What effect will Shani give in 7 th house ,in Capricon as

January 4, 2007

Radhaji,

I disagree. Astrology is not only a science, it is super science, and

a divine science. There is no dictum that something that has too many

parameters or variations cannot be called a science.

A person going to three different doctors for the same illness, will

get three different kinds of prescriptions. Still we call medicine a

science.

I would advise you go thru the website www.journalofastrology.com

maintained by Sri KN Rao. Every one who considers astrology not a

science, should go through his articles. What he advocates is to use

classical astrological principles with confidence; that confidence

comes only after we do statistical and scientific analysis as well as

synthesis, and with appropriate birth data.

I strongly opine that as astrologers, our inability to synthesize the

parameters should not be attributed to astrology itself. The fault

lies in us, the astrologers if we fail to give predictions.

Best regards,

Satya Sai Kolachina

, "aphoton47" <aphoton wrote:

>

> Thank you for all your responses. Astrology, therefore, can never be

a

> science--because there are too many variables involved. I am not

> saying anything new, nor am I marginalizing the importance of this

> subject.

>

> --Radha

>

January 5, 2007

Yes. Astrology is a super Science not meant for commoners who would

like answers like 1 minute noodles. This subject needs deep

devotion, deep study,lots of practise, patience and all this

accompanied with a ethical way of living.Its good that astrology

is not so easy, otherwise every lane people would have opened

astrology shops. Because of many rules involved, only the

astrologer who knows to make a proper mix in individual cases,

can get the results. Also people apply the Dhana Yogas (Money giving

combinations) and Raj Yogas immediately to their charts and wait for

them to fructify, but they do not spend time neither for

studying the cancellation of these Yogas and nor for checking the

cancellation Yogas in their own charts. Then while waiting

endlessly for the Rajyoga to fructify, they then blame astrology

which is not right.

I would prefer that astrology remain a hard subject and tough Nut to

crack just like the few percentage of Chartered Accoutants who pass

every year.

Bhaskar.

, "Satya Sai Kolachina"

<skolachi wrote:

>

> Radhaji,

>

> I disagree. Astrology is not only a science, it is super science,

and

> a divine science. There is no dictum that something that has too

many

> parameters or variations cannot be called a science.

>

> A person going to three different doctors for the same illness,

will

> get three different kinds of prescriptions. Still we call medicine

a

> science.

>

> I would advise you go thru the website www.journalofastrology.com

> maintained by Sri KN Rao. Every one who considers astrology not a

> science, should go through his articles. What he advocates is to

use

> classical astrological principles with confidence; that confidence

> comes only after we do statistical and scientific analysis as well

as

> synthesis, and with appropriate birth data.

>

> I strongly opine that as astrologers, our inability to synthesize

the

> parameters should not be attributed to astrology itself. The fault

> lies in us, the astrologers if we fail to give predictions.

>

> Best regards,

> Satya Sai Kolachina

>

> , "aphoton47" <aphoton@> wrote:

> >

> > Thank you for all your responses. Astrology, therefore, can never

be

> a

> > science--because there are too many variables involved. I am not

> > saying anything new, nor am I marginalizing the importance of this

> > subject.

> >

> > --Radha

> >

>

January 5, 2007

74e, IST and still -5.30?

On 1/5/07, aphoton47 <aphoton (AT) wideopenwest (DOT) com> wrote:

>

> Maybe it is time for a quiz.

>

> Mr. X

> DOB Nov 27, 1939

> TOB:19:06 IST -5.30

> POB: 74e47

> 20N54

>

January 5, 2007

On 1/5/07, aphoton47 <aphoton (AT) wideopenwest (DOT) com> wrote:

>

> Maybe it is time for a quiz.

>

Thanks. The ascendant is on the Taurus-Gemini border. I hope the time of

birth is accurate.

Mr. X

> DOB Nov 27, 1939

> TOB:19:06 IST -5.30

> POB: 74e47

> 20N54

>

> Were his parents long-lived or short-lived?

>

I'd say the father died in early 1974, mother late 1979 or 1980.

Does he have children?

>

I think two children... second child a daughter, the first one I'm unsure,

could also be a daughter.

How is his health?

>

Some arthritis of the knees seen, as is more than a slight likelihood of a

prostate condition. He might face testing conditions in a couple of years

when Jupiter transits Capricorn.

Is he earning any money currently?

>

This person could easily be an arts teacher or musician, with Venus where

A10 and A11 are, and in 7th. The navamsa lord of the 10th is Sun, indicating

Government and administration. Wish I was good enough to make more of these

clues.

Does he live in India or abroad?

>

He's running Pisces rasi dasa and Moon cs dasa with Moon exalted in a fixed

sign... I'd guess that he isn't abroad. That he won't die in a foreign land

is also seen.

I will give the answer in 7 days.

>

I'm sure I'm all wrong as usual

Cheers,

Ramapriya

January 6, 2007

Chandrashekhar,

I am not belittling or discounting astrology in any way, I admit that

astrology uses a vast body of knowledge that has been acquired and

tested over the centuries. This knowledge is both empirical and

divinely inspired. Even so, it is not a science.

Take the matter of yagnas and propitiation. This is yet another

variable. A bad planetary combination can be mitigated through

prayers and the right gems. Can you stop an apple from falling to the

ground by prayers and gems?

I think if one stopped calling astrology a science, there would be no

problem. Some people have called it a super science. It all depends

on what you mean by science.

--Radha S.

