Astrology is it Vedic ????????????---answer

[Guest guest]

Hello Rajeev:

 

I don't care whether Astrology is Vedic or not. I believe it is Vedic

and that's what matters to me.

 

It is my belief and my faith that matters NOT the truth.

 

Well, the same goes for belief in God. It is the faith that there is

a God that matters, not the truth.

 

The truth may be that there ISNT'T an old man with a long-white-beard

controlling the lives of people on this planet. But, if one has faith

that there IS a God who influences his life, then that is what

becomes this man's truth.

 

If you BELIEVE that Jesus walked on water and Krishna held up the

Govardhan mountain and Moses got the ten commandments through a

personal dialouge with God, then it becomes your truth.

 

If you're not a believer and seek to challenge everything and seek

the truth, then it is your choice. And, let me make MY choice of

faith and belief.

 

Mukund

 

 

vedic astrology, Rajeev Kumar <satpath1>

wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> 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

>

>

>

>

>