Guest guest Posted August 22, 2004 Report Share Posted August 22, 2004 Hello everyone. Please allow me to start a discussion. If astrology is to be proven as science there must be a way to precisely define the rules and one should be able to duplicate results no matter who calculates it and where with a given set of data. There should not be ambiguity in the asumptions made or the calculations done. I think the best place to start is from the basics. Does any one know why Rahu and Ketu are taken as planets though they do not have the physical form and if any one can enlighten as to who found out (and how?) that the intersection of the moon's path and the earth's path has properties similar to that of a planet? Is there any equivalence in the current scientific astronomical terminology to the Rahu and Ketu Phenomenon? If we understand the basics better that will help build a stronger and more scientific explaination and methodology for this art/science. I also invite the views of the learned group members on my approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 Dear Uday Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.This is the assumption upon which science is bulit.Since the foundation of science lies in an 'assumption' - should we discard all the discoveries and inventions?.As science cannot answer the origin of energy - the individuals who are in pursuit of truth, are storming their brain.This process did not start all off a sudden.It has been there since time immemorial.Astrology is the divine light revealed from divine sources,when approached with divine means.Whatever has been left behind (gained through Shruthi or Smrithi) in the name of astrology, is being passionately observed and percieved by individuals with extreme devotion. Thus trying to equate astrology with natural science is the first blunder.Natural science is different from social science and philosophy is different from both of these. Thus each stream has its own style and line.If astrology is equal to natural science - then what is the relevance of karma,dharma and all?The ambiguity and suspense is the soul of astrology.If one is expecting to get results similar to (2h2 + O2 = 2H2O),then he has taken the wrong turn.Ofcourse the basics can be arranged and organised in a scientific manner,for the benefit of students.As in medical profession,where a doctor uses his intuition for diagnosis - based on 'set of symptoms' ,so does the astrologer. This intuition cannot be spoon feeded.In medical science one can use technology to confirm the diagnosis.But in astrology one has to use wisdom.Unfortunately wisdom cannot be taught as well. Thus those who are happy with limited knowledge (within assumptions - similar to well and frog) can adopt natural sciences and the thoeries as the bible.But when we are seeking the supreme and sublime - we have to break the realms.Everything first starts from a belief ,so does astrology. Thanks Pradeep vedic astrology, "udayg222" <udayg222> wrote: > Hello everyone. > > Please allow me to start a discussion. > > If astrology is to be proven as science there must be a way to > precisely define the rules and one should be able to duplicate > results no matter who calculates it and where with a given set of > data. > > There should not be ambiguity in the asumptions made or the > calculations done. > > I think the best place to start is from the basics. > > Does any one know why Rahu and Ketu are taken as planets though they > do not have the physical form and if any one can enlighten as to who > found out (and how?) that the intersection of the moon's path and the > earth's path has properties similar to that of a planet? Is there any > equivalence in the current scientific astronomical terminology to the > Rahu and Ketu Phenomenon? > > If we understand the basics better that will help build a stronger > and more scientific explaination and methodology for this art/science. > > I also invite the views of the learned group members on my approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 Dear Learned Members, Thanks for your thoughts. This discussion is in no way to demean or disrespect Astrology or its believers. If one is to get the nectar so one must churn the ocean. And we do get all kind of things when we churn the ocean. When I asked about the inclusion of Rahu and Ketu as graha in our astrology I was pointing out the advanced thinking of our rishis or the saints who could either calculate or by some method identify the location and effects of the positions of the nodes. But till date nobody has been able to describe the phenomenon in a more understandable terms. Everyone feels that Astrology is an intuitive science and needs a gut feeling from the Astrologer based on his experience etc. I do not agree one hundred percent. There are several subjects that are absolutely abstract and does not follow the strict rules, laws, aims, apparatus etc but still they are being successfully taught in schools and colleges. Visual arts could be one example of it. When Mr. Pradeep says that energy is neither can be created or destroyed I agree with him. But can we meseaure, quantify, transduce (change from one form to another), and study the effects of it? Thereby predicting 100 percent the effects and hence can be harnessed. Next Mr. Pradeep compares Medical profession to Astrology wherein one has to have intuition. I think its common sense that prevails in every profession. Whether be it medical, law, art, philosophy etc. There are people who constitutes the herd mentality and there are some who use common sense. Those are the people who stand