RE: Astrology is it Vedic ???????????? ( To all concerned)

September 7, 2003

My view point is that Astrology is used to predict the future of living beings

based upon the study of planets, sun, moon etc. and also to provide the

solutions to avoid undesirable results and attain desirable effects.

I consider these celestial bodies as non living beings , we can easily predict

with great accuracy their movement in future, like for e.g we can predict the

next sun,moon eclipse ,next task of a machine, but living beings are conscious

entities they are free to think and act accordingly so no body can predict

their future with 100% accuracy.

Had we been not free then our master is the real doer of whatever good or bad.

Like for e.g somebody killed someone with a gun then in this case neither the

maker of the gun nor the gun are culprit but the person who murdered is

culprit.

As far as the example of moon's effect on human bodies are concerned, offcourse

it may have some effect but at the same time the immune system of human body

is such that it automatically develops resistance to cater such ill effects .

Like for e.g every human being is living under an atmospheric pressure of 1 atm

and our body has been such designed. Similarly astronauts on space mission are

given training and the atmospheric conditions of space are simulated on earth

so that their body gets used to of it.So when our body system is itself there

to take care of these effects then whats these astrologers are doing, are they

doctors to take care of our bodies ?

Even if we accept the view point of Astrologers and their believers then all

these people should be far far better than the non believers of Astrology

because they already know the problems and their accurate solutions, moreover

when everything is predestined then again whats the role of Astrologers.

Can Astrologers gurantee the fate of a person with same accuracy as astronomers

can predict the movement of celestial bodies or mathematicians can predict the

area of a land? if not then its not a science(truth) but a fraud, because truth

comprise in knowing a thing as it is nothing more and nothing less.

If you say yes then I ask can you change those events ? if you cannot then again

whats the astrologers doing, if you say yes we can then why we have somuch

poverty and illness around ?

Regards

Rajeev

amolmandar <amolmandar > wrote:

Dear Rajeev NAmasteIt is good that we agree on number of AVedas and their names.

