Guest guest Posted May 21, 2002 Report Share Posted May 21, 2002 > I dont think there is any point in arguing about what should be the > length of the year. Lets try to apply the 360-tithi year on > different charts and look for the statistical evidence if it holds. Dear Prasad, I dont like to apply sunken statistical tools/deviation- s/corelation co-efficients. One should rather look in divine way. Daivagnya-s are aware of ton-s of exceptions Astrology does not fit into the *finite axiomatic world* and Aristotle logic of duality. You can see countless pandiTa-s in India, who do not know a cent of english, nor kepler/newton's laws can predict accurately. Are they using all these software? How about Omens? Apply the sunken statistics in this regard. Regards, VR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2002 Report Share Posted May 21, 2002 Namaste, > This is not the year you have been defending. You mentioned in > earlier posts 360 tithi year, which is about 354 days. I am not defending any year right now. I am only giving references to multiple years in classics to show that there is no clear answer. Personally, I have a preference, but I don't have a strong case for any year and hence not defending anything right now. > This year was apparently rounded off in a five year period with an > extra month, not in a three year period as the tithi year. > http://www1.shore.net/~india/ejvs/ejvs0304/ejvs0304.txt > > If you are going to argue for this 360 solar day year, I can't argue > against since the translator Sharma is of the opinion that this is > the year which Parasara means. But I understood from an earlier post > that "varsha" means solar year (6 Ritus/12 signs = 1 Varsha). This is only a misconception. Sanskrita has various words for year that can be interchangably used. Varsha does not mean a solar year. Parasara mentioned the word "varsha" to mean 360-day years in Shadbalas. Under Kala Bala of Shadbalas, Parasara covered 3 different calendars: (1) Solar calendar: The ayana (6 month) bala is based on this (2) Lunar calendar: The paksha (half month) bala is based on this (3) Fixed calendar: The varsha, maasa, dina and hora balas are all based on this. Here a year of 360 civil days, a month of 30 civil days and a dina of 1 civil day are used. May Jupiter's light shine on us, Narasimha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2002 Report Share Posted May 21, 2002 Pranaam Sanjaya, > Dear Narasimha > jaya Jagannath > You have not answered the point about the wait of Bheesma for the change in > the solar year. Do consider that as well. > The proof will come only if you attempt to study Yuga. > Best Wishes > Sanjay Rath First of all, Bhishma did not wait for a change in year. He waited for a change in ayana (6-month division). For ayana bala (of Shadbalas), Parasara clearly used the solar calendar. For paksha bala, he clearly used the lunar calendar. For varsha (annual), maasa (monthly), dina (daily) and hora (hourly) balas, he used the fixed savana calendar. If at all there is an argument in favor of a particular year based on Parasara's direct teachings, it is for the savana year. Bhishma's waiting for a change of ayana does not mean that solar calendar should be used for years. It only shows that the solar calendar should be used for ayanas (which we know anyway). Had he waited for a change in paksha, would you have said that there is a lesson in this in favor of lunar years? Though 360-tithi years have no other factors supporting them (and leave some unanswered questions), Bhishma and Pandavas clearly thought they were the right years. Those arguing that Bhishma finally lost should remember that so did Duryodhana and that Dharmaraja and Arjuna (who stood for 360-tithi years) won with Krishna's support. BTW, you haven't yet given the quote from Varahamihira. You claimed that you follow Varahamihira and hence use solar years. I requested you for a quote. May Jupiter's light shine on us, Narasimha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2002 Report Share Posted May 21, 2002 Your plainly extreme prejudice destroys your argument - whether it be right or not. Regards Gordon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2002 Report Share Posted May 21, 2002 > This year is used in China, so it might be older than > you think. This is not post-1500 BC creation as Indology idiots thought of. How late is late? > http://www.ichingwisdom.com/IChingWisdom/zodiac.html > > It's supposed to date from at least 1000 B.C. Vedic is older than 1000 B.C. Change your Indology school, if u really wanna know.There is plenty of records to know that bulk of Veda-s were collected & compiled by Parashara's son Vaishampaayana and his disciples about 5,000 years ago. New undersea archeological finds along coastal India are taking scientific proof only in that direction, it can not be wished away by "I know the facts" garbage of Indology. The Euro-linguistics monster has failed to eradicate countless of these records existing all over India. Now and then an idiot from this exclusive club visits India, searching to grab these records - if s/he finds one that fits the 18th century primitive European imagination, it is preserved in Oxford or Harvard; otherwise, by every means it is buried. And, thank God, every Pandit and now most of the English educated in India know the game of this European primitive tribe pretending scholarly. Rgds, VR > http://www.asia.si.edu/exhibitions/horse.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2002 Report Share Posted May 21, 2002 > Food for thought: WHat is Natural Cycle? Let me give few hints. Any natural cycle has mirror image in some parameter. Otherwise it is not natural. There are five such parameters: anna or material (a), prANa (p), mana (m), vijnAna (v), and Ananda (A). These are the pancha kosha-s of Upanishads or pancha janAH of RigvEda. Creation began with (A) and ended with (a). Our ancients said it dissolves in reverse process - another cycle of these very parameters! Examples: ardha maasa - astami to astami - moon phase (a) parameter maasa - shklanta or amanta - moon phase (a) parameter varsha - solstice to solstice - season (a) parameter samvatsara - mouth to chitra, chitra to pAda - (p) parameter 2 devayuga-s - satya-to-kali, kali-to-satya - (m) parameter 1000 devayuga-s - 14 ascending, 14 descending manvantara-s (v) parameter. These are my guesses. Need research. I have some faith that it must have been addressed by our sages, somewhere in our scriptures it might have been detailed. The only thing to keep in mind is that natural cycle is not limited to physical plane only. The 60+60(prabhava to kshaya + prabhava to kshaya) year cycle may be wrt one of these 5 natural parameters, probably not the first one. Regards, Shankara. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2002 Report Share Posted May 21, 2002 > Dear Narasimha > jaya Jagannath > You have not answered the point about the wait of Bheesma for the Dear Sanjay, In Shaanti parva after the war, Great Bheeshma waits 65 days on the bed of arrows for uttara ayana to come in maaGha maasa. These days uttara ayana begins on maargashira shasTi or sapthami. There was also an adhika maasa after the war in maargashira maasa. Was it really there, or was it inserted as an attempt to explain something else? So, this gives about (65 + 18 war days)x71 years = 5893 years (3891 BC) ago as the year of the war. I may be off in the day count by 2-3 days, so, we may say in this approximation, the war year as 4000 BC. If you skip the adhika maasa issue, it drops to (35 + 18)x71 = 3763 years ago/1761 BC. Can you comment in this regard Best Regards, Venkateswara Reddy > change in > the solar year. Do consider that as well. > The proof will come only if you attempt to study Yuga. > Best Wishes > Sanjay Rath > > > pvr108 [pvr@c...] > Tuesday, May 21, 2002 4:32 AM > vedic astrology > [vedic astrology] Re: Why vimshottari in 365.25 > > > Namaste, > > > Regarding Bhishma, I think one should not forget that he > > sided with Kauravas against Vishnu's avatar and was killed > > in that battle. > > Duryodhana, who insisted on taking solar years, too was killed in the > same battle. So, what does it prove? > > > So he was a sinner, and not infallible. And > > then when he was dying he waited until the solar year shifted > > to die. Maybe there is a hidden moral in that? > > OK, let us accept for a moment that Bhishma was a "sinner". What > about Arjuna and Dharmaraja? Dharmaraja was dharma personified and > was extremely righteous. He and Arjuna were aided by the "Vishnu's > avatar" that you mention. > > I am not arguing that this conclusively proves that 360-tithi years > are correct. I am only suggesting that the waters are muddied. :-) > > Those who say that they aren't should bear the burden of proof! Show > me an unambiguous quote or proof in favor of solar years. > > May Jupiter's light shine on us, > Narasimha > > > > > > > > > To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-@e... > > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... > > > > Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2002 Report Share Posted May 22, 2002 vedic astrology, "venkateshwara_reddy" <avenkat@m...> wrote: > > Since the Vedas mention the 13th month, I would say the opposite. I > > regard the Vedas somewhat higher, since the Mahabharata is a saga > > and not meant to teach astrology. > > > > Interestingly the word in Finnish for mead is "siima", quite > > similar to "soma". (There is also similar mythology about gods vs. > > Ahah! You seems to belongs to the Indology tribe and applying > silly "comparative linguistics". And these idiots claiming that > SamskR`tam is the derivative of some Indo-European language. Does > this stands to *scientific scrutiny*. Just fantastic indological > imagination only. No scientific proof! And, where does > misnomer 'Sanskrit' come from - which DhAtu, by what linguistic path? > apaBhramsha is not BhASA per pANini. > I was pointing out the similarities I recently discovered while reading the Vedas. I find it very unlikely that there was no contact, but I won't speculate on what kind of contact. Primarily because the similar mythology and not similar language. "Indra" was also the second-in-command of the gods (next to Agni), used ligthing against his enemies and slew the worm Vritra. And mead was the drink of the gods (made from apples). In Greece they also have similar stories. And then I extrapoltaed this into the year debate, since the year on this side was always solar. > > Members in this group may want to know this background: The > god of the so-called Euro-linguistics, Maxmuller, got a > smattering of sorts in Samskr`tam by reading the notes of a > puny lawyer (not scholar of any sorts) called Bill Jones, an I have not read or heard of either of one until now. But I know what the "party line" in India is, that there was no invasion. And I know that there is no archaeology supporting it. But I know also that Iranians have also similar mythology, with Agni-worship and Asuras (Ahuras) and Devas. And I know that Chinese have nothing of the kind. So I have not closed my mind to any possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2002 Report Share Posted May 22, 2002 vedic astrology, "venkateshwara_reddy" <avenkat@m...> wrote: > > This year is used in China, so it might be older than > > you think. > > This is not post-1500 BC creation as Indology idiots thought of. > How late is late? > > > > > http://www.ichingwisdom.com/IChingWisdom/zodiac.html > > > > It's supposed to date from at least 1000 B.C. > > Vedic is older than 1000 B.C. So what? I did not say anything else. The original poster said that using it as a year was recent, I said it has been used as a year at least in China for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2002 Report Share Posted May 22, 2002 Vyam Vysadevaya Namah ------------------------- Dear Viraj, I've seen many predictions using both, and even more techniques supporting them, however some people can explain anything using Vimshottari Dasa. Your basis for the time of death isn't convincing to me, as the matching of Vimshottari with the Gochara, can hardly be satisfactory to give a prediction unless the Natal chart positions actually support it.. and not just lagna. Besides with Vimshottari Dasa, the death will happen in a Maraka Dasa. Not the Dasa of the 8th house, which is a secondary Maraka, but no the actual killer. And then theres a question of the right variation, that suits the native best. Our Gurudeva, Sanjay Rath gives predictions using Solar years, down to PratyAntar Dasa's.. hence lets not go there. Instead lets focus on the basis for using Solar vs Lunar years. The DwadasaAditya is a very good place to start. Best wishes, Visti. - virajpat vedic astrology Wednesday, May 22, 2002 1:02 AM [vedic astrology] Re: Why vimshottari in 365.25 Dear Visti and list,The most natural answer to this would be to actually try the theory of different years with actual events in a person's life and see how it ties up. Perhaps you could suggest a chart with known time of death say and we could try and see what makes more sense.I was looking at the death time of a person who was running Venus dasa per 365.25 day year calculations when he died. This is not neccesarily a cause of death, so I looked at gochara and saw he had Saturn in 8th at the time. His Saturn shadbala was also highest in natal chart, with natal saturn in karkata. He was due to start Saturn sub-dasa in 1 year's (365.25) time. So dasa calc did not support his death. Now if I use 360 day years, then dasa and gochara both indicate bad times for the native. That is why I started having doubts abt the year length. What do you think?Viraj--- In vedic astrology, "Visti Larsen" <vishnu@l...> wrote:> Vyam Vysadevaya Namah> ------------------> Dear List,> A better argument would be to understand the results of the Dwadas-Aditya, and why a transit through all of them should be considered as being 1 year.> > Of the 33 Devas, the 8 Vasus consitute the facets of our being, the 11 Rudras shows the destruction, whilst the Dwadasa Aditya are responsible for the entire creation. For those counting; Prajapati and Indra are the last two devas.> > The DwadasAditya are responsible for the creation of everything material and this is also the reason why we see the Dwadasamsa(D-12) to see who created us!. This is why some call it Suryamsa. The Dwadas-Aditya are hence responsible for all events in life, whilst say Nakshetras, constitute prime facets of our being.> > We must anticipate that the Rishi's understood this in their time, hence this should also be our basis for discussion, and not what 'might' have been written in a book.> > Am in great anticipation of feedback.> Best wishes, Visti.> > - > cjjohans > vedic astrology > Tuesday, May 21, 2002 9:42 PM> [vedic astrology] Re: Why vimshottari in 365.25> > > vedic astrology, "pvr108" <pvr@c...> wrote:> > Namaste,> > > > > But the crux is what Parasara meant, since he does not mention > > tithi > > > anywhere to my knowledge (but does mention solar days at least in > > > Shadbhala), I would think he did not mean that.> > > > In shadbalas, the varsha bala or annual strength (strength of the > > year) is based on savana years (360-day years) and not based on the > > solar years. This is very clear from the text and there is luckily > no > > controversy so far.> > > This is not the year you have been defending. You mentioned in > earlier posts 360 tithi year, which is about 354 days. > > This year was apparently rounded off in a five year period with an > extra month, not in a three year period as the tithi year.> http://www1.shore.net/~india/ejvs/ejvs0304/ejvs0304.txt> > If you are going to argue for this 360 solar day year, I can't argue > against since the translator Sharma is of the opinion that this is > the year which Parasara means. But I understood from an earlier post > that "varsha" means solar year (6 Ritus/12 signs = 1 Varsha).> > > > May Jupiter's light shine on us,> > Narasimha> > > Sponsor > > > > > > Archives: vedic astrology> > Group info: vedic astrology/info.html> > To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-@e...> > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......> > || Om Tat Sat || Sarvam Sri Krishnaarpanamastu || > > Terms of Service.Archives: vedic astrologyGroup info: vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2002 Report Share Posted May 22, 2002 Dear Gordon and List members. I aint prejudiced against anybody/anything. Most of the people perceive this because their minds were already contaminated by primitive european works on India called Indology. No new writing aka 18th century primitive Europeans' Indology, can hide these facts, as more and more from their own stock are speaking up and writing/teaching on this (list members may read "An idiot's guide to Hinduism" by Linda Anderson to get a snapshot on how the new generation of Americans see Hinduism, its roots, history, Veda-s, and practices; this book is available in many Barns&Noles bookstores; it is being sold as hotcakes too). "Indology" will be unmasked by its own children in USA, just as 15th century Church was undone. Our secular indology minion brethren may very well be remembered as fine jokers of the world! As typical, the 18th century primitive European writers claim Manusmr`ti to be of Chaalukya time, and you know when that was - just yesterday - and the Indology slaves who never study the original Samskr`ta text are dishing out this 18th century Euro-mythology all the time! Let us not be fooled. In Various matters we need to check what the Veda-s say. Due to pedagogy and various paatakrama rules, Veda mantra-s have remained the same. It is impossible to distort their words. That was the genius of the Rishi-s. Westerners opine our sages did not know writing, so they resorted to memory, therefore it is called 'shruti', etc. all big rubbish. Person-to-person teaching and carrying down by memory is the best failsafe gaurd against mutilations. Writing alone would have distorted and wiped out the Veda-s long time ago, certainly the British burnt every ancient book they got hold of that went against their biblical theories. But the Veda-s were inside the head of countless pandita-s they could not wipe out, so they tried the next best by distorting Samskr`ta word and Veda mantra meanings. (a new Samskritha dictionary "Vaachaspathyam" with carefully distorted words) Let me give an example: ----------------------- "Krishna, one of the manifestations of God, has, in that book, branded women as offsprings of sin (paap-yoni) (Geeta : 9 : 32)" - This is a typical example of how MacCaulay slaves without knowing any trace of Geeta pronounce its meaning to suit their grand design of trashing Hinduism. The full shloka is as follows: Maam hi paartha vyapaashrithya Yeapi syuhu paapayonayaha Sthreeyo vaishyaasthathha shoodraastheapi Yaanthi paraam gatim | 9-32 Its meaning is: Because, O! Arjuna! Women, vaishyas, and shudras as well as those born as a result of paapa even later attain moksha by surrendering to Me. Where is this damnation by Shri Krishna of women in this shloka? All these disgusting MacCaulay slaves know that they can write any trash about Hinduism in English press and present to the equally uneducated English Hindus as some grand scholarly work. Another example: ---------------- Some posts from Indiancivilization dipicting Indra's ojasa as sperm (is the clear implication) R`shi kaNva saw. ojasa is no human sperm, as indology nuts claim. Such claim reflects the mind of these primitives, who saw wild sexual orgy in the Veda-s, just as pre-18th century Germans used to live, and most of west still do. They even used