RE: Relation between ASC SL and Moon STL

March 13, 2005

Relation between ASC SL and Moon STL

NOTE ON ASC SUB'S CONNECTION TO MOON'S STAR LORD

I tested the Statement that " The Ascednet Sub Lord Should some how be

connected to the Moon,s STar Lord,

if the B.T. is correct " for 13 charts. I did not proceed further as I was

getting consistant results in ALL the 13 charts.

In only 1 chart the ASC Sublord was the MOON,s Star Lord. So a perfect

connection.

In the other 12 charts, a connection could be established somehow or other

between the two, but on perusal of the

chart one could establish this connecion, with other planets also, which were

not the SUB_LORD of the ASC. Thus

with this rule there was an alternative sub-lord also.

Ex.1: Asc SL JUP : Moon' ST.L is MER: Now Jup is in Merc sign so a connection

is established.

BUT SUN, VEN ALSO

ARE in Merc Sign. So if they were the Sub L.

of ASC, then the

sonnection would have been there.

Ex.2 Asc SL is RAH Moon ST.L is SAT Sat is in Ven Mars Jup: Rah in Ven mars

Sun. So connected.

But Rahu is coj

with Sat and MERC. So similar connection exists.

EX. 3 ASC SL is VEN Moon STL is KET: Ket is in Venus sign, so connected. Merc

also in Ven sign, so similar

connection can be

established.

Ex. 8 ASC SL is SUN Moon STL is SUN This is an ideal connection . No other

connection .

So Summarising the Results, ONE CAN ACCEPT THE GENERAL STATEMENT that if there

is a connection between

ASC SL and MOON Star, the B.T. may be taken as correct. Once the chart is

cast, one can check wether any other Planet, which

could satisfy the connection, can be the sub-lord or not, depending on the

presumed accuracy of the B.Time given by

the client.

Suppose KET sub as per given time, satisfies this condtion, and also JUP could

satisfy this condtion. How much time

would elapse befor sub changed fro KETU to JUP. ? Is this possible ? Then

decide .

good luck

--- Vaidun Vidyadhar <vvidya wrote:

> Dear TW,

>

> You have said,

>

> " If numbers of days in 360 D/Y 7 365.25 D/Y

> is supposed to be the same, there is no reason to use that option. "

>

> Firstly, the number of days in the 360 d/y and 365.25 d/y is not the same.

> However, the length of the year is the same.

>

> Secondly, the duration of the " day " in the 360 d/y calendar is not the same

> as the duration of a " day " in the 365.25 d/y calendar. The former is an

> invention of the astrologer to ease his calculations. The latter is a solar

> day. The confusion arises because both these units have been given the same

> name of " day " .

>

> The litmus test to see whether the 360 d/y option has been correctly

> understood and used in a SW is to see the dates of onset of the various

> dasas in a chart when this option is selected. If the dasa periods are the

> full duration of years as per the stipulated Vimshotdhari dasa system, as in

> the case of Mr. Raichur's program, the SW writer has understood what he is

> doing and THAT program is correct. If all these other programs (that you

> mentioned below) show dasa periods falling short of the stipulated

> Vimshotdhari dasa years, the SW writers have not understood the purpose and

> origin of the 360 d/y option.

>

> From Mr Rajasekaran's recent postings to the list on this subject it appears

> that a sizeable percentage of the astrological community (though still in

> the minority) firmly believes that the Vimshotdhari year IS made up of 360

> solar days. This is NOT the view of Prof KSK. This is NOT what he has

> explained in this Readers. Followers of the KP System need to understand

> and respect this fundamental teaching of Prof KSK. A minor deviation or

> refinement in a matter such as the KP ayanmasa would be acceptable, but

> radical, fundamental changes to the very definition of a Vimshotdhari year

> would certainly NOT be acceptable. If a sizeable percentage of KP

> astrologers choose to take this path then they have created their OWN sub

> system. This is certainly not what Prof KSK taught in his Readers.

> Fortunately we have his writings available in " black and white " .

>

> Please find my comments offered in CAPITAL below sentences in your email

> below.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Vaidun Vidyadhar

> 1 / 94 Marius Street

> Tamworth, NSW 2340

> Australia

> Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home)

> Mobile: 0414 870 083

> Email: <vvidya vvidya

>

> _____

>

> tw853 [tw853]

> Sunday, 13 March 2005 3:57 PM

>

> Re: SECOND EXAMPLE OF MANUAL DASA CALCULATION

>

> Dear Vaidun,

>

> Sun DASA 25 11 1954 -> 25 11 1960--6y

>

> Sun Bhk. 25 11 1954 -> 13 03 1955--18d-3m

> Moo Bhk. 13 03 1955 -> 13 09 1955---0d-6m

> Mar Bhk. 13 09 1955 -> 19 01 1956---6d-4m

> Rah Bhk. 19 01 1956 -> 13 12 1956--24d-10m

> Jup Bhk. 13 12 1956 -> 01 10 1957--18d-9m

> Sat Bhk. 01 10 1957 -> 13 09 1958--12d-11m

> Mer Bhk. 13 09 1958 -> 19 07 1959---6d-10m

> Ket Bhk. 19 07 1959 -> 25 11 1959---6d-4m

> Ven Bhk. 25 11 1959 -> 25 11 1960---0d-12m

>

> 1. As shown above, that simulation is a 365.25 D/Y calculation, not

> a 360 D/Y calculation, i.e. taking full years of 365.25 D/Y and using

> 360-D/Y-based durations of Bhuktis as mentioned by Guruji KSK.

