Guest guest Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 Hello all, I am new to this group and to KP System. I strayed into astrology by accident, but now I have developed a serious interest in the subject. I am trying to follow the postings to this group as regularly as I am able to. Am happy to see interesting postings. I have some books and mags on KP, but I find several contradictions in the use of parameters and rules for analysis. For instance, in my interaction with several KP astrologers, I find that the ayanamsa (even the KP ayanamsa) is not fixed. Why this confusion? How can we expect a chart to be correct when such a key element of computation is not standard? Another parameter is the number of days in a Vimshottari Year. I have heard people using both 360 and 365.25. Does this group have a recommendation on these? If astrology is to be believed to be a science, there must be some commonly agreed upon axioms and inference system. I am looking forward to your thoughts, comments ... Regards, Rangarajan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 After lot of discussions, letters etc., the correct KP AYANAMSA fas been fixed by PROF Balachandran, and is published in the Annual 200e of KP & Astrology. However, this small difference in Ayana used by various KP astrologers need not bother a new comer, unduly. THE IMPORTANT ELEMENTS IN KP ARE THE STAR LORD AND THE SUB LORD. In almost all cases, a slight change in the Ayanamsa does ont change these important elemnts. A new comer should go to the essentials, rather than worry about the technicalities of Ayanamsa. In fact The Times of Astrolgy publishes articles, which use Laheri Ayanamsa, dif of 6 min. appr., and the KP SYSTEM of division. I have found that in allmost all cases, except borderline cases, the STAR/SUB Lords are same as the ones with accurte Ayanamsas. THE SUB_SUB LORD will change, as it is more sensitive. Very few KP astrologers use SUBSUB in their readings --- Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy <ranga wrote: > > > Hello all, > I am new to this group and to KP System. I strayed into astrology by > accident, but now I have developed a serious interest in the subject. > > I am trying to follow the postings to this group as regularly as I am > able to. Am happy to see interesting postings. > > I have some books and mags on KP, but I find several contradictions in > the use of parameters and rules for analysis. For instance, in my > interaction with several KP astrologers, I find that the ayanamsa > (even the KP ayanamsa) is not fixed. Why this confusion? How can we > expect a chart to be correct when such a key element of computation is > not standard? Another parameter is the number of days in a Vimshottari > Year. I have heard people using both 360 and 365.25. Does this group > have a recommendation on these? If astrology is to be believed to be a > science, there must be some commonly agreed upon axioms and inference > system. > > I am looking forward to your thoughts, comments ... > > Regards, > Rangarajan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 Dear Rangarajan, There is NO dichotomy on the subject of K.P. Ayanamsa...in this forum itself, Shri Kanak Bosmiaji has,very kindly,indeed, published the new correct K.P.Ayanamsas for all the years...else, you may refer the 2003 Annual Journal, Astrology & K.P., Pp 88-93,published by Shri K.Subramaniam,s/o the late Shri K.S.K.,which discusses the whole gamut of K.P.Ayanamsa,a very illuminating article by Prof.Balachandran... You seem to have read journals and articles not written by K.P. followers,or, met astrologers and authors/editors,who are continuing to follow the old ayanamsas...and have not kept in touch with the newly corrected and computerised K.P.Ayanamsas,based on Newcomb's value of the rate of precession of the equinoxes...(which coincided in the year 291 AD.) The "length" of the year has also been extensively discussed by Shri.A,R.Raichur,in this forum,only a couple of weeks ago...very convincingly indeed... With best wishes, lyrastro1 GOOD LUCK !Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy <ranga wrote: Hello all,I am new to this group and to KP System. I strayed into astrology byaccident, but now I have developed a serious interest in the subject.I am trying to follow the postings to this group as regularly as I amable to. Am happy to see interesting postings. I have some books and mags on KP, but I find several contradictions inthe use of parameters and rules for analysis. For instance, in myinteraction with several KP astrologers, I find that the ayanamsa(even the KP ayanamsa) is not fixed. Why this confusion? How can weexpect a chart to be correct when such a key element of computation isnot standard? Another parameter is the number of days in a VimshottariYear. I have heard people using both 360 and 365.25. Does this grouphave a recommendation on these? If astrology is to be believed to be ascience, there must be some commonly agreed upon axioms and inferencesystem.I am looking forward to your thoughts, comments ...Regards,Rangarajan India Matrimony: Find your life partner online. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 hanks very much for your comments. I have the 2003 Annual number with me. It makes me nervous when you say " ...You seem to have read journals and articles not written by K.P. followers,or, met astrologers and authors/editors,who are continuing to follow the old ayanamsas ... " . How does one know whether the astrologer one meets or whose article one reads about is knowledgeable in KP? I wish I could find out. For your kind information, I picked up at random the following 4 articles, and all of these follow the " Old " KP Ayanamsa: 1) KP & Astrology, 2004, Page 11, Dr.N.S.Vishwapathy. Gives ayanamsa 23-32-48 for the year 12/7/1978. 2) KP & Astrology, 2005, Page 26, K.P.Kuppu Ganapathi. Gives ayanamsa 23-19-43 for the year 2/9/1962. 3) KP & Astrology, Aug 1992, P4, Vaikari Ramamurthy. Gives ayanamsa 23-2-24 for the year 3/12/1942. 4) KP & Astrology, Aug 1992, Page 1, K.M.Subramanian. Gives ayanamsa 23-20-50 for the year 22/7/1964. You will notice the first two are post-2003 and the other two pre-2003. I have not checked if KMS and Vaikari follow(ed) the new ayanamsa after 2003, but if they did so, what happens to the correctness of the cases they discussed in so many of their articles with the " old " ayanamsa? Regards, Rangarajan , Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1> wrote: > Dear Rangarajan, > There is NO dichotomy on the subject of K.P. Ayanamsa...in this forum itself, Shri Kanak Bosmiaji has,very kindly,indeed, published the new correct K.P.Ayanamsas for all the years...else, you may refer the 2003 Annual Journal, Astrology & K.P., > Pp 88-93,published by Shri K.Subramaniam,s/o the late Shri K.S.K.,which discusses the whole gamut of K.P.Ayanamsa,a very illuminating article by Prof.Balachandran... > You seem to have read journals and articles not written by > K.P. followers,or, met astrologers and authors/editors,who are continuing to follow the old ayanamsas...and have not kept in touch with the newly corrected and computerised K.P.Ayanamsas,based on Newcomb's value of the rate of precession of the equinoxes...(which coincided in the year 291 AD.) > The " length " of the year has also been extensively discussed by Shri.A,R.Raichur,in this forum,only a couple of weeks ago...very convincingly indeed... > With best wishes, > lyrastro1 > GOOD LUCK ! > > Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy <ranga@m...> wrote: > > Hello all, > I am new to this group and to KP System. I strayed into astrology by > accident, but now I have developed a serious interest in the subject. > > I am trying to follow the postings to this group as regularly as I am > able to. Am happy to see interesting postings. > > I have some books and mags on KP, but I find several contradictions in > the use of parameters and rules for analysis. For instance, in my > interaction with several KP astrologers, I find that the ayanamsa > (even the KP ayanamsa) is not fixed. Why this confusion? How can we > expect a chart to be correct when such a key element of computation is > not standard? Another parameter is the number of days in a Vimshottari > Year. I have heard people using both 360 and 365.25. Does this group > have a recommendation on these? If astrology is to be believed to be a > science, there must be some commonly agreed upon axioms and inference > system. > > I am looking forward to your thoughts, comments ... > > Regards, > Rangarajan > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 Thanks very much for the clarification. Regards, Rangarajan , anant raichur <anant_1608> wrote: > After lot of discussions, letters etc., the correct KP AYANAMSA fas been fixed > by PROF Balachandran, and is published in the Annual 200e of KP & Astrology. > > However, this small difference in Ayana used by various KP astrologers need not > bother a new comer, unduly. THE IMPORTANT ELEMENTS IN KP ARE THE STAR LORD AND > THE SUB LORD. In almost all cases, a slight change in the Ayanamsa does ont > change these important elemnts. A new comer should go to the essentials, rather > than worry about the technicalities of Ayanamsa. > > In fact The Times of Astrolgy publishes articles, which use Laheri Ayanamsa, > dif of 6 min. appr., and the KP SYSTEM of division. I have found that in > allmost all cases, except borderline cases, the STAR/SUB Lords are same as the > ones with accurte Ayanamsas. THE SUB_SUB LORD will change, as it is more > sensitive. > > Very few KP astrologers use SUBSUB in their readings > > --- Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy <ranga@m...> wrote: > > > > > > > Hello all, > > I am new to this group and to KP System. I strayed into astrology by > > accident, but now I have developed a serious interest in the subject. > > > > I am trying to follow the postings to this group as regularly as I am > > able to. Am happy to see interesting postings. > > > > I have some books and mags on KP, but I find several contradictions in > > the use of parameters and rules for analysis. For instance, in my > > interaction with several KP astrologers, I find that the ayanamsa > > (even the KP ayanamsa) is not fixed. Why this confusion? How can we > > expect a chart to be correct when such a key element of computation is > > not standard? Another parameter is the number of days in a Vimshottari > > Year. I have heard people using both 360 and 365.25. Does this group > > have a recommendation on these? If astrology is to be believed to be a > > science, there must be some commonly agreed upon axioms and inference > > system. > > > > I am looking forward to your thoughts, comments ... > > > > Regards, > > Rangarajan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 Dear Rangarajan, What is all this hullabuloo about the "correct K.P. ayanamsa" ? ...and to what end ? pray may I know ? You've proved me right,though,the astrologers you have quoted were indeed,using the old K.P. Ayanamsa... ! Why are you so very,sensitive ? Never mind,the small difference between the old and new ayanamsas...in actual practice,the use of the new value seems to have made NO great, earth-shattering difference compared to the results obtained when the old ayanamsa is used...atleast in my practise of K.P.,during the last couple of years or so,after the new ayanamsas were published... I trust that you will use the new ayanamsas from now on...and if in your own experience you come accross some major difference occuring when you use the old ayanamsa...pl inform everybody in this forum...we'll all be very thankful...by the way,I also trust,you must have read Shri Raichur's articles on this subject...and his reply to you on this very subject... I suggest you use the horary method,to find out arrival of your child from the school or wife from the market etc...and let me know...as for me,I have not found any great error,in predicting the time,atleast to the minute... As our revered Guruji always said..."...the proof of the pudding is in eating it..." ! I suggest that you please experiment and then form your own opinion..and please do inform your findings to everybody... Thanks in advance... Yours sincerely, lyrastro1 GOOD LUCK ! Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy <ranga wrote: hanks very much for your comments. I have the 2003 Annual number withme. It makes me nervous when you say "...You seem to have readjournals and articles not written by K.P. followers,or, metastrologers and authors/editors,who are continuing to follow the oldayanamsas ...". How does one know whether the astrologer one meets orwhose article one reads about is knowledgeable in KP? I wish I couldfind out. For your kind information, I picked up at random thefollowing 4 articles, and all of these follow the "Old" KP Ayanamsa:1) KP & Astrology, 2004, Page 11, Dr.N.S.Vishwapathy. Gives ayanamsa23-32-48 for the year 12/7/1978.2) KP & Astrology, 2005, Page 26, K.P.Kuppu Ganapathi. Gives ayanamsa23-19-43 for the year 2/9/1962.3) KP & Astrology, Aug 1992, P4, Vaikari Ramamurthy. Gives ayanamsa23-2-24 for the year 3/12/1942.4) KP & Astrology, Aug 1992, Page 1, K.M.Subramanian. Gives ayanamsa23-20-50 for the year 22/7/1964.You will notice the first two are post-2003 and the other twopre-2003. I have not checked if KMS and Vaikari follow(ed) the newayanamsa after 2003, but if they did so, what happens to thecorrectness of the cases they discussed in so many of their articleswith the "old" ayanamsa?Regards,Rangarajan , Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1>wrote:> Dear Rangarajan,> There is NO dichotomy on the subject ofK.P. Ayanamsa...in this forum itself, Shri Kanak Bosmiaji has,verykindly,indeed, published the new correct K.P.Ayanamsas for all theyears...else, you may refer the 2003 Annual Journal, Astrology & K.P., > Pp 88-93,published by Shri K.Subramaniam,s/o the late ShriK.S.K.,which discusses the whole gamut of K.P.Ayanamsa,a veryilluminating article by Prof.Balachandran...> You seem to have read journals andarticles not written by > K.P. followers,or, met astrologers and authors/editors,who arecontinuing to follow the old ayanamsas...and have not kept in touchwith the newly corrected and computerised K.P.Ayanamsas,based onNewcomb's value of the rate of precession of the equinoxes...(whichcoincided in the year 291 AD.)> The "length" of the year has also beenextensively discussed by Shri.A,R.Raichur,in this forum,only a coupleof weeks ago...very convincingly indeed...> With best wishes, > lyrastro1> GOOD LUCK !> > Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy <ranga@m...> wrote:> > Hello all,> I am new to this group and to KP System. I strayed into astrology by> accident, but now I have developed a serious interest in the subject.> > I am trying to follow the postings to this group as regularly as I am> able to. Am happy to see interesting postings. > > I have some books and mags on KP, but I find several contradictions in> the use of parameters and rules for analysis. For instance, in my> interaction with several KP astrologers, I find that the ayanamsa> (even the KP ayanamsa) is not fixed. Why this confusion? How can we> expect a chart to be correct when such a key element of computation is> not standard? Another parameter is the number of days in a Vimshottari> Year. I have heard people using both 360 and 365.25. Does this group> have a recommendation on these? If astrology is to be believed to be a> science, there must be some commonly agreed upon axioms and inference> system.> > I am looking forward to your thoughts, comments ...> > Regards,> Rangarajan> > > > > Sponsor> document.write('');> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 Dear Rangarajan, Your random choice ayanamsas are closed to Lahiri Ayanamsa, not to old or new KPA as shown below. That is why perhaps there is an Editor's request to Article Writers to send only KP articles using only KPA in KP Annual 2005, p 3. Date KPAnnual Lahiri New KPA Old KPA 1. 12/07/1978 23-32-48 23-33-26 23-28-01 23-27-26 2. 02/09/1962 23-19-43 23-19-55 23-14-45 23-13-55 3. 03/12/1942 23-02-24 23-03-27 22-58-12 22-57-26 4. 22/07/1964 23-20-50 23-21-26 23-16-19 23-15-27 Note: Date & KP Annual ayanamsa as per in your Message #2548; Lahiri Ayanamsa as per Jagannatha Hora Lite; New KPA as per table value in KP Annual 2003; Old KPA as per Astraura. In KP Annual 2005, ayanamsas in pp 7, 13, 18, 21, 44 are closed to old KPA; pp 26, 53 closed to Lahiri; pp 29, 41, 44, 47, 53, 57, 58 are closed to new KPA. Best regards, tw P.S. 1. As you're aware, basically in KP Reader I -- (a) pp 58-59, Ayanamsa Table from 1840 to 2001, with a note for the years beyond 2001, for each year to add at the rate of 50.2388475 secs. (b) " For convenience and for easy calculation of sub sub periods 360 days (per year) are taken, as the difference is negligible. But 365 1/4 days must be taken " quoting Mantreswarar, in Paladheepika. 2. Regarding the so-called New KPA --- (a) What is new? in Msg #1481 and follow-up discussion; (b) For general information, salient points of Prof. K. Balachandran's article and editor K. Subramaniam's appeal in Msg# 1530 (from K.P. & ASTRLOGY, Year Book 2003, p 1, pp 88-91) © KPA.doc TABLE OF KP AYANAMSA (KP & ASTROLOGY 2003) (from KP & ASTROLOGY 2003, pp 92-93) in File section 3. Controversy of 360 vs 365 days per year --- (a) Views of Anant Raichur in Msg#2076 and Sandy Crowther in Msg#2081 to end the fruitless discussion which can be traced back; (b) Some source of different views in Msg#2003.(Also in p 69, KP Annual 2004) , Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1> wrote: > Dear Rangarajan, > What is all this hullabuloo about the " correct K.P. ayanamsa " ? ...and to what end ? pray may I know ? > You've proved me right,though,the astrologers you have quoted were indeed,using the old K.P. Ayanamsa... ! > Why are you so very,sensitive ? Never mind,the small difference between the old and new ayanamsas...in actual practice,the use of the new value seems to have made NO great, earth-shattering difference compared to the results obtained when the old ayanamsa is used...atleast in my practise of K.P.,during the last couple of years or so,after the new ayanamsas were published... > I trust that you will use the new ayanamsas from now on...and if in your own experience you come accross some major difference occuring when you use the old ayanamsa...pl inform everybody in this forum...we'll all be very thankful...by the way,I also trust,you must have read Shri Raichur's articles on this subject...and his reply to you on this very subject... > I suggest you use the horary method,to find out arrival of your child from the school or wife from the market etc...and let me know...as for me,I have not found any great error,in predicting the time,atleast to the minute... > As our revered Guruji always said... " ...the proof of the pudding is in eating it... " ! > I suggest that you please experiment and then form your own opinion..and please do inform your findings to everybody... > Thanks in advance... > Yours sincerely, > lyrastro1 > GOOD LUCK ! > > > > Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy <ranga@m...> wrote: > > hanks very much for your comments. I have the 2003 Annual number with > me. It makes me nervous when you say " ...You seem to have read > journals and articles not written by K.P. followers,or, met > astrologers and authors/editors,who are continuing to follow the old > ayanamsas ... " . How does one know whether the astrologer one meets or > whose article one reads about is knowledgeable in KP? I wish I could > find out. For your kind information, I picked up at random the > following 4 articles, and all of these follow the " Old " KP Ayanamsa: > 1) KP & Astrology, 2004, Page 11, Dr.N.S.Vishwapathy. Gives ayanamsa > 23-32-48 for the year 12/7/1978. > 2) KP & Astrology, 2005, Page 26, K.P.Kuppu Ganapathi. Gives ayanamsa > 23-19-43 for the year 2/9/1962. > 3) KP & Astrology, Aug 1992, P4, Vaikari Ramamurthy. Gives ayanamsa > 23-2-24 for the year 3/12/1942. > 4) KP & Astrology, Aug 1992, Page 1, K.M.Subramanian. Gives ayanamsa > 23-20-50 for the year 22/7/1964. > > You will notice the first two are post-2003 and the other two > pre-2003. I have not checked if KMS and Vaikari follow(ed) the new > ayanamsa after 2003, but if they did so, what happens to the > correctness of the cases they discussed in so many of their articles > with the " old " ayanamsa? > > Regards, > Rangarajan > , Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1> > wrote: > > Dear Rangarajan, > > There is NO dichotomy on the subject of > K.P. Ayanamsa...in this forum itself, Shri Kanak Bosmiaji has,very > kindly,indeed, published the new correct K.P.Ayanamsas for all the > years...else, you may refer the 2003 Annual Journal, Astrology & K.P., > > Pp 88-93,published by Shri K.Subramaniam,s/o the late Shri > K.S.K.,which discusses the whole gamut of K.P.Ayanamsa,a very > illuminating article by Prof.Balachandran... > > You seem to have read journals and > articles not written by > > K.P. followers,or, met astrologers and authors/editors,who are > continuing to follow the old ayanamsas...and have not kept in touch > with the newly corrected and computerised K.P.Ayanamsas,based on > Newcomb's value of the rate of precession of the equinoxes...(which > coincided in the year 291 AD.) > > The " length " of the year has also been > extensively discussed by Shri.A,R.Raichur,in this forum,only a couple > of weeks ago...very convincingly indeed... > > With best wishes, > > lyrastro1 > > GOOD LUCK ! > > > > Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy <ranga@m...> wrote: > > > > Hello all, > > I am new to this group and to KP System. I strayed into astrology by > > accident, but now I have developed a serious interest in the subject. > > > > I am trying to follow the postings to this group as regularly as I am > > able to. Am happy to see interesting postings. > > > > I have some books and mags on KP, but I find several contradictions in > > the use of parameters and rules for analysis. For instance, in my > > interaction with several KP astrologers, I find that the ayanamsa > > (even the KP ayanamsa) is not fixed. Why this confusion? How can we > > expect a chart to be correct when such a key element of computation is > > not standard? Another parameter is the number of days in a Vimshottari > > Year. I have heard people using both 360 and 365.25. Does this group > > have a recommendation on these? If astrology is to be believed to be a > > science, there must be some commonly agreed upon axioms and inference > > system. > > > > I am looking forward to your thoughts, comments ... > > > > Regards, > > Rangarajan > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 Dear Rangarajan There may be differences in the Ayanamsa as given by the Authors. Since you have the Latest Correct Ayanams, calculate to nearest day, and then find the Lords. If the Lords do not change, the correctness of the results is not at all affected. Just try it out instead of discussing. GOOD LUCK --- Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy <ranga wrote: > > > hanks very much for your comments. I have the 2003 Annual number with > me. It makes me nervous when you say " ...You seem to have read > journals and articles not written by K.P. followers,or, met > astrologers and authors/editors,who are continuing to follow the old > ayanamsas ... " . How does one know whether the astrologer one meets or > whose article one reads about is knowledgeable in KP? I wish I could > find out. For your kind information, I picked up at random the > following 4 articles, and all of these follow the " Old " KP Ayanamsa: > 1) KP & Astrology, 2004, Page 11, Dr.N.S.Vishwapathy. Gives ayanamsa > 23-32-48 for the year 12/7/1978. > 2) KP & Astrology, 2005, Page 26, K.P.Kuppu Ganapathi. Gives ayanamsa > 23-19-43 for the year 2/9/1962. > 3) KP & Astrology, Aug 1992, P4, Vaikari Ramamurthy. Gives ayanamsa > 23-2-24 for the year 3/12/1942. > 4) KP & Astrology, Aug 1992, Page 1, K.M.Subramanian. Gives ayanamsa > 23-20-50 for the year 22/7/1964. > > You will notice the first two are post-2003 and the other two > pre-2003. I have not checked if KMS and Vaikari follow(ed) the new > ayanamsa after 2003, but if they did so, what happens to the > correctness of the cases they discussed in so many of their articles > with the " old " ayanamsa? > > Regards, > Rangarajan > , Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1> > wrote: > > Dear Rangarajan, > > There is NO dichotomy on the subject of > K.P. Ayanamsa...in this forum itself, Shri Kanak Bosmiaji has,very > kindly,indeed, published the new correct K.P.Ayanamsas for all the > years...else, you may refer the 2003 Annual Journal, Astrology & K.P., > > Pp 88-93,published by Shri K.Subramaniam,s/o the late Shri > K.S.K.,which discusses the whole gamut of K.P.Ayanamsa,a very > illuminating article by Prof.Balachandran... > > You seem to have read journals and > articles not written by > > K.P. followers,or, met astrologers and authors/editors,who are > continuing to follow the old ayanamsas...and have not kept in touch > with the newly corrected and computerised K.P.Ayanamsas,based on > Newcomb's value of the rate of precession of the equinoxes...(which > coincided in the year 291 AD.) > > The " length " of the year has also been > extensively discussed by Shri.A,R.Raichur,in this forum,only a couple > of weeks ago...very convincingly indeed... > > With best wishes, > > lyrastro1 > > GOOD LUCK ! > > > > Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy <ranga@m...> wrote: > > > > Hello all, > > I am new to this group and to KP System. I strayed into astrology by > > accident, but now I have developed a serious interest in the subject. > > > > I am trying to follow the postings to this group as regularly as I am > > able to. Am happy to see interesting postings. > > > > I have some books and mags on KP, but I find several contradictions in > > the use of parameters and rules for analysis. For instance, in my > > interaction with several KP astrologers, I find that the ayanamsa > > (even the KP ayanamsa) is not fixed. Why this confusion? How can we > > expect a chart to be correct when such a key element of computation is > > not standard? Another parameter is the number of days in a Vimshottari > > Year. I have heard people using both 360 and 365.25. Does this group > > have a recommendation on these? If astrology is to be believed to be a > > science, there must be some commonly agreed upon axioms and inference > > system. > > > > I am looking forward to your thoughts, comments ... > > > > Regards, > > Rangarajan > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 Dear Mr L.Y.Rao Mr Rangarajan is using the same SW as you are. He has made an excellent SW in WINDOWS, with my basic calculations. He is still new to predictions as such. He is using the Latest Corrected KP AYanamsa. There need not be further discussions on this. thank you all --- Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1 wrote: > Dear Rangarajan, > What is all this hullabuloo about the " correct K.P. > ayanamsa " ? ...and to what end ? pray may I know ? > You've proved me right,though,the astrologers you > have quoted were indeed,using the old K.P. Ayanamsa... ! > Why are you so very,sensitive ? Never mind,the > small difference between the old and new ayanamsas...in actual practice,the > use of the new value seems to have made NO great, earth-shattering difference > compared to the results obtained when the old ayanamsa is used...atleast in > my practise of K.P.,during the last couple of years or so,after the new > ayanamsas were published... > I trust that you will use the new ayanamsas from > now on...and if in your own experience you come accross some major difference > occuring when you use the old ayanamsa...pl inform everybody in this > forum...we'll all be very thankful...by the way,I also trust,you must have > read Shri Raichur's articles on this subject...and his reply to you on this > very subject... > I suggest you use the horary method,to find out > arrival of your child from the school or wife from the market etc...and let > me know...as for me,I have not found any great error,in predicting the > time,atleast to the minute... > As our revered Guruji always said... " ...the proof > of the pudding is in eating it... " ! > I suggest that you please experiment and then form > your own opinion..and please do inform your findings to everybody... > Thanks in advance... > Yours sincerely, > lyrastro1 > GOOD LUCK ! > > > > Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy <ranga wrote: > > hanks very much for your comments. I have the 2003 Annual number with > me. It makes me nervous when you say " ...You seem to have read > journals and articles not written by K.P. followers,or, met > astrologers and authors/editors,who are continuing to follow the old > ayanamsas ... " . How does one know whether the astrologer one meets or > whose article one reads about is knowledgeable in KP? I wish I could > find out. For your kind information, I picked up at random the > following 4 articles, and all of these follow the " Old " KP Ayanamsa: > 1) KP & Astrology, 2004, Page 11, Dr.N.S.Vishwapathy. Gives ayanamsa > 23-32-48 for the year 12/7/1978. > 2) KP & Astrology, 2005, Page 26, K.P.Kuppu Ganapathi. Gives ayanamsa > 23-19-43 for the year 2/9/1962. > 3) KP & Astrology, Aug 1992, P4, Vaikari Ramamurthy. Gives ayanamsa > 23-2-24 for the year 3/12/1942. > 4) KP & Astrology, Aug 1992, Page 1, K.M.Subramanian. Gives ayanamsa > 23-20-50 for the year 22/7/1964. > > You will notice the first two are post-2003 and the other two > pre-2003. I have not checked if KMS and Vaikari follow(ed) the new > ayanamsa after 2003, but if they did so, what happens to the > correctness of the cases they discussed in so many of their articles > with the " old " ayanamsa? > > Regards, > Rangarajan > , Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1> > wrote: > > Dear Rangarajan, > > There is NO dichotomy on the subject of > K.P. Ayanamsa...in this forum itself, Shri Kanak Bosmiaji has,very > kindly,indeed, published the new correct K.P.Ayanamsas for all the > years...else, you may refer the 2003 Annual Journal, Astrology & K.P., > > Pp 88-93,published by Shri K.Subramaniam,s/o the late Shri > K.S.K.,which discusses the whole gamut of K.P.Ayanamsa,a very > illuminating article by Prof.Balachandran... > > You seem to have read journals and > articles not written by > > K.P. followers,or, met astrologers and authors/editors,who are > continuing to follow the old ayanamsas...and have not kept in touch > with the newly corrected and computerised K.P.Ayanamsas,based on > Newcomb's value of the rate of precession of the equinoxes...(which > coincided in the year 291 AD.) > > The " length " of the year has also been > extensively discussed by Shri.A,R.Raichur,in this forum,only a couple > of weeks ago...very convincingly indeed... > > With best wishes, > > lyrastro1 > > GOOD LUCK ! > > > > Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy <ranga@m...> wrote: > > > > Hello all, > > I am new to this group and to KP System. I strayed into astrology by > > accident, but now I have developed a serious interest in the subject. > > > > I am trying to follow the postings to this group as regularly as I am > > able to. Am happy to see interesting postings. > > > > I have some books and mags on KP, but I find several contradictions in > > the use of parameters and rules for analysis. For instance, in my > > interaction with several KP astrologers, I find that the ayanamsa > > (even the KP ayanamsa) is not fixed. Why this confusion? How can we > > expect a chart to be correct when such a key element of computation is > > not standard? Another parameter is the number of days in a Vimshottari > > Year. I have heard people using both 360 and 365.25. Does this group > > have a recommendation on these? If astrology is to be believed to be a > > science, there must be some commonly agreed upon axioms and inference > > system. > > > > I am looking forward to your thoughts, comments ... > > > > Regards, > > Rangarajan > > > > > > > > > > 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.