Guest guest Posted June 3, 2002 Report Share Posted June 3, 2002 Bonjour Marie The following was posted today to a French list of Vedic astrologers. I feel that it is relevant to English speaking astrologers. me It is an interesting attempt to calculate the longevity of the Queen mother by following the trends indicated by the planetary periods. To newcomers I can explain that regarding the Vimshottari system of planetary periods, there is a debate about what to follow, either 360 days in a year as advised in many books compiled some 5,000 years ago, or the 365.25 days that the sun takes at present to cover a revolution “around the earth”. There are some points in Vedic astrology, which are relative rather than absolute. The Vimshottari system is a relative knowledge, which is left open to the free will of the astrologer. In other words, every astrologer is free to follow either 360 or 365.25 days. Some scientists suspect that at a certain point in the past, the earth had a 360 days solar cycle, as higher planetary levels have including the highest where Lord Brahma lives. Astrology prescribes that we should do readings according to age, gender, time and circumstances. Therefore, we can find astrologers that follow the 365.25 days to go with the present times. But as I have said before, there is a freedom of choice in this regard. Although your study is well researched it does not probe much. Try to do a similar study with 100 horoscopes and you will see that the rules not always fit either the 360 or 365.25 days study in the system of planetary periods. Once upon a time i did a similar research with 100 well known horoscopes (that the time of birth is known) and only 85 fit the rules which i did follow, the other 15 were a puzzle. Therefore, we cannot convince any serious researcher with the results given by a single horoscope. First we have to make sure that the real time of birth is indicated, according to the Vedas, the exact time of birth is when the umbilical cord is cut, while in modern hospitals it is when the head comes out or when the baby cries. Second, regarding the time of death, only the creator knows that. Although we can do an astrology research about it, I am sure that we will never find a 100% accuracy. I do not know of any astrologer being 100% accurate in 100% of his/her predictions. A 70% accuracy is accepted and I have heard that B.V. Raman had that record, which is compared with any other science. Of course we can eliminate the meteorology science, which has about a 5% accuracy in the short term and in a long term, it has perhaps a 1% accuracy. amitiés Natabara Das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2002 Report Share Posted June 3, 2002 Hello Natabara, Regarding your comment: > > I do not know of any astrologer being 100% accurate in 100% of his/her predictions. A 70% accuracy is accepted and I have heard that B.V. Raman had that record, which is compared with any other science. Of course we can eliminate the meteorology science, which has about a 5% accuracy in the short term and in a long term, it has perhaps a 1% accuracy. > This is a little off the original topic on which you posted, but could you elaborate a little bit on what methodology you have used to capture astrologer accuracy using a simple percentage e.g. B.V. Raman's? In my understanding, it impossible to gauge astrologer accuracy using a simple percentage, especially in the sense that you have done - comparing it other sciences for e.g. meteorology. For example: 1) If a meteorologist in the Sahara desert predicts on each day of the year: "Tomorrow, it will not rain". He will be right about 360 days out of 365, since deserts rarely have rain, thereby making his accuracy (360 correct predictions)/(365 total predictions) = 98%. However, as is obvious, the prediction has absolutely no value, and hence the accuracy percentage is equally meaningless. Why is it meaningless? Because the outcome chosen by the meteorologist - "It will not rain" is, FAR AND AWAY, the most likely outcome anyway. Now take another example, a real one this time: 2) I dont know if you knew, or have heard of Richard Houck. He was an astrologer of repute in the US (he passed away in 2001). I happened to follow his political predictions. Early in 2000 (April, I think it was), he predicted that, of the 2 candidates for US president Bush and Gore, when he analyzed their charts on election day November 7 2000, he could not see EITHER of them winning. This baffled him completely, since it was unheard of that neither of the only two candidates in an election would win on election day. As it happened and as we all know, that turned out to be the only US presidential election in which the winner was only decided a month or more after Election Day. Now, this prediction (as opposed to the one earlier) really has value: Of the literally thousands of political 2 candidate elections that have been seen in the US over the past 50 years or so, NONE of them have NOT turned out a winner on the day they were supposed to. So, the outcome that "no winner will be found" is a highly improbable outcome - with a less than 1 chance in 1000 of occurring (if you take past history as proof). So my point is: It is not sufficient to simply take