I had forecast for someone the appearance of a significant boyfriend, and I even gave certain descriptors for him.
Sure enough, a man with these qualities appeared in her life rather quickly, but then he broke off the relationship.
The woman wrote to me with an excellent question: "Am I doing something wrong, am I missing the signs? I’d really like your perspective on this."
My reply was: "That is a pretty deep question. I think the answer is something like the following.
We have to respect the weather patterns and understand that a boyfriend for you, a teacher for you, a pet for you, and so on are manifestations of the patterns, and not really proof or dis-proof of the patterns.
Remember that we are meteorologists really with Jyotish, and not miners. That would be going in the wrong direction.
So, bottom line: keep going with your beliefs and co-create him, allow him, give space to him. There is still time."
Indeed, there is still plenty of time even within the original forecast for the meeting to occur.
Sometimes, I think that we try to force astrological information into manifestation, like the miner, instead of allowing the ripening of, the blossoming of, the field of manifestation.
Various ancient astrologers were polymaths and scientists, and rishis. Some may have had what others today would call religious or superstitious beliefs, but for them it was paradigms of how to think about the world, just like there are paradigms for how contemporary people think about the world. Imagine what people thousands of years in the future will think about our so-called educated, rational, scientific beliefs through the paradigms of today. The immature ones in that future age will ridicule our "scientific" superstitions that are considered rational and sophisticated today - which will be called "superstitious rubbish," by them.
Concerning the epistemology of the science of today: Hume brought to attention the problem of induction, and the example of grue emeralds by Nelson Goodman is based along that same epistemological problem for science. Popper attempted to refute Goodman by stating that scientific theories need to be based on real things, however, this is not a refutation of the problem, only the example was refuted, and Popper missed the epistemological point entirely. The problem is how do we know which scientific theory is based on real phenomenon, or that the phenomenon is even understood correctly? Consider Ptolemy's epicycles in regards to Popper's attempt to refute the problem of induction. Also, we can never be sure with perceptions, nor can we be sure with conceptions - why must nature conform to the intellect of humans? Popper, however, agreed with Hume that induction is not logical. The Jain epistemology is more subtle than this.
If scientists say their beliefs are rational they ought to study epistemology to understand their own position better. If scientists say their beliefs are more believable than say, a religious scripture, because the scientific method is self-corrective and they point to the 'evidence' of a theory being correct, as proof of the theory - but the theory was formulated based on that evidence - as to why we should believe that theory, then they are using the logic fallacy of petitio principii. Scientists say we should believe scientific theories because they are self-corrective - that is to say: temporary and false. In other words, we should believe scientific theories because they are temporary and false. This is quite clearly irrational, and yet it is a common paradigm taught in our society - it is these type of paradigms, combined with the scientific theories of today, which are surely heading towards ridicule in the future millennia.