Birth Time - A Fundamental Issue

[Guest guest]

Dear Members,

When working on the recent study on BRT I realised that we should

arrive at the correct definition of birth time. I am sure you would

have seen definitions such as " the exact time when the child first

cries " , " time of first breath " , " time of cutting the umbilical cord " ,

" time when the head comes out " , etc. What is the " correct " definition?

 

If we agree upon a definition, how do we know if the birth time

recorded (for a given case) is as per this definition? In fact I have

a basic question to TW/Ron: what is the guarantee that these AA-rated

charts fulfill " any " birth time criteria?

 

Just out of curiosity: What if I had applied RP theory for BRT in all

the 300 cases I studied programmatically? The program actually took a

few seconds (approx. 5) to run, so while processing all the records

the RPs would have been the same. Can I conclude that at least a

majority of the charts would have passed the RP test? If not, what do

we conclude about the data as well as about RP-based rectification?

 

I hope members will not get angry with me!

 

Regards,

Rangarajan

[Guest guest]

Dear Rangarajan,

 

Pl go ahead with RP test for 300 AA data, most of which are

generally supposed to be recorded as per common medical practice or

custom in Western countries.

 

Let me answer your question later.

 

Thanks and regards,

 

tw

 

 

, " Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy "

<ranga@m...> wrote:

> Dear Members,

> When working on the recent study on BRT I realised that we should

> arrive at the correct definition of birth time. I am sure you would

> have seen definitions such as " the exact time when the child first

> cries " , " time of first breath " , " time of cutting the umbilical

cord " ,

> " time when the head comes out " , etc. What is the " correct "

definition?

>

> If we agree upon a definition, how do we know if the birth time

> recorded (for a given case) is as per this definition? In fact I

have

> a basic question to TW/Ron: what is the guarantee that these AA-

rated

> charts fulfill " any " birth time criteria?

>

> Just out of curiosity: What if I had applied RP theory for BRT in

all

> the 300 cases I studied programmatically? The program actually

took a

> few seconds (approx. 5) to run, so while processing all the records

> the RPs would have been the same. Can I conclude that at least a

> majority of the charts would have passed the RP test? If not, what

do

> we conclude about the data as well as about RP-based rectification?

>

> I hope members will not get angry with me!

>

> Regards,

> Rangarajan

[Guest guest]

Dear Rangarajan and Tw

I think that to proceed in this test with RP for the 300 AA charts the test should consider the following:

1-It will be a mechanical test made by computer and RP supose a sync between the moment,question and the object of the question (querent).

In the VI reader K.S.Krishanamurti says that using a random number from1 to 249 for the query would solve the problem of doing queries after few minutes to different querents.

I would sugest to generate a random number that any computer can do very well for constructing the RP also.

 

Thanks

Evencio

 

tw853 <tw853 wrote:

Dear Rangarajan,Pl go ahead with RP test for 300 AA data, most of which are generally supposed to be recorded as per common medical practice or custom in Western countries. Let me answer your question later.Thanks and regards,tw , "Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy" <ranga@m...> wrote:> Dear Members,> When working on the recent study on BRT I realised that we should> arrive at the correct definition of birth time. I am sure you would> have seen definitions such as "the exact time when the child first> cries", "time of first breath", "time of cutting the umbilical cord",> "time when the head comes out", etc. What is the "correct" definition? > > If we agree upon a definition, how do we know if the birth time> recorded (for a

given case) is as per this definition? In fact I have> a basic question to TW/Ron: what is the guarantee that these AA-rated> charts fulfill "any" birth time criteria?> > Just out of curiosity: What if I had applied RP theory for BRT in all> the 300 cases I studied programmatically? The program actually took a> few seconds (approx. 5) to run, so while processing all the records> the RPs would have been the same. Can I conclude that at least a> majority of the charts would have passed the RP test? If not, what do> we conclude about the data as well as about RP-based rectification?> > I hope members will not get angry with me!> > Regards,> Rangarajan

[Guest guest]

Dear Rangarajan,

 

1. Who knows what is the " correct " definition? As per KP " the exact

time when the child first cries " . If there can be a significant

deviation of time among definations, the choice will be crucial.

 

2. However, I've no idae how can we get a sufficient size of sample

as per a chosen definition. In statistical tests there are always

errorrs and omissions and variance which are to be minimized by

expanding the size of simple as much as possible.

 

3. There is no guarantee that these AA-rated charts fulfill " any "

birth time criteria. " AA --- Accurate data as recorded by the family

or state. This includes BC (birth certificate), and BR (birth

record), that which is not an official document but a quote of the

birth record from the Registrar or Bureau of Records, the baptismal

certificate, family Bible, or baby book. These data reflect the best

available accuracy. " These are the only best data we can use for

statistical tests of rules or techniques. If you think such AA data

are usable, don't worry about some more hundreds.

 

4. By the way could you run your computer program for the idea of

testing RPs as given below.

 

 

 

 

Thanks and regards,

 

tw

 

 

 

Message 2390 of 4693 < Previous | Next >

 

 

anant raichur <anant_1608

Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:12 am

Re: RP Experiment anant_1608

Offline

Send Email

 

TO RONGAUNT

 

Go ahead. Ultimately What is TRUTH is what ONE Percieves as Truth,

not what others say IS Truth.

rongaunt <rongaunt wrote:

 

 

Dear Yogesh,

 

I can only repeat, it is NOT a question of including subs or

not. It is a question of finding out WHAT WORKS FOR ME

(OR THE OTHER PARTICIPANTS).

 

 

rON gAUNT

 

 

 

 

 

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:04:53 +0000, you wrote:

 

>Dear Ron,

> Personally,I think a lot of effort has already gone into

this...and the inclusion of the subs of the Ascendant Star,and the

Moon's star...is being 'disputed' or more proof is being looked

for,for either case...

> Does it matter so very much ? Does it change the ultimate

result...?

> We seem to doubt the very hard earned experience of tghe KP

stalwarts,who've worked very hard to arrive at the conclusion that

these should also be included...why should we make an issue out of

it ? Those who feel that only five RPs are sufficient,as well as

those who feel that the two sublords should also be included,should

both be left to decide for themselves.

> Such fine hair-splitting,in my humble opinion seems to be a waste

of valuable time...either way,you accept that the RPs do play a

decisive role in the accurate timing of the materialisation of an

event...!

> The question is simply about 5 or 7 planets...how many planets

have you found to be repeating among RPs,by the way,and how often...?

> Yours sincerely,

> lyrastro1

>

>rongaunt wrote:

>

>Dear Yogesh,

>

>This is NOT an experiment to verify or vindicate KP or RP

>fundamentals. I thought my mail clearly showed that I

>considered that possibly there was not a right or wrong way,

>and that RP assessment might be an individual gift of

>synchronicity. This experiment is primarily to find out what

>works best for me (or other participants).

>

>Over possibly a long period of time you have found that you need

>to include Subs, Anant sticks to the original without Subs.

>This has possibly taken both of you many years to find out what

>to include and what to leave out. Unfortunately I do not have

>the time, or the inclination to be kept in the dark for a

>prolonged period of time. If a simple experiment of a few

>hours duration can short circuit the learning process I cannot

>see why there can be any objection to it.

>

>In fact I would go so far as to say that even experienced KP

>practitioners may find such an exercise enlightening.

>

>

>Ron Gaunt

>

>

>>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:55:32 +0000, you wrote:

>

>>Dear Ron,tw et al,and all new followers of K.P.,

>> I truly appreciate your thirst for verification/vindication of

K.P. fundamentals,but may I suggest that they were arrived at, after

long days of experimentation...and,I daresay, careful

verification...in the face of fierce opposition from a variety of

quarters.

>> When K.P., was first propagated by Shri KSK,the " traditional

astrologers,belonging to various schools, had raised numerous

objections and kept asking for a variety of studies to confirm KSK's

dictums,for years...finally even dubbing it as ... " nothing

new...just borrowed from MEENA's work on stellar astrology... "

etc....

>> All that is history now,and K.P. has come a long way from this,in

the last 35-40 years,and now is being practised widely...all over

the world,not-withstanding the proverbial die-hard

traditionalists,and " nit-pickers " ,who seem to still continue

questioning every thing related to K.P., whereas they have no

compunction to even accept unquestioningly,numerous proven-as-

contradictory, " principles/dicta " from " ancient

masters,rishis...etc... " , while continuously passing snide remarks

against K.P., and its epoch-making discoveries,proven numerous times

to be very correct...!

>> For an old follower of K.P., (since 1977 or so),the raising of

the same old objections, anew,despite having been clarified several

times by several scholars,in almost every old issue of Astrology &

Adrishta,the monthly magazine,version of K.P & Astrology,is quite

irritating at times,I guess,and I hope readers will bear with me, if

at times,I betray my irritation...

>> The original concept propounded for RPs was only five RPs...later

a few scholars,notable during the last 7-8 years began advocating

the sublords of the Ascendant and Moon to be included...later

research papers published have begun advocating the sub-sub method

for more accuracy...etc.

>> Even today,quite a few KP scholars continue to publish articles

on the use of the sub-sub and a number of variations tried by

themselves,on an experimental basis...

>> K.P., thus seems to continuously evolve new methods ideas

etc...which,to my mind is a very encouraging phenomenon...

>> However,I suggest readers to go through an illuminating article

by Shri A,R Raichur... " The craze for accuracy... " ,as there is a

limit to seeking accuracy and perfection,in the actual practise of

the art of astrology...

>> Regards,

>> lyrastro1

>>

>>

>>

>>Shivendra Tiwari wrote:

>>Dear Sir,

>>Namaskar

>> Realy a good move. Please start.

>>

>>Thanks

>>Yours

>>Shivendra

>>

>>rongaunt wrote:

>>et al,

>>

>>The recent discussion on RPs shows a division between KP

>>astrologers on whether to use just the original 5 significators,

>>or use additional factors such as Subs, aspects, etc.

>>

>>This appears to confirm what I expressed in a post some time

>>ago; that maybe it is not a question of what is right or wrong,

>>but that the results for a particular technique may be simply

>>the expression of a persons own ability and alignment with

>>synchronicity.

>>

>>As RPs appear to be a key-stone to KP, I have decided that I

>>need to experiment with what works for me.

>>My modus operandi is to take say 10 case studies of timed births

>>ie. where the cases are classified AA (by birth certificate,

>>documentation at the time of birth, or observation), and where

>>the birth is not shown rounded to the nearest quarter of an hour.

>>Then to write them out without the time of birth, shuffle them

>>around and then assess them for birth time using RPs. I will

>>start by assessing them using the original 5 significator system

>>and see the result. I will then check using additional

>>significators such as subs etc to try to determine which for me

>>works the best. The yardsticks I use will be that I will

>>consider a successful hit to be where I am within 8 minutes

>>(time) of the reported time of birth. Also I will consider

>>that where 8 or more of the 10 case studies can be seen to be

>>correct, that is the method I will use after confirming by

>>another similar experiment.

>>

>>On reflection I realized that whilst I think I have a good sense

>>of timing, I may in fact not have a gift for synchronicity.

>>Therefore it would also be interesting to see the results from

>>other members, particularly those who 'know' by experience that

>>they have consistently been correct in using RPs. If any

>>members (experienced or otherwise) would like to take part in

>>this experiment I will be happy to provide the case studies

>>either on or off List. Please initially post your name to

>>the List, and any comments or suggestions for this experiment.

>>Meanwhile I will gather some case studies.

>>

>>

>>

>>Ron Gaunt

>>

>>

 

 

 

, " tw853 " <tw853> wrote:

> Dear Rangarajan,

>

> Pl go ahead with RP test for 300 AA data, most of which are

> generally supposed to be recorded as per common medical practice

or

> custom in Western countries.

