Guest guest Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 M/s. Vedic-Astrologers, Before the advent of our most of us would be a “ Light in a well”. I thank the Moderator Mr.PVRji for his creating an opportunity to Jyothisha to get their due Identity amidst public as a reward for their predictive capability. I also personally Thank Mr. P.V.R.Narasimha Raoji for donating his free Astrological software ‘ Jhl’ to the Astrologers with out which good predictions would be a dream for me. I congratulate All the Astrologers who predicted Mr. BUSH ‘S victory and also thank the forum as having functioned as a media for propagating good Astrology to flourish. Dhananjayan. pvr108 <pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net> wrote: Namaste friends,Congratulations to all those who predicted that Bush would win! Also, my humble thanks to those of you who congratulated me and others who predicted a Bush victory.* * *Dear Mukund,> Predicting a Bush win was a no-brainer. I predicted a Bush win > without looking at any of the correct or incorrect charts floating > around.You stubbornly keep saying that predicting a Bush victory was a no-brainer. That is so untrue. All the respected opinion polls before the election showed that the race was a statistical deadheat. Some showed Bush in the lead and some showed Kerry in the lead, but the lead was within the margin of error in almost all cases. After all, had 150,000 people (2%) voted differently in Ohio, Kerry would've won. So, until yesterday, Bush and Kerry both had a realistic chance (almost 50-50). Your view is based on emotions and personal biases rather than objective analysis of available data.Your attempt to take credit away from the few of us who predicted a Bush victory is very unfortunate.> Ya, if someone had predicted a Kerry win and Kerry had indeed won, > then it would be a cause to congrajulate as well as learn the > technique used by the successful astrologer.This is unfair. Those of us who predicted Bush victory deserve to be congratulated too.As for learning the technique, I gave several technical reasons behind my prediction.You can read my pointers at:vedic astrology/message/45170I predicted that Bush would gain decisive momentum in the last week (which is perhaps correct looking at all the polls). I did not give the reasons behind it (I will do so later). But the reasons behind the basic prediction that Bush would prevail were given.> Well, here is my new prediction NOT based on Jyotish--Hillary Clinton > will run for president in 2008 and will have a grand victory over her > republican opponent.In the same post mentioned above, I mentioned 2008 election as one of the factors behind my prediction of a Bush victory this time. I did look at the charts of Al Gore and Hillary Clinton for 2008. I tend to think that Al Gore has a brilliant chance in 2008. However, there is still more time to make that prediction!* * *Dear Sundeep,> That said, I must say that only one person's prediction stands out - > specifically "nameisego"'s prediction. Because he predicted the re-> emergence of Osama before the win, and it can easily be argued that > it was the emergence of Osama that immediately refocussed the > Americans on security issues, where Bush is the clear leader. That > prediction is statistically significant, i.e. not easily dismissable > as being a chance occurrence or a fluke. But "nameisego" wasnt even > using SJC techniques was he?Normally, I don't like commenting on another person's performance. But, because you are exggerating one person's correct prediction, belittling others and commenting on "SJC techniques" all at the same time, I feel compelled to point out one simple fact.The exact words of "nameisego" were: "A SURPRISE IN THE FORM OF MAY BE OSAMA BIN LADEN'S CAPTURE or an Attack by so called FUNDAMENTALISTS and George Bush's actions there of would swing the scales in his favour". Neither happened. While nameisego deserves credit for expecting a clear mandate, he did not get it right regarding Osama.Don't get me wrong. "Nameisego" deserves congratulations for predicting Bush victory and kudos for having the guts to make a risky prediction that Osama would be captured or there would be a terror attack. But you cannot call that prediction correct just because an Osama tape surfaced.In fact, based on all the opinion polls, the Osama tape did not work to Bush's advantage. Some pollsters said it worked to Kerry's advantage a little bit. Moreover, according to the exit polls, the main issue in the minds of people was "values" and not security or even Iraq. Simply, more conservative voters turned up for the election on Nov 2, 2004 than on Nov 7, 2000. The gamble made by Rove and Bush with respect to their right wing positioning paid off.My only problem is your exaggeration of one person's prediction and applying loose standards when judging it, while dismissing other correct predictions as possible flukes. I certainly do not find fault with nameisego's prediction of Osama's capture or a terror attack. He saw it and made his call.I too was honestly expecting some surprise, though I did not mention it. That is in fact one of the reasons for my predicting that Bush would gain decisive