the number of correct predictions and divide that by the total number of predictions and use that as the "accuracy" of the science or the person practicing the science. You must also provide data describing the "quality" of the prediction in order to do justice to the science or the person practicing the science. If an astrologer makes even 20 out of 50 predictions correctly, and in each one of those 20 predictions, he correctly selects an exceedingly improbable outcome (with a 1 in 10000 chance of occurring for e.g.), then that astrologer should be regarded highly, even if his accuracy (as you seem to define it) is low. VAS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2002 Report Share Posted June 3, 2002 Om Namo Narayanaya, Just my two cents. There are Jyotishas who are almost (let's say to avoid apsolute values) 100 % right in their predictions. If we do not know them, that certainly does not mean that they are not..I remember, I was translating consultations here in Serbia, when Jyotishis from the TM movement came,(it was nearly 50-100 consulations). I can freely say that more than 90 % prediction made true with a Jyotishi named Ram Murti Tripathi. The rest (10 %) were not off the mark, just the timing went off a month or two, which I suppose is due to the wrong time which was not rectified. We talked a lot, and he gave prediction on the basis of my own chart, where exactly told when my father would fall ill and die (within a few days prediction was given which came true) However, he was very thourough, and detailed and prepared for the consultation well. So, my opinion is when a knowledgable jyotisha employs all the rules, the results are very accurate. My jyotish guru(Pt. Sanjay Rath), has so many times given the predictions on Varahamihira list (sjvc), which were remarkably correct and precise. Best wishes Zoran vedicastrostudent wrote: > Hello Natabara, > > Regarding your comment: > > > > > I do not know of any astrologer being 100% accurate in 100% of > his/her predictions. A 70% accuracy is accepted and I have heard > that B.V. Raman had that record, which is compared with any other > science. Of course we can eliminate the meteorology science, which > has about a 5% accuracy in the short term and in a long term, it has > perhaps a 1% accuracy. > > > > This is a little off the original topic on which you posted, but > could you elaborate a little bit on what methodology you have used to > capture astrologer accuracy using a simple percentage e.g. B.V. > Raman's? In my understanding, it impossible to gauge astrologer > accuracy using a simple percentage, especially in the sense that you > have done - comparing it other sciences for e.g. meteorology. For > example: > > 1) If a meteorologist in the Sahara desert predicts on each day of > the year: "Tomorrow, it will not rain". He will be right about 360 > days out of 365, since deserts rarely have rain, thereby making his > accuracy (360 correct predictions)/(365 total predictions) = 98%. > However, as is obvious, the prediction has absolutely no value, and > hence the accuracy percentage is equally meaningless. Why is it > meaningless? Because the outcome chosen by the meteorologist - "It > will not rain" is, FAR AND AWAY, the most likely outcome anyway. > > Now take another example, a real one this time: > > 2) I dont know if you knew, or have heard of Richard Houck. He was an > astrologer of repute in the US (he passed away in 2001). I happened > to follow his political predictions. Early in 2000 (April, I think it > was), he predicted that, of the 2 candidates for US president Bush > and Gore, when he analyzed their charts on election day November 7 > 2000, he could not see EITHER of them winning. This baffled him > completely, since it was unheard of that neither of the only two > candidates in an election would win on election day. As it happened > and as we all know, that turned out to be the only US presidential > election in which the winner was only decided a month or more after > Election Day. Now, this prediction (as opposed to the one earlier) > really has value: Of the literally thousands of political 2 candidate > elections that have been seen in the US over the past 50 years or so, > NONE of them have NOT turned out a winner on the day they were > supposed to. So, the outcome that "no winner will be found" is a > highly improbable outcome - with a less than 1 chance in 1000 of > occurring (if you take past history as proof). > > So my point is: It is not sufficient to simply take the number of > correct predictions and divide that by the total number of > predictions and use that as the "accuracy" of the science or the > person practicing the science. You must also provide data describing > the "quality" of the prediction in order to do justice to the science > or the person practicing the science. If an astrologer makes even 20 > out of 50 predictions correctly, and in each one of those 20 > predictions, he correctly selects an exceedingly improbable outcome > (with a 1 in 10000 chance of occurring for e.g.), then that > astrologer should be regarded highly, even if his accuracy (as you > seem to define it) is low. > > VAS > > Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat > : gjlist- > > > > Your use of is subject to -- Zoran Radosavljevic Jyotish Teacher at Shri Jagannath Vedic Centre mails: ahimsa ahimsa web address: http://www.sjvc.co.yu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2002 Report Share Posted June 3, 2002 Hello Natabara, In one year,the difference may be 5.25 days,but over 20-25 years it will be months.thus the beginning of a particular dasha or bhukti,will differ by months.So one should see when the effects of a dasha or bhukti manifest to decide what is right. From my practical experience,365.25 days is perfectly accurate.