> I DISAGREE. SUN DASA, SUN BHUKTI LASTS FOR 3 MONTHS AND 18 DAYS IN THE 360

> D/Y CALENDAR AS SHOWN IN THE ABOVE TABLE. THE SAME IS REFLECTED IN THE

> ASTROLOGICAL TABLES THAT I HAVE WITH ME

>

> 2. 6 years from 25-11-1954 to 25-11-1960 (Gregorian calender) are

> 365.25 D/Y, i.e. 6 x 365.25= 2191.5 days which is 31.5 (5.25x6) days

> more than 360 D/Y, i.e. 6 X 360 = 2160 days.

> I DISAGREE. 6 YEARS IN THE 360 D/Y CALENDAR IS THE SAME AS 6 YEARS IN THE

> 365.25 d/y GREGORIAN CALENDAR.

>

> 3. Application of 30d/m, 12m/y, 360D/Y based bhuktis & anthara, in

> KSK's words sub sub, does not mean it is 360 D/Y calculation as long

> as 365.25D/Y is taken for full years in line with Gregorian calender.

> I DISAGREEE. WHAT PROF KSK MEANT TO CONVEY TO HIS READERS WHICH HAS NOT

> BEEN UNDERSTOOD IS THAT IN A 360 D/Y CALENDAR, THE LENGTH OF THE YEAR IS THE

> SAME AS A SOLAR YEAR COMPRISING OF 365.25 SOLAR DAYS. THE PURPOSE OF

> DIVIDING THE SOLAR YEAR INTO 360 UNITS IS MERELY FOR EASE OF CALCULATIONS.

> THE RESULTING DATES OBTAINED IN A 360 D/Y CALENDAR SHOWNING THE ONSET DATES

> OF THE VARIOUS DASAS/BHUKTIS/ANTHRAS WILL BE ACCEPTABLY ACCURATE. THE DATES

> SHOWN IN THE 360 D/Y CALENDAR CAN NEVER BE MORE THAN TWO DAYS AWAY FROM THE

> CORRECT DATES IN THE GREGORIAN CALENDAR.

>

> 4. 360 D/Y Vimsottari dasa results of Jagannantha Hora 7.02 (Sanjay

> Rath's school), Jyotish Tools (V.K. Choudhry's SA school), KPAstro

> 2.0, Fortune Discoverer Ver.6.0, Goravani Jyotish, Parashara Light

> 6.1, Astroworks, Shri Jyothi Star and manual calculations have been

> seen generally the same. Nothing is wrong as per their setting

> of " 360 days in a year " and " 360x120=432000 days " for the whole 120

> years dasa period as advocated by 360 D/Y supporters like Rohini

> Ranjan & N. Sundara Rajan. If numbers of days in 360 D/Y 7 365.25 D/Y

> issupposed to be the same, there is no reason to use that option.

> SEE MY COMMENTS ABOVE

>

> Thanks and best regards,

>

> tw

>

> , " Vaidun Vidyadhar " <vvidya@o...>

> wrote:

> > Dear Tin Win.

> >

> > Dasa/bhukti chart generated by Mr. Raichur's SW is given below.

> Please

> > note, all dasas start on 25th Nov after lapse of the stipulated

> dasa period

> > in so many number of years. He has used 360 days per year.

> >

> > Thanks. With best regards.

> >

> > DASAS TO BE ENJOYED BY VIDUN K VIDYADHARAN

> >

> > VIMSOTTARI DASAS --- BHUKTIES

> >

> > Ven DASA 25 11 1934 -> 25 11 1954 |Sun DASA 25 11 1954 ->

> 25 11

> > 1960

> >

> > |Sun Bhk. 25 11 1954 ->

> 13 03

> > 1955

> >

> > |Moo Bhk. 13 03 1955 ->

> 13 09

> > 1955

> >

> > |Mar Bhk. 13 09 1955 ->

> 19 01

> > 1956

> >

> > |Rah Bhk. 19 01 1956 ->

> 13 12

> > 1956

> >

> > Rah Bhk. 20 06 1942 -> 25 01 1945 |Jup Bhk. 13 12 1956 ->

> 01 10

> > 1957

> >

> > Jup Bhk. 25 01 1945 -> 25 09 1947 |Sat Bhk. 01 10 1957 ->

> 13 09

> > 1958

> >

> > Sat Bhk. 25 09 1947 -> 25 11 1950 |Mer Bhk. 13 09 1958 ->

> 19 07

> > 1959

> >

> > Mer Bhk. 25 11 1950 -> 25 09 1953 |Ket Bhk. 19 07 1959 ->

> 25 11

> > 1959

> >

> > Ket Bhk. 25 09 1953 -> 25 11 1954 |Ven Bhk. 25 11 1959 ->

> 25 11

> > 1960

> >

> > Moo DASA 25 11 1960 -> 25 11 1970 |Mar DASA 25 11 1970 ->

> 25 11

> > 1977

> >

> > Moo Bhk. 25 11 1960 -> 25 09 1961 |Mar Bhk. 25 11 1970 ->

> 22 04

> > 1971

> >

> > Mar Bhk. 25 09 1961 -> 25 04 1962 |Rah Bhk. 22 04 1971 ->

> 10 05

> > 1972

> >

> > Rah Bhk. 25 04 1962 -> 25 10 1963 |Jup Bhk. 10 05 1972 ->

> 16 04

> > 1973

> >

> > Jup Bhk. 25 10 1963 -> 25 02 1965 |Sat Bhk. 16 04 1973 ->

>

=== message truncated ===

---------

A.R.Raichur bombay

anant_1608

raichuranant

USE ONE OF THESE ADDRESS ES ONLY

tel: 022-2506 2609

---------

March 13, 2005

Dear Mr.Raichur,

This is the rule,dealt with,at fair length,in ASTROSECRETS & K.P., p. 237-245., and it is stressed that if this condition obtains,it proves that the horoscope has been cast,most correctly. !

