A controversial article on vedic astrology...[2 cents, challenges]

[Guest guest]

RRji,

Those rasgullas ...do keep throwing them!

rishi

 

 

 

, "crystal pages"

<jyotish_vani wrote:

>

> Dear Rishi ji,

>

> Since you specifically quoted a few of my phrases I must answer. I

am

> indeed math challenged. You should see my marks in math! I am also

> hindi challenged. I used to love hindi in school and was average to

> above average. But I have probably had an opportunity to speak or

> read or write hindi for perhaps less than a total of 24 hours in

the

> last many many years. I can write with difficulty, I find it hard

to

> speak or think in Hindi. It is amazing how quickly one's first

> language evaporates or at least goes on the backburner.

> Oh and the third truth is that I do not know Chess at all.

>

> Online perceptions can be very deceptive. My misfortune is that

> though I consider myself as a perpetual student of astrology and

> human experience, and publicly state same repeatedly, I am mistaken

> by some who insist that they see me in a teacher role. And then

they

> get upset, dejected and begin to feel that I am somehow throwing

> roshogollas at them with nuggets of wisdom embedded in those

> roshogollas (technically that would make it a rajbhog!). This is

> their maya, not mine!

>

> Yes these are very valid questions that you asked about ayanamsha,

> different systems working, and even wrong charts giving the answers

> and the role of divine inspiration, intuition, sadhna etc. Many

> experienced astrologers have in unambiguous statements stated the

> same for many years. There is nothing new there. There is no

absolute

> system or FIX on gauging human experience. Many portals have been

> provided or evolved. The many window approach makes sense in terms

of

> what has been stated for millennia by seers and psychics and sages

> and now by quantum physicists: Everything in universe is connected.

> Strange as it may seem, even if an electron experiences something,

it

> leaves a permanent record which can be seen in many different ways.

> The significant word is not "different" but 'MANY'.

>

> Best of luck with resolving your uncertainties.

>

> RR

>

>

>

> , "rishi_2000in"

> <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> >

> > Decades ago, a distinguished person used to lure me in a game of

> > chess and beat me convincingly. He would lead me in a trap,

pitfall

> > and a swindle with a straight face. Only the twinkle in his eyes

> > would at times reveal the trap. It was a great learning process

> > though for a beginner. Now much later in the journey of life,

> > innocuous phrases like, `'math challenged" and "hindi not my

first

> > language" are once again leading me in such openings. My opening

> and

> > middle game much better now though. I should be able to skirt

> around

> > these. Still a great learning process though!

> > The fact remains that the very basis of Jyotish , the ayanamsha

> which

> > decides the values remains unresolved.

> > The fact also remains that most of the commonly used Ayanamshas

> > revolve around plus minus 3 degrees of the Lahiri chitrapaksha.

> > The fact also remains that the tropical astrology is also right.

> > The fact remains that there can be more than one approach and one

> > route to climb a mountain and yet reach the same place.

> > The fact also remains that non -astrological divinations also

give

> > similar answers.

> > The same rasagulla tastes different when eaten at different

places

> > with different people.

> > And why does food cooked by Ma always taste the same?

> > So the journey of life continues........

> >

> >

> > Regards

> >

> > rishi

> >

> >

> >

> > , "crystal pages"

> > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > >

> > > I did confess years ago that I am math-challenged, bhaiyaa :-(

> > > All I can share is that, as I have done privately with you and

> > > others, I am amazed at the number of times when different

> > ayanamshas

> > > (not too far away from Raman and Lahiri for instance) have both

> > shown

> > > different but concordant indicators pointing towards the same

> > bottom

> > > line!

> > >

> > > This is eerie and really bothered me for a long time, still

does.

> > > That is when my western siblings came in handy! If they can get

a

> > > demonstrably accurate reading using a coordinate that is 23

> degrees

> > > different, why should I be griping about a difference of 87

> minutes?

> > >

> > > It is not ideal, but I am not the one who ever called it a

> science!

> > > Ask those who jump up and down claiming that IT is!!

