[HinduCalendar] Fwd: Astrology is a Science

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Deshmukhji,

Namaskar!

Many thanks for your response.

 

<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.>

 

Shri Dixit has said on page xiv of his Preface to Bharatiya Jyotisha

Shastra, " I was born on Tuesday,...20/21 of July 1853, at the village

of Murud, in Dapoli Taluk, District Ratnagiri, my birth ascendant

being Gemini " .

Several things emerge from this information: 1. Shri Dixit has not

given his exact time of birth but his Ascendant as Gemini! 2. He has

not said anything about the longitudes of various planets at the time

of his birth. 3. He has not said anything about the Ayanamsha which

he has used for his " Gemini Ascendant " .

It means obviously that way back in 1853, i.e. more than 150 years

back, it was not an easy thing to record the exact birth time,

especially in a village which is far away from any main city! Hence

the inability of Dixit family to note down the exact birth time.

 

Around July 21, 1853 Sayana Gemini Ascendant ranged from around 2-10

a.m. IST to 4-15 a.m. IST whereas Lahiri Gemini Ascendant ranged from

3-43 am IST to 5-50 am IST.

Since in Maharashtra, like most of the other parts of the country, in

1853, Gralaghava Panchangas were used, and since " almighty " Lahiri

had " manufactured " his Ayanamsha to make it coincide with that of

Grahalaghava, we can safely presume that Shri Dixit had referred to

Lahiri Gemini Ascendant. But the time could have been anywhere

between 3-45 a.m. and 5.50 am---it could even be from 3-30 am to 6 am-

--since it was next to impossible, for a remote village in a far

flung area, to have any idea about the exact time.

 

Shri Dixit has made it clear himself that he was of the opinion that

Sayana longitudes should be used for festivals as well as predictive

astrology, and it was only for that reason that he had published a

sayana panchanga from his own pocket for several years, which he had

to ultimately stop since there were no buyers around!

 

Thus with so much of uncertainty about Shri Dixit's brith time and

then about the Ayanamsha confusion, and the third drawback being

inaccurate longitudes of planets, it is next to impossible that any

jyotishi could have made any correct predictions on the basis of the

birth time and planetary longitudes of Shri Dixit. As such, whatever

predictions had been made by any Jyotishi in the case of Shri Dixit,

which had impressed the latter, must have been from some other

supernatural powers! It is a case much akin to that of my maternal

grandfather---who could make correc predictions from horoscopes

prepared from Grahalaghava Panchangas!

As such, the prediction by some astrologer friend having proved

correct cannot be considered a proof in support of predictive

astrology.

<You may condemn astrological predictions as fraud today but you may

change your opinion tomorrow.>

Judging from the massive material that goes against " Vedic astrology "

both scienfitically as well as from the point of view of our

scriptures, I think I have already taken a U-Turn from being a firm

believer to a non-believer in predictive gimmicks, considering " Vedic

astrology " actually a fraud on the Vedas, especially since it is

compelling us to celebrate our festivals and muhurtas on wrong days,

it is virtually impossible for me to take ankother U-Turn of the

earlier U-Turn now since predictive gimmicks are anything but

scientific or Vedic!

With regards,

A K Kaul

 

 

, vbdeshmukh <deshmukhv

wrote:

>

> 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/

>