Replies to Alex, Gauranga, Sarajit and Narayan Iyer

[Guest guest]

Namaste Alex, Gauranga and Sarajit,

 

I have been reading your posts with interest. I would like your

input on what I have written about Tendulkar. I can repost it

if you like.

 

Basically, Tendulkar is a one-of-a-kind Indian sportsman. His

status can be compared to that of Elvis Presley in America (this

is my assumption, cricket fans can correct me if I am wrong).

 

My point is:

 

-> Take his chart, refined to the level of D-10, or even D-60.

 

If you take a different birth place in India, with a slightly

different time, you get the exact same ascendant, D-10 and

even D-60 (I have done this in my other post).

 

There are numerous people born in India each minute in each of

the large cities. Chances are, there is more than one person

with the same D-1, D-3 .... all the way upto D-10 (easily),

and possibly with the same Divisional charts upto D-60.

 

My question is, if the horoscope is going to show fame, success,

wealth, ability and so on, why did these other people not

become like Tendulkar?

 

I am willing to listen to any explanation you have with an open

mind. This is not like taking someone born thousands of years

ago with the same chart and comparing to someone born 25 years

ago, that is unreasonable and D-K-P will play a role there. I am

talking about someone born on the same day, in the same country,

only at a slightly different time.

 

Narayan Iyer asked me what conclusions *I* have drawn from the

above. The answer is that I am still in the process of evaluating

this. I actually started thinking about this only recently, and

my post was more of a 'thinking aloud' effort. I would really

like to get input from the learned members here...

 

Don't worry, this is not an attempt to knock astrology. INSPITE

of the paradox I have highlighted, I will assert that Jyotish

DOES work... I have seen too many things to think otherwise!!

 

I remain,

 

Mahalinga Iyer

[Guest guest]

I had sent a couple of replies to your post (one original and then an

addendum) which somehow did not make the list. They are attached below for

reference.

_______________

 

 

This is a great article; I try hard to stay away from debates and usually

hit the delete key as soon as I sense one.

 

By mere strength of your brilliant logic and presentation, I was forced to

read through this article. At first, I was confused to what your point or

intended question was (as I had not been keeping up.....). Nevertheless

your note stirred some thoughts and emotions which I share below.

 

You are absolutely right my friend. God is only one to know it all

PRECISELY and ACCURATELY.

 

I think the subtle point in your note is revolved around precision. We

(astrologers) do not have precision; we admit we deal with ranges and

probabilities. Astrologer who is precise (or strives to be) can be

precisely right or precisely wrong.

 

Let me expand.....

 

You state that there may be x number of people with similar charts. I

accept. You state that there is only one Sachin. I accept.

But I don't know of any astrologer who could predict precisely that Sachin

will become Sachin i.e. # 1 in his field. A lof of astrologers can predict

he will be a sportsman and enjoy tremendous success in terms of fame,

wealth, etc. but anything more.............

 

Astrologers would probably predict similar things for others with similar

charts. The real test / defeat will come if a person with similar chart is

totally on the other end of the spectrum..... We don't know the life

stories of these others to test these possibilities.

 

Let me present another example.....

 

Narasimha has presented a brilliant analysis on his web-site re. twins. He

has successfully and logically identified the reasons for the differences.

He could do so because of two reasons: he had the two charts; he

painstakingly spent the time necessary to do a detailed study and identify

the (reasons for) differences. (Ofcourse, he had to have the requisite

knowledge also.)

 

He has successfully demonstrated the techniques to narrow the

probabilities.

 

But we are far from establishing precise and complete knowledge.

Furthermore, most astrologers (other than the research-oriented) will never

spend this amount of time for detailed analysis. As well, to a certain

extent, it is probably only possible in hindsight because there are much

too many details and opportunities for error.

 

So what does this mean???

 

Are we wrong? Absolutely not.

Do we have limitations? Ofcourse.

Can we ever overcome these limitations? I think, slowly we can get better

Can Astrology be precise? We will never know until we succeed (to succeed

we have to keep trying).

 

I hope I have addressed your concerns .......

 

ADDENDUM:

 

I just read Narayan's article. An addendum to my note if your point was

Astrology is not science....

 

Again, I would probably agree that at this stage I don't know if it could

be completely termed as a Science....(let's ignore the debate of Exact vs.

Proabilistic Science for a minute....)

 

I mean, ya I agree, Intuition has a lot to do with it also. (With

intuition, reading is so much more accurate even when applying same

principles... I have experienced it and is probably the best explanation I

can offer at this stage....)

 

But Astrology definitely falls within the category of Science. To prove

this statement, we must establish a definition of Science. I view Science

as researching/experimenting and identifying/establishing

parameters/principles/formulas which can produce replicable results.

 

Certainly, Astrology falls within this definition. The question of

consistency depends on a lot of factors: (1) as I have already mentioned,

it is probabilistic; (2) the skill and capability of the astrologer; (3)

the accuracy of birth time; and we can go on.....

 

The point is, we cannot term it 'non-scientific' just because we don't

have perfect consistency. We need to recognize and accept those

consistencies that exist and continue to experiment. (This process is no

different than the process leading to other discoveries and inventions).

 

I think people confuse between two distinct issues:

 

One is does Astrology have any merit to be declared a Science? I think

there is sufficient evidence to merit further research.

Second is why is it so (why do sun, moon , and other planets have any

bearing on our destiny)? This question is a little more tricky to answer

but if we did know it will it change the effect of the first..... Did

gravity not exist or work until we discovered gravity???

 

I am now starting to enter the domain of philosopy which is not my

intention.So I must end here. Hopefully, I have given you some food for

thought....

 

Best Regards,

 

SA

[Guest guest]

Namaste Mahalinga,

 

Even if people are born in the same room, side by side, at the same

second, there will be differences due to the fact that the parents

are different people. While I agree with the leraned jyotishis that

amazing facts can be culled from all of the D-charts in regards to

the parents, the fact remains that they will be slightly different

people.

 

As such the impression on the mind of the native in regards to his

parents will not be the same. The whole concept of what a parent is,

the small interactions they have had with them, different modes of

conversation, etc, etc. Likewise by extension the effect of all

people on him will be slightly different, thereby accounting for

different perceptions, thoughts, and therefore directions and

conceptions of life.

 

For example, two identical Eskimos see an orange for the first time.

It is not the same orange, as one has a slightly rougher texture.

Essenitally they are the same, they come from the same orchard, and

started growing at the same time, and are otherwise very similar.

However they are not exactly the same, and because of this the

impression in the mind of the Eskimo of what is an orange is a

slightly different. This is extended to all things in life that the

person encounters. Eventually all of the slightly different factors

makes the person's fate in life take a little bit of a different

course, even if born on top of each other.

 

Regards,

 

Alex J

 

> I am willing to listen to any explanation you have with an open

> mind. This is not like taking someone born thousands of years

> ago with the same chart and comparing to someone born 25 years

> ago, that is unreasonable and D-K-P will play a role there. I am

> talking about someone born on the same day, in the same country,

> only at a slightly different time.