let us get back to discussions - Who is the abuser?

January 12, 2009

Dear Indian Jyotish,

// I conduct / participate in workshops and have faced similar problems.Most of the people have preconceived notions.//

Yes, but the few who have their notions in the right place, what about them ? Are they expected to go through this nonsense till it ends ?

// even in KP, people are coming out with sub-sub theory. Itlooks fascinating, but they are all obstructions in clearer theories.//

If You dont know Kp, then dont comment on it. Sub-Sub theory was there even in time of the Originator, Shri Krishnamurthyji.

// In your case, I felt that you have genuinely attempted to providefresh perspective.//

What fresh has been given to us, except a waste of time for last one week ? Please tell us in 20 Lines and 20 Points what fresh has been given to us ?Except for " ChandraHari" and " Efficiency of a software" which cannot be downloaded easily, what else has been talked about since last week ?

// But ideally, no one (including me) will attempt itand will stick to it until it is proven beyond doubt. That day, we allwill be chasing you. //

All are not idiots here to chase any one person. On basis of what shall we chase him ? Please tell us this ?

// So once you have restructured the issues, whichyou realized that works. Just produce it through your site. Thediscussion on it must be exclusively on your dedicated discussiongroup, So that you are not bull dozed. I precisely do the same, in myworkshops. //

You have not even introduced yourself. What workshops do you wish to promote here ? And what issues are you advising about ? I dont think any thing worthwhile has been discussed since last one week to conclude anything related to astrology . What has been proven wrong and what has been proven right with the new issues ( ???)

Please illuminate and expand.

//You are a wise and learned soul. Just do not force yourself to saw,full of cluttered and confused media. //

Nobody is confused here. Do not view the media with your own cluttered mind please.

// Build your dedicated channels,just like what KP himself did. He did not argue with people, he simplytaught his methods in his dedicated classrooms. People automaticallyfollowed him, as his methods worked.//

There is no another KP here in the making except a self praising narcissistic attitude with nothing of weight to populraise.

Please introduce yourself.

We have already had enough of introductions of rwo new entrants here who have been wasting our times

with nothing to produce from one side, and from the other side only abusing and attacking.

regards,

Bhaskar.

, "indian.jyotish" <indian.jyotish wrote:>> Vinay> > I conduct / participate in workshops and have faced similar problems. > Most of the people have preconceived notions. With the time, even I > got fixity of approach. What works for me, I find it useful and I > stick to it. Many a times I turn blind to even useful techniques. For > example - even in KP, people are coming out with sub-sub theory. It > looks fascinating, but they are all obstructions in clearer theories. > > In your case, I felt that you have genuinely attempted to provide > fresh perspective. But ideally, no one (including me) will attempt it > and will stick to it until it is proven beyond doubt. That day, we all > will be chasing you. So once you have restructured the issues, which > you realized that works. Just produce it through your site. The > discussion on it must be exclusively on your dedicated discussion > group, So that you are not bull dozed. I precisely do the same, in my > workshops.> > You are a wise and learned soul. Just do not force yourself to saw, > full of cluttered and confused media. Build your dedicated channels, > just like what KP himself did. He did not argue with people, he simply > taught his methods in his dedicated classrooms. People automatically > followed him, as his methods worked. > > Anu Pathak> > , "vinayjhaa16" > vinayjhaa16@ wrote:> >> > What you suggest is what I wanted.> > > > -VJ> > , "indian.jyotish"> > <indian.jyotish@> wrote:> > >> > > Vinay> > >> > > Each one is on his/her own journey of exploration. If your methods > are> > > secretive, then why publish or even explain. Just give the end > output.> > > Even if you explain, there are few to understand and adapt.> > >> > > Another crude perspective - I assume, you have spent n years in > fine> > > tuning your computations. Do you feel that same should be > disclosed in> > > few writings. Who does it?> > >> > > Just provide your software. If people are interested, they will> > > experiment and give you feedback. Forums seldom have scholars, > rather> > > they have practicing astrologer (like me - who is not doing very > well> > > commercially compared to popular ones).> > >> > >> > > Anu Pathak> > >> > > > Moderator- Contents of this message that could harm the interests of > other readers in the group has been edited> >>

January 12, 2009

Dear Vinayji,Thank you for a good note. I hope you will elaborate this in future.Regards,SKB--- On Mon, 1/12/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16 wrote:vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16 Re: let us get back to discussions - Who is the abuser? Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 3:12 AM

Sunil jee,

You referred to "growing and melting of polar ice cap" while

discussing precession. But the process is far more complicated. Please

see http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Milankovitch_ cycles

This article mentions a "At the same time, the elliptical orbit

rotates, more slowly, leading to a 21,000-year cycle between the

seasons and the orbit." Shiddhanta Shiramani quotes "Mujjala"

(Munjaala and Manjul according to other sources) who gave a cycle of

4320000000 / 199669 = 21635.8 years per revolution of "ayana-chalana" .

