Guest guest Posted February 12, 2004 Report Share Posted February 12, 2004 Thank you for that quotation, sir. It is beautiful. The word Janaardhana holds the key to His role in working through the planets! -Venkat vedic astrology, Sathiyanarayana Gupta <gupta816> wrote: > > > > Dear Shri. Siva, > > The appended is your quest for knowledge, extracted from BPHS (ch.2) > > 3-4. "The unborn Lord has many incarnations. He has incarnated, as the 9 (Nava) Planets to bestow on the living beings the results due to their 10ths. He is Janardana. He assumed the auspicious form of Planets to destroy the demons (evil forces) and sustain the divine beings" > > With regards, > > D.SathiyanarayanaGupta. > > > > > schinnas <schinnas> wrote:Dear Sundeep, > Thats a very good point about observing first and then predicting. > However, I am not sure about your second observation. > > I believe there are instances in Jyotish classics where the authors > (rishis) indicate that planets cause so and so. For example, while > talking about conjunction of planets and when sun hides the planets, > I remember reading something like "rays" of planets dont reach the > person, etc. Please note that I am just basing it on my memory which > may be incorrect. > > Such statements tend to give the opinion that the divine force > associated with these planets "cause" and not just indicate. > Otherwise remedies to Graha Lords may not make much sense. > > Now, here is a question for all: Are there instances where it is > clearly and unambiguously said anywhere in classics that > 1. Planets cause an effect on us (based on our past karma) OR > 2. Planets just denote/indicate. > > Nimittas is a very different story altogether. I am referring to > planetary astrology here. > > -Siva. > > vedic astrology, "vedicastrostudent" > <vedicastrostudent> wrote: > > Siva, > > I am forced to comment on one statement of yours, because I see > > people misinterpreting this all the time. This is not directed at > > you, but a general attitude I have seen which I think needs to be > > corrected: > > > > > For me and probably many others, seeing is believing and we > > believe > > > in astrology but I dont think there has ever been a *complete* > > > explanation of how Jyotish works. > > > > > > The true scientist values empiricism above all else. This is the > > unalterable sequence for any true scientist: OBSERVATION comes > first, > > then HYPOTHESIS, then PREDICTION based on hypothesis, then > promotion > > of HYPOTHESIS to EXPLANATION based on the VALIDATION of it's > > PREDICTIONS. What I see many many people doing is debunking > Jyotish > > falsely under the covers of "science". When they say "how can a > > planet millions of miles away affect our destiny", they are not > being > > scientific because they are FIRST looking for an EXPLANATION, > BEFORE > > accepting the OBSERVATIONS. A true scientist always observes > first, > > even if he has no theories or explanations, or worse, even if the > > observations flatly contradict his pre-existing beliefs and > theories. > > Einstein for example OBSERVED that the speed of light was a dead > > constant in all directions BEFORE he hypothesized the theory that > > explained it. The constancy of the speed of light was in stark > > contradiction to then existing theories, but that didnt stop > Einstein > > from observing that constancy as a FACT. > > > > The true scientific approach to Jyotish is to observe first. *IS* > > there a correlation between the movement of planets and our lives? > > Once you get PAST that i.e have answered the question in YES or > NO, > > you can proceed to the hypothesis. People frequently go the other > > way - they cant find a comfortable hypothesis, so they deny the > > facts. That is not scientific. > > > > Secondly, the next biggest mistake I see people making, and yes I > > have not seen ONE person point out this mistake is that when they > see > > a correlation between A and B, they automatically assume that A > > CAUSES B. That is an assumption - it is only ONE possibility of > > potentially more. Case in point: Jyotish. When they see the > movement > > of planets correlating directly with the events in the lives of > > people, people automatically assume that the movement of planets > > CAUSES those events. Huh? Why? Say for example the mail in your > house > > comes at 2pm. You keep watching the clock on the wall, and when it > > hits 2pm you run to your mailbox and sure enough, there is the > mail. > > Did the movement of the clock to the position 2pm CAUSE the mail > to > > come? No! Both the mailman and you are using a synchronized clock. > > Neither caused the other. The same MAY be the case for JYOTISH. It > > MAY - I dont know, I am simply not eliminating it as a > possibility. > > The planets may be like a complex clock in the sky (that can be > read > > only by competent astrologers of course), keeping time of events > that > > occur in your life. They may only be the clock, not necessarily > the > > process that causes the event. I find it funny when people say - > we > > know all the material forces e.g. gravity that emanate from all > > planets, and none has enough magnitude to affect anything on > earth. > > My answer - So what? The planets may not be CAUSING the things on > > earth, simply TIMING them. > > > > > > Sundeep > > > > > > > > > To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology- > > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... > > > > > > > Links > > > vedic astrology/ > > > vedic astrology > > Terms of Service. 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.