Guest guest Posted December 27, 2004 Report Share Posted December 27, 2004 Dear All, I feel that there is a group of thinkers who understand 'science' from Western point of view; thats good! but not always. The definition may be given using high sounding words and strong grammatic structure, but Western idea of science is always different from Oriental thoughts. When we try to think of KNOWLEDGE and SPIRITUALITY as separate entities, we land up at 'SCIENCE' as it is today! Going by simple definition 'Science is the systematised body of knowledge', I never feel Oriental knowledge or SHASTRAS are not science, even by western measures! Science and technology has contributed a lot to mankind and hats off to it! But it fails to give answers to basic questions like WHO AM I? WHY AM I BORN HERE? WHAT IS THE AIM?....so on. The western philosophy has always borrowed Oriental ethics to explain and failed to conclude. By saying that 'Astrology is a science', we don't commit any mistake since it is the truth. By this we do not demand the status of SCIENCE to astrology by western measures, but reminding SCIENTISTS of spirituality they left behind. By declaring shastras as science we want the world to take a keen look of those subjects, pave the path for studying them with proper interest and make them available to everyone through schools, colleges, universities. Whats wrong with it? The problem lies with 'intellectuals' who mis-lead mass, just because of their prejudice! Let people study the subject and understand it. If they feel that they never need it, they will throw it away. When we conceal something, it always gets mis-interpreted. By calling Shastras SCIENCE, we are inviting Occidental thinkers to have a look at it with reverence and perhaps that is the only way to make great Oriental 'intellectuals' get rid of their prejudice. It has worked in past and will work in future too. There are many who believe in Shastras(not superstitions) and can not explain it but feel its effects as expected; they must never be carried away by the 'intellectuals'. I remember of the Pancha-Tantra story describing three cheats cheating a brahmin by saying what he had on his shoulders was not a goat but a dog. If we have conviction in what we know, we can never be cheated whether it is labelled SCIENCE or not by anybody. some may understand what I say, some may not and some can not! But I know what I have on my shoulders! :-) yours humbly, KAD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2004 Report Share Posted December 27, 2004 A good post. "Art is as much a science as science is and art." When you consider the deeper realms of knowledge, everything merges into one - maya, prakriti, purush, brahman and paramatma. More comments would make this discussion interesting. With best wishes, Amitabh Shastri kadrudra <kadrudra wrote: Dear All, I feel that there is a group of thinkers who understand 'science' from Western point of view; thats good! but not always. The definition may be given using high sounding words and strong grammatic structure, but Western idea of science is always different from Oriental thoughts. When we try to think of KNOWLEDGE and SPIRITUALITY as separate entities, we land up at 'SCIENCE' as it is today! Going by simple definition 'Science is the systematised body of knowledge', I never feel Oriental knowledge or SHASTRAS are not science, even by western measures! Science and technology has contributed a lot to mankind and hats off to it! But it fails to give answers to basic questions like WHO AM I? WHY AM I BORN HERE? WHAT IS THE AIM?....so on. The western philosophy has always borrowed Oriental ethics to explain and failed to conclude. By saying that 'Astrology is a science', we don't commit any mistake since it is the truth. By this we do not demand the status of SCIENCE to astrology by western measures, but reminding SCIENTISTS of spirituality they left behind. By declaring shastras as science we want the world to take a keen look of those subjects, pave the path for studying them with proper interest and make them available to everyone through schools, colleges, universities. Whats wrong with it? The problem lies with 'intellectuals' who mis-lead mass, just because of their prejudice! Let people study the subject and understand it. If they feel that they never need it, they will throw it away. When we conceal something, it always gets mis-interpreted. By calling Shastras SCIENCE, we are inviting Occidental thinkers to have a look at it with reverence and perhaps that is the only way to make great Oriental 'intellectuals' get rid of their prejudice. It has worked in past and will work in future too. There are many who believe in Shastras(not superstitions) and can not explain it but feel its effects as expected; they must never be carried away by the 'intellectuals'. I remember of the Pancha-Tantra story describing three cheats cheating a brahmin by saying what he had on his shoulders was not a goat but a dog. If we have conviction in what we know, we can never be cheated whether it is labelled SCIENCE or not by anybody. some may understand what I say, some may not and some can not! But I know what I have on my shoulders! :-) yours humbly, KAD ~! LIFE MEANS STRUGGLE, THE FITTEST WINS SURVIVAL !~ ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2004 Report Share Posted December 27, 2004 Truly. As KAD ji said 'Science is the > systematised body of knowledge' In Hindi/sanskrit it is called as Vigyan which means Vishesh Gyan= special Knowledge. Regards Amit , Amitabh Shastri <amitabh_shastri> wrote: > A good post. > "Art is as much a science as science is and art." > When you consider the deeper realms of knowledge, everything merges into one - maya, prakriti, purush, brahman and paramatma. > More comments would make this discussion interesting. > With best wishes, > Amitabh Shastri > kadrudra <kadrudra> wrote: > > > Dear All, > > I feel that there is a group of thinkers who understand 'science' > from Western point of view; thats good! but not always. > The definition may be given using high sounding words and strong > grammatic structure, but Western idea of science is always > different from Oriental thoughts. When we try to think of KNOWLEDGE > and SPIRITUALITY as separate entities, we land up at 'SCIENCE' > as it is today! Going by simple definition 'Science is the > systematised body of knowledge', I never feel Oriental knowledge or > SHASTRAS are not science, even by western measures! > > Science and technology has contributed a lot to mankind and hats off > to it! But it fails to give answers to basic questions like > WHO AM I? WHY AM I BORN HERE? WHAT IS THE AIM?....so on. The western > philosophy has always borrowed Oriental ethics to explain > and failed to conclude. By saying that 'Astrology is a science', we > don't commit any mistake since it is the truth. By this we > do not demand the status of SCIENCE to astrology by western measures, > but reminding SCIENTISTS of spirituality they left behind. > > By declaring shastras as science we want the world to take a keen > look of those subjects, pave the path for studying them with > proper interest and make them available to everyone through schools, > colleges, universities. Whats wrong with it? The problem lies > with 'intellectuals' who mis-lead mass, just because of their > prejudice! Let people study the subject and understand it. If they > feel that they never need it, they will throw it away. When we > conceal something, it always gets mis-interpreted. > > By calling Shastras SCIENCE, we are inviting Occidental thinkers to > have a look at it with reverence and perhaps that is the > only way to make great Oriental 'intellectuals' get rid of their > prejudice. It has worked in past and will work in future too. > There are many who believe in Shastras(not superstitions) and can not > explain it but feel its effects as expected; they must > never be carried away by the 'intellectuals'. I remember of the > Pancha-Tantra story describing three cheats cheating a brahmin > by saying what he had on his shoulders was not a goat but a dog. If > we have conviction in what we know, we can never be cheated > whether it is labelled SCIENCE or not by anybody. > > some may understand what I say, some may not and some can not! But I > know what I have on my shoulders! :-) > > yours humbly, > KAD ~! LIFE MEANS STRUGGLE, THE FITTEST WINS SURVIVAL !~ > Links > > > > ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2004 Report Share Posted December 28, 2004 Hi Kad Ji, pranam. > Science and technology has contributed a lot to mankind and hats >off to it! But it fails to give answers to basic questions like > WHO AM I? WHY AM I BORN HERE? WHAT IS THE AIM?....so on. Truly! The basic questions like :WHO AM I? WHY AM I BORN HERE? WHAT IS THE AIM?...is more important for a human then Science and technology . > don't commit any mistake since it is the truth. I like your statement " since it is the truth". This definition is the basic for science "truth" it never change! If the truth change it is NOT the truth. Vedic teachings NEVER change is like the atman eternal .Teaching of western Science change everyday…. In my opinion Jyotish Vedic Astrology deserve in vedic point of view to be called spiritual Science . Best regards Shad om namaha sivaya , "amit_call" <amit_call> wrote: > > Truly. > As KAD ji said > 'Science is the > > systematised body of knowledge' > In Hindi/sanskrit it is called as Vigyan which means Vishesh Gyan= > special Knowledge. > Regards > Amit > > , Amitabh Shastri > <amitabh_shastri> wrote: > > A good post. > > "Art is as much a science as science is and art." > > When you consider the deeper realms of knowledge, everything merges > into one - maya, prakriti, purush, brahman and paramatma. > > More comments would make this discussion interesting. > > With best wishes, > > Amitabh Shastri > > kadrudra <kadrudra> wrote: > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > I feel that there is a group of thinkers who understand 'science' > > from Western point of view; thats good! but not always. > > The definition may be given using high sounding words and strong > > grammatic structure, but Western idea of science is always > > different from Oriental thoughts. When we try to think of KNOWLEDGE > > and SPIRITUALITY as separate entities, we land up at 'SCIENCE' > > as it is today! Going by simple definition 'Science is the > > systematised body of knowledge', I never feel Oriental knowledge or > > SHASTRAS are not science, even by western measures! > > > > Science and technology has contributed a lot to mankind and hats > off > > to it! But it fails to give answers