>

> Let me answer your question later.

>

> Thanks and regards,

>

> tw

>

>

> , " Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy "

> <ranga@m...> wrote:

> > Dear Members,

> > When working on the recent study on BRT I realised that we should

> > arrive at the correct definition of birth time. I am sure you

would

> > have seen definitions such as " the exact time when the child

first

> > cries " , " time of first breath " , " time of cutting the umbilical

> cord " ,

> > " time when the head comes out " , etc. What is the " correct "

> definition?

> >

> > If we agree upon a definition, how do we know if the birth time

> > recorded (for a given case) is as per this definition? In fact I

> have

> > a basic question to TW/Ron: what is the guarantee that these AA-

> rated

> > charts fulfill " any " birth time criteria?

> >

> > Just out of curiosity: What if I had applied RP theory for BRT

in

> all

> > the 300 cases I studied programmatically? The program actually

> took a

> > few seconds (approx. 5) to run, so while processing all the

records

> > the RPs would have been the same. Can I conclude that at least a

> > majority of the charts would have passed the RP test? If not,

what

> do

> > we conclude about the data as well as about RP-based

rectification?

> >

> > I hope members will not get angry with me!

> >

> > Regards,

> > Rangarajan

[Guest guest]

dear friends.

Whatever method of rectification we propose, the aim is to correctly predict the

future

events. Unless the method of correction, gives a corrected time, and UNLESS

WITH THIS

 

CORRECTED TIME, THE PAST EVENTS ARE FULLY EXPLAINED, Correct to one/2 days, the

 

method remains one more method only, and not a reliable method.

 

I am afraid if the RP method is tested on 300 charts in 5 secs, even this method

may

 

not be found reliable.

 

1st letus FIX up a process of determining the date of an important event, from

the

 

Birth Time,(assumming it as correct). Once this process is fixed, and all the

KP

 

members are able to get the same date +/- 2 days. then we can test the methods

of

 

birth correction.

 

The date of marriage is an important event. But to-day, the definations of

Marriage

 

is fluid. The date of BIRTH (not time) of the 1st issue is a Definate date, and

 

should be used for tests. It is preferably to use a Ladies chart and find out

 

the date of birth of her 1st issue.

 

To start the process, the Birth Details of a Lady are :

 

Date 1st jun 1960: Lat 18N57 72E49 :TOB 7hrs 40 mts IST.

 

1st issue Born Around last week of aug to 1st week of sept 1985. This is a

 

practical information, which can be given by a Doctor/expeienced old lady of the

house.,

 

The Lady's asc sub lord is JUP. The Moon Star lord is MER.

Merc 's sub is Jup and jup' sub-sub is Merc. So indirectly connected.

 

Good Luck

--- tw853 <tw853 wrote:

 

> Dear Rangarajan,

>

> 1. Who knows what is the " correct " definition? As per KP " the exact

> time when the child first cries " . If there can be a significant

> deviation of time among definations, the choice will be crucial.

>

> 2. However, I've no idae how can we get a sufficient size of sample

> as per a chosen definition. In statistical tests there are always

> errorrs and omissions and variance which are to be minimized by

> expanding the size of simple as much as possible.

>

> 3. There is no guarantee that these AA-rated charts fulfill " any "

> birth time criteria. " AA --- Accurate data as recorded by the family

> or state. This includes BC (birth certificate), and BR (birth

> record), that which is not an official document but a quote of the

> birth record from the Registrar or Bureau of Records, the baptismal

> certificate, family Bible, or baby book. These data reflect the best

> available accuracy. " These are the only best data we can use for

> statistical tests of rules or techniques. If you think such AA data

> are usable, don't worry about some more hundreds.

>

> 4. By the way could you run your computer program for the idea of

> testing RPs as given below.

>

>

>

>

> Thanks and regards,

>

> tw

>

>

>

> Message 2390 of 4693 < Previous | Next >

>

>

> anant raichur <anant_1608

> Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:12 am

> Re: RP Experiment anant_1608

> Offline

> Send Email

>

> TO RONGAUNT

>

> Go ahead. Ultimately What is TRUTH is what ONE Percieves as Truth,

> not what others say IS Truth.

> rongaunt <rongaunt wrote:

>

>

> Dear Yogesh,

>

> I can only repeat, it is NOT a question of including subs or

> not. It is a question of finding out WHAT WORKS FOR ME

> (OR THE OTHER PARTICIPANTS).

>

>

> rON gAUNT

>

>

>

>

>

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:04:53 +0000, you wrote:

>

> >Dear Ron,

> > Personally,I think a lot of effort has already gone into

> this...and the inclusion of the subs of the Ascendant Star,and the

> Moon's star...is being 'disputed' or more proof is being looked

> for,for either case...

> > Does it matter so very much ? Does it change the ultimate

> result...?

> > We seem to doubt the very hard earned experience of tghe KP

> stalwarts,who've worked very hard to arrive at the conclusion that

> these should also be included...why should we make an issue out of

> it ? Those who feel that only five RPs are sufficient,as well as

> those who feel that the two sublords should also be included,should

> both be left to decide for themselves.

> > Such fine hair-splitting,in my humble opinion seems to be a waste

> of valuable time...either way,you accept that the RPs do play a

> decisive role in the accurate timing of the materialisation of an

> event...!

> > The question is simply about 5 or 7 planets...how many planets

> have you found to be repeating among RPs,by the way,and how often...?

> > Yours sincerely,

> > lyrastro1

> >

> >rongaunt wrote:

> >

> >Dear Yogesh,

> >

> >This is NOT an experiment to verify or vindicate KP or RP

> >fundamentals. I thought my mail clearly showed that I

> >considered that possibly there was not a right or wrong way,

> >and that RP assessment might be an individual gift of

> >synchronicity. This experiment is primarily to find out what

> >works best for me (or other participants).

> >

> >Over possibly a long period of time you have found that you need

> >to include Subs, Anant sticks to the original without Subs.

> >This has possibly taken both of you many years to find out what

> >to include and what to leave out. Unfortunately I do not have

> >the time, or the inclination to be kept in the dark for a

> >prolonged period of time. If a simple experiment of a few

> >hours duration can short circuit the learning process I cannot

> >see why there can be any objection to it.

> >

> >In fact I would go so far as to say that even experienced KP

> >practitioners may find such an exercise enlightening.

> >

> >

> >Ron Gaunt

> >

> >

> >>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:55:32 +0000, you wrote:

> >

> >>Dear Ron,tw et al,and all new followers of K.P.,

> >> I truly appreciate your thirst for verification/vindication of

> K.P. fundamentals,but may I suggest that they were arrived at, after

> long days of experimentation...and,I daresay, careful

> verification...in the face of fierce opposition from a variety of

> quarters.

> >> When K.P., was first propagated by Shri KSK,the " traditional

> astrologers,belonging to various schools, had raised numerous

> objections and kept asking for a variety of studies to confirm KSK's

> dictums,for years...finally even dubbing it as ... " nothing

> new...just borrowed from MEENA's work on stellar astrology... "

> etc....

> >> All that is history now,and K.P. has come a long way from this,in

> the last 35-40 years,and now is being practised widely...all over

> the world,not-withstanding the proverbial die-hard

> traditionalists,and " nit-pickers " ,who seem to still continue

> questioning every thing related to K.P., whereas they have no

> compunction to even accept unquestioningly,numerous proven-as-

> contradictory, " principles/dicta " from " ancient

> masters,rishis...etc... " , while continuously passing snide remarks

> against K.P., and its epoch-making discoveries,proven numerous times

> to be very correct...!

> >> For an old follower of K.P., (since 1977 or so),the raising of

> the same old objections, anew,despite having been clarified several

> times by several scholars,in almost every old issue of Astrology &

> Adrishta,the monthly magazine,version of K.P & Astrology,is quite

> irritating at times,I guess,and I hope readers will bear with me, if

> at times,I betray my irritation...

> >> The original concept propounded for RPs was only five RPs...later

> a few scholars,notable during the last 7-8 years began advocating

> the sublords of the Ascendant and Moon to be included...later

> research papers published have begun advocating the sub-sub method

> for more accuracy...etc.

> >> Even today,quite a few KP scholars continue to publish articles

> on the use of the sub-sub and a number of variations tried by

> themselves,on an experimental basis...

> >> K.P., thus seems to continuously evolve new methods ideas

> etc...which,to my mind is a very encouraging phenomenon...

> >> However,I suggest readers to go through an illuminating article

> by Shri A,R Raichur... " The craze for accuracy... " ,as there is a

> limit to seeking accuracy and perfection,in the actual practise of

> the art of astrology...

> >> Regards,

> >> lyrastro1

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>Shivendra Tiwari wrote:

> >>Dear Sir,

> >>Namaskar

> >> Realy a good move. Please start.

> >>

> >>Thanks

> >>Yours

> >>Shivendra

> >>

> >>rongaunt wrote:

> >>et al,

> >>

> >>The recent discussion on RPs shows a division between KP

> >>astrologers on whether to use just the original 5 significators,

> >>or use additional factors such as Subs, aspects, etc.

> >>

> >>This appears to confirm what I expressed in a post some time

> >>ago; that maybe it is not a question of what is right or wrong,

> >>but that the results for a particular technique may be simply

> >>the expression of a persons own ability and alignment with

> >>synchronicity.

> >>

> >>As RPs appear to be a key-stone to KP, I have decided that I

> >>need to experiment with what works for me.

> >>My modus operandi is to take say 10 case studies of timed births

> >>ie. where the cases are classified AA (by birth certificate,

> >>documentation at the time of birth, or observation), and where

> >>the birth is not shown rounded to the nearest quarter of an hour.

> >>Then to write them out without the time of birth, shuffle them

> >>around and then assess them for birth time using RPs. I will

> >>start by assessing them using the original 5 significator system

> >>and see the result. I will then check using additional

> >>significators such as subs etc to try to determine which for me

> >>works the best. The yardsticks I use will be that I will

> >>consider a successful hit to be where I am within 8 minutes

> >>(time) of the reported time of birth. Also I will consider

> >>that where 8 or more of the 10 case studies can be seen to be

> >>correct, that is the method I will use after confirming by

> >>another similar experiment.

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

---------

A.R.Raichur bombay

anant_1608

raichuranant

USE ONE OF THESE ADDRESS ES ONLY

tel: 022-2506 2609

---------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Tw,

making a programme and running for birth time rectification with the

help of RPs may not work at all.

 

RPs is very indivisualistic, it works differently for different

astrologers. And differently in different circumstances.

RPs for any point of time is for birth of a thought or idea which

came to any astrologers mind. Suppose the idea was to rectify any

chart which is in your hand and you sincerely want its rectification.

Then Rps are helping you if you can guess their indications.

 

But with computer programmes running ,the idea is to test something,

and the person working on it, will get Rps according to what is in

his mind and he has to interpret the indications of Rps of that time.

 

Inder

 

, " tw853 " <tw853> wrote:

> Dear Rangarajan,

>

> 1. Who knows what is the " correct " definition? As per KP " the

exact

> time when the child first cries " . If there can be a significant

> deviation of time among definations, the choice will be crucial.

>

> 2. However, I've no idae how can we get a sufficient size of

sample

> as per a chosen definition. In statistical tests there are always

> errorrs and omissions and variance which are to be minimized by

> expanding the size of simple as much as possible.

>

> 3. There is no guarantee that these AA-rated charts fulfill " any "

> birth time criteria. " AA --- Accurate data as recorded by the

family

> or state. This includes BC (birth certificate), and BR (birth

> record), that which is not an official document but a quote of the

> birth record from the Registrar or Bureau of Records, the

baptismal

> certificate, family Bible, or baby book. These data reflect the

best

> available accuracy. " These are the only best data we can use for

> statistical tests of rules or techniques. If you think such AA

data

> are usable, don't worry about some more hundreds.