to kill their "useless" elderly to get rid of family burdens - read Zimmer for proof. This was then "discovered" in the Veda-s, Hindu samskaara-s, traditions, etc. Until these primitives' such discoveries, Indian scholars never saw KaNva's sperm in Veda-s nor killing their parents as a social custom. These MacCaulay-putras bastards also hide the fact that several sentences of these "non-scriptures" were erased and distortions were re-written by their mentors and hired Hindu slaves in Asiatic Society of Bengal and Asiatic Society of London during the 18th century. Even a new Samskritha dictionary "Vaachaspathyam", with careful distortions of many Vedic words, was compiled to trash "Amara Kosha", debase Vedas and smrithigranthas, and uproot Hinduism. Apte is continuing this holy job now. Anyway, it is another sorry subject. I am NOT here to argue with anybody. Just presenting plain facts to the list members, before their minds CONTAMINATED by ASURI views. English libraries on India are decorated with such works. Serious, sincere student of history and history writings can not miss these factual constructs in such writings. Real nonsense from indology minions whose preoccupation is names, titles, and anything big and intimidating, not subject matter! I am not fooled from their sacred approach. R`shi-s haven't left their titles nor biography, and we aren't missing something as a result. Why are these Aristotelian features so important for those who are seekers of true knowledge? Stick to points sid hart A NOTE to the Idiots, who claim that bhaarata sages of yore *were* not aware of trans-Saturnian planets(Uranus, Neptune, PLuto): The 7 layers of Brahma's mind is really the 7 chakra-s or pariDhi-s the universe is made of - chandra mandala, bhoo mandala, aaditya mandala, soma mandala, vahni mandala, paremesTi mandala, and brahmaanda. Inside brahmaanda, there are many paramesTi mandala-s (super galaxy clusters). In each paramesTi mandala, there are many vahni mandala-s (galaxy clusters), and so on.... All these flow from Rigveda, asyavAmIya sooktam (Rik mandala 1, astaka 2, sooktam 164). It has 54 mantra-s. I will need few years to understand these. TIME has come to GROW UP. Best Regards, Venkateswara Reddy > Dear Venkateswara Reddy > Your plainly extreme prejudice destroys your argument - whether it be right > or not. > Regards > Gordon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2002 Report Share Posted May 22, 2002 Dear Visti, You addressed Creation in your message. Let me add few points: The universe is made of -chandra mandala -BhU mandala -Aditya mandala Astronomically the aaditya mandala (solar family as a whole) goes one round in 24 million years.Shastra-s name aaditya mandala's aDhipati as brahma (not creator Brahma). -sOma mandala The solar/Aditya mandala family, as it is spinning, is also going around our galactic center - it is the milkyway - called sOma mandala (no material connection to our moon - our galaxy is white too - also, sa+uma = sOma) - making one round in just over 10 of its ahoraatri cycles (about 250 million years). Shastra-s name sOma mandala's aDhipati as viSNu (not mahA viSNu) -vahni mandala vahni mandala has our and neighborhood galaxies going around their center. This is the galaxy cluster or super galaxy of modern cosmology. Shiva (not para shiva) is the aDhipati here. -paremesTi mandala paramESTi mandala has such galaxy clusters goind around their center. paramESTi prajApati is the adhipati here -prajApati mandala has many paramESTi mandala-s going around their center. There are 10 prajApati mandala-s in this universe, and 10 prajApati-s as aDhipati- s: marIchi, atri, angirasa, pulastya, kratu, prachEtasa, vasiSTa, BhR`gu, and nArada (Manu Smr`ti-36). -Brahmaanda These prajApati mandala-s go around the center of the universe (hiraNyagarBha) and all make up the brahmAnda. Our place is probably in marIchi prajApati mandala: marIchInAm padamichChanti veDhasaH. In nityapUja viDhi traditions, we remember like this Aditya mandalAya namaH | Aditya mandalADhipatayE brahmaNE nanaH | sOma mandalAya namaH | sOma mandalADhipatayE viSNavE namaH | vahni mandalAya namaH | vahni mandalADhipatayE shivAya namaH | In special pUjA-s, paramESTi and prajApati mandala-s also remembered likewise. It follows that there are numerous shiva-s, viSNu-s, and brahma-s. Many brahma-viSNu-shiva-s take birth and die within the creation cycle Thus, we can see lots of Aditya/Soma/Vahni/ParamesTi mandala-s. Which nakSatra-s are in which paramESTi mandala-s? Sadly, the whole hinduism is sold thru PuraaNa-s. This present world would have been in pretty good shape, if we had grasped shruti- s/shaastra-s. Recently, some Scientists(who got doctorate degrees in Ajnana) are trying to oppose the Dept of Education, Govt of India move to introduce Jyotisha in schools. Probably, it may take million years to these idiotic scientists to know about Universe/Brahmaanda. These Idiots are wasting TAX dollars on Junk sciences. post-Aristotlian Schools will die in DUE course of TIME/kaala. Best Regards, Venkateswara Reddy > Vyam Vysadevaya Namah > ------------------ > Dear List, > A better argument would be to understand the results of the Dwadas- Aditya, and why a transit through all of them should be considered as being 1 year. > > Of the 33 Devas, the 8 Vasus consitute the facets of our being, the 11 Rudras shows the destruction, whilst the Dwadasa Aditya are responsible for the entire creation. For those counting; Prajapati and Indra are the last two devas. > > The DwadasAditya are responsible for the creation of everything material and this is also the reason why we see the Dwadasamsa(D-12) to see who created us!. This is why some call it Suryamsa. The Dwadas- Aditya are hence responsible for all events in life, whilst say Nakshetras, constitute prime facets of our being. > > We must anticipate that the Rishi's understood this in their time, hence this should also be our basis for discussion, and not what 'might' have been written in a book. > > Am in great anticipation of feedback. > Best wishes, Visti. > > - > cjjohans > vedic astrology > Tuesday, May 21, 2002 9:42 PM > [vedic astrology] Re: Why vimshottari in 365.25 > > > vedic astrology, "pvr108" <pvr@c...> wrote: > > Namaste, > > > > > But the crux is what Parasara meant, since he does not mention > > tithi > > > anywhere to my knowledge (but does mention solar days at least in > > > Shadbhala), I would think he did not mean that. > > > > In shadbalas, the varsha bala or annual strength (strength of the > > year) is based on savana years (360-day years) and not based on the > > solar years. This is very clear from the text and there is luckily > no > > controversy so far. > > > This is not the year you have been defending. You mentioned in > earlier posts 360 tithi year, which is about 354 days. > > This year was apparently rounded off in a five year period with an > extra month, not in a three year period as the tithi year. > http://www1.shore.net/~india/ejvs/ejvs0304/ejvs0304.txt > > If you are going to argue for this 360 solar day year, I can't argue > against since the translator Sharma is of the opinion that this is > the year which Parasara means. But I understood from an earlier post > that "varsha" means solar year (6 Ritus/12 signs = 1 Varsha). > > > > May Jupiter's light shine on us, > > Narasimha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2002 Report Share Posted May 23, 2002 Vyam Vysadevaya Namah ---------------- Dear Reddy, Thanks for the comprehensive description of our universe. However when talking about Vimshottari Dasa, we are trying to see how the various devas have an influence in the lives of us beings on earth, and hence from that we should decide on Solar vs Lunar years. Now the Lunar years have 12/13 months and they are lorded by the Nakshetra, in which the full moon commences in. So what becomes the function of the Nakshetras vs Dwadasa Aditya? Best wishes, Visti. - venkateshwara_reddy vedic astrology Thursday, May 23, 2002 1:31 AM [vedic astrology] Re: Why vimshottari in 365.25 Dear Visti,You addressed Creation in your message. Let me add few points:The universe is made of -chandra mandala-BhU mandala-Aditya mandalaAstronomically the aaditya mandala (solar family as a whole) goes one round in 24 million years.Shastra-s name aaditya mandala's aDhipati as brahma (not creator Brahma).-sOma mandalaThe solar/Aditya mandala family, as it is spinning, is also going around our galactic center - it is the milkyway - called sOma mandala (no material connection to our moon - our galaxy is white too - also, sa+uma = sOma) - making one round in just over 10 of its ahoraatri cycles (about 250 million years). Shastra-s name sOma mandala's aDhipati as viSNu (not mahA viSNu)-vahni mandalavahni mandala has our and neighborhood galaxies going around their center. This is the galaxy cluster or super galaxy of modern cosmology. Shiva (not para shiva) is the aDhipati here.-paremesTi mandalaparamESTi mandala has such galaxy clusters goind around their center. paramESTi prajApati is the adhipati here-prajApati mandala has many paramESTi mandala-s going around their center. There are 10 prajApati mandala-s in this universe, and 10 prajApati-s as aDhipati-s: marIchi, atri, angirasa, pulastya, kratu, prachEtasa, vasiSTa, BhR`gu, and nArada (Manu Smr`ti-36). -BrahmaandaThese prajApati mandala-s go around the center of the universe (hiraNyagarBha) and all make up the brahmAnda. Our place is probably in marIchi prajApati mandala: marIchInAm padamichChanti veDhasaH.In nityapUja viDhi traditions, we remember like thisAditya mandalAya namaH |Aditya mandalADhipatayE brahmaNE nanaH |sOma mandalAya namaH |sOma mandalADhipatayE viSNavE namaH |vahni mandalAya namaH |vahni mandalADhipatayE shivAya namaH |In special pUjA-s, paramESTi and prajApati mandala-s also remembered likewise.It follows that there are numerous shiva-s, viSNu-s, and brahma-s. Many brahma-viSNu-shiva-s take birth and die within the creation cycleThus, we can see lots of Aditya/Soma/Vahni/ParamesTi mandala-s.Which nakSatra-s are in which paramESTi mandala-s? Sadly, the whole hinduism is sold thru PuraaNa-s. This present world would have been in pretty good shape, if we had grasped shruti-s/shaastra-s.Recently, some Scientists(who got doctorate degrees in Ajnana) are trying to oppose the Dept of Education, Govt of India move to introduce Jyotisha in schools. Probably, it may take million years to these idiotic scientists to know about Universe/Brahmaanda.These Idiots are wasting TAX dollars on Junk sciences.post-Aristotlian Schools will die in DUE course of TIME/kaala.Best Regards,Venkateswara Reddy> Vyam Vysadevaya Namah> ------------------> Dear List,> A better argument would be to understand the results of the Dwadas-Aditya, and why a transit through all of them should be considered as being 1 year.> > Of the 33 Devas, the 8 Vasus consitute the facets of our being, the 11 Rudras shows the destruction, whilst the Dwadasa Aditya are responsible for the entire creation. For those counting; Prajapati and Indra are the last two devas.> > The DwadasAditya are responsible for the creation of everything material and this is also the reason why we see the Dwadasamsa(D-12) to see who created us!. This is why some call it Suryamsa. The Dwadas-Aditya are hence responsible for all events in life, whilst say Nakshetras, constitute prime facets of our being.> > We must anticipate that the Rishi's understood this in their time, hence this should also be our basis for discussion, and not what 'might' have been written in a book.> > Am in great anticipation of feedback.> Best wishes, Visti.> > - > cjjohans > vedic astrology > Tuesday, May 21, 2002 9:42 PM> [vedic astrology] Re: Why vimshottari in 365.25> > > vedic astrology, "pvr108" <pvr@c...> wrote:> > Namaste,> > > > > But the crux is what Parasara meant, since he does not mention > > tithi > > > anywhere to my knowledge (but does mention solar days at least in > > > Shadbhala), I would think he did not mean that.> > > > In shadbalas, the varsha bala or annual strength (strength of the > > year) is based on savana years (360-day years) and not based on the > > solar years. This is very clear from the text and there is luckily > no > > controversy so far.> > > This is not the year you have been defending. You mentioned in > earlier posts 360 tithi year, which is about 354 days. > > This year was apparently rounded off in a five year period with an > extra month, not in a three year period as the tithi year.> http://www1.shore.net/~india/ejvs/ejvs0304/ejvs0304.txt> > If you are going to argue for this 360 solar day year, I can't argue > against since the translator Sharma is of the opinion that this is > the year which Parasara means. But I understood from an earlier post > that "varsha" means solar year (6 Ritus/12 signs = 1 Varsha).