It was not motion of ayana wrt fixed nakshatras, but motion of ayana

wrt seasons(ie, wrt precession of equinoxes), which commentators could

not correctly interpret.

The most important glacial cycle of ~100000 years is obtained by

taking recourse to the followinh harmonic series :

(1 / ~21000) - (1 / 25789.5) = (1 / >100000)

25789.5 is the precessional period of equinoxwes.

Siddhaantic ayanamsha has no connection with equinoctial precession.

Western commentators reject Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha as

"unscientific" , because no such phenomena is observed in the physical

world. They are not ready to test the validity of astrology. Hence, it

is useless to arue with them. The proofs of astrology lies in its

astrological outcome, not in ots comparison with physical planetary

positions. Perhaps you are also interested only in scholastic

historical discussions, instead of testing my claims astrologically

and not astronomically. I am not accusing you, but requesting you to

test astrology astrologically, and not astronomically, please.

-VJ

============ = ============ = ============ =

ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> Dear Bhaskarji,

>

> It appears that the old professor had referred to the phenomenon of

precession. The growing and melting of polar ice cap from time to time

may also have effect on this among many other factors. The effect of

this phenomenon is to be best checked through physical observation by

the astronomers from time to time and not entirely depend on some

formula, which will be found to work only for a limited time.

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> --- On Sun, 1/11/09, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ ...> wrote:

> Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ ...>

> [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: let us get back to

discussions - Who is the abuser?

> ancient_indian_ astrology

> Sunday, January 11, 2009, 4:53 AM

>

> Dear Vinayji,

>

> I met an astrologer of 85 years today. He is a Prakhand Pandit and a

>

> Professor too.

>

> He did bring this topic today, about the original Siddhant not having

>

> some corrections due to the slowing of the Rotation and wobbling of the

>

> Earth over the years, which was not taken into account as there were no

>

> calculators in that period, and something like this. I could not follow

>

> his explanation as not adept in these matters.

>

> regards/Bhaskar.

>

> ancient_indian_ astrology, "vinayjhaa16"

>

> <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Sunil jee,

>

> >

>

> > Varaha Mihira has given ample proof of his greatness in his samhita

>

> > and hora, and it is inconceivable to guess that he was a fool to write

>

> > a treatize on siddhanta with wrong values of planetary motions.

>

> > Panchsiddhantika also contains proofs of his great insight and wisdom.

>

> > But I again repeat that the existing Panchsiddhantika cannot give you

>

> > planetary positions for ANY period of history, because the beeja

>

> > corrections "mysteriously" given by Varaha Mihira were perhaps changed

>

> > by some later scribe. The problem is that such topics need detailed

>

> > discussions in a cordial environment which some persons will not allow

>

> > here ; they are bored with "useless" mathematics. I will put this

>

> > topic on my own website, and members of this forum may look there.

>

> >

>

> > -VJ

>

> > ============ = ============ = ============ =

>

> > ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil

Bhattacharjya

>

> > sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Dear Vinayji,

>

> > >

>

> > > I

>

> > > recognise your scholarship. It appears to me that regarding

>

> > > Varahamihira you are a bit confused only due to the wrong date of

>

> > > Varahamihira, which you have, as it does not match with the

>

> > astronomical data

>

> > > you got from his book. Your date of Varahamihira is not correct.

>

> > > Varahamihira was born more than 600 years before that. At his time

>

> the

>

> > > Sakanta-Saka, which Brahmagupta mentioned, was not there as that

>

> came

>

> > > to be much afterwards. Varahamihira was referring ot the Sakendra

>

> Saka,

>

> > > which started 629 years before the Sakanta-Saka.

>

> > >

>

> > > Regards,

>

> > >

>

> > > SKB

>

> > >

>

> >

>

January 12, 2009

Dear Anuji,Namaste,The ancient Jyotish Shastra includes both Astronomy and Astrology and it is my feeling that there can be some relevant astronomical discussions in the astrological forum. Probably in his enthusiasm for the ancient teachings, Vinayji has shown some disdain for the modern science. I also do not want to equate both the modern science and the ancient knowledge as there are many areas which the modern science may not have covered so far.Let Vinayji say what he has to say. But the members will definitely raise questions if found necessary.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya