[HinduCalendar] Astrology : faith or fiction ?

April 27, 2008

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.

>

April 28, 2008

Dear DipikajiYou seem to have misunderstood my mails or may be your understanding of English is poor.In my first mail about sweetness and sugar , I said that you can not EXPLAIN sweetness. I did not say that you can not MEASURE sweetness. You have misunderstood this .In my mail about testing parents are real or not, I did not say that I want to test. I have faith and I need not test. I wanted you to test for yourself, because you do not have faith in anything and you want to test everything with your defective science and defective scientific knowledge. Since you and Sanatji are so much convinced, that what the ancient Rishis wrote about astrology is scientific or not ( as if ur science is perfect and only when it is certified by your science, what ancient Rishis wrote can be accepted as true) I was very eager to know,

whether you have already done your DNA testing ( since you would not have believed your parents also) and if so done please let us also have the results.If you have not done the test so far, that means u go by faith instead of going by science, atleast in this matter.So please do not confuse words an meanings. Ravichandrandipika blr <blr.aspirant wrote: 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 (AT) rediffmail (DOT) com> 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.

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