Now lets move ahead by building confidance.I wrote previous mail to avoid

unnecesary debate afterwards. Let it be clear that I have some references but

the problem may arise that on hindsight you may put it as astronomy and I may

not agree to it. This may cause us to loose the point. So lets be clear what

reference will be Astronomy and what will be Astrology. In other words, if you

fix up domain of Astronomy it will be good for me to examine myself and then to

decide to put them as proof or not. As far as as Jyotish is concerned,it is

shastra of Jyotish. Jyoti is obtained from celestial bodies.The branch of

Jyotish in which we study physical nature,such as its redius,color,its distance

from sun or earth and its speed of rotation

is Astronomy.(right?)And the branch of jyotish in which its effect is express

and accordingly prayer is given then it is not Astronmy and hence can be

Astrology. Do you agree? Many say that basic of Astrology is that Celestial

Bodies Affect Our Life(CBAOL). If this(CBAOL) is acknowledge in Vedas then it

can be said that vedas have reference of Astrology. Do you agree with

this?Lets first fix up line of demarcation between Astronomy and Astrology and

then move ahead. But be assured that I do have some references of Astrology

based on CBAOL, in Vedas. Thanks alot for your Time and Space.AmolMAndar --- In

vedic astrology, Rajeev Kumar <satpath1> wrote:> Namaste

Amolmandar Ji,> > Yes I also agree with you that there are 4 vedas and these

are Rig,Yajur,Sam and Atharva. I have already told that we have references to

astronomy in Vedas. Please

give the references and after analysis of the same I will get back to you.> >

Regards> > Rajeev> > amolmandar <amolmandar> wrote:> Dear Rajeev Namaste>

> Before we get into Good or Bad work and its relation to God,I will > try to

show some reference of Jyotish and Astrology in the Vedas. > For that let me

just know will you accept a sukta or Shloka > describing that the bodies

present in the Brahmanda do affect our > life and we should pray for good

effects from them, as proof for > reference of astrology in any of the four

Vedas. Why I am asking > this is that I have some shlokas from Vedas describing

this. The > reference of NAvagraha directly or indirectly in the Veda will be >

acceptred by you as proof of Astrology in Vedas or not? So if a > shloka says

that we should pray these hevenly bodies and these > bodies

should give us Sukha and Shanti then that should be more than > enough as proof

or not. Or you want all shlokas present in > Astrological Granthas to be

present in Vedas? Let me know this first > and then I will produce for you more

than one proof of Jyotish i.e. > astrological and not astromonical reference in

Vedas.> > One last thing be very clear that Vedas means 1)Rigveda 2)Yajurveda >

3)SamaVeda 4) Atharvaveda.> > If you agree on this, please let me know.> >

Thanks a lot for your Time and Sapce.> > AmolMAndar> > > --- In

vedic astrology, Rajeev Kumar <satpath1> > wrote:> >

Namaste AmolMAndar Ji,> > > > If every work is work of God then are

adulteration, telling lies , > doing fraud with somebody etc. are also work of

God. If we accept > this then God becomes an

adulterator, lier etc.> > > > Vedic God does not expect the help of anybody in

doing his work > because he is all powerful , omniscient. The God which expects

help > from anybody is not God but a humanbeing or a fraud.> > > > Regards> > >

> Rajeev > > > > > > > > > > amolmandar <amolmandar> wrote:> > Dear

Rajeev Namaste> > > > Thanks for the wonderful link. > > > > >But here the

Astrologers have taken the work of God in their > hand, > > >is it not against

Vedas and Gita ????> > > > Dont you feel that every work is 'work' of God. Why

to single out > > Astrologers? Moreover, what is wrong in helping God? > > > >

Thanks a lot for your Time and Space.> > > > AmolMAndar> > >

> vedic astrology, Rajeev Kumar > <satpath1> > >

wrote:> > > Namaste,> > > > > > Astrology is it Vedic ? or we are using the

name Vedas just to > > brand it as a Vedic science.> > > > > > I am of the

view that Astrology is not supported by Vedas . In > > ManuSmriti it is written

that whoever disobeys/disregard Vedas is > an > > athiest. So those books which

are not in accordance with Vedas are > > anti Vedic.> > > > > > I am sure

that all people on this forum are not blind and it > is > > for them only I am

raising this question. > > > > > > I have following point to support my views>

> > > > > Vedas , Gita talk at length about the philosophy of KARMA> (Action)

>

> and says that you have right to do the action only and result is > in > >

my(God) hand. But here the Astrologers have taken the work of God > in > >

their hand, is it not against Vedas and Gita ????> > > > > > In Vedas and

other authoritative scriptures of ancient Vedic > > Rishis no where it is

written that sun moon planets etc do the > acts > > that astrologers generally

talk about.> > > > > > Offcourse Vedas and other vedic scriptures support all

the true > > sciences like Astronomy but not even a single word we have found >

on > > Astrology. If you came across any then please give the reference.> > > >

> > Moreover by applying tests of truth the truthfulness of > Astrology > > is

not proved. The tests of truth are as follows. I am making a > copy > >

and paste from the following site about the ' Tests of truth '> > >

http://www.vjsingh.com/chapterthree.html#8> > > > > > > > > > > > THE FIVE

TESTS OF TRUTH > > > > > > The truth of every thing that is learnt or taught

should be > > carefully examined by the following five tests:-> > > > > >

The Veda and nature of God - All that conforms to the > teachings > > of the

Vedas, nature, attributes and characteristics of God is > > right, the reverse

is wrong. > > > Laws of Nature - All that tallies with laws of nature is >

true, > > the reverse untrue; e.g., the statement that a child is born >

without > > the sexual union of its parents, being opposed to the laws of >

nature > > can never be true. > > > The practice and teachings of A'ptaas,

-i.e., pious, > truthful, > > unprejudiced, honest, and learned men. All that

is unopposed to > > their practice and teachings is acceptable and the reverse

is > > unacceptable. > > > The purity and conviction of one's own soul. -

What is good > for > > you is good for the world. What is painful to you is

painful to > > others. This ought to be the guiding principle of one's conduct

> > towards others. > > > Eight kinds of evidence> > > > > > > > > Direct

Cognizance. > > > Inference. > > > Analogy. > > > Testimony. >

>

> History. > > > Deduction. > > > Possibility. > > >

Non-existence or Negation.> > > > > > > > > Direct Cognizance (Praatyaksha)

is that kind of knowledge, > > which is the result of direct contact of the

five senses with > their > > objects,* of the mind (faculty or organ of

attention) with the > > senses, and of the soul with mind. NYAAYA Shaastraa 1:

