Guest guest Posted May 14, 2002 Report Share Posted May 14, 2002 DEAR LIST MEMBERS,---I am surprised that so many people misinterpreted my question.It seems that many people do not know the distinction between LAGNA and MOON. LAGNA is the sign ascending on the eastern horizon.It is calculated using the concept of sidereal time. MOON is the planet(or satellite of earth in astronomy) which governs mind,mother,etc. What exactly I meant is---- LAGNA at conception=POSITION OF MOON at birth. FOR EXAMPLE-- AT THE TIME OF CONCEPTION LAGNA 21'19 degrees saggitarius moon 09'43 degrees cancer AT THE TIME OF BIRTH lagna 15'14 degrees aries MOON 21'19 degrees saggitarius I DID NOT MEAN THE FOLLOWING--- (1) lagna is the same at the time of conception and birth (2) the moon is at the same position at CONCEPTION and BIRTH. (3) The time between conception and birth is fixed and exact in all cases.It does not vary. (4) Karma applies from the time of conception. (5) karma applies from the time of birth. EVEN THOUGH I DID NOT MEAN ANY OF THE ABOVE,THIS IS HOW SOME MEMBERS OF THE LIST INTERPRETED MY QUESTION.THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE DISCUSSION SHIFTED TO OTHER TOPICS AND THE ORIGINAL QUESTION DISAPPEARED. Someone also asked--how can the exact time of conception be proven?-----I did not even say that the exact time can be found out.I just said that two things coincide. REGARDING PROVING THINGS---vedic astrology is not an empirical science where you do research and prove things. It is transcendental knowledge or a divine science which has to be accepted.---the eight house in a horoscope governs longevity(everyone knows this) but can you prove it? The original question is below.I hope someone can throw more light on my question. WITH BEST WISHES,VIVEK. On Sat, 11 May 2002 Vivek wrote : >DEAR LIST MEMBERS--It seems my question has not been >understood.There is a definite time of conception which is >about >280 days prior to birth.If one were to take into account the >exact >time and place of this conception and find the lagna(sign >ascending on the east),--will it coincide with the position of >the >moon in the birth chart? >For example---in my horoscope,the moon is at 3'15 degrees >scorpio.therefore at the time of conception,the sign ascending >on >the east was 3'15 degrees scorpio. >-------I remember reading this somewhere long back.I am not >sure >if it is true or not.----REGARDS,VIVEK. > >On Sun, 05 May 2002 Vivek wrote : > >Dear list members, > > I have heard that the position of the >moon > >in > >the birth chart is the lagna at the time of conception---is >it > >true? > >can the time of conception be calculated?--if so,what would >be > >the > >significance of the conception chart? > > best regards, > > vivek. > >_______ > >Click below to visit monsterindia.com and review jobs in >India > >or > >Abroad > >http://monsterindia.rediff.com/jobs > > > > > > > > > >Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat > >: > >gjlist- > > > > > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > > > > > >_______ >Click below to visit monsterindia.com and review jobs in India >or >Abroad >http://monsterindia.rediff.com/jobs > > > > >Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat >: >gjlist- > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > _______ Click below to visit monsterindia.com and review jobs in India or Abroad http://monsterindia.rediff.com/jobs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2002 Report Share Posted May 15, 2002 There is a book that I found in a used bookstore several years ago that gives techniques to find the time of conception. "The Prenatal Epoch" Author E.H. Bailey Published 1916 reprinted 1974 ISBN 0-87728-010-X1 Library of Congress C.C. # 74-16458. I would have to, and may, reread it to remember what was written. Skimming I did find this list - 1 - Moon at birth incresing in light, it will be the ascending degree at the epoch and the moon at the epoch will be the degree ascending at birth 2 - Moon at birth decreasing in light, it will be the descending degree at the epoch and the moon at the epoch will be the degree descending at birth. 3 - Moon increasing and below earth or decreasing and above the earth, period of gestation will be longer than the norm. 4 - Moon increasing and above the earth or decreasing and below the earth, the period of gestation will be shorter than the norm. Margaret gjlist, "Vivek " <keviv90@r...> wrote: > DEAR LIST MEMBERS,---I am surprised that so many people > misinterpreted my question.It seems that many people do not know > the distinction between LAGNA and MOON. > LAGNA is the sign ascending on the eastern horizon.It is > calculated using the concept of sidereal time. > MOON is the planet(or satellite of earth in astronomy) > which governs mind,mother,etc. > What exactly I meant is---- > LAGNA at conception=POSITION OF MOON at birth. > FOR EXAMPLE-- > AT THE TIME OF CONCEPTION > LAGNA 21'19 degrees saggitarius > moon 09'43 degrees cancer > > AT THE TIME OF BIRTH > lagna 15'14 degrees aries > MOON 21'19 degrees saggitarius > > I DID NOT MEAN THE FOLLOWING--- > (1) lagna is the same at the time of conception and birth > (2) the moon is at the same position at CONCEPTION and > BIRTH. > (3) The time between conception and birth is fixed and > exact in all cases.It does not vary. > (4) Karma applies from the time of conception. > (5) karma applies from the time of birth. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2002 Report Share Posted May 16, 2002 DEAR CHARLES---Empirical means ascending process ,where you do research,experiment,and form theories backed by experimental proof. Here you require proof first--then you accept. In vedic astrology,the process is descending--that is you have to first accept the whole thing with faith without asking for proof. Now,if an empirical scientist were told to learn astrology---He would immediately ask--(1)what proof is there that the sun is the indicator of soul and moon,mind? (2)why should I accept that certain houses have certain traits? (3)what basis do you have for vimshottari dasha? SHOW ME THE PROOF--ONLY THEN CAN I ACCEPT. It is only after learning the whole thing without questioning--and then applying it,you realise that it works.THUS ASTROLOGY IS NOT AN EMPIRICAL SCIENCE. REGARDS,VIVEK. On Wed, 15 May 2002 Charles Patirana wrote : >Dear Vivek: > >Regarding "proving things" according to your interpretation - If >you admit >that Jyotish is not an empirical science where you do research >and "prove" >things, what is the point of your whole argument? How can you >tell that your >are not deluding yourself with some preconceived notion you >have >assimilated? Here's one I just made up - "I believe a person's >sun sign at >conception to be the moon sign at death." > >IMHO, Jyotish is in fact a fairly accurate science with l _______ Click below to visit monsterindia.com and review jobs in India or Abroad http://monsterindia.rediff.com/jobs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2002 Report Share Posted May 16, 2002 Dear Vivek ~ you wrote: Empirical means ascending process The word Grace more accurately reflects your definition of ascending process. I was genuinely surprised to see the word Empirical in it's place. Perhaps it could be so, but only in the purest sense of the word. I am enjoying this particular thread of discussion. Thank you Vivek, Cynthia, Chris, Denise and everyone whom I have not mentioned for your contributions to the List. Warmly ~ Chandra Devi ~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2002 Report Share Posted May 16, 2002 Dear Vivek, Whether Jyotish is an empirical science or not is a moot point. My drift though, is a concern about polluting the field with false views by their acceptance on mere faith. You claimed in your initial post that you had learned that the moon sign at birth is the lagna at conception. Throughout the subsequent posts by yourself and other list-members, it became more than evident that you wanted some degree of affirmation in your views. However, just because the majority agrees or disagrees with a viewpoint does not make it correct. This incidentally, is the principal failing of many theistic faiths. There's a famous anecdote involving Albert Einstein and the Nazi regime that illustrates this as well. Since Einstein was Jewish, his views on relativity were persecuted by the Nazis. Hitler convened a conference of some 100 Nazi scientists to disprove Einstein's theory. Einstein shrugged it off, and responded laughingly that if he were wrong, just one scientist would be sufficient to disprove his views. I proposed a logical method to test your belief by means of a twin study. If there is in fact a situation where your belief fails, would you still argue that it is 100% true? That's like what Ptolemy did with his geocentric view of the universe - trying to use ever more complicated systems of epicycles and so on to account for planetary motion, when in fact he was wrong from the outset - the planets revolve around the sun - not the earth. Are you willing to accept that your views might be wrong and that you could be in fact deluding yourself? Charles >"Vivek " <keviv90 >gjlist >gjlist >Re: Re: [GJ] is it true? >16 May 2002 07:57:12 -0000 > >DEAR CHARLES---Empirical means ascending process ,where you do >research,experiment,and form theories backed by experimental >proof. Here you require proof first--then you accept. >In vedic astrology,the process is descending--that is you have to >first accept the whole thing with faith without asking for >proof. >Now,if an empirical scientist were told to learn astrology---He >would immediately ask--(1)what proof is there that the sun is the >indicator of soul and moon,mind? (2)why should I accept that >certain houses have certain traits? (3)what basis do you have for >vimshottari dasha? SHOW ME THE PROOF--ONLY THEN CAN I ACCEPT. >It is only after learning the whole thing without questioning--and >then applying it,you realise that it works.THUS ASTROLOGY IS NOT >AN EMPIRICAL SCIENCE. > REGARDS,VIVEK. > >On Wed, 15 May 2002 Charles Patirana wrote : > >Dear Vivek: > > > >Regarding "proving things" according to your interpretation - If > >you admit > >that Jyotish is not an empirical science where you do research > >and "prove" > >things, what is the point of your whole argument? How can you > >tell that your > >are not deluding yourself with some preconceived notion you > >have > >assimilated? Here's one I just made up - "I believe a person's > >sun sign at > >conception to be the moon sign at death." > > > >IMHO, Jyotish is in fact a fairly accurate science with l >_______ >Click below to visit monsterindia.com and review jobs in India or >Abroad >http://monsterindia.rediff.com/jobs > > > > >Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat >: gjlist- > > > >Your use of is subject to > > _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.