Whether Bush or Kerry wins, astrology will lose - here's why!

[Guest guest]

JAYA JAGANNATHA!

 

Dear Sundeep,

 

Namaste.

 

I don't think that disagreement amongst astrologers regarding the prediction

of a future event would prove the inefficiency of the science of Jyotish. I

would coclude that knowledgeabel astrologers, including SJC Gurus realise

that any one of us in this age of Kali is an "intellectual pygmie" as

Narasimha sometimes says. Therefore we acknowledge that the depth that we

have absorbed the teachings of the Maharishis is not so great that we could

give predictions beyond doubt. Still, I think that attempting predictions

with different methods broadens and deepens our understanding of the

subject, whether we fail or gain success. This is why I presented my

judgement based on Kota Chakra.

 

Yours,

 

Gauranga Das Vedic Astrologer

gauranga

Jyotish Remedies:

WWW.BRIHASPATI.NET

Phone: +36-309-140-839

 

-

"vedicastrostudent" <vedicastrostudent

<vedic astrology>

Tuesday, October 05, 2004 6:20 AM

[vedic astrology] Whether Bush or Kerry wins, astrology will lose -

here's why!

 

 

>

>

>

> Dear all,

> Has it occurred to any of you that whether Bush or Kerry wins,

> astrology will lose, and in fact has already lost? If astrology is

> set forward as a methodology that can be used by sincere and

> intelligent practitioners to predict future events, then the very

> fact that even the best practitioners cannot agree on the outcome

> points to a weakness in the methodology or knowledge of it. I think

> it is equally important for top astrologers to arrive at a CONSENSUS

> BEFORE the event, as it is for them to correctly predict the outcome

> of the event. We have SJC gurus and experienced practitioners on this

> group siding all possible outcomes (Bush wins, Kerry wins, Edwards

> eventually wins). We know for sure that someone will win, so some

> astrologer will be "correct". Even the layman non-believer knows

> that - that someone will be correct. What would really be an eye-

> opener for the average person would be if all astrologers, or in this

> case at least SJC gurus at least, agreed on an outcome using

> independent analysis using the same rules and that outcome turned out

> correct. Now that would be a really convincing win for astrology - it

> would show that the science of astrology has consistent

> interpretation. Everything else will simply be a temporary ego-boost

> for the astrologer that turns out to be "correct", nothing more,

> unless the same astrologer turns out to be correct, election after

> election. But I dont even see that happening. Sometimes one person is

> correct, sometimes another..

>

> Sundeep

>

>

>

>

>

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

>

>

> Links

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sundeep,

 

It would really be nice if there was some consistency between

various astrologers, atleast when presented with the same data. I

agree with you. That would be nice.

 

However, I am not as discouraged by the current confusion and chaos

as you seem to be. Your expectations from astrology are too high. I

never considered astrology a science. To me, it is a "soft science".

There are many subjects that are considered soft sciences (e.g.

socialogy, psychology etc), where scholars often arrive at totally

different conclusions when presented with the same data.

 

In fact, even in "hard sciences" such as physics, experts sometimes

disagree. For example, even physicists of the stature of Hawkins had

disagreements regarding things like black holes.

 

So I am not disappointed by the lack of order and consistency in a

soft science like astrology. However, that does not mean I will not

want, or strive for, better order and consistency in the subject I

love so much! I am optimistic that we will be able to meet the high

standards you outline, in the times to come.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

 

PS: It is my gut feeling that we are living in an important

generation in which astrology becomes mature and transitions into a

hard science from a soft science.

 

> Dear all,

> Has it occurred to any of you that whether Bush or Kerry wins,

> astrology will lose, and in fact has already lost? If astrology is

> set forward as a methodology that can be used by sincere and

> intelligent practitioners to predict future events, then the very

> fact that even the best practitioners cannot agree on the outcome

> points to a weakness in the methodology or knowledge of it. I

think

> it is equally important for top astrologers to arrive at a

CONSENSUS

> BEFORE the event, as it is for them to correctly predict the

outcome

> of the event. We have SJC gurus and experienced practitioners on

this

> group siding all possible outcomes (Bush wins, Kerry wins, Edwards

> eventually wins). We know for sure that someone will win, so some

> astrologer will be "correct". Even the layman non-believer knows

> that - that someone will be correct. What would really be an eye-

> opener for the average person would be if all astrologers, or in

this

> case at least SJC gurus at least, agreed on an outcome using

> independent analysis using the same rules and that outcome turned

out

> correct. Now that would be a really convincing win for astrology -

it

> would show that the science of astrology has consistent

> interpretation. Everything else will simply be a temporary ego-

boost

> for the astrologer that turns out to be "correct", nothing more,

> unless the same astrologer turns out to be correct, election after

> election. But I dont even see that happening. Sometimes one person

is

> correct, sometimes another..

>

> Sundeep