Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

LK discussion group Correction

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Varun ji, plz try. I heard it at a meeting of prominent vedic

astrologers. It was my instinct that told me that it could be helpful

in 35 saala system. Unfortunately as i am not well versed in

mathematical vedic astrology, i was a passive participant and assumed

that it would be a common knowledge thing. I will try to contact them

again. I have trust in ur resources also. Thanks - kulbir

 

On 1/22/09, varun_trvd <varun_trvd wrote:

> Dear Kulbir bhai,

>

> I am not aware of the process through which 300 year dasha system was

> worked out. As a matter of fact I am hearing it for the first time

> from you. At least I have not come across any reference to 300 year

> dasha system in the Vedic astrology texts I have read.

>

> However I would try to find out if such a procedure ever existed.

>

> With respect and regards,

>

> Varun Trivedi

>

>

>

, kulbir bance

> <kulbirbance wrote:

>>

>> Varun ji;

>> kindly let me know what was the original method which calculated

> dasha for

>> 300 yeras and parashari system rectified it to be taken from

> position from

>> moon to shorten the span.

>> i simply don't know what the earlier method was; only heard about

> it.

>> may be the anwser could explain certain things about 35 saala

> chakkar

>> because it does the same i.e. shortens the span of period governed

> by

>> particular ruling planets.

>> i am damn serious;plz share any information about the same. i am not

>> questioning your knowledge but simply looking for an answer.

>> regards

>> kulbir

>>

>>

>> On 1/22/09, varun_trvd <varun_trvd wrote:

>> >

>> > Dear Kulbir bhai,

>> >

>> > Yes it is true that the 35 sala dasha cycle of the Lal Kitab can

>> > start with any planet.

>> >

>> > In the example table [ page 93; 1940 urdu ed ] the dasha is worked

>> > out on the basis of a prominent event in the life of the native.

> The

>> > event is the first marriage of the native. Since the native got

>> > married in the 17th year, hence it is assumed that his Venus

> dasha or

>> > shukra ka daura started at the 17th year. The rest of the table ,

>> > both for years prior to the 17th and after the 17th have been

> filled

>> > accordingly.

>> >

>> > Since the example table above is for a native whose birth details

>> > were not known and therefore the help of a major event in the life

>> > had to be taken to ascertain the 35 sala dasha cycle. But in the

>> > cases where the birth details of the native are available then

> the 35

>> > sala dasha cycle has to be worked out mathematically and logically

>> > through the same method which is applied to derive the Vinshottari

>> > dasha.

>> >

>> > How the 35 sala dasha cycle is worked out has been explained in an

>> > article already uploaded in the files in the folder articles on LK

>> > grammar.

>> >

>> > In a couple of days Pt. Bhooshan Priya ji will be posting another

>> > artcle on the 35 sala dasha cycle as you had already requested

> him to

>> > do.

>> >

>> > Have a nice day

>> >

>> > Varun Trivedi

>> >

>> > <%

> 40>,

>> > kulbir bance

>> > <kulbirbance@> wrote:

>> > >

>> > > Varun ji,

>> > >

>> > > Then it means that the daura can start from any point like

>> > > vimshotri. So ANTARDASHA cannot be left untouched. I am told

> that

>> > > prashari jyotish evolved the concept by starting from position

> of

>> > > moon. Bcoz by the other method age span ran into 300 yrs. What

> was

>> > > that or the original method.

>> > >

>> > > Regards.

>> > >

>> > > Kulbir

>> > >

>> > >

>> > >

>> > >

>> > >

>> > >

>> > >

>> > >

>> > >

>> > >

>> > > On 1/22/09, varun_trvd <varun_trvd@> wrote:

>> > > > Dear Kulbir Bhai,

>> > > >

>> > > > There is no mistake even in the original. The rahu period

> will be

>> > > > from 1 to 4 only.

>> > > >

>> > > > The example table is for a native who started his venus dasha

> at

>> > the

>> > > > age of 17 years. Therefore under the column for Venus the

> years

>> > 17 -

>> > > > 19 are to be written.

>> > > >

>> > > > From the venus column go backwards. the 16th year will be of

> moon,

>> > > > then two years of the sun will be 14th and the 15th... and so

> on.

>> > > > When you come to the rahu column it will be only four years

> left

>> > and

>> > > > hence 1 to 4 will be of rahu.

>> > > >

>> > > > Regards,

>> > > >

>> > > > Varun Trivedi

>> > > >

>> > > >

>> > > >

>> > > >

>> > > >

>> > > >

>> > > >

>> > > >

>> > > >

>> > > >

>> > > > --- In

> <%

> 40>,

>> > kulbir bance

>> > > > <kulbirbance@> wrote:

>> > > >>

>> > > >> Varun ji,

>> > > >>

>> > > >> then the original has a mistake it should be from 0 to 5.

>> > > >> The header mentions 6 years ,correrponding column under it

> has

>> > 34 to

>> > > >> 39. Why publish it incorrect in the transliteration. Do the

>> > mistakes

>> > > >> have some sanctity too.

>> > > >>

>> > > >> Regards.

>> > > >>

>> > > >> Kulbir

>> > > >>

>> > > >>

>> > > >>

>> > > >>

>> > > >>

>> > > >>

>> > > >>

>> > > >> On 1/21/09, varun_trvd <varun_trvd@> wrote:

>> > > >> > Dear Kulbir bhai,

>> > > >> >

>> > > >> > I have checked with the original urdu edition. The table on

>> > page

>> > > > 93 of

>> > > >> > the 1940 urdu edition reads 1 ta 4 for rahu column.

> Therefore

>> > the

>> > > >> > transliteration is correct.

>> > > >> >

>> > > >> > Regards,

>> > > >> >

>> > > >> > Varun Trivedi

>> > > >> >

>> > > >> >

>> > > >> >

>> > > >> >

>> > > >> >

>> > > >> >

>> > > >> >

>> > > >> > --- In

> <%

> 40>,

>> > kulbir bance

>> > > >> > <kulbirbance@> wrote:

>> > > >> >>

>> > > >> >> Plz note the table printed upon page 93 of goswami ji's

>> > > > transliterated

>> > > >> >> book 1940 armaan is totally wrong. In The very first

> column

>> > The

>> > > > span

>> > > >> >> of rahu should have been 1 to 5 and not 4. Hereon the

> whole

>> > > > table goes

>> > > >> >> incorrect. Kulbir

>> > > >> >>

>> > > >> >

>> > > >> >

>> > > >> >

>> > > >>

>> > > >

>> > > >

>> > > >

>> > >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>>

>

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...