The Problem In Astrology Today - Mark K.

[Guest guest]

Hi Mark,

 

Thanks for the reply, but you sidestepped both my point and my request.

 

The bottomline here, since you want to pull a bit of rank, is that I

laid out my position and then backed it up - with well known, easily

verifiable case examples. None of them are in dispute.

 

You, on the other hand, have not.

 

And therein lies the issue, a major one I've noticed initially with

respect to our post-modern Western astrologer friends, and more and

more with our Vedic colleagues here in the West as well.

 

Vedic astrology in America has gone the way of the Western approach,

where all the emphasis is " explaining " the minute details of a chart,

and away from the accuracy in prediction (and brevity in analysis) that

it has become world famous for. It amounts to lillte more than the

Vedic astrological equivalent of glorified navel gazing.

 

We really need to stop that.

 

The huge advantage that we Vedicheads have over the Jungian Humanists

astrologers is that we have a long and storied canon to fall back on;

and more often than not, it has served us well, and can be easily seen

in our time. For example, take the very well known principle of Kuja

Dosha - known among Vedic astrologers to be very problematic for

relationships to say the least. It operated hundreds if not thousands

of years ago in a distant culture. It works today, and recently I

presented a case example of Jane Fonda's chart specifically to prove

that point.

 

Again, we need to get away from the notion of wanting to psycho-analyze

everything like the Western astrologers do, take up the ball with the

sages have left off, accept what they have laid down and move foward.

 

Experience means everything, and rarely if ever, do I say anything that

I cannot verify to my satisfaction. In just about every post I've ever

entered here or elsewhere, this has been the case. Particularly as it

relates to Vedic astrology.

 

Astrology today - Western and sadly to say, Vedic - desperately needs

Peer Review. With it, we can weed out " interesting questions " and deal

with verified cases, and put a stop to this notion, that is very

popular here in the USA, that anything can explain everything.

 

Guruji Sharmaji, whom I met only a few times back in 1998, told me that

above all else one should be accurate in their work, and that I had the

kind of scientific mind to make that happen.

 

Again, I have laidout my theory, my writings to support my theory,

cited the sources/canon for the theory, and presented numerous case

examples to back me up.

 

Again, I note, that you have not.

 

We can do better.

 

We should.

 

Salaam,

Mu