to basic questions like > > WHO AM I? WHY AM I BORN HERE? WHAT IS THE AIM?....so on. The > western > > philosophy has always borrowed Oriental ethics to explain > > and failed to conclude. By saying that 'Astrology is a science', we > > don't commit any mistake since it is the truth. By this we > > do not demand the status of SCIENCE to astrology by western > measures, > > but reminding SCIENTISTS of spirituality they left behind. > > > > By declaring shastras as science we want the world to take a keen > > look of those subjects, pave the path for studying them with > > proper interest and make them available to everyone through > schools, > > colleges, universities. Whats wrong with it? The problem lies > > with 'intellectuals' who mis-lead mass, just because of their > > prejudice! Let people study the subject and understand it. If they > > feel that they never need it, they will throw it away. When we > > conceal something, it always gets mis-interpreted. > > > > By calling Shastras SCIENCE, we are inviting Occidental thinkers to > > have a look at it with reverence and perhaps that is the > > only way to make great Oriental 'intellectuals' get rid of their > > prejudice. It has worked in past and will work in future too. > > There are many who believe in Shastras(not superstitions) and can > not > > explain it but feel its effects as expected; they must > > never be carried away by the 'intellectuals'. I remember of the > > Pancha-Tantra story describing three cheats cheating a brahmin > > by saying what he had on his shoulders was not a goat but a dog. If > > we have conviction in what we know, we can never be cheated > > whether it is labelled SCIENCE or not by anybody. > > > > some may understand what I say, some may not and some can not! But > I > > know what I have on my shoulders! :-) > > > > yours humbly, > > KAD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~! LIFE MEANS STRUGGLE, THE FITTEST WINS SURVIVAL !~ > > Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2004 Report Share Posted December 28, 2004 Dear Kad, Is painting an art or a science? Is music an art or a science? The reason I ask these questions is because science tells you that mixing green and yellow produces blue .... however painting itself dosent to just mixing colors ... Pardon my limited example ... what I am trying to say is that science is the object of logic, human brain however dosent just to logic ... there is much more to it ... Just like in a painting there is much more than just the science of mixing colors involved, astrology (or any shastra) cannot be a science .. it is an art where science is used in calculating the moments of the planets ... --- kadrudra <kadrudra wrote: > > Dear All, > > I feel that there is a group of thinkers who > understand 'science' > from Western point of view; thats good! but not > always. > The definition may be given using high sounding > words and strong > grammatic structure, but Western idea of science is > always > different from Oriental thoughts. When we try to > think of KNOWLEDGE > and SPIRITUALITY as separate entities, we land up at > 'SCIENCE' > as it is today! Going by simple definition 'Science > is the > systematised body of knowledge', I never feel > Oriental knowledge or > SHASTRAS are not science, even by western measures! > > Science and technology has contributed a lot to > mankind and hats off > to it! But it fails to give answers to basic > questions like > WHO AM I? WHY AM I BORN HERE? WHAT IS THE AIM?....so > on. The western > philosophy has always borrowed Oriental ethics to > explain > and failed to conclude. By saying that 'Astrology is > a science', we > don't commit any mistake since it is the truth. By > this we > do not demand the status of SCIENCE to astrology by > western measures, > but reminding SCIENTISTS of spirituality they left > behind. > > By declaring shastras as science we want the world > to take a keen > look of those subjects, pave the path for studying > them with > proper interest and make them available to everyone > through schools, > colleges, universities. Whats wrong with it? The > problem lies > with 'intellectuals' who mis-lead mass, just because > of their > prejudice! Let people study the subject and > understand it. If they > feel that they never need it, they will throw it > away. When we > conceal something, it always gets mis-interpreted. > > By calling Shastras SCIENCE, we are inviting > Occidental thinkers to > have a look at it with reverence and perhaps that is > the > only way to make great Oriental 'intellectuals' get > rid of their > prejudice. It has worked in past and will work in > future too. > There are many who believe in Shastras(not > superstitions) and can not > explain it but feel its effects as expected; they > must > never be carried away by the 'intellectuals'. I > remember of the > Pancha-Tantra story describing three cheats cheating > a brahmin > by saying what he had on his shoulders was not a > goat but a dog. If > we have conviction in what we know, we can never be > cheated > whether it is labelled SCIENCE or not by anybody. > > some may understand what I say, some may not and > some can not! But I > know what I have on my shoulders! :-) > > yours humbly, > KAD > > > > Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good. http://celebrity.mail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2004 