>

> 4. By the way could you run your computer program for the idea of

> testing RPs as given below.

>

>

>

>

> Thanks and regards,

>

> tw

>

>

>

> Message 2390 of 4693 < Previous | Next >

>

>

> anant raichur <anant_1608@>

> Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:12 am

> Re: RP Experiment anant_1608

> Offline

> Send Email

>

> TO RONGAUNT

>

> Go ahead. Ultimately What is TRUTH is what ONE Percieves as Truth,

> not what others say IS Truth.

> rongaunt <rongaunt@b...> wrote:

>

>

> Dear Yogesh,

>

> I can only repeat, it is NOT a question of including subs or

> not. It is a question of finding out WHAT WORKS FOR ME

> (OR THE OTHER PARTICIPANTS).

>

>

> rON gAUNT

>

>

>

>

>

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:04:53 +0000, you wrote:

>

> >Dear Ron,

> > Personally,I think a lot of effort has already gone into

> this...and the inclusion of the subs of the Ascendant Star,and the

> Moon's star...is being 'disputed' or more proof is being looked

> for,for either case...

> > Does it matter so very much ? Does it change the ultimate

> result...?

> > We seem to doubt the very hard earned experience of tghe KP

> stalwarts,who've worked very hard to arrive at the conclusion that

> these should also be included...why should we make an issue out of

> it ? Those who feel that only five RPs are sufficient,as well as

> those who feel that the two sublords should also be

included,should

> both be left to decide for themselves.

> > Such fine hair-splitting,in my humble opinion seems to be a

waste

> of valuable time...either way,you accept that the RPs do play a

> decisive role in the accurate timing of the materialisation of an

> event...!

> > The question is simply about 5 or 7 planets...how many planets

> have you found to be repeating among RPs,by the way,and how

often...?

> > Yours sincerely,

> > lyrastro1

> >

> >rongaunt wrote:

> >

> >Dear Yogesh,

> >

> >This is NOT an experiment to verify or vindicate KP or RP

> >fundamentals. I thought my mail clearly showed that I

> >considered that possibly there was not a right or wrong way,

> >and that RP assessment might be an individual gift of

> >synchronicity. This experiment is primarily to find out what

> >works best for me (or other participants).

> >

> >Over possibly a long period of time you have found that you need

> >to include Subs, Anant sticks to the original without Subs.

> >This has possibly taken both of you many years to find out what

> >to include and what to leave out. Unfortunately I do not have

> >the time, or the inclination to be kept in the dark for a

> >prolonged period of time. If a simple experiment of a few

> >hours duration can short circuit the learning process I cannot

> >see why there can be any objection to it.

> >

> >In fact I would go so far as to say that even experienced KP

> >practitioners may find such an exercise enlightening.

> >

> >

> >Ron Gaunt

> >

> >

> >>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:55:32 +0000, you wrote:

> >

> >>Dear Ron,tw et al,and all new followers of K.P.,

> >> I truly appreciate your thirst for verification/vindication of

> K.P. fundamentals,but may I suggest that they were arrived at,

after

> long days of experimentation...and,I daresay, careful

> verification...in the face of fierce opposition from a variety of

> quarters.

> >> When K.P., was first propagated by Shri KSK,the " traditional

> astrologers,belonging to various schools, had raised numerous

> objections and kept asking for a variety of studies to confirm

KSK's

> dictums,for years...finally even dubbing it as ... " nothing

> new...just borrowed from MEENA's work on stellar astrology... "

> etc....

> >> All that is history now,and K.P. has come a long way from

this,in

> the last 35-40 years,and now is being practised widely...all over

> the world,not-withstanding the proverbial die-hard

> traditionalists,and " nit-pickers " ,who seem to still continue

> questioning every thing related to K.P., whereas they have no

> compunction to even accept unquestioningly,numerous proven-as-

> contradictory, " principles/dicta " from " ancient

> masters,rishis...etc... " , while continuously passing snide remarks

> against K.P., and its epoch-making discoveries,proven numerous

times

> to be very correct...!

> >> For an old follower of K.P., (since 1977 or so),the raising of

> the same old objections, anew,despite having been clarified

several

> times by several scholars,in almost every old issue of Astrology &

> Adrishta,the monthly magazine,version of K.P & Astrology,is quite

> irritating at times,I guess,and I hope readers will bear with me,

if

> at times,I betray my irritation...

> >> The original concept propounded for RPs was only five

RPs...later

> a few scholars,notable during the last 7-8 years began advocating

> the sublords of the Ascendant and Moon to be included...later

> research papers published have begun advocating the sub-sub method

> for more accuracy...etc.

> >> Even today,quite a few KP scholars continue to publish articles

> on the use of the sub-sub and a number of variations tried by

> themselves,on an experimental basis...

> >> K.P., thus seems to continuously evolve new methods ideas

> etc...which,to my mind is a very encouraging phenomenon...

> >> However,I suggest readers to go through an illuminating article

> by Shri A,R Raichur... " The craze for accuracy... " ,as there is a

> limit to seeking accuracy and perfection,in the actual practise of

> the art of astrology...

> >> Regards,

> >> lyrastro1

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>Shivendra Tiwari wrote:

> >>Dear Sir,

> >>Namaskar

> >> Realy a good move. Please start.

> >>

> >>Thanks

> >>Yours

> >>Shivendra

> >>

> >>rongaunt wrote:

> >>et al,

> >>

> >>The recent discussion on RPs shows a division between KP

> >>astrologers on whether to use just the original 5 significators,

> >>or use additional factors such as Subs, aspects, etc.

> >>

> >>This appears to confirm what I expressed in a post some time

> >>ago; that maybe it is not a question of what is right or wrong,

> >>but that the results for a particular technique may be simply

> >>the expression of a persons own ability and alignment with

> >>synchronicity.

> >>

> >>As RPs appear to be a key-stone to KP, I have decided that I

> >>need to experiment with what works for me.

> >>My modus operandi is to take say 10 case studies of timed births

> >>ie. where the cases are classified AA (by birth certificate,

> >>documentation at the time of birth, or observation), and where

> >>the birth is not shown rounded to the nearest quarter of an hour.

> >>Then to write them out without the time of birth, shuffle them

> >>around and then assess them for birth time using RPs. I will

> >>start by assessing them using the original 5 significator system

> >>and see the result. I will then check using additional

> >>significators such as subs etc to try to determine which for me

> >>works the best. The yardsticks I use will be that I will

> >>consider a successful hit to be where I am within 8 minutes

> >>(time) of the reported time of birth. Also I will consider

> >>that where 8 or more of the 10 case studies can be seen to be

> >>correct, that is the method I will use after confirming by

> >>another similar experiment.

> >>

> >>On reflection I realized that whilst I think I have a good sense

> >>of timing, I may in fact not have a gift for synchronicity.

> >>Therefore it would also be interesting to see the results from

> >>other members, particularly those who 'know' by experience that

> >>they have consistently been correct in using RPs. If any

> >>members (experienced or otherwise) would like to take part in

> >>this experiment I will be happy to provide the case studies

> >>either on or off List. Please initially post your name to

> >>the List, and any comments or suggestions for this experiment.

> >>Meanwhile I will gather some case studies.

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>Ron Gaunt

> >>

> >>

>

>

>

> , " tw853 " <tw853> wrote:

> > Dear Rangarajan,

> >

> > Pl go ahead with RP test for 300 AA data, most of which are

> > generally supposed to be recorded as per common medical practice

> or

> > custom in Western countries.

> >

> > Let me answer your question later.

> >

> > Thanks and regards,

> >

> > tw

> >

> >

> > , " Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy "

> > <ranga@m...> wrote:

> > > Dear Members,

> > > When working on the recent study on BRT I realised that we

should

> > > arrive at the correct definition of birth time. I am sure you

> would

> > > have seen definitions such as " the exact time when the child

> first

> > > cries " , " time of first breath " , " time of cutting the umbilical

> > cord " ,

> > > " time when the head comes out " , etc. What is the " correct "

> > definition?

> > >

> > > If we agree upon a definition, how do we know if the birth time

> > > recorded (for a given case) is as per this definition? In fact

I

> > have

> > > a basic question to TW/Ron: what is the guarantee that these

AA-

> > rated

> > > charts fulfill " any " birth time criteria?

> > >

> > > Just out of curiosity: What if I had applied RP theory for BRT

> in

> > all

> > > the 300 cases I studied programmatically? The program actually

> > took a

> > > few seconds (approx. 5) to run, so while processing all the

> records

> > > the RPs would have been the same. Can I conclude that at least

a

> > > majority of the charts would have passed the RP test? If not,

> what

> > do

> > > we conclude about the data as well as about RP-based

> rectification?

> > >

> > > I hope members will not get angry with me!

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Rangarajan

[Guest guest]

dear Evincio

 

R.P. has no connection to Numbers, unless you propose to use the ASC fixed by

the

 

Number to be the Local AScendent of the RP. This will be changing the entire

 

concept of RPs, and one would not advocate it.

 

Good Luck

..

 

 

--- evencio mendes <iupter108 wrote:

> Dear Rangarajan and Tw

> I think that to proceed in this test with RP for the 300 AA charts the test

should

> consider the following:

> 1-It will be a mechanical test made by computer and RP supose a sync between

the

> moment,question and the object of the question (querent).

> In the VI reader K.S.Krishanamurti says that using a random number from1 to

249 for the

> query would solve the problem of doing queries after few minutes to different

querents.

> I would sugest to generate a random number that any computer can do very well

for

> constructing the RP also.

>

> Thanks

> Evencio

>

>

>

> tw853 <tw853 wrote:

> Dear Rangarajan,

>

> Pl go ahead with RP test for 300 AA data, most of which are

> generally supposed to be recorded as per common medical practice or

> custom in Western countries.

>

> Let me answer your question later.

>

> Thanks and regards,

>

> tw

>

>

> , " Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy "

> <ranga@m...> wrote:

> > Dear Members,

> > When working on the recent study on BRT I realised that we should

> > arrive at the correct definition of birth time. I am sure you would

> > have seen definitions such as " the exact time when the child first

> > cries " , " time of first breath " , " time of cutting the umbilical

> cord " ,

> > " time when the head comes out " , etc. What is the " correct "

> definition?

> >

> > If we agree upon a definition, how do we know if the birth time

> > recorded (for a given case) is as per this definition? In fact I

> have

> > a basic question to TW/Ron: what is the guarantee that these AA-

> rated

> > charts fulfill " any " birth time criteria?

> >

> > Just out of curiosity: What if I had applied RP theory for BRT in

> all

> > the 300 cases I studied programmatically? The program actually

> took a

> > few seconds (approx. 5) to run, so while processing all the records

> > the RPs would have been the same. Can I conclude that at least a

> > majority of the charts would have passed the RP test? If not, what

> do

> > we conclude about the data as well as about RP-based rectification?

> >

> > I hope members will not get angry with me!

> >

> > Regards,

> > Rangarajan

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Anant Raichur

I meant not any number , but a number 1-249 corresponding to a star e sub used in many examples of KS Krishanamurthi to confirm rectification using RP.

The number can be cast by computer but later a kind of convertion to the corresponding star and sub.

But I dont know where this kind of experiment would go, if this is not a good sugestion, fine.

Thanks

Evencioanant raichur <anant_1608 wrote:

dear EvincioR.P. has no connection to Numbers, unless you propose to use the ASC fixed by theNumber to be the Local AScendent of the RP. This will be changing the entireconcept of RPs, and one would not advocate it.Good Luck.--- evencio mendes <iupter108 wrote:> Dear Rangarajan and Tw> I think that to proceed in this test with RP for the 300 AA charts the test should> consider the following:> 1-It will be a mechanical test made by computer and RP supose a sync between the> moment,question and the object of the question (querent). > In the VI reader K.S.Krishanamurti says that using a random number from1 to 249 for the> query would solve the problem of doing queries after few minutes to different querents.> I would sugest to generate a random number that any

computer can do very well for> constructing the RP also.> > Thanks> Evencio> > > > tw853 <tw853 wrote:> Dear Rangarajan,> > Pl go ahead with RP test for 300 AA data, most of which are > generally supposed to be recorded as per common medical practice or > custom in Western countries. > > Let me answer your question later.> > Thanks and regards,> > tw> > > , "Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy" > <ranga@m...> wrote:> > Dear Members,> > When working on the recent study on BRT I realised that we should> > arrive at the correct definition of birth time. I am sure you would> > have seen definitions such as "the exact time when the child first> > cries", "time of first breath", "time of cutting the umbilical >

cord",> > "time when the head comes out", etc. What is the "correct" > definition? > > > > If we agree upon a definition, how do we know if the birth time> > recorded (for a given case) is as per this definition? In fact I > have> > a basic question to TW/Ron: what is the guarantee that these AA-> rated> > charts fulfill "any" birth time criteria?> > > > Just out of curiosity: What if I had applied RP theory for BRT in > all> > the 300 cases I studied programmatically? The program actually > took a> > few seconds (approx. 5) to run, so while processing all the records> > the RPs would have been the same. Can I conclude that at least a> > majority of the charts would have passed the RP test? If not, what > do> > we conclude about the data as well as about RP-based rectification?> > > > I hope

members will not get angry with me!> > > > Regards,> > Rangarajan> > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Friends,

 

I have always emphasized upon and repeating it again here that RPs are directly related to eagerness and willingness to know. I don't think that we can check it with any computerized mechanism. Anyways, it would be interesting to see the results.

 

 

Regards,

 

Punit Pandey

On 5/27/05, tw853 <tw853 wrote:

Dear Rangarajan,Pl go ahead with RP test for 300 AA data, most of which are generally supposed to be recorded as per common medical practice or custom in Western countries. Let me answer your question later.Thanks and regards,tw

, " Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy " <ranga@m...> wrote:> Dear Members,> When working on the recent study on BRT I realised that we should> arrive at the correct definition of birth time. I am sure you would

> have seen definitions such as " the exact time when the child first> cries " , " time of first breath " , " time of cutting the umbilical cord " ,> " time when the head comes out " , etc. What is the " correct " definition? > > If we agree upon a definition, how do we know if the birth time> recorded (for a given case) is as per this definition? In fact I have> a basic question to TW/Ron: what is the guarantee that these AA-

rated> charts fulfill " any " birth time criteria?> > Just out of curiosity: What if I had applied RP theory for BRT in all> the 300 cases I studied programmatically? The program actually took a> few seconds (approx. 5) to run, so while processing all the records> the RPs would have been the same. Can I conclude that at least a> majority of the charts would have passed the RP test? If not, what do> we conclude about the data as well as about RP-based rectification?> > I hope members will not get angry with me!> > Regards,> Rangarajan

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Rangarajan,

 

The whole question of the correct time of birth is fraught with

problems. Nevertheless, it appears that most Western

astrologers at least, use either the time of the first breath or

the time of cutting of the umbilical cord. My own thoughts on

this is that it should be the latter, as this is when the child

becomes a person it his/her own right. However this is to all

intent and purposes academic, because in reality we very seldom

hear of how the birth time was taken by the observers. Also in

practice the first breath and cutting of the cord are likely to

be fairly close together.

 

There could even be a factor that is generally unknown. Edgar

Cayce 'The Sleeping Prophet' who had proven success in thousands

of cases (mostly medical diagnosis - without even meeting the

person - or having any knowledge of them), stated that the soul

whilst mostly entering the body at the time of birth, just

occasionally takes posession whilst still in the womb, and

sometimes even many hours after birth. This begets the question

when we are looking at a chart for the first time - are we

looking at the chart of a 'maverick' soul. My own approach

to this is that when I see a chart that does not appear to be

anywhere near consistent with a number of events (particularly

transits to angles of the further planets and Nodes) then I

consider that I might be looking at one of these cases.

 

Thank you for your excellent work. I am sure it is appreciated

by all members.

 

 

Ron Gaunt

 

 

 

 

On Fri, 27 May 2005 13:23:05 -0000, you wrote:

 

>Dear Members,

>When working on the recent study on BRT I realised that we should

>arrive at the correct definition of birth time. I am sure you would

>have seen definitions such as " the exact time when the child first

>cries " , " time of first breath " , " time of cutting the umbilical cord " ,

> " time when the head comes out " , etc. What is the " correct " definition?

>

>If we agree upon a definition, how do we know if the birth time

>recorded (for a given case) is as per this definition? In fact I have

>a basic question to TW/Ron: what is the guarantee that these AA-rated

>charts fulfill " any " birth time criteria?

>

>Just out of curiosity: What if I had applied RP theory for BRT in all

>the 300 cases I studied programmatically? The program actually took a

>few seconds (approx. 5) to run, so while processing all the records

>the RPs would have been the same. Can I conclude that at least a

>majority of the charts would have passed the RP test? If not, what do

>we conclude about the data as well as about RP-based rectification?

>

>I hope members will not get angry with me!

>

>Regards,

>Rangarajan

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Tin Win ji ranagarajan ji

yas i am agree with Indar ji.

If any one calculet Asc. and Moon position of 300 chart i am ready to check all 300 charts manualy with help of RP.(-10 Mnt and + 10Mnt total 1800 Asc and Mon position)

RP checking by software is not a good idea..

regards

kanak>"Inder" <indervohra2001> > > Re: Birth Time - A Fundamental Issue>Sat, 28 May 2005 10:42:42 -0000>>Dear Tw,>making a programme and running for birth time rectification with the>help of RPs may not work at all.>>RPs is very indivisualistic, it works differently for different>astrologers. And differently in different circumstances.>RPs for any point of time is for birth of a thought or idea which>came to any astrologers mind. Suppose the idea was to rectify any>chart which is in your hand and you sincerely want its rectification.>Then Rps are helping you if you can guess their indications.>>But with computer programmes running ,the idea is to test something,>and the person working on it, will get Rps according to what is in>his mind and he has to interpret the indications of Rps of that time.>>Inder>> , "tw853" <tw853> wrote:> > Dear Rangarajan,> >> > 1. Who knows what is the "correct" definition? As per KP "the>exact> > time when the child first cries". If there can be a significant> > deviation of time among definations, the choice will be crucial.> >> > 2. However, I've no idae how can we get a sufficient size of>sample> > as per a chosen definition. In statistical tests there are always> > errorrs and omissions and variance which are to be minimized by> > expanding the size of simple as much as possible.> >> > 3. There is no guarantee that these AA-rated charts fulfill "any"> > birth time criteria. "AA --- Accurate data as recorded by the>family> > or state. This includes BC (birth certificate), and BR (birth> > record), that which is not an official document but a quote of the> > birth record from the Registrar or Bureau of Records, the>baptismal> > certificate, family Bible, or baby book. These data reflect the>best> > available accuracy." These are the only best data we can use for> > statistical tests of rules or techniques. If you think such AA>data> > are usable, don't worry about some more hundreds.> >> > 4. By the way could you run your computer program for the idea of> > testing RPs as given below.> >> >> >> >> > Thanks and regards,> >> > tw> >> >> >> > Message 2390 of 4693 < Previous | Next >> >> >> > anant raichur <anant_1608@>> > Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:12 am> > Re: RP Experiment anant_1608> > Offline> > Send Email> >> > TO RONGAUNT> >> > Go ahead. Ultimately What is TRUTH is what ONE Percieves as Truth,> > not what others say IS Truth.> > rongaunt <rongaunt@b...> wrote:> >> >> > Dear Yogesh,> >> > I can only repeat, it is NOT a question of including subs or> > not. It is a question of finding out WHAT WORKS FOR ME> > (OR THE OTHER PARTICIPANTS).> >> >> > rON gAUNT> >> >> >> >> >> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:04:53 +0000, you wrote:> >> > >Dear Ron,> > > Personally,I think a lot of effort has already gone into> > this...and the inclusion of the subs of the Ascendant Star,and the> > Moon's star...is being 'disputed' or more proof is being looked> > for,for either case...> > > Does it matter so very much ? Does it change the ultimate> > result...?> > > We seem to doubt the very hard earned experience of tghe KP> > stalwarts,who've worked very hard to arrive at the conclusion that> > these should also be included...why should we make an issue out of> > it ? Those who feel that only five RPs are sufficient,as well as> > those who feel that the two sublords should also be>included,should> > both be left to decide for themselves.> > > Such fine hair-splitting,in my humble opinion seems to be a>waste> > of valuable time...either way,you accept that the RPs do play a> > decisive role in the accurate timing of the materialisation of an> > event...!> > > The question is simply about 5 or 7 planets...how many planets> > have you found to be repeating among RPs,by the way,and how>often...?> > > Yours sincerely,> > > lyrastro1> > >> > >rongaunt wrote:> > >> > >Dear Yogesh,> > >> > >This is NOT an experiment to verify or vindicate KP or RP> > >fundamentals. I thought my mail clearly showed that I> > >considered that possibly there was not a right or wrong way,> > >and that RP assessment might be an individual gift of> > >synchronicity. This experiment is primarily to find out what> > >works best for me (or other participants).> > >> > >Over possibly a long period of time you have found that you need> > >to include Subs, Anant sticks to the original without Subs.> > >This has possibly taken both of you many years to find out what> > >to include and what to leave out. Unfortunately I do not have> > >the time, or the inclination to be kept in the dark for a> > >prolonged period of time. If a simple experiment of a few> > >hours duration can short circuit the learning process I cannot> > >see why there can be any objection to it.> > >> > >In fact I would go so far as to say that even experienced KP> > >practitioners may find such an exercise enlightening.> > >> > >> > >Ron Gaunt> > >> > >> > >>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:55:32 +0000, you wrote:> > >> > >>Dear Ron,tw et al,and all new followers of K.P.,> > >> I truly appreciate your thirst for verification/vindication of> > K.P. fundamentals,but may I suggest that they were arrived at,>after> > long days of experimentation...and,I daresay, careful> > verification...in the face of fierce opposition from a variety of> > quarters.> > >> When K.P., was first propagated by Shri KSK,the "traditional> > astrologers,belonging to various schools, had raised numerous> > objections and kept asking for a variety of studies to confirm>KSK's> > dictums,for years...finally even dubbing it as ..."nothing> > new...just borrowed from MEENA's work on stellar astrology..."> > etc....> > >> All that is history now,and K.P. has come a long way from>this,in> > the last 35-40 years,and now is being practised widely...all over> > the world,not-withstanding the proverbial die-hard> > traditionalists,and "nit-pickers",who seem to still continue> > questioning every thing related to K.P., whereas they have no> > compunction to even accept unquestioningly,numerous proven-as-> > contradictory, "principles/dicta" from "ancient> > masters,rishis...etc...", while continuously passing snide remarks> > against K.P., and its epoch-making discoveries,proven numerous>times> > to be very correct...!> > >> For an old follower of K.P., (since 1977 or so),the raising of> > the same old objections, anew,despite having been clarified>several> > times by several scholars,in almost every old issue of Astrology & > > Adrishta,the monthly magazine,version of K.P & Astrology,is quite> > irritating at times,I guess,and I hope readers will bear with me,>if> > at times,I betray my irritation...> > >> The original concept propounded for RPs was only five>RPs...later> > a few scholars,notable during the last 7-8 years began advocating> > the sublords of the Ascendant and Moon to be included...later> > research papers published have begun advocating the sub-sub method> > for more accuracy...etc.> > >> Even today,quite a few KP scholars continue to publish articles> > on the use of the sub-sub and a number of variations tried by> > themselves,on an experimental basis...> > >> K.P., thus seems to continuously evolve new methods ideas> > etc...which,to my mind is a very encouraging phenomenon...> > >> However,I suggest readers to go through an illuminating article> > by Shri A,R Raichur... " The craze for accuracy...",as there is a> > limit to seeking accuracy and perfection,in the actual practise of> > the art of astrology...> > >> Regards,> > >> lyrastro1> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>Shivendra Tiwari wrote:> > >>Dear Sir,> > >>Namaskar> > >> Realy a good move. Please start.> > >>> > >>Thanks> > >>Yours> > >>Shivendra> > >>> > >>rongaunt wrote:> > >>et al,> > >>> > >>The recent discussion on RPs shows a division between KP> > >>astrologers on whether to use just the original 5 significators,> > >>or use additional factors such as Subs, aspects, etc.> > >>> > >>This appears to confirm what I expressed in a post some time> > >>ago; that maybe it is not a question of what is right or wrong,> > >>but that the results for a particular technique may be simply> > >>the expression of a persons own ability and alignment with> > >>synchronicity.> > >>> > >>As RPs appear to be a key-stone to KP, I have decided that I> > >>need to experiment with what works for me.> > >>My modus operandi is to take say 10 case studies of timed births> > >>ie. where the cases are classified AA (by birth certificate,> > >>documentation at the time of birth, or observation), and where> > >>the birth is not shown rounded to the nearest quarter of an hour.> > >>Then to write them out without the time of birth, shuffle them> > >>around and then assess them for birth time using RPs. I will> > >>start by assessing them using the original 5 significator system> > >>and see the result. I will then check using additional> > >>significators such as subs etc to try to determine which for me> > >>works the best. The yardsticks I use will be that I will> > >>consider a successful hit to be where I am within 8 minutes> > >>(time) of the reported time of birth. Also I will consider> > >>that where 8 or more of the 10 case studies can be seen to be> > >>correct, that is the method I will use after confirming by> > >>another similar experiment.> > >>> > >>On reflection I realized that whilst I think I have a good sense> > >>of timing, I may in fact not have a gift for synchronicity.> > >>Therefore it would also be interesting to see the results from> > >>other members, particularly those who 'know' by experience that> > >>they have consistently been correct in using RPs. If any> > >>members (experienced or otherwise) would like to take part in> > >>this experiment I will be happy to provide the case studies> > >>either on or off List. Please initially post your name to> > >>the List, and any comments or suggestions for this experiment.> > >>Meanwhile I will gather some case studies.> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>Ron Gaunt> > >>> > >>> >> >> >> > , "tw853" <tw853> wrote:> > > Dear Rangarajan,> > >> > > Pl go ahead with RP test for 300 AA data, most of which are> > > generally supposed to be recorded as per common medical practice> > or> > > custom in Western countries.> > >> > > Let me answer your question later.> > >> > > Thanks and regards,> > >> > > tw> > >> > >> > > , "Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy"> > > <ranga@m...> wrote:> > > > Dear Members,> > > > When working on the recent study on BRT I realised that we>should> > > > arrive at the correct definition of birth time. I am sure you> > would> > > > have seen definitions such as "the exact time when the child> > first> > > > cries", "time of first breath", "time of cutting the umbilical> > > cord",> > > > "time when the head comes out", etc. What is the "correct"> > > definition?> > > >> > > > If we agree upon a definition, how do we know if the birth time> > > > recorded (for a given case) is as per this definition? In fact>I> > > have> > > > a basic question to TW/Ron: what is the guarantee that these>AA-> > > rated> > > > charts fulfill "any" birth time criteria?> > > >> > > > Just out of curiosity: What if I had applied RP theory for BRT> > in> > > all> > > > the 300 cases I studied programmatically? The program actually> > > took a> > > > few seconds (approx. 5) to run, so while processing all the> > records> > > > the RPs would have been the same. Can I conclude that at least>a> > > > majority of the charts would have passed the RP test? If not,> > what> > > do> > > > we conclude about the data as well as about RP-based> > rectification?> > > >> > > > I hope members will not get angry with me!> > > >> > > > Regards,> > > > Rangarajan>>>> Download your favorite songs at MSN Music - Over 1 million songs for just 99¢ each

