Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Dear Rohiniranjan, For sometime I have been wanting to ask you ... >From what I could gather from your approach (I do believe that imitation is the best way of learning until you develop the ability to be original - I would like to learn by imitation right now) .. you seem to take a rule, test it with hazar cases and then accept the validity of the statement ... While I think this is the correct approach to any field .. what happens when you lay down a set of principles as a culmination of all your learning and someone else wants to reinvent the rules ignoring what you have learnt??? How do you mark a balance between accepting something and testing out the same?? I am somehow very averse to adhereing to rules (maybe because I am short of memory) ... but I feel there are some fundamental principles which hold the key to all other analysis??? For example ... saying that such and such planet in such and such house causes this effect becomes a statistical study ... however is there a way of guessing the same based on some simple principle that should be understood??? Am I sounding vague?? Please forgive me because in reality my own ideas are very vague ... however I am getting restless to find the root of all this (does being mula nakshatra have anything to do with this?) I am somehow very averse to learning all the yogas and feel that there are some basic set of rules that should be enough to judge a horoscope ... Any input will be appreciated !! Thanks Surya. Mail - You care about security. So do we. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Testing of each and every rule and factor and studying astrology using the scientific method is a very ambitious pursuit which will take huge amounts of human and other resources and a lot of time. This cannot be done unless one is independently wealthy or has a large team of coworkers. Obviously, I do not think that approach is possible for most of us, given our limitations. I do insist though that people do not casually and callously make statements which seem to indicate that a given factor or combination is rigorously tested when it is clearly not so. Let us say someone sees a combination in a few charts and then convinced of its infalliability makes a strong statement to that effect. This can be misleading, can it not? Adding more cases would invariably bring forth some cases which will fail on the kasauti (test bench) and the rule would have to be modified and thus knowledge would grow and evolve. Hopefully, in my statements I have been careful in not giving the impression that any combination I am describing or discussing has a probability attached to it and that is not '1'. When a statement about a certain combination is made I ask for illustrations not to challenge such a statement but out of curiosity and for my own practical learning. Invariably, or in a very very large number of cases, my requests have met with silence or too few examples that proved not to be clean examples (alternate explanations worked) -- so I continue to keep asking. Due to a variety of reasons, some touched upon earlier, a large very large body of astrology is empirical (observation-based) and resplendent with anecdotal evidence which is not very well documented and essentially represents a lost opportunity. We all have been guilty of that to some extent at some time in our life. Very early on in my training, I had become quite disillusioned by a large number of yogas because they did not work too well. Instead of using those as a mainstay, I have always used the many principles that are given in texts readily available but waiting to be explored widely. In contrast to my early days, these days software allows one to quickly inventory many yogas in charts and though not very useful for researching across several charts, such software are a great tool for examining the yogas and getting disillusioned sooner, rather than the painstaking manner that someone like me had to go through in my early jyotish days. Oh and I do not believe any one factor, including one's nakshatra necessarily defines one's central theme ;-) RR , surya vishnubhotla <surya_prakashv> wrote: > Dear Rohiniranjan, > > For sometime I have been wanting to ask you ... > > From what I could gather from your approach (I do > believe that imitation is the best way of learning > until you develop the ability to be original - I would > like to learn by imitation right now) .. you seem to > take a rule, test it with hazar cases and then accept > the validity of the statement ... > > While I think this is the correct approach to any > field .. what happens when you lay down a set of > principles as a culmination of all your learning and > someone else wants to reinvent the rules ignoring what > you have learnt??? How do you mark a balance between > accepting something and testing out the same?? > > I am somehow very averse to adhereing to rules (maybe > because I am short of memory) ... but I feel there are > some fundamental principles which hold the key to all > other analysis??? > > For example ... saying that such and such planet in > such and such house causes this effect becomes a > statistical study ... however is there a way of > guessing the same based on some simple principle that > should be understood??? > > Am I sounding vague?? Please forgive me because in > reality my own ideas are very vague ... however I am > getting restless to find the root of all this (does > being mula nakshatra have anything to do with this?) > > I am somehow very averse to learning all the yogas and > feel that there are some basic set of rules that > should be enough to judge a horoscope ... > > Any input will be appreciated !! > > Thanks > Surya. > > > > > > > Mail - You care about security. So do we. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 Dear Sir, Thanks for your valuable input. For a few days I did spend time in disillusionment over my bad memory and so much to learn syndrome ... It also depressed me to think that astrology is probably just like statistics where you collect past data to prove future possibilities .. and just like every branch that depends on statistics this might make astrology prone to more errors than hits !! What also distresses me is this .. for a brief period of time I had taken the route of exploring the different bhavas and what each planet might represent in them .. this let me to astrology which was more psychological than predicting future ... and although both are interrelated I do believe its a lot of hard work to put them both in prespective ... Thank you again, Surya. --- rohiniranjan <rrgb wrote: > Testing of each and every rule and factor and > studying astrology > using the scientific method is a very ambitious > pursuit which will > take huge amounts of human and other resources and a > lot of time. > This cannot be done unless one is independently > wealthy or has a > large team of coworkers. Obviously, I do not think > that approach is > possible for most of us, given our limitations. I do > insist though > that people do not casually and callously make > statements which seem > to indicate that a given factor or combination is > rigorously tested > when it is clearly not so. Let us say someone sees a > combination in > a few charts and then convinced of its > infalliability makes a strong > statement to that effect. This can be misleading, > can it not? Adding > more cases would invariably bring forth some cases > which will fail > on the kasauti (test bench) and the rule would have > to be modified > and thus knowledge would grow and evolve. Hopefully, > in my > statements I have been careful in not giving the > impression that any > combination I am describing or discussing has a > probability attached > to it and that is not '1'. > > When a statement about a certain combination is made > I ask for > illustrations not to challenge such a statement but > out of curiosity > and for my own practical learning. Invariably, or in > a very very > large number of cases, my requests have met with > silence or too few > examples that proved not to be clean examples > (alternate > explanations worked) -- so I continue to keep > asking. Due to a > variety of reasons, some touched upon earlier, a > large very large > body of astrology is empirical (observation-based) > and resplendent > with anecdotal evidence which is not very well > documented and > essentially represents a lost opportunity. We all > have been guilty > of that to some extent at some time in our life. > > Very early on in my training, I had become quite > disillusioned by a > large number of yogas because they did not work too > well. Instead of > using those as a mainstay, I have always used the > many principles > that are given in texts readily available but > waiting to be explored > widely. In contrast to my early days, these days > software allows one > to quickly inventory many yogas in charts and though > not very useful > for researching across several charts, such software > are a great > tool for examining the yogas and getting > disillusioned sooner, > rather than the painstaking manner that someone like > me had to go > through in my early jyotish days. > > Oh and I do not believe any one factor, including > one's nakshatra > necessarily defines one's central theme ;-) > > RR > > > , surya > vishnubhotla > <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > Dear Rohiniranjan, > > > > For sometime I have been wanting to ask you ... > > > > From what I could gather from your approach (I do > > believe that imitation is the best way of learning > > until you develop the ability to be original - I > would > > like to learn by imitation right now) .. you seem > to > > take a rule, test it with hazar cases and then > accept > > the validity of the statement ... > > > > While I think this is the correct approach to any > > field .. what happens when you lay down a set of > > principles as a culmination of all your learning > and > > someone else wants to reinvent the rules ignoring > what > > you have learnt??? How do you mark a balance > between > > accepting something and testing out the same?? > > > > I am somehow very averse to adhereing to rules > (maybe > > because I am short of memory) ... but I feel there > are > > some fundamental principles which hold the key to > all > > other analysis??? > > > > For example ... saying that such and such planet > in > > such and such house causes this effect becomes a > > statistical study ... however is there a way of > > guessing the same based on some simple principle > that > > should be understood??? > > > > Am I sounding vague?? Please forgive me because in > > reality my own ideas are very vague ... however I > am > > getting restless to find the root of all this > (does > > being mula nakshatra have anything to do with > this?) > > > > I am somehow very averse to learning all the yogas > and > > feel that there are some basic set of rules that > > should be enough to judge a horoscope ... > > > > Any input will be appreciated !! > > > > Thanks > > Surya. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail - You care about security. So do we. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 Dear friends, My views on this issue are like this: I feel that astrological forecasts is not atall concerned with stastical analysis, where number of parameters are not so vast as in astrology. Astrological analysis is more of question of accurate analysis based on certain principles. This analysis is very very complex and we are not able to go to uniqueness of each chart. Even accurate chart preparation at minute level is not possible. Say for example at any point of time in the city of Bangalore two babies are born at a distance of 10 km apart from each other , they should have separate charts at minute level but we can have only one same chart only for both of them. Yogas etc are only simplification of complex situation to serve some perposes . Inder -- In , surya vishnubhotla <surya_prakashv> wrote: > Dear Sir, > > Thanks for your valuable input. For a few days I did > spend time in disillusionment over my bad memory and > so much to learn syndrome ... > > It also depressed me to think that astrology is > probably just like statistics where you collect past > data to prove future possibilities .. and just like > every branch that depends on statistics this might > make astrology prone to more errors than hits !! > > What also distresses me is this .. for a brief period > of time I had taken the route of exploring the > different bhavas and what each planet might represent > in them .. this let me to astrology which was more > psychological than predicting future ... and although > both are interrelated I do believe its a lot of hard > work to put them both in prespective ... > > Thank you again, > Surya. > > > --- rohiniranjan <rrgb@s...> wrote: > > Testing of each and every rule and factor and > > studying astrology > > using the scientific method is a very ambitious > > pursuit which will > > take huge amounts of human and other resources and a > > lot of time. > > This cannot be done unless one is independently > > wealthy or has a > > large team of coworkers. Obviously, I do not think > > that approach is > > possible for most of us, given our limitations. I do > > insist though > > that people do not casually and callously make > > statements which seem > > to indicate that a given factor or combination is > > rigorously tested > > when it is clearly not so. Let us say someone sees a > > combination in > > a few charts and then convinced of its > > infalliability makes a strong > > statement to that effect. This can be misleading, > > can it not? Adding > > more cases would invariably bring forth some cases > > which will fail > > on the kasauti (test bench) and the rule would have > > to be modified > > and thus knowledge would grow and evolve. Hopefully, > > in my > > statements I have been careful in not giving the > > impression that any > > combination I am describing or discussing has a > > probability attached > > to it and that is not '1'. > > > > When a statement about a certain combination is made > > I ask for > > illustrations not to challenge such a statement but > > out of curiosity > > and for my own practical learning. Invariably, or in > > a very very > > large number of cases, my requests have met with > > silence or too few > > examples that proved not to be clean examples > > (alternate > > explanations worked) -- so I continue to keep > > asking. Due to a > > variety of reasons, some touched upon earlier, a > > large very large > > body of astrology is empirical (observation-based) > > and resplendent > > with anecdotal evidence which is not very well > > documented and > > essentially represents a lost opportunity. We all > > have been guilty > > of that to some extent at some time in our life. > > > > Very early on in my training, I had become quite > > disillusioned by a > > large number of yogas because they did not work too > > well. Instead of > > using those as a mainstay, I have always used the > > many principles > > that are given in texts readily available but > > waiting to be explored > > widely. In contrast to my early days, these days > > software allows one > > to quickly inventory many yogas in charts and though > > not very useful > > for researching across several charts, such software > > are a great > > tool for examining the yogas and getting > > disillusioned sooner, > > rather than the painstaking manner that someone like > > me had to go > > through in my early jyotish days. > > > > Oh and I do not believe any one factor, including > > one's nakshatra > > necessarily defines one's central theme ;-) > > > > RR > > > > > > , surya > > vishnubhotla > > <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > > Dear Rohiniranjan, > > > > > > For sometime I have been wanting to ask you ... > > > > > > From what I could gather from your approach (I do > > > believe that imitation is the best way of learning > > > until you develop the ability to be original - I > > would > > > like to learn by imitation right now) .. you seem > > to > > > take a rule, test it with hazar cases and then > > accept > > > the validity of the statement ... > > > > > > While I think this is the correct approach to any > > > field .. what happens when you lay down a set of > > > principles as a culmination of all your learning > > and > > > someone else wants to reinvent the rules ignoring > > what > > > you have learnt??? How do you mark a balance > > between > > > accepting something and testing out the same?? > > > > > > I am somehow very averse to adhereing to rules > > (maybe > > > because I am short of memory) ... but I feel there > > are > > > some fundamental principles which hold the key to > > all > > > other analysis??? > > > > > > For example ... saying that such and such planet > > in > > > such and such house causes this effect becomes a > > > statistical study ... however is there a way of > > > guessing the same based on some simple principle > > that > > > should be understood??? > > > > > > Am I sounding vague?? Please forgive me because in > > > reality my own ideas are very vague ... however I > > am > > > getting restless to find the root of all this > > (does > > > being mula nakshatra have anything to do with > > this?) > > > > > > I am somehow very averse to learning all the yogas > > and > > > feel that there are some basic set of rules that > > > should be enough to judge a horoscope ... > > > > > > Any input will be appreciated !! > > > > > > Thanks > > > Surya. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail - You care about security. So do we. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 Yes there are many different ways of skinning the astrology cat. Some more cruel than others (more cruel on oneself, that is!). The best thing is that you do not have to stick to a given path or way or approach. Obviously, this flexibility becomes difficult to attain when one is tied down to a school or thought or guru etc. RR , surya vishnubhotla <surya_prakashv> wrote: > Dear Sir, > > Thanks for your valuable input. For a few days I did > spend time in disillusionment over my bad memory and > so much to learn syndrome ... > > It also depressed me to think that astrology is > probably just like statistics where you collect past > data to prove future possibilities .. and just like > every branch that depends on statistics this might > make astrology prone to more errors than hits !! > > What also distresses me is this .. for a brief period > of time I had taken the route of exploring the > different bhavas and what each planet might represent > in them .. this let me to astrology which was more > psychological than predicting future ... and although > both are interrelated I do believe its a lot of hard > work to put them both in prespective ... > > Thank you again, > Surya. > > > --- rohiniranjan <rrgb@s...> wrote: > > Testing of each and every rule and factor and > > studying astrology > > using the scientific method is a very ambitious > > pursuit which will > > take huge amounts of human and other resources and a > > lot of time. > > This cannot be done unless one is independently > > wealthy or has a > > large team of coworkers. Obviously, I do not think > > that approach is > > possible for most of us, given our limitations. I do > > insist though > > that people do not casually and callously make > > statements which seem > > to indicate that a given factor or combination is > > rigorously tested > > when it is clearly not so. Let us say someone sees a > > combination in > > a few charts and then convinced of its > > infalliability makes a strong > > statement to that effect. This can be misleading, > > can it not? Adding > > more cases would invariably bring forth some cases > > which will fail > > on the kasauti (test bench) and the rule would have > > to be modified > > and thus knowledge would grow and evolve. Hopefully, > > in my > > statements I have been careful in not giving the > > impression that any > > combination I am describing or discussing has a > > probability attached > > to it and that is not '1'. > > > > When a statement about a certain combination is made > > I ask for > > illustrations not to challenge such a statement but > > out of curiosity > > and for my own practical learning. Invariably, or in > > a very very > > large number of cases, my requests have met with > > silence or too few > > examples that proved not to be clean examples > > (alternate > > explanations worked) -- so I continue to keep > > asking. Due to a > > variety of reasons, some touched upon earlier, a > > large very large > > body of astrology is empirical (observation-based) > > and resplendent > > with anecdotal evidence which is not very well > > documented and > > essentially represents a lost opportunity. We all > > have been guilty > > of that to some extent at some time in our life. > > > > Very early on in my training, I had become quite > > disillusioned by a > > large number of yogas because they did not work too > > well. Instead of > > using those as a mainstay, I have always used the > > many principles > > that are given in texts readily available but > > waiting to be explored > > widely. In contrast to my early days, these days > > software allows one > > to quickly inventory many yogas in charts and though > > not very useful > > for researching across several charts, such software > > are a great > > tool for examining the yogas and getting > > disillusioned sooner, > > rather than the painstaking manner that someone like > > me had to go > > through in my early jyotish days. > > > > Oh and I do not believe any one factor, including > > one's nakshatra > > necessarily defines one's central theme ;-) > > > > RR > > > > > > , surya > > vishnubhotla > > <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > > Dear Rohiniranjan, > > > > > > For sometime I have been wanting to ask you ... > > > > > > From what I could gather from your approach (I do > > > believe that imitation is the best way of learning > > > until you develop the ability to be original - I > > would > > > like to learn by imitation right now) .. you seem > > to > > > take a rule, test it with hazar cases and then > > accept > > > the validity of the statement ... > > > > > > While I think this is the correct approach to any > > > field .. what happens when you lay down a set of > > > principles as a culmination of all your learning > > and > > > someone else wants to reinvent the rules ignoring > > what > > > you have learnt??? How do you mark a balance > > between > > > accepting something and testing out the same?? > > > > > > I am somehow very averse to adhereing to rules > > (maybe > > > because I am short of memory) ... but I feel there > > are > > > some fundamental principles which hold the key to > > all > > > other analysis??? > > > > > > For example ... saying that such and such planet > > in > > > such and such house causes this effect becomes a > > > statistical study ... however is there a way of > > > guessing the same based on some simple principle > > that > > > should be understood??? > > > > > > Am I sounding vague?? Please forgive me because in > > > reality my own ideas are very vague ... however I > > am > > > getting restless to find the root of all this > > (does > > > being mula nakshatra have anything to do with > > this?) > > > > > > I am somehow very averse to learning all the yogas > > and > > > feel that there are some basic set of rules that > > > should be enough to judge a horoscope ... > > > > > > Any input will be appreciated !! > > > > > > Thanks > > > Surya. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail - You care about security. So do we. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 being the devil's advocate that I am, if: Astrological analysis is strongly correlated to experienced effects and thus accuracy is tied to the identification of the relevant factors then should that not be reflected in the statistics (simply stated: percent success of correlation between a given factor and occurrence of the predicted effect? If association of atmakaraka with 11th house by association, aspect is seen in a fair number of charts of jyotishis (statistics), would that not represent a prognosticator for this correlation? I realize that a whole analysis can get quite complex but most jyotishis, early, mid or late, really do not carry out complex analyses for *many* or perhaps **most** elements of a given reading. So, it is doable. How can statistics be separated from success? I realize that does not make them easier to do, but that is another story! RR , "Inder" <indervohra2001> wrote: > Dear friends, > My views on this issue are like this: > I feel that astrological forecasts is not atall concerned with > stastical analysis, where number of parameters are not so vast as in > astrology. > Astrological analysis is more of question of accurate analysis based > on certain principles. > This analysis is very very complex and we are not able to go to > uniqueness of each chart. > Even accurate chart preparation at minute level is not possible. Say > for example at any point of time in the city of Bangalore two babies > are born at a distance of 10 km apart from each other , they should > have separate charts at minute level but we can have only one same > chart only for both of them. > Yogas etc are only simplification of complex situation to serve some > perposes . > Inder > -- In , surya vishnubhotla > <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > Dear Sir, > > > > Thanks for your valuable input. For a few days I did > > spend time in disillusionment over my bad memory and > > so much to learn syndrome ... > > > > It also depressed me to think that astrology is > > probably just like statistics where you collect past > > data to prove future possibilities .. and just like > > every branch that depends on statistics this might > > make astrology prone to more errors than hits !! > > > > What also distresses me is this .. for a brief period > > of time I had taken the route of exploring the > > different bhavas and what each planet might represent > > in them .. this let me to astrology which was more > > psychological than predicting future ... and although > > both are interrelated I do believe its a lot of hard > > work to put them both in prespective ... > > > > Thank you again, > > Surya. > > > > > > --- rohiniranjan <rrgb@s...> wrote: > > > Testing of each and every rule and factor and > > > studying astrology > > > using the scientific method is a very ambitious > > > pursuit which will > > > take huge amounts of human and other resources and a > > > lot of time. > > > This cannot be done unless one is independently > > > wealthy or has a > > > large team of coworkers. Obviously, I do not think > > > that approach is > > > possible for most of us, given our limitations. I do > > > insist though > > > that people do not casually and callously make > > > statements which seem > > > to indicate that a given factor or combination is > > > rigorously tested > > > when it is clearly not so. Let us say someone sees a > > > combination in > > > a few charts and then convinced of its > > > infalliability makes a strong > > > statement to that effect. This can be misleading, > > > can it not? Adding > > > more cases would invariably bring forth some cases > > > which will fail > > > on the kasauti (test bench) and the rule would have > > > to be modified > > > and thus knowledge would grow and evolve. Hopefully, > > > in my > > > statements I have been careful in not giving the > > > impression that any > > > combination I am describing or discussing has a > > > probability attached > > > to it and that is not '1'. > > > > > > When a statement about a certain combination is made > > > I ask for > > > illustrations not to challenge such a statement but > > > out of curiosity > > > and for my own practical learning. Invariably, or in > > > a very very > > > large number of cases, my requests have met with > > > silence or too few > > > examples that proved not to be clean examples > > > (alternate > > > explanations worked) -- so I continue to keep > > > asking. Due to a > > > variety of reasons, some touched upon earlier, a > > > large very large > > > body of astrology is empirical (observation-based) > > > and resplendent > > > with anecdotal evidence which is not very well > > > documented and > > > essentially represents a lost opportunity. We all > > > have been guilty > > > of that to some extent at some time in our life. > > > > > > Very early on in my training, I had become quite > > > disillusioned by a > > > large number of yogas because they did not work too > > > well. Instead of > > > using those as a mainstay, I have always used the > > > many principles > > > that are given in texts readily available but > > > waiting to be explored > > > widely. In contrast to my early days, these days > > > software allows one > > > to quickly inventory many yogas in charts and though > > > not very useful > > > for researching across several charts, such software > > > are a great > > > tool for examining the yogas and getting > > > disillusioned sooner, > > > rather than the painstaking manner that someone like > > > me had to go > > > through in my early jyotish days. > > > > > > Oh and I do not believe any one factor, including > > > one's nakshatra > > > necessarily defines one's central theme ;-) > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > , surya > > > vishnubhotla > > > <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > > > Dear Rohiniranjan, > > > > > > > > For sometime I have been wanting to ask you ... > > > > > > > > From what I could gather from your approach (I do > > > > believe that imitation is the best way of learning > > > > until you develop the ability to be original - I > > > would > > > > like to learn by imitation right now) .. you seem > > > to > > > > take a rule, test it with hazar cases and then > > > accept > > > > the validity of the statement ... > > > > > > > > While I think this is the correct approach to any > > > > field .. what happens when you lay down a set of > > > > principles as a culmination of all your learning > > > and > > > > someone else wants to reinvent the rules ignoring > > > what > > > > you have learnt??? How do you mark a balance > > > between > > > > accepting something and testing out the same?? > > > > > > > > I am somehow very averse to adhereing to rules > > > (maybe > > > > because I am short of memory) ... but I feel there > > > are > > > > some fundamental principles which hold the key to > > > all > > > > other analysis??? > > > > > > > > For example ... saying that such and such planet > > > in > > > > such and such house causes this effect becomes a > > > > statistical study ... however is there a way of > > > > guessing the same based on some simple principle > > > that > > > > should be understood??? > > > > > > > > Am I sounding vague?? Please forgive me because in > > > > reality my own ideas are very vague ... however I > > > am > > > > getting restless to find the root of all this > > > (does > > > > being mula nakshatra have anything to do with > > > this?) > > > > > > > > I am somehow very averse to learning all the yogas > > > and > > > > feel that there are some basic set of rules that > > > > should be enough to judge a horoscope ... > > > > > > > > Any input will be appreciated !! > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Surya. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail - You care about security. So do we. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Hey Inder ... I fully agree with you ... but what are these basic principles is my question ... and confusion .. and whose set of principles are the ones that we should follow??? is it like a good chef a good astrologer should have his own pointers to flavors based on guidelines of recepies?? the trouble is then it becomes a local recipie and loses universal appeal !! Just one more thing .. I am not sure that 2 babies are born every minute ... in fact I think it;s very rare that two kids (unless twins) are born in the same minute ... I think they somehow calculate the number of babies born based on population rise and divide it by the number of minutes in a selected time frame !! Otherwise we should have at least 2 bill gates 2 saddams etc (incidentally are there really 2 saddams ) I am actually disheartened Inder, because to me it';s too damn irritating to find books listing 100's of yogas .. I would rather find a set of reliable principles to predict .. I am making my own list of how it should go .. any inputs from u would be very very deeply appreciated !! --- Inder <indervohra2001 wrote: > Dear friends, > My views on this issue are like this: > I feel that astrological forecasts is not atall > concerned with > stastical analysis, where number of parameters are > not so vast as in > astrology. > Astrological analysis is more of question of > accurate analysis based > on certain principles. > This analysis is very very complex and we are not > able to go to > uniqueness of each chart. > Even accurate chart preparation at minute level is > not possible. Say > for example at any point of time in the city of > Bangalore two babies > are born at a distance of 10 km apart from each > other , they should > have separate charts at minute level but we can have > only one same > chart only for both of them. > Yogas etc are only simplification of complex > situation to serve some > perposes . > Inder > -- In , surya > vishnubhotla > <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > Dear Sir, > > > > Thanks for your valuable input. For a few days I > did > > spend time in disillusionment over my bad memory > and > > so much to learn syndrome ... > > > > It also depressed me to think that astrology is > > probably just like statistics where you collect > past > > data to prove future possibilities .. and just > like > > every branch that depends on statistics this might > > make astrology prone to more errors than hits !! > > > > What also distresses me is this .. for a brief > period > > of time I had taken the route of exploring the > > different bhavas and what each planet might > represent > > in them .. this let me to astrology which was more > > psychological than predicting future ... and > although > > both are interrelated I do believe its a lot of > hard > > work to put them both in prespective ... > > > > Thank you again, > > Surya. > > > > > > --- rohiniranjan <rrgb@s...> wrote: > > > Testing of each and every rule and factor and > > > studying astrology > > > using the scientific method is a very ambitious > > > pursuit which will > > > take huge amounts of human and other resources > and a > > > lot of time. > > > This cannot be done unless one is independently > > > wealthy or has a > > > large team of coworkers. Obviously, I do not > think > > > that approach is > > > possible for most of us, given our limitations. > I do > > > insist though > > > that people do not casually and callously make > > > statements which seem > > > to indicate that a given factor or combination > is > > > rigorously tested > > > when it is clearly not so. Let us say someone > sees a > > > combination in > > > a few charts and then convinced of its > > > infalliability makes a strong > > > statement to that effect. This can be > misleading, > > > can it not? Adding > > > more cases would invariably bring forth some > cases > > > which will fail > > > on the kasauti (test bench) and the rule would > have > > > to be modified > > > and thus knowledge would grow and evolve. > Hopefully, > > > in my > > > statements I have been careful in not giving the > > > impression that any > > > combination I am describing or discussing has a > > > probability attached > > > to it and that is not '1'. > > > > > > When a statement about a certain combination is > made > > > I ask for > > > illustrations not to challenge such a statement > but > > > out of curiosity > > > and for my own practical learning. Invariably, > or in > > > a very very > > > large number of cases, my requests have met with > > > silence or too few > > > examples that proved not to be clean examples > > > (alternate > > > explanations worked) -- so I continue to keep > > > asking. Due to a > > > variety of reasons, some touched upon earlier, a > > > large very large > > > body of astrology is empirical > (observation-based) > > > and resplendent > > > with anecdotal evidence which is not very well > > > documented and > > > essentially represents a lost opportunity. We > all > > > have been guilty > > > of that to some extent at some time in our life. > > > > > > Very early on in my training, I had become quite > > > disillusioned by a > > > large number of yogas because they did not work > too > > > well. Instead of > > > using those as a mainstay, I have always used > the > > > many principles > > > that are given in texts readily available but > > > waiting to be explored > > > widely. In contrast to my early days, these days > > > software allows one > > > to quickly inventory many yogas in charts and > though > > > not very useful > > > for researching across several charts, such > software > > > are a great > > > tool for examining the yogas and getting > > > disillusioned sooner, > > > rather than the painstaking manner that someone > like > > > me had to go > > > through in my early jyotish days. > > > > > > Oh and I do not believe any one factor, > including > > > one's nakshatra > > > necessarily defines one's central theme ;-) > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > , surya > > > vishnubhotla > > > <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > > > Dear Rohiniranjan, > > > > > > > > For sometime I have been wanting to ask you > ... > > > > > > > > From what I could gather from your approach (I > do > > > > believe that imitation is the best way of > learning > > > > until you develop the ability to be original - > I > > > would > > > > like to learn by imitation right now) .. you > seem > > > to > > > > take a rule, test it with hazar cases and then > > > accept > > > > the validity of the statement ... > > > > > > > > While I think this is the correct approach to > any > > > > field .. what happens when you lay down a set > of > > > > principles as a culmination of all your > learning > > > and > > > > someone else wants to reinvent the rules > ignoring > > > what > > > > you have learnt??? How do you mark a balance > > > between > > > > accepting something and testing out the same?? > > > > > === message truncated === Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Well said ... Only confusion it leads me to is that "Astrology was revealed to sages in a state of super consciouness by the creator" goes to the garbage bin if we take this to be statistics ... I somehow tend to believe in both ... and dont know where to strike the deal !! Why is it that some systems work better for some individuals and some for some others?? Our family astrologer has always predicted correctly for me .. only events happened always after 2 months of his predicted date (approx) .. I believe this is a mess up in the software used to generate the chart ... The same astrologer however is horrible at predicting events for my cousin ... who again with the same birth data seems to be working well with a person following the raman system ... ?? why this parity?? --- rohiniranjan <rrgb wrote: > being the devil's advocate that I am, if: > Astrological analysis is strongly correlated to > experienced effects > and > thus accuracy is tied to the identification of the > relevant factors > then > should that not be reflected in the statistics > (simply stated: > percent success of correlation between a given > factor and occurrence > of the predicted effect? > > If association of atmakaraka with 11th house by > association, aspect > is seen in a fair number of charts of jyotishis > (statistics), would > that not represent a prognosticator for this > correlation? > > I realize that a whole analysis can get quite > complex but most > jyotishis, early, mid or late, really do not carry > out complex > analyses for *many* or perhaps **most** elements of > a given reading. > So, it is doable. > > How can statistics be separated from success? I > realize that does > not make them easier to do, but that is another > story! > > RR > > > , "Inder" > <indervohra2001> wrote: > > Dear friends, > > My views on this issue are like this: > > I feel that astrological forecasts is not atall > concerned with > > stastical analysis, where number of parameters are > not so vast as > in > > astrology. > > Astrological analysis is more of question of > accurate analysis > based > > on certain principles. > > This analysis is very very complex and we are not > able to go to > > uniqueness of each chart. > > Even accurate chart preparation at minute level is > not possible. > Say > > for example at any point of time in the city of > Bangalore two > babies > > are born at a distance of 10 km apart from each > other , they > should > > have separate charts at minute level but we can > have only one same > > chart only for both of them. > > Yogas etc are only simplification of complex > situation to serve > some > > perposes . > > Inder > > -- In , surya > vishnubhotla > > <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > > Dear Sir, > > > > > > Thanks for your valuable input. For a few days I > did > > > spend time in disillusionment over my bad memory > and > > > so much to learn syndrome ... > > > > > > It also depressed me to think that astrology is > > > probably just like statistics where you collect > past > > > data to prove future possibilities .. and just > like > > > every branch that depends on statistics this > might > > > make astrology prone to more errors than hits !! > > > > > > What also distresses me is this .. for a brief > period > > > of time I had taken the route of exploring the > > > different bhavas and what each planet might > represent > > > in them .. this let me to astrology which was > more > > > psychological than predicting future ... and > although > > > both are interrelated I do believe its a lot of > hard > > > work to put them both in prespective ... > > > > > > Thank you again, > > > Surya. > > > > > > > > > --- rohiniranjan <rrgb@s...> wrote: > > > > Testing of each and every rule and factor and > > > > studying astrology > > > > using the scientific method is a very > ambitious > > > > pursuit which will > > > > take huge amounts of human and other resources > and a > > > > lot of time. > > > > This cannot be done unless one is > independently > > > > wealthy or has a > > > > large team of coworkers. Obviously, I do not > think > > > > that approach is > > > > possible for most of us, given our > limitations. I do > > > > insist though > > > > that people do not casually and callously make > > > > statements which seem > > > > to indicate that a given factor or combination > is > > > > rigorously tested > > > > when it is clearly not so. Let us say someone > sees a > > > > combination in > > > > a few charts and then convinced of its > > > > infalliability makes a strong > > > > statement to that effect. This can be > misleading, > > > > can it not? Adding > > > > more cases would invariably bring forth some > cases > > > > which will fail > > > > on the kasauti (test bench) and the rule would > have > > > > to be modified > > > > and thus knowledge would grow and evolve. > Hopefully, > > > > in my > > > > statements I have been careful in not giving > the > > > > impression that any > > > > combination I am describing or discussing has > a > > > > probability attached > > > > to it and that is not '1'. > > > > > > > > When a statement about a certain combination > is made > > > > I ask for > > > > illustrations not to challenge such a > statement but > > > > out of curiosity > > > > and for my own practical learning. Invariably, > or in > > > > a very very > > > > large number of cases, my requests have met > with > > > > silence or too few > > > > examples that proved not to be clean examples > > > > (alternate > > > > explanations worked) -- so I continue to keep > > > > asking. Due to a > > > > variety of reasons, some touched upon earlier, > a > > > > large very large > > > > body of astrology is empirical > (observation-based) > > > > and resplendent > > > > with anecdotal evidence which is not very well > > > > documented and > > > > essentially represents a lost opportunity. We > all > > > > have been guilty > > > > of that to some extent at some time in our > life. > > > > > > > > Very early on in my training, I had become > quite > > > > disillusioned by a > > > > large number of yogas because they did not > work too > > > > well. Instead of > > > > using those as a mainstay, I have always used > the > > > > many principles > > > > that are given in texts readily available but > > > > waiting to be explored > > > > widely. In contrast to my early days, these > days > > > > software allows one > > > > to quickly inventory many yogas in charts and > though > === message truncated === Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Dear Rohini ji, I dont think that astrology has atall something to do with Stastics. Percentage of success or failure of forecasts is not question here. Some events forecasts may go wrong due to various problem but mainly interpretational error,but in the same chart you predict some other things - nature/habits etc in a precise manner. Problem of forecasts are solely [if data are correct] due to problem of interpretation. You may be using wrong technique, you may be missing some minute detail, refinement is missing, judgemental errors are there. Add to this problem of ayanmasa. We may lead to offtrack long way. One more factor is divine power may not want correct reading of chart in some case or by some person. Each and every chart/person on this earth is different and a huge book can be written on each person.This book can be read with the help of astrology.! But who can do it . And is it worth except somebody wanting to see his own life on day to day basis with the help of astrology. Stastics is probabilty analysis. In astrology every thing is absolutely definite but judgemenatal or interpretational limitations are there. Inder - In , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> wrote: > being the devil's advocate that I am, if: > Astrological analysis is strongly correlated to experienced effects > and > thus accuracy is tied to the identification of the relevant factors > then > should that not be reflected in the statistics (simply stated: > percent success of correlation between a given factor and occurrence > of the predicted effect? > > If association of atmakaraka with 11th house by association, aspect > is seen in a fair number of charts of jyotishis (statistics), would > that not represent a prognosticator for this correlation? > > I realize that a whole analysis can get quite complex but most > jyotishis, early, mid or late, really do not carry out complex > analyses for *many* or perhaps **most** elements of a given reading. > So, it is doable. > > How can statistics be separated from success? I realize that does > not make them easier to do, but that is another story! > > RR > > > , "Inder" > <indervohra2001> wrote: > > Dear friends, > > My views on this issue are like this: > > I feel that astrological forecasts is not atall concerned with > > stastical analysis, where number of parameters are not so vast as > in > > astrology. > > Astrological analysis is more of question of accurate analysis > based > > on certain principles. > > This analysis is very very complex and we are not able to go to > > uniqueness of each chart. > > Even accurate chart preparation at minute level is not possible. > Say > > for example at any point of time in the city of Bangalore two > babies > > are born at a distance of 10 km apart from each other , they > should > > have separate charts at minute level but we can have only one same > > chart only for both of them. > > Yogas etc are only simplification of complex situation to serve > some > > perposes . > > Inder > > -- In , surya vishnubhotla > > <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > > Dear Sir, > > > > > > Thanks for your valuable input. For a few days I did > > > spend time in disillusionment over my bad memory and > > > so much to learn syndrome ... > > > > > > It also depressed me to think that astrology is > > > probably just like statistics where you collect past > > > data to prove future possibilities .. and just like > > > every branch that depends on statistics this might > > > make astrology prone to more errors than hits !! > > > > > > What also distresses me is this .. for a brief period > > > of time I had taken the route of exploring the > > > different bhavas and what each planet might represent > > > in them .. this let me to astrology which was more > > > psychological than predicting future ... and although > > > both are interrelated I do believe its a lot of hard > > > work to put them both in prespective ... > > > > > > Thank you again, > > > Surya. > > > > > > > > > --- rohiniranjan <rrgb@s...