Why astrology has failed to serve the purpose it was supposed to serve
Following stipulation is the cornerstone of astrology.
“It is possible to know what is going to happen in our life in advance for the whole of our life because we can calculate which planets shall occupy which segments of the ecliptic on any date if we may discover what sort of things are supposed to happen in our life depending on which segments of the ecliptic are occupied by which planets on any date at any particular time when we may look up at the sky from the place where we may be living if we know what is our “Birth Sign” and also know which planets occupied which segments of the ecliptic at the time of our birth if we would have looked up at them from the place of our birth.”
Though on the surface, everything appears to be quite at its place about this stipulation but the fact is — it is not, at all, so.
For instance, same types of things do not happen in everybody’s life even if their Birth Signs may be same and same planets may be occupying same segments of the ecliptic for all of them.
Same type of things may occur at the most in about 20% cases out of them or maybe at the best — in about 30% to 40% cases only but very rarely in 100% cases.
But it is not enough for the astrologers to tell only “What is expected to happen”.
They should be also able to tell what may be the probability of the predictions being CORRECT.
But as we know, there is no such provision in astrology because of the simple reason that when the master data of what may happen when any particular planets occupied certain segments of the ecliptic, nobody tagged such observations with the percentage of cases in which such things should have been found to have occurred.
Everything would have gone fine only if they had also tagged such data with the corresponding percentages of the times the same things were found to have happened or the percentages of the times the same things were not found to have happened.
IF SUCH CORRELATION-COEFFICIENTS WOULD HAVE BEEN TAGGED — IT WOULD HAVE ENABLED THE ASTROLOGERS TO TELL THE EXTENT TO WHICH ONE COULD EXPECT THE ASTROLOGICAL PREDICTIONS TO BE CORRECT.
THE PREDICTIONS COULD HAVE BEEN CORRECT IN 100% CASES ONLY IN THE CASES FOR WHICH THE VALUE OF SUCH COEFFICIENT MAY HAVE BEEN “1.0”.
ANOTHER REASON WHY ASTROLOGY HAS FAILED TO SERVE THE PURPOSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO SERVE
The fact is, “Zodiac Watch” is also a type of watch only — much of the same type as the analog watch we have been wearing on our wrists until digital watches did not make an entry into the market.
The following diagram shows — what the “Zodiac Watch” looks like.
Appearance-wise, there is not much difference between how the Zodiac Watch looks and how an analog watch looks like.
In the same manner as the numbers 1 thru’ 12; are inscribed around the wrist watch; the ecliptic of the Earth, too, has been divided exactly into twelve segments as shown in the following diagram.
We may say — in the same way as the three needles of a wrist watch enable us to calculate the hours, the minutes and the seconds; each planet also serves as a needle of the zodiac watch.
So, though a wrist watch has only three needles, the Zodiac Watch has nine needles.
According to astrology, the type of things that may happen in our life depends on the position of various celestial bodies namely the Sun, Mercury, Venus, Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune which appear to be revolving around the Earth when we look at them.
LOGICALLY, IN THE SAME WAY AS WE DON’T GET ANY HINT FROM THE POSITION OF THE THREE NEEDLES OF THE WRIST WATCH ABOUT WHAT WE MAY BE DOING WHEN ITS NEEDLES MAYBE PLACED BETWEEN ANY SPECIFIC NUMBERS; IT SHOULD BE ALSO NOT POSSIBLE TO GET ANY HINT ABOUT WHAT MAY HAPPEN IN OUR LIFE BASED ON THE POSITION OF THE ASTROLOGICAL PLANETS IN THE ECLIPTIC.
SO IT IS ONLY A MISGIVING TO ASSUME THAT IT SHOULD BE POSSIBLE TO PREDICT WHAT MAY HAPPEN IN OUR LIFE BASED ON THE HOUSES OCCUPIED BY VARIOUS PLANETS.
Not only astrologers shouldn’t have assumed that it should be possible to predict what may happen in our life based on the houses occupied by various planets, there is a snag even in the manner in which they decide what may be the “Birth Sign” of anybody.