--I can confidently say this on the basis of my own chart. With best wishes, vivek. On Mon, 03 Jun 2002 natabara wrote : >Bonjour Marie > > > >The following was posted today to a French list of Vedic >astrologers. > > > >I feel that it is relevant to English speaking astrologers. > > > >me > > > >It is an interesting attempt to calculate the longevity of the >Queen mother by following the trends indicated by the planetary >periods. > > > >To newcomers I can explain that regarding the Vimshottari system >of planetary periods, there is a debate about what to follow, >either 360 days in a year as advised in many books compiled some >5,000 years ago, or the 365.25 days that the sun takes at present >to cover a revolution "around the earth". > > > >There are some points in Vedic astrology, which are relative >rather than absolute. The Vimshottari system is a relative >knowledge, which is left open to the free will of the >astrologer. > > > >In other words, every astrologer is free to follow either 360 or >365.25 days. > > > >Some scientists suspect that at a certain point in the past, the >earth had a 360 days solar cycle, as higher planetary levels have >including the highest where Lord Brahma lives. > > > >Astrology prescribes that we should do readings according to age, >gender, time and circumstances. > > > >Therefore, we can find astrologers that follow the 365.25 days to >go with the present times. > > > >But as I have said before, there is a freedom of choice in this >regard. > > > >Although your study is well researched it does not probe much. >Try to do a > >similar study with 100 horoscopes and you will see that the rules >not always > >fit either the 360 or 365.25 days study in the system of >planetary periods. > > > >Once upon a time i did a similar research with 100 well known >horoscopes (that the time of birth is known) and only 85 fit the >rules which i did follow, the other 15 were a puzzle. > > > >Therefore, we cannot convince any serious researcher with the >results given > >by a single horoscope. > > > >First we have to make sure that the real time of birth is >indicated, according to the Vedas, the exact time of birth is >when the umbilical cord is cut, while in modern hospitals it is >when the head comes out or when the baby cries. > > > >Second, regarding the time of death, only the creator knows >that. > > > >Although we can do an astrology research about it, I am sure that >we will never find a 100% accuracy. > > > >I do not know of any astrologer being 100% accurate in 100% of >his/her predictions. A 70% accuracy is accepted and I have heard >that B.V. Raman had that record, which is compared with any other >science. Of course we can eliminate the meteorology science, >which has about a 5% accuracy in the short term and in a long >term, it has perhaps a 1% accuracy. > > > >amitiés > >Natabara Das > > > > > _______ 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 June 12, 2002 Report Share Posted June 12, 2002 Dear Vas you <<This is a little off the original topic on which you posted, but could you elaborate a little bit on what methodology you have used to capture astrologer accuracy using a simple percentage e.g. B.V. Raman's? In my understanding, it impossible to gauge astrologer accuracy using a simple percentage, especially in the sense that you have done - comparing it other sciences for e.g. meteorology. For example: 1) If a meteorologist in the Sahara desert predicts on each day of the year: "Tomorrow, it will not rain". He will be right about 360 days out of 365, since deserts rarely have rain, thereby making his accuracy (360 correct predictions)/(365 total predictions) = 98%. However, as is obvious, the prediction has absolutely no value, and hence the accuracy percentage is equally meaningless. Why is it meaningless? Because the outcome chosen by the meteorologist - "It will not rain" is, FAR AND AWAY, the most likely outcome anyway.