Report Share Posted December 28, 2004 The problem with these discussions, and many have taken place many times before here and elsewhere, is that the discussions become corrupted with ambiguity and a sort of which is better kind of judgment. On one hand we could end up with many different views about what science should be or what art should be (potentially leading to ambiguity) and on the other hand, people simply tend to turn the discussion into which is better, science or spirituality -- for instance. This, I am seeing here also. The discussion started with someone calling astrology a science and I cautioned that this might be premature. This in no way reduces the importance of astrology, nor extolls the virtue of science. One responder was quick at pointing out that ancients were great scientists and their achievements are in no way worse than modern scientists? Where did that come from? Who was talking about whether moderns are better or ancients? It is interesting that followers and students of jyotish who deal with symbolism on a daily basis, whose task it is to transform abstract symbolism of planetary and zodiacal entities into worldly and concrete bottom-lines, get so easily carried away and lose the original focus or intent of a statement or discussion! Human experience, totally experiencing the reality is a multifactorial, gestalt type experience. We take in everything, right brain, left brain, suprabrain etc etc and we need to experience this holistically and not one aspect at a time. And if we begin to control the experience by becoming biased as to this is better or that type of experience is better, then we will stop experiencing the whole truth. This is not to state that we get all muddled up and begin to confuse what we hear with what we smell or taste! Who really wants to experience a mango that has a golden taste, a juidy sweet smell? Art has a technical aspect, a spiritual aspect, a feelings aspect and much more and only focusing on one aspect would ruin its totality. Astrology, likewise, has a technical aspect that is based on logic, however, we must also remember that the logical underpinnings are based on fairly symbolic axioms which might not correspond strictly to logic. And, given all the same factors and equations, different astrologers would go about their delineations in different ways. No one doing a serious reading really focuses only on the logical or paralogical approaches. We don't even think of how we are reaching a bottom-line because so many thoughts are racing fast at the same time that if the runner begins to focus on his running and the components of the motion, he will surely trip and fall! Astrology is that way too. However, just as art cannot be completely expressed without the technical underpinnings (developing skill, ability to mix and prevision outcomes of mixing different colours, controlling the brush, etc, it also needs the spiritual/feeling/soul-based process -- otherwise all one becomes is a skilled painter but not a creative artist. Without this spiritual aspect, the experience can never become complete, but in order to accomplish that jyotish need not wait till it is declared as a science, nor must its true followers be embarassed of it, even if the world does not declare it to be a science. Jyotish is not some poor relative that we cannot proudly display and we do not need to embellish it with things that it is not nor should that be necessary, surya vishnubhotla <surya_prakashv> wrote: > Dear Kad, > > Is painting an art or a science? Is music an art or a > science? > > The reason I ask these questions is because science > tells you that mixing green and yellow produces blue > ... however painting itself dosent to just > mixing colors ... > > Pardon my limited example ... what I am trying to say > is that science is the object of logic, human brain > however dosent just to logic ... there is > much more to it ... > > Just like in a painting there is much more than just > the science of mixing colors involved, astrology (or > any shastra) cannot be a science .. it is an art where > science is used in calculating the moments of the > planets ... > > > --- kadrudra <kadrudra> wrote: > > > > > Dear All, > > > > I feel that there is a group of thinkers who > > understand 'science' > > from Western point of view; thats good! but not > > always. > > The definition may be given using high sounding > > words and strong > > grammatic structure, but Western idea of science is > > always > > different from Oriental thoughts. When we try to > > think of KNOWLEDGE > > and SPIRITUALITY as separate entities, we land up at > > 'SCIENCE' > > as it is today! Going by simple definition 'Science > > is the > > systematised body of knowledge', I never feel > > Oriental knowledge or > > SHASTRAS are not science, even by western measures! > > > > Science and technology has contributed a lot to > > mankind and hats off > > to it! But it fails to give answers to basic > > questions like > > WHO AM I? WHY AM I BORN HERE? WHAT IS THE AIM?....so > > on. The western > > philosophy has always borrowed Oriental ethics to > > explain > > and failed to conclude. By saying that 'Astrology is > > a science', we > > don't commit any mistake since it is the truth. By > > this we > > do not demand the