THE SNAG IN THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ASTROLOGERS DECIDE WHAT MAY BE THE BIRTH SIGN OF SOMEBODY
We may find our “Birth Sign” with the help of the following type of table which shows which constellation arises in the sky between which dates of the year.
Thus if Taurus may have arisen in the sky on the day somebody may have born, his “Birth Sign” would be “Taurus”.
But look at the above table once again.
It shows the dates between which all the thirteen constellations ascend into the sky — not just twelve of them.
Is it possible to divide the year into twelve parts to suit only twelve constellations chosen by most of the astrologers for dividing the ecliptic?
SOME MORE REASONS WHY ASTROLOGY HAS FAILED TO SERVE THE PURPOSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO SERVE
REASON # 1
No doubt, since we know the abscissas of the orbits of all astrological planets as well as their speeds; once we know what may have been their position at the time when we should have born; it is possible to calculate which houses they may occupy on different dates — thereafter.
But the main pitfall lies in the decision taken by the astrologers that we can find out the aspects related to the physique, the appearance and the personality of an individual based on the planets that may have occupied the First House on the day someone should have born.
Likewise, we may find out the aspects related to someone’s own financial status and income based on the planets that may occupy the Second House; the aspects related to someone’s own communication skills based on the planets that may occupy the Third House; the aspects related to someone’s own Home Life based on the planets that may occupy the Fourth House; the aspects related to someone’s own Romance and Self Expression based on the planets that may occupy the Fifth House; the aspects related to someone’s own Wellness and Daily Routine based on the planets that may occupy the Sixth House; the aspects related to someone’s partnerships based on the planets that may occupy the Seventh House and so on.
Just think, could the aspects covered by, say, the Second House have not been assigned to some House other than the Second House?
Or the aspects assigned to some House other than the Second House could have not been assigned to it?
Or whether there was some logic behind assigning these very aspects to various houses?
Various aspects could have been assigned in many different ways. So unless there is a basis based on which such aspects should have been assigned, we may deem it as another lapse in the concepts based on which various models of astrology have been developed.
REASON # 2
Just look at the following diagram.
It shows that the houses various planets may occupy depends on the latitude and the longitude of the place from where we may look at them.
Therefore aspects of the twelve houses shall not be the same if a person may keep on living at the same place where he or she should have born and if he (or she) may settle down in some other city or some other country.
Though people may have not been changing the city or the country in the past, is it not a very common feature nowadays that people change the place where they live very often?
So things which may be predicted based on an assumption that a person may keep on living where he or she should have born shall not hold good in the people who may migrate elsewhere.
Though a provision had been made in astrology to predict who may leave the country and settle down elsewhere; in all such cases, it is difficult to believe that what may happen in our life if we keep on living where we may have born may happen in our life even if we may start living at a different place.
SO DON’T YOU THINK — CLASSIC ASTROLOGY MAY BE USED FOR PREDICTING ONLY SUCH THINGS WHICH DEPEND ON THE THINGS WHICH MAY HAVE NOT UNDERGONE ANY CHANGE SINCE THE DAYS WHEN ASTROLOGY SHOULD HAVE COME INTO EXISTENCE?ave
REASON # 3
The Indian astrologers even developed a system of treating some planets as malefic and some of them as benefic.
According to them, if Venus, Mercury and Saturn may occupy the first house, they behave like malefic (unfriendly) planets and if Sun, Mars and Jupiter may occupy the first house, they behave like benefic (friendly) planets.
If any person may have some malefic planet in the first house; he or she is not expected to have as good appearance and as good personality as the persons who may be having a benefic planet in the first house, may have.
Likewise, if Moon, Jupiter and Venus may occupy the second house, they treat it as a malefic planet and if Sun, Mercury, Mars or Saturn may occupy it, they treat it as a benefic planet.
In the same way, all other houses also have some malefic planets and some benefic planets on the same pattern.
Do you think — it makes sense to treat some planets as malefic and some of them as benefic?
REASON # 4
While the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn are supposed to be male planets, Mercury and Uranus are supposed to be neuter — Moon, Venus and Neptune are supposed to be female planets.
IS IT NOT RIDICULOUS TO HAVE ENTERTAINED ANY SUCH IDEA?