Astrology a science or myth

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar Ji,

Namaskar,

Thanks for rejoinder dated 16th.

 

>>>>>>It seems that you like to project your opinions of what the

sages thought as the thoughts of the sages. <<<<<<<

 

NO. I am just telling what were their view. For which I quoted their

concept.

 

>>>>>>If the end of pralaya talks about earth being lifted from the

seas, it does not mean that the earth was

thought to be stationary.<<<<<

 

After giving so many concept and narration, if you are not agree

then it would be better if you ask to your school teacher that what

was the ancient concept. Because problem is this that you have

neither studied the Ved or puran or history etc. but you have just

studied the astrology and echoing in the same voice. But remember I

am not here to change your concept. But I just want to ignite the

inquisitive, which is just sleeping and there is only faith which is

working. Because when you start to read other then astrological books

only then you can understood.

 

In continuation of my earlier paras Read (1-154-1) of rigved which

says that space (Dhulok) is also stationary. (1-160-4) says that

deity who created dhulok and Earth and fix them with solid

foundation. (1-173-6) says that Indra has kept the Earth like hairs

and dulok like horn of bulls. (2-12-2) says that he hold and fix the

Earth and mountains after tremors (2-13-5) Indra founded the Earth

in Sunlight. (2-15-2) says that after taking somras (wine) he fixed

antriksh, dulok and Earth. (2-17-5) says that he hold the Earth and

dhulok so that it may not fall, hold the mountains. Thus there are so

many references in Ved. And moreever I am sure you will say that

Aryabhatt said that Sun is stationery and Earth is moving. So do

you think that he is famous for the same thing which was already

stated in Ved. What a funny concept.

Dear, it was our Vedic concept that Sun is rotating and Earth is

stationery. Which was further modified, of course after gaining

knowledge, by sage parasher in VP. But Ptolemy was of the view that

Earth is sphere though stationary. Aryabhatt gave a new concept that

Sun is stationary and Earth is rotating. But this concept was not

accepted as it was against our religious concept and he could not

answer as to why we may not fall (due to absent of knowledge of

Gravitation). Thus every one who has given some new concept with

some proofs and not with all proofs are well mentioned in history. So

please come out from blind faith. Apply your mind and not take my

words but then you have to read. As I am not going to gain something

from you. But I just want that you should read and then believe

instead of blind faith.

 

>>>>Since you have decided that astrology is post Purana times, this

discussion can go no where.<<<<<

 

I have decided it after studying astrology for 35 years. And it is

true that principles of predictive astrology was formulated by

sages around 200 BC to 200 AD.

 

>>>>>When you say that longitude is creation of Ptolemy, it is

apparent that

you have not read about Lankodaya neither are you aware what it

refers

to. <<<<<<<

Lankodaya is used for working out the ascendant. But it was a system

which was created after fixing (notionally) the longitude and

latitude. Do you think Long/lati was created by our sages. Then

please read history.

 

>>>>>>>>Again the logic that since the zodiac is divided into 360

degrees it must be the discovery of Greeks defies logic. As to

concept of Ayanamsha

having to be approved by Greeks to be correct is a strange logic. It

is

a physical phenomenon and if the Greeks did not understand it the

theory

that they invented astrology is ridiculous, if I may say so.<<<<<<<<

 

Actually we have diverted our discussion because my initial point

was not that who discovered and what discovered. Because then it is

fight between Greeks and sages. Even after solving this we will be

at square one that how astrological principles were formulated and

they have some scientific concept or not (in view of modern

knowledge)

 

 

 

>>>>>Merely giving reasons why Pluto was recategorized as a non

planet, at a later date, does not answer the original query as to how

the so called astronomical geniuses categorized it as a planet in the

first place.<<<<<<

I think you must again read my para which was as follows

 

" " " It was concept in the Primitive age that every movable body among

the fixed stars is planet. On the basis of the then knowledge and

experience Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn were

treated as planets. Remember Sun and Moon was treated as planets by

our sages and not a star or satellite, which astrologers are now

propagating in the name of astrology.

 

On the basis of this definition an orbiting body Uranus found by

William Herschel in 1781 was known as a planet. " " "

 

Thus in view of this prevailing definition Pluto was catagorised as

planet.

 

Thanks for your comments and I think you will now read VedPuarn and

then answer. Because their can never be a answer on blind faith. And

I want that you pupil may come out from blind faith, read with open

mind and then decide your self. In future when ever you want any

clearification then I am always ready. But sorry first you have to

come out from blind faith.

 

Yours,

Sanat

0751-2626868

sanatkumar_jain

 

(readers may directly write on my email)