status of SCIENCE to astrology by > > western measures, > > but reminding SCIENTISTS of spirituality they left > > behind. > > > > By declaring shastras as science we want the world > > to take a keen > > look of those subjects, pave the path for studying > > them with > > proper interest and make them available to everyone > > through schools, > > colleges, universities. Whats wrong with it? The > > problem lies > > with 'intellectuals' who mis-lead mass, just because > > of their > > prejudice! Let people study the subject and > > understand it. If they > > feel that they never need it, they will throw it > > away. When we > > conceal something, it always gets mis-interpreted. > > > > By calling Shastras SCIENCE, we are inviting > > Occidental thinkers to > > have a look at it with reverence and perhaps that is > > the > > only way to make great Oriental 'intellectuals' get > > rid of their > > prejudice. It has worked in past and will work in > > future too. > > There are many who believe in Shastras(not > > superstitions) and can not > > explain it but feel its effects as expected; they > > must > > never be carried away by the 'intellectuals'. I > > remember of the > > Pancha-Tantra story describing three cheats cheating > > a brahmin > > by saying what he had on his shoulders was not a > > goat but a dog. If > > we have conviction in what we know, we can never be > > cheated > > whether it is labelled SCIENCE or not by anybody. > > > > some may understand what I say, some may not and > > some can not! But I > > know what I have on my shoulders! :-) > > > > yours humbly, > > KAD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good. > http://celebrity.mail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2004 Report Share Posted December 28, 2004 Frankly, if astrology is a science, it would be sooooooo boring....:-) I agree that the discussions become amorphous quickly. The reason for that is that most people participating in such discussions are not trained in the analysis of concepts, and don't follow the 'sanitise for sanity' treatment of concepts, followed in philosophy and its allied disciplines. Plus, the topics under discussion (mind, consciousness, spirituality, life, free will, determinism....) are so complex and interlinked that some of the best minds in the planet have tackled them without much success, for the past 2000 years. It's a goo out there, why add to it? :-) Ram , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> wrote: > > The problem with these discussions, and many have taken place many > times before here and elsewhere, is that the discussions become > corrupted with ambiguity and a sort of which is better kind of > judgment. On one hand we could end up with many different views about > what science should be or what art should be (potentially leading to > ambiguity) and on the other hand, people simply tend to turn the > discussion into which is better, science or spirituality -- for > instance. > > This, I am seeing here also. The discussion started with someone > calling astrology a science and I cautioned that this might be > premature. This in no way reduces the importance of astrology, nor > extolls the virtue of science. One responder was quick at pointing > out that ancients were great scientists and their achievements are in > no way worse than modern scientists? Where did that come from? Who > was talking about whether moderns are better or ancients? It is > interesting that followers and students of jyotish who deal with > symbolism on a daily basis, whose task it is to transform abstract > symbolism of planetary and zodiacal entities into worldly and > concrete bottom-lines, get so easily carried away and lose the > original focus or intent of a statement or discussion! > > > Human experience, totally experiencing the reality is a > multifactorial, gestalt type experience. We take in everything, right > brain, left brain, suprabrain etc etc and we need to experience this > holistically and not one aspect at a time. And if we begin to control > the experience by becoming biased as to this is better or that type > of experience is better, then we will stop experiencing the whole > truth. This is not to state that we get all muddled up and begin to > confuse what we hear with what we smell or taste! Who really wants to > experience a mango that has a golden taste, a juidy sweet smell? Art > has a technical aspect, a spiritual aspect, a feelings aspect and > much more and only focusing on one aspect would ruin its totality. > Astrology, likewise, has a technical aspect that is based on logic, > however, we must also remember that the logical underpinnings are > based on fairly symbolic axioms which might not correspond strictly > to logic. And, given all the same factors and equations, different > astrologers would go about their delineations in different ways. No > one doing a serious reading really focuses only on the logical or > paralogical approaches. We don't even think of how we are reaching a > bottom-line because so many thoughts are racing fast at the same time > that if the runner begins to focus on his running and the components > of the motion, he will surely trip and fall! Astrology is that way > too. > > However, just as art cannot be completely expressed without the > technical underpinnings (developing