If statistics, psychology and economics can be called sciences then astrology can also be called a science. I 'believe' the evidence can be statistically proven. Just because we don't know how it works, it should not mean it does not work.
As you will be aware, there are numerous websites dedicated to astrology and defend it vehemently. A couple are below:
However, astrology is now highly commercialised and I certainly don't trust any astrologers.
Having said that, I do believe that if you live your life by taking responsibility for all your actions and believe in re-incarnation then there is no need for astrology.
Atpu, I am more concerned with what science is, than what disciplines are "called" science. To me, science is the modern definition: A testable hypothesis which can be proven or disproven by experiments. Astrology is probably based on statistics.. but consider this, the statistics (at least for our Hindu astrology) if ever they were taken, are rather old and the sample size is also different. Has anybody done a fresh study of this and updated their predictions or are we still using 3000 year old charts.
Regardless, statistics is just a way to obtain some relevance from a given data and can definitely not be said to be accurate in all instances. I am still waiting for someone to prove to me that "astrology is science". Or about how planets affect our futures. Also, correlations (which is what in my opinion astrology is, based on statistics) does not signify cause and effect.It might happen that everytime I go to a temple it rains; however that doesn't imply that rain causes my temple visits or vice-versa.
I do agree wholeheartedly about "taking responsibility for one's own actions" but fail to see how a "belief in reincarnation" can help in any way.
Arun: If "planets control our life" is treated as a postulate, then there is no contradiction. A postulate by itself is neither true or false till proved or disproved. If not proved right, does not automatically mean that it is false. We are so much exposed and conditioned by western logic, that we treat all other systems which do not fall into western logic as false. Indian logic 'tarka', is little known today.
In fact even in modern science, many basic concepts - parallel lines, infinity, sub-atomic particles, universe, speed of light etc. or your field -genetics- have lots of postulates and assumptions.
We all know - effect of moon on tides, gravity on earth phenomena, electromagnetic radiation on human body and mind, beneficial effects of sound (music) and light on our health and temperament - well more can be added. There is no fundamental flaw in saying that planets can control our lives to some extent; at least as one of the several factors influencing our behaviour and action. We believe that smoking causes lung cancer, but so far have not accepted that cell phones can cause brain cancer. And we are bombarded with all kinds of benign (?) and malefic radiation from all corners of the universe. We know when one is strick by lightning, but not when one is exposed dangerous dose of cosmic rays.
Belief or disbelief is a personal matter. But throwing away a two thousand year old knowledge preserved and transmitted by our ancestors is not a wise idea. We must learn to look through Indian eyes and use indian logic to understand.
Recently I read somewhere that universe si -1% solid, 3% gas and the remaining 96% - empty or energy? How do I accept this?
Sampath, Just because something is 2000 years old, it isn't true. All I am saying is, if you call something science, then don't expect people to be sensitive about it. I am sensitive to other people's beliefs.. it is only when someone claims something as science without too much of backing evidence that it gets my goat.
A little late perhaps but my two cents on this one - there are personal truths and factual truths, I like to use the word truths instead of science as science is a combination of various, not necessarily always proven :) If you love someone that is a personal truth, meaning normally only the two people involved know it in their hearts that it is true, others only have opinions. The sun rises in the east is a factual truth, everybody knows it the same and there are no arguments.
Astrology and to some extent even spiritual experiences are personal truths, only persons involved know whether or not it is 'true' for them. I personally do not believe much in predictive astrology or people telling you what you can/will be ten years from now, human beings are creatures of free will and there is no predicting how human will can work. But I do believe astrology is very capable of saying the climate around one's life, when you are going to strike it big and when times are going to be low. Astrology if used rightly can also very accurately do a psycho-profile - one's talents, strengths, weaknesses and direction in life. Again it is not something that is for the cynical or those looking for 'proof', it works if you beleive it will and only life can be evidence of that.
hmmmm 24 hrs science la mooligai petrol la vandi odalai.. that was on belief.. science basically disproved Ramar Pillai (if that is what you are referring to).
I am not saying that everything we know in science is the absolute truth.. there may very well be future discoveries which might overturn what be think is the truth now.. however, it is going to be based on testable hypothesis.. and when someone shows that there is evidence to the contrary, the scientist will acknowledge it.. unlike "belief-based" systems where evidence to the contrary is usually rejected.
