[HinduCalendar] Astrology : faith or fiction ?

[Guest guest]

Dear Members The so called challengers, who want to prove everything with science, can not even prove that they were born to their father and mother only with all the scientific knowledge they have. They go only by faith and not one of them have ever used their scientific knowledge to test whether the claim of their parents is true. There is no need to prove whether asrology is science, or fact or fiction. Anyone who does not want to believe that astrology is a science or it is fact need not believe it. No body is forcing them to believe it. They can have their views. I will not waste my time answering these people and entering it useless arguements, If they have time to waste they can continue to waste. Ravichandrandipika blr <blr.aspirant wrote: Great minds discuss ideas;Average minds discuss events;Small minds discuss people. On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 2:57 AM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya > wrote: Dear Jagadisanji,Namste,Please do not waste your energy in explaining astrology to each and everybody as everybody does not have the required receptive capacity to understand and

perceive the subtle subject of astrology. I remind you that our shastras have told us about the three types of adhikaris depending on their receptive capacity. Please remember that in the Bhagavad Gita also Lord Krishna told us, in a similar fashion, to leave the unbelievers alone.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya dipika blr <blr.aspirant > wrote: Dear Jagadisan ji Namaste,Kindly list the arguments you found absurd against astrology.Also, it will help if you can share those personal experiences which make you believe in astrology.Technically speaking, sweetness of sugar can be measured by Brix refractometry,owever, that is besides the point of discussion.RegardsDips On

Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Jagadisan Ravichandran <jnravi > wrote: Pranams Almost all the members have been watching silently all the absurd arguements on this thread. The reasons for the silence is very simple. There are certain realizations that have to come only by personal experience. We can show sugar but we can not explain sweetness. Members do not want to waste their time and energy by involving in absurd arguements. Each individual has the right to imagination. Ravichandran 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 astrologyThirty 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 9Balaram -- UGC should not promote astrology and

palmistry courses. 2001, Volume 80, issues 6-11Ganeshaiah -- 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 1-3Narasimhan -- 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 8Chattopadhyay -- Government reaffirms UGC proposal. But we stay silent. Opinions on Astrology from Files section of SOA

(courtesy Sanat ji) Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

Dear Members The so called challengers, who want to prove everything with science, can not even prove that they were born to their father and mother only, with all the scientific knowledge they have. They go only by faith and not one of them have ever used their scientific knowledge to test whether the claim of their parents is true. There is no need to prove whether astrology is science, or fact or fiction. Anyone who does not want to believe that astrology is a science or it is fact need not believe it. No body is forcing them to believe it. They can have their views. I will not waste my time answering these people and entering it useless arguements, If they have time to waste they can continue to waste. Ravichandrandipika blr <blr.aspirant wrote: Great minds discuss ideas;Average minds discuss events;Small minds discuss people. On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 2:57 AM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya > wrote: Dear Jagadisanji,Namste,Please do not waste your energy in explaining astrology to each and everybody as everybody does not have the required receptive capacity to understand and

perceive the subtle subject of astrology. I remind you that our shastras have told us about the three types of adhikaris depending on their receptive capacity. Please remember that in the Bhagavad Gita also Lord Krishna told us, in a similar fashion, to leave the unbelievers alone.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya dipika blr <blr.aspirant > wrote: Dear Jagadisan ji Namaste,Kindly list the arguments you found absurd against astrology.Also, it will help if you can share those personal experiences which make you believe in astrology.Technically speaking, sweetness of sugar can be measured by Brix refractometry,owever, that is besides the point of discussion.RegardsDips On

Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Jagadisan Ravichandran <jnravi > wrote: Pranams Almost all the members have been watching silently all the absurd arguements on this thread. The reasons for the silence is very simple. There are certain realizations that have to come only by personal experience. We can show sugar but we can not explain sweetness. Members do not want to waste their time and energy by involving in absurd arguements. Each individual has the right to imagination. Ravichandran 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 astrologyThirty 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 9Balaram -- UGC should not promote astrology and

palmistry courses. 2001, Volume 80, issues 6-11Ganeshaiah -- 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 1-3Narasimhan -- 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 8Chattopadhyay -- Government reaffirms UGC proposal. But we stay silent. Opinions on Astrology from Files section of SOA

(courtesy Sanat ji) Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

Dear Readers, Namaste When Arjuna expressed his doubt by saying "I do not know what

is good for me nor do I know whether we will win or the Kauravas will

win the war", Krishna neither asked him to consult some jyotish or soothsayer nor did He tell him to wear some gems or perform some pooja!

He just advised Arjuna "You must fight - that is your karma. If you get

killed in the war, you will get heavenly fame as a good warrior and if

you win it you will be the lord of the whole world". Lord Krishna says in Gita, " Your right is to work alone and not to the

fruits thereof " .Sunil ji:Do you mean to say predictive astrology does not NEGATE Lord Krishna's above statement?Raman ji:Thanks for pointing out the source!RegardsDipsOn Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Does this statement negate the spirit of what Lord Krishna said? " V. V. Raman " <vvrsps wrote:

" Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people. "

This statement was made by Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of the American President Franklin D. Roosevelt. V. V.

Raman

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.