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Radha,

>

> Perhaps, it is only because it takes into consideration so many

> variables, it is the only shastra which can rightly be called a science.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> aphoton47 wrote:

> >

> > Thank you for all your responses. Astrology, therefore, can never be a

> > science--because there are too many variables involved. I am not

> > saying anything new, nor am I marginalizing the importance of this

> > subject.

> >

> > --Radha

> >

------

> >

> > Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.16.1/611 - Release Date:

12/31/2006 12:47 PM

> >

>

January 6, 2007

Folks, folks, folks... The very idea that astrology exists makes it a

science.

Look at how scientific experiments are done in any other science and

you'll see how jyotish is a science. Every scientific experiment has a

purpose with which it begins. Does astrology have that? Sure. To

achieve said PURPOSE we must first present an idea which we want to

test in the form of a HYPOTHESIS. We then conduct the experiment by

looking at DATA (read, charts). From the DATA we get RESULTS. The

RESULTS yield a CONCLUSION which either confirms or denies the

HYPOTHESIS and thus either leads to a proven THEORY or the need for

FURTHER RESEARCH. If the theory is correct (within set bounds of

probability) then we can use that principle in everyday life (here we

see the dichotomy between THEORETICAL astrology i.e. research and

APPLIED astrology in the form of consultations both of which are

interdependent on one another.)

The main thing which defines a valid scientific STUDY is if you can

get reproducible results in these experiments, which we obviously can

otherwise we wouldn't be able to make sound predictions.

With that said... how can it NOT be a science?

Although the underlying theoretical fundamental model which drives

astrology is not known in a gross and material way to the scientists,

how long did they take before they even knew what an atom was? And

still not knowing that, how many experiments were conducted? TODAY we

still cannot completely explain the physics and molecular dynamics of

the atom in a way that is properly understood. Supercomputers are

needed just to describe and model the motion of electrons around a

molecule which exceeds a few atoms!

-Acyutananda Dasa

, "aphoton47" <aphoton wrote:

>

> Chandrashekhar,

>

> I am not belittling or discounting astrology in any way, I admit that

> astrology uses a vast body of knowledge that has been acquired and

> tested over the centuries. This knowledge is both empirical and

> divinely inspired. Even so, it is not a science.

>

> Take the matter of yagnas and propitiation. This is yet another

> variable. A bad planetary combination can be mitigated through

> prayers and the right gems. Can you stop an apple from falling to the

> ground by prayers and gems?

>

> I think if one stopped calling astrology a science, there would be no

> problem. Some people have called it a super science. It all depends

> on what you mean by science.

>

> --Radha S.

>

> , Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Radha,

> >

> > Perhaps, it is only because it takes into consideration so many

> > variables, it is the only shastra which can rightly be called a

science.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > aphoton47 wrote:

> > >

> > > Thank you for all your responses. Astrology, therefore, can

never be a

> > > science--because there are too many variables involved. I am not

> > > saying anything new, nor am I marginalizing the importance of this

> > > subject.

> > >

> > > --Radha

> > >

> ------

> > >

> > > Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.16.1/611 - Release Date:

> 12/31/2006 12:47 PM

> > >

> >

January 6, 2007

Dear all,

All of You are lovers of Astrology, then why to discuss what should

astrology be called as and create any arguments in form of

unnecessary exchanges. Please continue with own work. Whether Science

or not Astrology still remains after thousands of years, which ius

proof itself of maybe something better than science, we are using

this word in absence of any other word. I would call it better than

Science because I have no other word, and this astrology has given me

some name,fame and when I am into it I get all the inner satisfaction

which not Crores of Rupees would bring, I am also in communion with

the great Sages of India and also the great men as writers, whose

books I pick up whenever I wish to check or confirm some point.

For me Astrology is like my Father and Mother.Its notan object or

subject for name calling.

Best wishes,

Bhaskar.

, "D Ramapriya" <ramapriya.d

wrote:

>

> On 1/6/07, acyutanandadasa <acyutanandadasa wrote:

> >

> > Folks, folks, folks... The very idea that astrology exists

makes it a

> > science.

> >

>

> Oh it does? Do explain how all of these exist then - faith, atheism,

> globalism and free trade, communism, fascism, the myriad

theocracies that

> spawn the Middle East and Africa... I could go on. Even intelligent

parts of

> the world like the west are often consumed by unnatural ideologies

like

> multiculturism that bear no correspondence to reality, with the

awful

> disadvantage of their ideas continually being wrecked on the rocks

of actual

> events. Religion, it can be argued, is a roundabout anthromorphism

of

> science but delving into that now wouldn't be in order.

>

> Mere existence certainly maketh a science not.

>

> Look at how scientific experiments are done in any other science and

> > you'll see how jyotish is a science. Every scientific experiment

has a

> > purpose with which it begins. Does astrology have that? Sure. To

> > achieve said PURPOSE we must first present an idea which we want

to

> > test in the form of a HYPOTHESIS. We then conduct the experiment

by

> > looking at DATA (read, charts).

> >

>

> Every scientific experiment has a purpose with which it begins?

Since when?

>

> Cheers,

> Ramapriya

>

January 6, 2007

Dear Sri Bhaskar,

I may have been misunderstood

I was questioning only the 'if it exists, it's a science' line, not whether

astrology is a science. Personally, I still believe it is a science, given

as I've stated earlier the sheer volume of largely non-contradictory

classical texts. There's however more than a crucial need to compile and

collate classics in their entirety and most importantly interpret them

properly for those like me who can't figure Sanskrit.

