[HinduCalendar] Fwd: Astrology is a Science

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Kaulji,

Namaskar.

Iam sorry I do not know in which context Einstein made

this remark but the underlying thought is to my mind

quite clear.Any idea/theory etc.no matter how

vague/illogical/abstract/unscientific it may appear in

the light of today's knowledge yet it may have the

potential to turn into reality/possibility in future

and therefore it is better to believe than to exclude

it from realms of possibility.At least this is how I

interpret the quote according to my limited

understanding. You may condemn astrological

predictions as fraud today but you may change your

opinion tomorrow. And I wont be surprised if you do

for Parivartan as we all know is the law of the nature

and nobody can be above it. In the closing years of

his life Shri S.B.Dixit, it is understood had

personally experienced some astro predictions made by

a reputed astrologer friend and felt that there was

some substance in astrology.As he died prematurely at

age 47, we are rather unfortunate to have been

deprived of any of his writing on the subject.

Very recently some member in the group had posted the

quote by Einstein on astrology.I am sorry I am unable

to trace it but if you are particularly interested

then a request may be made to the member for the same.

Regds.

VBDeshmukh

 

--- Avtar Krishen Kaul <jyotirved wrote:

 

> Dear Shri Deshmukhji,

> Namaskar!

> I wish you had given the exact references as to in

> which context

> Einstien is supposed to have said, " It is better to

> believe than to

> disbelieve;in so doing, you bring everything in the

> realm of

> possibility " since I do not see the word

> " astrology " anywhere in

> this quote!

> I recall the statement of one of my friends, " It is

> better to believe

> in God. If He exists, He will do some favour to me.

> If He does not

> exist, I am not a loser at all " . This statement of

> Einstien also is

> similar to the same line of thinking!

> With regards,

> A K Kaul

>

>

>

> ,

> vbdeshmukh <deshmukhv

> wrote:

> >

> > Here is an interesting quote from Albert Einstein:

> > " It is better to believe than to disbelieve;in so

> > doing, you bring everything in the realm of

> > possibility "

> > Any takers ?

> > Regds.

> > VBD

> > --- prashanthnair999 <prashanthnair999

> > wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > ,

> > > " Sreenadh "

> > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Udupa ji,

> > > May be your definition of science and its

> > > understanding is outdated.

> > >

> > > //However, it is hard to digest when you say

> that

> > > science also is a

> > > belief and not truth. That will depend on how

> you

> > > define the word

> > > " science " . //

> > > Even the greatest scientists tike Einstein,

> Hokings

> > > etc agree upon

> > > the fact that Science is NOT truth, but only an

> > > effort to understand

> > > reality in a better way; only an effort to reach

> > > near truth; a search

> > > for truth. As I have mentioned in my previous

> mail

> > > - Science derives

> > > and improves upon THEOREMS. But the theorems

> exist

> > > only in our mind. It

> > > is our visualization of reality. No theorems are

> > > truth itself. They are

> > > just a method to understand or picture reality.

> > > They exist only in our

> > > mind. No theorem is truth - but only effort to

> reach

> > > near truth. I will

> > > explain with an example -

> > > Earlier scientists believed that Light is

> composed

> > > of particles - This

> > > was not truth, but only a theorem. Later it was

> > > proved that this

> > > concept is not correct.

> > > Some other scientists believed and suggested

> that

> > > Light is composed of

> > > waves - This was not truth, but only a theorem.

> > > Later it was proved that

> > > this concept is not correct.

> > > The scientists suggested that light is an

> electro

> > > magnetic radiation -

> > > This was not truth, but only a theorem.

> > > Elector-Magnetic radiation was

> > > in itself a concept, and the new theorem on

> light

> > > based upon it.

> > > Then Einstein stated that light is composed of

> > > photons - that is a

> > > theorem, and cannot be considered as truth.