i, 4. > > > But this knowledge must not be that of the relation of >

words > > with the things signified, as of the word "water" with the fluid > >

called "water", For example, you ask your servant to bring you > some > >

water. He brings water, puts it before you,

and says : 'Here is > > water, Sir.' Now, what you and your servant see is not

the > > word "water" but the object signified by it. So ou have the direct > >

knowledge of the object called water. But the knowledge> > > > > > > > >

> > > This knowledge must not be of temporary or transient > >

character, i.e., not the product of observation under unfavourable > >

circumstances; for example, a person saw something at night and > took > > it

for a man , but when it was daylight he found out his mistake > and > > knew

that it was not a man, but a pillar. Now, his first > impression > > of the

thing was of a temporary or transient nature, which gave > > place to permanent

knowledge later on, when the true nature of the >

> thing was revealed in the light. > > > It should be free from all

elements of doubt, and be > certain > > in character. For example, you see a

river from a distance and > > say: "Is it water there or white clothes spread

out to dry?" Or > take > > another example, you see a man from a distance and

say: Is it Deva > > Datta standing there or Yajna Datta?" Now, as long as you

are in > > doubt and consequently not sure about a thing you observe, your > >

knowledge cannot be called Pratyaksha (Direct Cognizance). To be > > that the

element of doubt must be absolutely eliminated from it. > > > Briefly

therefore, that knowledge alone is said to be Direct > > Cognizance, which is

not the outcome of the relation of name with > > the object signified by it,

nor gained under circumstances > > unfavourable

for observation or experiment (Hence transient in > > character) nor into which

any element of doubt enters> > > > > > > > > > > > Anumaana - inference -

Literally it means that which follows > > direct cognizance. Two things have

been observed to exist together > > at some time and place, when on some other

occasion, one of the > woe > > is observed, the other, i.e., the unknown can be

inferred.* For > > instance, you see a child and you at once infer that he must

have > > had parents. Again, seeing the smoke issuing from behind a hill > you

> > infer the existence of fire. You infer the previous incarnation of > > the

soul form observing unequal joy and sorrow in this world at > the > > present

moment. > > > Inference is of three kinds:-> > > > > >

Purvavat - is one , in which you reason from cause to effect, > > e.g., the

inference of coming rain form the sight of clouds; or, > > again, you see a

wedding and naturally infer that some day the > > wedded couple will have

children. Or, again, you see students > > engaged in the pursuit of knowledge

and you infer that some day > they > > will become men of learning.> > > > > >

> > > Sheshavat - inference is one, in which you reason from effects > to > >

causes. Examples:- You see a flood in the river, and infer that it > > must

have rained on the mountain from which the river issues. > Again, > > you see a

child and at once infer that the child must have had a > > father. Again, you

see this world and infer the existence of the > > Spiritual cause - the

Creator, as well as of a Material cause - > the

> > elementary matter. Or, again, take another example. When you se a > > man in

pleasure and pain, you at once infer that he must have done > a > > virtuous or

sinful deed before, since you have noticed that the > > consequence of a sinful

act is pain, and that of a virtuous deed, > > pleasure. > > > > > > > > >

Aaamaanyatodrishata - is that kind of inference, in which there > is > > no

relation of cause and effect between the known datum and the > > thing to be

inferred, but there is some kind of similarity between > > the two. For

example, you know that no one can get another place > > without moving from the

first, and hence, if you find a person at > a > > certain place, you can easily

infer that he must have come to the > > latter place by moving from the first.>

>

> > > > > > > Upamaana - Analogy - is the knowledge of a thing from its >

likeness > > to another. The thing which is required to be known is called > >

Saadhya, and tha which becomes the means of this knowledge from > some > > kind

of likeness between the two is called Saadhana > > > Examples: - a man says to

his servant : "Go and fetch Vishnu > > Mittra." The latter answers that he does

not know him, as he has > > never seen him before. Thereupon the master says :-

You know Deva > > Datta, don't you?" Upon the servant's answering in the >

affirmative, > > his master continues: "Well, Vishnu Mittra is just like Deva >

Datta." > > So the servant went out to find Vishnu Mittra. As he was passing > >

through a street, he saw a man very much like Deva Datta, and > > thought that,

thta man must be Vishnu

Mittra, and forthwith > brought > > him to his master. > > > Or, take another

example. You want to know what a Yak is. Well, > > some one tells you, it is

just like an ox. Next time you go to a > > jungle and happen to see an animal

very much like an ox, you at > once > > know that it is the Yak you asked your

friend about. Now this kind > > of knowledge, i.e., knowledge of Vishnu Mittra

from his likeness > to > > Deva Datta and of a Yak from its likeness to an ox

is > calledUpamaana > > or knowledge by analogy. The words Vishnu Mittra and

Yak are > called > > Saadhya, whilst Deva Datta and ox are called Saadhana, in

the > above > > two instances. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shabda - Testimony

