Dear Rohini ji, Tanvir ji, and others... (slightly edited and cleaned up ver

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr. Inder,

 

"Stars (Planets, astrological indicators) impel, but they never

compel", was often quoted by Late Dr. B.V. Raman. Whether it is

mercury or moon, each human being has the ability to either lose or

retain control of one's composure. These two very voluntary modes of

response have been demonstrated by many different individuals many

times here, there and elsewhere. I must state that I always taken

care of never criticising anyone's techniques or style of analysis

or things like ayanamsha or so on and definitely have never hurled

personal insults at anyone -- my postings will bear evidence of

that. These things are not exact and come from one's efforts and

abilities and like anyone's children these must not be criticized is

what I have believed in and practiced. My students or those who have

chosen me to be a reference or mentor -- because they are learning,

would receive my critique but generally not publicly. HOWEVER, what

I cannot and will not stay on the 'sidelines' silently, as Mr.

Mukund stated in another context, would be the situations where data

and percentages etc are posted publicly without being qualified as

being approximate or in some case even arbitrary. It is not always

necessary to give some percentages, like the 82% example I quoted

earlier. Serious and sincere students tend to take these data

seriously and it sticks in their minds and oft gets misquoted and

the inaccuracy and confusion propagates.

 

If we are to claim astrology as a science or scientific discipline,

as claimed by many all over the web and in print, then like

scientists, astrologers must not feel threatened or insulted when

they are asked for clarification or elaboration. It is not an issue

surrounding personal trust or credibility -- which is how such

questioning is misinterpreted in astrology circles and has

inflammatory reactions.

 

I do not have a sugar and honey style of communication in these

casual message board conversations, for sure, but that is because of

my love for the conveninece of informality. Obviously, since it

presses some buttons and so overreactingly strongly, I must modify

my style (which would take time and will interfere with the

spontaneity and naturalness of expression) or entirely refrain from

responding. Since only four or five out of 2200 has told me so

directly or indirectly, I must deduce that a very, very, very small

minority want me not to post. I am all for democracy! Seriously,

though, it is not as if I am on some crusade for making sure that

everything is stated accurately or with due qualifiers all the time

and truth be told, there is all kind of junk that is out there in

the name of astrology, which brings bad name to astrology but

really can it even make a dent in this world and its lot bigger

problems faced by millions daily. I mean there are some 6.5+ billion

people out there and probably only a very very very small fraction

of this population seriously believes in and even fewer learn or

practice astrology. Of this minority, an even smaller percentage

cares about or is aware of jyotish. As a wild guess (qualifier)

perhaps only a few thousands (approximation, guesstimate,

qualifier!) would be the number of true jyotishphiles, whether they

do it for interest or profit. There are probably many, more

individuals dying each day through out the globe than the entire

subpopulation of astrologers that probably exists in the world. Each

single day! That demonstrates the minisculeness of our little island

which is crumbling down all the time at its edges!

 

RR

, "Inder"

<indervohra2001> wrote:

> Yes dear friends,

> Foregive and forget. This happens in these groups at Tat Satji has

> rightly said.

> Manoshi is right, this may be due to retro Mercury.

> Inder

>

> -- In , Balaji Narasimhan

> <sherlockbalaji> wrote:

> > Dear Rohini ji, Tanvir ji, and others,

> >

> > I regret that I have stirred up a hornet's nest.

> >

> > As all of you know, I am generally one of the softest people on

> > this group. Usually, I have never hurt the feelings of anybody,

> > but Rohini ji's way of interaction irked me, and I think that I

> > was a little too harsh in some of my posts. I wish I had never

> > written something so cruel, especially considering the fact that

> > Rohini ji is far senior to me, both in terms of age and

> > experience.

> >

> > I request all the members to put this matter behind them. Let us

> > continue in the true Jyotish spirit! I do readings because I

> > enjoy helping people and learning something new in the process.

