Proving vedic astrology

[Guest guest]

> Proving vedic astrology

>

> Is there a way to prove how vedic astrology is a "scientific fact"

> according to the "modern scientific method"?

 

 

No there is not because of many reasons.

 

Among them the most prominent are:

 

Many bad astrologers give credence to the fact that jyotish is humbug.

 

Apperently contradictory ways of doing astrology: tropical, sidereal, Vedic

etc.

 

Scientists are not as open minded as they claim to be and have a strong bias

against astrology see http://tinyurl.com/6cnge

 

for what I mean.

 

You would have as much luck proving God to them as you would astrology

especially since astrology by its existence implies the existence of God.

Something that the scientific establishment (not individual scientists)

hate.

 

Some attempted to prove astrology via statistics with limited success

because scientists wont accept. The classic case was of Michel Gauquelin

(spelling?) who was not an astrologer but a psychologist at the Sorbonne. He

went to great trouble to collect the birth data of prominet persons in

various fields and then drew up a planetary map (not according to any

particular system) hoping to debunk astrology.

 

To his amazement he found that there was in fact a strong correlation

between the planets and certain occupations.

 

For example he found that renown atheletes and military men very often had

Mars located near a quadrant position.

 

Similarly scientists and mathematicians had Saturn placed thus.

 

Notable lawyers, actors and clergy had Jupiter placed like this.

 

Talented writers had the Moon thus placed.

 

We note with interest that he found no correlation for the trans-Saturnian

planets: Neptune, Uranus and Pluto.

 

Anyway, so how did the world of "Science" react to his findings? First of

all they started nit picking and said that his methodology was flwaed in

some way just so that they could say his findings were wrong. He defended

himslef but eventually was driven out of acedemia because he was now seen as

unscientific because he now believed in astrology. Of course his belief in

astrology only came about from his statistical research.

 

I have absolutely no interest in trying to prove astrology to anyone least

of all "scientists" who will never accept it no matter what I do. I feel it

is better to just be as good as humanly possible and then I can convince one

person at a time. We note that despite their attempts more people than ever

believe in astrology -- even with bad astrologers -- probably because the

mechanistic world view is nihilistic.

 

Another thing is that because scientists are mechanistic most attempts to

prove it to them, that I am aware of, also tend to be mechanistic. They fall

along this type of thinking: just as the Sun and Moon by their gravitational

effects generate the tides etc similarly they affect the lives of men. And

in a similar way the other planets, no matter how distant, give off similar

gravitational energies that influence the recipient of such rays.

 

I find this hard to swallow it is not very convincing and I reject it. It is

just caving into mechanism. My experience of jyotish is that it has

destroyed my belief in mechanistic science of ever being able to be a valid

world view as there are so many things it can never explain.

 

Jyotish is kalavidya the science of time. It is a very sophisticated system

of divination meant to help us understand the will of the Supreme. It has

its own inner logic and consistency that is not dependent on mechanistic

principles (atheism).

 

Anyway now you know my views on the subject.

 

As a matter of interest I recieved this email and am responding to it from a

moving train going from Chennai to Sri Rangam. I have a wireless pcmcia card

that connects me to the internet. I just started using it today. A usefull

tool especially in India.

 

 

yhs

 

Shyamasundara Dasa

 

www.ShyamasundaraDasa.com