(literally, word) - "The word of an A'pt > > (altruistic

teacher) is called Shabda." NYAAYA Shaastra 1:,i, 7. > > > An A'pt is a person

who is a thorough scholar, we versed in all > > the sciences and philosophies,

physical and spiritual, is > virtuous, > > truthful, active, free from passions

and desires, imbued with love > > for others, and who is an altruistic teacher

of humanity solely > > actuated with the desire of benefiting the world by his

knowledge, > > experience and convictions. God being the truest and greatest of

> all > > A'ptas, HIs word the Veda is also included in shabda (Testimony). > >

> > > > > > > Itihaas - History - is that which tells us that such and such a >

> person was so and so, he did such and such a thing. In other > words, > >

Itihaas is the history of a country or the biography of a person. > > NYAAYA

Shaastra 2: 2,1.[The

experience of the past recorded in > > history can be applied to solve many a

difficult question of the > > day. - Tr. > > > > > > > > > Arthaapatti -

Conclusion or deduction. - It is a conclusion > which > > naturally follows

from the statement of a fact; for instance, one > > says to another: "Rain

falls from clouds" or " and effect flows > from > > a cause." The natural

conclusion that can be drawn from the above > > statement is: "There can be no

rain when there are no clouds," > > or "no effects follow when a cause does not

exist." > > > > > > > > > Sambhava - possibility. - When you hear a thing, the

first thing > > that enters your mind is whether such and such a thing is >

possible. > > Anything that runs counter to the laws of nature is not possible,

> > and

hence it can never be true; for example, if you are told that > a > > child was

born without parents, such and such a person raised the > > dead to life again,

or made stones float on the sea, lifted > > mountains, broke the moon into

pieces, was God incarnate, or saw > > horns on the head of a man, or solemnized

the marriage of a couple > > born of sterile mother. You could at once know that

it could not > > have possibly happened, being opposed to the laws of Nature.

That > > alone is possible which is in conformity with the laws of nature. > >

> > > > > > > Abhaava - Absence or Negation.- You infer the existence of a >

thing > > in some other place from its absence from the place where you were >

> told you find it; for instance, a gentleman said to his man: "Go > and > >

bring the elephant from the

elephant-house." He went there but > found > > that the elephant was not there.

He naturally conclude that he > must > > be somewhere near about. So he went

out and looked about for the > > elephant and found him not very far from its

proper place and > > brought him to his master. > > > > > > These eight kinds

of evidence have been briefly described. Their > > number can be reduced to

four fi History be included under > > Testimony, and Deduction, Possibility,

and Negation under > > Inference.* > > > It is only by means of these five

criteria that a man can > > ascertain what is right or wrong and not otherwise>

> > > > > If you test Astrology against these tests it proves to be a > fraud.>

> > > > > > > > Regards> > > > > >

Rajeev> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

Sponsor> > Archives:

vedic astrology> > > > Group info:

vedic astrology/info.html> > > > To UNSUBSCRIBE:

Blank mail to vedic astrology-> > > > > ....... May

Jupiter's light shine on us .......> > > > || Om Tat Sat || Sarvam Sri

Krishnaarpanamastu || > > > > Your use of is subject to the

Terms of > Service. > > > >

> > > > > > SiteBuilder -

Free, easy-to-use web site design software> > >

Sponsor> > Archives: vedic astrology>

> Group info: vedic astrology/info.html> > To

UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-> > .......

May Jupiter's light shine on us .......> > || Om Tat Sat || Sarvam Sri

Krishnaarpanamastu || > >

Terms of Service. > > > > >

SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web

site design softwareArchives: vedic astrologyGroup

info: vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE:

Blank mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's

light shine on us .......|| Om Tat Sat || Sarvam Sri Krishnaarpanamastu

||

September 7, 2003

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">|| Jaya Jagannath ||

Dear Rajeev,

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">If you say everything in science can be

accurately measured, what is this uncertainty theory in Quantum Physics

propounded by Heisenberg. Try understanding that and

you shall no that nothing in this world is certain by just probable, with

different degrees of probabilities. Sub-atomic particles are waves or particles

or both… It is both at the same time.... when you want to see it as a

particle, it becomes a particle and when you want to see it as a wave, it

becomes a wave. Isn’t it puzzling? Many things in this life is not that simple as it looks!

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">Do you say medicine and psychology fraud?

If medicine can cure diseases, why there are so many of them all around, and if

you say it can’t, then what all these doctors doing! What about the

psychologist… What is the difference between an exact and empirical

science. Can you define the premises, on which it is checked whether or not something

is scientific?

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">Best Wishes

Sarajit

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">

Rajeev Kumar

[satpath1 ]

Sunday, September 07, 2003

4:17 PM

To:

vedic astrology

Re: [vedic astrology] Re:

Astrology is it Vedic ???????????? ( To all concerned)

Namaste Amol Ji,

My view point is that Astrology is used to predict the

future of living beings based upon the study of planets, sun, moon etc. and

also to provide the solutions to avoid undesirable results and attain desirable

effects.

I consider these celestial bodies as non living beings

, we can easily predict with great accuracy their movement in future, like for

e.g we can predict the next sun,moon eclipse ,next task of a machine, but

living beings are conscious entities they are free to think and act accordingly

so no body can predict their future with 100% accuracy.

Had we been not free then our master is the real doer

of whatever good or bad. Like for e.g somebody killed someone with a gun then

in this case neither the maker of the gun nor the gun are culprit but the

person who murdered is culprit.