> > >

> > > RR

> > >

> > >

> > > , "rishi_2000in"

> > > <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > -Exactly, in all fairness the calculations should be obvious

> and

> > > not

> > > > too complicated.

> > > > Please do continue to give us a bit of the 20/20 clarity!

> > > > regards

> > > >

> > > > rishi

> > > >

> > > > -- In , "crystal pages"

> > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear brother Rishi,

> > > > >

> > > > > I would not fall out of my chair if we modern followers of

> > > > Parashara

> > > > > were to find out that despite our phenomenal

> > > > > worldly/material/engineering type cerebral progress and

> > > > discoveries,

> > > > > contemporaries of Parashara had a direct way of calculating

> > > > > astrological bits and bytes!

> > > > >

> > > > > This 'drik' (drishta) ganit kind of tugs at my heart. What

is

> > it?

> > > > > Does anyone here know and can shed light upon? Why is it

> called

> > > > drik,

> > > > > and not adrishta ganit, like what we utilize now? More like

> > > > sparshya

> > > > > ganit (summer when it is hot, winter when it is cold)?

> > > > >

> > > > > Math has always been a big challenge for me personally and

I

> am

> > > > > envious of all these math types that are interested in

> jyotish.

> > > > > Surely, they and not people like me, math-challenged as I

am,

> > > must

> > > > be

> > > > > providing answers to such question :-)

> > > > >

> > > > > Until then -- I would rather be in limbo than in a hammock

or

> > arm-

> > > > > chair ;-)

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > RR

> > > > >

> > > > > , "rishi_2000in"

> > > > > <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Precession is an established scientific fact, Sir. The

> > current

> > > > rate

> > > > > > is also there to see.

> > > > > > Just because in the chain of history we have lost some

> links

> > > > does

> > > > > > not mean Parasara etal did not use ayanamsha.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , "crystal pages"

> > > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > In all fairness Prafulla, I do not believe Parashara or

> his

> > > > > > > contemporaries or precedents or followers really needed

> > > > > ayanamshas!

> > > > > > > Ayanamsha is a recent phenomenon I think.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Though sidereal zodiac we follow is up in the sky and

the

> > > > visible

> > > > > > > zodiac, it is kind of strange if not weird that we need

> to

> > > > tune

> > > > > > into

> > > > > > > the seasonal zodiac and then back-calculate that which

is

> > > > visible

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > up there!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Too bad Brahma did not put a bright star at aries zero

up

> > > > there

> > > > > or

> > > > > > we

> > > > > > > would not be hawing and hemming about ayanamsha for

> > centuries!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Maybe it is God's way to remind us that East and West

> must

> > > > live

> > > > > > > together as brothers and sisters. Most siblings fight

and

> > > > through

> > > > > > > fighting they make each other stronger!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you can really survive your sibling and all those

life-

> > > > > > threatening

> > > > > > > feuds with that vicious brother of yours (usually!),

who

> > can

> > > > > > really

> > > > > > > hurt you, because if someone really tries to, your

> sibling

> > > > would

> > > > > > be

> > > > > > > the first one to come to your aid!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It is true!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > RR

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , Prafulla Gang

> > > > <jyotish@>

> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Varun ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > All fine. The question is - if Parashar or any other

> > sage -

> > >

> > > > > > > mentioned about it and if not, which one they followed?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > regards / Prafulla Gang

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Make a decision! If that doesn't work, make another,

> and

> > > > > > another,

> > > > > > > and another. Keep doing this until you break through.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > varun_trvd@

> > > > > > > > > Sat, 08 Jul 2006 05:31:35 -0000

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Re: RE: A controversial article on

> vedic

> > > > > > > astrology...[2

> > > > > > > > > cents]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respected Gurujan,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Ayanansha calculations;

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [ 1 ] Grahlaghav paddhati:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Deduct 444 from the Saka Samvat and devide the

> > remainder

> > > > by

> > > > > 60

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > gets the ayanansha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [ shake vedabdhivedonah 444 shashtirbhakto

> ayanashakah ]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > grahlaghav,ravichandra.shlok

> > > > > 7 !

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [ 2 ] Makarand paddhati :

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > step 1 : Deduct 421 from the Saka Samvat. Place the

> > > > remainder

> > > > > > at

> > > > > > > two

> > > > > > > > > places.

> > > > > > > > > step 2 : Devide the remainder { result of step 1 }

by

> > 10.

> > > > > > > > > step 3 : deduct the result of step 2 from the

result

> of

> > > > step

> > > > > 1.

> > > > > > > > > step 4 : devide the result of step 3 by 60.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The result is the ayanansha for that year.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > With naman to all gurujan

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Varun Trivedi

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > , "crystal

> pages"

> > > > > > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >>

> > > > > > > > >> Rishiji,

> > > > > > > > >>

> > > > > > > > >> Since hindi is not my first language, may I

request

> > you

> > > > to

> > > > > > give

> > > > > > > me

> > > > > > > > >> the manasagari ayanamsha value for 26 January 1947?

> > > > > > > > >>

> > > > > > > > >> Thanks

> > > > > > > > >>

> > > > > > > > >> RR

> > > > > > > > >>

> > > > > > > > >>

> , "rishi_2000in"

> > > > > > > > >> <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >>>

> > > > > > > > >>> Prafullaji,

> > > > > > > > >>> This reference is from a book called "

> > > > > > Sodaharanbhashateekopeta"

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > >>> the Mansagari Paddhati more in use in and around

UP

> > > > Hills.

> > > > > > > > >>> First Printed around 1913, and written around

the

> > turn

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > > century.

> > > > > > > > >>> It sums up ayanamsha very succintly!

> > > > > > > > >>> I will give the hindi translation for am not good

> in

> > > > > > sanskrit.

> > > > > > > > >>>

> > > > > > > > >>> "shalivahana shaka mein 445 ghata dein jo

sheshrahe

> > wah

> > > > kala

> > > > > > > > > hota

> > > > > > > > >>> hai, usme saath ka bhaga dein jo labdhi mile so

> > > > ayanamsha

> > > > > > hota

> > > > > > > > > hai.

> > > > > > > > >>> Tatkalik ayanamsha karne ke nimitta chaitra

shukla

> > > > > pratipada

> > > > > > se

> > > > > > > > >> jitne

> > > > > > > > >>> maas gat ho utne gunita paanch paladi kar deve."

> > > > > > > > >>>

> > > > > > > > >>> It is interesting that no one discusses why

> subtract

> > > > from

> > > > > > shaka

> > > > > > > > >>> etc.and no logic is extended.In my curiousity, I

> have

> > > > been

> > > > > > > > > asking

> > > > > > > > >>> JKyotishis about their ayanamshas and most who

have

> a

> > > > > > successful

> > > > > > > > >>> practice seem nonplussed about this.

> > > > > > > > >>> regards

> > > > > > > > >>>

> > > > > > > > >>> rishi

> > > > > > > > >>>

> > > > > > > > >>>

> > > > > > > > >>> , Prafulla

> Gang

> > > > > > > > > <jyotish@>

> > > > > > > > >>> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>> Dear Rishi ji

> > > > > > > > >>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>> Yes, there are very little authenticity data

> > available

> > > > for

> > > > > > > > >>> the "source" of ancient books / texts /

literature.

> > > Weak

> > > > > > human

> > > > > > > > >> mind,

> > > > > > > > >>> often finds reason to back or question its

faith /

> > > > > knowledge

> > > > > > (or

> > > > > > > > >> his

> > > > > > > > >>> blind vision).

> > > > > > > > >>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>> So what becomes the value of ayanamsa today? In

> > other

> > > > > > words -

> > > > > > > > >> what

> > > > > > > > >>> is begining point of this ayanamsa correction (55

> > sec /

> > > > p.a)

> > > > > > > > >>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>> regards / Prafulla Gang

> > > > > > > > >>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>> Make a decision! If that doesn't work, make

> another,

> > > and

> > > > > > > > > another,

> > > > > > > > >>> and another. Keep doing this until you break

> through.