[Guest guest]

Dear Kanak,

Thanks for the offer. I will first upload ASC and MOON lords for ten

records from the list TW gave me, at intervals: {-10min, 0min,

+10min}. Once you complete this, I can upload additional data.

 

Regards,

Rangarajan

 

, " Kanak Bosmia " <kanbosastro@h...>

wrote:

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Ranagarajan ji,

thank you

regards

kanak>"Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy" <ranga> > > Re: Birth Time - A Fundamental Issue>Sun, 29 May 2005 02:34:19 -0000>>Dear Kanak,>Thanks for the offer. I will first upload ASC and MOON lords for ten>records from the list TW gave me, at intervals: {-10min, 0min,>+10min}. Once you complete this, I can upload additional data.>>Regards,>Rangarajan>> , "Kanak Bosmia" <kanbosastro@h...>>wrote:> >>> Download your favorite songs at MSN Music - Over 1 million songs for just 99¢ each

[Guest guest]

Dear Ranagarajan ji,

I ferget to mention that please calculet Asc and Moon up to sub-sub leavel.

kanak>"Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy" <ranga> > > Re: Birth Time - A Fundamental Issue>Sun, 29 May 2005 02:34:19 -0000>>Dear Kanak,>Thanks for the offer. I will first upload ASC and MOON lords for ten>records from the list TW gave me, at intervals: {-10min, 0min,>+10min}. Once you complete this, I can upload additional data.>>Regards,>Rangarajan>> , "Kanak Bosmia" <kanbosastro@h...>>wrote:> >>> With MSN Spaces email straight to your blog. Upload jokes, photos and more. It's free!

[Guest guest]

Dear Rongaunt

 

You are right. The question of Birth Time is fraught with many problems. The traditional

 

method (at least in India), was that time of birth was fixed when the first cry was heard

 

by the persons outside the Labour Room. It had nothing to do with the cutting of the

 

umibical chord.

 

Phylosophically it is said "THE SOUL ENTERS THE BODY WITH THE 1st Breath"

 

Since a child cries as soon as it stars breathing, this has been taken as the time of

 

Birth.

 

May I suggest "THE Correct Time of Birth is one which will give correct corelation of the

 

events already taken place ". This can then be used for further predictions.

 

I know another method of birth rectification, working the Reverse Way, used by some

 

western astrologers. Knowing an important event in life, they check the BT, working

 

backwards. I will set out that method a little later for test, after Rangaraj finishes his

 

study with the Revised Nadi method, I have outlined.

 

good luck

"rongaunt au" <rongaunt wrote:

Dear Rangarajan,The whole question of the correct time of birth is fraught withproblems. Nevertheless, it appears that most Westernastrologers at least, use either the time of the first breath orthe time of cutting of the umbilical cord. My own thoughts onthis is that it should be the latter, as this is when the childbecomes a person it his/her own right. However this is to allintent and purposes academic, because in reality we very seldomhear of how the birth time was taken by the observers. Also inpractice the first breath and cutting of the cord are likely tobe fairly close together. There could even be a factor that is generally unknown. EdgarCayce 'The Sleeping Prophet' who had proven success in thousandsof cases (mostly medical diagnosis - without even meeting theperson - or having any knowledge of them), stated

that the soulwhilst mostly entering the body at the time of birth, justoccasionally takes posession whilst still in the womb, andsometimes even many hours after birth. This begets the questionwhen we are looking at a chart for the first time - are welooking at the chart of a 'maverick' soul. My own approachto this is that when I see a chart that does not appear to beanywhere near consistent with a number of events (particularlytransits to angles of the further planets and Nodes) then Iconsider that I might be looking at one of these cases.Thank you for your excellent work. I am sure it is appreciatedby all members.Ron GauntOn Fri, 27 May 2005 13:23:05 -0000, you wrote:>Dear Members,>When working on the recent study on BRT I realised that we should>arrive at the correct definition of birth time. I am sure you would>have seen definitions such as "the exact time when the

child first>cries", "time of first breath", "time of cutting the umbilical cord",>"time when the head comes out", etc. What is the "correct" definition? >>If we agree upon a definition, how do we know if the birth time>recorded (for a given case) is as per this definition? In fact I have>a basic question to TW/Ron: what is the guarantee that these AA-rated>charts fulfill "any" birth time criteria?>>Just out of curiosity: What if I had applied RP theory for BRT in all>the 300 cases I studied programmatically? The program actually took a>few seconds (approx. 5) to run, so while processing all the records>the RPs would have been the same. Can I conclude that at least a>majority of the charts would have passed the RP test? If not, what do>we conclude about the data as well as about RP-based rectification?>>I hope members will not get angry with

me!>>Regards,>Rangarajan>>>>>>>>> >

[Guest guest]

Dear Rangarajan,

 

1. In my personal opinion, a " evine science " can stand to a

scientific statistical test and can be practised by any one praying

God or an atheist.

 

2. Buddha said not to believe anything he said just out of respect

for him. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard

it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and

rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is

found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything

merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe

in traditions because they have been handed down for many

generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that

anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit

of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

 

3. Dr. Kar's method in pp 109-112, KP Year Book 2002, may be a

practical one for a statistical test.

 

4. However, refering T. Rajendra Kumar's article in pp 26-29, KP

Year Book 2004 and the charts of Tony Blair and Indira Gandhi, I've

been wondering how each and every native without exception can be

born to fit life events as per general astro rules.

 

5. Sorry for fallen CKV but the show must go on.

 

Regards,

 

tw

 

 

 

, " Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy "

<ranga@m...> wrote:

> Dear Kanak,

> Thanks for the offer. I will first upload ASC and MOON lords for

ten

> records from the list TW gave me, at intervals: {-10min, 0min,

> +10min}. Once you complete this, I can upload additional data.

>

> Regards,

> Rangarajan

>

> , " Kanak Bosmia "

<kanbosastro@h...>

> wrote:

> >

[Guest guest]

Daer Kanak,

Sure.

 

Regards,

Rangarajan

 

, " Kanak Bosmia " <kanbosastro@h...>

wrote:

>

[Guest guest]

Sir

We shold not not forget that some childred do no cry at all.

RGanant raichur <anant_1608 wrote:

 

Dear Rongaunt

 

You are right. The question of Birth Time is fraught with many problems. The traditional

 

method (at least in India), was that time of birth was fixed when the first cry was heard

 

by the persons outside the Labour Room. It had nothing to do with the cutting of the

 

umibical chord.

 

Phylosophically it is said "THE SOUL ENTERS THE BODY WITH THE 1st Breath"

 

Since a child cries as soon as it stars breathing, this has been taken as the time of

 

Birth.

 

May I suggest "THE Correct Time of Birth is one which will give correct corelation of the

 

events already taken place ". This can then be used for further predictions.

 

I know another method of birth rectification, working the Reverse Way, used by some

 

western astrologers. Knowing an important event in life, they check the BT, working

 

backwards. I will set out that method a little later for test, after Rangaraj finishes his

 

study with the Revised Nadi method, I have outlined.

