[HinduCalendar] Astrology : faith or fiction ?

[Guest guest]

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. Bhattacharjyadipika 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.

RegardsDipsOn 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. Ravichandrandipika 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 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 8

Chattopadhyay -- 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.

[Guest guest]

Bhagavat Gita (7-2)jnänam te aham sa-vijnänamidam vaksyämy asesataùyaj jnätvä neha bhüyo nyajjnätavyam avasisyate.Prabhupada's translation: I shall now declare unto you in full this knowledge, both phenomenal and numinous. This being known, nothing further shall remain for you to know.Jyotisa CommentaryThe entire knowledge of creation of this manifested universe, both phenomenal (physical creation) and the spirit being which was handed down by Krsna to Arjuna as this is the transcendental knowledge forming the basis of Jyotisa. Both jnänam (knowledge of the gross material creation and dissolution process) and vijnänam (knowledge of the superior creation and existance of the spirit being) are being described, and these are different. This is the vedänta knowing which nothing more shall remain to be known or hidden. Jyotisa in its highest level is the vedänta where the astrologer has risen to the level of a Trikälajnäni.

Bhagavat Gita (7-4)bhümir äpo'nalo väyuhkham mano buddhir eva caahankära itiyam mebhinnä prakrtir asöadhä.Prabhupada's translation: Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego—all together these eight constitute My separated material energies.Jyotisa CommentaryThe five states of physical existence of all creation are symbolized by1 Earth called bhümi or prthvi tatva, solid state: Mercury,2 Water called äpa or jala tatva, liquid state: Venus,3 Fire called anala or agni tatva, energy state: Mars,4 Air called väyu tatva, gaseous state: Saturn and,5 Ether called kham or äkäsa tatva, vacuum: JupiterAt the gross level these are the panca bhüta and at the subtle level they are known as the panca tatva. Thus, every physical creation shall have these five elements in varying proportions that shall define its physical constitution.The mana is the `mind' of the universe as well as the individual and indicates the class, group or family identifying the created being or object and is represented in astrology by the Moon. Any created material object belongs to a class of objects created with a certain shape (definable for solids with a predominant prthvi tatva), having a certain constitution (based on the proportion of the constituent tatva). These define the class or family to which it belongs.Buddhi refers to the intelligence or body of knowledge related to the object. This defines its purpose of creation and existance and the effects of the various laws of nature on it called its Dharma. The laws of nature that the created body must obey are seen from the ascendant called Lagna and this is the seat of the dharma trikona which includes the fifth & ninth houses. Lagna represents prajäpati, the creator.Ahankära refers to its independent identity and is the false ego (not Freud's ego). This is false because the identity is not permanent and it is an ego as it helps to identify the object and differentiate it from the other bodies/creatures of its class or family. This is represented by the Sun in astrology.Example 1: Arabian seaLet us consider the Arabian sea as an example. This has a predominance of liquid in its body as compared to other states of solids and gases. Thus the body has a predominance of jala tatva. The water is in constant motion due to various currents created by the rotation of the earth. This movement is due to energy in the water showing that it possesses agni tatva. It is contained by a basin which is the crust of the earth and this is the dharma (buddhi) associated with it as one of the laws of nature that a liquid does not have any particular shape and takes the shape of the container. The water in the sea displaces a certain volume of air or vacuum and this volume indicates the presence of äkäsa tatva that keeps the waters together within the containing crust of the earth. There are so many similar large water bodies that separate continents and they are all known as `sea'. This is the family or class of created bodies to which it belongs and is the mana. However, we are aware that this particular body that touches the west coast of India is different from the water body in the east coast of India and other parts of the world and have named it the "Arabian Sea". This particular name "Arabian" is its ahamkära that helps to identify it in particular and differentiates it from other seas.These are the eight primary variables that go into the creation of all bodies, both animate and inanimate. It is evident that we do not need any more variables than the lagna and seven planets from Sun to Saturn to define the physical (material creation). These planets are the seven Chara käraka that are used in mundane astrology and all such horoscopy of material bodies that cannot procreate.

