Tattva-viveka
Jyotish Astrology?
Igor - July 20, 2006 8:31 am
Yesterday I was in short visit to my friend Bojan who is vedic, Jyotish astrologer, disciple of astrologer Sanjay from Puri. I have never been interested in such things, but I got curious because he said that he belongs to line that is originate from Puri.
Can such Jyotish/Astrology advices or analysis be of any good for devotee? What should be our understanding of Jyotish? 
Thanks
Bhrigu - August 8, 2006 5:54 pm
In one of his Q&A-classes, Swami has said that jyotish can be useful, but that it will always be imperfect in the case of devotees since it ignores the most important planet of all -- Goloka. In other words, Krishna may influence the devotees life outside of the karmic realm.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - August 8, 2006 7:31 pm
Agree, still, laws of gravity apply to you if you are a devotee or not.
Hmmmm, Hanuman could fly though...
Anyhow, devotee should take any event in his life as a blessing, so it depends on type of astrology we are talking about. I personally had studied Western School of astrology and Zoroastrian astrological system for about 4 years and can tell you that Horar (answer to a question), Mundane (historical and political trends) and Natal (character and destiny of individuals) types of astrology are not that useful for a devotee. But Electional astrology (method of picking the best time to begin a new endeavor) is useful. Medical astrology could be of some value too. I did read several books on Jyotish (based on Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra) and found it quite fascinating and much deeper and more interesting then Western School, which is, by the way, derives from Jyotish. So I think that Jyotish as a divination tool should be ignored, but use of it to pick auspicious time to start a project can be utilized.
Swami - August 9, 2006 12:49 pm
So I think that Jyotish as a divination tool should be ignored, but use of it to pick auspicious time to start a project can be utilized.
Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja used it in this way. BSST was also an astrologer before taking diksa and I presume that after taking diksa he also used jyotish in this way.
Vinode Vani Dasa - August 27, 2006 4:02 am
Dear devotees,
Along the same lines as Igor's question, I have often wondered about such things as astrology myself. I can honestly I haven't the slightest tendency to believe any of it--and by saying this, I by no means intend any disrespect toward those who do. But what I wonder is whether it is a necessary point that must be accepted by someone who wants to be a devotee. More generally, where do we draw the line between that which is essentially part of the Gaudiya faith, and that which is not? It seems we all agree that a subservient role for women is not an essential part of our faith; is Vedic cosmology or astrology (or certain types of astrology)? What about modern science and the evidence (which is by no means trivial) for evolution? I understand that this question covers several different, perhaps controversial topics in one breath, but all of them relate to how a devotee views the material world. Is there an essential angle of vision by which the devotee sees everything in the material world? Or is this something that can vary from person to person?
Robertnewman - August 27, 2006 4:28 am
Is there an essential angle of vision by which the devotee sees everything in the material world? Or is this something that can vary from person to person?
I would say that both are true. Essentially, a devotee views the world as the energy of his beloved Lord, but that energy manifests differently from different angles of vision. I would never accept that belief in Vedic astrology, modern science, or any other specific system of material knowledge is an essential aspect of Vaisnava faith, because none of these systems is absolute. But any of them could play a legitimate role in a Vaisnava's world view if their relative nature is understood and kept subservient to what is absolute.
Swami - August 27, 2006 9:32 pm
Dear devotees,
Along the same lines as Igor's question, I have often wondered about such things as astrology myself. I can honestly I haven't the slightest tendency to believe any of it--and by saying this, I by no means intend any disrespect toward those who do. But what I wonder is whether it is a necessary point that must be accepted by someone who wants to be a devotee. More generally, where do we draw the line between that which is essentially part of the Gaudiya faith, and that which is not? It seems we all agree that a subservient role for women is not an essential part of our faith; is Vedic cosmology or astrology (or certain types of astrology)? What about modern science and the evidence (which is by no means trivial) for evolution? I understand that this question covers several different, perhaps controversial topics in one breath, but all of them relate to how a devotee views the material world. Is there an essential angle of vision by which the devotee sees everything in the material world? Or is this something that can vary from person to person?
There is another thread discussing evolution here (http://tattvaviveka.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=105&hl=evolution) that may be helpful.
The answer to your question in one sense depends upon the advancement of the devotee. Less advanced devotees will either take everything in the Bhagavata literally, if doing so fosters faith and thereby spiritual practice. Others who are trying to harmonize their heart with their head will not take everything in the Bhagavatam literally in as much as not doing so fosters their faith and thereby spirtual practice (there is much to be said about this approach).
Spiritual practice is what is essential.
Ultimately one will view the world through the lens of bhava—the ripened fruit of spiritual practice—which turns everything upisde down. For in the drama of Krsna-lila astrology, Vedic cosmology, and what might be called superstition, etc. is prominent, and the folly of trying to fit the world within the fist of one's intellect is realized.
Bhrigu - August 30, 2006 11:06 am
Spiritual practice is what is essential.
It could be fruitful to discuss this further, since this raises many question. What really is spiritual practice? For example, the HBV is all about spiritual practice, but we probably all agree that parts of it isn't essential today. Or is spiritual practice the 64 limbs of sadhana-bhakti? We don't consider all of them that essential either. I would be very interested in hearing more about this subject.