> > Learned members are welcome to correct me-all I ask is a little

> > softness from them, which I shall return a hundred times over. I

> > shall also attempt to stay out of Rohini ji's way. Maybe, if I

> > had ignored his initial message, so much bitterness would not

> > have resulted!

> >

> > Enough of this topic! Let's get back to some solid stuff!

> >

> >

> > =====

> > Balaji Narasimhan * http://www.sherlock-holmes.com/balaji.htm

> > Author, Sherlock Holmes: Solutions from the Sussex Downs

> > Editor, The Partial Art of Detection

> > =====

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Yes sir,

You are right in telling all these.

For me personally, Astrology is just a hobby. I enjoy it just as I

enjoy my playing chess or cross-word etc.

Nothing religious, or scientific etc.

I enjoy how we all dance to the tune of destiny.

About %age etc we had earlier had some discussion. Astrology is 100%

right. Any astrologer's judgements or errors may vary from 0% to

100%.

Inder

 

 

-- In , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...>

wrote:

> Dear Mr. Inder,

>

> "Stars (Planets, astrological indicators) impel, but they never

> compel", was often quoted by Late Dr. B.V. Raman. Whether it is

> mercury or moon, each human being has the ability to either lose

or

> retain control of one's composure. These two very voluntary modes

of

> response have been demonstrated by many different individuals many

> times here, there and elsewhere. I must state that I always taken

> care of never criticising anyone's techniques or style of analysis

> or things like ayanamsha or so on and definitely have never hurled

> personal insults at anyone -- my postings will bear evidence of

> that. These things are not exact and come from one's efforts and

> abilities and like anyone's children these must not be criticized

is

> what I have believed in and practiced. My students or those who

have

> chosen me to be a reference or mentor -- because they are

learning,

> would receive my critique but generally not publicly. HOWEVER,

what

> I cannot and will not stay on the 'sidelines' silently, as Mr.

> Mukund stated in another context, would be the situations where

data

> and percentages etc are posted publicly without being qualified as

> being approximate or in some case even arbitrary. It is not always

> necessary to give some percentages, like the 82% example I quoted

> earlier. Serious and sincere students tend to take these data

> seriously and it sticks in their minds and oft gets misquoted and

> the inaccuracy and confusion propagates.

>

> If we are to claim astrology as a science or scientific

discipline,

> as claimed by many all over the web and in print, then like

> scientists, astrologers must not feel threatened or insulted when

> they are asked for clarification or elaboration. It is not an

issue

> surrounding personal trust or credibility -- which is how such

> questioning is misinterpreted in astrology circles and has

> inflammatory reactions.

>

> I do not have a sugar and honey style of communication in these

> casual message board conversations, for sure, but that is because

of

> my love for the conveninece of informality. Obviously, since it

> presses some buttons and so overreactingly strongly, I must modify

> my style (which would take time and will interfere with the

> spontaneity and naturalness of expression) or entirely refrain

from

> responding. Since only four or five out of 2200 has told me so

> directly or indirectly, I must deduce that a very, very, very

small

> minority want me not to post. I am all for democracy! Seriously,

> though, it is not as if I am on some crusade for making sure that

> everything is stated accurately or with due qualifiers all the

time

> and truth be told, there is all kind of junk that is out there in

> the name of astrology, which brings bad name to astrology but

> really can it even make a dent in this world and its lot bigger

> problems faced by millions daily. I mean there are some 6.5+

billion

> people out there and probably only a very very very small fraction

> of this population seriously believes in and even fewer learn or

> practice astrology. Of this minority, an even smaller percentage

> cares about or is aware of jyotish. As a wild guess (qualifier)

> perhaps only a few thousands (approximation, guesstimate,

> qualifier!) would be the number of true jyotishphiles, whether

they

> do it for interest or profit. There are probably many, more

> individuals dying each day through out the globe than the entire

> subpopulation of astrologers that probably exists in the world.

Each

> single day! That demonstrates the minisculeness of our little

island

> which is crumbling down all the time at its edges!

>

> RR

> , "Inder"

> <indervohra2001> wrote:

> > Yes dear friends,

> > Foregive and forget. This happens in these groups at Tat Satji

has

> > rightly said.

> > Manoshi is right, this may be due to retro Mercury.

> > Inder

> >

> > -- In , Balaji Narasimhan

> > <sherlockbalaji> wrote:

> > > Dear Rohini ji, Tanvir ji, and others,

> > >

> > > I regret that I have stirred up a hornet's nest.

> > >

> > > As all of you know, I am generally one of the softest people on

> > > this group. Usually, I have never hurt the feelings of anybody,

> > > but Rohini ji's way of interaction irked me, and I think that I

> > > was a little too harsh in some of my posts. I wish I had never

> > > written something so cruel, especially considering the fact

that

> > > Rohini ji is far senior to me, both in terms of age and

> > > experience.

> > >

> > > I request all the members to put this matter behind them. Let

us

> > > continue in the true Jyotish spirit! I do readings because I

> > > enjoy helping people and learning something new in the process.

> > > Learned members are welcome to correct me-all I ask is a little

> > > softness from them, which I shall return a hundred times over.

I

> > > shall also attempt to stay out of Rohini ji's way. Maybe, if I

> > > had ignored his initial message, so much bitterness would not

> > > have resulted!

> > >

> > > Enough of this topic! Let's get back to some solid stuff!

> > >

> > >

> > > =====

> > > Balaji Narasimhan * http://www.sherlock-holmes.com/balaji.htm

> > > Author, Sherlock Holmes: Solutions from the Sussex Downs

> > > Editor, The Partial Art of Detection

> > > =====

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Inder ji,

 

Namashkar. Sorry for the delay in responding, I was away. I see what

you are trying to say, that the test of astrology's success depends

on the best performance of its practitioners (professional or

amateurs). It seems like you have met a few individuals who have

attained and demonstrated 100% success, as indicated by you in the

range given. Unfortunately, I have not met a single one who has ever

been 100% correct, even a single time in all reading elements or

even close, particularly when 'sampled' a few times!!

 

RR

 

, "Inder"

<indervohra2001> wrote:

> Yes sir,

> You are right in telling all these.

> For me personally, Astrology is just a hobby. I enjoy it just as I

> enjoy my playing chess or cross-word etc.

> Nothing religious, or scientific etc.

> I enjoy how we all dance to the tune of destiny.

> About %age etc we had earlier had some discussion. Astrology is

100%

> right. Any astrologer's judgements or errors may vary from 0% to

> 100%.

> Inder

>

>

> -- In , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...>

> wrote:

> > Dear Mr. Inder,

> >

> > "Stars (Planets, astrological indicators) impel, but they never

> > compel", was often quoted by Late Dr. B.V. Raman. Whether it is

> > mercury or moon, each human being has the ability to either lose

> or

> > retain control of one's composure. These two very voluntary

modes

> of

> > response have been demonstrated by many different individuals

many

> > times here, there and elsewhere. I must state that I always

taken

> > care of never criticising anyone's techniques or style of

analysis

> > or things like ayanamsha or so on and definitely have never

hurled

> > personal insults at anyone -- my postings will bear evidence of

> > that. These things are not exact and come from one's efforts and

> > abilities and like anyone's children these must not be

criticized

> is

> > what I have believed in and practiced. My students or those who

> have

> > chosen me to be a reference or mentor -- because they are

> learning,

> > would receive my critique but generally not publicly. HOWEVER,

> what

> > I cannot and will not stay on the 'sidelines' silently, as Mr.