> > > > > > > > >>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>> rishi_2000in@

> > > > > > > > >>>>> Sat, 08 Jul 2006 03:28:49 -0000

> > > > > > > > >>>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>> Re: RE: A controversial article

on

> > vedic

> > > > > > > > >>> astrology...[2

> > > > > > > > >>>>> cents]

> > > > > > > > >>>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>> Prafullaji,

> > > > > > > > >>>>> So far we do not even know that the "words"

> > > attributed

> > > > to

> > > > > > > > >>> Parasara or

> > > > > > > > >>>>> Varahmihira are actually theirs or have slipped

> in

> > > > those

> > > > > > > > >> treatises

> > > > > > > > >>>>> sometime over the past centuries.

> > > > > > > > >>>>> Interestingly, there is only one astrological

> book,

> > I

> > > > have

> > > > > > > > > come

> > > > > > > > >>>>> across so far ( my readings , I must admit very

> > > basic)

> > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > >> has

> > > > > > > > >>> been

> > > > > > > > >>>>> printed in the nineteenth century and the

author

> > > > admits

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > >> the

> > > > > > > > >>>>> words are his own.

> > > > > > > > >>>>> In this book the author gives a different

method

> of

> > > > > > > > > calculating

> > > > > > > > >>>>> ayanamsa and takes it roughly as 55

seconds/year.

> > > > > > > > >>>>> regards

> > > > > > > > >>>>> rishi

> > > > > > > > >>>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>> ,

Prafulla

> > Gang

> > > > > > > > >> <jyotish@>

> > > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Dear Ranjan ji

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>>> There are many controversies in jyotish like

in

> any

> > > > > > > > > subject.

> > > > > > > > >> and

> > > > > > > > >>> it

> > > > > > > > >>>>> is real heart breaking to feel that, prediction

> > does

> > > > not

> > > > > > > > > warrant

> > > > > > > > >>>>> correct chart...and even if the chart is wrong,

> we

> > > can

> > > > > > still

> > > > > > > > >>> proceed.

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Most of ayanamsa definition and their

reasonings

> > > > > (research

> > > > > > > > >> papers

> > > > > > > > >>>>> etc), still does not answer the basic question -

 

> the

> > > > > > > > > ayanamsa

> > > > > > > > >> (or

> > > > > > > > >>>>> planetary calculation basis) used by ancient

> sages

> > > > > > including

> > > > > > > > >>>>> Parashar, Varah Mihir etc.

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>>> BTW, I did not add "2 cents" in the thread. I

am

> > > > rather

> > > > > > > > > devil's

> > > > > > > > >>>>> advocate - partly out of my inquisitiveness and

> > > partly

> > > > > out

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > >>>>> ignorance. Ironically, it is difficult to

> believe /

> > > > digest

> > > > > > > > > (if

> > > > > > > > >> at

> > > > > > > > >>>>> all !!) that, all these years - we were

reading /

> > > > > > predicting

> > > > > > > > >> from

> > > > > > > > >>>>> wrong chart.

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>>> regards / Prafulla Gang

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Make a decision! If that doesn't work, make

> > another,

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > >> another,

> > > > > > > > >>>>> and another. Keep doing this until you break

> > through.

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> jyotish_vani@

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Sat, 08 Jul 2006 02:33:08 -0000

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Re: RE: A controversial article

> on

> > > > vedic

> > > > > > > > >>>>> astrology...[2

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> cents]

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> The just do not call it two cents!

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Value of currency changes over a very short

> > time ...

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> So why not call it just "current value" or

> > > > > > even 'Potential

> > > > > > > > >>> Value'?

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Particularly if you are the

> accountant/scientific

> > > > > type ;-

> > > > > > )

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ANON

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ,

> Prafulla

> > > > Gang

> > > > > > > > >>> <jyotish@>

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Make a decision! If that doesn't work, make

> > > > another,

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > > >>>>> another, and

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> another. Keep doing this until you break

> through.

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>>

> > > > > > > > >>>

> > > > > > > > >>

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>