|
|
||
|
Home | Hindi | Kabir | Poetry | Workshop | BoloKids | Writers | Contribute | Search | Contact | Share This Page! Shop Online |
|||
|
Astrology / Vedic Jyotish Astrologers get embroiled into debates over the issue of fate Vs free-will. Basically, three views exist, the first one holds that there is only free-will, the second maintains that there is only destiny, while the third view concedes that there is room and justification for both possibilities. From the perspective of the first two views, one deduces that there can be no pragmatic purpose for astrology. If free-will is what drives our reality, then nothing is determined a priori; so how can ones life-journey be reflected in the frozen snapshot of the heavens at the moment of birth? This kind of thinking is what gives the rationalists reason to decry the veracity of astrology. On the other hand, if destiny is supreme and inescapable, then what would be the benefit of knowing ones future – for it cannot be changed having been already destined and cast in stone even before the child is born! The third view is more inclusive and allows for personal responsibility, yet makes astrological predictions plausible because of the element of predestination in terms of trends if not specific events, and it allows some room for modifying or atoning Karma through the remedies which are essentially acts of personal choice and hence represent free-will. Here are those who would say that even opting to go for remedial measures is predestined, but then life becomes a helpless game with no control or incentive for acting and astrology is reduced to being a game of wit! What then is the purpose of the remedial ritual, really? The camp that subscribes to
the coexistence of fate and free-will also makes it possible to
accommodate into its framework the karmic hypothesis. Now, yesterday's
free-will becomes today's destiny and would address the personal
'responsibility' factor. This also reduces the sense of chaos in this
universe which now appears to be a fair universe, although the fairness
emerges only if we accept an extended time scale of things. Suggestions
based on anecdotal experience have come forth that there might be some
charts which show that some nativities are more resistant to the vagaries
of destiny. Obviously, these are the cases where the astrologer's reading
or predictions fail consistently. Assuming that the astrologer/astrology
variable is functioning as it should, certain proportion of these charts
are probably victim to inaccurate birth times. It is amazing how mistaken
people's memories can be after many years since an event. Parents forget
the exact time of their children’s birth, or sometimes remember it
inaccurately and vouch adamantly in favor of the incorrect epoch. Times
off by minutes and sometimes by hours have been provided by unsuspecting
individuals. No wonder their horoscopes did not match their
life-experiences, with astrology and the astrologer unfairly bearing the
blame. If we keep thinking of devas as some
sort of godly figures clad in gold and silk with a radiant halo shining
around their heads we quickly risk alienating the 'professors' from
amongst us. Even when these figures are reported to have been visualized
by some, they represent a form of conceptualization, really. There is
nothing preventing us in thinking of these as forces of nature or some
form of energy that is non-physical, probably related in some ways to the
non-physical ‘thought’ energy. A certain major portion of this deva
energy would serve to act as triggers, possibly in our minds which then
can lead to physical things happening, be that an accident as a
consequence of a transit hitting and derailing our consciousness and
attention or judgment, or a direct influence that leads to something
physical such as a natural calamity, an earthquake or hurricane that has
the power of changing our lives forever. Effects on nations and politics
are still combined influences on groups of human beings since the trigger
acts on a collective mass of people rather than one individual. For instance, does the
Jupiter deva when in cancer (exaltation) have an expanded globe of
influence vs Jupiter deva in Capricorn (debilitation)? I think it is an
interesting possibility. Perhaps this underlies the usefulness and
functionality of cosmo-biological midpoints or Arabic sahams where the
influence of one deva blends or separates from that of another deva.
Perhaps a horoscope is not a map made of discrete lights but a rainbow of
distinct yet blending orbs of influence and energy. This, to my mind, is a
rather important concept and possibility. It is always tempting to lay out
astrology into neat but discrete piles of attributes and influences, but
for many, such an approach does not work well and certainly is not
enriching from a synthetic sense. Through visualizing and conceptualizing
the planets as energies and personalities, as indicated in ancient texts,
we breathe more life into such a reading. Some people hastily dismiss
ancient texts with their archaic symbology as products of simpler times or
even of superstitious and magical thinking, however, it is quite possible
that the reader was supposed to have read the message between the lines! Regardless of their infectious but at
times exaggerated faith in astrology or in us, we must spell out the
findings just as we see them while honestly making them aware of the
uncertainties and limitations of what we see or say, as best as is
possible. There is no pressure to feel that we need to turn a cartwheel or
two simply to please them or the need to justify the reason for being for
astrology or of our interest in astrology (unless you have assumed the
role of a professional, paid astro-counselor -- in which case you are not
very different from other similar professionals to a certain extent
keeping in mind the somewhat different nature of the craft of astrology
much of which is empirical and thus observation-based). It is useful to very quickly move out of the one factor-one reading mind set into an approach that is based on multiple factors contributing to a weight of evidence approach (an outcome depending on the resultant of many balancing, congruous and opposing factors). When faced with a horoscope, it is tempting and perhaps a natural human inclination to tune into and give dominance to certain well-known combinations or apparent dignities (in rashi). Sometimes this works while at other times it does not. However, with a large number of factors and rules staring at us in our face, it becomes a non-intuitive astrologer's nightmare to figure out which of these tassel (and sometimes a tangle) of leads to pick up and follow. Quantitative weighting (balas) helps to a certain extent in some cases, but for the most part, absence of clear instructions in classical or contemporary texts makes it difficult to figure things out. Experience and intuition sometimes help by drawing our attention to the more 'significant' set of rules, but this does involve dipping into a mixture of method and magic. The magical part comes
from not so much absence of logical underpinnings, but from our lack of
understanding of the process underlying such inner help. I believe that
what we call intuition or better still informed intuition (which occurs in
all trained professionals) is perhaps a higher logical process which works
so rapidly that it appears to be non-sequential and alogical. This is the
kind of stuff that happens when people sleep over a problem and wake up in
the morning with an answer. Some astrologers almost abhor being labeled
as intuitive since this implies an innate and therefore uncontrollable
gift or strength. Astrologers, more than any other sect of divinators tend
to not like being lumped with psychics and their genre. This is
unfortunate and perhaps unnecessary. Those who do not lose sight of the
primary fact that astrology is being used to help others, end up being
more helpful than those who make an academic pursuit of it. But, as they
say – to each his own. On an average a typical student of astrology who can devote only a part of his or her time to astrology during the study period as well as later, probably sees on an average less than two new charts per day. Even that may be an overestimate. This amounts to about 500 charts per year and over 20 to 30 years, ones experience is based on 10 to 15 thousand charts, most of which are derived from a segment of population that one is surrounded by (unless one migrates a couple of times during this period). Compared to the close to 7 billion strong human population, the average astrologer’s experience represents a sampling rate of a paltry 1 out of 466667. Given that most (if not all) of us are individual nativities, for each chart that we see, there are 466666 charts that we have not had an opportunity to study. The sampling rate in part-time astrologers would be at least an order of magnitude lower (1500-2000 charts properly studied). Even those that claim to have seen 50000 charts over a lifetime have not really covered much ground (they have seen 1 in 140000 charts and missed out on seeing the 139999 charts for each chart studied). Yet, it is comforting to observe that despite such a meager spectrum of experience, most astrologers seem to perform well and even on occasion manage to be helpful to their clients through their advice. To me this seems to corroborate that there are few absolutes in astrology and perhaps there are more than a few deductive paths that lead to the answer. Even technical discrepancies such as widely diverse ayanamshas, different sets of preferred mixes of dashas and many other variables do not necessarily prove to be obstacles in ones path. This is very mystifying and yet heartening and we must remain grateful to the Wisdom that makes such performance possible. The downside is that if one tries to accommodate the different uncertainties too much into ones routine work-protocol (to appear to be scientific or neurotically comprehensive) or even jumps from one set of parameters to another without fully assimilating it, there is potential for confusion and loss in accuracy. It is wise to keep the mind open and to remain vigilant and to change ones approaches, especially during the initial learning phase, in tune with actual performance while combating the tendency to alter the toolbox out of panic or after an impressive and rather strong claim from even some famous astrologer. Astrologers, even accomplished teachers, tend not to give all the steps and details of how they reached a conclusion (a prediction that proved to come true afterwards). This is not from any desire to remain evasive, but because it is difficult to 'regenerate' all the steps that went into a chart delineation after it has been done. When we are looking at a given combination, the obvious and dominant theme remains established in our mind but there are other nuances of factors being taken into simultaneous consideration which leave a not too strong imprint and constitute missing but important gaps in the reconstructed analysis and synthesis of a reading. This varies from individual to individual and is a shortcoming that must be kept in mind. There is always more that goes on in a reading than is revealed or can be revealed. The ‘can be’ does not refer to the secretiveness openly confessed by some but in the obvious problem of trying to slow down a fast train so that movement of each spoke in the wheels become visible and each stroke of the piston can be accounted for. Reconstruction of the mental trace in a complex process, after the fact, is a major challenge as few realize. –
Rohini Ranjan Top | Astrology / Vedic Jyotish Published in arrangement with Crystal Pages, Ottawa. |
|
|
|
|
Analysis |
Architecture |
Astrology |
Ayurveda |
Book Reviews |
Buddhism |
Cartoons | Cinema |
Computing |
Culture |
Dances |
|
Home | Hindi | Bolography | BoloKids | Kabir | Poetry | Quotes | Workshop | Writers | Contribute | Search | Contact |
|
|