Guest guest Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Dear Vinay ji,==>Statement 1: Neither I nor anyone else have any right to change the basic rules of Jyotisha. Aspects, friendships, uchcha-neecha strengths, combustion> (asta), etc are judged from raashi chart, generally known as> Janma-kundali.Statement 2: But the predictive part is based upon Bhaavachalita.<== I think both these statements are contradictory. Prior to 10th century Sripati none in the history of astrology spoke about the absurd concept called Bhavachalita as one different from Signs. Thus it is clear that as per the sages - Signs and Houses are the same with the only difference that Sign counting starts from Mesha where asd House counting start from Lagna. If you want proof for this from classics, then here is some: Sreenadh OG/Signs and Houses.pdf I would like to know - What is your opinion after reading this? Any way I don't have any objection about your arguments about Bhavachalita as a new and innovative concept - UNSUPPORTED by ancient Rishi Horas. :)Love and regards,Sreenadh , "vinayjhaa16" <vinayjhaa16 wrote:>> Neither I nor anyone else have any right to change the basic rules of> Jyotisha. Aspects, friendships, uchcha-neecha strengths, combustion> (asta), etc are judged from raashi chart, generally known as> Janma-kundali. But the predictive part is based upon Bhaavachalita.> Even Jhora regards bhaavachalita as D1, which is borne by its name as> Lagna in BPHS.> In the case of Napoleon Bonaparte (cf. Prediction of Death in> jyotirvidya website), I found Jhora had a difference of 23 degrees in> lagna wrt Kundalee, mainly due to difference in Sunrise. Jhora gives> material Sun's rise. Kundalee gives divine Sun's rise, which cannot be> seen by human senses. But when you judge the astrological results on> the lines of Parashara & c, Kundalee is 100% perfect. Now the choice is> yours. Both Jhora and Kundalee have been built by sincere persons, but> the difference is in mathematical approach. I discarded the use of> modern astronomy in astrology 11 years ago, when a paramhamsa scholar> taught me a better alternative.> > -VJ> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Majority of ancient and modern jyotishis follow the crude method which you wrongly believe to be aarsha. You should not have included the name of Parashara Rishi in the list of non-rishis whom you quote. Even Sage Parashara mentions the crude method which you call ancient and correct. But Sage Parashara gives the accurate method as well, which require time and brains. Jyotisha has two parts , Siddhanta (Ganita) and Phalita, the latter being divided into Samhita and Hora. Varahmihira was the only person during past two or three millenia who tried his hand in all three skandhas of Jyotisha, and therefore compiled the Panchsiddhantika, which is a good source of information about those days, but a pyramid of nonsense if we evaluate it as a work on Ganita. Varah Mihir was a great poet and scholar in many fields, but a poor mathematician. You will not accept it unless youy try to compute planetary positions according to Varah Mihira. But how many persons have that much time to evaluate Varah Mihira? He gained fame on account of his superbly constructed shlokas, containing mathematical nonsense ( I am speaking of Panchsiddhantika, not other books). He should not have touched Siddhanta, because he was inept in it. The result was he gave a distorted version of Suryasiddhanta which cannot be used for any period of history. I have wasted years on these problems. I have no personal enmity towards Varah MIhira. But due to his meddling with mathematical siddhantas without a proper understanding, he is not trustworthy even in other fields of Jyotisha as well. He introduced many foreign terms. He invented many novelties on his own, like 5 extra days in addition to 120 years of Vimshottari. Owing to him, modern Europeans created the myths of Old versus New Suryasiddhanta, and propagated that horoscopy astrology in India was a result of Greek influence. Other authorities whom you cite are all compilers of phalita, only Shripati was a mathematician, whom you distrust ! The fountainhead of Jyotisha is Siddhanta, which defines Lagna as that point on the ecliptic which touches the eastern horizon at any given time. Dasham is zenith. All other houses (bhaavas) are computed with reference to Lagna and Dasham. Ecliptic is elliptical. Elliptical shape means all houses must be different in angular dimensions. This is possible only if bhaavachalita is taken to be so, because Rashi-circle is circular and all rashis have equal dimensions. All divisionals (shodashavargas) are parts of the elliptical bhaavachalita, instead of the rashi chart. I use the crude method mentioned by Varah Mihir & c when I have to cast a birth chart without paper and pen, and without a computer. This crude method is helpful in such situations. But it