> wrote: > > > > Testing of each and every rule and factor and > > > > studying astrology > > > > using the scientific method is a very ambitious > > > > pursuit which will > > > > take huge amounts of human and other resources and a > > > > lot of time. > > > > This cannot be done unless one is independently > > > > wealthy or has a > > > > large team of coworkers. Obviously, I do not think > > > > that approach is > > > > possible for most of us, given our limitations. I do > > > > insist though > > > > that people do not casually and callously make > > > > statements which seem > > > > to indicate that a given factor or combination is > > > > rigorously tested > > > > when it is clearly not so. Let us say someone sees a > > > > combination in > > > > a few charts and then convinced of its > > > > infalliability makes a strong > > > > statement to that effect. This can be misleading, > > > > can it not? Adding > > > > more cases would invariably bring forth some cases > > > > which will fail > > > > on the kasauti (test bench) and the rule would have > > > > to be modified > > > > and thus knowledge would grow and evolve. Hopefully, > > > > in my > > > > statements I have been careful in not giving the > > > > impression that any > > > > combination I am describing or discussing has a > > > > probability attached > > > > to it and that is not '1'. > > > > > > > > When a statement about a certain combination is made > > > > I ask for > > > > illustrations not to challenge such a statement but > > > > out of curiosity > > > > and for my own practical learning. Invariably, or in > > > > a very very > > > > large number of cases, my requests have met with > > > > silence or too few > > > > examples that proved not to be clean examples > > > > (alternate > > > > explanations worked) -- so I continue to keep > > > > asking. Due to a > > > > variety of reasons, some touched upon earlier, a > > > > large very large > > > > body of astrology is empirical (observation-based) > > > > and resplendent > > > > with anecdotal evidence which is not very well > > > > documented and > > > > essentially represents a lost opportunity. We all > > > > have been guilty > > > > of that to some extent at some time in our life. > > > > > > > > Very early on in my training, I had become quite > > > > disillusioned by a > > > > large number of yogas because they did not work too > > > > well. Instead of > > > > using those as a mainstay, I have always used the > > > > many principles > > > > that are given in texts readily available but > > > > waiting to be explored > > > > widely. In contrast to my early days, these days > > > > software allows one > > > > to quickly inventory many yogas in charts and though > > > > not very useful > > > > for researching across several charts, such software > > > > are a great > > > > tool for examining the yogas and getting > > > > disillusioned sooner, > > > > rather than the painstaking manner that someone like > > > > me had to go > > > > through in my early jyotish days. > > > > > > > > Oh and I do not believe any one factor, including > > > > one's nakshatra > > > > necessarily defines one's central theme ;-) > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > , surya > > > > vishnubhotla > > > > <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjan, > > > > > > > > > > For sometime I have been wanting to ask you ... > > > > > > > > > > From what I could gather from your approach (I do > > > > > believe that imitation is the best way of learning > > > > > until you develop the ability to be original - I > > > > would > > > > > like to learn by imitation right now) .. you seem > > > > to > > > > > take a rule, test it with hazar cases and then > > > > accept > > > > > the validity of the statement ... > > > > > > > > > > While I think this is the correct approach to any > > > > > field .. what happens when you lay down a set of > > > > > principles as a culmination of all your learning > > > > and > > > > > someone else wants to reinvent the rules ignoring > > > > what > > > > > you have learnt??? How do you mark a balance > > > > between > > > > > accepting something and testing out the same?? > > > > > > > > > > I am somehow very averse to adhereing to rules > > > > (maybe > > > > > because I am short of memory) ... but I feel there > > > > are > > > > > some fundamental principles which hold the key to > > > > all > > > > > other analysis??? > > > > > > > > > > For example ... saying that such and such planet > > > > in > > > > > such and such house causes this effect becomes a > > > > > statistical study ... however is there a way of > > > > > guessing the same based on some simple principle > > > > that > > > > > should be understood??? > > > > > > > > > > Am I sounding vague?? Please forgive me because in > > > > > reality my own ideas are very vague ... however I > > > > am > > > > > getting restless to find the root of all this > > > > (does > > > > > being mula nakshatra have anything to do with > > > > this?) > > > > > > > > > > I am somehow very averse to learning all the yogas > > > > and > > > > > feel that there are some basic set of rules that > > > > > should be enough to judge a horoscope ... > > > > > > > > > > Any input will be appreciated !! > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > Surya. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail - You care about security. So do we. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam protection around > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Dear Surya, Basic principles are attributes of each bhava, Rasi, planets-- what they signify and how they signify. I think on this there is 99 % unanimity among astrologers. Prediction is what you happen to learn form any source. Inder , surya vishnubhotla <surya_prakashv> wrote: > Hey Inder ... > > I fully agree with you ... but what are these basic > principles is my question ... and confusion .. and > whose set of principles are the ones that we should > follow??? is it like a good chef a good astrologer > should have his own pointers to flavors based on > guidelines of recepies?? the trouble is then it > becomes a local recipie and loses universal appeal !! > > > Just one more thing .. I am not sure that 2 babies are > born every minute ... in fact I think it;s very rare > that two kids (unless twins) are born in the same > minute ... I think they somehow calculate the number > of babies born based on population rise and divide it > by the number of minutes in a selected time frame !! > > Otherwise we should have at least 2 bill gates 2 > saddams etc (incidentally are there really 2 saddams > ) > > > I am actually disheartened Inder, because to me it';s > too damn irritating to find books listing 100's of > yogas .. I would rather find a set of reliable > principles to predict .. I am making my own list of > how it should go .. any inputs from u would be very > very deeply appreciated !! > > > > > > --- Inder <indervohra2001> wrote: > > Dear friends, > > My views on this issue are like this: > > I feel that astrological forecasts is not atall > > concerned with > > stastical analysis, where number of parameters are > > not so vast as in > > astrology. > > Astrological analysis is more of question of > > accurate analysis based > > on certain principles. > > This analysis is very very complex and we are not > > able to go to > > uniqueness of each chart. > > Even accurate chart preparation at minute level is > > not possible. Say > > for example at any point of time in the city of > > Bangalore two babies > > are born at a distance of 10 km apart from each > > other , they should > > have separate charts at minute level but we can have > > only one same > > chart only for both of them. > > Yogas etc are only simplification of complex > > situation to serve some > > perposes . > > Inder > > -- In , surya > > vishnubhotla > > <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > > Dear Sir, > > > > > > Thanks for your valuable input. For a few days I > > did > > > spend time in disillusionment over my bad memory > > and > > > so much to learn syndrome ... > > > > > > It also depressed me to think that astrology is > > > probably just like statistics where you collect > > past > > > data to prove future possibilities .. and just > > like > > > every branch that depends on statistics this might > > > make astrology prone to more errors than hits !! > > > > > > What also distresses me is this .. for a brief > > period > > > of time I had taken the route of exploring the > > > different bhavas and what each planet might > > represent > > > in them .. this let me to astrology which was more > > > psychological than predicting future ... and > > although > > > both are interrelated I do believe its a lot of > > hard > > > work to put them both in prespective ... > > > > > > Thank you again, > > > Surya. > > > > > > > > > --- rohiniranjan <rrgb@s...> wrote: > > > > Testing of each and every rule and factor and > > > > studying astrology > > > > using the scientific method is a very ambitious > > > > pursuit which will > > > > take huge amounts of human and other resources > > and a > > > > lot of time. > > > > This cannot be done unless one is independently > > > > wealthy or has a > > > > large team of coworkers. Obviously, I do not > > think > > > > that approach is > > > > possible for most of us, given our limitations. > > I do > > > > insist though > > > > that people do not casually and callously make > > > > statements which seem > > > > to indicate that a given factor or combination > > is > > > > rigorously tested > > > > when it is clearly not so. Let us say someone > > sees a > > > > combination in > > > > a few charts and then convinced of its > > > > infalliability makes a strong > > > > statement to that effect. This can be > > misleading, > > > > can it not? Adding > > > > more cases would invariably bring forth some > > cases > > > > which will fail > > > > on the kasauti (test bench) and the rule would > > have > > > > to be modified > > > > and thus knowledge would grow and evolve. > > Hopefully, > > > > in my > > > > statements I have been careful in not giving the > > > > impression that any > > > > combination I am describing or discussing has a > > > > probability attached > > > > to it and that is not '1'. > > > > > > > > When a statement about a certain combination is > > made > > > > I ask for > > > > illustrations not to challenge such a statement > > but > > > > out of curiosity > > > > and for my own practical learning. Invariably, > > or in > > > > a very very > > > > large number of cases, my requests have met with > > > > silence or too few > > > > examples that proved not to be clean examples > > > > (alternate > > > > explanations worked) -- so I continue to keep > > > > asking. Due to a > > > > variety of reasons, some touched upon earlier, a > > > > large very large > > > > body of astrology is empirical > > (observation-based) > > > > and resplendent > > > > with anecdotal evidence which is not very well > > > > documented and > > > > essentially represents a lost opportunity. We > > all > > > > have been guilty > > > > of that to some extent at some time in our life. > > > > > > > > Very early on in my training, I had become quite > > > > disillusioned by a > > > > large number of yogas because they did not work > > too > > > > well. Instead of > > > > using those as a mainstay, I have always used > > the > > > > many principles > > > > that are given in texts readily available but > > > > waiting to be explored > > > > widely. In contrast to my early days, these days > > > > software allows one > > > > to quickly inventory many yogas in charts and > > though > > > > not very useful > > > > for researching across several charts, such > > software > > > > are a great > > > > tool for examining the yogas and getting > > > > disillusioned sooner, > > > > rather than the painstaking manner that someone > > like > > > > me had to go > > > > through in my early jyotish days. > > > > > > > > Oh and I do not believe any one factor, > > including > > > > one's nakshatra > > > > necessarily defines one's central theme ;-) > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > , surya > > > > vishnubhotla > > > > <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjan, > > > > > > > > > > For sometime I have been wanting to ask you > > ... > > > > > > > > > > From what I could gather from your approach (I > > do > > > > > believe that imitation is the best way of > > learning > > > > > until you develop the ability to be original - > > I > > > > would > > > > > like to learn by imitation right now) .. you > > seem > > > > to > > > > > take a rule, test it with hazar cases and then > > > > accept > > > > > the validity of the statement ... > > > > > > > > > > While I think this is the correct approach to > > any > > > > > field .. what happens when you lay down a set > > of > > > > > principles as a culmination of all your > > learning > > > > and > > > > > someone else wants to reinvent the rules > > ignoring > > > > what > > > > > you have learnt??? How do you mark a balance > > > > between > > > > > accepting something and testing out the same?? > > > > > > > > === message truncated === > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Inder ji, I was not using the term statistics as in "score statistics" of a batsman or the hits and misses frequency of an astrologer. This could be very complex and subject to interpretation faults as you rightly pointed out. I was thinking more in terms of the frequency of applicability of a simple building block in astrology. Such as one of the slokas in Laghu parashari which describes the role of the lords of 2nd and 12th. Such things can then be easily tested in say one hundred horoscopes and the accuracy or validity of the statement could be tabulated. It either applies in most chart or does not and then other building blocks like these can be tested. Testing anything more complex would not be within the reach of most jyotishis. Once a few such building blocks of jyotish are tested (dont have to do in 100 horoscopes necessarily), one can connect better with the building block rather than going on faith alone that all tenets in astrology are equally valid or rigorous. The simple truth is that they are not. RR , "Inder" <indervohra2001> wrote: > Dear Rohini ji, > I dont think that astrology has atall something to do with Stastics. > Percentage of success or failure of forecasts is not question here. > Some events forecasts may go wrong due to various problem but mainly > interpretational error,but in the same chart you predict some other > things - nature/habits etc in a precise manner. > Problem of forecasts are solely [if data are correct] due to problem > of interpretation. You may be using wrong technique, you may be > missing some minute detail, refinement is missing, judgemental > errors are there. Add to this problem of ayanmasa. We may lead to > offtrack long way. > One more factor is divine power may not want correct reading of > chart in some case or by some person. > Each and every chart/person on this earth is different and a huge > book can be written on each person.This book can be read with the > help of astrology.! But who can do it . And is it worth except > somebody wanting to see his own life on day to day basis with the > help of astrology. > Stastics is probabilty analysis. In astrology every thing is > absolutely definite but judgemenatal or interpretational limitations > are there. > Inder > > - In , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> > wrote: > > being the devil's advocate