I have been following this,while verifying/correcting TOBs whenever there is a doubt arising,and the dasa-bhuktis,so arrived at,satisfactorily explain all major events that have taken place...! !

I have mentioned this earlier also...some time ago...

In my experience,so far,(little though,it is...),I have found this very satisfactory indeed...

With highest regards,

Yours sincerely,

lyrastro1

GOOD LUCK !anant raichur <anant_1608 wrote:

Relation between ASC SL and Moon STLNOTE ON ASC SUB'S CONNECTION TO MOON'S STAR LORDI tested the Statement that "The Ascednet Sub Lord Should some how beconnected to the Moon,s STar Lord,if the B.T. is correct " for 13 charts. I did not proceed further as I wasgetting consistant results in ALL the 13 charts.In only 1 chart the ASC Sublord was the MOON,s Star Lord. So a perfectconnection.In the other 12 charts, a connection could be established somehow or other between the two, but on perusal of thechart one could establish this connecion, with other planets also, which werenot the SUB_LORD of the ASC. Thuswith this rule there was an alternative sub-lord also.Ex.1: Asc SL JUP : Moon' ST.L is MER: Now Jup is in Merc sign so a connectionis established.

BUT SUN, VEN ALSOARE in Merc Sign. So if they were the Sub L. of ASC, then thesonnection would have been there. Ex.2 Asc SL is RAH Moon ST.L is SAT Sat is in Ven Mars Jup: Rah in Ven marsSun. So

connected. But Rahu is cojwith Sat and MERC. So similar connection exists.EX. 3 ASC SL is VEN Moon STL is KET: Ket is in Venus sign, so connected. Mercalso in Ven sign, so similar connection can beestablished.Ex.

8 ASC SL is SUN Moon STL is SUN This is an ideal connection . No otherconnection .So Summarising the Results, ONE CAN ACCEPT THE GENERAL STATEMENT that if thereis a connection betweenASC SL and MOON Star, the B.T. may be taken as correct. Once the chart iscast, one can check wether any other Planet, which could satisfy the connection, can be the sub-lord or not, depending on thepresumed accuracy of the B.Time given bythe client. Suppose KET sub as per given time, satisfies this condtion, and also JUP couldsatisfy this condtion. How much timewould elapse befor sub changed fro KETU to JUP. ? Is this possible ? Thendecide .good luck --- Vaidun Vidyadhar <vvidya wrote:> Dear TW,> > You have said,> > "If numbers of days in 360 D/Y 7 365.25 D/Y >

is supposed to be the same, there is no reason to use that option."> > Firstly, the number of days in the 360 d/y and 365.25 d/y is not the same.> However, the length of the year is the same. > > Secondly, the duration of the "day" in the 360 d/y calendar is not the same> as the duration of a "day" in the 365.25 d/y calendar. The former is an> invention of the astrologer to ease his calculations. The latter is a solar> day. The confusion arises because both these units have been given the same> name of "day".> > The litmus test to see whether the 360 d/y option has been correctly> understood and used in a SW is to see the dates of onset of the various> dasas in a chart when this option is selected. If the dasa periods are the> full duration of years as per the stipulated Vimshotdhari dasa system, as in> the case of Mr. Raichur's program,

the SW writer has understood what he is> doing and THAT program is correct. If all these other programs (that you> mentioned below) show dasa periods falling short of the stipulated> Vimshotdhari dasa years, the SW writers have not understood the purpose and> origin of the 360 d/y option. > > From Mr Rajasekaran's recent postings to the list on this subject it appears> that a sizeable percentage of the astrological community (though still in> the minority) firmly believes that the Vimshotdhari year IS made up of 360> solar days. This is NOT the view of Prof KSK. This is NOT what he has> explained in this Readers. Followers of the KP System need to understand> and respect this fundamental teaching of Prof KSK. A minor deviation or> refinement in a matter such as the KP ayanmasa would be acceptable, but> radical, fundamental changes to the very

definition of a Vimshotdhari year> would certainly NOT be acceptable. If a sizeable percentage of KP> astrologers choose to take this path then they have created their OWN sub> system. This is certainly not what Prof KSK taught in his Readers.> Fortunately we have his writings available in "black and white".> > Please find my comments offered in CAPITAL below sentences in your email> below.> > Best regards.> > Vaidun Vidyadhar > 1 / 94 Marius Street > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > Australia > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > Email: <vvidya vvidya > > > > > > _____ > > tw853 [tw853] > Sunday, 13 March 2005 3:57 PM> > Subject:

Re: SECOND EXAMPLE OF MANUAL DASA CALCULATION> > > > Dear Vaidun,> > Sun DASA 25 11 1954 -> 25 11 1960--6y > > Sun Bhk. 25 11 1954 -> 13 03 1955--18d-3m> Moo Bhk. 13 03 1955 -> 13 09 1955---0d-6m> Mar Bhk. 13 09 1955 -> 19 01 1956---6d-4m> Rah Bhk. 19 01 1956 -> 13 12 1956--24d-10m> Jup Bhk. 13 12 1956 -> 01 10 1957--18d-9m> Sat Bhk. 01 10 1957 -> 13 09 1958--12d-11m> Mer Bhk. 13 09 1958 -> 19 07 1959---6d-10m> Ket Bhk. 19 07 1959 -> 25 11 1959---6d-4m> Ven Bhk. 25 11 1959 -> 25 11 1960---0d-12m> > 1. As shown above, that simulation is a 365.25 D/Y calculation, not > a 360 D/Y calculation, i.e. taking full years of 365.25 D/Y and using > 360-D/Y-based durations of Bhuktis as mentioned by Guruji KSK. > I DISAGREE. SUN DASA, SUN BHUKTI LASTS FOR 3 MONTHS AND 18 DAYS IN