Regards,

Ramapriya

PS: Regarding the Garuda Puraan, I only have a bit of it in English that

relates somewhat to astrology, which I'll post once I get home. The English

hard copy is at Bangalore (18 volumes or so).

On 1/6/07, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote:

>

> Dear all,

>

> All of You are lovers of Astrology, then why to discuss what should

> astrology be called as and create any arguments in form of

> unnecessary exchanges. Please continue with own work. Whether Science

> or not Astrology still remains after thousands of years, which ius

> proof itself of maybe something better than science, we are using

> this word in absence of any other word. I would call it better than

> Science because I have no other word, and this astrology has given me

> some name,fame and when I am into it I get all the inner satisfaction

> which not Crores of Rupees would bring, I am also in communion with

> the great Sages of India and also the great men as writers, whose

> books I pick up whenever I wish to check or confirm some point.

> For me Astrology is like my Father and Mother.Its notan object or

> subject for name calling.

>

> Best wishes,

> Bhaskar.

>

> <%40>, "D

> Ramapriya" <ramapriya.d

> wrote:

>

> >

> > On 1/6/07, acyutanandadasa <acyutanandadasa wrote:

> > >

> > > Folks, folks, folks... The very idea that astrology exists

> makes it a

> > > science.

> > >

> >

> > Oh it does? Do explain how all of these exist then - faith, atheism,

> > globalism and free trade, communism, fascism, the myriad

> theocracies that

> > spawn the Middle East and Africa... I could go on. Even intelligent

> parts of

> > the world like the west are often consumed by unnatural ideologies

> like

> > multiculturism that bear no correspondence to reality, with the

> awful

> > disadvantage of their ideas continually being wrecked on the rocks

> of actual

> > events. Religion, it can be argued, is a roundabout anthromorphism

> of

> > science but delving into that now wouldn't be in order.

> >

> > Mere existence certainly maketh a science not.

> >

> > Look at how scientific experiments are done in any other science and

> > > you'll see how jyotish is a science. Every scientific experiment

> has a

> > > purpose with which it begins. Does astrology have that? Sure. To

> > > achieve said PURPOSE we must first present an idea which we want

> to

> > > test in the form of a HYPOTHESIS. We then conduct the experiment

> by

> > > looking at DATA (read, charts).

> > >

> >

> > Every scientific experiment has a purpose with which it begins?

> Since when?

> >

> > Cheers,

> > Ramapriya

>

January 6, 2007

Dear Shri Rampriyaji,

Of course Sir I did not miusunderstand you. I know that You

personally treat astrology as a science and have deep love for the

same.

Even I do not understand Sanskrit completely and have been

wanting to join some course on same to understand basics and at least

pronounce the Mantras perfectly,I agree we need to have the Classics

interpreted properly for ones like us. My daily Mantras I have learnt

to pronounce properly,a few years back from a tuition teacher

who used to teach my children Marathi (Compulsory local language in

school here).And I have read the translation long back so I know what

I am reciting.

Theres a need to have a common first language in India in all states,

though Hindi is there, its not compulsory and it is made optional

with a foreign language like french or local languages of the states.

English is made compulsory. Sanskrit is not taught in 99% schools at

least here in Bombay. Excepot the traditional Hindi schools or Arya

Samaj schools teach, but not the rest. This is the state of affairs

in India, that if I go to Chennai and get my shoes or slippers

repaired on the way, the cobbler will not understand when I ask him

how much money to pay and neither I will understand how much money I

am supposed to pay him. Passerbys who know English well can help

better in this. This has actually happened with me 10-15 years back.

Rampriyaji if its a trouble,You need not bother about English version

of Garuda Purana as there are not many takers for the same.

regards,

Bhaskar.

, "D Ramapriya" <ramapriya.d

wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Bhaskar,

>

> I may have been misunderstood

>

> I was questioning only the 'if it exists, it's a science' line, not

whether

> astrology is a science. Personally, I still believe it is a

science, given

> as I've stated earlier the sheer volume of largely non-contradictory

> classical texts. There's however more than a crucial need to

compile and

> collate classics in their entirety and most importantly interpret

them

> properly for those like me who can't figure Sanskrit.

>

> Regards,

>

> Ramapriya

>

> PS: Regarding the Garuda Puraan, I only have a bit of it in English

that

> relates somewhat to astrology, which I'll post once I get home. The

English

> hard copy is at Bangalore (18 volumes or so).

>

> On 1/6/07, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote:

> >

> > Dear all,

> >

> > All of You are lovers of Astrology, then why to discuss what

should

> > astrology be called as and create any arguments in form of

> > unnecessary exchanges. Please continue with own work. Whether

Science

> > or not Astrology still remains after thousands of years, which ius

> > proof itself of maybe something better than science, we are using

> > this word in absence of any other word. I would call it better

than

> > Science because I have no other word, and this astrology has

given me

> > some name,fame and when I am into it I get all the inner

satisfaction

> > which not Crores of Rupees would bring, I am also in communion

with

> > the great Sages of India and also the great men as writers, whose

> > books I pick up whenever I wish to check or confirm some point.

> > For me Astrology is like my Father and Mother.Its notan object or

> > subject for name calling.

> >

> > Best wishes,

> > Bhaskar.

