Astrology is it Vedic ????????????

[Guest guest]

Astrology is it Vedic ? or we are using the name Vedas just to brand it as a Vedic science.

 

I am of the view that Astrology is not supported by Vedas . In ManuSmriti it is

written that whoever disobeys/disregard Vedas is an athiest. So those books

which are not in accordance with Vedas are anti Vedic.

 

I am sure that all people on this forum are not blind and it is for them only

I am raising this question.

 

I have following point to support my views

 

Vedas , Gita talk at length about the philosophy of KARMA(Action) and says that

you have right to do the action only and result is in my(God) hand. But here

the Astrologers have taken the work of God in their hand, is it not against

Vedas and Gita ????

 

In Vedas and other authoritative scriptures of ancient Vedic Rishis no where it

is written that sun moon planets etc do the acts that astrologers generally

talk about.

 

Offcourse Vedas and other vedic scriptures support all the true sciences like

Astronomy but not even a single word we have found on Astrology. If you came

across any then please give the reference.

 

Moreover by applying tests of truth the truthfulness of Astrology is not proved.

The tests of truth are as follows. I am making a copy and paste from the

following site about the ' Tests of truth '

http://www.vjsingh.com/chapterthree.html#8

 

 

 

THE FIVE TESTS OF TRUTH The truth of every thing that is learnt or taught should

be carefully examined by the following five tests:-

The Veda and nature of God - All that conforms to the teachings of the Vedas,

nature, attributes and characteristics of God is right, the reverse is wrong.

Laws of Nature - All that tallies with laws of nature is true, the reverse

untrue; e.g., the statement that a child is born without the sexual union of

its parents, being opposed to the laws of nature can never be true. The

practice and teachings of A'ptaas, -i.e., pious, truthful, unprejudiced,

honest, and learned men. All that is unopposed to their practice and teachings

is acceptable and the reverse is unacceptable. The purity and conviction of

one's own soul. - What is good for you is good for the world. What is painful

to you is painful to others. This ought to be the guiding principle of one's

conduct towards others.

Eight kinds of evidence

Direct Cognizance. Inference. Analogy. Testimony. History. Deduction.

Possibility. Non-existence or Negation.

Direct Cognizance (Praatyaksha) is that kind of knowledge, which is the result

of direct contact of the five senses with their objects,* of the mind (faculty

or organ of attention) with the senses, and of the soul with mind. NYAAYA

Shaastraa 1: i, 4.

But this knowledge must not be that of the relation of words with the things

signified, as of the word "water" with the fluid called "water", For example,

you ask your servant to bring you some water. He brings water, puts it before

you, and says : 'Here is water, Sir.' Now, what you and your servant see is not

the word "water" but the object signified by it. So ou have the direct knowledge

of the object called water. But the knowledge

This knowledge must not be of temporary or transient character, i.e., not the

product of observation under unfavourable circumstances; for example, a person

saw something at night and took it for a man , but when it was daylight he

found out his mistake and knew that it was not a man, but a pillar. Now, his

first impression of the thing was of a temporary or transient nature, which

gave place to permanent knowledge later on, when the true nature of the thing

was revealed in the light. It should be free from all elements of doubt, and be

certain in character. For example, you see a river from a distance and say: "Is

it water there or white clothes spread out to dry?" Or take another example,

you see a man from a distance and say: Is it Deva Datta standing there or Yajna

Datta?" Now, as long as you are in doubt and consequently not sure about a thing

you observe, your knowledge cannot be called Pratyaksha (Direct Cognizance). To

be that the element of doubt must be absolutely eliminated from it. Briefly

therefore, that knowledge alone is said to be Direct Cognizance, which is not

the outcome of the relation of name with the object signified by it, nor gained

under circumstances unfavourable for observation or experiment (Hence transient

in character) nor into which any element of doubt enters

Anumaana - inference - Literally it means that which follows direct cognizance.

Two things have been observed to exist together at some time and place, when on

some other occasion, one of the woe is observed, the other, i.e., the unknown

can be inferred.* For instance, you see a child and you at once infer that he

must have had parents. Again, seeing the smoke issuing from behind a hill you

infer the existence of fire. You infer the previous incarnation of the soul

form observing unequal joy and sorrow in this world at the present moment.

Inference is of three kinds:-

Purvavat - is one , in which you reason from cause to effect, e.g., the

inference of coming rain form the sight of clouds; or, again, you see a wedding

and naturally infer that some day the wedded couple will have children. Or,

again, you see students engaged in the pursuit of knowledge and you infer that

some day they will become men of learning.