THE 360> D/Y CALENDAR AS SHOWN IN THE ABOVE TABLE. THE SAME IS REFLECTED IN THE> ASTROLOGICAL TABLES THAT I HAVE WITH ME > > 2. 6 years from 25-11-1954 to 25-11-1960 (Gregorian calender) are > 365.25 D/Y, i.e. 6 x 365.25= 2191.5 days which is 31.5 (5.25x6) days > more than 360 D/Y, i.e. 6 X 360 = 2160 days. > I DISAGREE. 6 YEARS IN THE 360 D/Y CALENDAR IS THE SAME AS 6 YEARS IN THE> 365.25 d/y GREGORIAN CALENDAR.> > > 3. Application of 30d/m, 12m/y, 360D/Y based bhuktis & anthara, in > KSK's words sub sub, does not mean it is 360 D/Y calculation as long > as 365.25D/Y is taken for full years in line with Gregorian calender. > I DISAGREEE. WHAT PROF KSK MEANT TO CONVEY TO HIS READERS WHICH HAS NOT> BEEN UNDERSTOOD IS THAT IN A 360 D/Y CALENDAR, THE LENGTH OF THE YEAR IS THE> SAME AS A SOLAR YEAR COMPRISING OF 365.25 SOLAR

DAYS. THE PURPOSE OF> DIVIDING THE SOLAR YEAR INTO 360 UNITS IS MERELY FOR EASE OF CALCULATIONS.> THE RESULTING DATES OBTAINED IN A 360 D/Y CALENDAR SHOWNING THE ONSET DATES> OF THE VARIOUS DASAS/BHUKTIS/ANTHRAS WILL BE ACCEPTABLY ACCURATE. THE DATES> SHOWN IN THE 360 D/Y CALENDAR CAN NEVER BE MORE THAN TWO DAYS AWAY FROM THE> CORRECT DATES IN THE GREGORIAN CALENDAR.> > > 4. 360 D/Y Vimsottari dasa results of Jagannantha Hora 7.02 (Sanjay > Rath's school), Jyotish Tools (V.K. Choudhry's SA school), KPAstro > 2.0, Fortune Discoverer Ver.6.0, Goravani Jyotish, Parashara Light > 6.1, Astroworks, Shri Jyothi Star and manual calculations have been > seen generally the same. Nothing is wrong as per their setting > of "360 days in a year" and "360x120=432000 days" for the whole 120 > years dasa period as advocated by 360 D/Y supporters like Rohini > Ranjan

& N. Sundara Rajan. If numbers of days in 360 D/Y 7 365.25 D/Y > issupposed to be the same, there is no reason to use that option.> SEE MY COMMENTS ABOVE > > Thanks and best regards,> > tw> > > , "Vaidun Vidyadhar" <vvidya@o...> > wrote:> > Dear Tin Win.> > > > Dasa/bhukti chart generated by Mr. Raichur's SW is given below. > Please> > note, all dasas start on 25th Nov after lapse of the stipulated > dasa period> > in so many number of years. He has used 360 days per year.> > > > Thanks. With best regards.> > > > DASAS TO BE ENJOYED BY VIDUN K VIDYADHARAN> > > > > > >

> VIMSOTTARI DASAS --- BHUKTIES > > > > > > > > Ven DASA 25 11 1934 -> 25 11 1954 |Sun DASA 25 11 1954 -> > 25 11> > 1960> > > > |Sun Bhk. 25 11 1954 -> > 13 03> > 1955> > >

> |Moo Bhk. 13 03 1955 -> > 13 09> > 1955> > > > |Mar Bhk. 13 09 1955 -> > 19 01> > 1956> > > > |Rah Bhk. 19 01 1956 ->

> 13 12> > 1956> > > > Rah Bhk. 20 06 1942 -> 25 01 1945 |Jup Bhk. 13 12 1956 -> > 01 10> > 1957> > > > Jup Bhk. 25 01 1945 -> 25 09 1947 |Sat Bhk. 01 10 1957 -> > 13 09> > 1958> > > > Sat Bhk. 25 09 1947 -> 25 11 1950 |Mer Bhk. 13 09 1958 -> > 19 07> > 1959> > > > Mer Bhk. 25 11 1950 -> 25 09 1953 |Ket Bhk. 19 07 1959 -> > 25 11> > 1959> > > > Ket Bhk. 25 09 1953 -> 25 11 1954 |Ven Bhk. 25 11 1959 -> > 25 11> > 1960> > > > >

> > > Moo DASA 25 11 1960 -> 25 11 1970 |Mar DASA 25 11 1970 -> > 25 11> > 1977> > > > Moo Bhk. 25 11 1960 -> 25 09 1961 |Mar Bhk. 25 11 1970 -> > 22 04> > 1971> > > > Mar Bhk. 25 09 1961 -> 25 04 1962 |Rah Bhk. 22 04 1971 -> > 10 05> > 1972> > > > Rah Bhk. 25 04 1962 -> 25 10 1963 |Jup Bhk. 10 05 1972 -> > 16 04> > 1973> > > > Jup Bhk. 25 10 1963 -> 25 02 1965 |Sat Bhk. 16 04 1973 -> > === message truncated ===--------- A.R.Raichur

bombayanant_1608 raichuranantUSE ONE OF THESE ADDRESS ES ONLYtel: 022-2506 2609 ---------

India Matrimony: Find your life partner

online.

