Troubling Question...!

[Rohiniranjan]

One definition of knowledge has always been' justified true belief'!

When the query is who is 'better'? the answers are grey, the water is still muddy on the surface. I sense that as you delve deeper it is as clear as it should be but presently the werewithall to dive and bring back clarity. They certainly had something going which cannot be fathomed!

Moreover there is this smallish story. Misirjee finally after lots of huffing, puffing and effort reached the Guruji and humbly requested the Guruji to offer hi "marg darshan'. With a twinkle in his eye, Guruji said, 'darshan to hum ne diya, marg to khud talash karo' !

May the Sankranti bring whatever it takes to find the Marg , the resources to do so!!

votive

But, Votive, astrology is claimed by those same people as being technical, and even Science!

Should it be treated as a religion? Faith-based communal agreement? Faith and belief can be understandably not questioned, but astrology is something else, altogether, is it not?

Or, perhaps, it should be declared and accepted by all as simply a religious pursuit of the human mind...?

More troubling questions arise!

Am I being difficult? I hope not!


Regards,

[Votive]

Astrology, particularly anecdotal conclusions have to be questioned I find that broad principles certainly have a consensus, it is only when the astrologer decides to 'know all' that the problem begins.

Moreso Dada, Science itself finds belief as it approaches the frontiers of 'observable' knowledge. Each time, it crosses the barrier, Scientists take a deep breath and find more frontiers. Thus to incisively label Science and Religion as different, is in itself questionable as they rapidly approach each other yet remaining distant. Mind you, Dogma is not religion.
It is fascinating as is the journey of it, to me astrology is but a part and process of the same journey.

The moment one 'fixes' an answer as final...it tends to become a dogma.
Interesting questions, sir and you know I like difficult ones more. For the answers can be elegantly simple and beautiful.

Astrology, particularly anecdotal conclusions have to be questioned I find that broad principles certainly have a consensus, it is only when the astrologer decides to 'know all' that the problem begins.

votive

[Rohiniranjan]

Votive,

You mentioned, "Science itself finds belief as it approaches the frontiers of 'observable' knowledge.".

In order to understand better, could you please elaborate on that? An example or so of what you are considering as "beliefs of science or scientists" would be wonderful.

Thanks,

Rohiniranjan

[Votive]

First, I should be careful in selecting words. Science obviously cannot be in a position to reach 'belief'. For Science is more than the Scientists. It has a propulsion of its own independent of the view of the Scientists.
Stephen Hawking, the brilliant Scientist said in his earlier speeches some four decades back about the Theory of Everything or the Grand Unified theory where he claimed that soon all phenomena in the world could be 'strung' in a single theory.
The same Stephen Hawking on his 60 th birthday in 2002, when asked about when the Theory would emerge is reported to have replied. "I am glad that there is no theory of Everything and I hope there will be none in my lifetime.
Hawking, further speaks of the "dogma of scientific determinism".
http://www.hawking.org.uk/does-god-play-dice.html

Beyond the dogmas, Science and Religion have similar quests.
We broadly understand that Science also has two diverse facets like religion. One, of rigid rules and the other of flexible flows varying over situations and time.
Once, we start probing beyond the observable, the perceptible, beyond the cumulative 'known' knowledge, there is always more. For infinite has to be infinite by definition!!
It is the beautifu and elegant Nasadiya Sutra of Rig Veda which attempts to depict the fluidity of origin:

Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?
Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.
At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.


I know that I am speaking of what is beyond my limited comprehension....

my apologies...

votive

[Rohiniranjan]

When we seek beyond the obvious and begin to reach beyond conclusions that should be 'on our desks', if we ever cared to read again what ever we were handed in the first place, we begin to make mistakes and that is how most internet threads turn into what some call a *dog's breakfast*.

It is not an insulting term but simply the reality on internet! And all the confusion that internet is well-known for! Which sometimes led "laharon ka munshi" to question the seriousness and sincerity on internet about!

The fault is not of internet, or even the 'laharain' (waves), but where the focal-centre was on a given thread and where the boatsmen landed up at! All with the best intentions at their heart but rowing with the wrong oar or in the wrong manner!

Often, synergy gets mistaken as harmony or worse, the TWO get mixed up!


The purpose or intention of this thread was simple, the questions were succinct! But is that what we have ended up discussing, dear friends? The following would clearly remind and reboot all about what the original questions were about! Not about astrology, nor about questioning what the ancients surmised or prophessed or recommended! :-(

Nor about OR questioning any ancient beliefs etc., for that matter?

But MODERN myths...!

Please re-review this thread:

viewtopic.php?t=84894&start=0


Love, Light, Reality...?

Rohiniranjan

[mysbcrs]

RR ji,

IMO (and without meaning to offend you), the longest surviving modern myth is that "Numbers can measure everything". The thread seems to be rooted on to this.

For e.g., I feel the percentage of accurate predictions should necessarily take a back seat in comparison to the study of  technique of making one accurate prediction (even if it be one out of hundred)

[Rohiniranjan]

RR ji,

IMO (and without meaning to offend you), the longest surviving modern myth is that "Numbers can measure everything". The thread seems to be rooted on to this.

For e.g., I feel the percentage of accurate predictions should necessarily take a back seat in comparison to the study of  technique of making one accurate prediction (even if it be one out of hundred)

CRS ji,

One thread cannot contain everything, nor solve all the problems that some say plague modern astrology (and modern astrologers). Hence, I was focusing on one thing at a time, for the sake of this evidently "troubling topic"!

Numbers, Myths, assumptions, suppositions, tall claims, accuracy, are all related, are they not? Perhaps even inter-twined! Think about that dispassionately!

Love and Light,

Rohiniranjan

[RishiRahul]

RR ji,

IMO (and without meaning to offend you), the longest surviving modern myth is that "Numbers can measure everything". The thread seems to be rooted on to this.

For e.g., I feel the percentage of accurate predictions should necessarily take a back seat in comparison to the study of  technique of making one accurate prediction (even if it be one out of hundred)

Something I cannot disagree with at all

Rishi

[Rohiniranjan]

RR ji,

IMO (and without meaning to offend you), the longest surviving modern myth is that "Numbers can measure everything". The thread seems to be rooted on to this.

For e.g., I feel the percentage of accurate predictions should necessarily take a back seat in comparison to the study of  technique of making one accurate prediction (even if it be one out of hundred)

Something I cannot disagree with at all

Rishi

Thread-drift!

[RishiRahul]

RR ji,

IMO (and without meaning to offend you), the longest surviving modern myth is that "Numbers can measure everything". The thread seems to be rooted on to this.

For e.g., I feel the percentage of accurate predictions should necessarily take a back seat in comparison to the study of  technique of making one accurate prediction (even if it be one out of hundred)

Something I cannot disagree with at all

Rishi

Thread-drift!

oops...!

Rishi

[Rohiniranjan]

RR ji,

IMO (and without meaning to offend you), the longest surviving modern myth is that "Numbers can measure everything". The thread seems to be rooted on to this.

For e.g., I feel the percentage of accurate predictions should necessarily take a back seat in comparison to the study of  technique of making one accurate prediction (even if it be one out of hundred)

Something I cannot disagree with at all

Rishi

Thread-drift!

oops...!

Rishi

Haha! Wait till you read my summary-review! <LOL>

Dada

[Certain]

Welcome to 2015 the year resonating to #8


Were the ancient divinators really all that accurate as often portrayed to be?

How do you know?? How can you say???

Please share if you know...!


Regards

Rohiniranjan

Just a perspective, that why would not they be accurate and why would we not be so as well, even if each generation did not have common practices or principles or ideologies.
I feel that God / supreme consciousness is not a biased entity who will love to keep one in dark and other in light, one gifted for centuries and other deprived for indefinite period.
I feel we know the information and methods as much we ought to know, as much we are capable to digest and handle. And they too knew the info and methods they were able to handle.
A mother does not ask a neonate to talk and does not ask toddler to go beyond its strengths and limitations. I am sure Universe has that intellect and capability to logically stratify.
Universe does justice to everyone and offers knowledge as much as is suitable for that person to handle. Subjective accuracy or maximum possible level of accuracy is a good substitute of ultimate accuracy.
Absolute truth has its value for sure but its  interpretion in relation to circumstances may vary and has its own time bound and unique significance.
Eg a 3 years old calls white another one color like others but a science pupil knows it has union of 7 colors instead. One is subjective time bound accuracy and other is another layer of time bound accuracy.
After few years same science pupil knows that each color is same electron stream vibrating at different frequency.
So it is layered truth in envelopes.  I think same stands for Astrology.
No one gets to know absolute truth before they see the layers of time- bound truth. I will like to believe that despite of methodology, each generation is exposed to truth it requires to know.
.
.

[Rohiniranjan]

...

For Certain...!

I was never questioning the Ancients or their Wisdom or Motives etc., though some might have jumped to such conclusions...!

Merely questioning some modern MYTHs as oft-repeated here, there, elsewhere.

Nor questioning God or the answers given by Muni Ashtavakra to King Janak which more recently I have seen pirated by some and turned into an Akbar-Birbal story! Which is really the best answer I got on internet about the fact that History tends to Recycle, Reuse and Reduce Reality as IT presumably once was!

But, wise as your answer is, I was not even touching what was or used to be, and certainly not the body of astrology, but simply a modern myth!

The more responses arrive but the troubling questions at the root of this thread remain unaddressed, the more we must begin to dispel modern myths which seem to have been baseless, all along?

Love, Light, Reality...?

Rohiniranjan

[mysbcrs]

RR ji,

I always thought that both my posts earlier were aligned to the hread

Well, I am one of those who hold the "myth" that we are less capable in predicting than the ancients were. Let me state what drives me to this belief.

If I trust Varahamihira's classic why should I doubt that he made the famous prediction (about the death of the King's son)? The classic and anecdote are from the same unreliable source. How can it be logical to have faith in the classic and not in the anecdote?

Secondly, the classic itself is a divination. Have we come across anything comparable in "modern" times? The closest could be predictive models using statistics. In areas where there is relatively less human involvement (weather for e.g.,) they have served well. But when it comes to areas with extensive human involvement (e.g., capital markets) they have failed miserably. And the predictions in either case are far from stunning.

[Rohiniranjan]

Dear CRS ji,

Please do not feel perplexed!
The responses from all of you good folks were invaluable in one way or another.

The request, I thought, was simple.

1. Do we often hear that ancient astrologers were marvellous prognosticators (or similar adjectives). {Answer would be: Yes we do hear and sometimes read that too!)

2. How do these people who claim such to be the case, know? Can they please share more details?

The OP (post in this instance, not poster!) did not ask about justifications for astrology or its techniques! That is not even an issue, at this time, or for this thread anyways!

Thank you for reiterating Mihir ji's famous anecdote and how he got his name. I know of another one which deals with Sage Parashara, Matsyagandha, Muhurtam and possibly a couple more similar ones. Would that be enough to make generalized claims about how well (or if) the ancient astrologers performed? More importantly, 'should that be enough?'

Quite frankly, as data-trace goes, the techniques are on firmer ground than the account of those that introduced, discovered, realized those!

This is not about a comparison between modern vs ancient or even questions about the validity of yuga scheme; nothing so gigantic, trust me. Unfortunately, myth vs documented facts does enter into this. As does something akin to blind, unquestionable, personal faith.

There are many that claim that astrology is hairy fairy and product of primitive imaginations or worse and to those our advice is to try and learn and perhaps they will be better enabled to make their claim. Reasonable approach indeed! The subject is vast and complex, multifactorial and cannot be done justice in this format and medium!

However, this is different. Here, hopefully, the claimants are merely being asked how they came to a sweeping conclusion that ancients astrologers were necessarily more accurate than modern ones?

This is not being asked arrogantly or insultingly, and is not even a forensic quest but simply an examination of whether the claim of ancient accuracy is generally true or a bit of myth mixed with hearsay, sourceless anecdotes or simply a free-floating, product of faith?

And, if these kinds of basic claims are somewhat mythical, then the more troubling question remains: What else or how much of the rest is, too?

Not even touching that one, at this time <LOL>!

Regards,

Rohiniranjan