is wrong to call it accurate method. Please remember the aforementioned definition of Lagna (wrt elliptic ecliptic) before hurrying to any conclusion. Besides, I made dozens of softwares for testing rainfall, floods, cyclones, earthquakes, wars, national income and other major events, and found that only bhaavachalita ought to be used for predictive astrology. I cannot publish all these results at once. Give me time to produce those proofs, which KSD Sanskrit University has already recognized. My aim is to bring Jyotisha on its ancient tracks once again, because I found it to be the only scientific option. Hence, I do not want to tarnish the image of Varah MIhir & c. But you misused his name as an authority in siddhanta. Try to compute planetary positions on the basis of panchsiddhantika, and then you will discover the mathematical hollowness of Varah Mihir. He is, however, a great source of information about ancient astrology. -VJ ==== ======================= === ________________________________ Sreenadh <sreesog Wednesday, January 7, 2009 1:48:01 PM Re: Bhava Chalita??!! (Signs and Houses) Dear Vinay ji, ==> Statement 1: Neither I nor anyone else have any right to change the basic rules of Jyotisha. Aspects, friendships, uchcha-neecha strengths, combustion > (asta), etc are judged from raashi chart, generally known as > Janma-kundali. Statement 2: But the predictive part is based upon Bhaavachalita. <== I think both these statements are contradictory. Prior to 10th century Sripati none in the history of astrology spoke about the absurd concept called Bhavachalita as one different from Signs. Thus it is clear that as per the sages - Signs and Houses are the same with the only difference that Sign counting starts from Mesha where asd House counting start from Lagna. If you want proof for this from classics, then here is some: http://groups. / group/ancient_ indian_astrology Sreenadh OG/Signs and Houses.pdf I would like to know - What is your opinion after reading this? Any way I don't have any objection about your arguments about Bhavachalita as a new and innovative concept - UNSUPPORTED by ancient Rishi Horas. Love and regards, Sreenadh ancient_indian_ astrology, " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > Neither I nor anyone else have any right to change the basic rules of > Jyotisha. Aspects, friendships, uchcha-neecha strengths, combustion > (asta), etc are judged from raashi chart, generally known as > Janma-kundali. But the predictive part is based upon Bhaavachalita. > Even Jhora regards bhaavachalita as D1, which is borne by its name as > Lagna in BPHS. > In the case of Napoleon Bonaparte (cf. Prediction of Death in > jyotirvidya website), I found Jhora had a difference of 23 degrees in > lagna wrt Kundalee, mainly due to difference in Sunrise. Jhora gives > material Sun's rise. Kundalee gives divine Sun's rise, which cannot be > seen by human senses. But when you judge the astrological results on > the lines of Parashara & c, Kundalee is 100% perfect. Now the choice is > yours. Both Jhora and Kundalee have been built by sincere persons, but > the difference is in mathematical approach. I discarded the use of > modern astronomy in astrology 11 years ago, when a paramhamsa scholar > taught me a better alternative. > > -VJ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Dear Vinay ji, You will be glad to know that I am the only astrologer who has been advocating Bhava Chalit on these Jyotish forums to the astrologers since last 2 years. Most of my successful prediction are only through the Bhava Chalit . regards, Bhaskar. , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Majority of ancient and modern jyotishis follow the crude method which you wrongly believe to be aarsha. You should not have included the name of Parashara Rishi in the list of non-rishis whom you quote. Even Sage Parashara mentions the crude method which you call ancient and correct. But Sage Parashara gives the accurate method as well, which require time and brains. > > Jyotisha has two parts , Siddhanta (Ganita) and Phalita, the latter being divided into Samhita and Hora. Varahmihira was the only person during past two or three millenia who tried his hand in all three skandhas of Jyotisha, and therefore compiled the Panchsiddhantika, which is a good source of information about those days, but a pyramid of nonsense if we evaluate it as a work on Ganita. Varah Mihir was a great poet and scholar in many fields, but a poor mathematician. You will not accept it unless youy try to compute planetary positions according to Varah Mihira. > > But how many persons have that much time to evaluate Varah Mihira? He gained fame on account of his superbly constructed shlokas, containing mathematical nonsense ( I am speaking of Panchsiddhantika, not other books). He should not have touched Siddhanta, because he was inept in it. The result was he gave a distorted version