Sheshavat - inference is one, in which you reason from effects to causes.

Examples:- You see a flood in the river, and infer that it must have rained on

the mountain from which the river issues. Again, you see a child and at once

infer that the child must have had a father. Again, you see this world and

infer the existence of the Spiritual cause - the Creator, as well as of a

Material cause - the elementary matter. Or, again, take another example. When

you se a man in pleasure and pain, you at once infer that he must have done a

virtuous or sinful deed before, since you have noticed that the consequence of

a sinful act is pain, and that of a virtuous deed, pleasure.

Aaamaanyatodrishata - is that kind of inference, in which there is no relation

of cause and effect between the known datum and the thing to be inferred, but

there is some kind of similarity between the two. For example, you know that no

one can get another place without moving from the first, and hence, if you find

a person at a certain place, you can easily infer that he must have come to the

latter place by moving from the first.

 

Upamaana - Analogy - is the knowledge of a thing from its likeness to another.

The thing which is required to be known is called Saadhya, and tha which

becomes the means of this knowledge from some kind of likeness between the two

is called Saadhana

Examples: - a man says to his servant : "Go and fetch Vishnu Mittra." The latter

answers that he does not know him, as he has never seen him before. Thereupon

the master says :- You know Deva Datta, don't you?" Upon the servant's

answering in the affirmative, his master continues: "Well, Vishnu Mittra is

just like Deva Datta." So the servant went out to find Vishnu Mittra. As he was

passing through a street, he saw a man very much like Deva Datta, and thought

that, thta man must be Vishnu Mittra, and forthwith brought him to his master.

Or, take another example. You want to know what a Yak is. Well, some one tells

you, it is just like an ox. Next time you go to a jungle and happen to see an

animal very much like an ox, you at once know that it is the Yak you asked your

friend about. Now this kind of knowledge, i.e., knowledge of Vishnu Mittra from

his likeness to Deva Datta and of a Yak from its likeness to an ox is

calledUpamaana or knowledge by analogy. The words Vishnu Mittra and Yak are

called Saadhya, whilst Deva Datta and ox are called Saadhana, in the above two

instances.

Shabda - Testimony (literally, word) - "The word of an A'pt (altruistic teacher)

is called Shabda." NYAAYA Shaastra 1:,i, 7. An A'pt is a person who is a

thorough scholar, we versed in all the sciences and philosophies, physical and

spiritual, is virtuous, truthful, active, free from passions and desires,

imbued with love for others, and who is an altruistic teacher of humanity

solely actuated with the desire of benefiting the world by his knowledge,

experience and convictions. God being the truest and greatest of all A'ptas,

HIs word the Veda is also included in shabda (Testimony).

Itihaas - History - is that which tells us that such and such a person was so

and so, he did such and such a thing. In other words, Itihaas is the history of

a country or the biography of a person. NYAAYA Shaastra 2: 2,1.[The experience

of the past recorded in history can be applied to solve many a difficult

question of the day. - Tr.

Arthaapatti - Conclusion or deduction. - It is a conclusion which naturally

follows from the statement of a fact; for instance, one says to another: "Rain

falls from clouds" or " and effect flows from a cause." The natural conclusion

that can be drawn from the above statement is: "There can be no rain when there

are no clouds," or "no effects follow when a cause does not exist."

Sambhava - possibility. - When you hear a thing, the first thing that enters

your mind is whether such and such a thing is possible. Anything that runs

counter to the laws of nature is not possible, and hence it can never be true;

for example, if you are told that a child was born without parents, such and

such a person raised the dead to life again, or made stones float on the sea,

lifted mountains, broke the moon into pieces, was God incarnate, or saw horns

on the head of a man, or solemnized the marriage of a couple born of sterile

mother. You could at once know that it could not have possibly happened, being

opposed to the laws of Nature. That alone is possible which is in conformity

with the laws of nature.

Abhaava - Absence or Negation.- You infer the existence of a thing in some other

place from its absence from the place where you were told you find it; for

instance, a gentleman said to his man: "Go and bring the elephant from the

elephant-house." He went there but found that the elephant was not there. He

naturally conclude that he must be somewhere near about. So he went out and

looked about for the elephant and found him not very far from its proper place

and brought him to his master.

These eight kinds of evidence have been briefly described. Their number can be

reduced to four fi History be included under Testimony, and Deduction,

Possibility, and Negation under Inference.* It is only by means of these five

criteria that a man can ascertain what is right or wrong and not otherwise

If you test Astrology against these tests it proves to be a fraud.

 

 

Regards

 

Rajeev