I was resisting myself to write, because I know this is a never ending topic and no one is going to accept the other's view point,however true it might be. I am not arguing whether astrology is science or not, but just sharing my thoughts that we fail to look at different perspective.
I would simply put it - a different plane of reference. And the main difference between the western thought process and Indian thought process is this plane of reference (i think Sampath or some one said the same thing in different perspective). And all Indian thought process is based on the underlying principle of Spirituality.
We have different number systems used in computer field. Binary, octal, hexa, decimal etc. the same number is depicted in different formats in different number system. If we encounter a species with just two fingers, it will laugh at us if we say a number 8 saying its only your belief and it has no proof...until we prove that my 8 is nothing but your 1000. On the other hand, if the species with 2 fingers say 1000, we will by default assume its one thousand,unless we understand that its binary and it represents 8 to them. We know how to convert between these numbers and hence we accept them. what if there is a numeric system based on say 15. Till we find the conversion process, we will says its nonsense or rather belief.
The western thought process accepts only things which are comprehensible to Human minds. If anything is incomprehensible we try to neglect it saying its nonsense.
Humans defined God in Human form, because we can only relate to ourselves and see things only in our perspective. If the buffaloes are to conceive a god, it will surely conceive god in a form of buffalo. If it sees the god form of Humans, it will laugh and say humans are uncultured and is not civilized enough. This is the flaw we find with most of the religions. Our ancestors knew to think in different plane of reference and could accept god in buffalo form or human form where as other religions did not or rather cannot because of the plane of reference we think in. In the outer space, all our beliefs or even facts goes for a toss. Person in the outer space will say, north and south and east and west is only your belief and it has no proof, untill he comes down to earth and see and understand what directions mean.
Maybe,it seems i am digressing from the topic, but I am just saying that just that we cant prove or disprove something, we should not come to conclusion. A belief system will surely come to an end at some point, but cannot prolong for so long a time. If we have lost the science behind it, its our fault not astrology's fault.
Recently I watched a move 'Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy'. Didnt had the patience to read the book, hence saw the movie. Hilarious and absolute nonsense, atleast at the outset. But absurd in what sense, our human perception again. In the climax the human is told that all the things happening in the earth is a experimental project sponsored by .... MICE. Yes the little Mice. When the human say, its humans who does experiment with mice, the answer is, thats what the mice made you to think. ithu eppadi iruku...
I am reading an ebook called 'God's Debris' by Scott Adams. Really a good one, trying to answer things which are similar to our Indian thought process. It challenges the known beliefs of God but trying to say that what we think about god generally is not true, but its more than that. Which is very much the Hindu way of thinking. Atleast thats what I perceive. I can be wrong or right (because I am yet to finish the book). But all it says is,in different context the meaning of what we know might totally change.
Katrathu kai man alavu...so with whatever we know, if we aruge I am right and you are wrong...what shall I say, the gnanis have said it already...
Thanks Satish for your thoughts. Again, maybe it didn't come across very clearly..I am not claiming we know all.. am just saying don't call astrology science.. there is a distinct difference here. Yes, sure maybe science is to deal with things that our minds can comprehend but then that is the definition. Under that definition, astrology is NOT science. If you want to change the definition, then you are welcome to do so, but then please mention the definition as you understand it. Moreover, according to me, there is only "science".. no western or eastern "science". There are western or eastern belief systems and that I figure is what everyone else seems to be referring to.
Please re-read the first few lines of my previous mail :)
Everyone is right in their own perspective. There is nothing called wrong in this prabancham. only the intensity of the right varies.
As per science, most of the things in the world are classified as either a living thing or non living thing. Whatever moves, has life - classified as living things. Whatever doesnt have activity of their own are classified as non living thing. So movement defines life. Even a man in coma is considered a living being because there are movements or activities happening inside the body, though the body doesnt move. This is the basic science we read in 2nd or 3rd std in schools.
There is a man and a rock. Obviously the man is living thing and rock a non living thing. I think everyone accepts this. If the man looks at the rock all thorough his life, he will conclude that the rock doesnt change at all. very true.
Cut the shot and zoom out in to the far away space. As per Einsteins theory of relativity (as Ravi said belief is the basis of science and almost all theories are belief's many of which are accepted without proof) if we send out one among a twin to outer space and if the person returns after a long time, he will be much younger than his twin on earth. The biological clock ticks slowly in outer space. if thats the case of just a human being, a million years on earth is just a few fractions for the omnipotent god. If we say god is beyond science, lets again take the twin who traveled in space and say lives for a million year. For him the same rock on the earth, which never changes form in a mans lifetime, might seem to change shape due to various factors, might get eroded, become sand or change form to other material also. It will be like a movie watched in fast forward, and the rock changes shapes in a million year.
So which is correct, the rock never changes shape as per the first observation or it changes shape as per second observation? Both are accepted as per science, right.
Cut the shot and zoom in to the rock, till the molecular level. We see atoms and inside that protons electrons and neutrons. We know that these stuff move at random pace and is always in a state of continuous motion. So does the rock make any movement or not? Internally it does have motion.
All the three scenarios I stated above are acceptable as per known science. So,what shall I conclude? The rock has motion or not? The rock changes shape or not? both yes and no, depending on which perspective we look.
Our ancestors said that the Sun god travels in a chariot with seven horses but only one wheel. We say it is mythology or just belief. It also says that arunan is the charioteer of Sun god. Ok, just belief. Myth. Today we know by science that, light has seven basic colours, can traverse only one path, meaning will leave only one track and cannot take two tracks at the same time, the rays of the sun reaches earth even before the sun rises. Seven colours are seven horses, the single wheel is the single track traced by sun and Arunan is nothing but the rays of the sun. The charioteer will reach a point before the person sitting in the chariot. Isn't there a difference in eastern science and western science? I would say, eastern science is for common man, western science is for intellectuals.
Science have established that all the matter in the universe is made up on the same basic elements at the microcosm level. I think our forefathers were brilliant guys, they put this in simple statement - 'Andhathil ullathu pindam, pindathil ullathu andam'. Just because they didnt prove it with microscope or other scientific methods (we never know whether they really used some science to arrive at this conclusion or not) it is not wrong. The same concept has been proved by science today. Andathilum pindathilum irupathu onre. The universe is made up of the same basic elements.
The value of turmeric, neem etc found by advance science in the west is like drinking water to us. Even an illiterate in a remote village of India will be using it without even realizing the science behind it. I am not that knowledgeable and sorry if I have blabbered something, but all I say is, Indian knowledge cannot be thrown away just because it cannot be proved or the west doesnt accept it.
(eastern science is for common man, western science is for intellectuals.)
I think it should be the other way round. The Eastern science can be comprehended only by the enlightened masters who have *experienced* it. Your next para actually gives an example of it -
(Science have established that all the matter in the universe is made up on the same basic elements at the microcosm level.) A truly enlightened master actually experiences this oneness with the cosmos and all mater here. Nithyananda explains humorously in his discourse on Shiva Sutras - http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=V9hHgEeJh7Y
Since I am a new member in ponniyinselvan@yahoogroups , I dont know the reason for the messages sent to me. I m blinking. Can I send my queries to you?
Astrology believes in the concept that the future already exists. Science tries to invent the future. We find new things and discover / invent a lot as time moves on using science (which is a quantified sequence of physics-chemistry-math). What science discovers in the future, astrology says it exists already. Astrology uses math / physics and chemistry (at times) - it tells what science shows us in the future. Astrology is not science but an art, greater than any science can comprehend. When the Sun sets in the US, it already has risen in Japan - the future already exists, we just see it as the universe unfolds.
Dear Kathy, the Tropic of Cancer passes through Ujjain as also first meridian of longitude. A scientific observatory from 17th century is here (also called Veda Shala) from where various planteray movements were observed for astronomy. Not sure what state it is in now.
Ravi,If you can show evidence of how astrology uses "maths/phy/chem" I would appreciate it. Just stating something doesn't make it into a fact. :)
Also, I think I had better keep quiet now since there is going to be no resolution to this gap in our thinking. Science and philosophy are not quite the same things but they seem to be to most here.
Arun, have you read Frijitzov Capra's Tao of Physics - it has great parellels between eastern mysticism and western science. Yes there is no resolution to this time honored great debate but assume we can all agree there are parellels and deep thinking in both areas.
Astrology is pure mathematics and physical Science. I am doing PhD in Vedas in which I quote the astronomy and human body with Utkal University of Culture
What Mr.Ravi said is 200% correct. I can't explain more on this thro net as I am to submit my thesis paper in 2010. but once it is submitted and Viva attended I will take a class for all of you! It is pure Matscience
Hi Malathi, Yes I have. A long time ago and even then I thought some of the comparisons were a little far-fetched. I never denied that there was deep thinking involved. My original objection was against calling astrology science :)
Deep thinking does not make something science nest ces pas?:)
BHOJA RAJA stories.. His friend KALIDASA stories..
And it appears BHOJA ( I, II or III ?) became good friend of RAJENDRA I... and Bhoja handling Gazni (with the knowledge that Rajendra's Army rushing)Gazni moving to Somnathpur... to loot..
and UJJAIN MAHALAM WORSHIP .... (THERE is another Ujjai mahakali) in Samayapuram (about 1 KM south of Mariamman !)
It will take big mails etc to explain various aspects on this relation, I am not going to go there on this.
Just a basic word here, I dont want to prolong this however. Astrology is not psychic work, you need charts and positions of various planets combined with the time. Earlier days, there were many calculations (math) based on planets to plan a chart. Today the logic and numbers are punched into a software and a chart is printed out. Without having a base line, there is no way you can build from, a plan / layout etc, that plan is based on math, please check it out.
There is a lot to go on, but i am gonna keep it simple and leave it at that.
I agree that there is math and logic underlying astrology. That said interpreting what the chart says is not an easy skill and does require psychic abilities among others. I firmly refuse to believe anyone's future is 'already written' since that contradicts many things including we are resposnible for our own karma and being creatures of free will. Astrology if used wisely can be a good map for our path in life, that is all.
Like I said before since interpretation is a big part of this tool it cannot be called science in a literal sense of the word, it is a personal science or what is true for an individual that only he/she knows, that is all.
Arun, I read it a long time ago, now you have inspired me to read it again :) I didn't think the comparisons were far fetched, rather extremely well thought out - a westerner normaly does not have an agenda to prove these things right as it is in our culture so usually it comes from a place of openness and is worth examining and rethought.
I will try to listen to the cd again this week. What specifically did you think was 'far fetched'?
> > Deep thinking does not make something science nest ces pas?:) > > Arun
I remarked some of Einsteins theory of relativity. Were those theories originated by experiments and proved physically? Deep thinking resulted in many a theories. Plane of reference,clock ticking slow in outer space, e=mcsqared etc are physically impossible to prove and yet accepted as science.
I already told you and you now accept, we can never come to conclusion on these topics.
But from these discussions, we again find one thing - western knowledge rejects everything beyond their understanding. If they cannot understand something, they immediately reject it saying its false or baseless and just a myth, belief. Eastern knowledge tries to understand things which are not known to them. Whether you accept it or not, thats the truth and thats the reason so many religions could thrive in India where as rest of the world are so intolerant. Again, the basics of sanathana dharma are so interlinked with nature and nature is nothing but the so called science, driven by the physical and chemical laws.
There is no doubt at all that tolerance is the backbone of Indian culture/thinking and Sanatana Dharma does embrace oneness with nature. Also is true the arrogance that has resulted in the western world as a result of scientific advancements and progress that reject outright antyhign that is not immediately comprehensible to the human mind.
It is also true that outright acceptance in our country of anything immediately not comprehensible - people claiming Ganesha drinking milk while it is absorbed temporarily into the stone crevice or dropped on the ground. A completely unreasonable and overrated beleif in astrology that creates lack of confidence and inaction among other things. Blind poojas and overt belief in outside(divine?) assistance to change matters without focusing on what is wrong within.
So here we go..the two extremes of culture that can only be bridged by thinking, believing, ordinary poeple like US. This link has a great argument between scientist/beliver Deepak Chopra and rationalist/athiest Richard Dawkins where Chopra attempts to answer some arguments related to science on faith itself.
Really? Dawkins is a nut, a half baked atheist who attacks western belief systems and is pretty ignorant on others belief systems. I even saw an interveew with him on PBs, he was very unimpressive. I suggest you become an EVR fan instead, a lot more well researched.
Any nut is a nut. Dawkins's books are a retort against western religion. I know you say western science and estern science do not exist but you have to admit western religion and eastern religion do exist and widely differ in their paradigms about God. Dawkins was questioned extensively on PBS on concepts of onness, benefits of yoga/meditation and buddhism among other things and he drew a complete blank.
Books like these are necessary due to rise of post 911 religious fundamentalistm in the west and it would be best if christian fundies dealt with them, not us.
Deepak Chopra and Fritozv Capra are among pioneering scientific minds who try to bridge this huge gap. If we want to talk about it we have to talk of what they say, and perhaps with an intetion to understanding what is positive on either side (mysticism/relgiion versus science).
Astrology has nothing to do with God. I dont understand what your drag on God is supposed to mean.
Any musician cannot become a Beethoven, similarly any astrologer cannot become the astrologer. The art of perfection does not take a few credit hours to finish, it takes almost a life time.
A typical good astrologist would be brilliant in numbers and amazing in multi co-relational thinking and mapping. Something that takes ages to master.
I think you are confusing astrology with religion / God etc, that is not appropriate.
Again, Astrology is an art and science is a small part of it. Math is the basic building block of astrology.
If you want to debate Dawkins thats a different thread, i am sure there are enough religious nuts here who can graduate him to become a fully baked nut. :-)
Ravi, I agree with you to some extent that Astrology is not completely to do with God. But Astrology does have a lot to do with religion. There is vedic astrology, tibetan budddhist astrology and western takes on astrology. Vedic astrology which is what is most common in India is got a lot to do with religion and appeasing navagrahas if necessary, it is impossible to separate the two.Tibetan Buddhist astrology is wholly related to Buddhist principles.
I believe in astrology to some extent myslef, am not a non believer. But astrology is not a science no matter how you look at it, since two very good astrologers can give very different interpretations of the same chart. What happens in reality of course can be an entirely third interpretation also.
I am no scholar, but in my humble opinion, i tend to believe in astrology as a superior form of science which humans cannot master - yet or have lost the skill.
Definition of Science from some dictionaries: Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.
Astrology is a series of knowledge based on numbers and patterns, astrologers observe, experiment and try to explain something that is natural just that it happens in the future, which makes it a speculation.
By method of common deduction, if you consider all religions and their astrological and remove the name buddhist/vedic/chinese etc you will find that there is an astro common ground. So common deduction method logically proves astrology presence, where religions tap into that and give a flavor of Almighty to it.
Many a time you can find two different doctors giving two types of treatment for same symptom, well that concept is applicable to any study - interpretation is subject to the individual mind. Just because two astrologers differ that does not mean the chart is changed. The study of that chart is science, navagraha - are in essence planets and their shades or dust. It is no myth that the sun/moon/mars etc have their electro magnetic impulses on earth, we , humans , being composed of base carbon that evolved from the mega dust, will respond to these cosmic 'beings'. When the great oceans raise on full tide during the full moon, how can we not respond the the 'lord Chandra' - lets call it logic :-)
ravi, I agree with you that astrology has depth to it that has probably been lost over time. And I am not any scholar either :) But my personal experience has been that vedic/tibetan buddhist/chinese astrologies do not work same way or give same interpretations. Even how the charts are drawn are very different. One has to go with what works for one personally.
Where the human will is involved no accuracy is possible, that is the whole point. Astrology deals with humans who are capable of changing their minds and so how can it possibly be an accurate science? The word science loosely used often means factual accuracy, although as you rightly said it can be extended to mean a host of other things.
I agree 100% with moon affecting tides. My uncle who works with mentally disabled often talks about moon affecting schizophrenics and seriously mentally ill people. I can talk at great length about moon effect on certain feminine issues too (out of place in this forum).
Bottom line I think - for Kathy and Arun perhaps - you dont' have to believe in Astrology or anything. Just don't dismiss as hocus pocus what works for others, and has depth and wisdom that is not easily comprehended.:) It is not really without reason that so much research goes into UFOs and FBI uses psychics too, isn't it not :)
I got your point, 'vidhiyai madhiyal vellalam' nu solaringa - correct, naan solrathu enna na - vithiyai mathiyal vellalam nu vidhi la ezuthi iruntha thaan vella mudiyum'...
I believe, this vidhi is pre-programmed already, like i said in one of the earlier posts, we just see it as the universe unfolds.
LOL:) I tend to agree with you although I would reserve that argument for those of us in second half of life, in other words it is best learnt via experience :))