that I am, if: > > Astrological analysis is strongly correlated to experienced effects > > and > > thus accuracy is tied to the identification of the relevant factors > > then > > should that not be reflected in the statistics (simply stated: > > percent success of correlation between a given factor and > occurrence > > of the predicted effect? > > > > If association of atmakaraka with 11th house by association, > aspect > > is seen in a fair number of charts of jyotishis (statistics), > would > > that not represent a prognosticator for this correlation? > > > > I realize that a whole analysis can get quite complex but most > > jyotishis, early, mid or late, really do not carry out complex > > analyses for *many* or perhaps **most** elements of a given > reading. > > So, it is doable. > > > > How can statistics be separated from success? I realize that does > > not make them easier to do, but that is another story! > > > > RR > > > > > > , "Inder" > > <indervohra2001> wrote: > > > Dear friends, > > > My views on this issue are like this: > > > I feel that astrological forecasts is not atall concerned with > > > stastical analysis, where number of parameters are not so vast > as > > in > > > astrology. > > > Astrological analysis is more of question of accurate analysis > > based > > > on certain principles. > > > This analysis is very very complex and we are not able to go to > > > uniqueness of each chart. > > > Even accurate chart preparation at minute level is not possible. > > Say > > > for example at any point of time in the city of Bangalore two > > babies > > > are born at a distance of 10 km apart from each other , they > > should > > > have separate charts at minute level but we can have only one > same > > > chart only for both of them. > > > Yogas etc are only simplification of complex situation to serve > > some > > > perposes . > > > Inder > > > -- In , surya vishnubhotla > > > <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > > > Dear Sir, > > > > > > > > Thanks for your valuable input. For a few days I did > > > > spend time in disillusionment over my bad memory and > > > > so much to learn syndrome ... > > > > > > > > It also depressed me to think that astrology is > > > > probably just like statistics where you collect past > > > > data to prove future possibilities .. and just like > > > > every branch that depends on statistics this might > > > > make astrology prone to more errors than hits !! > > > > > > > > What also distresses me is this .. for a brief period > > > > of time I had taken the route of exploring the > > > > different bhavas and what each planet might represent > > > > in them .. this let me to astrology which was more > > > > psychological than predicting future ... and although > > > > both are interrelated I do believe its a lot of hard > > > > work to put them both in prespective ... > > > > > > > > Thank you again, > > > > Surya. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- rohiniranjan <rrgb@s...> wrote: > > > > > Testing of each and every rule and factor and > > > > > studying astrology > > > > > using the scientific method is a very ambitious > > > > > pursuit which will > > > > > take huge amounts of human and other resources and a > > > > > lot of time. > > > > > This cannot be done unless one is independently > > > > > wealthy or has a > > > > > large team of coworkers. Obviously, I do not think > > > > > that approach is > > > > > possible for most of us, given our limitations. I do > > > > > insist though > > > > > that people do not casually and callously make > > > > > statements which seem > > > > > to indicate that a given factor or combination is > > > > > rigorously tested > > > > > when it is clearly not so. Let us say someone sees a > > > > > combination in > > > > > a few charts and then convinced of its > > > > > infalliability makes a strong > > > > > statement to that effect. This can be misleading, > > > > > can it not? Adding > > > > > more cases would invariably bring forth some cases > > > > > which will fail > > > > > on the kasauti (test bench) and the rule would have > > > > > to be modified > > > > > and thus knowledge would grow and evolve. Hopefully, > > > > > in my > > > > > statements I have been careful in not giving the > > > > > impression that any > > > > > combination I am describing or discussing has a > > > > > probability attached > > > > > to it and that is not '1'. > > > > > > > > > > When a statement about a certain combination is made > > > > > I ask for > > > > > illustrations not to challenge such a statement but > > > > > out of curiosity > > > > > and for my own practical learning. Invariably, or in > > > > > a very very > > > > > large number of cases, my requests have met with > > > > > silence or too few > > > > > examples that proved not to be clean examples > > > > > (alternate > > > > > explanations worked) -- so I continue to keep > > > > > asking. Due to a > > > > > variety of reasons, some touched upon earlier, a > > > > > large very large > > > > > body of astrology is empirical (observation-based) > > > > > and resplendent > > > > > with anecdotal evidence which is not very well > > > > > documented and > > > > > essentially represents a lost opportunity. We all > > > > > have been guilty > > > > > of that to some extent at some time in our life. > > > > > > > > > > Very early on in my training, I had become quite > > > > > disillusioned by a > > > > > large number of yogas because they did not work too > > > > > well. Instead of > > > > > using those as a mainstay, I have always used the > > > > > many principles > > > > > that are given in texts readily available but > > > > > waiting to be explored > > > > > widely. In contrast to my early days, these days > > > > > software allows one > > > > > to quickly inventory many yogas in charts and though > > > > > not very useful > > > > > for researching across several charts, such software > > > > > are a great > > > > > tool for examining the yogas and getting > > > > > disillusioned sooner, > > > > > rather than the painstaking manner that someone like > > > > > me had to go > > > > > through in my early jyotish days. > > > > > > > > > > Oh and I do not believe any one factor, including > > > > > one's nakshatra > > > > > necessarily defines one's central theme ;-) > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , surya > > > > > vishnubhotla > > > > > <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjan, > > > > > > > > > > > > For sometime I have been wanting to ask you ... > > > > > > > > > > > > From what I could gather from your approach (I do > > > > > > believe that imitation is the best way of learning > > > > > > until you develop the ability to be original - I > > > > > would > > > > > > like to learn by imitation right now) .. you seem > > > > > to > > > > > > take a rule, test it with hazar cases and then > > > > > accept > > > > > > the validity of the statement ... > > > > > > > > > > > > While I think this is the correct approach to any > > > > > > field .. what happens when you lay down a set of > > > > > > principles as a culmination of all your learning > > > > > and > > > > > > someone else wants to reinvent the rules ignoring > > > > > what > > > > > > you have learnt??? How do you mark a balance > > > > > between > > > > > > accepting something and testing out the same?? > > > > > > > > > > > > I am somehow very averse to adhereing to rules > > > > > (maybe > > > > > > because I am short of memory) ... but I feel there > > > > > are > > > > > > some fundamental principles which hold the key to > > > > > all > > > > > > other analysis??? > > > > > > > > > > > > For example ... saying that such and such planet > > > > > in > > > > > > such and such house causes this effect becomes a > > > > > > statistical study ... however is there a way of > > > > > > guessing the same based on some simple principle > > > > > that > > > > > > should be understood??? > > > > > > > > > > > > Am I sounding vague?? Please forgive me because in > > > > > > reality my own ideas are very vague ... however I > > > > > am > > > > > > getting restless to find the root of all this > > > > > (does > > > > > > being mula nakshatra have anything to do with > > > > > this?) > > > > > > > > > > > > I am somehow very averse to learning all the yogas > > > > > and > > > > > > feel that there are some basic set of rules that > > > > > > should be enough to judge a horoscope ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Any input will be appreciated !! > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Surya. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail - You care about security. So do we. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam protection > around > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 Dear Rohiniji, Here also I beg to differ. Actually placement/results of 2nd house or 12th house also can not be seen in stastical ways. Minute difference in placement or aspects or period running etc will make the difference.It is simply a matter of judgement, after applying rules. Yogas are not rules. They are simplifications or poems. Inder -- In , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> wrote: > Inder ji, > > I was not using the term statistics as in "score statistics" of a > batsman or the hits and misses frequency of an astrologer. This > could be very complex and subject to interpretation faults as you > rightly pointed out. > > I was thinking more in terms of the frequency of applicability of a > simple building block in astrology. Such as one of the slokas in > Laghu parashari which describes the role of the lords of 2nd and > 12th. Such things can then be easily tested in say one hundred > horoscopes and the accuracy or validity of the statement could be > tabulated. It either applies in most chart or does not and then > other building blocks like these can be tested. Testing anything > more complex would not be within the reach of most jyotishis. > > Once a few such building blocks of jyotish are tested (dont have to > do in 100 horoscopes necessarily), one can connect better with the > building block rather than going on faith alone that all tenets in > astrology are equally valid or rigorous. The simple truth is that > they are not. > > RR > > , "Inder" > <indervohra2001> wrote: > > Dear Rohini ji, > > I dont think that astrology has atall something to do with > Stastics. > > Percentage of success or failure of forecasts is not question here. > > Some events forecasts may go wrong due to various problem but > mainly > > interpretational error,but in the same chart you predict some > other > > things - nature/habits etc in a precise manner. > > Problem of forecasts are solely [if data are correct] due to > problem > > of interpretation. You may be using wrong technique, you may be > > missing some minute detail, refinement is missing, judgemental > > errors are there. Add to this problem of ayanmasa. We may lead to > > offtrack long way. > > One more factor is divine power may not want correct reading of > > chart in some case or by some person. > > Each and every chart/person on this earth is different and a huge > > book can be written on each person.This book can be read with the > > help of astrology.! But who can do it . And is it worth except > > somebody wanting to see his own life on day to day basis with the > > help of astrology. > > Stastics is probabilty analysis. In astrology every thing is > > absolutely definite but judgemenatal or interpretational > limitations > > are there. > > Inder > > > > - In , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> > > wrote: > > > being the devil's advocate that I am, if: > > > Astrological analysis is strongly correlated to experienced > effects > > > and > > > thus accuracy is tied to the identification of the relevant > factors > > > then > > > should that not be reflected in the statistics (simply stated: > > > percent success of correlation between a given factor and > > occurrence > > > of the predicted effect? > > > > > > If association of atmakaraka with 11th house by association, > > aspect > > > is seen in a fair number of charts of jyotishis (statistics), > > would > > > that not represent a prognosticator for this correlation? > > > > > > I realize that a whole analysis can get quite complex but most > > > jyotishis, early, mid or late, really do not carry out complex > > > analyses for *many* or perhaps **most** elements of a given > > reading. > > > So, it is doable. > > > > > > How can statistics be separated from success? I realize that > does > > > not make them easier to do, but that is another story! > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > , "Inder" > > > <indervohra2001> wrote: > > > > Dear friends, > > > > My views on this issue are like this: > > > > I feel that astrological forecasts is not atall concerned with > > > > stastical analysis, where number of parameters are not so vast > > as > > > in > > > > astrology. > > > > Astrological analysis is more of question of accurate analysis > > > based > > > > on certain principles. > > > > This analysis is very very complex and we are not able to go > to > > > > uniqueness of each chart. > > > > Even accurate chart preparation at minute level is not > possible. > > > Say > > > > for example at any point of time in the city of Bangalore two > > > babies > > > > are born at a distance of 10 km apart from each other , they > > > should > > > > have separate charts at minute level but we can have only one > > same > > > > chart only for both of them. > > > > Yogas etc are only simplification of complex situation to > serve > > > some > > > > perposes . > > > > Inder > > > > -- In , surya vishnubhotla > > > > <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > > > > Dear Sir, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your valuable input. For a few days I did > > > > > spend time in disillusionment over my bad memory and > > > > > so much to learn syndrome ... > > > > > > > > > > It also depressed me to think that astrology is > > > > > probably just like statistics where you collect past > > > > > data to prove future possibilities .. and just like > > > > > every branch that depends on statistics this might > > > > > make astrology prone to more errors than hits !! > > > > > > > > > > What also distresses me is this .. for a brief period > > > > > of time I had taken the route of exploring the > > > > > different bhavas and what each planet might represent > > > > > in them .. this let me to astrology which was more > > > > > psychological than predicting future ... and although > > > > > both are interrelated I do believe its a lot of hard > > > > > work to put them both in prespective ... > > > > > > > > > > Thank you again, > > > > > Surya. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- rohiniranjan <rrgb@s...