining 80! Do you read me?

 

Why must we make such claims using indicators of precision and

observations, which percentages obviously imply? And, why we must

continue to call "opinions", 'humble'?

 

Arrogantly yours,

 

RR

, Balaji Narasimhan

<sherlockbalaji> wrote:

> Vineet ji,

>

> Astrology is an inexact science--in my humble opinion, it is 10%

> science, 10% art, and 80% the grace of God. Two astrologers,

> like two watches and two doctors, will not agree! Also, the

> difference between the actual chart and the chart shown to the

> Boy's side could also be responsible.

> SNIP<