inviting comments on few astrological issues

[Guest guest]

Dear Manish,

 

Some humble and personal thoughts on the questions you have raised;

 

1- I have heard of some statistical researches on Western Astrology,

with some degree of success. I have not seen any event in anyones

life that can not be explained by his (correct) chart. Hence it is

not easy to say Jyotish is not valid. As beleivers are trying to

stand behind Jyotish, non-beleivers should be able to supply facts

on that side also, which I guess is next to impossible. The latter

generally say; "Oh this is nonsense etc." which does not mean much.

I have not seen anybody proving, statistically or otherwise that

Jyotish is not a valid discipline of knowledge. The problem with

Jyotish / Astrology (e.g. why people doubt it) is that it is against

the modern beleif that 100% of our lives/fate is in our hands, which

leads to the unresolved question of determinism.

 

2- Jyotish can not be reduced to a set of rules using which in a

logical sequence one arrives at predictions, like in math or

physics. Like you have the laws that apply, and you make

calculations and arrive at a fixed result. Even in an area like

physics, the formulas one is using may not be truly applicable to

the case at hand, and even with physics and engineering it is very

likely that one arrives at wrong so to say predictions. Jyotish

gives us many many principles using which we arrive at predictions.

Each rule in itself is correct, provided all other factors are the

same/similar, we arrive at the same prediction every time we use a

rule. The problem is we have many rules which overlap in

applicability. This is "because" the infinite variety in life is

being simplified and reduced through these rules. Otherwise

astrological rules would be of infinte complexity, e.g. not usable.

So you look at a chart from a certain perspective, consider the

rules that are applicable, and judge the result, this latter part

(judging) is not like 2+2=4. Here comes in experience and/or

intuition. I beleive and have seen cases where practice of Jyotish

has indeed produced clear-vision to different levels, and that, not

only in Jyotish but also in other similar areas like Ayur-Ved. I

have seen at least two great Vaidyas, who tell about your future and

past regarding medical matters by obviously intuition. The

definitions of experience and intuition are overlapping here to a

certain extent. An experienced mechanic just looks at your car, and

listens to the engine and can tell many things right away, whereas

an inexperienced mechanic may have to check many things before

saying anything. This too is intuition to a certain extent, because

the experienced mechanic is using his senses and other data that the

inexperienced mechanic is not using. Again in fixing cars, there are

rules to go by, but using these rules only one does not become an

experienced car mechanic.

 

3- One can tell between the chart of a king and a begger, so it may

not be 100% correct that Jyotish is relative. Further if we assume

that Jyotish knowledge is relative only, this is reducing its

validity, from another angle.

 

Life is too complex to be reduced to a limited and finite number of

Jyotish rules e.g. 30-50 let's say. So it is not possible to make

predictions with 100% accuracy, unless one is a Rishi, where rules

are not needed anyway, even Rishis I beleive can not make 100%

predictions, since there can be errors in intuition also. But the

inablity to make 100% correct predictions does not imply that the

rules we are using are wrong, or useless, e.g. this does not imply

that Jyotish is not a valid discipline. It is quite obvious (in

practice) that a learned Jyotishi can predict with high levels of

accuracy, so Jyotish is a valid discipline, using which one can have

a good understanding of the future with a high level of accuracy,

even though this may not be 100%. There are topics to consider like,

the free-will of the native and God's intervention and will, so from

that perspective, even, it may not be logical to expect 100%

certainty from Jyotish and Jyotishis, e.g. assuming Jyotish is

perfect (which I think and beleive is) and assuming that a Jyotishi

is also perfect, even then lifes nature probably is such that 100%

accurate predictions are not possible.

 

Also as we all know, Jyotish is not only about predictions, but also

changing the course of events through remedial measures, which makes

it so valuable from the Vedic point of view, the aim of the Vedic

understanding and teaching on life being to improve the quality of

life and reduce suffering. From this point also it is not very

important whether predictions are 100% accurate or not in the sense

that very specific and detailed descriptions are given or not; e.g.

if one is going into a period when Mangal deva may be presenting

some problems, the more important thing is to align with that power

so that the native does not suffer much.

 

Best wishes, Sabri.

 

vedic astrology, "manishkr67"

<manishkr67> wrote:

>

> My learned friends:

>

> I have some confusion regarding the logic behind astrology and

> request your valuable comments/suggestions on the following three

> issues:

>

> 1. Astrology relies on pattern of planetary and stellar position

at

> the time of birth for predicting the future. If patterns are

> consistent in relating to events, it should be statistically

> determinable. Is anyone aware of studies that prove statistical

> significance of astrological principles?

>

> 2. Astrology, in my limited understanding, is not merely about

> logical deduction through well-established principles. It relies

> much on intuition and principles are like lighthouses that guide

the

> logic towards the intuition. Ultimately, the accuracy of

prediction

> depends entirely on how developed is an astrologer's intuition

> acquired through spiritual living and thinking. How do you react

to

> these assertions?

>

> 3. In my humble opinion, astrological principles are relative. I

> find that some astrologers are careful in having the background

> information of the subject they are judging. I find this practice

> very relevant from the point of view of relativity. To elaborate

> with an example, imagine an exalted Jupiter in the astrological

> chart of a beggar and that of a king, say in the 11th house – the

> house of gain. During the Jupiter Dasa, the beggar will get more

> alms that he did ordinarily and maybe even win a few small bets.

> Relative to his immediate past, he will be much prosperous but

will

> not be "rich" as even an average man. A king, on the other hand,

> will stand to gain considerably during the same period.

> This is a simple example for discussing the relativity. Just as we

> can't say if a leaf picked from a tree belongs to the upper branch

> or the lower (i.e.only by seeing), so we can't say which horoscope

> will bring how much outcome unless we know something about the

> person for guiding our logic and intuition correctly. I will be

> grateful for comments.

>

>

> I am a believer in astrology but not blindly submissive. Before I

> began my astrological study, I was a non-believer – but with a

> difference. I did not want to condemn astrology as defective

merely

> because my colleagues said so. Instead, I decided to learn its

basic

> principles and conclude on my own about its correctness. I was

soon

> surprised that it does have great capability but is just not tuned

> appropriately to assure scientific mindsets of the modern times

> (such mindsets are not necessarily correct).

>

> My knowledge of astrology is not too deep but I have been casually

> reading the subject for few years now. My friends say I make

fairly

> accurate predictions on general aspects of life but I am not

> impressed with myself as yet.

>

> I will be grateful for any insight that further strengthens my

> convictions and helps me in the path of lending scientific

> perspective to astrology.

>

> With regards,

>

> Manish