> >

> > <%

40>, "D

> > Ramapriya" <ramapriya.d@>

> > wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > On 1/6/07, acyutanandadasa <acyutanandadasa@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Folks, folks, folks... The very idea that astrology exists

> > makes it a

> > > > science.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Oh it does? Do explain how all of these exist then - faith,

atheism,

> > > globalism and free trade, communism, fascism, the myriad

> > theocracies that

> > > spawn the Middle East and Africa... I could go on. Even

intelligent

> > parts of

> > > the world like the west are often consumed by unnatural

ideologies

> > like

> > > multiculturism that bear no correspondence to reality, with the

> > awful

> > > disadvantage of their ideas continually being wrecked on the

rocks

> > of actual

> > > events. Religion, it can be argued, is a roundabout

anthromorphism

> > of

> > > science but delving into that now wouldn't be in order.

> > >

> > > Mere existence certainly maketh a science not.

> > >

> > > Look at how scientific experiments are done in any other

science and

> > > > you'll see how jyotish is a science. Every scientific

experiment

> > has a

> > > > purpose with which it begins. Does astrology have that? Sure.

To

> > > > achieve said PURPOSE we must first present an idea which we

want

> > to

> > > > test in the form of a HYPOTHESIS. We then conduct the

experiment

> > by

> > > > looking at DATA (read, charts).

> > > >

> > >

> > > Every scientific experiment has a purpose with which it begins?

> > Since when?

> > >

> > > Cheers,

> > > Ramapriya

> >

>

January 6, 2007

What I meant by the if it exists bit was supposed to be the way in

which it exists as outlined in the following paragraph where I drew a

parallel between the traditional experimental research paradigm and

those of our classical astrological research methods.

Hope that clears things up.

, "D Ramapriya" <ramapriya.d

wrote:

>

> On 1/6/07, aphoton47 <aphoton wrote:

> >

> > I think if one stopped calling astrology a science, there would

be no

> > problem. Some people have called it a super science. It all depends

> > on what you mean by science.

> >

>

> Dear Radha,

>

> To keep it simple, I'd say science is an organized, rational body of

> knowledge that's at all times objectively testable and isn't either

> perniciously absurd or intellectually dishonest - stories added as

facts,

> for example.

>

> As long as we retain the nous and stomach to question ideas, those who

> perforce want us to believe one way or another will have a job on their

> hands.

>

> Cheers,

> Ramapriya

>

January 6, 2007

Dear Radha,

I did not imply that you are belittling astrology. I was only trying to

define what constitutes a science. As to yagyas and gems, they do not

change your fortune they can prepare to face the difficulty with more

equanimity. Or at least this is my opinion.

Of course Astrology need not be called a science as it is a shastra

which is more all encompassing than what is called a science, but for

want of better words to translate Shastra to English, the word science

is generally used.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

aphoton47 wrote:

>

> Chandrashekhar,

>

> I am not belittling or discounting astrology in any way, I admit that

> astrology uses a vast body of knowledge that has been acquired and

> tested over the centuries. This knowledge is both empirical and

> divinely inspired. Even so, it is not a science.

>

> Take the matter of yagnas and propitiation. This is yet another

> variable. A bad planetary combination can be mitigated through

> prayers and the right gems. Can you stop an apple from falling to the

> ground by prayers and gems?

>

> I think if one stopped calling astrology a science, there would be no

> problem. Some people have called it a super science. It all depends

> on what you mean by science.

>

> --Radha S.

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Radha,

> >

> > Perhaps, it is only because it takes into consideration so many

> > variables, it is the only shastra which can rightly be called a science.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > aphoton47 wrote:

> > >

> > > Thank you for all your responses. Astrology, therefore, can never be a

> > > science--because there are too many variables involved. I am not

> > > saying anything new, nor am I marginalizing the importance of this

> > > subject.

> > >

> > > --Radha

> > >

> -------------------------

> > >

> > > Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.16.1/611 - Release Date:

> 12/31/2006 12:47 PM

> > >

> >

January 6, 2007

Chandrasekhara,

>it is a shastra

I am in agreement with you here.

Best wishes,

--Radha

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Radha,

>

> I did not imply that you are belittling astrology. I was only trying to

> define what constitutes a science. As to yagyas and gems, they do not

> change your fortune they can prepare to face the difficulty with more

> equanimity. Or at least this is my opinion.

>

> Of course Astrology need not be called a science as it is a shastra

> which is more all encompassing than what is called a science, but for

> want of better words to translate Shastra to English, the word science

> is generally used.

>

> Regards,

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> aphoton47 wrote:

> >

> > Chandrashekhar,

> >

> > I am not belittling or discounting astrology in any way, I admit that

> > astrology uses a vast body of knowledge that has been acquired and

> > tested over the centuries. This knowledge is both empirical and

> > divinely inspired. Even so, it is not a science.

> >

> > Take the matter of yagnas and propitiation. This is yet another

> > variable. A bad planetary combination can be mitigated through

> > prayers and the right gems. Can you stop an apple from falling to the

> > ground by prayers and gems?

> >

> > I think if one stopped calling astrology a science, there would be no

> > problem. Some people have called it a super science. It all depends

> > on what you mean by science.

> >

> > --Radha S.

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Radha,

> > >

> > > Perhaps, it is only because it takes into consideration so many

> > > variables, it is the only shastra which can rightly be called a

science.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > aphoton47 wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Thank you for all your responses. Astrology, therefore, can

never be a

> > > > science--because there are too many variables involved. I am not

> > > > saying anything new, nor am I marginalizing the importance of this

> > > > subject.

> > > >

> > > > --Radha

> > > >

> > -------------------------

> > > >

> > > > Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.16.1/611 - Release Date:

> > 12/31/2006 12:47 PM

> > > >

> > >

January 6, 2007

Acyutanandadasa,

I am glad that we were able to bring up all these points.

