A review of "The World´s Oldest Astrological Book: The Bhrigu Samhita of Ancient India"
This Kindle book contains two short articles on Vedic
astrology. One is authored by comparative religion scholar David Christopher
Lane, a former supporter of the Hindu-Sikh Radhasoami tradition. The other is
excerpted from J Gordon Melton's “Encyclopedia of Occultism and
Parapsychology”, but I suppose Lane might be the real author of the entry
(which mentions him in third person).
Both pieces deal with an ancient astrological treatise still used in India, the Bhrigu Samhita. The book is said to have miraculous properties, being transcribed directly from the Akashic records (a kind of supersensible cosmic memory). When David Lane consulted the astrologers at Hoshiarpur in the Punjab, they found an ancient manuscript leaf which contained correct information about Lane's life, and even a more or less accurate rendition of Lane's name into Sanskrit! The astrologers had no way of knowing that Lane would arrive, found the leaf within 20 minutes, and even gave Lane the leaf itself (he subsequently lost it).
This may or may not be true. I've heard from two other sources (Osho on Youtube and my comparative religion teacher at the university) that the Bhrigu Samhita is really based on “cold reading”, the astrologers sometimes interviewing their clients before producing the “correct” leaf, or simply guessing based on long experience. Osho also claims that since each Sanskrit word has at least a dozen meanings, virtually any “translation” of the old manuscript pages can be offered.
The interesting thing about Lane's articles is that they – provided that they are reasonably accurate descriptions of what actually happened – don't claim that cold reading took place, indeed *rule out* the possibility altogether. There doesn't seem to be any reasonable natural explanation for Lane's strange experience with the Bhrigu. Yet, in a postscript, he nevertheless writes that astrology is bunk and that he never believed a word of it anyway!
I found this psychologically fascinating. Lane had a genuinely inexplicable experience, and yet chooses to disregard it, because…well, because he doesn't like the implications. I will keep this pamphlet in mind if and when I experience something hard-to-believe myself. As C S Lewis would no doubt say: “Seeing isn't believing” and “Really, we are hard to please”…
Thank you, David Lane. Sort of.
Both pieces deal with an ancient astrological treatise still used in India, the Bhrigu Samhita. The book is said to have miraculous properties, being transcribed directly from the Akashic records (a kind of supersensible cosmic memory). When David Lane consulted the astrologers at Hoshiarpur in the Punjab, they found an ancient manuscript leaf which contained correct information about Lane's life, and even a more or less accurate rendition of Lane's name into Sanskrit! The astrologers had no way of knowing that Lane would arrive, found the leaf within 20 minutes, and even gave Lane the leaf itself (he subsequently lost it).
This may or may not be true. I've heard from two other sources (Osho on Youtube and my comparative religion teacher at the university) that the Bhrigu Samhita is really based on “cold reading”, the astrologers sometimes interviewing their clients before producing the “correct” leaf, or simply guessing based on long experience. Osho also claims that since each Sanskrit word has at least a dozen meanings, virtually any “translation” of the old manuscript pages can be offered.
The interesting thing about Lane's articles is that they – provided that they are reasonably accurate descriptions of what actually happened – don't claim that cold reading took place, indeed *rule out* the possibility altogether. There doesn't seem to be any reasonable natural explanation for Lane's strange experience with the Bhrigu. Yet, in a postscript, he nevertheless writes that astrology is bunk and that he never believed a word of it anyway!
I found this psychologically fascinating. Lane had a genuinely inexplicable experience, and yet chooses to disregard it, because…well, because he doesn't like the implications. I will keep this pamphlet in mind if and when I experience something hard-to-believe myself. As C S Lewis would no doubt say: “Seeing isn't believing” and “Really, we are hard to please”…
Thank you, David Lane. Sort of.
No comments:
Post a Comment