[HinduCalendar] Astrology : faith or fiction ?

[Guest guest]

Dear Pathmarajah ji Namaste,Thanks for your refreshing words. " astrology is not a part of Hinduism " " numbers of Hindus superstitiously believe in these things out of ignorance and as a panacea for insecurities "

I fully agree with this " Being free of beliefs in astrology and its panaceas, is truly exhilarating freedom and euphoric " RegardsDipsOn Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Pathmarajah Nagalingam <beastmy wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

HinduCalendar , " dipika blr " <blr.aspirant wrote:>> Does the silence of the group to this earlier message mean that the " *time

> twin study* " has effectively sounded the death of astrology as a science?It would be reasonable to assume that this being a HinduCalendar forum, and where it has been irrefutably established here that astrology is not a part of Hinduism, and that the calendars in use itself are in gross error, then it evinces little interest on the silent majority to hear of astrology as a science (which is ridiculous of course), nor address its shortcomings.

We've cut the gordian knot, cut astrology completely from Hinduism. That large numbers of Hindus superstitiously believe in these things out of ignorance and as a panacea for insecurities is another matter.

I don't agree at all that an astrologer can be a cheap stand in for a psychotherapist. The Deity of the temple is the traditional psychotherapist for the Hindu, the temple mandapam being the couch where he pours it all out.

Being free of beliefs in astrology and its panaceas, is truly exhilarating freedom and euphoric. This 'liberation' has to take place first before one steps into the path of kriya and spirituality.

Regards.Pathma

[Guest guest]

Dear Suresh ji Namaskar,your statement " A more interesting question is: will two persons born at the same time

at the same place have the same future? Look at any twins (born within

a minute or so) for example.

The obvious answer is " not necessarily " . However, there are going to

be some common patterns in their lives. " has been completely debunked by the time twins research project started in 1958.RegardsDipsOn Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:43 PM, sureshbalaraman <sureshbalaraman wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Will two persons born on the same day have the same future?

No. One's horoscope is not determined just by the date of birth. Time of

birth and place of birth matter too.

A more interesting question is: will two persons born at the same time

at the same place have the same future? Look at any twins (born within

a minute or so) for example.

The obvious answer is " not necessarily " . However, there are going to

be some common patterns in their lives.

Planetary indications are probabilistic in nature. That probability

model can be different for different people. A good astrologer studies

the past of a person and makes a more intelligent assessment of the influences

of various planets.

Some indications have a high likelihood and they will hold for almost

all people born together (at the same place and at the same time). Some

indications have a low likelihood and they may hold true only for some.

An interesting anecdote (from Prof. B.V. Raman's " Planetary Influences

on Human Affairs " ): In his book " Astro-Physiologic " published at Leipzig

in 1928 K.E. Krafft drew up a list of 72 groups of 2 or 3 people who were

born approximately the same hour, day and place, and invariably, they have

died at about the same age and in a similar manner (ranging from " bronchial

inflammation " to " asphyxiation " to " pulmonary tuberculosis " ). The data

was obtained from civil registers of the towns of Basle and Geneva.

Another interesting anecdote: I saw a program on TLC " " The Learning

Channel " ) on TV in which they showed several twins who were separated at

birth and met later in life. They found it interesting that the twins had

very similar thinking styles, tastes and often same background (like taking

dance lessons during certain age) despite growing separately. The theory

they proposed attributed it to genes.

Higher level astrological indications that have a high probability hold

for almost everyone born at that time (at that place). Lower level (fine

detail) astrological indications that have a low probability hold only

for a few. http://www.vedicastrologer.org/ sbHinduCalendar , " dipika blr " <blr.aspirant wrote:

>> Does the silence of the group to this earlier message mean that the " *time> twin study* " has effectively sounded the death of astrology as a science?>

> On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:28 PM, dipika blr blr.aspirant wrote:> > > Dear Readers,> > I am starting a new thread to discuss whether " Astrology is faith or> > fiction? " .

> >> > The old topic discussed whether " fake astrologers have have brought> > disrepute to astrology " > >> > I think this is just a convenient excuse to address astrology's

> > shortcomings. Here I shall focus on how astrological principles themselves> > are questionable.> >> > *The case against astrology*> >> > The case against astrology is that it is untrue. It does not deliver

> > benefits beyond those produced by non-astrological factors, it has not> > contributed to human knowledge, it has no acceptable mechanism, its> > principles are invalid, and it has failed hundreds of tests. But no hint of

> > these problems will be found in astrology books, which in effect are> > exercises in deception. But it doesn't end there.> >> > Astrologers disagree on almost everything, even on basics such as which

> > zodiac to use. They rarely test control data, which is why scientists see> > astrologers as crazy or even crooks. In fact astrologers are mostly nice> > people who genuinely wish to help others. But the claim they repeatedly make

> > (astrology is true because based on experience) is simply mistaken - what> > they see as its strength (experience) is actually its weakness (no> > controls).> >> >> >

> > *The case for astrology*> >> > The case for astrology is that a warm and sympathetic astrologer provides> > low-cost non-threatening therapy that is otherwise hard to come by. You get

> > emotional comfort, spiritual support, and interesting ideas to stimulate> > self-examination. In a dehumanised society astrology provides ego support at> > a very low price. Where else can you get this sort of thing these days?

> > In short, there is more to astrology than being true or false. But note> > the dilemma - to get the benefits you have to believe in something that is> > untrue. The same dilemma can apply elsewhere as in psychotherapy and even

> > religion, so it is not unique to astrology. Nevertheless it presents an> > ethical problem that astrologers have generally failed to recognise let> > alone resolve> >> > Please see " *Journal of Consciousness Studies* 10 (6-7), 175-198, a long

> > scholarly article of 24 pages and 85 references. Tests of *time twins* and> > of astrologers " > >> > --> http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

> >> >> > To start off the debate, I am including the proceedings> >> > from " Current Science " Journal on this topic.> >> > *Indian scientists on Vedic astrology*

> > *Thirty comments from Current Science*> >> > *Abstract* -- In 2001 the University Grants Commision (UGC) in India> > decided to provide funds for courses in astrology and palmistry at Indian

> > universities. The decision provoked outrage and controversy in the pages of> > the prestigious Indian science journal *Current Science*. Of thirty> > comments, most of them from scientists in university departments or research

> > institutes, about half dismissed astrology as a pseudo-science, about half> > of the rest felt decisive tests were needed, and the rest felt there was> > nothing wrong with funding something that the majority of Indian people

> > believed in. In chronological order, the authors and their comments are> > briefly as follows, starting with editor P.Balaram:> > *2000, Volume 79, issue 9*> > Balaram -- UGC should not promote astrology and palmistry courses.

> >> > *2001, Volume 80, issues 6-11*> > Ganeshaiah -- But tests not decisive, more are needed to assess claims.> > Balaram -- Evidence is overwhelmingly against, UGC lacks credibility.

> > Pal -- No respectable university should accept UGC's offer.> > Sitaram and 29 others -- Our apathy means protest may be too late.> > Murthy -- Opposition to astrology is based on sensible science.

> > Chandrashekaran -- No defence is needed when so many people believe.> > Rao -- Why haven't scientists protested? Astrology is not a science.> > Khare -- Vedic astrology has not been scientifically validated.

> > Virk -- Guru Nanak rejected astrology in 15th century. So should we.> > Tiwari -- Big science is suppressing new ideas and should be challenged.> > Sashidhar -- Astrology is a pseudo-science, scientists will ignore it.

> >> > *2001, Volume 81, issues 1-3*> > Narasimhan -- The ancients were good observers, give their ideas a chance.> > Karanth -- Astrology relates to gems, and mineralogy is part of science.

> > Seshadri & Kathiravan -- Most Indians believe in astrology, so honour it.> > Chattopadhyay -- Some scientists secretly believe, so don't blame public.> > Subbarao -- Faith is often needed to overcome fear and uncertainty.

> > Chopra -- Funding psychological props is OK if other needs not affected.> > Devakumar -- Vedas say nothing about astrology, so *Vedic* is a misnomer.> > Valluri -- Astrology fails to meet the methodology of a science.

> > Gautham -- Most consult an astrologer if pressed, so struggle is futile.> > Balasundaram -- Tests of astrology are indecisive, it needs demystifying.> > Tiwari -- Vedic = beyond sensory experience. How can Vedic be science?

> > Gupta -- Astrology may be a science-like knowledge but more difficult.> > Mandal -- We either accept astrology and reject evolution, or the reverse.> > Ganeshaiah -- Issue is nonsense vs good information, not arts vs sciences.

> > Abhyankar -- Astrologers offer only therapy by talking. Why be fooled?> > Narlikar (review of *Astrology: Believe it or not?*) -- Not! Recommended!> > Sitaraman -- Science not threatened by Vedic astrology or any other.

> > At which point the debate was closed by the editor. *Three years later:*> >> > *2004, Volume 87, issue 8*> > Chattopadhyay -- Government reaffirms UGC proposal. But we stay silent.

> >> >> > Opinions on Astrology from Files section of SOA (courtesy Sanat ji)> >>