Bhagavat Gita (7-5)apareyam itas tv anyämprakrtim viddhi me parämjiva-bhütäm mahäbähoyayedam dhäryate jagat.Prabhupada's translation: Besides these, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is another, superior energy of Mine, which comprises the living entities who are exploiting the resources of this material, inferior nature.Jyotisa CommentaryBesides the material creation, living beings are also created in this universe, which are of a superior energy. These beings are different from the material beings in that they have the "jiva" or "jivätma" which is very much like the paramätma, yet is different from the latter. This jivätma causes the living beings to exercise a higher level of intelligence, some amount of `free-will' (very much bounded - based on the upachayas) and get involved in the process of karma, sin and rebirth. The definitions of karma and sin vary from one class of living beings to another (mana variance) and also varies within the class (ahamkära) based on the level of buddhi (intelligence). For example, sin is not incurred if a lion kills a cow for food, but a lot of sin is incurred if a human being kills a cow. Here the definition of sin based on dharma (natural laws governing) has been in variance due to the class of being differentiated as per the mana. Again, among human beings, the all knowing self-realised priest or brahmana incurs higher sin by killing a cow than a vaisya whole knowledge is inferior. Here the definition of sin is more relaxed based on the level of knowledge (buddhi).Since the primary differential between the quality of the sin is the mana, and since the Moon represents the mana, it is but natural to consider the nodes of the Moon as karmic control planets. Rahu indicates the sins on account of past karma and those done with full knowledge of consequences while Ketu, in the negative, represents the mistakes made. In the positive Rahu represents punishment and redemption while Ketu represents suffering and emancipation. As a group they are one, and represent the opposite points of bhoga & moksa.The eight-variable scheme of the previous sloka needs to be modified to the ten-variable scheme that includes the lunar nodes Rahu (ascending node) and Ketu (descending node) in addition to the lagna and seven planets from the Sun to Saturn. Further, since every living being that has been created has not got moksa, it is evident that in any spiritual scheme that must represent the individual jivätma and its interaction with the other ätma, room would have to be made for Rahu (but must exclude Ketu). These seven planets from the Sun to Saturn, and Rahu are the eight Chara käraka that are used in horoscopy (jataka) and all such charts of living bodies that can procreate.

Bhagavat Gita (7-6)etad-yonini bhütänisarvänity upadhärayaaham krtsnasya jagataùprabhavaù pralayas tathä.Prabhupada's translation: All created beings have their source in these two natures. Of all that is material and all that is spiritual in this world, know for certain that I am both the origin and the dissolution.Jyotisa CommentaryAll created bodies fall into these two categories of animate (living) and inanimate (non-living). One of the methods of differentiation is in their nature of procreation (this will also form the basis of differentiation of the two schemes of chara käraka). Further, the inanimate bodies do not have a jivätma and are not considered spirit beings or spiritual in that sense.

ConclusionIt is evident from the Bhagavat Gita that there are separate schemes for the living and non-living world and that these schemes differ on the number of chara karaka due to the concept of sin associated with a certain amount of limited free-will and the presence of the jivätma (individual soul of the living being). The visible differentiation is their ability to procreate which is represented by the siva linga (phallic symbol of siva as Pasupati or the lord of all living beings).

source:- Shri S.Rath. http://srath.com/lessons/advanced/ak2.htm

sb , "dipika blr" <blr.aspirant wrote:>> 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!> > Regards> Dips> > On 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.<http://us.rd./evt=51733/*http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ>> > > >>

[Guest guest]