momentum in the last week before election. In the lunar eclipse chart of last Wednesday night, cast at Washington DC, the 10th lord Jupiter was in 4th from Gemini lagna and aspecting 10th (good). The 3rd lord Sun was in debility and afflicted by Ketu (bad). This shows problems for the opposition leaders (3rd lord) and good for the rulers (10th lord), after the eclipse. Because Bush has Jupiter with lagna lord and Kerry has Sun in lagna, the planets involved also fit. So I was expecting Bush to gain momentum after the eclipse and Kerry to lose momentum. I was expecting Kerry to fall behind due to some "Ketu" factors. I too thought it would be terrorism, though I did not say it. But, in hindsight, it seems like Ketu stands for conservatives, evangelicals etc here and not terrorists. It was they who caused the decisive fall of Kerry. This illustrates how one's logic can be almost perfect and yet the prediction totally wrong (or vice versa). In any case, I did not want to be too specific and just predicted that Bush would gain decisive momentum in the final week. Of course, there was another reason behind it and I will mention it later.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 ....... Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 Dear Mukund, It is good that you have understood that you were harsh. But your last remarks make you do the same thing again. Please do not misunderstand my comments and take them in the spirit of constructive criticism, that they are made. If someone predicts one way or other about an event on the net it does not mean it is for the sake of cyber glory. If that were the case one would give interviews to print and Visual media. I, my self had predicted a win for Kerry and failed. The predictions on list are made to widen one's understanding about how Mundane astrology should be applied and learn from both failures as well as successes. For example I had thought Mr. Bush will have problems on account of War and War prisoners, since Mercury pratyantar was operative and Mercury is his lord of 12th and 3rd, and would loose the elections.I thought the election process would continue till Saturn turns retrograde. It went other way round, a War criminal namely Osama Bin Laden released a tape, perhaps, benefiting Mr. Bush in the last week leading to the elections and the election process was over before Saturn turned Retrograde. Chandrashekhar. monmuk111 wrote: Hello Narasimha: Nice to hear from you. Ya, I re-read my posting several times after reading this note from you and it appears that I may have inadvertantly hurt the feelings of Jyotishas who predicted a Bush victory, I remember you predicted a close contest and a Bush victory. I apologize for the insensitivity in my "Bush vs Kerry" posting. Well, that's Jyotish at work in my life--I've been training myself to evaluate my day to day actions in terms of them being good or bad, truthful or untruthful, egotistical or humble and am attepting to conduct myself truthfully and humbly. Well, it my time to be humble and apologize for my "no-brainer" comments on Bush victory. Even though the election was so close, I still feel that "culturally" Bush had better chances to win. Likewise, I feel Hillary Clinton will definitely run and win in 2008. See Narasimha, it just feels too weird using Jyotisha to predict elections. --Jyotish should be used to reveal/understand karmic signatures in the horoscope of people who've exhausted EVERY effort their free will provided them in seeking happiness and peace. Just look at my own life--Using Jyotish, I've understood that my karmic calling is to be kind and helpful to young women and I'm attempting to do just that--couple of months back HR recruited a totally incompetent female assistant for me and rather than recommending her termination, I'm helping her learn the ropes. Advising people on the karmic signatures and karmic goals in their horoscopes/lives should be the goal of Jyotish, not predicting elections for a few moments of cyber-glory. Mukund vedic astrology, "pvr108" <pvr@c...> wrote: > > Namaste friends, > > Congratulations to all those who predicted that Bush would win! > Also, my humble thanks to those of you who congratulated me and > others who predicted a Bush victory. > > * * * > > Dear Mukund, > > > Predicting a Bush win was a no-brainer. I predicted a Bush win > > without looking at any of the correct or incorrect charts floating > > around. > > You stubbornly keep saying that predicting a Bush victory was a no- > brainer. That is so untrue. All the respected opinion polls before > the election showed that the race was a statistical deadheat. Some > showed Bush in the lead and some showed Kerry in the lead, but the > lead was within the margin of error in almost all cases. After all, > had 150,000 people (2%) voted differently in Ohio, Kerry would've > won. So, until yesterday, Bush and Kerry both had a realistic chance > (almost 50-50). Your view is based on emotions and personal biases > rather than objective analysis of available data. > > Your attempt to take credit away from the few of us who predicted a > Bush victory is very unfortunate. > > > Ya, if someone had predicted a Kerry win and Kerry had indeed won, > > then it would be a cause to congrajulate as well as learn the > > technique used by the successful astrologer. > > This is unfair. Those of us who predicted Bush victory deserve to be > congratulated too. > > As for learning the technique, I gave several technical reasons > behind my prediction. > > You can read my pointers at: > > vedic astrology/message/45170 > > I predicted that Bush would gain decisive momentum in the last week > (which is perhaps correct looking at all the polls). I did not give > the reasons behind it (I will do so later). But the reasons behind > the basic prediction that Bush would prevail were given. > > > Well, here is my new prediction NOT based on Jyotish--Hillary > Clinton > > will run for president in 2008 and will have a grand victory over > her > > republican opponent. > > In the same post mentioned above, I mentioned 2008 election as one > of the factors behind my prediction of a Bush victory this time. I > did look at the charts of Al Gore and Hillary Clinton for 2008. I > tend to think that Al Gore has a brilliant chance in 2008. However, > there is still more time to make that prediction! > > * * * > > Dear Sundeep, > > > That said, I must say that only one person's prediction stands > out - > > specifically "nameisego"'s prediction. Because he predicted the re- > > emergence of Osama before the win, and it can easily be argued > that > > it was the emergence of Osama that immediately refocussed the > > Americans on security issues, where Bush is the clear leader. That > > prediction is statistically significant, i.e. not easily > dismissable > > as being a chance occurrence or a fluke. But "nameisego" wasnt > even > > using SJC techniques was he? > > Normally, I don't like commenting on another person's performance. > But, because you are exggerating one person's correct prediction, > belittling others and commenting on "SJC techniques" all at the same > time, I feel compelled to point out one simple fact. > > The exact words of "nameisego" were: "A SURPRISE IN THE FORM OF MAY > BE OSAMA BIN LADEN'S CAPTURE or an Attack by so called > FUNDAMENTALISTS and George Bush's actions there of would swing the > scales in his favour". Neither happened. While nameisego deserves > credit for expecting a clear mandate, he did not get it right > regarding Osama. > > Don't get me wrong. "Nameisego" deserves congratulations for > predicting Bush victory and kudos for having the guts to make a > risky prediction that Osama would be captured or there would be a > terror attack. But you cannot call that prediction correct just > because an Osama tape surfaced. > > In fact, based on all the opinion polls, the Osama tape did not work > to Bush's advantage. Some pollsters said it worked to Kerry's > advantage a little bit. Moreover, according to the exit polls, the > main issue in the minds of people was "values" and not security or > even Iraq. Simply, more conservative voters turned up for the > election on Nov 2, 2004 than on Nov 7, 2000. The gamble made by Rove > and Bush with respect to their right wing positioning paid off. > > My only problem is your exaggeration of one person's prediction and > applying loose standards when judging it, while dismissing other > correct predictions as possible flukes. I certainly do not find > fault with nameisego's prediction of Osama's capture or a terror > attack. He saw it and made his call. > > I too was honestly expecting some surprise, though I did not mention > it. That is in fact one of the reasons for my predicting that Bush > would gain decisive momentum in the last week before election. In > the lunar eclipse chart of last Wednesday night, cast at Washington > DC, the 10th lord Jupiter was in 4th from Gemini lagna and aspecting > 10th (good). The 3rd lord Sun was in debility and afflicted by Ketu > (bad). This shows problems for the opposition leaders (3rd lord) and > good for the rulers (10th lord), after the eclipse. Because Bush has > Jupiter with lagna lord and Kerry has Sun in lagna, the planets > involved also fit. So I was expecting Bush to gain momentum after > the eclipse and Kerry to lose momentum. I was expecting Kerry to > fall behind due to some "Ketu" factors. I too thought it would be > terrorism, though I did not say it. But, in hindsight, it seems like > Ketu stands for conservatives, evangelicals etc here and not > terrorists. It was they who caused the decisive fall of Kerry. This > illustrates how one's logic can be almost perfect and yet the > prediction totally wrong (or vice versa). In any case, I did not > want to be too specific and just predicted that Bush would gain > decisive momentum in the final week. Of course, there was another > reason behind it and I will mention it later. > > May Jupiter's light shine on us, > Narasimha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 Dear Dhananjayan, I wholeheartedly support your sentiments. Chandrashekhar. Dhananjayan Brahma wrote: M/s. Vedic-Astrologers, Before the advent of our most of us would be a “ Light in a well”. I thank the Moderator Mr.PVRji for his creating an opportunity to Jyothisha to get their due Identity amidst public as a reward for their predictive capability. I also personally