> wrote: > > > > > > Testing of each and every rule and factor and > > > > > > studying astrology > > > > > > using the scientific method is a very ambitious > > > > > > pursuit which will > > > > > > take huge amounts of human and other resources and a > > > > > > lot of time. > > > > > > This cannot be done unless one is independently > > > > > > wealthy or has a > > > > > > large team of coworkers. Obviously, I do not think > > > > > > that approach is > > > > > > possible for most of us, given our limitations. I do > > > > > > insist though > > > > > > that people do not casually and callously make > > > > > > statements which seem > > > > > > to indicate that a given factor or combination is > > > > > > rigorously tested > > > > > > when it is clearly not so. Let us say someone sees a > > > > > > combination in > > > > > > a few charts and then convinced of its > > > > > > infalliability makes a strong > > > > > > statement to that effect. This can be misleading, > > > > > > can it not? Adding > > > > > > more cases would invariably bring forth some cases > > > > > > which will fail > > > > > > on the kasauti (test bench) and the rule would have > > > > > > to be modified > > > > > > and thus knowledge would grow and evolve. Hopefully, > > > > > > in my > > > > > > statements I have been careful in not giving the > > > > > > impression that any > > > > > > combination I am describing or discussing has a > > > > > > probability attached > > > > > > to it and that is not '1'. > > > > > > > > > > > > When a statement about a certain combination is made > > > > > > I ask for > > > > > > illustrations not to challenge such a statement but > > > > > > out of curiosity > > > > > > and for my own practical learning. Invariably, or in > > > > > > a very very > > > > > > large number of cases, my requests have met with > > > > > > silence or too few > > > > > > examples that proved not to be clean examples > > > > > > (alternate > > > > > > explanations worked) -- so I continue to keep > > > > > > asking. Due to a > > > > > > variety of reasons, some touched upon earlier, a > > > > > > large very large > > > > > > body of astrology is empirical (observation-based) > > > > > > and resplendent > > > > > > with anecdotal evidence which is not very well > > > > > > documented and > > > > > > essentially represents a lost opportunity. We all > > > > > > have been guilty > > > > > > of that to some extent at some time in our life. > > > > > > > > > > > > Very early on in my training, I had become quite > > > > > > disillusioned by a > > > > > > large number of yogas because they did not work too > > > > > > well. Instead of > > > > > > using those as a mainstay, I have always used the > > > > > > many principles > > > > > > that are given in texts readily available but > > > > > > waiting to be explored > > > > > > widely. In contrast to my early days, these days > > > > > > software allows one > > > > > > to quickly inventory many yogas in charts and though > > > > > > not very useful > > > > > > for researching across several charts, such software > > > > > > are a great > > > > > > tool for examining the yogas and getting > > > > > > disillusioned sooner, > > > > > > rather than the painstaking manner that someone like > > > > > > me had to go > > > > > > through in my early jyotish days. > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh and I do not believe any one factor, including > > > > > > one's nakshatra > > > > > > necessarily defines one's central theme ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , surya > > > > > > vishnubhotla > > > > > > <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For sometime I have been wanting to ask you ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From what I could gather from your approach (I do > > > > > > > believe that imitation is the best way of learning > > > > > > > until you develop the ability to be original - I > > > > > > would > > > > > > > like to learn by imitation right now) .. you seem > > > > > > to > > > > > > > take a rule, test it with hazar cases and then > > > > > > accept > > > > > > > the validity of the statement ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While I think this is the correct approach to any > > > > > > > field .. what happens when you lay down a set of > > > > > > > principles as a culmination of all your learning > > > > > > and > > > > > > > someone else wants to reinvent the rules ignoring > > > > > > what > > > > > > > you have learnt??? How do you mark a balance > > > > > > between > > > > > > > accepting something and testing out the same?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am somehow very averse to adhereing to rules > > > > > > (maybe > > > > > > > because I am short of memory) ... but I feel there > > > > > > are > > > > > > > some fundamental principles which hold the key to > > > > > > all > > > > > > > other analysis??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example ... saying that such and such planet > > > > > > in > > > > > > > such and such house causes this effect becomes a > > > > > > > statistical study ... however is there a way of > > > > > > > guessing the same based on some simple principle > > > > > > that > > > > > > > should be understood??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am I sounding vague?? Please forgive me because in > > > > > > > reality my own ideas are very vague ... however I > > > > > > am > > > > > > > getting restless to find the root of all this > > > > > > (does > > > > > > > being mula nakshatra have anything to do with > > > > > > this?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am somehow very averse to learning all the yogas > > > > > > and > > > > > > > feel that there are some basic set of rules that > > > > > > > should be enough to judge a horoscope ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any input will be appreciated !! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > Surya. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail - You care about security. So do we. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam protection > > around > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 Inder ji, I think you are missing the point again :-) The purpose was in this example (2/12) to indicate the use of statistics in seeing how often the statement of the tenet (sloka 8 of laghu parashari) actually works out so that it can be either accepted or other co-operating factors explored or the tenet thrown out all together. Those co-operating factors could be the *minute* placement differences (varga for instance) and aspects etc. RR , "Inder" <indervohra2001> wrote: > Dear Rohiniji, > Here also I beg to differ. > Actually placement/results of 2nd house or 12th house also can not > be seen in stastical ways. Minute difference in placement or aspects > or period running etc will make the difference.It is simply a matter > of judgement, after applying rules. > Yogas are not rules. They are simplifications or poems. > Inder > > -- In , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> > wrote: > > Inder ji, > > > > I was not using the term statistics as in "score statistics" of a > > batsman or the hits and misses frequency of an astrologer. This > > could be very complex and subject to interpretation faults as you > > rightly pointed out. > > > > I was thinking more in terms of the frequency of applicability of > a > > simple building block in astrology. Such as one of the slokas in > > Laghu parashari which describes the role of the lords of 2nd and > > 12th. Such things can then be easily tested in say one hundred > > horoscopes and the accuracy or validity of the statement could be > > tabulated. It either applies in most chart or does not and then > > other building blocks like these can be tested. Testing anything > > more complex would not be within the reach of most jyotishis. > > > > Once a few such building blocks of jyotish are tested (dont have > to > > do in 100 horoscopes necessarily), one can connect better with the > > building block rather than going on faith alone that all tenets in > > astrology are equally valid or rigorous. The simple truth is that > > they are not. > > > > RR > > > > , "Inder" > > <indervohra2001> wrote: > > > Dear Rohini ji, > > > I dont think that astrology has atall something to do with > > Stastics. > > > Percentage of success or failure of forecasts is not question > here. > > > Some events forecasts may go wrong due to various problem but > > mainly > > > interpretational error,but in the same chart you predict some > > other > > > things - nature/habits etc in a precise manner. > > > Problem of forecasts are solely [if data are correct] due to > > problem > > > of interpretation. You may be using wrong technique, you may be > > > missing some minute detail, refinement is missing, judgemental > > > errors are there. Add to this problem of ayanmasa. We may lead > to > > > offtrack long way. > > > One more factor is divine power may not want correct reading of > > > chart in some case or by some person. > > > Each and every chart/person on this earth is different and a > huge > > > book can be written on each person.This book can be read with > the > > > help of astrology.! But who can do it . And is it worth except > > > somebody wanting to see his own life on day to day basis with > the > > > help of astrology. > > > Stastics is probabilty analysis. In astrology every thing is > > > absolutely definite but judgemenatal or interpretational > > limitations > > > are there. > > > Inder > > > > > > - In , "rohiniranjan" > <rrgb@s...> > > > wrote: > > > > being the devil's advocate that I am, if: > > > > Astrological analysis is strongly correlated to experienced > > effects > > > > and > > > > thus accuracy is tied to the identification of the relevant > > factors > > > > then > > > > should that not be reflected in the statistics (simply stated: > > > > percent success of correlation between a given factor and > > > occurrence > > > > of the predicted effect? > > > > > > > > If association of atmakaraka with 11th house by association, > > > aspect > > > > is seen in a fair number of charts of jyotishis (statistics), > > > would > > > > that not represent a prognosticator for this correlation? > > > > > > > > I realize that a whole analysis can get quite complex but most > > > > jyotishis, early, mid or late, really do not carry out complex > > > > analyses for *many* or perhaps **most** elements of a given > > > reading. > > > > So, it is doable. > > > > > > > > How can statistics be separated from success? I realize that > > does > > > > not make them easier to do, but that is another story! > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > , "Inder" > > > > <indervohra2001> wrote: > > > > > Dear friends, > > > > > My views on this issue are like this: > > > > > I feel that astrological forecasts is not atall concerned > with > > > > > stastical analysis, where number of parameters are not so > vast > > > as > > > > in > > > > > astrology. > > > > > Astrological analysis is more of question of accurate > analysis > > > > based > > > > > on certain principles. > > > > > This analysis is very very complex and we are not able to go > > to > > > > > uniqueness of each chart. > > > > > Even accurate chart preparation at minute level is not > > possible. > > > > Say > > > > > for example at any point of time in the city of Bangalore > two > > > > babies > > > > > are born at a distance of 10 km apart from each other , they > > > > should > > > > > have separate charts at minute level but we can have only > one > > > same > > > > > chart only for both of them. > > > > > Yogas etc are only simplification of complex situation to > > serve > > > > some > > > > > perposes . > > > > > Inder > > > > > -- In , surya vishnubhotla > > > > > <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Sir, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your valuable input. For a few days I did > > > > > > spend time in disillusionment over my bad memory and > > > > > > so much to learn syndrome ... > > > > > > > > > > > > It also depressed me to think that astrology is > > > > > > probably just like statistics where you collect past > > > > > > data to prove future possibilities .. and just like > > > > > > every branch that depends on statistics this might > > > > > > make astrology prone to more errors than hits !! > > > > > > > > > > > > What also distresses me is this .. for a brief period > > > > > > of time I had taken the route of exploring the > > > > > > different bhavas and what each planet might represent > > > > > > in them .. this let me to astrology which was more > > > > > > psychological than predicting future ... and although > > > > > > both are interrelated I do believe its a lot of hard > > > > > > work to put them both in prespective ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you again, > > > > > > Surya. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- rohiniranjan <rrgb@s...> wrote: > > > > > > > Testing of each and every rule and factor and > > > > > > > studying astrology > > > > > > > using the scientific method is a very ambitious > > > > > > > pursuit which will > > > > > > > take huge amounts of human and other resources and a > > > > > > > lot of time. > > > > > > > This cannot be done unless one is independently > > > > > > > wealthy or has a > > > > > > > large team of coworkers. Obviously, I do not think > > > > > > > that approach is > > > > > > > possible for most of us, given our limitations. I do > > > > > > > insist though > > > > > > > that people do not casually and callously make > > > > > > > statements which seem > > > > > > > to indicate that a given factor or combination is > > > > > > > rigorously tested > > > > > > > when it is clearly not so. Let us say someone sees a > > > > > > > combination in > > > > > > > a few charts and then convinced of its > > > > > > > infalliability makes a strong > > > > > > > statement to that effect. This can be misleading, > > > > > > > can it not? Adding > > > > > > > more cases would invariably bring forth some cases > > > > > > > which will fail > > > > > > > on the kasauti (test bench) and the rule would have > > > > > > > to be modified > > > > > > > and thus knowledge would grow and evolve. Hopefully, > > > > > > > in my > > > > > > > statements I have been careful in not giving the > > > > > > > impression that any > > > > > > > combination I am describing or discussing has a > > > > > > > probability attached > > > > > > > to it and that is not '1'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When a statement about a certain combination is made > > > > > > > I ask for > > > > > > > illustrations not to challenge such a statement but > > > > > > > out of curiosity > > > > > > > and for my own practical learning. Invariably, or in > > > > > > > a very very > > > > > > > large number of cases, my requests have met with > > > > > > > silence or too few > > > > > > > examples that proved not to be clean examples > > > > > > > (alternate > > > > > > > explanations worked) -- so I continue to keep > > > > > > > asking. Due to a > > > > > > > variety of reasons, some touched upon earlier, a > > > > > > > large very large > > > > > > > body of astrology is empirical (observation-based) > > > > > > > and resplendent > > > > > > > with anecdotal evidence which is not very well > > > > > > > documented and > > > > > > > essentially represents a lost opportunity. We all > > > > > > > have been guilty > > > > > > > of that to some extent at some time in our life. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Very early on in my training, I had become quite > > > > > > > disillusioned by a > > > > > > > large number of yogas because they did not work too > > > > > > > well. Instead of > > > > > > > using those as a mainstay, I have always used the > > > > > > > many principles > > > > > > > that are given in texts readily available but > > > > > > > waiting to be explored > > > > > > > widely. In contrast to my early days, these days > > > > > > > software allows one > > > > > > > to quickly inventory many yogas in charts and though > > > > > > > not very useful > > > > > > > for researching across several charts, such software > > > > > > > are a great > > > > > > > tool for examining the yogas and getting > > > > > > > disillusioned sooner, > > > > > > > rather than the painstaking manner that someone like > > > > > > > me had to go > > > > > > > through in my early jyotish days. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh and I do not believe any one factor, including > > > > > > > one's nakshatra > > > > > > > necessarily defines one's central theme ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , surya > > > > > > > vishnubhotla > > > > > > > <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For sometime I have been wanting to ask you ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From what I could gather from your approach (I do > > > > > > > > believe that imitation is the best way of learning > > > > > > > > until you develop the ability to be original - I > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > like to learn by imitation right now) .. you seem > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > take a rule, test it with hazar cases and then > > > > > > > accept > > > > > > > > the validity of the statement ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While I think this is the correct approach to any > > > > > > > > field .. what happens when you lay down a set of > > > > > > > > principles as a culmination of all your learning > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > someone else wants to reinvent the rules ignoring > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > you have learnt??? How do you mark a balance > > > > > > > between > > > > > > > > accepting something and testing out the same?