skill, ability to mix and > prevision outcomes of mixing different colours, controlling the > brush, etc, it also needs the spiritual/feeling/soul-based process -- > otherwise all one becomes is a skilled painter but not a creative > artist. > > Without this spiritual aspect, the experience can never become > complete, but in order to accomplish that jyotish need not wait till > it is declared as a science, nor must its true followers be > embarassed of it, even if the world does not declare it to be a > science. Jyotish is not some poor relative that we cannot proudly > display and we do not need to embellish it with things that it is not > nor should that be necessary--- In , > surya vishnubhotla <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > Dear Kad, > > > > Is painting an art or a science? Is music an art or a > > science? > > > > The reason I ask these questions is because science > > tells you that mixing green and yellow produces blue > > ... however painting itself dosent to just > > mixing colors ... > > > > Pardon my limited example ... what I am trying to say > > is that science is the object of logic, human brain > > however dosent just to logic ... there is > > much more to it ... > > > > Just like in a painting there is much more than just > > the science of mixing colors involved, astrology (or > > any shastra) cannot be a science .. it is an art where > > science is used in calculating the moments of the > > planets ... > > > > > > --- kadrudra <kadrudra> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > I feel that there is a group of thinkers who > > > understand 'science' > > > from Western point of view; thats good! but not > > > always. > > > The definition may be given using high sounding > > > words and strong > > > grammatic structure, but Western idea of science is > > > always > > > different from Oriental thoughts. When we try to > > > think of KNOWLEDGE > > > and SPIRITUALITY as separate entities, we land up at > > > 'SCIENCE' > > > as it is today! Going by simple definition 'Science > > > is the > > > systematised body of knowledge', I never feel > > > Oriental knowledge or > > > SHASTRAS are not science, even by western measures! > > > > > > Science and technology has contributed a lot to > > > mankind and hats off > > > to it! But it fails to give answers to basic > > > questions like > > > WHO AM I? WHY AM I BORN HERE? WHAT IS THE AIM?....so > > > on. The western > > > philosophy has always borrowed Oriental ethics to > > > explain > > > and failed to conclude. By saying that 'Astrology is > > > a science', we > > > don't commit any mistake since it is the truth. By > > > this we > > > do not demand the status of SCIENCE to astrology by > > > western measures, > > > but reminding SCIENTISTS of spirituality they left > > > behind. > > > > > > By declaring shastras as science we want the world > > > to take a keen > > > look of those subjects, pave the path for studying > > > them with > > > proper interest and make them available to everyone > > > through schools, > > > colleges, universities. Whats wrong with it? The > > > problem lies > > > with 'intellectuals' who mis-lead mass, just because > > > of their > > > prejudice! Let people study the subject and > > > understand it. If they > > > feel that they never need it, they will throw it > > > away. When we > > > conceal something, it always gets mis-interpreted. > > > > > > By calling Shastras SCIENCE, we are inviting > > > Occidental thinkers to > > > have a look at it with reverence and perhaps that is > > > the > > > only way to make great Oriental 'intellectuals' get > > > rid of their > > > prejudice. It has worked in past and will work in > > > future too. > > > There are many who believe in Shastras(not > > > superstitions) and can not > > > explain it but feel its effects as expected; they > > > must > > > never be carried away by the 'intellectuals'. I > > > remember of the > > > Pancha-Tantra story describing three cheats cheating > > > a brahmin > > > by saying what he had on his shoulders was not a > > > goat but a dog. If > > > we have conviction in what we know, we can never be > > > cheated > > > whether it is labelled SCIENCE or not by anybody. > > > > > > some may understand what I say, some may not and > > > some can not! But I > > > know what I have on my shoulders! :-) > > > > > > yours humbly, > > > KAD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good. > > http://celebrity.mail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 Well thought and well said ... --- rohiniranjan <rrgb wrote: > > The problem with these discussions, and many have > taken place many > times before here and elsewhere, is that the > discussions become > corrupted with ambiguity and a sort of which is > better kind of > judgment. On one hand we could end up with many > different views about > what science should be or what art should be > (potentially leading to > ambiguity) and on the other hand, people simply tend > to turn the > discussion into which is better, science or > spirituality -- for > instance. > > This, I am seeing here also. The discussion started > with someone > calling astrology a science and I cautioned that > this might be > premature. This in no way reduces the importance of > astrology, nor > extolls the virtue of science. One responder was > quick at pointing > out that ancients were great scientists and their > achievements are in > no way worse than modern scientists? Where did that > come from? Who > was talking about whether moderns are better or > ancients? It is > interesting that followers and students of jyotish > who deal with > symbolism on a daily basis, whose task it is to > transform abstract > symbolism of planetary and zodiacal entities into > worldly and > concrete bottom-lines, get so easily carried away > and lose the > original focus or intent of a statement or > discussion! > > > Human experience, totally experiencing the reality > is a > multifactorial, gestalt type experience. We take in > everything, right > brain, left brain, suprabrain etc etc and we need to > experience this > holistically and not one aspect at a time. And if we > begin to control > the experience by becoming biased as to this is > better or that type > of experience is better, then we will stop > experiencing the whole > truth. This is not to state that we get all muddled > up and begin to > confuse what we hear with what we smell or taste! > Who really wants to > experience a mango that has a golden taste, a juidy > sweet smell? Art > has a technical aspect, a spiritual aspect, a > feelings aspect and > much more and only focusing on one aspect would ruin > its totality. > Astrology, likewise, has a technical aspect that is > based on logic, > however, we must also remember that the logical > underpinnings are > based on fairly symbolic axioms which might not > correspond strictly > to logic. And, given all the same factors and > equations, different > astrologers would go about their delineations in > different ways. No > one doing a serious reading really focuses only on > the logical or > paralogical approaches. We don't even think of how > we are reaching a > bottom-line because so many thoughts are racing fast > at the same time > that if the runner begins to focus on his running > and the components > of the motion, he will surely trip and fall! > Astrology is that way > too. > > However, just as art cannot be completely expressed > without the > technical underpinnings (developing skill, ability > to mix and > prevision outcomes of mixing different colours, > controlling the > brush, etc, it also needs the > spiritual/feeling/soul-based process -- > otherwise all one becomes is a skilled painter but > not a creative > artist. > > Without this spiritual aspect, the experience can > never become > complete, but in order to accomplish that jyotish > need not wait till > it is declared as a science, nor must its true > followers be > embarassed of it, even if the world does not declare > it to be a > science. Jyotish is not some poor relative that we > cannot proudly > display and we do not need to embellish it with > things that it is not > nor should that be necessary--- In > , > surya vishnubhotla <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > Dear Kad, > > > > Is painting an art or a science? Is music an art > or a > > science? > > > > The reason I ask these questions is because > science > > tells you that mixing green and yellow produces > blue > > ... however painting itself dosent to > just > > mixing colors ... > > > > Pardon my limited example ... what I am trying to > say > > is that science is the object of logic, human > brain > > however dosent just to logic ... there > is > > much more to it ... > > > > Just like in a painting there is much more than > just > > the science of mixing colors involved, astrology > (or > > any shastra) cannot be a science .. it is an art > where > > science is used in calculating the moments of the > > planets ... > > > > > > --- kadrudra <kadrudra> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > I feel that there is a group of thinkers who > > > understand 'science' > > > from Western point of view; thats good! but not > > > always. > > > The definition may be given using high sounding > > > words and strong > > > grammatic structure, but Western idea of science > is > > > always > > > different from Oriental thoughts. When we try to > > > think of KNOWLEDGE > > > and SPIRITUALITY as separate entities, we land > up at > > > 'SCIENCE' > > > as it is today! Going by simple definition > 'Science > > > is the > > > systematised body of knowledge', I never feel > > > Oriental knowledge or > > > SHASTRAS are not science, even by western > measures! > > > > > > Science and technology has contributed a lot to > > > mankind and hats off > > > to it! But it fails to give answers to basic > > > questions like > > > WHO AM I? WHY AM I BORN HERE? WHAT IS THE > AIM?....so > > > on. The western > > > philosophy has always borrowed Oriental ethics > to > > > explain > > > and failed to conclude. By saying that > 'Astrology is > > > a science', we > > > don't commit any mistake since it is the truth. > By > > > this we > > > do not demand the status of SCIENCE to astrology > by > > > western measures, > > > but reminding SCIENTISTS of spirituality they > left > > > behind. > > > > > > By declaring shastras as science we want the > world > > > to take a keen > > > look of those subjects, pave the path for > studying > === message truncated === Take Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile./maildemo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.