Thank Mr. P.V.R.Narasimha Raoji for donating his free Astrological software ‘ Jhl’ to the Astrologers with out which good predictions would be a dream for me. I congratulate All the Astrologers who predicted Mr. BUSH ‘S victory and also thank the forum as having functioned as a media for propagating good Astrology to flourish. Dhananjayan. pvr108 <pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net> wrote: Namaste friends, Congratulations to all those who predicted that Bush would win! Also, my humble thanks to those of you who congratulated me and others who predicted a Bush victory. * * * Dear Mukund, > Predicting a Bush win was a no-brainer. I predicted a Bush win > without looking at any of the correct or incorrect charts floating > around. You stubbornly keep saying that predicting a Bush victory was a no- brainer. That is so untrue. All the respected opinion polls before the election showed that the race was a statistical deadheat. Some showed Bush in the lead and some showed Kerry in the lead, but the lead was within the margin of error in almost all cases. After all, had 150,000 people (2%) voted differently in Ohio, Kerry would've won. So, until yesterday, Bush and Kerry both had a realistic chance (almost 50-50). Your view is based on emotions and personal biases rather than objective analysis of available data. Your attempt to take credit away from the few of us who predicted a Bush victory is very unfortunate. > Ya, if someone had predicted a Kerry win and Kerry had indeed won, > then it would be a cause to congrajulate as well as learn the > technique used by the successful astrologer. This is unfair. Those of us who predicted Bush victory deserve to be congratulated too. As for learning the technique, I gave several technical reasons behind my prediction. You can read my pointers at: vedic astrology/message/45170 I predicted that Bush would gain decisive momentum in the last week (which is perhaps correct looking at all the polls). I did not give the reasons behind it (I will do so later). But the reasons behind the basic prediction that Bush would prevail were given. > Well, here is my new prediction NOT based on Jyotish--Hillary Clinton > will run for president in 2008 and will have a grand victory over her > republican opponent. In the same post mentioned above, I mentioned 2008 election as one of the factors behind my prediction of a Bush victory this time. I did look at the charts of Al Gore and Hillary Clinton for 2008. I tend to think that Al Gore has a brilliant chance in 2008. However, there is still more time to make that prediction! * * * Dear Sundeep, > That said, I must say that only one person's prediction stands out - > specifically "nameisego"'s prediction. Because he predicted the re- > emergence of Osama before the win, and it can easily be argued that > it was the emergence of Osama that immediately refocussed the > Americans on security issues, where Bush is the clear leader. That > prediction is statistically significant, i.e. not easily dismissable > as being a chance occurrence or a fluke. But "nameisego" wasnt even > using SJC techniques was he? Normally, I don't like commenting on another person's performance. But, because you are exggerating one person's correct prediction, belittling others and commenting on "SJC techniques" all at the same time, I feel compelled to point out one simple fact. The exact words of "nameisego" were: "A SURPRISE IN THE FORM OF MAY BE OSAMA BIN LADEN'S CAPTURE or an Attack by so called FUNDAMENTALISTS and George Bush's actions there of would swing the scales in his favour". Neither happened. While nameisego deserves credit for expecting a clear mandate, he did not get it right regarding Osama. Don't get me wrong. "Nameisego" deserves congratulations for predicting Bush victory and kudos for having the guts to make a risky prediction that Osama would be captured or there would be a terror attack. But you cannot call that prediction correct just because an Osama tape surfaced. In fact, based on all the opinion polls, the Osama tape did not work to Bush's advantage. Some pollsters said it worked to Kerry's advantage a little bit. Moreover, according to the exit polls, the main issue in the minds of people was "values" and not security or even Iraq. Simply, more conservative voters turned up for the election on Nov 2, 2004 than on Nov 7, 2000. The gamble made by Rove and Bush with respect to their right wing positioning paid off. My only problem is your exaggeration of one person's prediction and applying loose standards when judging it, while dismissing other correct predictions as possible flukes. I certainly do not find fault with nameisego's prediction of Osama's capture or a terror attack. He saw it and made his call. I too was honestly expecting some surprise, though I did not mention it. That is in fact one of the reasons for my predicting that Bush would gain decisive momentum in the last week before election. In the lunar eclipse chart of last Wednesday night, cast at Washington DC, the 10th lord Jupiter was in 4th from Gemini lagna and aspecting 10th (good). The 3rd lord Sun was in debility and afflicted by Ketu (bad). This shows problems for the opposition leaders (3rd lord) and good for the rulers (10th lord), after the eclipse. Because Bush has Jupiter with lagna lord and Kerry has Sun in lagna, the planets involved also fit. So I was expecting Bush to gain momentum after the eclipse and Kerry to lose momentum. I was expecting Kerry to fall behind due to some "Ketu" factors. I too thought it would be terrorism, though I did not say it. But, in hindsight, it seems like Ketu stands for conservatives, evangelicals etc here and not terrorists. It was they who caused the decisive fall of Kerry. This illustrates how one's logic can be almost perfect and yet the prediction totally wrong (or vice versa). In any case, I did not want to be too specific and just predicted that Bush would gain decisive momentum in the final week. Of course, there was another reason behind it and I will mention it later. May Jupiter's light shine on us, Narasimha Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 Hi Mukund, I just want to address one of your main concerns about why all astrologers don't predict the same thing? I understand your concern that this is affecting the image of Jyotish in general. This is one question I had in my mind before I started learning Jyotisha 6 weeks back. After getting to know more about Jyotisha I understood the reason why. Here is my belief. I attribute it to the following Incomplete subject Lost information because of Gurukulam mode of teaching Techniques used - Lack of knowledge of certain techniques, Using Wrong techniques or experimenting with new techniques Inconsistent interpretation of ancient texts for the modern world Last but not least is deep knowledge about the event that you are predicting Narasimha said it best. Astrology is an incomplete subject and we are all trying to understand it. We don't have all the sacred texts of Jyotisha. Jyotisha is part of Vedic knowledge and it is said that we have access to only a small percentage of Vedic knowledge. May be if we had access to all these ancient sacred texts, Jyotisha would have been a complete subject. Some information must have been lost because of Gurukulam mode of teaching. Gurukulam way of teaching ensured that the sacred knowledge of Jyotisha didn't end up in wrong hands. But unfortunately some information / wisdom / techniques could have been lost if a guru was not able to pass it on to his next generation. When you are dealing with an incomplete subject, controversies are bound to be prevalent because there is no authoritative reference from the creator. This results in different camps with different beliefs. Some people consider Sage Parashara's book as the ultimate. Some mix and match techniques from other ancient books. Some techniques are preserved as family secrets and they get passed from generation to generation. Some techniques are passed only through Guru - sishya relationship. Few astrologers are privileged to have access to these techniques. Other astrologers may never know it unless they come to know of it through other sources or through their own research and experience. An astrologer may be using a proven technique but for a wrong scenario unknowingly. Although he will get wiser over experience it is impossible in a life time to get it all right because the science of Jyotisha is an ocean. Some astrologers may be experimenting with new techniques such as "Rahu centric" theory. So the results of these new experimental techniques could be different from the other standard techniques. Interpretation of ancient text for the modern world might be different for different astrologers as well. This is largely done by experimentation and I don't think there is a consensus and not all the areas are covered yet. One example is how Narasimha said that Ketu could be attributed to conservativeness or values. If you think about it, it makes sense, since Ketu is associated with religion / spirituality. And lastly in my humble view, to predict an specific event and to translate the ancient text to the modern world correctly, you need to have a good knowledge about the event that you are predicting. For example when you are predicting the outcome of US election, it is essential that you are knowledged about the US culture, their beliefs, concerns and issues. That’s the only way you can correctly translate the cause of why a presidential candidate would win or lose. This knowledge will be different for different astrologers as well. So if you take any learned astrologer, most of what he knows and follows will be right and some of them may not be right. It all depends on his guru, the books he read, his ancestral jyotisha knowledge, techniques that he believes in, how he interprets the ancient texts in a modern world and his knowledge of the event that he is predicting about. Clearly there is bound to be a difference between predictions of even learned and gifted astrologers. On a final note, if all learned astrologers arrive at the same conclusion based on a given chart than that means there is a systematic way of predicting things. If that is true then we can completely automate predictions through computer software and we don't need astrologers anymore. Fortunately or unfortunately it is not true. Systematic way of prediction