> Just

> > > like Diffraction, just

> > > like Interference, just like Photo electric

> effect

> > > if a new phenomenon

> > > was discovered that forces us to rethink and

> modify

> > > the current theory,

> > > then definitely it will get modified - in an

> effort

> > > to reach more near

> > > to reality; in an effort to picture reality of

> light

> > > in a better way.

> > > Thus science is a search for truth, taking the

> help

> > > of -

> > > * Facts observed by human beings (this is a

> > > subjective experience) or

> > > observed by machines (here the interpretation is

> > > subjective)

> > > * Concepts created by human beings (they exists

> only

> > > in the mind of

> > > human beings and does not have any physical

> > > existence)

> > > * Theorems imagined by human beings (they are

> based

> > > on concepts and

> > > has existence only in human mind)

> > > Thus science is a belief system (recently

> becoming

> > > almost a religion)

> > > with its own concepts, theorems and view point.

> It

> > > is NOT truth, but

> > > instead, just like many other knowledge branches

> it

> > > is a search for

> > > truth; a methodology to approach truth.

> > > Hope this helps.

> > > Love and regards,

> > > Sreenadh

> > > ,

> > > Guru ahudupa@

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sreenadhji,

> > > > I appreciate your answer. I also agree with

> you

> > > that astrology is

> > > > special branch of knowledge like medicine

> systems,

> > > psychology etc.

> > > > However, it is hard to digest when you say

> that

> > > science also is a

> > > belief

> > > > and *not truth*. That will depend on how you

> > > define the word

> > > " science " . If

> > > > you define science " as repeated experiments

> under

> > > identical conditions

> > > give

> > > > repeatable results " , then science can not be

> > > termed as a mere belief.

> > > But in

> > > > today's day to day language so many things are

> > > being referred to as

> > > science

> > > > that one may come to a conclusion that science

> a

> > > also only a belief.

> > > My view

> > > > is that science in true meaning can not be

> > > compared with astrology.

> > > > In fact, I think that we should not have

> science

> > > fixation, not

> > > > everything needs to be science. There are many

> > > things in life which

> > > are

> > > > useful like art, music, which are not science.

> > > > Some people say astrology is a " divine

> science " .

> > > Do you think there is

> > > > something like that? Is it " divine " ?Is it not

> a

> > > fact that the Is it

> > > logic?

> > > > Or is it just postulates? Or is it intuition?

> > > > Once again i thank you.

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Udupa

> > > >

> > > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Sreenadh

> sreesog@

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Udupa ji,

> > > > > //> From where did you get 1800 parts of

> > > Zodiac?//

> > > > > The zodiac is composed of 12 Signs having 30

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

 

Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to

http://messenger./invite/

[Guest guest]

Resp. Deshmukh Ji,

Namaskar,

Thanks for your email about nadi and other msg in the forum.

In this connection I will like to inform you that Sh Prashant Ji has

forwarded a detailed msg in 5 parts on Nadi hence now we can proceed

further and I will not ask you to narrate your story in detail.

I have already raised a point in another msg. to start the discussion

from the beginning I will like to know as to why thumb impression was

taken. Whereas, matching the thumb impression and knowledge that

every thumb has different pattern of lines was not known to our

sages. It is a very new technique devised after the construction of

microscope. Moreover matching thumb impression is not a child job.

It requires a perfect skill and training. Whereas Nadi reader was

neither so literate nor they have any microscope in their centre with

matching thumb impression on the socalled Index bundle. This practice

is only used to take advantage of the mindset of the clients, who

knows that thumb impression of every person is different, hence he is

going to find a Nadi totally individualized for him. Whereas it is

not so.