Dear SanatjiMy friend once explained to me the principle of "JARA JHOR SE BOLO!"I will explain this to you also. When some teachers in Punjab were agitating for some of their denied rights, the Government was not taking any action for many years. After getting fed up with the Government's atrtitude, the teachers decided to do something drastic, which was caused a lot of disturbance to the public (some individuals who were higher ups in the Government were also). At that point only the Government realized their mistake and went about setting right the injustice caused to the teachers.When I asked my friend why the teachers, were causing such disturbance to the public, my friend who was also one of the teachers replied, we only followed the principle of "JARA JHOR SE BOLO!"So when I ask you and your members to scientifically prove one of your beliefs ( which you have been believing for many years without questioning) it is

offensive for you. But when you and some of your other members want to malign what many of our ancestors and sages have said in the form of Jyoitsh, you do not mind questioning that. You do not mind asking whether is fact or fiction? You do not consider that as offensive. You are ready to publish some challenges thrown by some rationalists who are not part of your forum - that is not offensiveI am standing by my what I have already said. I do not have to change my stand. If one has not scientifically tested his or her faith in some statements made by his or her parents about his or her birth, but has chosen to blindly believe that statement, then he or she has no right to question whether astrology is science or fact or fiction or whatever.You can question the prediction of individual astrologers, because an individual may have defective knowledge, or may be biased. But questioning what our ancient sages have said is not acceptable unless we can

prove that we are more advanced than what they were. Our modern science is not complete and full to question them. Whatever statements of made by our scientists yesterday are questioned to day and the statements changed because of new discoveries by them. All scientific theories and findings are always openly admitted as being subject to certain conditions being true or certain assumptions. When no science is perfect, , where is room for any one to analyze whether astrology is a science or not?I hope your forum starts analyzing whether astrological statements apply to practical human life or not instead of questioning fundamentals and axioms.If you do not believe in astrology ( you have aright not to believe) that is fine for every one. But you do not have to ridicule our ancient sages, just because you do not understand them. I agree that it is very difficult for a second standard child to understand quantum physics. The child will not understand even if

the best professor explains. The child has to grow up and become mature before trying to understand that.I have also been watching you replies to Shri SB's postings in this Forum. Most of your replies are only as if to post a negation to what he says ( argument for the sake of argument) and there is no logic behind such argument.I would also clearly like express to you that I joined this forum only thinking that there will be some constructive knowledge to be gained. But it appears that some of your members are here only to ridicule our ancient sages and they have no culture behind them. I have no further interest to continue in yr forum.Good byeRavichandransanat2221 <sanatkumar_jain wrote: Resp. Ravi ji, Namaskar, I am sorry to inform you that I find that tone of your msg. is not good and it can not be termed as a healthy discussion on predictive astrology. You must raise some solid logic, reference etc. instead of personal remarks. You should also know as to how we must behave in an interaction and specially with a respected lady member. In the initial welcome note I have mentioned and I am again quoting "I also want to inform you that this forum is intended to unearth the science of astrology hence interaction is totally academic and may never be taken as personal. Because it is natural that we may have difference of opinion but there must be no personal difference, and try to strongly convince the

members with your stand, logic, scientific concept etc., but never use insulting or filthy language, as is being done in many other forums. Thus give regard to get regard for maintaining a healthy academic atmosphere." I am keeping a note and it is also suggested that you may 1 be polite in your msg. or 2 observe silence if you do not have some logical answer or reference 3 think on various points raised by the members instead of hitting 4 continue in some other forum for discussing religion etc. But please do not repeat such filthy language in future in this forum (). Remember this forum is only discussing science of predictive astrology and not a religious faith and I am inviting the members to discuss astrology that too academically. So there is no space for filthy and personal remarks. I hope you will take it as a personal advice and act accordingly.

Thanks, Yours truly, Sanat , Jagadisan Ravichandran <jnravi wrote: > > 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. > Ravichandran > > dipika 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. > > Regards > Dips > > > > 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 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) > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. >

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

[Guest guest]

Dear Sanat ji Namaste,I think we can forgive Jagadisan ji's innocent queries. Maybe he must have taken offence when I pointed out to him that indeed sweetness of sugar can be measured using Brix refractometry.

Now his latest claim is he is unable to test whether parents are real -- i suggest him to use DNA fingerprinting.http://www.scq.ubc.ca/a-brief-tour-of-dna-fingerprinting/

With this message I am inviting Shri D.Bheemeswara (http://123jaigurudev.blogspot.com/) scientist from NIST who has strong views favorable to vedic astrology.

>> " Ravichandran <jnravi wrote: > > 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 trueWe can show sugar but we can not explain sweetness. "

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Jagadisan Ravichandran <jnravi wrote:

 

 

 

 

Dear SanatjiMy friend once explained to me the principle of " JARA JHOR SE BOLO! " I will explain this to you also. When some teachers in Punjab were agitating for some of their denied rights, the Government was not taking any action for many years. After getting fed up with the Government's atrtitude, the teachers decided to do something drastic, which was caused a lot of disturbance to the public (some individuals who were higher ups in the Government were also). At that point only the Government realized their mistake and went about setting right the injustice caused to the teachers.

When I asked my friend why the teachers, were causing such disturbance to the public, my friend who was also one of the teachers replied, we only followed the principle of " JARA JHOR SE BOLO! " So when I ask you and your members to scientifically prove one of your beliefs ( which you have been believing for many years without questioning) it is

offensive for you. But when you and some of your other members want to malign what many of our ancestors and sages have said in the form of Jyoitsh, you do not mind questioning that. You do not mind asking whether is fact or fiction? You do not consider that as offensive. You are ready to publish some challenges thrown by some rationalists who are not part of your forum - that is not offensive

I am standing by my what I have already said. I do not have to change my stand. If one has not scientifically tested his or her faith in some statements made by his or her parents about his or her birth, but has chosen to blindly believe that statement, then he or she has no right to question whether astrology is science or fact or fiction or whatever.

You can question the prediction of individual astrologers, because an individual may have defective knowledge, or may be biased. But questioning what our ancient sages have said is not acceptable unless we can

prove that we are more advanced than what they were. Our modern science is not complete and full to question them. Whatever statements of made by our scientists yesterday are questioned to day and the statements changed because of new discoveries by them. All scientific theories and findings are always openly admitted as being subject to certain conditions being true or certain assumptions. When no science is perfect, , where is room for any one to analyze whether astrology is a science or not?

I hope your forum starts analyzing whether astrological statements apply to practical human life or not instead of questioning fundamentals and axioms.If you do not believe in astrology ( you have aright not to believe) that is fine for every one. But you do not have to ridicule our ancient sages, just because you do not understand them. I agree that it is very difficult for a second standard child to understand quantum physics. The child will not understand even if

the best professor explains. The child has to grow up and become mature before trying to understand that.I have also been watching you replies to Shri SB's postings in this Forum. Most of your replies are only as if to post a negation to what he says ( argument for the sake of argument) and there is no logic behind such argument.

I would also clearly like express to you that I joined this forum only thinking that there will be some constructive knowledge to be gained. But it appears that some of your members are here only to ridicule our ancient sages and they have no culture behind them. I have no further interest to continue in yr forum.

Good byeRavichandransanat2221 <sanatkumar_jain wrote:

Resp. Ravi ji, Namaskar, I am sorry to inform you that I find that tone of your msg. is not good and it can not be termed as a healthy discussion on predictive

astrology. You must raise some solid logic, reference etc. instead of personal remarks. You should also know as to how we must behave in an interaction and specially with a respected lady member. In the initial welcome note I have mentioned and I am again quoting

" I also want to inform you that this forum is intended to unearth the science of astrology hence interaction is totally academic and may never be taken as personal. Because it is natural that we may have

difference of opinion but there must be no personal difference, and try to strongly convince the

members with your stand, logic, scientific concept etc., but never use insulting or filthy language, as is being done in many other forums. Thus give regard to get regard for maintaining a healthy academic atmosphere. "

I am keeping a note and it is also suggested that you may 1 be polite in your msg. or 2 observe silence if you do not have some logical answer or reference 3 think on various points raised by the members instead of hitting

4 continue in some other forum for discussing religion etc. But please do not repeat such filthy language in future in this forum (). Remember this forum is only discussing science of predictive astrology and not a religious faith and I am inviting

the members to discuss astrology that too academically. So there is no space for filthy and personal remarks. I hope you will take it as a personal advice and act accordingly.

Thanks, Yours truly, Sanat , Jagadisan Ravichandran <jnravi wrote:

> > 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. > Ravichandran > > dipika 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.

> > Regards > Dips > > > > 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 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) > > > >

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