is specific per astrologer based on his beliefs not general consensus. Hats off to SJC, Sanjay Rath and Narasimha who have provided us a forum where we are able to analyze the techniques used in the predictions and learn why some techniques didn't give a correct result and why some did. This is definitely an environment where everybody can benefit from each other. Over the years we will all learn so much from both the good / bad predictions and get a better understanding of this complicated science. I am sure future will look thankfully to SJC. I am just a complete novice in Jyotisha and this is my first serious post. Please enlighten / pardon me if I am wrong. -Kumanan --- monmuk111 <monmuk111 wrote: > > Hello Narasimha: > > Nice to hear from you. Ya, I re-read my posting > several times after > reading this note from you and it appears that I may > have > inadvertantly hurt the feelings of Jyotishas who > predicted a Bush > victory, I remember you predicted a close contest > and a Bush victory. > > I apologize for the insensitivity in my "Bush vs > Kerry" posting. > Well, that's Jyotish at work in my life--I've been > training myself to > evaluate my day to day actions in terms of them > being good or bad, > truthful or untruthful, egotistical or humble and am > attepting to > conduct myself truthfully and humbly. > > Well, it my time to be humble and apologize for my > "no-brainer" > comments on Bush victory. Even though the election > was so close, I > still feel that "culturally" Bush had better chances > to win. > Likewise, I feel Hillary Clinton will definitely run > and win in 2008. > > See Narasimha, it just feels too weird using > Jyotisha to predict > elections. > > --Jyotish should be used to reveal/understand karmic > signatures in > the horoscope of people who've exhausted EVERY > effort their free will > provided them in seeking happiness and peace. > > Just look at my own life--Using Jyotish, I've > understood that my > karmic calling is to be kind and helpful to young > women and I'm > attempting to do just that--couple of months back HR > recruited a > totally incompetent female assistant for me and > rather than > recommending her termination, I'm helping her learn > the ropes. > > Advising people on the karmic signatures and karmic > goals in their > horoscopes/lives should be the goal of Jyotish, not > predicting > elections for a few moments of cyber-glory. > > Mukund > > > > vedic astrology, "pvr108" > <pvr@c...> wrote: > > > > Namaste friends, > > > > Congratulations to all those who predicted that > Bush would win! > > Also, my humble thanks to those of you who > congratulated me and > > others who predicted a Bush victory. > > > > * * * > > > > Dear Mukund, > > > > > Predicting a Bush win was a no-brainer. I > predicted a Bush win > > > without looking at any of the correct or > incorrect charts > floating > > > around. > > > > You stubbornly keep saying that predicting a Bush > victory was a no- > > brainer. That is so untrue. All the respected > opinion polls before > > the election showed that the race was a > statistical deadheat. Some > > showed Bush in the lead and some showed Kerry in > the lead, but the > > lead was within the margin of error in almost all > cases. After all, > > had 150,000 people (2%) voted differently in Ohio, > Kerry would've > > won. So, until yesterday, Bush and Kerry both had > a realistic > chance > > (almost 50-50). Your view is based on emotions and > personal biases > > rather than objective analysis of available data. > > > > Your attempt to take credit away from the few of > us who predicted a > > Bush victory is very unfortunate. > > > > > Ya, if someone had predicted a Kerry win and > Kerry had indeed > won, > > > then it would be a cause to congrajulate as well > as learn the > > > technique used by the successful astrologer. > > > > This is unfair. Those of us who predicted Bush > victory deserve to > be > > congratulated too. > > > > As for learning the technique, I gave several > technical reasons > > behind my prediction. > > > > You can read my pointers at: > > > > > vedic astrology/message/45170 > > > > I predicted that Bush would gain decisive momentum > in the last week > > (which is perhaps correct looking at all the > polls). I did not give > > the reasons behind it (I will do so later). But > the reasons behind > > the basic prediction that Bush would prevail were > given. > > > > > Well, here is my new prediction NOT based on > Jyotish--Hillary > > Clinton > > > will run for president in 2008 and will have a > grand victory over > > her > > > republican opponent. > > > > In the same post mentioned above, I mentioned 2008 > election as one > > of the factors behind my prediction of a Bush > victory this time. I > > did look at the charts of Al Gore and Hillary > Clinton for 2008. I > > tend to think that Al Gore has a brilliant chance > in 2008. However, > > there is still more time to make that prediction! > > > > * * * > > > > Dear Sundeep, > > > > > That said, I must say that only one person's > prediction stands > > out - > > > specifically "nameisego"'s prediction. Because > he predicted the > re- > > > emergence of Osama before the win, and it can > easily be argued > > that > > > it was the emergence of Osama that immediately > refocussed the > > > Americans on security issues, where Bush is the > clear leader. > That > > > prediction is statistically significant, i.e. > not easily > > dismissable > > > as being a chance occurrence or a fluke. But > "nameisego" wasnt > > even > > > using SJC techniques was he? > > > > Normally, I don't like commenting on another > person's performance. > > But, because you are exggerating one person's > correct prediction, > > belittling others and commenting on "SJC > techniques" all at the > same > > time, I feel compelled to point out one simple > fact. > > > > The exact words of "nameisego" were: "A SURPRISE > IN THE FORM OF MAY > > BE OSAMA BIN LADEN'S CAPTURE or an Attack by so > called > > FUNDAMENTALISTS and George Bush's actions there of > would swing the > > scales in his favour". Neither happened. While > nameisego deserves > > credit for expecting a clear mandate, he did not > get it right > === message truncated === Check out the new Front Page. www. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 Dear Mukund, So long as the prediction is made to widen ones horizon and gain knowledge from each other, it is a lofty goal. But once we start taking credit for a prediction that went right or get dismayed at a wrong prediction, it becomes counterproductive. I am amused at the way, congratulations are passed on to "Gurus" for making a prediction which had a 50% probability of being correct anyway. Many people didnot get it right, our Astrological Magazine including. That doesnot mean they are not jyotishis or students of jyotish.We had some friendly quiz on this forum sometime back. None of us came even close to the actual event. Again that does not affect our faith on this knowledge but only affirms that we are all learning. Mukund, I agree with you that astrology should not be taken so lightly as to start making predictions on as bizaare an event like elections etc. Even if we do it one may do it privately with one's own self and not in public. Astrology should be used for alleviation of sufferings of people in misery like sick and injured, parents worried for marriage of their daughters/sons or their education, the unemployed trying to get a job etc.And here again one need not go public. Once we do that, our ego comes in, affecting the faith and devotion to jyotish vigyan. Lastly this word "Guru" is grossly misused on this forum. Hindus knowing their scriptures know very well how respectful the word Guru is. Of late this word is now used by young people in India quite casually just to show respect in a lighter vein. I think this is the way this word is used here. My request is to use this word sparingly for those who really are gurus like Pandit Sanjay Rath. Otherwise the sanctity of this word gets diminished. Pran Razdan --- Chandrashekhar <boxdel wrote: > Dear Mukund, > It is good that you have understood that you were harsh. But your > last > remarks make you do the same thing again. Please do not misunderstand > my > comments and take them in the spirit of constructive criticism, that > they are made. > If someone predicts one way or other about an event on the net it > does > not mean it is for the sake of cyber glory. If that were the case > one > would give interviews to print and Visual media. I, my self had > predicted a win for Kerry and failed. The predictions on list are > made > to widen one's understanding about how Mundane astrology should be > applied and learn from both failures as well as successes. For > example I > had thought Mr. Bush will have problems on account of War and War > prisoners, since Mercury pratyantar was operative and Mercury is his > lord of 12th and 3rd, and would loose the elections.I thought the > election process would continue till Saturn turns retrograde. It went > > other way round, a War criminal namely Osama Bin Laden released a > tape, > perhaps, benefiting Mr. Bush in the last week leading to the > elections > and the election process was over before Saturn turned Retrograde. > > > Chandrashekhar. > > monmuk111 wrote: > > > > > Hello Narasimha: > > > > Nice to hear from you. Ya, I re-read my posting several times after > > reading this note from you and it appears that I may have > > inadvertantly hurt the feelings of Jyotishas who predicted a Bush > > victory, I remember you predicted a close contest and a Bush > victory. > > > > I apologize for the insensitivity in my "Bush vs Kerry" posting. > > Well, that's Jyotish at work in my life--I've been training myself > to > > evaluate my day to day actions in terms of them being good or bad, > > truthful or untruthful, egotistical or humble and am attepting to > > conduct myself truthfully and humbly. > > > > Well, it my time to be humble and apologize for my "no-brainer" > > comments on Bush victory. Even though the election was so close, I > > still feel that "culturally" Bush had better chances to win. > > Likewise, I feel Hillary Clinton will definitely run and win in > 2008. > > > > See Narasimha, it just feels too weird using Jyotisha to predict > > elections. > > > > --Jyotish should be used to reveal/understand karmic signatures in > > the horoscope of people who've exhausted EVERY effort their free > will > > provided them in seeking happiness and peace. > > > > Just look at my own life--Using Jyotish, I've understood that my > > karmic calling is to be kind and helpful to young women and I'm > > attempting to do just that--couple of months back HR recruited a > > totally incompetent female assistant for me and rather than > > recommending her termination, I'm helping her learn the ropes. > > > > Advising people on the karmic signatures and karmic goals in their > > horoscopes/lives should be the goal of Jyotish, not predicting > > elections for a few moments of cyber-glory. > > > > Mukund > > > > > > > > vedic astrology, "pvr108" <pvr@c...