out. Should we call that intuition. I dont think so. Its their knowledge, and application thereof in addition to the common sense that makes them what they are. Not to forget the hard work. The medicine is successfully taught through out the world and there are hundreds and thousands of doctors being churned out from the universities not that every one is a genius but there are certainly in every batch. But this cannot be said about Astrology. I strongly feel that we must accept the fact that there is sufficient knowledge in forms of principles and laws laid out in different texts etc which every writer has proposed on his/her observations but it is for us to put it to the test and either accept it or reject it. It should not be disrespectful if any one theory is found out to be incorrect or has to be thrown out. Like Mr. Raman mentions the conditions for the low and the high tides that does not require any intuition and is an universal law which can be verified by anyone anywhere. I again disagree with Mr. Raman when he says that it is not possible for anyone to study astrology in a "man life". It is for all of the experts of the subject to compile and make the subject learnable in a finite period of time e.g. Medicine contains the knowledge derived from years and years of work and invention and discoveries from several fields but we see people getting their medical degrees in a finite period of time. The same is true about Engineering, Law, and many other fields. I dont think it is wrong to ask why? It could get people irritated when they do not have answers. But this might get us to understand this science in a better light. If we tread the beaten path we will reach where every other traveller has reached. I admire Mr. Krishnamurthy who discovered the K. P. Method and came up with the sub theory which does make a more sense but need more research and unified work. Is it not possible that there may be something we are missing hence getting different results in different cases in similar set of circumstances? I will await your expert comments. Uday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 Dear Uday and others, Allow me to jump in with a 2 cents comment. One needs to understand the word 'Science' in respect to the society which we live in today and to the academic sector in particular. This in turn will require the use of statistical evaluation to determine the validity of various data, which in our case are the ancient astrological slokas from various sources. Implementation of serious statistical research of such astrological slokas in relation to the real outcome within an accepted population (as it is called in statistics), geographical area(s) and following standard rules was never conducted (as far as I am aware of it). Furthermore, it is difficult to do using "straight text" from the books due to the tags of "perception", "understanding" and "interpretation" that is attached to each human being, including astrologers. As there are so many factors involved in each chart it becomes a real challenge. In other words, astrology may be science for some, something else for some and yet another thing for others. This is how it was, and this is how it will be as it is all down to individual PERCEPTION (including 'intuition'), at least as long as there is no established and approved "system of proof for astrological factors", which leaves it in the state of "living theory". God bless /Jay Weiss http://www.alvicomm.com http://www.alvicomm.com/vedic.htm - "udayg222" <udayg222 <vedic astrology> Tuesday, August 24, 2004 5:09 AM [vedic astrology] Re: Is Astrology Science? > Dear Learned Members, > > Thanks for your thoughts. > > This discussion is in no way to demean or disrespect Astrology or its > believers. > > If one is to get the nectar so one must churn the ocean. And we do > get all kind of things when we churn the ocean. > > When I asked about the inclusion of Rahu and Ketu as graha in our > astrology I was pointing out the advanced thinking of our rishis or > the saints who could either calculate or by some method identify the > location and effects of the positions of the nodes. But till date > nobody has been able to describe the phenomenon in a more > understandable terms. > > Everyone feels that Astrology is an intuitive science and needs a gut > feeling from the Astrologer based on his experience etc. I do not > agree one hundred percent. > > There are several subjects that are absolutely abstract and does not > follow the strict rules, laws, aims, apparatus etc but still they are > being successfully taught in schools and colleges. Visual arts could > be one example of it. > > When Mr. Pradeep says that energy is neither can be created or > destroyed I agree with him. But can we meseaure, quantify, transduce > (change from one form to another), and study the effects of it? > Thereby predicting 100 percent the effects and hence can be harnessed. > > Next Mr. Pradeep compares Medical profession to Astrology wherein one > has to have intuition. I think its common sense that prevails in > every profession. Whether be it medical, law, art, philosophy etc. > There are people who constitutes the herd mentality and there are > some who use common sense. Those are the people who stand out. Should > we call that intuition. I dont think so. Its their knowledge, and > application thereof in addition to the common sense that makes them > what they are. Not to forget the hard work. The medicine is > successfully taught through out the world and there are hundreds and > thousands of doctors being churned out from the universities not that > every