So what do you suggest should be done?

[Guest guest]

Namaste Mahalinga Iyer,

 

> As you can see daily on this very group, there are people who are

> relying on astrology (to some degree, atleast) in making important

> life changing decisions - marriage, divorce, change of career etc.

> In my opinion, it would be a disservice to astrology if one is not

> critical about each and every astrologer, and each and every

> technique.

 

Many of us, who write frequently here, write most of our posts very

quickly, often without a deep analysis. But, when it comes to giving

advice to REAL people, either on this list or in person, we are aware

of its seriousness and do not offer any advice without pondering

deeply and considering all the relevant factors. Even then we do not

claim the advice to be infallible, but still we normally do a more

thorough job with predictions to real-life people than academic

exercises that you often see here.

 

> The D-24 changes every 5 minutes.

> The D-60 changes every 2 minutes.

>

> Yet, using a birth time that is NINETEEN minutes apart, using the

> SAME timezone and SAME ayanamsa, Narasimha and Sanjay Rath

> are able to analyse Aurobindo's chart and map it to his known past.

 

OK, let us agree that atleast one of the two (or both) simply mapped

the known past to their chosen chart arbitrarily. Still, if both the

analyses contain genuine points which benefit learners, I think the

purpose is served.

 

Anyway, let us put the argument and my views aside. Let me better

understand where you are coming from and where you are going. Let me

ask you one thing:

 

So, what do you suggest should be done? You are constantly

complaining about the perceived arbitrariness in astrology. Is it

just that astrology is an arbitrary subject and should not be used OR

is there a solution?

 

To go one step further, why don't you start implementing that

solution?

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Namaste Narasimha and other group members,

 

>claim the advice to be infallible, but still we normally do a more

>thorough job with predictions to real-life people than academic

>exercises that you often see here.

 

I take your clarification in good faith.

 

>OK, let us agree that atleast one of the two (or both) simply mapped

>the known past to their chosen chart arbitrarily. Still, if both the

>analyses contain genuine points which benefit learners, I think the

>purpose is served.

 

Either you are being flippant, or you are missing the gravity of my

point.

 

If only one of the two charts is really Aurobindo's chart, then how

can both analyses contain "genuine points". Atleast one of the

explanations has to be based on points that do NOT have

anything to do with making Aurobindo a spiritual giant!

 

When I read an analysis that claims to be looking at Aurobindo's

chart, to tell me what made him a spiritual giant, I expect the

chart to really belong to Aurobindo! I hope this is not too much

to ask for!

 

If two people are able to take two different charts and show

astrological features in them that explain things about Aurobindo,

then the question arises as to WHETHER those astrological

features had anything at all to do with what made Aurobindo a

spiritual giant.

 

 

>So, what do you suggest should be done? You are constantly

>complaining about the perceived arbitrariness in astrology. Is it

>just that astrology is an arbitrary subject and should not be used

OR

>is there a solution?

 

You know, I truly wish I had the answer to this. Somehow or the

other, I came in contact with two astrologers who could make some

very amazing predictions. They inspired an interest in astrology in

me. As a result, for the last few years, I have been reading about

astrology with a non-critical mind, trying to take the points made

in the books at face value, without questioning them much.

 

Now, I am at a crossroads. Astrology seems to work in the hands

of some people, on some occasions. I cannot dispute that. But

most of what I read in books is post-fact analysis. Astrologers

are able to use multiple times of birth for the same person, or

generate different charts using different ayanamsas and STILL

justify the known past of the subject. Critical scrutiny seems to

suggest very strongly to me that in these cases, known events

are being mapped into the charts, and not vice versa. If this is

indeed true, then that material is of questionable utility.

 

I will stick my neck out and say the following about astrology.

This has been MY experience, and may not be true for everybody.

 

Astrology DOES work. I have seen this with my own eyes.

However, I cannot make that an unqualified statement -- the

astrologers I have seen are extremely spiritual people. So, I do

not know if their predictions coming true is because of 'vak siddhi',

or through God's Grace, or if it is because of correct application

of textbook astrological principles.

 

Furthermore, the above astrologers make their predictions based

on only Rasi chart and Navamsa and only using Vimsottari dasa.

Again, this is not to say that divisional charts and other dasa

systems are not useful. It may be that their powers of intuition

are so well developed, or they are so much in touch with God,

that what they say comes true anyway.

 

So, on the one hand, I have seen astrologers who can make

amazing predictions, and on the other, I see books on astrology,

which contain post-fact analyses, which cannot stand critical

scrutiny. For example, one of the astrologers I spoke about is

very good at telling the number of siblings by looking at a chart.

I have shown him numerous charts and find that his method

works with a very high rate of success. His method has to do

with looking at the number of aspects to the third house (not

rasi-drishti) in the RASI chart. However, I cannot get even

reasonable results with the methods using the drekkana

taught in Sanjay Rath's books (and echoed in this group by

Narasimha and others). I could say the same about the

number of children and the saptamsa.

 

I am still searching for a way to reconcile these two realities.

At this point, I am leaning towards the view that research

based only on post-fact analysis cannot be relied upon very

much. Most books I have seen by astrologers are in this

category. The true test of an astrologer is prediction. If one

can predict an event, and later give an explanation of what

went into the prediction, that is perfectly fine. But it would

be foolhardy to rely on the research of an astrologer who does

not predict much, and spends his time coming up with theories

based on charts of subjects whose life-details he thoroughly

knows - such as his own chart, his immediate relatives' charts

or charts of celebrities. In my opinion, such a person can

only be classed as an author of books on astrology, or as an

astro-theorist, but never as an astrologer (my opinion).

 

It is paradoxical that people who write books and give seminars

may be more visible, and may be seen as torch-bearers of

astrology. This would be true even if they did not predict much,

or if their predictions largely did not come true. As long as they

took care never to be "tested" or avoided situations that involved

their work being critically scrutinised, they can be seen as

great astrologers. The really great astrologers who have true

powers of prediction may not be writers at all, or may not be

publicity minded. Hence may not have any prominence or

recognition, and their methods may not get passed on to

students of astrology. Again, I do not claim to have a solution

to this situation, but I merely highlight it as a paradox.

 

You wanted to know where I was coming from, and where I was

going, I hope the above explanation made some sense. I would

be interested in hearing your feedback.

 

I remain,

 

Mahalinga Iyer

[Guest guest]

Namaste Mahaling,

Hope you won't mind my butting in..

 

> When I read an analysis that claims to be looking at Aurobindo's

> chart, to tell me what made him a spiritual giant, I expect the

> chart to really belong to Aurobindo! I hope this is not too much

> to ask for!

>

> If two people are able to take two different charts and show

> astrological features in them that explain things about Aurobindo,

> then the question arises as to WHETHER those astrological

> features had anything at all to do with what made Aurobindo a

> spiritual giant.

>

 

That was exactly my point when talking about Madonna's chart. There can be

either one or another chart, not two.. One has to be very obediant to the rules

given by Maharishis..

 

> Now, I am at a crossroads. Astrology seems to work in the hands

> of some people, on some occasions. I cannot dispute that. But

> most of what I read in books is post-fact analysis. Astrologers

> are able to use multiple times of birth for the same person, or

> generate different charts using different ayanamsas and STILL

> justify the known past of the subject. Critical scrutiny seems to

> suggest very strongly to me that in these cases, known events

> are being mapped into the charts, and not vice versa. If this is

> indeed true, then that material is of questionable utility.

 

It is your own experience. I plan to publish of book, with written testimonies

of my friedns

to whom predictions were given and fulfulled. My friend keeps a diary with more

than 20

consulations given to her, her relatives and friends, with the date of

consultation, chart

reading and predictions given. More than 3 years passed and all predictions came

true.. What

do you say about that? I am not claiming that I am an excellent astrologer, I

still feel like

ever student. I was only using principles I learnt from jyotisha books and

Sanjay, and from

my own experience.Neither do I have any sidhis..

 

>

> I will stick my neck out and say the following about astrology.

> This has been MY experience, and may not be true for everybody.

 

Just like said above..

 

>

> Astrology DOES work. I have seen this with my own eyes.

> However, I cannot make that an unqualified statement -- the

> astrologers I have seen are extremely spiritual people. So, I do

> not know if their predictions coming true is because of 'vak siddhi',

> or through God's Grace, or if it is because of correct application

> of textbook astrological principles.

 

My chart contains Satyavadhi yoga. However I do not think, that this is the main

reason.

However, I do not think it is vak sidhhi either.. I think it is merely sound

application of

acquired knowldge, and my own dedication to jyotisha and jyotisha guru. I also

feel that it

is the experience of other jyotishas as well.

 

>

> Furthermore, the above astrologers make their predictions based

> on only Rasi chart and Navamsa and only using Vimsottari dasa.

> Again, this is not to say that divisional charts and other dasa

> systems are not useful. It may be that their powers of intuition

> are so well developed, or they are so much in touch with God,

> that what they say comes true anyway.

 

One can see a whole lot through rashi and navamsa only, and vimshotari dasha..

Other D-chart

would make picture more clear..However, it is undisputable that D-charts are

very very

important. Yesterday, a friend of mine told me that her sister gave birth to a

daughter. I

have predicted daughter from father's saptamsa.

 

>

> So, on the one hand, I have seen astrologers who can make

> amazing predictions, and on the other, I see books on astrology,

> which contain post-fact analyses, which cannot stand critical

> scrutiny. For example, one of the astrologers I spoke about is

> very good at telling the number of siblings by looking at a chart.

> I have shown him numerous charts and find that his method

> works with a very high rate of success. His method has to do

> with looking at the number of aspects to the third house (not

> rasi-drishti) in the RASI chart. However, I cannot get even

> reasonable results with the methods using the drekkana

> taught in Sanjay Rath's books (and echoed in this group by

> Narasimha and others). I could say the same about the

> number of children and the saptamsa.

 

What you said about the books is true. However, I think it is due to the fact to

introduce

learners to the system. In my own book, which is currently in print, I gave

predictions for future for Bill Gates for example. What you said about the

number of siblings

is standard well known procedure. Actually Sanjay teaches, that basic number of

children is

seen from navamsa also. Saptamsa and Drekkana help to make picture clear.

 

>

> I am still searching for a way to reconcile these two realities.

> At this point, I am leaning towards the view that research

> based only on post-fact analysis cannot be relied upon very

> much. Most books I have seen by astrologers are in this

> category. The true test of an astrologer is prediction. If one

> can predict an event, and later give an explanation of what

> went into the prediction, that is perfectly fine. But it would

> be foolhardy to rely on the research of an astrologer who does

> not predict much, and spends his time coming up with theories

> based on charts of subjects whose life-details he thoroughly

> knows - such as his own chart, his immediate relatives' charts

> or charts of celebrities. In my opinion, such a person can

> only be classed as an author of books on astrology, or as an

> astro-theorist, but never as an astrologer (my opinion).

>

 

You are right about this. In fact, when reconscilling is concerned, one has

to apply logic, since there are no black and white rules. I remember once,

while we were discussing saptamsa on varahamihira list, the standard rule

indicated

female born in concerned chart. However, some dristis or other influences were

more of favour

of male child, and Sanjay agreed on that. I cannot exactly recall the time and

the chart, but

what I recall is that dristis of mangal and exalted guru would explain not even

male child

but its birth lagna.. Sometimes, there are parivarthana jogas which exchange

results.. so

sound reason is a must..

 

>

> It is paradoxical that people who write books and give seminars

> may be more visible, and may be seen as torch-bearers of

> astrology. This would be true even if they did not predict much,

> or if their predictions largely did not come true. As long as they

> took care never to be "tested" or avoided situations that involved

> their work being critically scrutinised, they can be seen as

> great astrologers. The really great astrologers who have true

> powers of prediction may not be writers at all, or may not be

> publicity minded. Hence may not have any prominence or

> recognition, and their methods may not get passed on to

> students of astrology. Again, I do not claim to have a solution

> to this situation, but I merely highlight it as a paradox.

 

My dear Mahaling, one cannot learn all things from books.. One has to work a lot

on practical

examples with dedication and faith. As far as what Sanjay teaches, he himself

proved his

predictions in advance in our varahamihira forum, but of course never gave thumb

rules for

all solutions in two books. These are just gudining principles for intelligent

learning of

jyotisha. Being his student, I have unquestianable faith in his teaching,

however, being

logical, I always check all principles in practice. Let me illustrate what I am

saying...

In Cova or Jaimini Sutras, it is a rule that when lord of upapada occupies 12th

from it, the

spouse would be from abroad or there could be no marriage. I have recently

looked at chart of

lady virgo lagna with mars, lord of upapada(aries) in pisces, 7th from it. I

have asked her

whether she passed through marriage and divorce, even though she is 27 years

old, due to

mars, signfiying early marriage, and vimshoatari dashas of rahu and guru.. I

didn't think

that spouse was from abroad, or that she didn't have marriage. The reason was

simple. Mars

lord of upapada, even though being in 12th from upapada was in 7th from lagna.

So it will not

deny marriage. There were not other foreign influences on the 7th house in rashi

in navamsa,

so I didn't thinkg the ex spouse was a foreigner. Her chart also has 4 planets

in kendra,

which is pravrajya yoga for renunciation. Shani was combust, and upapada was

strong, so I

also didn't think that it gives sannyasa, even though in Cova you may find this

information.

So there are additional rules to basic rules, and additional logic to be

applied. I have also

found some charts of person having one child, even though in Jaimini sutras, you

will find

that venus, saturn and mercury in trines in saptamsa would give childlessness.

However, in

this chart, both rashi and navamsa placement were very strong, and what is most

important,

chandra and guru were very strong and involved in good yogas in saptamsa.

Nevertheless, I

have seen a few charts with afflicted natal positions and these three planets in

trines in

saptamsa, and the people are childlessness. What I am saying is that these

principles do

work, but each chart is unique pattern, and subject to many different influences

which had to

be carefully examined...

Hope didn't bother much,

Regards,

Zoran