As far as the example of moon's effect on human

bodies are concerned, offcourse it may have some effect but at the

same time the immune system of human body is such that it automatically

develops resistance to cater such ill effects . Like for e.g every human

being is living under an atmospheric pressure of 1 atm and our body has been

such designed. Similarly astronauts on space mission are given training and the

atmospheric conditions of space are simulated on earth so that their body gets

used to of it.So when our body system is itself there to take care of these

effects then whats these astrologers are doing, are they doctors to take care

of our bodies ?

Even if we accept the view point of Astrologers and

their believers then all these people should be far far better than the non

believers of Astrology because they already know the problems and their accurate

solutions, moreover when everything is predestined then again whats the role of

Astrologers.

Can Astrologers gurantee the fate of a

person with same accuracy as astronomers can predict the movement of celestial

bodies or mathematicians can predict the area of a land? if not then its not a

science(truth) but a fraud, because truth comprise in knowing a thing as it is

nothing more and nothing less.

If you say yes then I ask can you change those events

? if you cannot then again whats the astrologers doing, if you say yes we can

then why we have somuch poverty and illness around ?

Regards

Rajeev

font-style:italic">amolmandar <amolmandar >

wrote:

margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">

Dear Rajeev NAmaste

It is good that we agree on number of AVedas and

their names. Now

lets move ahead by building confidance.

I wrote previous mail to avoid unnecesary debate

afterwards. Let it

be clear that I have some references but the

problem may arise that

on hindsight you may put it as astronomy and I may

not agree to it.

This may cause us to loose the point. So lets be

clear what

reference will be Astronomy and what will be

Astrology. In other

words, if you fix up domain of Astronomy it will

be good for me to

examine myself and then to decide to put them as

proof or not.

As far as as Jyotish is concerned,it is shastra of

Jyotish. Jyoti is

obtained from celestial bodies.The branch of

Jyotish in which we

study physical nature,such as its redius,color,its

distance from sun

or earth and its speed of rotation is

Astronomy.(right?)

And the branch of jyotish in which its effect is

express and

accordingly prayer is given then it is not

Astronmy and hence can be

Astrology. Do you agree? Many say that basic of

Astrology is that

Celestial Bodies Affect Our Life(CBAOL). If

this(CBAOL) is

acknowledge in Vedas then it can be said that

vedas have reference

of Astrology. Do you agree with this?

Lets first fix up line of demarcation between

Astronomy and

Astrology and then move ahead. But be assured that

I do have some

references of Astrology based on CBAOL, in Vedas.

Thanks alot for your Time and Space.

AmolMAndar

vedic astrology, Rajeev

Kumar <satpath1>

wrote:

> Namaste Amolmandar Ji,

>

> Yes I also agree with you that there

are 4 vedas and these are

Rig,Yajur,Sam and Atharva. I have already told

that we have

references to astronomy in Vedas. Please give the

references and

after analysis of the same I will get back to you.

>

> Regards

>

> Rajeev

>

> amolmandar <amolmandar> wrote:

> Dear Rajeev Namaste

>

> Before we get into Good or Bad work and its

relation to God,I will

> try to show some reference of Jyotish and

Astrology in the Vedas.

> For that let me just know will you accept a

sukta or Shloka

> describing that the bodies present in the

Brahmanda do affect our

> life and we should pray for good effects from

them, as proof for

> reference of astrology in any of the four

Vedas. Why I am asking

> this is that I have some shlokas from Vedas

describing this. The

> reference of NAvagraha directly or indirectly

in the Veda will be

> acceptred by you as proof of Astrology in

Vedas or not? So if a

> shloka says that we should pray these hevenly

bodies and these

> bodies should give us Sukha and Shanti then

that should be more

than

> enough as proof or not. Or you want all

shlokas present in

> Astrological Granthas to be present in Vedas?

Let me know this

first

> and then I will produce for you more than one

proof of Jyotish

i.e.

> astrological and not astromonical reference

in Vedas.

>

> One last thing be very clear that Vedas means

1)Rigveda 2)

Yajurveda

> 3)SamaVeda 4) Atharvaveda.

>

> If you agree on this, please let me know.

>

> Thanks a lot for your Time and Sapce.

>

> AmolMAndar

>

> vedic astrology,

Rajeev Kumar

> wrote:

> > Namaste AmolMAndar Ji,

> >

> > If every work is work of God then are

adulteration, telling

lies ,

> doing fraud with somebody etc. are also work

of God. If we accept

> this then God becomes an adulterator, lier

etc.

> >

> > Vedic God does not expect the help

of anybody in doing his work

> because he is all powerful , omniscient. The

God which expects

help

> from anybody is not God but a humanbeing or a

fraud.

> >

> > Regards

> >

> > Rajeev

> >

> > amolmandar <amolmandar>

wrote:

> > Dear Rajeev Namaste

> >

> > Thanks for the wonderful link.

> >

> > >But here the Astrologers have taken

the work of God in their

> hand,

> > >is it not against Vedas and Gita

????

