Guest guest Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Plz note the table printed upon page 93 of goswami ji's transliterated book 1940 armaan is totally wrong. In The very first column The span of rahu should have been 1 to 5 and not 4. Hereon the whole table goes incorrect. Kulbir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Dear Kulbir bhai, I have checked with the original urdu edition. The table on page 93 of the 1940 urdu edition reads 1 ta 4 for rahu column. Therefore the transliteration is correct. Regards, Varun Trivedi , kulbir bance <kulbirbance wrote: > > Plz note the table printed upon page 93 of goswami ji's transliterated > book 1940 armaan is totally wrong. In The very first column The span > of rahu should have been 1 to 5 and not 4. Hereon the whole table goes > incorrect. Kulbir > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Varun ji, then the original has a mistake it should be from 0 to 5. The header mentions 6 years ,correrponding column under it has 34 to 39. Why publish it incorrect in the transliteration. Do the mistakes have some sanctity too. Regards. Kulbir On 1/21/09, varun_trvd <varun_trvd wrote: > Dear Kulbir bhai, > > I have checked with the original urdu edition. The table on page 93 of > the 1940 urdu edition reads 1 ta 4 for rahu column. Therefore the > transliteration is correct. > > Regards, > > Varun Trivedi > , kulbir bance > <kulbirbance wrote: >> >> Plz note the table printed upon page 93 of goswami ji's transliterated >> book 1940 armaan is totally wrong. In The very first column The span >> of rahu should have been 1 to 5 and not 4. Hereon the whole table goes >> incorrect. Kulbir >> > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Dear Kulbir Bhai, There is no mistake even in the original. The rahu period will be from 1 to 4 only. The example table is for a native who started his venus dasha at the age of 17 years. Therefore under the column for Venus the years 17 - 19 are to be written. From the venus column go backwards. the 16th year will be of moon, then two years of the sun will be 14th and the 15th... and so on. When you come to the rahu column it will be only four years left and hence 1 to 4 will be of rahu. Regards, Varun Trivedi , kulbir bance <kulbirbance wrote: > > Varun ji, > > then the original has a mistake it should be from 0 to 5. > The header mentions 6 years ,correrponding column under it has 34 to > 39. Why publish it incorrect in the transliteration. Do the mistakes > have some sanctity too. > > Regards. > > Kulbir > On 1/21/09, varun_trvd <varun_trvd wrote: > > Dear Kulbir bhai, > > > > I have checked with the original urdu edition. The table on page 93 of > > the 1940 urdu edition reads 1 ta 4 for rahu column. Therefore the > > transliteration is correct. > > > > Regards, > > > > Varun Trivedi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , kulbir bance > > <kulbirbance@> wrote: > >> > >> Plz note the table printed upon page 93 of goswami ji's transliterated > >> book 1940 armaan is totally wrong. In The very first column The span > >> of rahu should have been 1 to 5 and not 4. Hereon the whole table goes > >> incorrect. Kulbir > >> > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Varun ji, Then it means that the daura can start from any point like vimshotri. So ANTARDASHA cannot be left untouched. I am told that prashari jyotish evolved the concept by starting from position of moon. Bcoz by the other method age span ran into 300 yrs. What was that or the original method. Regards. Kulbir On 1/22/09, varun_trvd <varun_trvd wrote: > Dear Kulbir Bhai, > > There is no mistake even in the original. The rahu period will be > from 1 to 4 only. > > The example table is for a native who started his venus dasha at the > age of 17 years. Therefore under the column for Venus the years 17 - > 19 are to be written. > > From the venus column go backwards. the 16th year will be of moon, > then two years of the sun will be 14th and the 15th... and so on. > When you come to the rahu column it will be only four years left and > hence 1 to 4 will be of rahu. > > Regards, > > Varun Trivedi > > > > , kulbir bance > <kulbirbance wrote: >> >> Varun ji, >> >> then the original has a mistake it should be from 0 to 5. >> The header mentions 6 years ,correrponding column under it has 34 to >> 39. Why publish it incorrect in the transliteration. Do the mistakes >> have some sanctity too. >> >> Regards. >> >> Kulbir >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 1/21/09, varun_trvd <varun_trvd wrote: >> > Dear Kulbir bhai, >> > >> > I have checked with the original urdu edition. The table on page > 93 of >> > the 1940 urdu edition reads 1 ta 4 for rahu column. Therefore the >> > transliteration is correct. >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Varun Trivedi >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > , kulbir bance >> > <kulbirbance@> wrote: >> >> >> >> Plz note the table printed upon page 93 of goswami ji's > transliterated >> >> book 1940 armaan is totally wrong. In The very first column The > span >> >> of rahu should have been 1 to 5 and not 4. Hereon the whole > table goes >> >> incorrect. Kulbir >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Dear Kulbir bhai, Yes it is true that the 35 sala dasha cycle of the Lal Kitab can start with any planet. In the example table [ page 93; 1940 urdu ed ] the dasha is worked out on the basis of a prominent event in the life of the native. The event is the first marriage of the native. Since the native got married in the 17th year, hence it is assumed that his Venus dasha or shukra ka daura started at the 17th year. The rest of the table , both for years prior to the 17th and after the 17th have been filled accordingly. Since the example table above is for a native whose birth details were not known and therefore the help of a major event in the life had to be taken to ascertain the 35 sala dasha cycle. But in the cases where the birth details of the native are available then the 35 sala dasha cycle has to be worked out mathematically and logically through the same method which is applied to derive the Vinshottari dasha. How the 35 sala dasha cycle is worked out has been explained in an article already uploaded in the files in the folder articles on LK grammar. In a couple of days Pt. Bhooshan Priya ji will be posting another artcle on the 35 sala dasha cycle as you had already requested him to do. Have a nice day Varun Trivedi , kulbir bance <kulbirbance wrote: > > Varun ji, > > Then it means that the daura can start from any point like > vimshotri. So ANTARDASHA cannot be left untouched. I am told that > prashari jyotish evolved the concept by starting from position of > moon. Bcoz by the other method age span ran into 300 yrs. What was > that or the original method. > > Regards. > > Kulbir > > > > On 1/22/09, varun_trvd <varun_trvd wrote: > > Dear Kulbir Bhai, > > > > There is no mistake even in the original. The rahu period will be > > from 1 to 4 only. > > > > The example table is for a native who started his venus dasha at the > > age of 17 years. Therefore under the column for Venus the years 17 - > > 19 are to be written. > > > > From the venus column go backwards. the 16th year will be of moon, > > then two years of the sun will be 14th and the 15th... and so on. > > When you come to the rahu column it will be only four years left and > > hence 1 to 4 will be of rahu. > > > > Regards, > > > > Varun Trivedi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , kulbir bance > > <kulbirbance@> wrote: > >> > >> Varun ji, > >> > >> then the original has a mistake it should be from 0 to 5. > >> The header mentions 6 years ,correrponding column under it has 34 to > >> 39. Why publish it incorrect in the transliteration. Do the mistakes > >> have some sanctity too. > >> > >> Regards. > >> > >> Kulbir > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 1/21/09, varun_trvd <varun_trvd@> wrote: > >> > Dear Kulbir bhai, > >> > > >> > I have checked with the original urdu edition. The table on page > > 93 of > >> > the 1940 urdu edition reads 1 ta 4 for rahu column. Therefore the > >> > transliteration is correct. > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > > >> > Varun Trivedi > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > , kulbir bance > >> > <kulbirbance@> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Plz note the table printed upon page 93 of goswami ji's > > transliterated > >> >> book 1940 armaan is totally wrong. In The very first column The > > span > >> >> of rahu should have been 1 to 5 and not 4. Hereon the whole > > table goes > >> >> incorrect. Kulbir > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Varun ji; kindly let me know what was the original method which calculated dasha for 300 yeras and parashari system rectified it to be taken from position from moon to shorten the span. i simply don't know what the earlier method was; only heard about it. may be the anwser could explain certain things about 35 saala chakkar because it does the same i.e. shortens the span of period governed by particular ruling planets. i am damn serious;plz share any information about the same. i am not questioning your knowledge but simply looking for an answer. regards kulbir On 1/22/09, varun_trvd <varun_trvd wrote: Dear Kulbir bhai,Yes it is true that the 35 sala dasha cycle of the Lal Kitab can start with any planet.In the example table [ page 93; 1940 urdu ed ] the dasha is worked out on the basis of a prominent event in the life of the native. The event is the first marriage of the native. Since the native got married in the 17th year, hence it is assumed that his Venus dasha or shukra ka daura started at the 17th year. The rest of the table , both for years prior to the 17th and after the 17th have been filled accordingly.Since the example table above is for a native whose birth details were not known and therefore the help of a major event in the life had to be taken to ascertain the 35 sala dasha cycle. But in the cases where the birth details of the native are available then the 35 sala dasha cycle has to be worked out mathematically and logically through the same method which is applied to derive the Vinshottari dasha. How the 35 sala dasha cycle is worked out has been explained in an article already uploaded in the files in the folder articles on LK grammar.In a couple of days Pt. Bhooshan Priya ji will be posting another artcle on the 35 sala dasha cycle as you had already requested him to do.Have a nice dayVarun Trivedi , kulbir bance <kulbirbance wrote:>> Varun ji, > > Then it means that the daura can start from any point like> vimshotri. So ANTARDASHA cannot be left untouched. I am told that > prashari jyotish evolved the concept by starting from position of> moon. Bcoz by the other method age span ran into 300 yrs. What was> that or the original method. > > Regards.> > Kulbir> > > > > > > > > > > On 1/22/09, varun_trvd <varun_trvd wrote:> > Dear Kulbir Bhai,> >> > There is no mistake even in the original. The rahu period will be > > from 1 to 4 only.> >> > The example table is for a native who started his venus dasha at the> > age of 17 years. Therefore under the column for Venus the years 17 -> > 19 are to be written. > >> > From the venus column go backwards. the 16th year will be of moon,> > then two years of the sun will be 14th and the 15th... and so on.> > When you come to the rahu column it will be only four years left and> > hence 1 to 4 will be of rahu.> >> > Regards,> >> > Varun Trivedi> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> > , kulbir bance > > <kulbirbance@> wrote:> >>> >> Varun ji,> >>> >> then the original has a mistake it should be from 0 to 5.> >> The header mentions 6 years ,correrponding column under it has 34 to> >> 39. Why publish it incorrect in the transliteration. Do the mistakes> >> have some sanctity too.> >>> >> Regards.> >>> >> Kulbir > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> On 1/21/09, varun_trvd <varun_trvd@> wrote:> >> > Dear Kulbir bhai, > >> >> >> > I have checked with the original urdu edition. The table on page> > 93 of> >> > the 1940 urdu edition reads 1 ta 4 for rahu column. Therefore the > >> > transliteration is correct.> >> >> >> > Regards,> >> >> >> > Varun Trivedi> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > , kulbir bance > >> > <kulbirbance@> wrote:> >> >>> >> >> Plz note the table printed upon page 93 of goswami ji's> > transliterated> >> >> book 1940 armaan is totally wrong. In The very first column The> > span> >> >> of rahu should have been 1 to 5 and not 4. Hereon the whole> > table goes> >> >> incorrect. Kulbir> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Dear Kulbir bhai, I am not aware of the process through which 300 year dasha system was worked out. As a matter of fact I am hearing it for the first time from you. At least I have not come across any reference to 300 year dasha system in the Vedic astrology texts I have read. However I would try to find out if such a procedure ever existed. With respect and regards, Varun Trivedi , kulbir bance <kulbirbance wrote: > > Varun ji; > kindly let me know what was the original method which calculated dasha for > 300 yeras and parashari system rectified it to be taken from position from > moon to shorten the span. > i simply don't know what the earlier method was; only heard about it. > may be the anwser could explain certain things about 35 saala chakkar > because it does the same i.e. shortens the span of period governed by > particular ruling planets. > i am damn serious;plz share any information about the same. i am not > questioning your knowledge but simply looking for an answer. > regards > kulbir > > > On 1/22/09, varun_trvd <varun_trvd wrote: > > > > Dear Kulbir bhai, > > > > Yes it is true that the 35 sala dasha cycle of the Lal Kitab can > > start with any planet. > > > > In the example table [ page 93; 1940 urdu ed ] the dasha is worked > > out on the basis of a prominent event in the life of the native. The > > event is the first marriage of the native. Since the native got > > married in the 17th year, hence it is assumed that his Venus dasha or > > shukra ka daura started at the 17th year. The rest of the table , > > both for years prior to the 17th and after the 17th have been filled > > accordingly. > > > > Since the example table above is for a native whose birth details > > were not known and therefore the help of a major event in the life > > had to be taken to ascertain the 35 sala dasha cycle. But in the > > cases where the birth details of the native are available then the 35 > > sala dasha cycle has to be worked out mathematically and logically > > through the same method which is applied to derive the Vinshottari > > dasha. > > > > How the 35 sala dasha cycle is worked out has been explained in an > > article already uploaded in the files in the folder articles on LK > > grammar. > > > > In a couple of days Pt. Bhooshan Priya ji will be posting another > > artcle on the 35 sala dasha cycle as you had already requested him to > > do. > > > > Have a nice day > > > > Varun Trivedi > > > > <% 40>, > > kulbir bance > > <kulbirbance@> wrote: > > > > > > Varun ji, > > > > > > Then it means that the daura can start from any point like > > > vimshotri. So ANTARDASHA cannot be left untouched. I am told that > > > prashari jyotish evolved the concept by starting from position of > > > moon. Bcoz by the other method age span ran into 300 yrs. What was > > > that or the original method. > > > > > > Regards. > > > > > > Kulbir > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/22/09, varun_trvd <varun_trvd@> wrote: > > > > Dear Kulbir Bhai, > > > > > > > > There is no mistake even in the original. The rahu period will be > > > > from 1 to 4 only. > > > > > > > > The example table is for a native who started his venus dasha at > > the > > > > age of 17 years. Therefore under the column for Venus the years > > 17 - > > > > 19 are to be written. > > > > > > > > From the venus column go backwards. the 16th year will be of moon, > > > > then two years of the sun will be 14th and the 15th... and so on. > > > > When you come to the rahu column it will be only four years left > > and > > > > hence 1 to 4 will be of rahu. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Varun Trivedi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In <% 40>, > > kulbir bance > > > > <kulbirbance@> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Varun ji, > > > >> > > > >> then the original has a mistake it should be from 0 to 5. > > > >> The header mentions 6 years ,correrponding column under it has > > 34 to > > > >> 39. Why publish it incorrect in the transliteration. Do the > > mistakes > > > >> have some sanctity too. > > > >> > > > >> Regards. > > > >> > > > >> Kulbir > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 1/21/09, varun_trvd <varun_trvd@> wrote: > > > >> > Dear Kulbir bhai, > > > >> > > > > >> > I have checked with the original urdu edition. The table on > > page > > > > 93 of > > > >> > the 1940 urdu edition reads 1 ta 4 for rahu column. Therefore > > the > > > >> > transliteration is correct. > > > >> > > > > >> > Regards, > > > >> > > > > >> > Varun Trivedi > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > --- In <% 40>, > > kulbir bance > > > >> > <kulbirbance@> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Plz note the table printed upon page 93 of goswami ji's > > > > transliterated > > > >> >> book 1940 armaan is totally wrong. In The very first column > > The > > > > span > > > >> >> of rahu should have been 1 to 5 and not 4. Hereon the whole > > > > table goes > > > >> >> incorrect. Kulbir > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.