> > > > May Jupiter's light shine on us,> > NarasimhaArchives: vedic astrologyGroup info: vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2002 Report Share Posted May 23, 2002 Hare Rama Krsna! Dear Narasimha, >Though 360-tithi years have no other factors supporting them (and >leave some unanswered questions), Bhishma and Pandavas clearly >thought they were the right years. Those arguing that Bhishma finally >lost should remember that so did Duryodhana and that Dharmaraja and >Arjuna (who stood for 360-tithi years) won with Krishna's support. A tithi is 25 hours 12 min.; thus 360 tithi will be longer than a solar year, I calculate 378 days. How is it that a 360 tithi year comes to 354 days? As far as I know, the tithi at the time of sunrise will be accepted as the tithi for that day, thus 360 tithi would correspond to 360 solar days. Isn't that the meaning of the verse from Bhagavatam? A krsna and sukla paksa of Moon (2 x 15 days) comprises of 1 month and a year has 12 of such months. BTW, I haven't seen the option for 354 days in any software I possess. Your sishya, Dhira Krsna dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2002 Report Share Posted May 23, 2002 Dear Narasimha As I said, please quote Parasara and not Surya Siddhanta for the Varsha being taken from Savana years. Sanjay pvr108 [pvr] Wednesday, May 22, 2002 7:52 AM vedic astrology [vedic astrology] Re: Why vimshottari in 365.25 Namaste, > This is not the year you have been defending. You mentioned in > earlier posts 360 tithi year, which is about 354 days. I am not defending any year right now. I am only giving references to multiple years in classics to show that there is no clear answer. Personally, I have a preference, but I don't have a strong case for any year and hence not defending anything right now. > This year was apparently rounded off in a five year period with an > extra month, not in a three year period as the tithi year. > http://www1.shore.net/~india/ejvs/ejvs0304/ejvs0304.txt > > If you are going to argue for this 360 solar day year, I can't argue > against since the translator Sharma is of the opinion that this is > the year which Parasara means. But I understood from an earlier post > that "varsha" means solar year (6 Ritus/12 signs = 1 Varsha). This is only a misconception. Sanskrita has various words for year that can be interchangably used. Varsha does not mean a solar year. Parasara mentioned the word "varsha" to mean 360-day years in Shadbalas. Under Kala Bala of Shadbalas, Parasara covered 3 different calendars: (1) Solar calendar: The ayana (6 month) bala is based on this (2) Lunar calendar: The paksha (half month) bala is based on this (3) Fixed calendar: The varsha, maasa, dina and hora balas are all based on this. Here a year of 360 civil days, a month of 30 civil days and a dina of 1 civil day are used. May Jupiter's light shine on us, Narasimha Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2002 Report Share Posted May 23, 2002 Dear Narasimha, > This is only a misconception. Sanskrita has various words for year > that can be interchangably used. Varsha does not mean a solar year. > Parasara mentioned the word "varsha" to mean 360-day years in > Shadbalas. No! It is not a misconcept! Sure, various words have been interchangeably used to denote varsha, but does that mean the original imoprt is wrong? This is called 'BhrAnti' of intellect! We need to clean up wherever we can! kalA muhUrtA kASTA-ahOrAtrAscha sarvashaH, arDha mAsA mAsA r`tavaH samvatsarascha kalpantAm - upanishad. "varSa" is a Vedic word specifically meaning the seasonal year. Hence seasonal rain of Bhaarata is called varSA. The rainy season is called varSar`tu - all over Bhaarata! Most mix varsha with samvatsara, parivatsara, idavatsara, iduvatsara, iLavatsara of the Veda-s/braahmaNa-s. But each of this is distinctively a separate natural cycle in the cosmos! Those who are already into this deep mixup simply won't see it this way.... Please meditate..... With Wishes, Shankara. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2002 Report Share Posted May 23, 2002 > This is not the year you have been defending. You mentioned in > earlier posts 360 tithi year, which is about 354 days. > > This year was apparently rounded off in a five year period with an > extra month, not in a three year period as the tithi year. > http://www1.shore.net/~india/ejvs/ejvs0304/ejvs0304.txt In that article, Nr`hari Achar mentioned Savana year = 360 human days. Yes, he missed the vaidika tradition. Since human year is 360 human days (in ancient Vedic days + about 5 days before uttarAyaNAramBha were festive days in those times. This is in the Vaidika tradition. Those who are not in it don't know this. With Wishes, Shankara. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2002 Report Share Posted May 24, 2002 You have misconstrued my point. I said that your prejudice was damaging your argument. You have demonstrated this again in your reply to me, although mostly in less inflammatory language. I am very well aware of the gross errors made by indologists and do not need convincing of these arguments. It might be useful to consider why it was that a civilization with such vast knowledge and understanding of universal realities has welcomed in foreigners on more than one occasion to mutilate their precious possessions for them and has lately deserted this knowledge and understanding in millions. If I was to harshly criticize the Indians for the gross stupidity committed in this regard and for the corrupt way they choose to live you might take offence too. I do not wish to do so however. Calling people idiots, bastards and telling them to grow up rebounds on you when they reject your arguments with your insults. Regards Gordon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2002 Report Share Posted May 24, 2002 Namasthe, For solid proof on my points, interested list members may search, find, and attend some proper schools. Sincerity and interest alone are the pre-requistes, not birth or race, as was in jAbAli's case. And seeing HATRED, RACISM, SHAME, etc. in my writings are clearly reflections!(Go and check) I have copied the words used by the primitive 18th century European writers and then Germanic trash to note what they were and what their copycats are(using comparative linguistics to thrash Hinduism). >Interestingly the word in Finnish for mead is "siima", quite >similar to "soma". (There is also similar mythology about gods s0ma = sa + uma What is sa and uma. Indology nuts are pre-occupied with establishing some thesis, This is the essence of the post-Aristotlian western school system, of course all Indian schools are slave to this system. >From the Indescribable arose tama. From that salila. From that Apa. From that brilliantly shining ka (brahmaanda), ma (universal mother - Lakshmi, Sarasvati, Parvati, Durgaa), from that the rest la. Manifest prakR`ti(prAkArEna kr`ta) has ma. Hence the manifest and unmanifest combine make up sa-ma: when He is with and in ma, we have sama, leading to the notions of equality, and brotherhood in creation. Thus, father and mother are equal in bhaarata tradition from thousands of years ago. It is rooted in the SamskR`ta word "sama". uma: u indicates 'raised' ut, as in uttara. One has to look for deeper meaning. Please keep in mind, no American (except KKK), even of German descent, likes or glorifies nazis here is USA. Same thing holds for the 18th century primitive tribe of indology, and more and more free thinking individuals will express so. Why did you hurt, if you are searching of TRUTH? >If I was to harshly criticize the Indians for the gross stupidity >committed in this regard and for the corrupt way they choose to live >you might take offence too. Go ahead and critique. Dont apply sunken majoritarian rule, ends up with comparator boolean circuit. You dont notice divinity in Indian metropolitan cities/towns, which are enslaved to SO CALLED TRIBAL Culture. My critique really hit the head of these Indology mental slaves. But if I return that in kind, see how quickly they see their norm of culture violated! Not just indology, the very essence of post-Aristotle western mind is like that. >From That One we and all things manifested, That exists IN COMPLETENESS and FULLNESS in the tiniest of the tiniest to the largest of the largest. That One in us alone connects you and me. This is 100% contradictory to Aristotelian logic of duality, THE base of western culture & religions. This is the core difference in the debate between two opposing thought systems in humanity since the time of the Great Buddha. agrataH chaturO vEdAn pR`STataH sasharam DhanuH idam brAhmam idam kSAtram shApAdapi sharAdapi Bhaarata approach to win this cultural war has to be profoundly scholarly (brAhmam) AS WELL AS powerful counter mental attacks (kSAtram); not mere dry intellectualism, but hitting the emotions from which such mean contempt springs up. What is so insulting for a 21st century modern seers. if anyone calls the 18th century indologists and European culture as primitive, which are 100% facts, or what is so hurtful to these worthies if the Germanic race is pictured for what it did in the last 400 years (their asuri rule in every sphere of Europe's life)? These asura-s have no interest in seeking their or anyone's happiness, their sole aim is to show to the world that the Aristotelian logic, utterly skewed and incomplete by itself, is all there is for the salvation of mankind - Hitler & Gobel were the same in another form, and the Germanic trash has had this trait most strongly all along in its history. It is this asuri fact that won't go away that soon, but it will certainly go away in time, just as all past asura-s and asuri thought systems have sunken to dust. The indology primitives can claim all they want on the spirit of the Veda-s, but the truth is, among the few millions of students and practitioners of Veda-s, not even one has ever heard of these IDIOTS, leave alone their fantastic silly theories with not a grain of scientific evidence; among a few English schooled Vedic practitioners who have heard or read THEIR wildly imaginative false mythology, it is well known as "their opinions they are welcome to retain oe even cherish if they wish". That alone is indication of real facts regarding the Veda-s, their practice, and practitioners. This is 15th century Church mentality and nothing else. It was successfully used in the americas to wipe out 100 million humans, yes, 100,000,000 humans, it is a historical fact recorded by the remaining few native Americans, to obliterate their culture, religions, and scriptures, and to shamelessly grab their land and wealth, and now to pontifficate to the rest of humanity! This game did not succeed in India, and hence *what we see is what we see*. Veda paaTashaala-s and Vedic systems dont need commendations from Stanford, CalTech, Harvard. Thousands of students, who are practising Veda-s in these can laugh at these Stanford, Berkeley, MIT and their inventions about Universe. Best Regards, Venkateswara Reddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2002 Report Share Posted May 24, 2002 I thought I would add Rudolf Steiner's views on this issue (I don't believe in him religiously). "The regions of Atlantis were destroyed through colossal deluges. Human bodies had different forms at that time, but the souls that live in us today lived also in the ancient Atlanteans. Those were our souls. Then the water-catastrophe caused a movement of the Atlantean peoples, a great migration from west to east. We ourselves were these peoples. Toward the end of Atlantis all was in movement. We wandered from the west toward the east, through Ireland, Scotland, Holland, France, and Spain. Thus the peoples moved eastward and populated Europe, Asia, and the northern parts of Africa. It must not be imagined that those who, in the last great migration, wandered out of the west into the regions that have gradually developed into Asia, Europe, and Africa, did not encounter other peoples. Almost all of Europe, the northern parts of Africa, and large parts of Asia were already inhabited at that time. These areas were not peopled from the west only; they had already been settled earlier, so that this migration found a strange population already established. We may assume that when quieter times set in, special cultural relations arose. There was, for instance, in the neighborhood of Ireland, a region where, before the catastrophe that now lies thousands of years behind us, there lived the most advanced portions of the entire population of the earth. These portions then migrated, under the special guidance of great individualities, through Europe to a region of central Asia, and from that point cultural colonies were sent out to the most diverse places. One such colony of the post-Atlantean time was sent from this group of people into India, finding a population that had been seated there from primeval times and had its own culture. Paying due heed to what was already present, these colonists founded the first post-Atlantean culture. This was many thousand years ago, and external documents tell us scarcely anything about it. What appears in these documents is much later. In those great compendiums of Wisdom called the Vedas, we have only the final echoes of a very early Indian culture that was directed by super-earthly beings and was founded by the Holy Rishis. It was a culture of a unique kind, and we today can form only a feeble idea of it because the Vedas are only a reflection of that primeval holy Indian culture." One may scoff at notions of "Atlantis", but that name was invented by Plato. To the people of the time there was just a great "worldwide" flood. I find it myself interesting that even the Mayas have stories about such a flood. By my calculations of the ayanamsha Steiner uses, this last flood would have happened about 8000 B.C. (At the end of a 25,000 year yuga of Great Year.) It's interesting that that's when the last Ice Age ended, which must have caused global water levels to rise. To Steiner, the old Chinese civilization was a recapitulation of the last Atlantean civilization and the ancient Indian was the first post- Atlantean civilization. (But the Chinese belongs to a preceding Yuga and is not appropriate for this one according to him.) Essential to that early Indian culture was a all-encompassing monism in his view. He also happens to agree with your view that the era of the materialistic reductionist sense perception mind is special (in his view it's the Kali Yuga, which ended in 1899). However he disagrees that this would be entirely evil, instead he says it is was spiritually necessary in order to develop the mind powers. (Early humanity hardly thought at all according to him, instead they perceived spiritual things directly.) In the last stage of this 25,000 year cycle will come a recapitulation of that early Indian Yuga, but modified by what has gone before. As I said I don't believe this religiously, but Steiner makes some sense to me in other contexts. As far as I know, yugas usually end by some cataclysm. vedic astrology, "cjjohans" <cjjohans@c...> wrote: > vedic astrology, "venkateshwara_reddy" <avenkat@m...> > wrote: > > > This year is used in China, so it might be older than > > > you think. > > > > This is not post-1500 BC creation as Indology idiots thought of. > > How late is late? > > > > > > > > > http://www.ichingwisdom.com/IChingWisdom/zodiac.html > > > > > > It's supposed to date from at least 1000 B.C. > > > > Vedic is older than 1000 B.C. > > So what? I did not say anything else. The original poster said that > using it as a year was recent, I said it has been used as a year at > least in China for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2002 Report Share Posted May 29, 2002 dear list members Pranams. I have been practicing KP which uses only the Vimsottari Dasa for prediton. The dasas endings/Antardasa/Bhutkties etc are all calculated on the Basis of 1 yera equals 12 months, and 1 month = 30 days. This method gives quite ofter dates like 31st June 0r 30 Feb. Such anamololies are corrected. I have also calculated the Dasa,Antaras, and Bhukties, using 365.25 days as the years. The Dasa of Venus is taken not as 20 years but as 20x365.25 days. The Gregorian Calender days are then calculated for these DAYS. Even this gives some apparent (not real) errors as the Days are rounded. In actual Practive this does not make a difference of more than a Day or 2. So, in practice, we can use either method. This might help to end the long discussion --- Sanjay Rath <srath wrote: > Dear Narasimha > As I said, please quote Parasara and not Surya Siddhanta for the > Varsha > being taken from Savana years. > Sanjay > > > pvr108 [pvr] > Wednesday, May 22, 2002 7:52 AM > vedic astrology > [vedic astrology] Re: Why vimshottari in 365.25 > > Namaste, > > > This is not the year you have been defending. You mentioned in > > earlier posts 360 tithi year, which is about 354 days. > > I am not defending any year right now. I am only giving references to > multiple years in classics to show that there is no clear answer. > Personally, I have a preference, but I don't have a strong case for > any year and hence not defending anything right now. > > > This year was apparently rounded off in a five year period with an > > extra month, not in a three year period as the tithi year. > > http://www1.shore.net/~india/ejvs/ejvs0304/ejvs0304.txt > > > > If you are going to argue for this 360 solar day year, I can't > argue > > against since the translator Sharma is of the opinion that this is > > the year which Parasara means. But I understood from an earlier > post > > that "varsha" means solar year (6 Ritus/12 signs = 1 Varsha). > > This is only a misconception. Sanskrita has various words for year > that can be interchangably used. Varsha does not mean a solar year. > Parasara mentioned the word "varsha" to mean 360-day years in > Shadbalas. > > Under Kala Bala of Shadbalas, Parasara covered 3 different calendars: > > (1) Solar calendar: The ayana (6 month) bala is based on this > (2) Lunar calendar: The paksha (half month) bala is based on this > (3) Fixed calendar: The varsha, maasa, dina and hora balas are all > based on this. Here a year of 360 civil days, a month of 30 civil > days and a dina of 1 civil day are used. > > May Jupiter's light shine on us, > Narasimha > > > > > > > > > > > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > > > ------------------------ Sponsor > > > > > > > > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2002 Report Share Posted May 29, 2002 Hello Sridhar, You simply don't understand the point. The difference between 360-day years and 365.25-day years is not 2 or 3 days as you say. It is 5.25 days per year. If you are looking at the chart of a 40-year old person, dasa/antardasa end dates will be off between the two methods by 5.25x40=210 days, i.e. 7 months. The real use of savana years (360 day years) involves counting exactly 360 days. If you add 1 savana year to 15th May 2001, you get 10th May 2002. If you add 2 savana years to 15th May 2001, you get 5th May 2003. May Jupiter's light shine on us, Narasimha > dear list members > Pranams. I have been practicing KP which uses only the Vimsottari Dasa > for prediton. The dasas endings/Antardasa/Bhutkties etc are all > calculated on the Basis of 1 yera equals 12 months, and 1 month = 30 > days. This method gives quite ofter dates like 31st June 0r 30 Feb. > Such anamololies are corrected. I have also calculated the > Dasa,Antaras, and Bhukties, using 365.25 days as the years. The Dasa of > Venus is taken not as 20 years but as 20x365.25 days. The Gregorian > Calender days are then calculated for these DAYS. Even this gives some > apparent (not real) errors as the Days are rounded. In actual Practive > this does not make a difference of more than a Day or 2. So, in > practice, we can use either method. This might help to end the long > discussion 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.