> wrote: > > > > > > Namaste friends, > > > > > > Congratulations to all those who predicted that Bush would win! > > > Also, my humble thanks to those of you who congratulated me and > > > others who predicted a Bush victory. > > > > > > * * * > > > > > > Dear Mukund, > > > > > > > Predicting a Bush win was a no-brainer. I predicted a Bush win > > > > without looking at any of the correct or incorrect charts > > floating > > > > around. > > > > > > You stubbornly keep saying that predicting a Bush victory was a > no- > > > brainer. That is so untrue. All the respected opinion polls > before > > > the election showed that the race was a statistical deadheat. > Some > > > showed Bush in the lead and some showed Kerry in the lead, but > the > > > lead was within the margin of error in almost all cases. After > all, > > > had 150,000 people (2%) voted differently in Ohio, Kerry would've > > > won. So, until yesterday, Bush and Kerry both had a realistic > > chance > > > (almost 50-50). Your view is based on emotions and personal > biases > > > rather than objective analysis of available data. > > > > > > Your attempt to take credit away from the few of us who predicted > a > > > Bush victory is very unfortunate. > > > > > > > Ya, if someone had predicted a Kerry win and Kerry had indeed > > won, > > > > then it would be a cause to congrajulate as well as learn the > > > > technique used by the successful astrologer. > > > > > > This is unfair. Those of us who predicted Bush victory deserve to > > be > > > congratulated too. > > > > > > As for learning the technique, I gave several technical reasons > > > behind my prediction. > > > > > > You can read my pointers at: > > > > > > vedic astrology/message/45170 > > > > > > I predicted that Bush would gain decisive momentum in the last > week > > > (which is perhaps correct looking at all the polls). I did not > give > > > the reasons behind it (I will do so later). But the reasons > behind > > > the basic prediction that Bush would prevail were given. > > > > > > > Well, here is my new prediction NOT based on Jyotish--Hillary > > > Clinton > > > > will run for president in 2008 and will have a grand victory > over > > > her > > > > republican opponent. > > > > > > In the same post mentioned above, I mentioned 2008 election as > one > > > of the factors behind my prediction of a Bush victory this time. > I > > > did look at the charts of Al Gore and Hillary Clinton for 2008. I > > > tend to think that Al Gore has a brilliant chance in 2008. > However, > > > there is still more time to make that prediction! > > > > > > * * * > > > > > > Dear Sundeep, > > > > > > > That said, I must say that only one person's prediction stands > > > out - > > > > specifically "nameisego"'s prediction. Because he predicted the > > re- > > > > emergence of Osama before the win, and it can easily be argued > > > that > > > > it was the emergence of Osama that immediately refocussed the > > > > Americans on security issues, where Bush is the clear leader. > > That > > > > prediction is statistically significant, i.e. not easily > > > dismissable > > > > as being a chance occurrence or a fluke. But "nameisego" wasnt > > > even > > > > using SJC techniques was he? > > > > > > Normally, I don't like commenting on another person's > performance. > > > But, because you are exggerating one person's correct prediction, > > > belittling others and commenting on "SJC techniques" all at the > > same > > > time, I feel compelled to point out one simple fact. > > > > > > The exact words of "nameisego" were: "A SURPRISE IN THE FORM OF > MAY > > > BE OSAMA BIN LADEN'S CAPTURE or an Attack by so called > > > FUNDAMENTALISTS and George Bush's actions there of would swing > the > > > scales in his favour". Neither happened. While nameisego deserves > > > credit for expecting a clear mandate, he did not get it right > > > regarding Osama. > > > > > > Don't get me wrong. "Nameisego" deserves congratulations for > > > predicting Bush victory and kudos for having the guts to make a > > > risky prediction that Osama would be captured or there would be a > > > terror attack. But you cannot call that prediction correct just > > > because an Osama tape surfaced. > > > > > > In fact, based on all the opinion polls, the Osama tape did not > > work > > > to Bush's advantage. Some pollsters said it worked to Kerry's > > > advantage a little bit. Moreover, according to the exit polls, > the > === message truncated === 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.