> >

> > Dont you feel that every work is 'work'

of God. Why to single

out

> > Astrologers? Moreover, what is wrong in

helping God?

> >

> > Thanks a lot for your Time and Space.

> >

> > AmolMAndar

> >

> > vedic astrology,

Rajeev Kumar

> <satpath1>

> > wrote:

> > > Namaste,

> > >

> > > Astrology is it Vedic ? or we are

using the name Vedas just to

> > brand it as a Vedic science.

> > >

> > > I am of the view that Astrology is

not supported by Vedas . In

> > ManuSmriti it is written that whoever

disobeys/disregard Vedas

is

> an

> > athiest. So those books which are not in

accordance with Vedas

are

> > anti Vedic.

> > >

> > > I am sure that all

people on this forum are not blind and it

> is

> > for them only I am raising this

question.

> > >

> > > I have following point to support

my views

> > >

> > > Vedas , Gita talk at length about

the philosophy of KARMA

> (Action)

> > and says that you have right to do the

action only and result is

> in

> > my(God) hand. But here the Astrologers

have taken the work of

God

> in

> > their hand, is it not against Vedas and

Gita ????

> > >

> > > In Vedas and other authoritative

scriptures of ancient Vedic

> > Rishis no where it is written that sun

moon planets etc do the

> acts

> > that astrologers generally talk about.

> > >

> > > Offcourse Vedas and other vedic

scriptures support all the

true

> > sciences like Astronomy but not even a

single word we have found

> on

> > Astrology. If you came across any then

please give the reference.

> > >

> > > Moreover by applying tests of truth

the truthfulness of

> Astrology

> > is not proved. The tests of truth are as

follows. I am making a

> copy

> > and paste from the following site about

the ' Tests of truth '

> > > http://www.vjsingh.com/chapterthree.html#8

> > >

> > > THE FIVE TESTS OF TRUTH

> > >

> > > The truth of every thing that is learnt

or taught should be

> > carefully examined by the following five

tests:-

> > >

> > > The Veda and

nature of God - All that conforms to the

> teachings

> > of the Vedas, nature, attributes and

characteristics of God is

> > right, the reverse is wrong.

> > > Laws of Nature -

All that tallies with laws of nature is

> true,

> > the reverse untrue; e.g., the statement

that a child is born

> without

> > the sexual union of its parents, being

opposed to the laws of

> nature

> > can never be true.

> > > The practice and

teachings of A'ptaas, -i.e., pious,

> truthful,

> > unprejudiced, honest, and learned men.

All that is unopposed to

> > their practice and teachings is

acceptable and the reverse is

> > unacceptable.

> > > The purity and

conviction of one's own soul. - What is good

> for

> > you is good for the world. What is

painful to you is painful to

> > others. This ought to be the guiding

principle of one's conduct

> > towards others.

> > > Eight kinds of evidence

> > >

Direct Cognizance.

> > >

Inference.

> > >

Analogy.

> > >

Testimony.

> > >

History.

> > >

Deduction.

> > >

Possibility.

> > >

Non-existence or Negation.

> > >

> > > Direct Cognizance

(Praatyaksha) is that kind of knowledge,

> > which is the result of direct contact of

the five senses with

> their

> > objects,* of the mind (faculty or organ

of attention) with the

> > senses, and of the soul with mind.

NYAAYA Shaastraa 1: i, 4.

> > >

But this knowledge must not be that of the relation of

> words

> > with the things signified, as of the

word "water" with the fluid

> > called "water", For example,

you ask your servant to bring you

> some

> > water. He brings water, puts it before

you, and says : 'Here is

> > water, Sir.' Now, what you and your

servant see is not the

> > word "water" but the object

signified by it. So ou have the

direct

> > knowledge of the object called water.

But the knowledge

> > >

This knowledge must not be of temporary or transient

> > character, i.e., not the product of

observation under

unfavourable

> > circumstances; for example, a person saw

something at night and

> took

> > it for a man , but when it was daylight

he found out his mistake

> and

> > knew that it was not a man, but a

pillar. Now, his first

> impression

> > of the thing was of a temporary or

transient nature, which gave

> > place to permanent knowledge later on,

when the true nature of

the

> > thing was revealed in the light.

> > >

It should be free from all elements of doubt, and be

> certain

> > in character. For example, you see a

river from a distance and

> > say: "Is it water there or white

clothes spread out to dry?" Or

> take

> > another example, you see a man from a

distance and say: Is it

Deva

> > Datta standing there or Yajna

Datta?" Now, as long as you are in

> > doubt and consequently not sure about a

thing you observe, your

> > knowledge cannot be called Pratyaksha

(Direct Cognizance). To be

> > that the element of doubt must be

absolutely eliminated from it.