March 13, 2005

Dear Raichurji and lajmiji,

We go for today13/3/2005

PANCHANG FOR TO DAY:(as per riachur's SW)

---------DATE SUNDAY 13 3 2005 5.30 am I.S.T.SID TIME AT 5.30 LT= 16 H. 52 M. 54 S. Time show is for sub ending +/- 1 min.SUN. 11 28 40 42 Sat Jup Ven : ends at 07:53)(Jup-Sun 23:55)MOON 1 2 44 26 Mar Ket Ven : ends at 05:58)MOON 1 1 9 26 19 Mar Ket Sat : MARS 10 0 34 47 Sat Sun Rah : ends at 26:54)MERC 12 16 53 57 Jup Mer Mer : NO END JUP. -R 6 22 45 19 Mer Moo Sun : ends at 25:06)VEN. 11 24 6 17 Sat Jup Mer : NO END SAT. -R 3 26 36 32 Mer Jup Ven : NO end RAHU -R 1 0 43 27 Mar Ket Ket : NO end KETU -R 7 0 43 27 Ven Mar Mer : NO end URAN 11 13 49 1 Sat Rah Mer : NO END NEPT 10 22 35 36 Sat Moo Ven : NO END MOON:(Ket-Sun 07:00)(Ket-Moo 09:01)(Ket-Mar 10:26)(Ket-Rah 14:04) (Ket-Jup 17:19)(Ket-Sat 21:06)(Ket-Mer 24:29)(Ven-Ven 28:28)

----------------

ASPECT FROM RAICHUR'S SOFTWARE:

W E S T E R N A S P E C T S

Plan. SUN. MOON MARS MERC JUP. VEN. SAT. RAHU KETU URAN NEPT FOR. PLUT

SUN. TRIN Ssxt CONJ MOON SQUR CONJ OPP MARS OPP SQUR Ssqr SXTL MERC OPP JUP. OPP CONJ TRIN VEN. CONJ TRIN SAT. SQUR RAHU OPP KETU 135 SXTL URAN NEPT FOR. PLUT

-------------------

Total Sub is 9 KET,VEN,SUN,MOON,MAR RAH,JUP,SAT,MER

Today's star is KETU so according to rules all chilbirth with Asc. sub lord anyway conected with KET is must .

To day Ketu is in sign of VEN Star of MAR Sub of MER and SUBSUB of SUNAs per westrn aspect JUP,MOON,SAT planets aspect KETU ( as per Raichur's software)As per Hindu aspect Moon aspect KET(Moon is in Mesha and Ket is in Tula)

CONECTED PLANET: SUN IS IN SUBSUB OF ketMOON IS IN STAR OF KETRAHU IS IN STAR AND SUB OF KET So ketu is conected with VEN,MAR.MER,SUN,MOON,RAH .JUP ,SATand KET All nine Planet.

Planet S D M se Sgl Stl Sbl Ssl :Cusp S D M se Sgl Stl Sbl SsL

SUN. 11 28 40 42 Sat Jup Ven Ket :ASC 11 0 58 13 Sat Mar Mer Mar MOON 1 2 44 26 Mar Ket Ven Mer :2nd 12 12 34 21 Jup Sat Mar Mer MARS 10 0 34 47 Sat Sun Rah Ven :3rd 1 16 25 27 Mar Ven Moo Rah MERC 12 16 53 57 Jup Mer Mer Mer :4th 2 12 54 37 Ven Moo Rah Mer JUP.-R 6 22 45 19 Mer Moo Sun Mar :5th 3 6 13 58 Mer Mar Moo Mer VEN. 11 24 6 17 Sat Jup Mer Mer :6th 4 0 31 13 Moo Jup Moo Sun SAT.-R 3 26 36 32 Mer Jup Ven Ven :7th 5 0 58 13 Sun Ket Ven Ven RAHU 1 0 43 27 Mar Ket Ket Mer :8th 6 12 34 21 Mer Moo Rah Sat KETU 7 0 43 27 Ven Mar Mer Sun :9th 7 16 25 27 Ven Rah Ven Jup URAN 11 13 49 1 Sat Rah Mer Rah :10th 8 12 54 37 Mar Sat Rah Rah NEPT 10 22 35 36 Sat Moo Ven Ket :11th 9 6 13 58 Jup Ket Rah Sat FOR. 12 5 1 57 Jup Sat Sat Rah :12th 10 0 31 13 Sat Sun Rah Ven PLUT 9 0 36 3 Jup Ket Ket Sat

That means today all baby born with accuret time?????? b'coz all nine planet connected with satr of the day.

I want an example of your rectifed time(both given time and rectifed by you) and I have full confidece that i will definetly found conection ANYWAY.TO GIVEN TIME AND NO NEED FOR CORECTION.

IT IS NOT NECESSARY WHO GIVE RULS BUT MAIN THING IS HOW IFECTIVE THE RULS.

I am ready for any of date to check.and give details and give you ANYWAY conection with star of day for all nine planets.

regards

kanak bosmia

>Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1

>

>RE: Relation between ASC SL and Moon STL

>Sun, 13 Mar 2005 15:30:08 +0000 (GMT)

>

>Dear Mr.Raichur,

> This is the rule,dealt with,at fair length,in ASTROSECRETS & K.P., p. 237-245., and it is stressed that if this condition obtains,it proves that the horoscope has been cast,most correctly. !

> I have been following this,while verifying/correcting TOBs whenever there is a doubt arising,and the dasa-bhuktis,so arrived at,satisfactorily explain all major events that have taken place...! !

> I have mentioned this earlier also...some time ago...

> In my experience,so far,(little though,it is...),I have found this very satisfactory indeed...

> With highest regards,

> Yours sincerely,

> lyrastro1

> GOOD LUCK !

>

>anant raichur <anant_1608 wrote:

>Relation between ASC SL and Moon STL

>

>NOTE ON ASC SUB'S CONNECTION TO MOON'S STAR LORD

>

>I tested the Statement that "The Ascednet Sub Lord Should some how be

>connected to the Moon,s STar Lord,

>

>if the B.T. is correct " for 13 charts. I did not proceed further as I was

>getting consistant results in ALL the 13 charts.

>

>In only 1 chart the ASC Sublord was the MOON,s Star Lord. So a perfect

>connection.

>

>In the other 12 charts, a connection could be established somehow or other

>between the two, but on perusal of the

>

>chart one could establish this connecion, with other planets also, which were

>not the SUB_LORD of the ASC. Thus

>

>with this rule there was an alternative sub-lord also.

>

>Ex.1: Asc SL JUP : Moon' ST.L is MER: Now Jup is in Merc sign so a connection

>is established.

> BUT SUN, VEN ALSO

>ARE in Merc Sign. So if they were the Sub L.

> of ASC, then the

>sonnection would have been there.

>

>Ex.2 Asc SL is RAH Moon ST.L is SAT Sat is in Ven Mars Jup: Rah in Ven mars

>Sun. So connected.

> But Rahu is coj

>with Sat and MERC. So similar connection exists.

>

>EX. 3 ASC SL is VEN Moon STL is KET: Ket is in Venus sign, so connected. Merc

>also in Ven sign, so similar

> connection can be

>established.

>

>Ex. 8 ASC SL is SUN Moon STL is SUN This is an ideal connection . No other

>connection .

>

>So Summarising the Results, ONE CAN ACCEPT THE GENERAL STATEMENT that if there

>is a connection between

>

>ASC SL and MOON Star, the B.T. may be taken as correct. Once the chart is

>cast, one can check wether any other Planet, which

>could satisfy the connection, can be the sub-lord or not, depending on the

>presumed accuracy of the B.Time given by

>the client.

>

>Suppose KET sub as per given time, satisfies this condtion, and also JUP could

>satisfy this condtion. How much time

>

>would elapse befor sub changed fro KETU to JUP. ? Is this possible ? Then

>decide .

>

>good luck

>

>--- Vaidun Vidyadhar <vvidya wrote:

>

> > Dear TW,

> >

> > You have said,

> >

> > "If numbers of days in 360 D/Y 7 365.25 D/Y

> > is supposed to be the same, there is no reason to use that option."

> >

> > Firstly, the number of days in the 360 d/y and 365.25 d/y is not the same.

> > However, the length of the year is the same.

> >

> > Secondly, the duration of the "day" in the 360 d/y calendar is not the same

> > as the duration of a "day" in the 365.25 d/y calendar. The former is an

> > invention of the astrologer to ease his calculations. The latter is a solar

> > day. The confusion arises because both these units have been given the same

> > name of "day".

> >

> > The litmus test to see whether the 360 d/y option has been correctly

> > understood and used in a SW is to see the dates of onset of the various

> > dasas in a chart when this option is selected. If the dasa periods are the

> > full duration of years as per the stipulated Vimshotdhari dasa system, as in

> > the case of Mr. Raichur's program, the SW writer has understood what he is

> > doing and THAT program is correct. If all these other programs (that you

> > mentioned below) show dasa periods falling short of the stipulated

> > Vimshotdhari dasa years, the SW writers have not understood the purpose and

> > origin of the 360 d/y option.

> >

> > From Mr Rajasekaran's recent postings to the list on this subject it appears

> > that a sizeable percentage of the astrological community (though still in

> > the minority) firmly believes that the Vimshotdhari year IS made up of 360

> > solar days. This is NOT the view of Prof KSK. This is NOT what he has

> > explained in this Readers. Followers of the KP System need to understand

> > and respect this fundamental teaching of Prof KSK. A minor deviation or

> > refinement in a matter such as the KP ayanmasa would be acceptable, but

> > radical, fundamental changes to the very definition of a Vimshotdhari year

> > would certainly NOT be acceptable. If a sizeable percentage of KP

> > astrologers choose to take this path then they have created their OWN sub

> > system. This is certainly not what Prof KSK taught in his Readers.

> > Fortunately we have his writings available in "black and white".

> >

> > Please find my comments offered in CAPITAL below sentences in your email

> > below.

> >

> > Best regards.

> >

> > Vaidun Vidyadhar

> > 1 / 94 Marius Street

> > Tamworth, NSW 2340

> > Australia

> > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home)

> > Mobile: 0414 870 083

> > Email: <vvidya vvidya

> >

> > _____

> >

> > tw853 [tw853]

> > Sunday, 13 March 2005 3:57 PM

> >

> > Re: SECOND EXAMPLE OF MANUAL DASA CALCULATION

> >

> > Dear Vaidun,

> >

> > Sun DASA 25 11 1954 -> 25 11 1960--6y

> >

> > Sun Bhk. 25 11 1954 -> 13 03 1955--18d-3m

> > Moo Bhk. 13 03 1955 -> 13 09 1955---0d-6m

> > Mar Bhk. 13 09 1955 -> 19 01 1956---6d-4m

> > Rah Bhk. 19 01 1956 -> 13 12 1956--24d-10m

> > Jup Bhk. 13 12 1956 -> 01 10 1957--18d-9m

> > Sat Bhk. 01 10 1957 -> 13 09 1958--12d-11m

> > Mer Bhk. 13 09 1958 -> 19 07 1959---6d-10m

> > Ket Bhk. 19 07 1959 -> 25 11 1959---6d-4m

> > Ven Bhk. 25 11 1959 -> 25 11 1960---0d-12m

> >

> > 1. As shown above, that simulation is a 365.25 D/Y calculation, not

> > a 360 D/Y calculation, i.e. taking full years of 365.25 D/Y and using

> > 360-D/Y-based durations of Bhuktis as mentioned by Guruji KSK.

> > I DISAGREE. SUN DASA, SUN BHUKTI LASTS FOR 3 MONTHS AND 18 DAYS IN THE 360

> > D/Y CALENDAR AS SHOWN IN THE ABOVE TABLE. THE SAME IS REFLECTED IN THE

> > ASTROLOGICAL TABLES THAT I HAVE WITH ME

> >

> > 2. 6 years from 25-11-1954 to 25-11-1960 (Gregorian calender) are

> > 365.25 D/Y, i.e. 6 x 365.25= 2191.5 days which is 31.5 (5.25x6) days

> > more than 360 D/Y, i.e. 6 X 360 = 2160 days.

> > I DISAGREE. 6 YEARS IN THE 360 D/Y CALENDAR IS THE SAME AS 6 YEARS IN THE

> > 365.25 d/y GREGORIAN CALENDAR.

> >

> > 3. Application of 30d/m, 12m/y, 360D/Y based bhuktis & anthara, in

> > KSK's words sub sub, does not mean it is 360 D/Y calculation as long

> > as 365.25D/Y is taken for full years in line with Gregorian calender.

> > I DISAGREEE. WHAT PROF KSK MEANT TO CONVEY TO HIS READERS WHICH HAS NOT

> > BEEN UNDERSTOOD IS THAT IN A 360 D/Y CALENDAR, THE LENGTH OF THE YEAR IS THE

> > SAME AS A SOLAR YEAR COMPRISING OF 365.25 SOLAR DAYS. THE PURPOSE OF

> > DIVIDING THE SOLAR YEAR INTO 360 UNITS IS MERELY FOR EASE OF CALCULATIONS.

> > THE RESULTING DATES OBTAINED IN A 360 D/Y CALENDAR SHOWNING THE ONSET DATES

> > OF THE VARIOUS DASAS/BHUKTIS/ANTHRAS WILL BE ACCEPTABLY ACCURATE. THE DATES

> > SHOWN IN THE 360 D/Y CALENDAR CAN NEVER BE MORE THAN TWO DAYS AWAY FROM THE

> > CORRECT DATES IN THE GREGORIAN CALENDAR.

> >

> > 4. 360 D/Y Vimsottari dasa results of Jagannantha Hora 7.02 (Sanjay

> > Rath's school), Jyotish Tools (V.K. Choudhry's SA school), KPAstro

> > 2.0, Fortune Discoverer Ver.6.0, Goravani Jyotish, Parashara Light

> > 6.1, Astroworks, Shri Jyothi Star and manual calculations have been

> > seen generally the same. Nothing is wrong as per their setting

> > of "360 days in a year" and "360x120=432000 days" for the whole 120

> > years dasa period as advocated by 360 D/Y supporters like Rohini

> > Ranjan & N. Sundara Rajan. If numbers of days in 360 D/Y 7 365.25 D/Y

> > issupposed to be the same, there is no reason to use that option.

> > SEE MY COMMENTS ABOVE

> >

> > Thanks and best regards,

> >

> > tw

> >

> > , "Vaidun Vidyadhar" <vvidya@o...>

> > wrote:

> > > Dear Tin Win.

> > >

> > > Dasa/bhukti chart generated by Mr. Raichur's SW is given below.

> > Please

> > > note, all dasas start on 25th Nov after lapse of the stipulated

> > dasa period

> > > in so many number of years. He has used 360 days per year.

> > >

> > > Thanks. With best regards.

> > >

> > > DASAS TO BE ENJOYED BY VIDUN K VIDYADHARAN

> > >

> > > VIMSOTTARI DASAS --- BHUKTIES

> > >

> > > Ven DASA 25 11 1934 -> 25 11 1954 |Sun DASA 25 11 1954 ->

> > 25 11

> > > 1960

> > >

> > > |Sun Bhk. 25 11 1954 ->

> > 13 03

> > > 1955

> > >

> > > |Moo Bhk. 13 03 1955 ->

> > 13 09

> > > 1955

> > >

> > > |Mar Bhk. 13 09 1955 ->

> > 19 01

> > > 1956

> > >

> > > |Rah Bhk. 19 01 1956 ->

> > 13 12

> > > 1956

> > >

> > > Rah Bhk. 20 06 1942 -> 25 01 1945 |Jup Bhk. 13 12 1956 ->

> > 01 10

> > > 1957

> > >

> > > Jup Bhk. 25 01 1945 -> 25 09 1947 |Sat Bhk. 01 10 1957 ->

> > 13 09

> > > 1958

> > >

> > > Sat Bhk. 25 09 1947 -> 25 11 1950 |Mer Bhk. 13 09 1958 ->

> > 19 07

> > > 1959

> > >

> > > Mer Bhk. 25 11 1950 -> 25 09 1953 |Ket Bhk. 19 07 1959 ->

> > 25 11

> > > 1959

> > >

> > > Ket Bhk. 25 09 1953 -> 25 11 1954 |Ven Bhk. 25 11 1959 ->

> > 25 11

> > > 1960

> > >

> > > Moo DASA 25 11 1960 -> 25 11 1970 |Mar DASA 25 11 1970 ->

> > 25 11

> > > 1977

> > >

> > > Moo Bhk. 25 11 1960 -> 25 09 1961 |Mar Bhk. 25 11 1970 ->

> > 22 04

> > > 1971

> > >

> > > Mar Bhk. 25 09 1961 -> 25 04 1962 |Rah Bhk. 22 04 1971 ->

> > 10 05

> > > 1972

> > >

> > > Rah Bhk. 25 04 1962 -> 25 10 1963 |Jup Bhk. 10 05 1972 ->

> > 16 04

> > > 1973

> > >

> > > Jup Bhk. 25 10 1963 -> 25 02 1965 |Sat Bhk. 16 04 1973 ->

> >

>=== message truncated ===

>

>---------

>A.R.Raichur bombay

>anant_1608

>raichuranant

>USE ONE OF THESE ADDRESS ES ONLY

>tel: 022-2506 2609

>---------

>

March 14, 2005

Dear Mr Yogesh

My studies have shown,though very small in Number, that this rule can be

applied to check wether the BT needs correction or NOT. Once you detrmine, that

correction is needed, then it should be done by THE RP Method, and then if reqd

checked by this Rule. Please do not make the sub of ASC same as Moon Star,

straight away.

good luck

--- Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1 wrote:

> Dear Mr.Raichur,

> This is the rule,dealt with,at fair length,in

> ASTROSECRETS & K.P., p. 237-245., and it is stressed that if this condition

> obtains,it proves that the horoscope has been cast,most correctly. !

> I have been following this,while verifying/correcting

> TOBs whenever there is a doubt arising,and the dasa-bhuktis,so arrived

> at,satisfactorily explain all major events that have taken place...! !

> I have mentioned this earlier also...some time ago...

> In my experience,so far,(little though,it is...),I

> have found this very satisfactory indeed...

> With highest regards,

> Yours sincerely,

> lyrastro1

> GOOD LUCK !

>

> anant raichur <anant_1608 wrote:

> Relation between ASC SL and Moon STL

>

> NOTE ON ASC SUB'S CONNECTION TO MOON'S STAR LORD

>

> I tested the Statement that " The Ascednet Sub Lord Should some how be

> connected to the Moon,s STar Lord,

>

> if the B.T. is correct " for 13 charts. I did not proceed further as I was

> getting consistant results in ALL the 13 charts.

>

> In only 1 chart the ASC Sublord was the MOON,s Star Lord. So a perfect

> connection.

>

> In the other 12 charts, a connection could be established somehow or other

> between the two, but on perusal of the

>

> chart one could establish this connecion, with other planets also, which were

> not the SUB_LORD of the ASC. Thus

>

> with this rule there was an alternative sub-lord also.

>

> Ex.1: Asc SL JUP : Moon' ST.L is MER: Now Jup is in Merc sign so a

> connection

> is established.

> BUT SUN, VEN

> ALSO

> ARE in Merc Sign. So if they were the Sub L.

> of ASC, then

> the

> sonnection would have been there.

>

> Ex.2 Asc SL is RAH Moon ST.L is SAT Sat is in Ven Mars Jup: Rah in Ven

> mars

> Sun. So connected.

> But Rahu is coj

> with Sat and MERC. So similar connection exists.

>

> EX. 3 ASC SL is VEN Moon STL is KET: Ket is in Venus sign, so connected.

> Merc

> also in Ven sign, so similar

> connection can

> be

> established.

>

> Ex. 8 ASC SL is SUN Moon STL is SUN This is an ideal connection . No other

> connection .

>

> So Summarising the Results, ONE CAN ACCEPT THE GENERAL STATEMENT that if

> there

> is a connection between

>

> ASC SL and MOON Star, the B.T. may be taken as correct. Once the chart is

> cast, one can check wether any other Planet, which

> could satisfy the connection, can be the sub-lord or not, depending on the

> presumed accuracy of the B.Time given by

> the client.

>

> Suppose KET sub as per given time, satisfies this condtion, and also JUP

> could

> satisfy this condtion. How much time

>

> would elapse befor sub changed fro KETU to JUP. ? Is this possible ? Then

> decide .

>

> good luck

>

> --- Vaidun Vidyadhar <vvidya wrote:

>

> > Dear TW,

> >

> > You have said,

> >

> > " If numbers of days in 360 D/Y 7 365.25 D/Y

> > is supposed to be the same, there is no reason to use that option. "

> >

> > Firstly, the number of days in the 360 d/y and 365.25 d/y is not the same.

> > However, the length of the year is the same.

> >

> > Secondly, the duration of the " day " in the 360 d/y calendar is not the same

> > as the duration of a " day " in the 365.25 d/y calendar. The former is an

> > invention of the astrologer to ease his calculations. The latter is a

> solar

> > day. The confusion arises because both these units have been given the

> same

> > name of " day " .

> >

> > The litmus test to see whether the 360 d/y option has been correctly

> > understood and used in a SW is to see the dates of onset of the various

> > dasas in a chart when this option is selected. If the dasa periods are the

> > full duration of years as per the stipulated Vimshotdhari dasa system, as

> in

> > the case of Mr. Raichur's program, the SW writer has understood what he is

> > doing and THAT program is correct. If all these other programs (that you

> > mentioned below) show dasa periods falling short of the stipulated

> > Vimshotdhari dasa years, the SW writers have not understood the purpose and

> > origin of the 360 d/y option.

> >

> > From Mr Rajasekaran's recent postings to the list on this subject it

> appears