--Radha

, "acyutanandadasa"

<acyutanandadasa wrote:

>

> Folks, folks, folks... The very idea that astrology exists makes it a

> science.

>

> Look at how scientific experiments are done in any other science and

> you'll see how jyotish is a science. Every scientific experiment has a

> purpose with which it begins. Does astrology have that? Sure. To

> achieve said PURPOSE we must first present an idea which we want to

> test in the form of a HYPOTHESIS. We then conduct the experiment by

> looking at DATA (read, charts). From the DATA we get RESULTS. The

> RESULTS yield a CONCLUSION which either confirms or denies the

> HYPOTHESIS and thus either leads to a proven THEORY or the need for

> FURTHER RESEARCH. If the theory is correct (within set bounds of

> probability) then we can use that principle in everyday life (here we

> see the dichotomy between THEORETICAL astrology i.e. research and

> APPLIED astrology in the form of consultations both of which are

> interdependent on one another.)

>

> The main thing which defines a valid scientific STUDY is if you can

> get reproducible results in these experiments, which we obviously can

> otherwise we wouldn't be able to make sound predictions.

>

> With that said... how can it NOT be a science?

>

> Although the underlying theoretical fundamental model which drives

> astrology is not known in a gross and material way to the scientists,

> how long did they take before they even knew what an atom was? And

> still not knowing that, how many experiments were conducted? TODAY we

> still cannot completely explain the physics and molecular dynamics of

> the atom in a way that is properly understood. Supercomputers are

> needed just to describe and model the motion of electrons around a

> molecule which exceeds a few atoms!

>

> -Acyutananda Dasa

>

> , "aphoton47" <aphoton@> wrote:

> >

> > Chandrashekhar,

> >

> > I am not belittling or discounting astrology in any way, I admit that

> > astrology uses a vast body of knowledge that has been acquired and

> > tested over the centuries. This knowledge is both empirical and

> > divinely inspired. Even so, it is not a science.

> >

> > Take the matter of yagnas and propitiation. This is yet another

> > variable. A bad planetary combination can be mitigated through

> > prayers and the right gems. Can you stop an apple from falling to the

> > ground by prayers and gems?

> >

> > I think if one stopped calling astrology a science, there would be no

> > problem. Some people have called it a super science. It all depends

> > on what you mean by science.

> >

> > --Radha S.

> >

> > , Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Radha,

> > >

> > > Perhaps, it is only because it takes into consideration so many

> > > variables, it is the only shastra which can rightly be called a

> science.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > aphoton47 wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Thank you for all your responses. Astrology, therefore, can

> never be a

> > > > science--because there are too many variables involved. I am not

> > > > saying anything new, nor am I marginalizing the importance of this

> > > > subject.

> > > >

> > > > --Radha

> > > >

> >

------

> > > >

> > > > Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.16.1/611 - Release Date:

> > 12/31/2006 12:47 PM

> > > >

> > >

January 6, 2007

Shri Chandrasekharji,

I respect You fully.

But,Yagnas and gems are one of the best remedies

to solve problems,only if one knows which Yagna to do,or which

Gem to wear. Theres a lot of gap between the spoon and the lips here.

I mean this "if" is very important. The Nadis mention to those who

have their Charts found there, which Yagya/Pooja to be completed in

which temple for what sins committed in which birth. But otherwise

too Yagnas are there for all to do, Here the Agni devata takes the

offerings directly and the results also come very fast for the native

who is looking for these.I personally know a old man in Chennai

(Madras) who has seen Agni Devata with his naked eyes in one of the

Yagnas taking the offerings and blessing the native for the same.

And I believe this man cause he is related to me distantly, and

mentioned this once when we were talking on spiritualism, he is

very simple man, does not need anyone to impress, has enough money,

does not need any advantage from anyone. he is just living to

complete certain duties. Agni or Fire is the only Real Form of God we

know or can see with our senses. The other forms have to be realised.

The Yagnas are the best way of remedies by making offerings to

pratyaksha (Very apparent)Form of God. I also know another man in

Vijaywada who when conducted a Yagna, Sai Baba himself appeared and

waited in the Yagna and the photographs taken at that time have

also taken the Form of Sai-Baba for the Non believers. these

photos have been approved by the top Cabinet Ministers of Andhra

pradesh .

Same with gems. I need not elaborate but gems contain the

concentrated form of Cosmic colours or rays,of which the whole

Universe is made. Gems if used selectively can either break

or make a man. But very few I would say not even 0.2% know which Gem

to use for whom and what purpose. Even we are made of Cosmic rays,

but only few know this and believe this. For the rest it would be a

funny statement to hear.The walls of the room where we sit, the

Computer, the remote control, everything present on Earth is made of

Rays, either in Solid form, gaseous forms,Liquid forms or other forms

whose space and dimensions we are not aware of.

Like water,air and ice. These Cosmic colours are the

same VIBGYOR which we see when the sunlight passes through the

Prism. Every Chakra (Plexuses)in our body are alloted a Planet and

Cosmic colour. For instance The Moon is alloted the Cosmic colour of

Orange, and when The Fire of Sun is too much in the body, and makes

a person haughty and proud, and self admiring narcissistic sort,

with all diseases of Heat or pitta ,then instead of advising

Ruby, a Pearl is advised to cool the excess heat. But this is another

subject.

All I wish to say is that Both Yagnas and Gems have their

own value which cannot be under-estimated or undermined.

