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

[Guest guest]

Other than the tongue in cheek (duh!) sign-off, I don't see anything

there that can be mistaken as rude! Not even challenging, just a

caution that sometimes numbers and percentages which are often used

in astrology circles mean nothing because they are pulled from thin

air, at worst and from a fuzzy anecdotal memory bank at best.

 

Why is there this fetish amongst people who feel forced to give such

specific numbers? Do they believe this improves the credibility of

what they want to say? Perhaps, quite the contrary!

 

RR

 

 

, "clarity2020" <rrgb@s...>

wrote:

> 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<