>> me Of course i am not an idiot to measure the accuracy of predictions from a meteorologist that predicts that it is not going to rain in my bedroom in the next 10 years. Actually I have based my sayings from an article read in the Astrological Magazine, about publishing the best predictions made by Raman. The author was saying that although Raman was very humble in character, and that he never claimed to be 100% accurate, it could be estimated that he was about a 70% accurate, taking into account the thousands of predictions made by him in his long career. The author was saying that modern sciences can be about a 70% accurate excepting meteorology. A friend of mine, a professional meteorologist, told me that the British meteorologists are the most advanced and accurate in that science. By taking into consideration their "weather predictions", anybody can see that their accuracy requires something. My own teachers never claim to be 100% accurate, because as they say, we must consider that Krishna has the last word. Also, Mother Lakshmi coursed astrologers that they were going not going to be accurate in their predictions. You <<Now take another example, a real one this time: 2) I dont know if you knew, or have heard of Richard Houck. He was an astrologer of repute in the US (he passed away in 2001). I happened to follow his political predictions. Early in 2000 (April, I think it was), he predicted that, of the 2 candidates for US president Bush and Gore, when he analyzed their charts on election day November 7 2000, he could not see EITHER of them winning. This baffled him completely, since it was unheard of that neither of the only two candidates in an election would win on election day. As it happened and as we all know, that turned out to be the only US presidential election in which the winner was only decided a month or more after Election Day. Now, this prediction (as opposed to the one earlier) really has value: Of the literally thousands of political 2 candidate elections that have been seen in the US over the past 50 years or so, NONE of them have NOT turned out a winner on the day they were supposed to. So, the outcome that "no winner will be found" is a highly improbable outcome - with a less than 1 chance in 1000 of occurring (if you take past history as proof). >> me I think that we have to take into consideration that we as astrologers have to "read" what the horoscope says. In our linear thought, we are conditioned to think in two faces; the winner and the no winner. In the example of the past elections that you have mentioned, it is debatable about who was the winner, because we can say that none was the winner. Officially, we may be told that A was the winner, but unofficially we know that B was the winner. I think that the winner was the people that were given the opportunity to see the democratic circus at its best. You are free to think whatever you want, but in this case, a lot of people are divided about the final verdict. And not only ask your country men, ask foreign people as well, and you may be surprised to hear that there was not a real winner. You <<So my point is: It is not sufficient to simply take the number of correct predictions and divide that by the total number of predictions and use that as the "accuracy" of the science or the person practicing the science. You must also provide data describing the "quality" of the prediction in order to do justice to the science or the person practicing the science. If an astrologer makes even 20 out of 50 predictions correctly, and in each one of those 20 predictions, he correctly selects an exceedingly improbable outcome (with a 1 in 10000 chance of occurring for e.g.), then that astrologer should be regarded highly, even if his accuracy (as you seem to define it) is low.>> me My point is that Vedic astrology is a divine science, and therefore, it is not under any faulty and imperfect rule coming from an imperfect human science. We cannot grasp in our fist a divine science. It is possible for example, to evaluate some astrological rules under a percentage, by following some guidelines, but just to give an idea. It is not possible to try to measure a divine science with an imperfect approach. To the real astrologer, there is not need of percentages. His/her intuition is the best tool than mundane measurements. Perhaps accuracy is needed when trying to sell your goods, but we are not in the business of making money out of this science, just a living according to our karma. The materialistic may demand hard evidence, but here we are dealing with faith. If Krishna wants to provide the evidence to the materialistic, it will do so accordingly. I have heard before the argument from a materialistic person, against an astrologer that "dared" to give and "estimate". The person wanted "exact" numbers. Although the materialist person is conditioned to think in "exact" measurement, he/she may find hard to understand from a subtle science. I have never hear someone saying "I am 37.57% or 89.53% accurate". I think that I have recover a 70% of my faculties after a 14-month of recovering from an illness. Give or take 5%. Can any doctor verify if I am accurate?, can I?. Impossible. It is a rough estimate and any mentally sane person knows about that. It is just an estimate. Best wishes Natabara Das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2002 Report Share Posted June 13, 2002 Dear Vivek you <<Hello Natabara, In one year,the difference may be 5.25 days,but over 20-25 years it will be months.thus the beginning of a particular dasha or bhukti,will differ by months.So one should see when the effects of a dasha or bhukti manifest to decide what is right. From my practical experience,365.25 days is perfectly accurate.--I can confidently say this on the basis of my own chart.>> me Yes, it is my belief as well, but there is not absolute rules about taking 360 days or else, it is just left open to intuition. Best wishes Natabara Das 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.