Yes I would agree to Your goodself and Radhaji that Astrology

is a Shastra, which is much better defined or undefined than

the normal sciences we know of.

best wishes,

Bhaskar.

, "aphoton47" <aphoton wrote:

>

> Chandrasekhara,

>

> >it is a shastra

> I am in agreement with you here.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> --Radha

>

> , Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Radha,

> >

> > I did not imply that you are belittling astrology. I was only

trying to

> > define what constitutes a science. As to yagyas and gems, they do

not

> > change your fortune they can prepare to face the difficulty with

more

> > equanimity. Or at least this is my opinion.

> >

> > Of course Astrology need not be called a science as it is a

shastra

> > which is more all encompassing than what is called a science, but

for

> > want of better words to translate Shastra to English, the word

science

> > is generally used.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > aphoton47 wrote:

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar,

> > >

> > > I am not belittling or discounting astrology in any way, I

admit that

> > > astrology uses a vast body of knowledge that has been acquired

and

> > > tested over the centuries. This knowledge is both empirical and

> > > divinely inspired. Even so, it is not a science.

> > >

> > > Take the matter of yagnas and propitiation. This is yet another

> > > variable. A bad planetary combination can be mitigated through

> > > prayers and the right gems. Can you stop an apple from falling

to the

> > > ground by prayers and gems?

> > >

> > > I think if one stopped calling astrology a science, there would

be no

> > > problem. Some people have called it a super science. It all

depends

> > > on what you mean by science.

> > >

> > > --Radha S.

> > >

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Radha,

> > > >

> > > > Perhaps, it is only because it takes into consideration so

many

> > > > variables, it is the only shastra which can rightly be called

a

> science.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > aphoton47 wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Thank you for all your responses. Astrology, therefore, can

> never be a

> > > > > science--because there are too many variables involved. I

am not

> > > > > saying anything new, nor am I marginalizing the importance

of this

> > > > > subject.

> > > > >

> > > > > --Radha

> > > > >

> > > -------------------------

> > > > >

> > > > > Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.16.1/611 - Release

Date:

> > > 12/31/2006 12:47 PM

> > > > >

> > > >

January 7, 2007

Dear Sri Bhaskar,

I agree with your opinion that Yagnas (and possibly gem stones too)

are good remedies (along with good karma, of course) to solve

problems, and I myself have experienced and witnessed fantastic

results in my own life. There is no doubt about it. I am of the

opinion, that one who does it and gets the result can confidently

say so, as I am doing now.

Best regards,

Satya S Kolachina

, "Bhaskar" <bhaskar_jyotish

wrote:

>

> Shri Chandrasekharji,

>

> I respect You fully.

> But,Yagnas and gems are one of the best remedies

> to solve problems,only if one knows which Yagna to do,or which

> Gem to wear. Theres a lot of gap between the spoon and the lips

here.

> I mean this "if" is very important. The Nadis mention to those who

> have their Charts found there, which Yagya/Pooja to be completed in

> which temple for what sins committed in which birth. But otherwise

> too Yagnas are there for all to do, Here the Agni devata takes the

> offerings directly and the results also come very fast for the

native

> who is looking for these.I personally know a old man in Chennai

> (Madras) who has seen Agni Devata with his naked eyes in one of

the

> Yagnas taking the offerings and blessing the native for the same.

> And I believe this man cause he is related to me distantly, and

> mentioned this once when we were talking on spiritualism, he is

> very simple man, does not need anyone to impress, has enough

money,

> does not need any advantage from anyone. he is just living to

> complete certain duties. Agni or Fire is the only Real Form of God

we

> know or can see with our senses. The other forms have to be

realised.

> The Yagnas are the best way of remedies by making offerings to

> pratyaksha (Very apparent)Form of God. I also know another man in

> Vijaywada who when conducted a Yagna, Sai Baba himself appeared

and

> waited in the Yagna and the photographs taken at that time have

> also taken the Form of Sai-Baba for the Non believers. these

> photos have been approved by the top Cabinet Ministers of Andhra

> pradesh .

>

> Same with gems. I need not elaborate but gems contain the

> concentrated form of Cosmic colours or rays,of which the whole

> Universe is made. Gems if used selectively can either break

> or make a man. But very few I would say not even 0.2% know which

Gem

> to use for whom and what purpose. Even we are made of Cosmic rays,

> but only few know this and believe this. For the rest it would be

a

> funny statement to hear.The walls of the room where we sit, the

> Computer, the remote control, everything present on Earth is made

of

> Rays, either in Solid form, gaseous forms,Liquid forms or other

forms

> whose space and dimensions we are not aware of.

> Like water,air and ice. These Cosmic colours are the

> same VIBGYOR which we see when the sunlight passes through the

> Prism. Every Chakra (Plexuses)in our body are alloted a Planet and

> Cosmic colour. For instance The Moon is alloted the Cosmic colour

of

> Orange, and when The Fire of Sun is too much in the body, and makes

> a person haughty and proud, and self admiring narcissistic sort,

> with all diseases of Heat or pitta ,then instead of advising

> Ruby, a Pearl is advised to cool the excess heat. But this is

another

> subject.

>

> All I wish to say is that Both Yagnas and Gems have their

> own value which cannot be under-estimated or undermined.

>

> Yes I would agree to Your goodself and Radhaji that Astrology

> is a Shastra, which is much better defined or undefined than

> the normal sciences we know of.

>

> best wishes,

>

> Bhaskar.

>

> , "aphoton47" <aphoton@> wrote:

> >

> > Chandrasekhara,

> >

> > >it is a shastra

> > I am in agreement with you here.