of Suryasiddhanta which cannot be used for any period of history. I have wasted years on these problems. I have no personal enmity towards Varah MIhira. But due to his meddling with mathematical siddhantas without a proper understanding, he is not trustworthy even in other fields of Jyotisha as well. He introduced many foreign terms. He invented many novelties on his own, like 5 extra days in addition to 120 years of Vimshottari. Owing to him, modern Europeans created the myths of Old versus New Suryasiddhanta, and propagated that horoscopy astrology in India was a result of Greek influence. > > Other authorities whom you cite are all compilers of phalita, only Shripati was a mathematician, whom you distrust ! The fountainhead of Jyotisha is Siddhanta, which defines Lagna as that point on the ecliptic which touches the eastern horizon at any given time. Dasham is zenith. All other houses (bhaavas) are computed with reference to Lagna and Dasham. Ecliptic is elliptical. Elliptical shape means all houses must be different in angular dimensions. This is possible only if bhaavachalita is taken to be so, because Rashi-circle is circular and all rashis have equal dimensions. > > All divisionals (shodashavargas) are parts of the elliptical bhaavachalita, instead of the rashi chart. > > I use the crude method mentioned by Varah Mihir & c when I have to cast a birth chart without paper and pen, and without a computer. This crude method is helpful in such situations. But it is wrong to call it accurate method. Please remember the aforementioned definition of Lagna (wrt elliptic ecliptic) before hurrying to any conclusion. > > Besides, I made dozens of softwares for testing rainfall, floods, cyclones, earthquakes, wars, national income and other major events, and found that only bhaavachalita ought to be used for predictive astrology. I cannot publish all these results at once. Give me time to produce those proofs, which KSD Sanskrit University has already recognized. > > My aim is to bring Jyotisha on its ancient tracks once again, because I found it to be the only scientific option. Hence, I do not want to tarnish the image of Varah MIhir & c. But you misused his name as an authority in siddhanta. Try to compute planetary positions on the basis of panchsiddhantika, and then you will discover the mathematical hollowness of Varah Mihir. He is, however, a great source of information about ancient astrology. > > -VJ > ==== ======================= === > > > > ________________________________ > Sreenadh sreesog > > Wednesday, January 7, 2009 1:48:01 PM > Re: Bhava Chalita??!! (Signs and Houses) > > > Dear Vinay ji, > ==> > Statement 1: Neither I nor anyone else have any right to change the basic rules of Jyotisha. > Aspects, friendships, uchcha-neecha strengths, combustion > > (asta), etc are judged from raashi chart, generally known as > > Janma-kundali. > Statement 2: But the predictive part is based upon Bhaavachalita. > <== > I think both these statements are contradictory. Prior to 10th century Sripati none in the history of astrology spoke about the absurd concept called Bhavachalita as one different from Signs. Thus it is clear that as per the sages - Signs and Houses are the same with the only difference that Sign counting starts from Mesha where asd House counting start from Lagna. If you want proof for this from classics, then here is some: http://groups. / group/ancient_ indian_astrology Sreenadh OG/Signs and Houses.pdf > I would like to know - What is your opinion after reading this? > > Any way I don't have any objection about your arguments about Bhavachalita as a new and innovative concept - UNSUPPORTED by ancient Rishi Horas. > Love and regards, > Sreenadh > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Neither I nor anyone else have any right to change the basic rules of > > Jyotisha. Aspects, friendships, uchcha-neecha strengths, combustion > > (asta), etc are judged from raashi chart, generally known as > > Janma-kundali. But the predictive part is based upon Bhaavachalita. > > Even Jhora regards bhaavachalita as D1, which is borne by its name as > > Lagna in BPHS. > > In the case of Napoleon Bonaparte (cf. Prediction of Death in > > jyotirvidya website), I found Jhora had a difference of 23 degrees in > > lagna wrt Kundalee, mainly due to difference in Sunrise. Jhora gives > > material Sun's rise. Kundalee gives divine Sun's rise, which cannot be > > seen by human senses. But when you judge the astrological results on > > the lines of Parashara & c, Kundalee is 100% perfect. Now the choice is > > yours. Both Jhora and Kundalee have been built by sincere persons, but > > the difference is in mathematical approach. I discarded the use of > > modern astronomy in astrology 11 years ago, when a paramhamsa scholar > > taught me a better alternative. > > > > -VJ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Dear Viniay ji, ==>You should not have included the name of Parashara Rishi in the list of non-rishis whom you quote. <== Here you quote me wrongly - intentionally or non-intentionally I don't know. ==>Sage Parashara gives the accurate method as well, which require time and brains.<== May I don't have both - what to do? ==>> But how many persons have that much time to evaluate Varah Mihira? He gained fame on account of his superbly constructed shlokas, containing mathematical nonsense ( I am speaking of Panchsiddhantika, not other books). He should not have touched Siddhanta, because he was inept in it. The result was he gave a distorted version of Suryasiddhanta which cannot be used for any period of history.<== I disagree - there must be some mistake with your approach; any way I am not the apt one to comment - since I am not much interested in astronomical mathematics, but only in the application of predictive astrology; in which Mihira works perfect for me - and I revers his contributions. ==>I have wasted years on these problems. I have no personal enmity towards Varah MIhira. But due to his meddling with mathematical siddhantas without a proper understanding, he is not trustworthy even in other fields of Jyotisha as well.<== That is your personal opinion - I can understand it as your opinion. ==>He introduced many foreign terms. <== I disagree- he didn't. ==>He invented many novelties on his own, like 5 extra days in addition to 120 years of Vimshottari. <== Vimsottari?!! Please quote where mihira is mentioning Vimsottari!!==>Owing to him, modern Europeans created the myths of Old versus New Suryasiddhanta, and propagated that horoscopy astrology in India was a result of Greek influence.<== That is the ignorance of modern Europeans - why erroneously blame Mihira for that?!==>> Other authorities whom you cite are all compilers of phalita, only Shripati was a mathematician, whom you distrust ! <== Yes, Sripati was a fraud who distorted ancient indian astrology by introducing houses as different from signs, a new theory on gochara-vedha and what not! Shame on him!==>> All divisionals (shodashavargas) are parts of the elliptical bhaavachalita, instead of the rashi chart.<== There is nothing called a divisional chart. Ancient classics supports vargas but NOT varga charts. D-charts is an absurdity that crupt into astrology just something like 250 year back or so. ==>> I use the crude method mentioned by Varah Mihir & c when I have to cast a birth chart without paper and pen, and without a computer. This crude method is helpful in such situations. But it is wrong to call it accurate method. Please remember the aforementioned definition of Lagna (wrt elliptic ecliptic) before hurrying to any conclusion.> > Besides, I made dozens of softwares for testing rainfall, floods, cyclones, earthquakes, wars, national income and other major events, and found that only bhaavachalita ought to be used for predictive astrology. I cannot publish all these results at once. Give me time to produce those proofs, which KSD Sanskrit University has already recognized.> > My aim is to bring Jyotisha on its ancient tracks once again, because I found it to be the only scientific option. Hence, I do not want to tarnish the image of Varah MIhir & c. But you misused his name as an authority in siddhanta. Try to compute planetary positions on the basis of panchsiddhantika, and then you will discover the mathematical hollowness of Varah Mihir. He is, however, a great source of information about ancient astrology.<== Good to know about the methods you use and your contributions to astrology. Love and regards,Sreenadh , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:>> Majority of ancient and modern jyotishis follow the crude method which you wrongly believe to be aarsha. You should not have included the name of Parashara Rishi in the list of non-rishis whom you quote. Even Sage Parashara mentions the crude method which you call ancient and correct. But Sage Parashara gives the accurate method as well, which require time and brains.> > Jyotisha has two parts , Siddhanta (Ganita) and Phalita, the latter being divided into Samhita and Hora. Varahmihira was the only person during past two or three millenia who tried his hand in all three skandhas of Jyotisha, and therefore compiled the Panchsiddhantika, which is a good source of information about those days, but a pyramid of nonsense if we evaluate it as a work on Ganita. Varah Mihir was a great poet and scholar in many fields, but a poor mathematician. You will not accept it unless youy try to compute planetary positions according to Varah Mihira.> > But how many persons have that much time to evaluate Varah Mihira? He gained fame on account of his superbly constructed shlokas, containing mathematical nonsense ( I am speaking of Panchsiddhantika, not other books). He should not have touched Siddhanta, because he was inept in it. The result was he gave a distorted version of Suryasiddhanta which cannot be used for any period of history. I have wasted years on these problems. I have no personal enmity towards Varah MIhira. But due to his meddling with mathematical siddhantas without a proper understanding, he is not trustworthy even in other fields of Jyotisha as well. He introduced many foreign terms. He invented many novelties on his own, like 5 extra days in addition to 120 years of Vimshottari. Owing to him, modern Europeans created the myths of Old versus New Suryasiddhanta, and propagated that horoscopy astrology in India was a result of Greek influence.> > Other authorities whom you cite are all compilers of phalita, only Shripati was a mathematician, whom you distrust ! The fountainhead of Jyotisha is Siddhanta, which defines Lagna as that point on the ecliptic which touches the eastern horizon at any given time. Dasham is zenith. All other houses (bhaavas) are computed with reference to Lagna and Dasham. Ecliptic is elliptical. Elliptical shape means all houses must be different in angular dimensions. This is possible only if bhaavachalita is taken to be so, because Rashi-circle is circular and all rashis have equal dimensions.> > All divisionals (shodashavargas) are parts of the elliptical bhaavachalita, instead of the rashi chart.> > I use the crude method mentioned by Varah Mihir & c when I have to cast a birth chart without paper and pen, and without a computer. This crude method is helpful in such situations. But it is wrong to call it accurate method. Please remember the aforementioned definition of Lagna (wrt elliptic ecliptic) before hurrying to any conclusion.> > Besides, I made dozens of softwares for testing rainfall, floods, cyclones, earthquakes, wars, national income and other major events, and found that only bhaavachalita ought to be used for predictive astrology. I cannot publish all these results at once. Give me time to produce those proofs, which KSD Sanskrit University has already recognized.> > My aim is to bring Jyotisha on its ancient tracks once again, because I found it to be the only scientific option. Hence, I do not want to tarnish the image of Varah MIhir & c. But you misused his name as an authority in siddhanta. Try to compute planetary positions on the basis of panchsiddhantika, and then you will discover the mathematical hollowness of Varah Mihir. He is, however, a great source of information about ancient astrology.> > -VJ> ==== ======================= ===> > > > ________________________________> Sreenadh sreesog > Wednesday, January 7, 2009 1:48:01 PM> Re: Bhava Chalita??!! (Signs and Houses)> > > Dear Vinay ji,> ==>> Statement 1: Neither I nor anyone else have any right to change the basic rules of Jyotisha.> Aspects, friendships, uchcha-neecha strengths, combustion> > (asta), etc are judged from raashi chart, generally known as> > Janma-kundali.> Statement 2: But the predictive part is based upon Bhaavachalita.> <==> I think both these statements are contradictory. Prior to 10th century Sripati none in the history of astrology spoke about the absurd concept called Bhavachalita as one different from Signs. Thus it is clear that as per the sages - Signs and Houses are the same with the only difference that Sign counting starts from Mesha where asd House counting start from Lagna. If you want proof for this from classics, then here is some: http://groups. / group/ancient_ indian_astrology Sreenadh OG/Signs and Houses.pdf > I would like to know - What is your opinion after reading this?> > Any way I don't have any objection about your arguments about Bhavachalita as a new and innovative concept - UNSUPPORTED by ancient Rishi Horas. > Love and regards,> Sreenadh> > ancient_indian_ astrology, "vinayjhaa16" <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:> >> > Neither I nor anyone else have any right to change the basic rules of> > Jyotisha. Aspects, friendships, uchcha-neecha strengths, combustion> > (asta), etc are judged from raashi chart, generally known as> > Janma-kundali. But the predictive part is based upon Bhaavachalita.> > Even Jhora regards bhaavachalita as D1, which is borne by its name as> > Lagna in BPHS.> > In the case of Napoleon Bonaparte (cf. Prediction of Death in> > jyotirvidya website), I found Jhora had a difference of 23 degrees in> > lagna wrt Kundalee, mainly due to difference in Sunrise. Jhora gives> > material Sun's rise. Kundalee gives divine Sun's rise, which cannot be> > seen by human senses. But when you judge the astrological results on> > the lines of Parashara & c, Kundalee is 100% perfect. Now the choice is> > yours. Both Jhora and Kundalee have been built by sincere persons, but> > the difference is in mathematical approach. I discarded the use of> > modern astronomy in astrology 11 years ago, when a paramhamsa scholar> > taught me a better alternative.> >> > -VJ> >> 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.