 

Regarding your view >>>>>>By dismissing Naadi as a cheating business

you are only displaying your negative/biased mindset which is

contrary to the spirit of scientific research and investigation if

that is your objective. As Albert Einstein says :†It is better to

believe than to disbelieve ; in so

doing, you bring everything to the realm of possibility.<<<<<<<<< I

will like to say that spirit of scientific research and investigation

leads me to ask as to why thumb impression was being taken for

matching Nadi, when there is no earlier print of thumb on any bundle

of Nadi. Yes, Einsstein was right but you have misquoted his sentence

for Nadi. Meaning of his saying was that one must believe to achieve

his goal instead of loosing his selfconfidence and disbelieving his

capability so that every goal which he want to achieve may bring

everything to the realm of

possibility (due to his confidence and belief as Ham Honge Kaamyaab

Ek Din Yeh man meih hei Viswas……)

 

In your another msg you wrote >>>>>>This whole business is termed as

Aghori Vidya in Maharashtra.( I am sure Sanatji if he is reading this

would find it difficult to stomach it!)<<<<< in this regard I will

like to inform you that we are analyzing planetary astrology and not

some other systems. Hence no comments.

 

I am waiting for your views on this point then we will take another

point so that systematically we may know mutual views on every point.

But TRY to answer logically without any blind faith.

 

Remember nothing is personal and it is only academic exchange of

views on a subject, and every body is free to follow his mindset or

free to mould it in view of information which he may gather from

various sources. But a point may be noted that there is always

difference between mindset and knowledge.

 

Yours truly,

 

 

Sanat

 

 

, vbdeshmukh <deshmukhv

wrote:

>

> Here is an interesting quote from Albert Einstein:

> " It is better to believe than to disbelieve;in so

> doing, you bring everything in the realm of

> possibility "

> Any takers ?

> Regds.

> VBD

> --- prashanthnair999 <prashanthnair999

> wrote:

>

> >

> > ,

> > " Sreenadh "

> > <sreesog@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Udupa ji,

> > May be your definition of science and its

> > understanding is outdated.

> >

> > //However, it is hard to digest when you say that

> > science also is a

> > belief and not truth. That will depend on how you

> > define the word

> > " science " . //

> > Even the greatest scientists tike Einstein, Hokings

> > etc agree upon

> > the fact that Science is NOT truth, but only an

> > effort to understand

> > reality in a better way; only an effort to reach

> > near truth; a search

> > for truth. As I have mentioned in my previous mail

> > - Science derives

> > and improves upon THEOREMS. But the theorems exist

> > only in our mind. It

> > is our visualization of reality. No theorems are

> > truth itself. They are

> > just a method to understand or picture reality.

> > They exist only in our

> > mind. No theorem is truth - but only effort to reach

> > near truth. I will

> > explain with an example -

> > Earlier scientists believed that Light is composed

> > of particles - This

> > was not truth, but only a theorem. Later it was

> > proved that this

> > concept is not correct.

> > Some other scientists believed and suggested that

> > Light is composed of

> > waves - This was not truth, but only a theorem.

> > Later it was proved that

> > this concept is not correct.

> > The scientists suggested that light is an electro

> > magnetic radiation -

> > This was not truth, but only a theorem.

> > Elector-Magnetic radiation was

> > in itself a concept, and the new theorem on light

> > based upon it.

> > Then Einstein stated that light is composed of

> > photons - that is a

> > theorem, and cannot be considered as truth. Just

> > like Diffraction, just

> > like Interference, just like Photo electric effect

> > if a new phenomenon

> > was discovered that forces us to rethink and modify

> > the current theory,

> > then definitely it will get modified - in an effort

> > to reach more near

> > to reality; in an effort to picture reality of light

> > in a better way.

> > Thus science is a search for truth, taking the help

> > of -

> > * Facts observed by human beings (this is a

> > subjective experience) or

> > observed by machines (here the interpretation is

> > subjective)

> > * Concepts created by human beings (they exists only

> > in the mind of

> > human beings and does not have any physical

> > existence)

> > * Theorems imagined by human beings (they are based

> > on concepts and

> > has existence only in human mind)

> > Thus science is a belief system (recently becoming

> > almost a religion)

> > with its own concepts, theorems and view point. It

> > is NOT truth, but

> > instead, just like many other knowledge branches it

> > is a search for

> > truth; a methodology to approach truth.

> > Hope this helps.

> > Love and regards,

> > Sreenadh

> > ,

> > Guru ahudupa@

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sreenadhji,

> > > I appreciate your answer. I also agree with you

> > that astrology is

> > > special branch of knowledge like medicine systems,

> > psychology etc.

> > > However, it is hard to digest when you say that

> > science also is a

> > belief

> > > and *not truth*. That will depend on how you

> > define the word

> > " science " . If

> > > you define science " as repeated experiments under

> > identical conditions

> > give

> > > repeatable results " , then science can not be

> > termed as a mere belief.

> > But in

> > > today's day to day language so many things are

> > being referred to as

> > science

> > > that one may come to a conclusion that science a

> > also only a belief.

> > My view

> > > is that science in true meaning can not be

> > compared with astrology.

> > > In fact, I think that we should not have science

> > fixation, not

> > > everything needs to be science. There are many

> > things in life which

> > are

> > > useful like art, music, which are not science.

> > > Some people say astrology is a " divine science " .

> > Do you think there is

> > > something like that? Is it " divine " ?Is it not a

> > fact that the Is it

> > logic?

> > > Or is it just postulates? Or is it intuition?

> > > Once again i thank you.

> > > Regards,

> > > Udupa

> > >

> > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Sreenadh sreesog@

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear Udupa ji,

> > > > //> From where did you get 1800 parts of

> > Zodiac?//

> > > > The zodiac is composed of 12 Signs having 30

> > degree each. Each

> > > > degree having 60 min each.

> > > > Now what is the importance of 1800?

> > > > * A sign is made up of 30 x 60 = 1800 min.

> > > > * The zodiac is made up of 1800 parts having 12

> > min each. (But I

> > never

> > > > came across a division giving importance to

> > parts having 12 min

> > each)! i.e.

> > > > 12 min. x 1800 = 21600 min = 360 degree.

> > > > I don't know what the author (Sumit Bajaj)

> > intended to say. Any way,

> > I

> > > > have three quotes, one from Sphujidhwaja hora,

> > one from Skanda Hora,

> > one

> > > > from Deva Kerala (Chandra Kala nadi) which

> > states the importance of

> > 1800

> > > > division of a SIGN (not zodiac), with the

> > meaning -

> > > > *A SIGN of 30 degree can be divided into 1800

> > parts, where again

> > each

> > > > planet posited in each different 1800 parts

> > gives different results.

> > *

> > > > Rest of the questions also belong to Sumit ji.

> > Hope that he may

> > answer.

> > > > If you ask me, my answers would be -

> > > > //is that the reason why astrology is a science?

> > //

> > > > No. It is wrong to consider astrology as a

> > science. Astrology is NOT

> > a

> > > > science, but a holistic knowledge branch, that

> > can reflect truth.

> > Just like

> > > > Ayurveda, Psychology, Homeopathy etc it is

> > another holistic path for

> > > > understanding the world around us. (Please note

> > that Scientific

> > approach

> > > > and holistic approach are two methods used by

> > human beings with

> > feeble

> > > > caliber to understand the world around them, in

> > the very limited way

> > > > possible - they are the only paths or

> > methodologies at our disposal)

> > > > //To say astrology is a science is just a

> > belief.//

> > > > Even Science is a belief, and NOT truth. Science

> > itself is only an

> > > > attempt get near to truth. So as the holistic

> > knowledge branch known

> > as

> > > > astrology. Both Science and Astrology are just

> > belief systems - bulk

> > of

> > > > theorems regarding concepts and facts. Any

> > theorem has got existence

> > only

> > > > in human mind. In this way science is also just

> > a subjective

> >

> === message truncated ===

>

>

>

> Be the first one to try the new Messenger 9 Beta! Go to

http://in.messenger./win/

>