> >

> > Best wishes,

> >

> > --Radha

> >

> > , Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Radha,

> > >

> > > I did not imply that you are belittling astrology. I was only

> trying to

> > > define what constitutes a science. As to yagyas and gems, they

do

> not

> > > change your fortune they can prepare to face the difficulty

with

> more

> > > equanimity. Or at least this is my opinion.

> > >

> > > Of course Astrology need not be called a science as it is a

> shastra

> > > which is more all encompassing than what is called a science,

but

> for

> > > want of better words to translate Shastra to English, the word

> science

> > > is generally used.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > aphoton47 wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar,

> > > >

> > > > I am not belittling or discounting astrology in any way, I

> admit that

> > > > astrology uses a vast body of knowledge that has been

acquired

> and

> > > > tested over the centuries. This knowledge is both empirical

and

> > > > divinely inspired. Even so, it is not a science.

> > > >

> > > > Take the matter of yagnas and propitiation. This is yet

another

> > > > variable. A bad planetary combination can be mitigated

through

> > > > prayers and the right gems. Can you stop an apple from

falling

> to the

> > > > ground by prayers and gems?

> > > >

> > > > I think if one stopped calling astrology a science, there

would

> be no

> > > > problem. Some people have called it a super science. It all

> depends

> > > > on what you mean by science.

> > > >

> > > > --Radha S.

> > > >

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Radha,

> > > > >

> > > > > Perhaps, it is only because it takes into consideration so

> many

> > > > > variables, it is the only shastra which can rightly be

called

> a

> > science.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > aphoton47 wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thank you for all your responses. Astrology, therefore,

can

> > never be a

> > > > > > science--because there are too many variables involved.

I

> am not

> > > > > > saying anything new, nor am I marginalizing the

importance

> of this

> > > > > > subject.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --Radha

> > > > > >

> > > > -------------------------

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.16.1/611 -

Release

> Date:

> > > > 12/31/2006 12:47 PM

> > > > > >

> > > > >

January 7, 2007

Pardon me, I should have said Achyutanandadasa ji.

--RS

, "aphoton47" <aphoton wrote:

>

> Acyutanandadasa,

>

> I am glad that we were able to bring up all these points.

>

> --Radha

>

> , "acyutanandadasa"

> <acyutanandadasa@> wrote:

> >

> > Folks, folks, folks... The very idea that astrology exists makes it a

> > science.

> >

> > Look at how scientific experiments are done in any other science and

> > you'll see how jyotish is a science. Every scientific experiment has a

> > purpose with which it begins. Does astrology have that? Sure. To

> > achieve said PURPOSE we must first present an idea which we want to

> > test in the form of a HYPOTHESIS. We then conduct the experiment by

> > looking at DATA (read, charts). From the DATA we get RESULTS. The

> > RESULTS yield a CONCLUSION which either confirms or denies the

> > HYPOTHESIS and thus either leads to a proven THEORY or the need for

> > FURTHER RESEARCH. If the theory is correct (within set bounds of

> > probability) then we can use that principle in everyday life (here we

> > see the dichotomy between THEORETICAL astrology i.e. research and

> > APPLIED astrology in the form of consultations both of which are

> > interdependent on one another.)

> >

> > The main thing which defines a valid scientific STUDY is if you can

> > get reproducible results in these experiments, which we obviously can

> > otherwise we wouldn't be able to make sound predictions.

> >

> > With that said... how can it NOT be a science?

> >

> > Although the underlying theoretical fundamental model which drives

> > astrology is not known in a gross and material way to the scientists,

> > how long did they take before they even knew what an atom was? And

> > still not knowing that, how many experiments were conducted? TODAY we

> > still cannot completely explain the physics and molecular dynamics of

> > the atom in a way that is properly understood. Supercomputers are

> > needed just to describe and model the motion of electrons around a

> > molecule which exceeds a few atoms!

> >

> > -Acyutananda Dasa

> >

> > , "aphoton47" <aphoton@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar,

> > >

> > > I am not belittling or discounting astrology in any way, I admit

that

> > > astrology uses a vast body of knowledge that has been acquired and

> > > tested over the centuries. This knowledge is both empirical and

> > > divinely inspired. Even so, it is not a science.

> > >

> > > Take the matter of yagnas and propitiation. This is yet another

> > > variable. A bad planetary combination can be mitigated through

> > > prayers and the right gems. Can you stop an apple from falling

to the

> > > ground by prayers and gems?

> > >

> > > I think if one stopped calling astrology a science, there would

be no

> > > problem. Some people have called it a super science. It all

depends

> > > on what you mean by science.

> > >

> > > --Radha S.

> > >

> > > , Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Radha,

> > > >

> > > > Perhaps, it is only because it takes into consideration so many

> > > > variables, it is the only shastra which can rightly be called a

> > science.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > aphoton47 wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Thank you for all your responses. Astrology, therefore, can

> > never be a

> > > > > science--because there are too many variables involved. I am not

> > > > > saying anything new, nor am I marginalizing the importance

of this

> > > > > subject.

> > > > >

> > > > > --Radha

> > > > >

> > >

> ------

> > > > >

> > > > > Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.16.1/611 - Release Date:

> > > 12/31/2006 12:47 PM

> > > > >

> > > >

January 7, 2007

Dear Bhaskar,

I did not say Yagyas and Gems do not help. I said they help one face the

difficulties better. This occurs more at the level of one's reactions

under stress that is most suitable for the particular horoscope.