> > > Briefly therefore, that knowledge

alone is said to be Direct

> > Cognizance, which is not the outcome of

the relation of name

with

> > the object signified by it, nor gained

under circumstances

> > unfavourable for observation or

experiment (Hence transient in

> > character) nor into which any element of

doubt enters

> > >

> > > Anumaana - inference - Literally it

means that which follows

> > direct cognizance. Two things have been

observed to exist

together

> > at some time and place, when on some

other occasion, one of the

> woe

> > is observed, the other, i.e., the

unknown can be inferred.* For

> > instance, you see a child and you at

once infer that he must

have

> > had parents. Again, seeing the smoke

issuing from behind a hill

> you

> > infer the existence of fire. You infer

the previous incarnation

of

> > the soul form observing unequal joy and

sorrow in this world at

> the

> > present moment.

> > > Inference is of three kinds:-

> > >

> > > Purvavat - is one

, in which you reason from cause to

effect,

> > e.g., the inference of coming rain form

the sight of clouds; or,

> > again, you see a wedding and naturally

infer that some day the

> > wedded couple will have children. Or,

again, you see students

> > engaged in the pursuit of knowledge and

you infer that some day

> they

> > will become men of learning.

> > >

> > > Sheshavat - inference is one, in

which you reason from effects

> to

> > causes. Examples:- You see a flood in

the river, and infer that

it

> > must have rained on the mountain from

which the river issues.

> Again,

> > you see a child and at once infer that

the child must have had a

> > father. Again, you see this world and

infer the existence of the

> > Spiritual cause - the Creator, as well

as of a Material cause -

> the

> > elementary matter. Or, again, take

another example. When you se

a

> > man in pleasure and pain, you at once

infer that he must have

done

> a

> > virtuous or sinful deed before, since

you have noticed that the

> > consequence of a sinful act is pain, and

that of a virtuous

deed,

> > pleasure.

> > >

> > > Aaamaanyatodrishata - is that kind

of inference, in which

there

> is

> > no relation of cause and effect between

the known datum and the

> > thing to be inferred, but there is some

kind of similarity

between

> > the two. For example, you know that no

one can get another place

> > without moving from the first, and

hence, if you find a person

at

> a

> > certain place, you can easily infer that

he must have come to

the

> > latter place by moving from the first.

> > >

> > > Upamaana - Analogy - is the

knowledge of a thing from its

> likeness

> > to another. The thing which is required

to be known is called

> > Saadhya, and tha which becomes the means

of this knowledge from

> some

> > kind of likeness between the two is

called Saadhana

> > > Examples: - a man says to his

servant : "Go and fetch Vishnu

> > Mittra." The latter answers that he

does not know him, as he has

> > never seen him before. Thereupon the

master says :- You know

Deva

> > Datta, don't you?" Upon the

servant's answering in the

> affirmative,

> > his master continues: "Well, Vishnu

Mittra is just like Deva

> Datta."

> > So the servant went out to find Vishnu

Mittra. As he was passing

> > through a street, he saw a man very much

like Deva Datta, and

> > thought that, thta man must be Vishnu

Mittra, and forthwith

> brought

> > him to his master.

> > > Or, take another example. You want

to know what a Yak is.

Well,

> > some one tells you, it is just like an

ox. Next time you go to a

> > jungle and happen to see an animal very

much like an ox, you at

> once

> > know that it is the Yak you asked your

friend about. Now this

kind

> > of knowledge, i.e., knowledge of Vishnu

Mittra from his likeness

> to

> > Deva Datta and of a Yak from its

likeness to an ox is

> calledUpamaana

> > or knowledge by analogy. The words

Vishnu Mittra and Yak are

> called

> > Saadhya, whilst Deva Datta and ox are

called Saadhana, in the

> above

> > two instances.

> > >

> > > Shabda - Testimony (literally,

word) - "The word of an A'pt

> > (altruistic teacher) is called

Shabda." NYAAYA Shaastra 1:,i, 7.

> > > An A'pt is a person who is a

thorough scholar, we versed in

all

> > the sciences and philosophies, physical

and spiritual, is

> virtuous,

> > truthful, active, free from passions and

desires, imbued with

love

> > for others, and who is an altruistic

teacher of humanity solely

> > actuated with the desire of benefiting

the world by his

knowledge,

> > experience and convictions. God being

the truest and greatest of

> all

> > A'ptas, HIs word the Veda is also

included in shabda

(Testimony).

> > >

> > > Itihaas - History - is that which

tells us that such and such

a

> > person was so and so, he did such and

such a thing. In other

> words,

> > Itihaas is the history of a country or

the biography of a

person.

> > NYAAYA Shaastra 2: 2,1.[The experience

of the past recorded in

> > history can be applied to solve many a

difficult question of the

> > day. - Tr.