 

good luck

"rongaunt au" <rongaunt wrote:

Dear Rangarajan,The whole question of the correct time of birth is fraught withproblems. Nevertheless, it appears that most Westernastrologers at least, use either the time of the first breath orthe time of cutting of the umbilical cord. My own thoughts onthis is that it should be the latter, as this is when the childbecomes a person it his/her own right. However this is to allintent and purposes academic, because in reality we very seldomhear of how the birth time was taken by the observers. Also inpractice the first breath and cutting of the cord are likely tobe fairly close together. There could even be a factor that is generally unknown. EdgarCayce 'The Sleeping Prophet' who had proven success in thousandsof cases (mostly medical diagnosis - without even meeting theperson - or having any knowledge of them), stated

that the soulwhilst mostly entering the body at the time of birth, justoccasionally takes posession whilst still in the womb, andsometimes even many hours after birth. This begets the questionwhen we are looking at a chart for the first time - are welooking at the chart of a 'maverick' soul. My own approachto this is that when I see a chart that does not appear to beanywhere near consistent with a number of events (particularlytransits to angles of the further planets and Nodes) then Iconsider that I might be looking at one of these cases.Thank you for your excellent work. I am sure it is appreciatedby all members.Ron GauntOn Fri, 27 May 2005 13:23:05 -0000, you wrote:>Dear Members,>When working on the recent study on BRT I realised that we should>arrive at the correct definition of birth time. I am sure you would>have seen definitions such as "the exact time when the

child first>cries", "time of first breath", "time of cutting the umbilical cord",>"time when the head comes out", etc. What is the "correct" definition? >>If we agree upon a definition, how do we know if the birth time>recorded (for a given case) is as per this definition? In fact I have>a basic question to TW/Ron: what is the guarantee that these AA-rated>charts fulfill "any" birth time criteria?>>Just out of curiosity: What if I had applied RP theory for BRT in all>the 300 cases I studied programmatically? The program actually took a>few seconds (approx. 5) to run, so while processing all the records>the RPs would have been the same. Can I conclude that at least a>majority of the charts would have passed the RP test? If not, what do>we conclude about the data as well as about RP-based rectification?>>I hope members will not get angry with

me!>>Regards,>Rangarajan>>>>>>>>> >

[Guest guest]

Dear R G

 

In such cases one shuld ascertain, when the child took the 1st Breath. This moment is

 

suppossed to be the BIRTH. Just as DEATH is the stooping completely of the Breath, and

 

gives rise to the popular saying "one breathed his last breath"R G <rg_bharat wrote:

 

Sir

We shold not not forget that some childred do no cry at all.

RGanant raichur <anant_1608 wrote:

 

Dear Rongaunt

 

You are right. The question of Birth Time is fraught with many problems. The traditional

 

method (at least in India), was that time of birth was fixed when the first cry was heard

 

by the persons outside the Labour Room. It had nothing to do with the cutting of the

 

umibical chord.

 

Phylosophically it is said "THE SOUL ENTERS THE BODY WITH THE 1st Breath"

 

Since a child cries as soon as it stars breathing, this has been taken as the time of

 

Birth.

 

May I suggest "THE Correct Time of Birth is one which will give correct corelation of the

 

events already taken place ". This can then be used for further predictions.

 

I know another method of birth rectification, working the Reverse Way, used by some

 

western astrologers. Knowing an important event in life, they check the BT, working

 

backwards. I will set out that method a little later for test, after Rangaraj finishes his

 

study with the Revised Nadi method, I have outlined.

 

good luck

"rongaunt au" <rongaunt wrote:

Dear Rangarajan,The whole question of the correct time of birth is fraught withproblems. Nevertheless, it appears that most Westernastrologers at least, use either the time of the first breath orthe time of cutting of the umbilical cord. My own thoughts onthis is that it should be the latter, as this is when the childbecomes a person it his/her own right. However this is to allintent and purposes academic, because in reality we very seldomhear of how the birth time was taken by the observers. Also inpractice the first breath and cutting of the cord are likely tobe fairly close together. There could even be a factor that is generally unknown. EdgarCayce 'The Sleeping Prophet' who had proven success in thousandsof cases (mostly medical diagnosis - without even meeting theperson - or having any knowledge of them), stated

that the soulwhilst mostly entering the body at the time of birth, justoccasionally takes posession whilst still in the womb, andsometimes even many hours after birth. This begets the questionwhen we are looking at a chart for the first time - are welooking at the chart of a 'maverick' soul. My own approachto this is that when I see a chart that does not appear to beanywhere near consistent with a number of events (particularlytransits to angles of the further planets and Nodes) then Iconsider that I might be looking at one of these cases.Thank you for your excellent work. I am sure it is appreciatedby all members.Ron GauntOn Fri, 27 May 2005 13:23:05 -0000, you wrote:>Dear Members,>When working on the recent study on BRT I realised that we should>arrive at the correct definition of birth time. I am sure you would>have seen definitions such as "the exact time when the

child first>cries", "time of first breath", "time of cutting the umbilical cord",>"time when the head comes out", etc. What is the "correct" definition? >>If we agree upon a definition, how do we know if the birth time>recorded (for a given case) is as per this definition? In fact I have>a basic question to TW/Ron: what is the guarantee that these AA-rated>charts fulfill "any" birth time criteria?>>Just out of curiosity: What if I had applied RP theory for BRT in all>the 300 cases I studied programmatically? The program actually took a>few seconds (approx. 5) to run, so while processing all the records>the RPs would have been the same. Can I conclude that at least a>majority of the charts would have passed the RP test? If not, what do>we conclude about the data as well as about RP-based rectification?>>I hope members will not get angry with

me!>>Regards,>Rangarajan>>>>>>>>> >

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Raichur,

 

That may be the most reasonable TOB.

 

Regards,

 

tw

 

 

 

, anant raichur <anant_1608>

wrote:

> Dear R G

>

> In such cases one shuld ascertain, when the child took the 1st

Breath. This moment is

>

> suppossed to be the BIRTH. Just as DEATH is the stooping

completely of the Breath, and

>

> gives rise to the popular saying " one breathed his last breath "

>

> R G <rg_bharat> wrote:

> Sir

> We shold not not forget that some childred do no cry at all.

> RG

>

> anant raichur <anant_1608> wrote:

> Dear Rongaunt

>

> You are right. The question of Birth Time is fraught with many

problems. The traditional

>

> method (at least in India), was that time of birth was fixed when

the first cry was heard

>

> by the persons outside the Labour Room. It had nothing to do with

the cutting of the

>

> umibical chord.

>

> Phylosophically it is said " THE SOUL ENTERS THE BODY WITH THE 1st

Breath "

>

> Since a child cries as soon as it stars breathing, this has been

taken as the time of

>

> Birth.

>

> May I suggest " THE Correct Time of Birth is one which will give

correct corelation of the

>

> events already taken place " . This can then be used for further

predictions.

>

> I know another method of birth rectification, working the Reverse

Way, used by some

>

> western astrologers. Knowing an important event in life, they

check the BT, working

>

> backwards. I will set out that method a little later for test,

after Rangaraj finishes his

>

> study with the Revised Nadi method, I have outlined.

>

> good luck

>

>

> " rongaunt@b... au " <rongaunt@b...> wrote:

>

> Dear Rangarajan,

>

> The whole question of the correct time of birth is fraught with

> problems. Nevertheless, it appears that most Western

> astrologers at least, use either the time of the first breath or

> the time of cutting of the umbilical cord. My own thoughts on

> this is that it should be the latter, as this is when the child

> becomes a person it his/her own right. However this is to all

> intent and purposes academic, because in reality we very seldom

> hear of how the birth time was taken by the observers. Also in

> practice the first breath and cutting of the cord are likely to

> be fairly close together.

>

> There could even be a factor that is generally unknown. Edgar

> Cayce 'The Sleeping Prophet' who had proven success in thousands

> of cases (mostly medical diagnosis - without even meeting the

> person - or having any knowledge of them), stated that the soul

> whilst mostly entering the body at the time of birth, just

> occasionally takes posession whilst still in the womb, and

> sometimes even many hours after birth. This begets the question

> when we are looking at a chart for the first time - are we

> looking at the chart of a 'maverick' soul. My own approach

> to this is that when I see a chart that does not appear to be

> anywhere near consistent with a number of events (particularly

> transits to angles of the further planets and Nodes) then I

> consider that I might be looking at one of these cases.

>

> Thank you for your excellent work. I am sure it is appreciated

> by all members.

>

>

> Ron Gaunt

>

>

>

>

> On Fri, 27 May 2005 13:23:05 -0000, you wrote:

>

> >Dear Members,

> >When working on the recent study on BRT I realised that we should

> >arrive at the correct definition of birth time. I am sure you

would

> >have seen definitions such as " the exact time when the child first

> >cries " , " time of first breath " , " time of cutting the umbilical

cord " ,

> > " time when the head comes out " , etc. What is the " correct "

definition?

> >

> >If we agree upon a definition, how do we know if the birth time

> >recorded (for a given case) is as per this definition? In fact I

have

> >a basic question to TW/Ron: what is the guarantee that these AA-

rated

> >charts fulfill " any " birth time criteria?

> >

> >Just out of curiosity: What if I had applied RP theory for BRT in

all

> >the 300 cases I studied programmatically? The program actually

took a

> >few seconds (approx. 5) to run, so while processing all the

records

> >the RPs would have been the same. Can I conclude that at least a

> >majority of the charts would have passed the RP test? If not,

what do

> >we conclude about the data as well as about RP-based

rectification?

> >

> >I hope members will not get angry with me!

> >

> >Regards,

> >Rangarajan

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri.Raichur, TW,

How can one find when the child took its first breath? Looks

complicated to me.

 

Regards,

Rangarajan

 

, " tw853 " <tw853> wrote:

> Dear Shri Raichur,

>

> That may be the most reasonable TOB.

>

> Regards,

>

> tw

>

>

>

> , anant raichur <anant_1608>

> wrote:

> > Dear R G

> >

> > In such cases one shuld ascertain, when the child took the 1st

> Breath. This moment is

> >

> > suppossed to be the BIRTH. Just as DEATH is the stooping

> completely of the Breath, and

> >

> > gives rise to the popular saying " one breathed his last breath "

> >

> > R G <rg_bharat> wrote:

> > Sir

> > We shold not not forget that some childred do no cry at all.

> > RG

> >

> > anant raichur <anant_1608> wrote:

> > Dear Rongaunt

> >

> > You are right. The question of Birth Time is fraught with many

> problems. The traditional

> >

> > method (at least in India), was that time of birth was fixed

when

> the first cry was heard

> >

> > by the persons outside the Labour Room. It had nothing to do

with

> the cutting of the

> >

> > umibical chord.

> >

> > Phylosophically it is said " THE SOUL ENTERS THE BODY WITH THE

1st

> Breath "

> >

> > Since a child cries as soon as it stars breathing, this has been

> taken as the time of

> >

> > Birth.

> >

> > May I suggest " THE Correct Time of Birth is one which will give

> correct corelation of the

> >

> > events already taken place " . This can then be used for further

> predictions.

> >

> > I know another method of birth rectification, working the

Reverse

> Way, used by some

> >

> > western astrologers. Knowing an important event in life, they

> check the BT, working

> >

> > backwards. I will set out that method a little later for test,

> after Rangaraj finishes his

> >

> > study with the Revised Nadi method, I have outlined.

> >

> > good luck

> >

> >

> > " rongaunt@b... au " <rongaunt@b...> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Rangarajan,

> >

> > The whole question of the correct time of birth is fraught with

> > problems. Nevertheless, it appears that most Western

> > astrologers at least, use either the time of the first breath or

> > the time of cutting of the umbilical cord. My own thoughts on

> > this is that it should be the latter, as this is when the child

> > becomes a person it his/her own right. However this is to all

> > intent and purposes academic, because in reality we very seldom

> > hear of how the birth time was taken by the observers. Also in

> > practice the first breath and cutting of the cord are likely to

> > be fairly close together.

> >

> > There could even be a factor that is generally unknown. Edgar

> > Cayce 'The Sleeping Prophet' who had proven success in thousands

> > of cases (mostly medical diagnosis - without even meeting the

> > person - or having any knowledge of them), stated that the soul

> > whilst mostly entering the body at the time of birth, just

> > occasionally takes posession whilst still in the womb, and

> > sometimes even many hours after birth. This begets the question

> > when we are looking at a chart for the first time - are we

> > looking at the chart of a 'maverick' soul. My own approach

> > to this is that when I see a chart that does not appear to be

> > anywhere near consistent with a number of events (particularly

> > transits to angles of the further planets and Nodes) then I

> > consider that I might be looking at one of these cases.

> >

> > Thank you for your excellent work. I am sure it is appreciated

> > by all members.

> >

> >

> > Ron Gaunt

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > On Fri, 27 May 2005 13:23:05 -0000, you wrote:

> >

> > >Dear Members,

> > >When working on the recent study on BRT I realised that we

should

> > >arrive at the correct definition of birth time. I am sure you

> would

> > >have seen definitions such as " the exact time when the child

first

> > >cries " , " time of first breath " , " time of cutting the umbilical

> cord " ,

> > > " time when the head comes out " , etc. What is the " correct "

> definition?

> > >

> > >If we agree upon a definition, how do we know if the birth time

> > >recorded (for a given case) is as per this definition? In fact

I

> have

> > >a basic question to TW/Ron: what is the guarantee that these AA-

> rated

> > >charts fulfill " any " birth time criteria?

> > >

> > >Just out of curiosity: What if I had applied RP theory for BRT

in

> all

> > >the 300 cases I studied programmatically? The program actually

> took a

> > >few seconds (approx. 5) to run, so while processing all the

> records

> > >the RPs would have been the same. Can I conclude that at least a

> > >majority of the charts would have passed the RP test? If not,

> what do

> > >we conclude about the data as well as about RP-based

> rectification?

> > >

> > >I hope members will not get angry with me!

> > >

> > >Regards,

> > >Rangarajan

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Rangarajan

 

Your question can be answered only by a Gynocolojist. The usual assumption is that the

 

child cries when it takes the 1st breath. This is what was the method of noting BT when the

 

time-keeper was not in the Labour Room. The answer was given to RG when he pointed out

 

that some children do not cry on birth.

 

The Life beginning with the First Birth is the "meta-physical explaination".

 

We are finding enough diffculty in verifying reported Birth Times, so this will be another one.

 

Good LuckRangarajan Krishnamoorthy <ranga wrote:

Dear Shri.Raichur, TW,How can one find when the child took its first breath? Looks complicated to me.Regards,Rangarajan , "tw853" wrote:> Dear Shri Raichur,> > That may be the most reasonable TOB.> > Regards,> > tw> > > > , anant raichur > wrote:> > Dear R G > > > > In such cases one shuld ascertain, when the child took the 1st > Breath. This moment is> > > > suppossed to be the BIRTH. Just as DEATH is the stooping > completely of the Breath, and > > > > gives rise to the popular saying "one breathed his last breath"> > > > R G wrote:> > Sir> >

We shold not not forget that some childred do no cry at all.> > RG> > > > anant raichur wrote:> > Dear Rongaunt> > > > You are right. The question of Birth Time is fraught with many > problems. The traditional > > > > method (at least in India), was that time of birth was fixed when > the first cry was heard > > > > by the persons outside the Labour Room. It had nothing to do with > the cutting of the> > > > umibical chord. > > > > Phylosophically it is said "THE SOUL ENTERS THE BODY WITH THE 1st > Breath"> > > > Since a child cries as soon as it stars breathing, this has been > taken as the time of > > > > Birth. > > > > May I suggest "THE Correct Time of Birth is one which will give > correct corelation of

the> > > > events already taken place ". This can then be used for further > predictions. > > > > I know another method of birth rectification, working the Reverse > Way, used by some> > > > western astrologers. Knowing an important event in life, they > check the BT, working > > > > backwards. I will set out that method a little later for test, > after Rangaraj finishes his> > > > study with the Revised Nadi method, I have outlined.> > > > good luck> > > > > > "rongaunt@b... au" wrote:> > > > Dear Rangarajan,> > > > The whole question of the correct time of birth is fraught with> > problems. Nevertheless, it appears that most Western> > astrologers at least, use either the time of the first breath or> > the time of

cutting of the umbilical cord. My own thoughts on> > this is that it should be the latter, as this is when the child> > becomes a person it his/her own right. However this is to all> > intent and purposes academic, because in reality we very seldom> > hear of how the birth time was taken by the observers. Also in> > practice the first breath and cutting of the cord are likely to> > be fairly close together. > > > > There could even be a factor that is generally unknown. Edgar> > Cayce 'The Sleeping Prophet' who had proven success in thousands> > of cases (mostly medical diagnosis - without even meeting the> > person - or having any knowledge of them), stated that the soul> > whilst mostly entering the body at the time of birth, just> > occasionally takes posession whilst still in the womb, and> > sometimes even many hours after birth. This

begets the question> > when we are looking at a chart for the first time - are we> > looking at the chart of a 'maverick' soul. My own approach> > to this is that when I see a chart that does not appear to be> > anywhere near consistent with a number of events (particularly> > transits to angles of the further planets and Nodes) then I> > consider that I might be looking at one of these cases.> > > > Thank you for your excellent work. I am sure it is appreciated> > by all members.> > > > > > Ron Gaunt> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 27 May 2005 13:23:05 -0000, you wrote:> > > > >Dear Members,> > >When working on the recent study on BRT I realised that we should> > >arrive at the correct definition of birth time. I am sure you > would> > >have seen

definitions such as "the exact time when the child first> > >cries", "time of first breath", "time of cutting the umbilical > cord",> > >"time when the head comes out", etc. What is the "correct" > definition? > > >> > >If we agree upon a definition, how do we know if the birth time> > >recorded (for a given case) is as per this definition? In fact I > have> > >a basic question to TW/Ron: what is the guarantee that these AA-> rated> > >charts fulfill "any" birth time criteria?> > >> > >Just out of curiosity: What if I had applied RP theory for BRT in > all> > >the 300 cases I studied programmatically? The program actually > took a> > >few seconds (approx. 5) to run, so while processing all the > records> > >the RPs would have been the same. Can I conclude that at least

a> > >majority of the charts would have passed the RP test? If not, > what do> > >we conclude about the data as well as about RP-based > rectification?> > >> > >I hope members will not get angry with me!> > >> > >Regards,> > >Rangarajan> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Rangarajan,

 

 

" time of first breath " = " time when the head comes out "

 

It may be asked the nurses from a maternity ward whether it's the

TOB generally recorded in BC.

 

Regards,

 

tw

 

 

, " Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy "

<ranga@m...> wrote:

> Dear Shri.Raichur, TW,

> How can one find when the child took its first breath? Looks

> complicated to me.

>

> Regards,

> Rangarajan

>

> , " tw853 " <tw853> wrote:

> > Dear Shri Raichur,

> >

> > That may be the most reasonable TOB.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > tw

> >

> >

> >

> > , anant raichur

<anant_1608>

> > wrote:

> > > Dear R G

> > >

> > > In such cases one shuld ascertain, when the child took the 1st

> > Breath. This moment is

> > >

> > > suppossed to be the BIRTH. Just as DEATH is the stooping

> > completely of the Breath, and

> > >

> > > gives rise to the popular saying " one breathed his last breath "

> > >

> > > R G <rg_bharat> wrote:

> > > Sir

> > > We shold not not forget that some childred do no cry at all.

> > > RG

> > >

> > > anant raichur <anant_1608> wrote:

> > > Dear Rongaunt

> > >

> > > You are right. The question of Birth Time is fraught with many

> > problems. The traditional

> > >

> > > method (at least in India), was that time of birth was fixed

> when

> > the first cry was heard

> > >

> > > by the persons outside the Labour Room. It had nothing to do

> with

> > the cutting of the

> > >

> > > umibical chord.

> > >

> > > Phylosophically it is said " THE SOUL ENTERS THE BODY WITH THE

> 1st

> > Breath "

> > >

> > > Since a child cries as soon as it stars breathing, this has

been

> > taken as the time of

> > >

> > > Birth.

> > >

> > > May I suggest " THE Correct Time of Birth is one which will

give

> > correct corelation of the

> > >

> > > events already taken place " . This can then be used for

further

> > predictions.

> > >

> > > I know another method of birth rectification, working the

> Reverse

> > Way, used by some

> > >

> > > western astrologers. Knowing an important event in life, they

> > check the BT, working

> > >

> > > backwards. I will set out that method a little later for

test,

> > after Rangaraj finishes his

> > >

> > > study with the Revised Nadi method, I have outlined.

> > >

> > > good luck

> > >

> > >

> > > " rongaunt@b... au " <rongaunt@b...> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Rangarajan,

> > >

> > > The whole question of the correct time of birth is fraught with

> > > problems. Nevertheless, it appears that most Western

> > > astrologers at least, use either the time of the first breath

or

> > > the time of cutting of the umbilical cord. My own thoughts on

> > > this is that it should be the latter, as this is when the child

> > > becomes a person it his/her own right. However this is to all

> > > intent and purposes academic, because in reality we very seldom

> > > hear of how the birth time was taken by the observers. Also in

> > > practice the first breath and cutting of the cord are likely to

> > > be fairly close together.

> > >

> > > There could even be a factor that is generally unknown. Edgar

> > > Cayce 'The Sleeping Prophet' who had proven success in

thousands

> > > of cases (mostly medical diagnosis - without even meeting the

> > > person - or having any knowledge of them), stated that the soul

> > > whilst mostly entering the body at the time of birth, just

> > > occasionally takes posession whilst still in the womb, and

> > > sometimes even many hours after birth. This begets the question

> > > when we are looking at a chart for the first time - are we

> > > looking at the chart of a 'maverick' soul. My own approach

> > > to this is that when I see a chart that does not appear to be

> > > anywhere near consistent with a number of events (particularly

> > > transits to angles of the further planets and Nodes) then I

> > > consider that I might be looking at one of these cases.

> > >

> > > Thank you for your excellent work. I am sure it is appreciated

> > > by all members.

> > >

> > >

> > > Ron Gaunt

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > On Fri, 27 May 2005 13:23:05 -0000, you wrote:

> > >

> > > >Dear Members,

> > > >When working on the recent study on BRT I realised that we

> should

> > > >arrive at the correct definition of birth time. I am sure you

> > would

> > > >have seen definitions such as " the exact time when the child

> first

> > > >cries " , " time of first breath " , " time of cutting the

umbilical

> > cord " ,

> > > > " time when the head comes out " , etc. What is the " correct "

> > definition?

> > > >

> > > >If we agree upon a definition, how do we know if the birth

time

> > > >recorded (for a given case) is as per this definition? In

fact

> I

> > have

> > > >a basic question to TW/Ron: what is the guarantee that these

AA-

> > rated

> > > >charts fulfill " any " birth time criteria?

> > > >

> > > >Just out of curiosity: What if I had applied RP theory for

BRT

> in

> > all

> > > >the 300 cases I studied programmatically? The program

actually

> > took a

> > > >few seconds (approx. 5) to run, so while processing all the

> > records

> > > >the RPs would have been the same. Can I conclude that at

least a

> > > >majority of the charts would have passed the RP test? If not,

> > what do

> > > >we conclude about the data as well as about RP-based

> > rectification?

> > > >

> > > >I hope members will not get angry with me!

> > > >

> > > >Regards,

> > > >Rangarajan

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

HI DEAR ASTROLOGERS,

I WISH TO ADD THE FIRST CRY OF THE CHILD IS THE FIRST

BREATHING, AND THE TIME OF BIRTH IS REGISTERED. IF

DELIVERY TAKES PLACE, AND WHEN AND ONLY WHEN BABY CRY

THATS THE BIRTH TIME. ITS FOR OPINION, THE LEARNED

ASTROLOGERS MAY DIFFER. I WOULD WELCOME IF THERE IS

ANY CORRECTIONS IN THIS STATEMENT.

WITH REGARDS,

AJAY PANDAV

--- Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy <ranga

wrote:

 

> Dear Shri.Raichur, TW,

> How can one find when the child took its first

> breath? Looks

> complicated to me.

>

> Regards,

> Rangarajan

>

> , " tw853 "

> <tw853> wrote:

> > Dear Shri Raichur,

> >

> > That may be the most reasonable TOB.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > tw

> >

> >

> >

> > , anant raichur

> <anant_1608>

> > wrote:

> > > Dear R G

> > >

> > > In such cases one shuld ascertain, when the

> child took the 1st

> > Breath. This moment is

> > >

> > > suppossed to be the BIRTH. Just as DEATH is the

> stooping

> > completely of the Breath, and

> > >

> > > gives rise to the popular saying " one breathed

> his last breath "

> > >

> > > R G <rg_bharat> wrote:

> > > Sir

> > > We shold not not forget that some childred do no

> cry at all.

> > > RG

> > >

> > > anant raichur <anant_1608> wrote:

> > > Dear Rongaunt

> > >

> > > You are right. The question of Birth Time is

> fraught with many

> > problems. The traditional

> > >

> > > method (at least in India), was that time of

> birth was fixed

> when

> > the first cry was heard

> > >

> > > by the persons outside the Labour Room. It had

> nothing to do

> with

> > the cutting of the

> > >

> > > umibical chord.

> > >

> > > Phylosophically it is said " THE SOUL ENTERS THE

> BODY WITH THE

> 1st

> > Breath "

> > >

> > > Since a child cries as soon as it stars

> breathing, this has been

> > taken as the time of

> > >

> > > Birth.

> > >

> > > May I suggest " THE Correct Time of Birth is one

> which will give

> > correct corelation of the

> > >

> > > events already taken place " . This can then be

> used for further

> > predictions.

> > >

> > > I know another method of birth rectification,

> working the

> Reverse

> > Way, used by some

> > >

> > > western astrologers. Knowing an important event

> in life, they

> > check the BT, working

> > >

> > > backwards. I will set out that method a little

> later for test,

> > after Rangaraj finishes his

> > >

> > > study with the Revised Nadi method, I have

> outlined.

> > >

> > > good luck

> > >

> > >

> > > " rongaunt@b... au " <rongaunt@b...> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Rangarajan,

> > >

> > > The whole question of the correct time of birth

> is fraught with

> > > problems. Nevertheless, it appears that most

> Western

> > > astrologers at least, use either the time of the

> first breath or

> > > the time of cutting of the umbilical cord. My

> own thoughts on

> > > this is that it should be the latter, as this is

> when the child

> > > becomes a person it his/her own right. However

> this is to all

> > > intent and purposes academic, because in reality

> we very seldom

> > > hear of how the birth time was taken by the

> observers. Also in

> > > practice the first breath and cutting of the

> cord are likely to

> > > be fairly close together.

> > >

> > > There could even be a factor that is generally

> unknown. Edgar

> > > Cayce 'The Sleeping Prophet' who had proven

> success in thousands

> > > of cases (mostly medical diagnosis - without

> even meeting the

> > > person - or having any knowledge of them),

> stated that the soul

> > > whilst mostly entering the body at the time of

> birth, just

> > > occasionally takes posession whilst still in the

> womb, and

> > > sometimes even many hours after birth. This

> begets the question

> > > when we are looking at a chart for the first

> time - are we

> > > looking at the chart of a 'maverick' soul. My

> own approach

> > > to this is that when I see a chart that does not

> appear to be

> > > anywhere near consistent with a number of events

> (particularly

> > > transits to angles of the further planets and

> Nodes) then I

> > > consider that I might be looking at one of these

> cases.

> > >

> > > Thank you for your excellent work. I am sure it

> is appreciated

> > > by all members.

> > >

> > >

> > > Ron Gaunt

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > On Fri, 27 May 2005 13:23:05 -0000, you wrote:

> > >

> > > >Dear Members,

> > > >When working on the recent study on BRT I

> realised that we

> should

> > > >arrive at the correct definition of birth time.

> I am sure you

> > would

> > > >have seen definitions such as " the exact time

> when the child

> first

> > > >cries " , " time of first breath " , " time of

> cutting the umbilical

> > cord " ,

> > > > " time when the head comes out " , etc. What is

> the " correct "

> > definition?

> > > >

> > > >If we agree upon a definition, how do we know

> if the birth time

> > > >recorded (for a given case) is as per this

> definition? In fact

> I

> > have

> > > >a basic question to TW/Ron: what is the

> guarantee that these AA-

> > rated

> > > >charts fulfill " any " birth time criteria?

> > > >

> > > >Just out of curiosity: What if I had applied RP

> theory for BRT

> in

> > all

> > > >the 300 cases I studied programmatically? The

> program actually

> > took a

> > > >few seconds (approx. 5) to run, so while

> processing all the

> > records

> > > >the RPs would have been the same. Can I

> conclude

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

_____

Too much spam in your inbox? Mail gives you the best spam protection for

FREE! http://in.mail.

[Guest guest]

Dear tw,Rangarajan et al,

It is a medically accepted fact that the child'd first cry is his first breath...the usual practice for some time now is that the obstetrician holds the child up by his legs and slaps him smartly on his back to make him cry...!

 

What if the child does not cry ? ! !

 

This could happen in extremely rare instances,or in premature births when the child born is too small and weak to even cry...but then,he will atleast cough to clear his lungs of fluid so that he can breathe...

I must submit however that Astrology is not about the rarest events...and neither is K.P.,although some of the "old Masters" are known to have described rare events,with their astrological reasons for their occurrences,but only perhaps to illustrate by a "telling example"...or perhaps to draw attention of the masses and the elite towards to the science,and perhaps,even to themselves...! In the name of research,therefore I sugest we do not discuss the rare...

 

(Let us,for example concentrate on how to ensure thatr Horary Astrology which does not depend upon TOB., to be made 100% accurate...and such fruitful and practical objectives...)

 

One must attend/witness a child-birth,to truly appreciate,and understand what actually takes place...these days such movies are shown in Maternity & Child-welfare clinics...with explanations...

 

Hence KSK's definition is scientifically correct...

 

With best wishes,

lyrastro1

GOOD LUCK !

 

However, a child has to necessarily breathe to begin life...and to do so he cries most times,if not,atleast coughs...

 

In either case he needs to breathe-in first to let out air to cough...

 

tw853 <tw853 wrote:

Dear Rangarajan,"time of first breath" = "time when the head comes out"It may be asked the nurses from a maternity ward whether it's the TOB generally recorded in BC.Regards,tw , "Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy" <ranga@m...> wrote:> Dear Shri.Raichur, TW,> How can one find when the child took its first breath? Looks > complicated to me.> > Regards,> Rangarajan> > , "tw853" <tw853> wrote:> > Dear Shri Raichur,> > > > That may be the most reasonable TOB.> > > > Regards,> > > > tw> > > > > > > > , anant raichur <anant_1608> > >

wrote:> > > Dear R G > > > > > > In such cases one shuld ascertain, when the child took the 1st > > Breath. This moment is> > > > > > suppossed to be the BIRTH. Just as DEATH is the stooping > > completely of the Breath, and > > > > > > gives rise to the popular saying "one breathed his last breath"> > > > > > R G <rg_bharat> wrote:> > > Sir> > > We shold not not forget that some childred do no cry at all.> > > RG> > > > > > anant raichur <anant_1608> wrote:> > > Dear Rongaunt> > > > > > You are right. The question of Birth Time is fraught with many > > problems. The traditional > > > > > > method (at least in India), was that time of birth was

fixed > when > > the first cry was heard > > > > > > by the persons outside the Labour Room. It had nothing to do > with > > the cutting of the> > > > > > umibical chord. > > > > > > Phylosophically it is said "THE SOUL ENTERS THE BODY WITH THE > 1st > > Breath"> > > > > > Since a child cries as soon as it stars breathing, this has been > > taken as the time of > > > > > > Birth. > > > > > > May I suggest "THE Correct Time of Birth is one which will give > > correct corelation of the> > > > > > events already taken place ". This can then be used for further > > predictions. > > > > > > I know another method of birth rectification, working

the > Reverse > > Way, used by some> > > > > > western astrologers. Knowing an important event in life, they > > check the BT, working > > > > > > backwards. I will set out that method a little later for test, > > after Rangaraj finishes his> > > > > > study with the Revised Nadi method, I have outlined.> > > > > > good luck> > > > > > > > > "rongaunt@b... au" <rongaunt@b...> wrote:> > > > > > Dear Rangarajan,> > > > > > The whole question of the correct time of birth is fraught with> > > problems. Nevertheless, it appears that most Western> > > astrologers at least, use either the time of the first breath or> > > the time of cutting of the umbilical cord. My own thoughts

on> > > this is that it should be the latter, as this is when the child> > > becomes a person it his/her own right. However this is to all> > > intent and purposes academic, because in reality we very seldom> > > hear of how the birth time was taken by the observers. Also in> > > practice the first breath and cutting of the cord are likely to> > > be fairly close together. > > > > > > There could even be a factor that is generally unknown. Edgar> > > Cayce 'The Sleeping Prophet' who had proven success in thousands> > > of cases (mostly medical diagnosis - without even meeting the> > > person - or having any knowledge of them), stated that the soul> > > whilst mostly entering the body at the time of birth, just> > > occasionally takes posession whilst still in the womb, and> > > sometimes even many

hours after birth. This begets the question> > > when we are looking at a chart for the first time - are we> > > looking at the chart of a 'maverick' soul. My own approach> > > to this is that when I see a chart that does not appear to be> > > anywhere near consistent with a number of events (particularly> > > transits to angles of the further planets and Nodes) then I> > > consider that I might be looking at one of these cases.> > > > > > Thank you for your excellent work. I am sure it is appreciated> > > by all members.> > > > > > > > > Ron Gaunt> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 27 May 2005 13:23:05 -0000, you wrote:> > > > > > >Dear Members,> > > >When working on the recent study on BRT I realised that we >

should> > > >arrive at the correct definition of birth time. I am sure you > > would> > > >have seen definitions such as "the exact time when the child > first> > > >cries", "time of first breath", "time of cutting the umbilical > > cord",> > > >"time when the head comes out", etc. What is the "correct" > > definition? > > > >> > > >If we agree upon a definition, how do we know if the birth time> > > >recorded (for a given case) is as per this definition? In fact > I > > have> > > >a basic question to TW/Ron: what is the guarantee that these AA-> > rated> > > >charts fulfill "any" birth time criteria?> > > >> > > >Just out of curiosity: What if I had applied RP theory for BRT > in > > all> > >

>the 300 cases I studied programmatically? The program actually > > took a> > > >few seconds (approx. 5) to run, so while processing all the > > records> > > >the RPs would have been the same. Can I conclude that at least a> > > >majority of the charts would have passed the RP test? If not, > > what do> > > >we conclude about the data as well as about RP-based > > rectification?> > > >> > > >I hope members will not get angry with me!> > > >> > > >Regards,> > > >Rangarajan> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >