Jupiter in leo

[Guest guest]

Aum Namah Shivaya

 

Namaste,

 

Where is the scope for any disagreement when you yourself have

written what I have been writing time and again on this list? I have

clearly written that they are not merely linked as you affirm,

but "inseperable" and "part of one whole body". Read the exact

sentence. If you have been on the list for atleast 2 to 3 yrs, you

might remember what I myself write time and again. I will now quote

from an old article of mine that was part of an editorial in an old

issue of the Australian Council of Vedic Astrology's quarterly

journal 'The Vedic Light'. I had posted it on this list back in

2001. Read on.

 

 

=======================================

quote starts

-----------------------------

 

....."It now becomes clear that to understand any ancient Indian art

or science all these three aspects are to be examined. So too with

Jyotish. The spiritual principles of astrology have their basis in

the Vedas. The Puranas depict the same truth as interesting stories

making use of the powers of imagination of the mind. To miss these

illuminating stories is to miss part of the teachings. Many well

known classical works of Hindu astrology have been compiled/written

during the Agamic/Tantric period. All the above tools have to be

employed in any attempt to learn Jyotish if one hopes to glimpse

even a fraction of the truth. In other words, the spiritual

principles, the demystified stories and the classical works of

astrology should all be utilized in the learning process.

 

 

Apart from the above three aspects of learning Jyotish, another

important point has to be kept in mind. Astrology is both an art and

science. As a science, its principles work in patterns that are

replicable. Otherwise it would cease to be a science. Unless its

principles can be demonstrated to be replicable (under certain

conditions), the student cannot place his/her faith in astrology as

a science. For this reason it has to be studied with a scientific

attitude so that one can discern dogma from scientific principles.

This is the growing trend during the modern times. This aspect too

has to be studied, though one should not forget that Jyotish is not

a mundane science, but the divine science par excellence. The modern

student of Jyotish has to keep in mind all the above factors. Hence

to appreciate Jyotish fully one has to study all the following

aspects."....

 

......"Varahamihira (505AD), the most famous of all, is said to be a

student of the second Parasara. Varahamihira systematized all

astrological and astronomical knowledge available then in the form

of books. He influenced and was in turn influenced by the western

astronomers and astrologers. He has codified and verified the

principles enunciated by various other astrologers and rishis. He

was catholic in his outlook and embraced astrological principles

from foreigners too, whom he held in respect. Varahamihira had

written excellent books on all the three main divisions of Jyotish-

Jataka, Samhita and Siddhanta. While Parasara is considered the

father of Jyotish, one can say that in many respects Varahamihira is

the father of modern Jyotish."....

 

 

....."One last word. Vedic astrologers have one big advantage that

astrologers of other traditions probably have in a lesser measure. A

rich body of knowledge, both oral and written, as well as known and

hidden. But it should be remembered that the available data is

incomplete and altered. For some reasons, certain places have been

altered, new verses inserted, and so on. A lot that is attributed

to sages like Parasara or Jaimini may not be really authentic. While

this is the case with the so-called teachings of the sages, we

should be open to the fact that the works of later authors could be

erroneous here and there. Of course they derived their ideas from

the teachings of the sages. While they are all brilliant, couldn't

we be open to the fact that they could also make some mistakes.

Aren't there enough contradictions? So is it really worth repeating

verses like parrots? Shouldn't we investigate first into the truth

behind some dictums? Do they work as they are? Or do we need any

research or modifications? What I am suggesting is that if we can

doubt some words of a 20th century scholar, how can we blindly think

that a 15th or 16th century scholar, or for that matter, any other

scholar is infallible? I am not questioning tradition here. All I am

saying is that tradition shouldn't become binding. The rich base

that these great minds gave us should be valued, but not taken

blindly. So most literature should be taken as a starting point, but

not blindly in an unquestioning manner. Do western astrologers take

Ptolemy or Hipparchus or anyone else as an infallible authority as

we do so with a Mantreshwara or Vaidyanatha? Though they are all

brilliant, can't we be open to change and a healthy research mind?

Faith and perseverance will surely help, but will not further the

cause of the subject. So what do we do? Lapse into inaction and

despair? No. We should be cautious when we take certain verses

literally.

 

Where do we draw the line? I am nobody to say anything definitely. I

can only say what I myself do. Take the words of the sages

reverentially, but keep in mind that the available data is

incomplete and altered. Treat the scholars' (human) works as the

foundation, but have a healthy questioning attitude. Try new things

to see if they really work. Be open to good ideas wherever they come

from. Tradition has its role. Undeniably we are very lucky to have

such a rich base handed down to us. But we cannot stop there. When

in doubt over a scholar's opinion, a saint's words are taken as more

authoritative. In all matters of philosophy the teachings of the

saints may be considered from time to time. One can pray and hope

for guidance. We should be open to the truth in whatever form or

wherever it comes from. If there are certain techniques in Western

astrology that can enhance our understanding or practice of Jyotish

as an art or science, we should gladly be open to them. Science

cannot stagnate. Each generation has to contribute something to

further our knowledge. While this is applicable to Jyotish too as a

science, the foundations of Jyotish will remain unchanged, for they

are based on certain timeless truths. The spiritual principles of

Jyotish are based on relatively higher occult truths. This part of

Jyotish will not change. And any attempt to tamper with these

principles will break the very foundations of Jyotish. Truth is a

pathless land. No country or religion or path can claim it

exclusively. Salutations to all the brilliant astrologers!

Salutations to all the sages who revealed the divine knowledge!

Salutations to the One radiant Self that shines in all!"....

 

==============================

quote ends

----------------------------

 

All the above paragraphs have been taken from a single article

written in 2001. There is more in the article. But the above sample

is sufficient to assess what I myself advocate.

 

In essence I guess there seems to be hardly any disagreement.

 

 

Regards,

Satya

 

=============================

 

vedic astrology, "Chandrashekhar Sharma"

<boxdel> wrote:

> Dear Dr. Satyaprakash,

> I agree with you to the extent that principles of one branch of

astrology

> should not be, blindly, applied to another branch. At the same

time they are

> inter-related. It therefore becomes incumbent upon an astrologer

to go

> behind mere verbatim application of texts and understand the

rationale

> behind what has been stated in the texts as available.

> Chandrashekhar.

>