> > Mukund stated in another context, would be the situations where

> data

> > and percentages etc are posted publicly without being qualified

as

> > being approximate or in some case even arbitrary. It is not

always

> > necessary to give some percentages, like the 82% example I

quoted

> > earlier. Serious and sincere students tend to take these data

> > seriously and it sticks in their minds and oft gets misquoted

and

> > the inaccuracy and confusion propagates.

> >

> > If we are to claim astrology as a science or scientific

> discipline,

> > as claimed by many all over the web and in print, then like

> > scientists, astrologers must not feel threatened or insulted

when

> > they are asked for clarification or elaboration. It is not an

> issue

> > surrounding personal trust or credibility -- which is how such

> > questioning is misinterpreted in astrology circles and has

> > inflammatory reactions.

> >

> > I do not have a sugar and honey style of communication in these

> > casual message board conversations, for sure, but that is

because

> of

> > my love for the conveninece of informality. Obviously, since it

> > presses some buttons and so overreactingly strongly, I must

modify

> > my style (which would take time and will interfere with the

> > spontaneity and naturalness of expression) or entirely refrain

> from

> > responding. Since only four or five out of 2200 has told me so

> > directly or indirectly, I must deduce that a very, very, very

> small

> > minority want me not to post. I am all for democracy! Seriously,

> > though, it is not as if I am on some crusade for making sure

that

> > everything is stated accurately or with due qualifiers all the

> time

> > and truth be told, there is all kind of junk that is out there

in

> > the name of astrology, which brings bad name to astrology but

> > really can it even make a dent in this world and its lot bigger

> > problems faced by millions daily. I mean there are some 6.5+

> billion

> > people out there and probably only a very very very small

fraction

> > of this population seriously believes in and even fewer learn or

> > practice astrology. Of this minority, an even smaller percentage

> > cares about or is aware of jyotish. As a wild guess (qualifier)

> > perhaps only a few thousands (approximation, guesstimate,

> > qualifier!) would be the number of true jyotishphiles, whether

> they

> > do it for interest or profit. There are probably many, more

> > individuals dying each day through out the globe than the entire

> > subpopulation of astrologers that probably exists in the world.

> Each

> > single day! That demonstrates the minisculeness of our little

> island

> > which is crumbling down all the time at its edges!

> >

> > RR

> > , "Inder"

> > <indervohra2001> wrote:

> > > Yes dear friends,

> > > Foregive and forget. This happens in these groups at Tat Satji

> has

> > > rightly said.

> > > Manoshi is right, this may be due to retro Mercury.

> > > Inder

> > >

> > > -- In , Balaji Narasimhan

> > > <sherlockbalaji> wrote:

> > > > Dear Rohini ji, Tanvir ji, and others,

> > > >

> > > > I regret that I have stirred up a hornet's nest.

> > > >

> > > > As all of you know, I am generally one of the softest people

on

> > > > this group. Usually, I have never hurt the feelings of

anybody,

> > > > but Rohini ji's way of interaction irked me, and I think

that I

> > > > was a little too harsh in some of my posts. I wish I had

never

> > > > written something so cruel, especially considering the fact

> that

> > > > Rohini ji is far senior to me, both in terms of age and

> > > > experience.

> > > >

> > > > I request all the members to put this matter behind them.

Let

> us

> > > > continue in the true Jyotish spirit! I do readings because I

> > > > enjoy helping people and learning something new in the

process.

> > > > Learned members are welcome to correct me-all I ask is a

little

> > > > softness from them, which I shall return a hundred times

over.

> I

> > > > shall also attempt to stay out of Rohini ji's way. Maybe, if

I

> > > > had ignored his initial message, so much bitterness would not

> > > > have resulted!

> > > >

> > > > Enough of this topic! Let's get back to some solid stuff!

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > =====

> > > > Balaji Narasimhan * http://www.sherlock-holmes.com/balaji.htm

> > > > Author, Sherlock Holmes: Solutions from the Sussex Downs

> > > > Editor, The Partial Art of Detection

> > > > =====

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >