Hello, > http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/astrology.html
My entire description about astrology differs to that of what astrology , which is mentioned in the above document.To the extend which is mentioned in the document, it says astrology as barely a superficial predicting practice without any scientific basis.I differ with the document on the question "what is astrology" To supplement my point i would like to quote the url http://ignca.nic.in/nl002503.htm which talks about "DATING THE KURUKSHETRA WAR". "Dr. R. Subramaniam in his observations also agreed that there was a need to develop a critical editions of the verses with interpretations in consensus with astronomy, history, archaeology, Sanskrit astrology and mathematics. He suggested that verifications should take into account occurrence of double eclipse, Saturn in Rohini and the use of all available software and data. Another valid point he raised was the absence of direct reference to winter solstice in the Mahabharata. Once that is available it was felt that 'everything could be nailed.'" This is what the study of Samhita is, or correlation of various information present in "history, archaeology, Sanskrit astrology and mathematics", to this context i said Astrology is a science. I disagree to that fact that to just count astrology as a superficial prediction practice.While Vedic astrology had astronomy, samhita and hora,till this day ,indian astrology holds the components what are mentioned in the Vedic astrology. cheers, Thyagarajan Shanmugham _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe <password> <address>" in the subject or body of the message. http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