> > >

> > > Arthaapatti - Conclusion or

deduction. - It is a conclusion

> which

> > naturally follows from the statement of

a fact; for instance,

one

> > says to another: "Rain falls from

clouds" or " and effect flows

> from

> > a cause." The natural conclusion

that can be drawn from the

above

> > statement is: "There can be no rain

when there are no clouds,"

> > or "no effects follow when a cause

does not exist."

> > >

> > > Sambhava - possibility. - When you

hear a thing, the first

thing

> > that enters your mind is whether such

and such a thing is

> possible.

> > Anything that runs counter to the laws

of nature is not

possible,

> > and hence it can never be true; for

example, if you are told

that

> a

> > child was born without parents, such and

such a person raised

the

> > dead to life again, or made stones float

on the sea, lifted

> > mountains, broke the moon into pieces,

was God incarnate, or saw

> > horns on the head of a man, or

solemnized the marriage of a

couple

> > born of sterile mother. You could at

once know that it could not

> > have possibly happened, being opposed to

the laws of Nature.

That

> > alone is possible which is in conformity

with the laws of

nature.

> > >

> > > Abhaava - Absence or Negation.- You

infer the existence of a

> thing

> > in some other place from its absence

from the place where you

were

> > told you find it; for instance, a gentleman

said to his man: "Go

> and

> > bring the elephant from the

elephant-house." He went there but

> found

> > that the elephant was not there. He

naturally conclude that he

> must

> > be somewhere near about. So he went out

and looked about for the

> > elephant and found him not very far from

its proper place and

> > brought him to his master.

> > >

> > > These eight kinds of evidence have

been briefly described.

Their

> > number can be reduced to four fi History

be included under

> > Testimony, and Deduction, Possibility,

and Negation under

> > Inference.*

> > > It is only by means of these five

criteria that a man can

> > ascertain what is right or wrong and not

otherwise

> > >

> > > If you test Astrology against

these tests it proves to be a

> fraud.

> > >

> > > Regards

> > >

> > > Rajeev

> > >

> > > SiteBuilder - Free,

easy-to-use web site design software

> >

> > Sponsor

> >

> > Group info: vedic-

astrology/info.html

> >

> > To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to

vedic astrology-

>

> >

> > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us

........

> >

> > || Om Tat Sat

|| Sarvam Sri Krishnaarpanamastu ||

> >

> > Your use of is subject to

the Terms of

> Service.

> >

> > SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use

web site design software

>

> Sponsor

>

> To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to

vedic astrology-

>

> ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us

........

>

> || Om Tat Sat

|| Sarvam Sri Krishnaarpanamastu ||

>

> Your use of is subject to the

Terms of

Service.

>

> SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web

site design software

To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to

vedic astrology-

|| Om Tat Sat

|| Sarvam Sri Krishnaarpanamastu ||

Your use of

is subject to the

Terms of Service.

To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to

vedic astrology-

|| Om Tat Sat

|| Sarvam Sri Krishnaarpanamastu ||

Your use of

is subject to the

Terms of Service.

September 7, 2003

I never said that medicine is fraud or doctors are fraud , i only say that

Astrology and astrologers are fraud.

Probability of death of all living beings is 100%.

As far as Heisenberg's uncertanity principle is concerned, he himself has used

the term uncertanity in it, as we don't have control over these particles.

But lets take the example of geometry , the area of a circle of a given radius

is same whether u measure it in India or any where in the world.Similarly lets

take mathematics if you multiply 3 by 2 then result will be 6 and 6 only.

Probability is used by statistician to measure the outcome of a result over

which we have very limited control based upon the data collected from events in

the past. For e.g the probability of the outcome of heads or tails when

throwing a coin is 50%, because nobody has no control over it once the coin is

thrown.But one thing is certain in this and that is either heads will come or

tails will come.

Regards

Rajeev

Sarajit Poddar <sarajit (AT) (DOT) org> wrote:

|| Jaya Jagannath ||Dear Rajeev,

If you say everything in science can be accurately measured, what is this

uncertainty theory in Quantum Physics propounded by Heisenberg. Try

understanding that and you shall no that nothing in this world is certain by

just probable, with different degrees of probabilities. Sub-atomic particles

are waves or particles or both… It is both at the same time.... when you want

to see it as a particle, it becomes a particle and when you want to see it as a

wave, it becomes a wave. Isn’t it puzzling? Many things in this life is not that

simple as it looks!

Do you say medicine and psychology fraud? If medicine can cure diseases, why

there are so many of them all around, and if you say it can’t, then what all

these doctors doing! What about the psychologist… What is the difference

between an exact and empirical science. Can you define the premises, on which

it is checked whether or not something is scientific?

Best WishesSarajit

Rajeev Kumar [satpath1 ] Sent:

Sunday, September 07, 2003 4:17 PMvedic astrologySubject:

Re: [vedic astrology] Re: Astrology is it Vedic ???????????? ( To all

concerned)