one is a genius but there are certainly in every batch. But > this cannot be said about Astrology. > > I strongly feel that we must accept the fact that there is sufficient > knowledge in forms of principles and laws laid out in different texts > etc which every writer has proposed on his/her observations but it is > for us to put it to the test and either accept it or reject it. It > should not be disrespectful if any one theory is found out to be > incorrect or has to be thrown out. > > Like Mr. Raman mentions the conditions for the low and the high tides > that does not require any intuition and is an universal law which can > be verified by anyone anywhere. > > I again disagree with Mr. Raman when he says that it is not possible > for anyone to study astrology in a "man life". It is for all of the > experts of the subject to compile and make the subject learnable in a > finite period of time e.g. Medicine contains the knowledge derived > from years and years of work and invention and discoveries from > several fields but we see people getting their medical degrees in a > finite period of time. The same is true about Engineering, Law, and > many other fields. > > I dont think it is wrong to ask why? It could get people irritated > when they do not have answers. But this might get us to understand > this science in a better light. If we tread the beaten path we will > reach where every other traveller has reached. I admire Mr. > Krishnamurthy who discovered the K. P. Method and came up with the > sub theory which does make a more sense but need more research and > unified work. Is it not possible that there may be something we are > missing hence getting different results in different cases in similar > set of circumstances? > > I will await your expert comments. > > Uday > > > > > > > > > > > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... > > > Links > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2004 Report Share Posted August 24, 2004 Dear Mr.Uday Rationality - looks for the root/origin.Natural sciences and its laws/rules are unable to explain the origin/root of energy.The transformation of energy from potential to kinetic or light to heat was not my point of discussion.This comes at a secondary level.The origin and the destination are being unanswered.When the so called 'rationalists' are happy with an assumption ,the so called 'beleivers' are looking for the root(strange coincidence). Astrology is one plane up,the material and hence if one needs to understand about astrology - he too has to rise to that level.In other words one has to become part of 'astrology'(the flow of energy at a different plane).This cannot be completely observed as a spectator - neither can be fully explained. The case is different with natural sciences - One can understand or feel the effects. In astrology at times one may be able to feel the effects in totality ,but the explanations and logic might look irrational,while observing from a lower plane. In natural science the physiology and anatomy(eg medical science)are hidden only by physical means and this can be further revealed by technological advancements.But the knowledge,cause/effect in astrology are hidden at a different plane.Spiritual advancement is a precondition.In astrology, there is no concept of 'genius' as you have mentioned.It is rather the level of awakening.All the rules and theories are already there - one should be able to perceive it.There may be some missing links. Now the question of consistency and rationality needs to be addressed only among astrologers, at an intial stage.Here i agree with you,a revolution is needed.All the learned astrologers should be ready to accept each others valid thoughts and understandings.Egos should go off and each one should discuss the shlokas and sutras with an open mind.Similar to the way we refer to various views from ancient sages, we may do the same with contemporary scholars and interpretors.Difference in opinion is a must for growth.But unlike other branches,in astrology this difference should be analysed without ego. We hope for a day when the rules become simple & reliable,when the basics are clear and redundant techniques are being disposed.Learning of astrology itself is a never ending process.Each astrologer should sincerely look for the cause of an event.One should not go with a cause in mind and try to fit that into a chart.Once the astrologers are sincere to do this among themselves,the next stage becomes easy.May be then, one could think of objectivity in astrology. Regds Pradeep vedic astrology, "udayg222" <udayg222> wrote: > Dear Learned Members, > > Thanks for your thoughts. > > This discussion is in no way to demean or disrespect Astrology or its > believers. > > If one is to get the nectar so one must churn the ocean. And we do > get all kind of things when we churn the ocean. > > When I asked about the inclusion of Rahu and Ketu as graha in our > astrology I was pointing out the advanced thinking of our rishis or > the saints who could either calculate or by some method identify the > location and effects of the positions of the nodes. But till date > nobody has been able to describe the phenomenon in a more > understandable terms. > > Everyone feels that Astrology is an intuitive science and needs a gut > feeling from the Astrologer based on his experience etc. I do not > agree one hundred percent. > > There are several subjects that are absolutely abstract and does not > follow the strict rules, laws, aims, apparatus etc but still they are > being successfully taught in schools and colleges. Visual arts could > be one example of it. > > When Mr. Pradeep says that energy is neither can be created or > destroyed I agree with him. But can we meseaure, quantify, transduce > (change from one form to another), and study the effects of it? > Thereby predicting 100 percent the effects and hence can be harnessed. > > Next Mr. Pradeep compares Medical profession to Astrology wherein one > has to have intuition. I think its common sense that prevails in > every profession. Whether be it medical, law, art, philosophy etc. > There are people who constitutes the herd mentality and there are > some who use common sense. Those are the people who stand out. Should > we call that intuition. I dont think so. Its their knowledge, and > application thereof in addition to the common sense that makes them > what they are. Not to forget the hard work. The medicine is > successfully taught through out the world and there are hundreds and > thousands of doctors being churned out from the universities not that > every one is a genius but there are certainly in every batch. But > this cannot be said about Astrology. > > I strongly feel that we must accept the fact that there is sufficient > knowledge in forms of principles and laws laid out in different texts > etc which every writer has proposed on his/her observations but it is > for us to put it to the test and either accept it or reject it. It > should not be disrespectful if any one theory is found out to be > incorrect or has to be thrown out. > > Like Mr. Raman mentions the conditions for the low and the high tides > that does not require any intuition and is an universal law which can > be verified by anyone anywhere. > > I again disagree with Mr. Raman when he says that it is not possible > for anyone to study astrology in a "man life". It is for all of the > experts of the subject to compile and make the subject learnable in a > finite period of time e.g. Medicine contains the knowledge derived > from years and years of work and invention and discoveries from > several fields but we see people getting their medical degrees in a > finite period of time. The same is true about Engineering, Law, and > many other fields. > > I dont think it is wrong to ask why? It could get people irritated > when they do not have answers. But this might get us to understand > this science in a better light. If we tread the beaten path we will > reach where every other traveller has reached. I admire Mr. > Krishnamurthy who discovered the K. P. Method and came up with the > sub theory which does make a more sense but need more research and > unified work. Is it not possible that there may be something we are > missing hence getting different results in different cases in similar > set of circumstances? > > I will await your expert comments. > > Uday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2004 Report Share Posted August 24, 2004 To answer Mr. Sridhars question first as to why +ve and -ve attracts? It is simple because both are opposite forces. Had he asked which force is +ve and which is -ve then it would have been a difficult situation. Everyone has assumed one type of force to be +ve and based on that assumption the other force automatically becomes -ve. If you were to change the labels of the +ve and -ve still it would still hold good and still there would be attraction between the two forces. Mr. Pradeep you may address me as Uday without hesitation. The point I am trying to get across is: lets take the energy example that you gave. If we do not know the source of energy it does not mean that we cannot study the properties and the behavior of the energy? We start from a solid foundation of defining the energy and expanding from there. If the opportunity comes and if some one is able to find the source of energy well and good it can be incorporated in. I am happy that you agree in principle that a revolution in the field of Astrology is needed. I can give several examples wherein the subject that used to be considered as undefinable has been worked out and process made to quantify and define it. Could anyone think 50 years ago that all the astrological calculations could be done automatically by feeding in the birth details? But it has become possible now. As the technology advances so are the possiblities. In Astrology and similar sciences what I feel is that most of the people have attitude similar to that of Mr. Ramesh's that they feel happy and content with the knowledge they have gained and do not believe in research inspite of the fact that they have detailed blueprint available with them and are capable of understanding it and doing it. This is not about convincing anyone about this science. If we are able to deliver results one has no option but to acknowledge the power and science of Astrology. How can a science prosper or progress if there are water tight cells locked in and content with their own knowledge? Why would there be necessity for the Government to start the Patent and Copyright division to share the information even on the most secretive technology and designs? If there is no modification, verification and compliation of the verified data the sciences like Astrology and others are not going to find the place it deserves. The best thing what I liked written by Mr. Pradeep is that one should try and look for the cause of the event and not try to fit the cause in the chart. "We hope for a day when the rules become simple & reliable,when the basics are clear and redundant techniques are being disposed." who is going to make them simple? We are. What are we waiting for? Uday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.