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am somehow very averse to adhereing to rules > > > > > > > (maybe > > > > > > > > because I am short of memory) ... but I feel there > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > some fundamental principles which hold the key to > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > other analysis??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example ... saying that such and such planet > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > such and such house causes this effect becomes a > > > > > > > > statistical study ... however is there a way of > > > > > > > > guessing the same based on some simple principle > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > should be understood??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am I sounding vague?? Please forgive me because in > > > > > > > > reality my own ideas are very vague ... however I > > > > > > > am > > > > > > > > getting restless to find the root of all this > > > > > > > (does > > > > > > > > being mula nakshatra have anything to do with > > > > > > > this?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am somehow very averse to learning all the yogas > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > feel that there are some basic set of rules that > > > > > > > > should be enough to judge a horoscope ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any input will be appreciated !! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Surya. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail - You care about security. So do we. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam protection > > > around > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 Yes yes, but each and every horoscope is different, and we may not be able to judge the minute difference. What you say is correct. You rightly say that lack of documentation is biggest problem with astrological studies. What to do ? Inder In , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> wrote: > Inder ji, > > I think you are missing the point again :-) > > The purpose was in this example (2/12) to indicate the use of > statistics in seeing how often the statement of the tenet (sloka 8 > of laghu parashari) actually works out so that it can be either > accepted or other co-operating factors explored or the tenet thrown > out all together. Those co-operating factors could be the *minute* > placement differences (varga for instance) and aspects etc. > > RR > > > > , "Inder" > <indervohra2001> wrote: > > Dear Rohiniji, > > Here also I beg to differ. > > Actually placement/results of 2nd house or 12th house also can > not > > be seen in stastical ways. Minute difference in placement or > aspects > > or period running etc will make the difference.It is simply a > matter > > of judgement, after applying rules. > > Yogas are not rules. They are simplifications or poems. > > Inder > > > > -- In , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> > > wrote: > > > Inder ji, > > > > > > I was not using the term statistics as in "score statistics" of > a > > > batsman or the hits and misses frequency of an astrologer. This > > > could be very complex and subject to interpretation faults as > you > > > rightly pointed out. > > > > > > I was thinking more in terms of the frequency of applicability > of > > a > > > simple building block in astrology. Such as one of the slokas in > > > Laghu parashari which describes the role of the lords of 2nd and > > > 12th. Such things can then be easily tested in say one hundred > > > horoscopes and the accuracy or validity of the statement could > be > > > tabulated. It either applies in most chart or does not and then > > > other building blocks like these can be tested. Testing anything > > > more complex would not be within the reach of most jyotishis. > > > > > > Once a few such building blocks of jyotish are tested (dont have > > to > > > do in 100 horoscopes necessarily), one can connect better with > the > > > building block rather than going on faith alone that all tenets > in > > > astrology are equally valid or rigorous. The simple truth is > that > > > they are not. > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , "Inder" > > > <indervohra2001> wrote: > > > > Dear Rohini ji, > > > > I dont think that astrology has atall something to do with > > > Stastics. > > > > Percentage of success or failure of forecasts is not question > > here. > > > > Some events forecasts may go wrong due to various problem but > > > mainly > > > > interpretational error,but in the same chart you predict some > > > other > > > > things - nature/habits etc in a precise manner. > > > > Problem of forecasts are solely [if data are correct] due to > > > problem > > > > of interpretation. You may be using wrong technique, you may > be > > > > missing some minute detail, refinement is missing, judgemental > > > > errors are there. Add to this problem of ayanmasa. We may > lead > > to > > > > offtrack long way. > > > > One more factor is divine power may not want correct reading > of > > > > chart in some case or by some person. > > > > Each and every chart/person on this earth is different and a > > huge > > > > book can be written on each person.This book can be read with > > the > > > > help of astrology.! But who can do it . And is it worth except > > > > somebody wanting to see his own life on day to day basis with > > the > > > > help of astrology. > > > > Stastics is probabilty analysis. In astrology every thing is > > > > absolutely definite but judgemenatal or interpretational > > > limitations > > > > are there. > > > > Inder > > > > > > > > - In , "rohiniranjan" > > <rrgb@s...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > being the devil's advocate that I am, if: > > > > > Astrological analysis is strongly correlated to experienced > > > effects > > > > > and > > > > > thus accuracy is tied to the identification of the relevant > > > factors > > > > > then > > > > > should that not be reflected in the statistics (simply > stated: > > > > > percent success of correlation between a given factor and > > > > occurrence > > > > > of the predicted effect? > > > > > > > > > > If association of atmakaraka with 11th house by association, > > > > aspect > > > > > is seen in a fair number of charts of jyotishis > (statistics), > > > > would > > > > > that not represent a prognosticator for this correlation? > > > > > > > > > > I realize that a whole analysis can get quite complex but > most > > > > > jyotishis, early, mid or late, really do not carry out > complex > > > > > analyses for *many* or perhaps **most** elements of a given > > > > reading. > > > > > So, it is doable. > > > > > > > > > > How can statistics be separated from success? I realize that > > > does > > > > > not make them easier to do, but that is another story! > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "Inder" > > > > > <indervohra2001> wrote: > > > > > > Dear friends, > > > > > > My views on this issue are like this: > > > > > > I feel that astrological forecasts is not atall concerned > > with > > > > > > stastical analysis, where number of parameters are not so > > vast > > > > as > > > > > in > > > > > > astrology. > > > > > > Astrological analysis is more of question of accurate > > analysis > > > > > based > > > > > > on certain principles. > > > > > > This analysis is very very complex and we are not able to > go > > > to > > > > > > uniqueness of each chart. > > > > > > Even accurate chart preparation at minute level is not > > > possible. > > > > > Say > > > > > > for example at any point of time in the city of Bangalore > > two > > > > > babies > > > > > > are born at a distance of 10 km apart from each other , > they > > > > > should > > > > > > have separate charts at minute level but we can have only > > one > > > > same > > > > > > chart only for both of them. > > > > > > Yogas etc are only simplification of complex situation to > > > serve > > > > > some > > > > > > perposes . > > > > > > Inder > > > > > > -- In , surya vishnubhotla > > > > > > <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Sir, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your valuable input. For a few days I did > > > > > > > spend time in disillusionment over my bad memory and > > > > > > > so much to learn syndrome ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It also depressed me to think that astrology is > > > > > > > probably just like statistics where you collect past > > > > > > > data to prove future possibilities .. and just like > > > > > > > every branch that depends on statistics this might > > > > > > > make astrology prone to more errors than hits !! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What also distresses me is this .. for a brief period > > > > > > > of time I had taken the route of exploring the > > > > > > > different bhavas and what each planet might represent > > > > > > > in them .. this let me to astrology which was more > > > > > > > psychological than predicting future ... and although > > > > > > > both are interrelated I do believe its a lot of hard > > > > > > > work to put them both in prespective ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you again, > > > > > > > Surya. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- rohiniranjan <rrgb@s...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Testing of each and every rule and factor and > > > > > > > > studying astrology > > > > > > > > using the scientific method is a very ambitious > > > > > > > > pursuit which will > > > > > > > > take huge amounts of human and other resources and a > > > > > > > > lot of time. > > > > > > > > This cannot be done unless one is independently > > > > > > > > wealthy or has a > > > > > > > > large team of coworkers. Obviously, I do not think > > > > > > > > that approach is > > > > > > > > possible for most of us, given our limitations. I do > > > > > > > > insist though > > > > > > > > that people do not casually and callously make > > > > > > > > statements which seem > > > > > > > > to indicate that a given factor or combination is > > > > > > > > rigorously tested > > > > > > > > when it is clearly not so. Let us say someone sees a > > > > > > > > combination in > > > > > > > > a few charts and then convinced of its > > > > > > > > infalliability makes a strong > > > > > > > > statement to that effect. This can be misleading, > > > > > > > > can it not? Adding > > > > > > > > more cases would invariably bring forth some cases > > > > > > > > which will fail > > > > > > > > on the kasauti (test bench) and the rule would have > > > > > > > > to be modified > > > > > > > > and thus knowledge would grow and evolve. Hopefully, > > > > > > > > in my > > > > > > > > statements I have been careful in not giving the > > > > > > > > impression that any > > > > > > > > combination I am describing or discussing has a > > > > > > > > probability attached > > > > > > > > to it and that is not '1'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When a statement about a certain combination is made > > > > > > > > I ask for > > > > > > > > illustrations not to challenge such a statement but > > > > > > > > out of curiosity > > > > > > > > and for my own practical learning. Invariably, or in > > > > > > > > a very very > > > > > > > > large number of cases, my requests have met with > > > > > > > > silence or too few > > > > > > > > examples that proved not to be clean examples > > > > > > > > (alternate > > > > > > > > explanations worked) -- so I continue to keep > > > > > > > > asking. Due to a > > > > > > > > variety of reasons, some touched upon earlier, a > > > > > > > > large very large > > > > > > > > body of astrology is empirical (observation-based) > > > > > > > > and resplendent > > > > > > > > with anecdotal evidence which is not very well > > > > > > > > documented and > > > > > > > > essentially represents a lost opportunity. We all > > > > > > > > have been guilty > > > > > > > > of that to some extent at some time in our life. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Very early on in my training, I had become quite > > > > > > > > disillusioned by a > > > > > > > > large number of yogas because they did not work too > > > > > > > > well. Instead of > > > > > > > > using those as a mainstay, I have always used the > > > > > > > > many principles > > > > > > > > that are given in texts readily available but > > > > > > > > waiting to be explored > > > > > > > > widely. In contrast to my early days, these days > > > > > > > > software allows one > > > > > > > > to quickly inventory many yogas in charts and though > > > > > > > > not very useful > > > > > > > > for researching across several charts, such software > > > > > > > > are a great > > > > > > > > tool for examining the yogas and getting > > > > > > > > disillusioned sooner, > > > > > > > > rather than the painstaking manner that someone like > > > > > > > > me had to go > > > > > > > > through in my early jyotish days. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh and I do not believe any one factor, including > > > > > > > > one's nakshatra > > > > > > > > necessarily defines one's central theme ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , surya > > > > > > > > vishnubhotla > > > > > > > > <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For sometime I have been wanting to ask you ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From what I could gather from your approach (I do > > > > > > > > > believe that imitation is the best way of learning > > > > > > > > > until you develop the ability to be original - I > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > like to learn by imitation right now) .. you seem > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > take a rule, test it with hazar cases and then > > > > > > > > accept > > > > > > > > > the validity of the statement ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While I think this is the correct approach to any > > > > > > > > > field .. what happens when you lay down a set of > > > > > > > > > principles as a culmination of all your learning > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > someone else wants to reinvent the rules ignoring > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > you have learnt??? How do you mark a balance > > > > > > > > between > > > > > > > > > accepting something and testing out the same?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am somehow very averse to adhereing to rules > > > > > > > > (maybe > > > > > > > > > because I am short of memory) ... but I feel there > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > some fundamental principles which hold the key to > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > other analysis??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example ... saying that such and such planet > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > such and such house causes this effect becomes a > > > > > > > > > statistical study ... however is there a way of > > > > > > > > > guessing the same based on some simple principle > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > should be understood??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am I sounding vague?? Please forgive me because in > > > > > > > > > reality my own ideas are very vague ... however I > > > > > > > > am > > > > > > > > > getting restless to find the root of all this > > > > > > > > (does > > > > > > > > > being mula nakshatra have anything to do with > > > > > > > > this?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am somehow very averse to learning all the yogas > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > feel that there are some basic set of rules that > > > > > > > > > should be enough to judge a horoscope ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any input will be appreciated !! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > Surya. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail - You care about security. So do we. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam protection > > > > around > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 the point I was making was that each horoscope though different has to have some similar components which can be tested by statistics and grouped together so that we can see the horoscopic forest for its astroindicator trees. What to do? We try to document better, simply that :-) Where possible we provide and discuss examples. For instance the case of Dalai Lama where you simply stated that you thought 5:34 was the time based on KP rectification that you have done, tells us nothing, documents nothing, unless you also indicate and write (document) more :-) Let us begin documenting as best and as often as we can. I realize that any documentation will be very skimpy because of the process and time it takes etc. But every bit helps. Thanks! RR , "Inder" <indervohra2001> wrote: > Yes yes, but each and every horoscope is different, and we may not > be able to judge the minute difference. > What you say is correct. You rightly say that lack of documentation > is biggest problem with astrological studies. What to do ? > Inder > > In , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> > wrote: > > Inder ji, > > > > I think you are missing the point again :-) > > > > The purpose was in this example (2/12) to indicate the use of > > statistics in seeing how often the statement of the tenet (sloka 8 > > of laghu parashari) actually works out so that it can be either > > accepted or other co-operating factors explored or the tenet > thrown > > out all together. Those co-operating factors could be the *minute* > > placement differences (varga for instance) and aspects etc. > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , "Inder" > > <indervohra2001> wrote: > > > Dear Rohiniji, > > > Here also I beg to differ. > > > Actually placement/results of 2nd house or 12th house also can > > not > > > be seen in stastical ways. Minute difference in placement or > > aspects > > > or period running etc will make the difference.It is simply a > > matter > > > of judgement, after applying rules. > > > Yogas are not rules. They are simplifications or poems. > > > Inder > > > > > > -- In , "rohiniranjan" > <rrgb@s...> > > > wrote: > > > > Inder ji, > > > > > > > > I was not using the term statistics as in "score statistics" > of > > a > > > > batsman or the hits and misses frequency of an astrologer. > This > > > > could be very complex and subject to interpretation faults as > > you > > > > rightly pointed out. > > > > > > > > I was thinking more in terms of the frequency of applicability > > of > > > a > > > > simple building block in astrology. Such as one of the slokas > in > > > > Laghu parashari which describes the role of the lords of 2nd > and > > > > 12th. Such things can then be easily tested in say one hundred > > > > horoscopes and the accuracy or validity of the statement could > > be > > > > tabulated. It either applies in most chart or does not and > then > > > > other building blocks like these can be tested. Testing > anything > > > > more complex would not be within the reach of most jyotishis. > > > > > > > > Once a few such building blocks of jyotish are tested (dont > have > > > to > > > > do in 100 horoscopes necessarily), one can connect better with > > the > > > > building block rather than going on faith alone that all > tenets > > in > > > > astrology are equally valid or rigorous. The simple truth is > > that > > > > they are not. > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , "Inder" > > > > <indervohra2001> wrote: > > > > > Dear Rohini ji, > > > > > I dont think that astrology has atall something to do with > > > > Stastics. > > > > > Percentage of success or failure of forecasts is not > question > > > here. > > > > > Some events forecasts may go wrong due to various problem > but > > > > mainly > > > > > interpretational error,but in the same chart you predict > some > > > > other > > > > > things - nature/habits etc in a precise manner. > > > > > Problem of forecasts are solely [if data are correct] due to > > > > problem > > > > > of interpretation. You may be using wrong technique, you may > > be > > > > > missing some minute detail, refinement is missing, > judgemental > > > > > errors are there. Add to this problem of ayanmasa. We may > > lead > > > to > > > > > offtrack long way. > > > > > One more factor is divine power may not want correct reading > > of > > > > > chart in some case or by some person. > > > > > Each and every chart/person on this earth is different and a > > > huge > > > > > book can be written on each person.This book can be read > with > > > the > > > > > help of astrology.! But who can do it . And is it worth > except > > > > > somebody wanting to see his own life on day to day basis > with > > > the > > > > > help of astrology. > > > > > Stastics is probabilty analysis. In astrology every thing is > > > > > absolutely definite but judgemenatal or interpretational > > > > limitations > > > > > are there. > > > > > Inder > > > > > > > > > > - In , "rohiniranjan" > > > <rrgb@s...> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > being the devil's advocate that I am, if: > > > > > > Astrological analysis is strongly correlated to > experienced > > > > effects > > > > > > and > > > > > > thus accuracy is tied to the identification of the > relevant > > > > factors > > > > > > then > > > > > > should that not be reflected in the statistics (simply > > stated: > > > > > > percent success of correlation between a given factor and > > > > > occurrence > > > > > > of the predicted effect? > > > > > > > > > > > > If association of atmakaraka with 11th house by > association, > > > > > aspect > > > > > > is seen in a fair number of charts of jyotishis > > (statistics), > > > > > would > > > > > > that not represent a prognosticator for this correlation? > > > > > > > > > > > > I realize that a whole analysis can get quite complex but > > most > > > > > > jyotishis, early, mid or late, really do not carry out > > complex > > > > > > analyses for *many* or perhaps **most** elements of a > given > > > > > reading. > > > > > > So, it is doable. > > > > > > > > > > > > How can statistics be separated from success? I realize > that > > > > does > > > > > > not make them easier to do, but that is another story! > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "Inder" > > > > > > <indervohra2001> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear friends, > > > > > > > My views on this issue are like this: > > > > > > > I feel that astrological forecasts is not atall > concerned > > > with > > > > > > > stastical analysis, where number of parameters are not > so > > > vast > > > > > as > > > > > > in > > > > > > > astrology. > > > > > > > Astrological analysis is more of question of accurate > > > analysis > > > > > > based > > > > > > > on certain principles. > > > > > > > This analysis is very very complex and we are not able > to > > go > > > > to > > > > > > > uniqueness of each chart. > > > > > > > Even accurate chart preparation at minute level is not > > > > possible. > > > > > > Say > > > > > > > for example at any point of time in the city of > Bangalore > > > two > > > > > > babies > > > > > > > are born at a distance of 10 km apart from each other , > > they > > > > > > should > > > > > > > have separate charts at minute level but we can have > only > > > one > > > > > same > > > > > > > chart only for both of them. > > > > > > > Yogas etc are only simplification of complex situation > to > > > > serve > > > > > > some > > > > > > > perposes . > > > > > > > Inder > > > > > > > -- In , surya > vishnubhotla > > > > > > > <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Sir, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your valuable input. For a few days I did > > > > > > > > spend time in disillusionment over my bad memory and > > > > > > > > so much to learn syndrome ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It also depressed me to think that astrology is > > > > > > > > probably just like statistics where you collect past > > > > > > > > data to prove future possibilities .. and just like > > > > > > > > every branch that depends on statistics this might > > > > > > > > make astrology prone to more errors than hits !! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What also distresses me is this .. for a brief period > > > > > > > > of time I had taken the route of exploring the > > > > > > > > different bhavas and what each planet might represent > > > > > > > > in them .. this let me to astrology which was more > > > > > > > > psychological than predicting future ... and although > > > > > > > > both are interrelated I do believe its a lot of hard > > > > > > > > work to put them both in prespective ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you again, > > > > > > > > Surya. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- rohiniranjan <rrgb@s...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Testing of each and every rule and factor and > > > > > > > > > studying astrology > > > > > > > > > using the scientific method is a very ambitious > > > > > > > > > pursuit which will > > > > > > > > > take huge amounts of human and other resources and a > > > > > > > > > lot of time. > > > > > > > > > This cannot be done unless one is independently > > > > > > > > > wealthy or has a > > > > > > > > > large team of coworkers. Obviously, I do not think > > > > > > > > > that approach is > > > > > > > > > possible for most of us, given our limitations. I do > > > > > > > > > insist though > > > > > > > > > that people do not casually and callously make > > > > > > > > > statements which seem > > > > > > > > > to indicate that a given factor or combination is > > > > > > > > > rigorously tested > > > > > > > > > when it is clearly not so. Let us say someone sees a > > > > > > > > > combination in > > > > > > > > > a few charts and then convinced of its > > > > > > > > > infalliability makes a strong > > > > > > > > > statement to that effect. This can be misleading, > > > > > > > > > can it not? Adding > > > > > > > > > more cases would invariably bring forth some cases > > > > > > > > > which will fail > > > > > > > > > on the kasauti (test bench) and the rule would have > > > > > > > > > to be modified > > > > > > > > > and thus knowledge would grow and evolve. Hopefully, > > > > > > > > > in my > > > > > > > > > statements I have been careful in not giving the > > > > > > > > > impression that any > > > > > > > > > combination I am describing or discussing has a > > > > > > > > > probability attached > > > > > > > > > to it and that is not '1'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When a statement about a certain combination is made > > > > > > > > > I ask for > > > > > > > > > illustrations not to challenge such a statement but > > > > > > > > > out of curiosity > > > > > > > > > and for my own practical learning. Invariably, or in > > > > > > > > > a very very > > > > > > > > > large number of cases, my requests have met with > > > > > > > > > silence or too few > > > > > > > > > examples that proved not to be clean examples > > > > > > > > > (alternate > > > > > > > > > explanations worked) -- so I continue to keep > > > > > > > > > asking. Due to a > > > > > > > > > variety of reasons, some touched upon earlier, a > > > > > > > > > large very large > > > > > > > > > body of astrology is empirical (observation-based) > > > > > > > > > and resplendent > > > > > > > > > with anecdotal evidence which is not very well > > > > > > > > > documented and > > > > > > > > > essentially represents a lost opportunity. We all > > > > > > > > > have been guilty > > > > > > > > > of that to some extent at some time in our life. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Very early on in my training, I had become quite > > > > > > > > > disillusioned by a > > > > > > > > > large number of yogas because they did not work too > > > > > > > > > well. Instead of > > > > > > > > > using those as a mainstay, I have always used the > > > > > > > > > many principles > > > > > > > > > that are given in texts readily available but > > > > > > > > > waiting to be explored > > > > > > > > > widely. In contrast to my early days, these days > > > > > > > > > software allows one > > > > > > > > > to quickly inventory many yogas in charts and though > > > > > > > > > not very useful > > > > > > > > > for researching across several charts, such software > > > > > > > > > are a great > > > > > > > > > tool for examining the yogas and getting > > > > > > > > > disillusioned sooner, > > > > > > > > > rather than the painstaking manner that someone like > > > > > > > > > me had to go > > > > > > > > > through in my early jyotish days. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh and I do not believe any one factor, including > > > > > > > > > one's nakshatra > > > > > > > > > necessarily defines one's central theme ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , surya > > > > > > > > > vishnubhotla > > > > > > > > > <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For sometime I have been wanting to ask you ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From what I could gather from your approach (I do > > > > > > > > > > believe that imitation is the best way of learning > > > > > > > > > > until you develop the ability to be original - I > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > like to learn by imitation right now) .. you seem > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > take a rule, test it with hazar cases and then > > > > > > > > > accept > > > > > > > > > > the validity of the statement ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While I think this is the correct approach to any > > > > > > > > > > field .. what happens when you lay down a set of > > > > > > > > > > principles as a culmination of all your learning > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > someone else wants to reinvent the rules ignoring > > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > you have learnt??? How do you mark a balance > > > > > > > > > between > > > > > > > > > > accepting something and testing out the same?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am somehow very averse to adhereing to rules > > > > > > > > > (maybe > > > > > > > > > > because I am short of memory) ... but I feel there > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > some fundamental principles which hold the key to > > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > other analysis??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example ... saying that such and such planet > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > such and such house causes this effect becomes a > > > > > > > > > > statistical study ... however is there a way of > > > > > > > > > > guessing the same based on some simple principle > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > should be understood??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am I sounding vague?? Please forgive me because in > > > > > > > > > > reality my own ideas are very vague ... however I > > > > > > > > > am > > > > > > > > > > getting restless to find the root of all this > > > > > > > > > (does > > > > > > > > > > being mula nakshatra have anything to do with > > > > > > > > > this?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am somehow very averse to learning all the yogas > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > feel that there are some basic set of rules that > > > > > > > > > > should be enough to judge a horoscope ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any input will be appreciated !! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > Surya. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail - You care about security. So do we. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam > protection > > > > > around > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.