As you rightly said, much depends on prescribing the correct remedy and

that especially that the yagyas are performed by those who really know

the entire procedure and are pure in heart. At the same time not all

things have remedies or rather not all things are changeable as that

depends on whether the problem is on account of Dhridha Mula,

Dhridhaadhridha Mula or Kriyaman karma. For example one can not change

the colour or stature or even parents or progeny of the jataka.

I am sure you understand what I was trying to say earlier but said it in

brief.

Take care,

Chandrashekhar

Bhaskar wrote:

>

> Shri Chandrasekharji,

>

> I respect You fully.

> But,Yagnas and gems are one of the best remedies

> to solve problems,only if one knows which Yagna to do,or which

> Gem to wear. Theres a lot of gap between the spoon and the lips here.

> I mean this "if" is very important. The Nadis mention to those who

> have their Charts found there, which Yagya/Pooja to be completed in

> which temple for what sins committed in which birth. But otherwise

> too Yagnas are there for all to do, Here the Agni devata takes the

> offerings directly and the results also come very fast for the native

> who is looking for these.I personally know a old man in Chennai

> (Madras) who has seen Agni Devata with his naked eyes in one of the

> Yagnas taking the offerings and blessing the native for the same.

> And I believe this man cause he is related to me distantly, and

> mentioned this once when we were talking on spiritualism, he is

> very simple man, does not need anyone to impress, has enough money,

> does not need any advantage from anyone. he is just living to

> complete certain duties. Agni or Fire is the only Real Form of God we

> know or can see with our senses. The other forms have to be realised.

> The Yagnas are the best way of remedies by making offerings to

> pratyaksha (Very apparent)Form of God. I also know another man in

> Vijaywada who when conducted a Yagna, Sai Baba himself appeared and

> waited in the Yagna and the photographs taken at that time have

> also taken the Form of Sai-Baba for the Non believers. these

> photos have been approved by the top Cabinet Ministers of Andhra

> pradesh .

>

> Same with gems. I need not elaborate but gems contain the

> concentrated form of Cosmic colours or rays,of which the whole

> Universe is made. Gems if used selectively can either break

> or make a man. But very few I would say not even 0.2% know which Gem

> to use for whom and what purpose. Even we are made of Cosmic rays,

> but only few know this and believe this. For the rest it would be a

> funny statement to hear.The walls of the room where we sit, the

> Computer, the remote control, everything present on Earth is made of

> Rays, either in Solid form, gaseous forms,Liquid forms or other forms

> whose space and dimensions we are not aware of.

> Like water,air and ice. These Cosmic colours are the

> same VIBGYOR which we see when the sunlight passes through the

> Prism. Every Chakra (Plexuses)in our body are alloted a Planet and

> Cosmic colour. For instance The Moon is alloted the Cosmic colour of

> Orange, and when The Fire of Sun is too much in the body, and makes

> a person haughty and proud, and self admiring narcissistic sort,

> with all diseases of Heat or pitta ,then instead of advising

> Ruby, a Pearl is advised to cool the excess heat. But this is another

> subject.

>

> All I wish to say is that Both Yagnas and Gems have their

> own value which cannot be under-estimated or undermined.

>

> Yes I would agree to Your goodself and Radhaji that Astrology

> is a Shastra, which is much better defined or undefined than

> the normal sciences we know of.

>

> best wishes,

>

> Bhaskar.

>

> <%40>, "aphoton47" <aphoton wrote:

> >

> > Chandrasekhara,

> >

> > >it is a shastra

> > I am in agreement with you here.

> >

> > Best wishes,

> >

> > --Radha

> >

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Radha,

> > >

> > > I did not imply that you are belittling astrology. I was only

> trying to

> > > define what constitutes a science. As to yagyas and gems, they do

> not

> > > change your fortune they can prepare to face the difficulty with

> more

> > > equanimity. Or at least this is my opinion.

> > >

> > > Of course Astrology need not be called a science as it is a

> shastra

> > > which is more all encompassing than what is called a science, but

> for

> > > want of better words to translate Shastra to English, the word

> science

> > > is generally used.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > aphoton47 wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar,

> > > >

> > > > I am not belittling or discounting astrology in any way, I

> admit that

> > > > astrology uses a vast body of knowledge that has been acquired

> and

> > > > tested over the centuries. This knowledge is both empirical and

> > > > divinely inspired. Even so, it is not a science.

> > > >

> > > > Take the matter of yagnas and propitiation. This is yet another

> > > > variable. A bad planetary combination can be mitigated through

> > > > prayers and the right gems. Can you stop an apple from falling

> to the

> > > > ground by prayers and gems?

> > > >

> > > > I think if one stopped calling astrology a science, there would

> be no

> > > > problem. Some people have called it a super science. It all

> depends

> > > > on what you mean by science.

> > > >

> > > > --Radha S.

> > > >

> <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Radha,

> > > > >

> > > > > Perhaps, it is only because it takes into consideration so

> many

> > > > > variables, it is the only shastra which can rightly be called

> a

> > science.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > aphoton47 wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thank you for all your responses. Astrology, therefore, can

> > never be a

> > > > > > science--because there are too many variables involved. I

> am not

> > > > > > saying anything new, nor am I marginalizing the importance

> of this

> > > > > > subject.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --Radha

> > > > > >

> > > > -------------------------

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.16.1/611 - Release

> Date:

> > > > 12/31/2006 12:47 PM

> > > > > >

> > > > >

What effect will Shani give in 7 th house ,in Capricon as

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads