Bhatia ji's article on the Lagna sarini

[Guest guest]

Dear Punit ji,

 

What Bhatia ji had written is very much keeping in with what has been

written in the preamble of the Sarini. Any body who reads the Sarini

would take those words to mean what Bhatia ji had taken them to mean.

Bhatia ji also claims that Pundit ji worked out the horoscopes of his

children, born abroad, through the same procedure and the predictions

have come true.

 

Although the procedure to work out the Lagna given in the sarini is

not ‘Shastra sammat’ [according to the scriptures] yet we took it to

be another method because Pt. Rupchand ji is claimed to have told

Bhatia ji that ‘ he is aware of having violated the rules of

astrology’ while preparing this Sarini.

 

Three of us; me, Varun Trivedi and CP Tyagi worked out more than a

dozen foreign and Indian births through the procedure given in the

Sarini and as explained by Bhatia ji in his article. The worked out

horoscopes are here in the message archives.

 

The results were very inaccurate.

 

Therefore I think we should leave it to Bhatia ji whether he wants

his article to stay as it is or he may want to revise it in the light

of our findings. This is a scientific approach where an article could

be revised in the light of findings that are different from the

earlier claims.

 

Sincerely,

 

KP Miglani

[Guest guest]

Dear KP Miglani ji,

 

I have studied celestial astronomy, spherical trigonometry, and other

related branches of mathematical astrology from ancient as well as modern

texts. I have also developed many softwares on astrology. I am mentioning

this not to speak high about myself, but just to communicate that I have at

least basic knowledge of mathematical astrology and I can understand and

comprehend what we are discussing here.

 

The point I wanted to communicate that the benchmark you are taking to

disprove the sarni is not correct. What you are assuming that whatever we

will calculate through software/ manually should be correct from Lal Kitab

perspective and sarni should match that. Why it should be required? The way

we need to validate is to cast the horoscopes using both the methods and

apply Lal Kitab principles. Let us see which chart is helping us to

understand the nativity and based on that we can decide whether the method

is correct or not.

 

Last time I have given example of Rahu and Ketu which is a very common

example. Let me take another example. The chart is the astronomical map of

heaven at a given point of time. In other words, the chart is position of

planets and certain other points at a given moment. Now, in Lal Kitab we

cast chart using palm which seems totally illogical. Isn't it? Do you think

that it is logical in the light of mathematical astrology? First of all, it

doesn't match with the planetary positions at the birth time. Also there

seems no logic to put planet in random houses just seeing some symbols on

palm? This may be a scientist's view. But we take it as-it is because we

believe that there is something more than science and the Lal Kitab

principles are developed based on this 'something more'. Again to reiterate

my point, we can not say that some Lal Kitab principle is incorrect just

because it seems illogical or doesn't match with our existing knowledge

(scientific/ ration view). If we take scientific/ rational view, I think it

is very easy to prove whole Lal Kitab absurd. As a matter of fact, the

astrology itself is not accepted as a science.

 

I personally want to clarify that I don't use Lal Kitab sarni and never

tried to validate this method. Like you, it doesn't seems logical to me :-).

Though the point I want to make that this is not enough reason to call it

incorrect.

 

Thanks & Regards,

 

Punit Pandey

 

 

On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani wrote:

>

> Dear Punit ji,

>

> What Bhatia ji had written is very much keeping in with what has been

> written in the preamble of the Sarini. Any body who reads the Sarini

> would take those words to mean what Bhatia ji had taken them to mean.

> Bhatia ji also claims that Pundit ji worked out the horoscopes of his

> children, born abroad, through the same procedure and the predictions

> have come true.

>

> Although the procedure to work out the Lagna given in the sarini is

> not 'Shastra sammat' [according to the scriptures] yet we took it to

> be another method because Pt. Rupchand ji is claimed to have told

> Bhatia ji that ' he is aware of having violated the rules of

> astrology' while preparing this Sarini.

>

> Three of us; me, Varun Trivedi and CP Tyagi worked out more than a

> dozen foreign and Indian births through the procedure given in the

> Sarini and as explained by Bhatia ji in his article. The worked out

> horoscopes are here in the message archives.

>

> The results were very inaccurate.

>

> Therefore I think we should leave it to Bhatia ji whether he wants

> his article to stay as it is or he may want to revise it in the light

> of our findings. This is a scientific approach where an article could

> be revised in the light of findings that are different from the

> earlier claims.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> KP Miglani

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Punit ji,

 

The litmus test is already done. In the Lal Kitab discussion group

Pt. Lalkitabee has already posted an analysis of a foreign birth

today of a well known member of this group. His findings are that a

horoscope cast through traditional Parashar method comes true for

predictions rather than the one cast through the Sarini method.

 

sincerely,

 

KP Miglani

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lalkitab , " Punit Pandey " <punitp wrote:

>

> Dear KP Miglani ji,

>

> I have studied celestial astronomy, spherical trigonometry, and

other

> related branches of mathematical astrology from ancient as well as

modern

> texts. I have also developed many softwares on astrology. I am

mentioning

> this not to speak high about myself, but just to communicate that I

have at

> least basic knowledge of mathematical astrology and I can

understand and

> comprehend what we are discussing here.

>

> The point I wanted to communicate that the benchmark you are taking

to

> disprove the sarni is not correct. What you are assuming that

whatever we

> will calculate through software/ manually should be correct from

Lal Kitab

> perspective and sarni should match that. Why it should be required?

The way

> we need to validate is to cast the horoscopes using both the

methods and

> apply Lal Kitab principles. Let us see which chart is helping us to

> understand the nativity and based on that we can decide whether the

method

> is correct or not.

>

> Last time I have given example of Rahu and Ketu which is a very

common

> example. Let me take another example. The chart is the astronomical

map of

> heaven at a given point of time. In other words, the chart is

position of

> planets and certain other points at a given moment. Now, in Lal

Kitab we

> cast chart using palm which seems totally illogical. Isn't it? Do

you think

> that it is logical in the light of mathematical astrology? First of

all, it

> doesn't match with the planetary positions at the birth time. Also

there

> seems no logic to put planet in random houses just seeing some

symbols on

> palm? This may be a scientist's view. But we take it as-it is

because we

> believe that there is something more than science and the Lal Kitab

> principles are developed based on this 'something more'. Again to

reiterate

> my point, we can not say that some Lal Kitab principle is incorrect

just

> because it seems illogical or doesn't match with our existing

knowledge

> (scientific/ ration view). If we take scientific/ rational view, I

think it

> is very easy to prove whole Lal Kitab absurd. As a matter of fact,

the

> astrology itself is not accepted as a science.

>

> I personally want to clarify that I don't use Lal Kitab sarni and

never

> tried to validate this method. Like you, it doesn't seems logical

to me :-).

> Though the point I want to make that this is not enough reason to

call it

> incorrect.

>

> Thanks & Regards,

>

> Punit Pandey

>

>

> On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani wrote:

> >

> > Dear Punit ji,

> >

> > What Bhatia ji had written is very much keeping in with what has

been

> > written in the preamble of the Sarini. Any body who reads the

Sarini

> > would take those words to mean what Bhatia ji had taken them to

mean.

> > Bhatia ji also claims that Pundit ji worked out the horoscopes of

his

> > children, born abroad, through the same procedure and the

predictions

> > have come true.

> >

> > Although the procedure to work out the Lagna given in the sarini

is

> > not 'Shastra sammat' [according to the scriptures] yet we took it

to

> > be another method because Pt. Rupchand ji is claimed to have told

> > Bhatia ji that ' he is aware of having violated the rules of

> > astrology' while preparing this Sarini.

> >

> > Three of us; me, Varun Trivedi and CP Tyagi worked out more than a

> > dozen foreign and Indian births through the procedure given in the

> > Sarini and as explained by Bhatia ji in his article. The worked

out

> > horoscopes are here in the message archives.

> >

> > The results were very inaccurate.

> >

> > Therefore I think we should leave it to Bhatia ji whether he wants

> > his article to stay as it is or he may want to revise it in the

light

> > of our findings. This is a scientific approach where an article

could

> > be revised in the light of findings that are different from the

> > earlier claims.

> >

> > Sincerely,

> >

> > KP Miglani

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Miglani ji,

 

Do you call 'analysis of only one foreign chart' a litmus test? If this is

the accepted sample size, I can prove any theory incorrect.

 

Thanks & Regards,

 

Punit Pandey

 

 

On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani wrote:

>

> Dear Punit ji,

>

> The litmus test is already done. In the Lal Kitab discussion group

> Pt. Lalkitabee has already posted an analysis of a foreign birth

> today of a well known member of this group. His findings are that a

> horoscope cast through traditional Parashar method comes true for

> predictions rather than the one cast through the Sarini method.

>

> sincerely,

>

> KP Miglani

>

> lalkitab <lalkitab%40>, " Punit

> Pandey " <punitp wrote:

> >

> > Dear KP Miglani ji,

> >

> > I have studied celestial astronomy, spherical trigonometry, and

> other

> > related branches of mathematical astrology from ancient as well as

> modern

> > texts. I have also developed many softwares on astrology. I am

> mentioning

> > this not to speak high about myself, but just to communicate that I

> have at

> > least basic knowledge of mathematical astrology and I can

> understand and

> > comprehend what we are discussing here.

> >

> > The point I wanted to communicate that the benchmark you are taking

> to

> > disprove the sarni is not correct. What you are assuming that

> whatever we

> > will calculate through software/ manually should be correct from

> Lal Kitab

> > perspective and sarni should match that. Why it should be required?

> The way

> > we need to validate is to cast the horoscopes using both the

> methods and

> > apply Lal Kitab principles. Let us see which chart is helping us to

> > understand the nativity and based on that we can decide whether the

> method

> > is correct or not.

> >

> > Last time I have given example of Rahu and Ketu which is a very

> common

> > example. Let me take another example. The chart is the astronomical

> map of

> > heaven at a given point of time. In other words, the chart is

> position of

> > planets and certain other points at a given moment. Now, in Lal

> Kitab we

> > cast chart using palm which seems totally illogical. Isn't it? Do

> you think

> > that it is logical in the light of mathematical astrology? First of

> all, it

> > doesn't match with the planetary positions at the birth time. Also

> there

> > seems no logic to put planet in random houses just seeing some

> symbols on

> > palm? This may be a scientist's view. But we take it as-it is

> because we

> > believe that there is something more than science and the Lal Kitab

> > principles are developed based on this 'something more'. Again to

> reiterate

> > my point, we can not say that some Lal Kitab principle is incorrect

> just

> > because it seems illogical or doesn't match with our existing

> knowledge

> > (scientific/ ration view). If we take scientific/ rational view, I

> think it

> > is very easy to prove whole Lal Kitab absurd. As a matter of fact,

> the

> > astrology itself is not accepted as a science.

> >

> > I personally want to clarify that I don't use Lal Kitab sarni and

> never

> > tried to validate this method. Like you, it doesn't seems logical

> to me :-).

> > Though the point I want to make that this is not enough reason to

> call it

> > incorrect.

> >

> > Thanks & Regards,

> >

> > Punit Pandey

> >

> >

> > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Punit ji,

> > >

> > > What Bhatia ji had written is very much keeping in with what has

> been

> > > written in the preamble of the Sarini. Any body who reads the

> Sarini

> > > would take those words to mean what Bhatia ji had taken them to

> mean.

> > > Bhatia ji also claims that Pundit ji worked out the horoscopes of

> his

> > > children, born abroad, through the same procedure and the

> predictions

> > > have come true.

> > >

> > > Although the procedure to work out the Lagna given in the sarini

> is

> > > not 'Shastra sammat' [according to the scriptures] yet we took it

> to

> > > be another method because Pt. Rupchand ji is claimed to have told

> > > Bhatia ji that ' he is aware of having violated the rules of

> > > astrology' while preparing this Sarini.

> > >

> > > Three of us; me, Varun Trivedi and CP Tyagi worked out more than a

> > > dozen foreign and Indian births through the procedure given in the

> > > Sarini and as explained by Bhatia ji in his article. The worked

> out

> > > horoscopes are here in the message archives.

> > >

> > > The results were very inaccurate.

> > >

> > > Therefore I think we should leave it to Bhatia ji whether he wants

> > > his article to stay as it is or he may want to revise it in the

> light

> > > of our findings. This is a scientific approach where an article

> could

> > > be revised in the light of findings that are different from the

> > > earlier claims.

> > >

> > > Sincerely,

> > >

> > > KP Miglani

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear Punit ji,

 

Our objection to the Sarinis in general and this sarini in particular

is that:

 

A Sarini should be used for the place it has been calculated for i.e.

for those longitudes and Latitudes. At the most a sarini can be used

for the adjoining towns in that region. It should not be used for

areas beyond that region.

 

Our logic is simple;

 

A sarini can be used for any place around the earth along the same

latitude because the longitude difference will be taken care of

through the time difference.

But it will not be logical to use a sarini for a place with different

latitude, because there is no method to take care of the latitude

difference.

 

Therefore this Sarini if calculated with the coordinates of madras [

as has been claimed ] can be used for the latitude 13N4 at any

longitude around the world but can not be used for any latitude north

or south of 13N4.

 

Since you have studied mathematics of astrology, you would know what

we are talking about.

 

Sincerely,

 

KP Miglani

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lalkitab , " Punit Pandey " <punitp wrote:

>

> Dear KP Miglani ji,

>

> I have studied celestial astronomy, spherical trigonometry, and

other

> related branches of mathematical astrology from ancient as well as

modern

> texts. I have also developed many softwares on astrology. I am

mentioning

> this not to speak high about myself, but just to communicate that I

have at

> least basic knowledge of mathematical astrology and I can

understand and

> comprehend what we are discussing here.

>

> The point I wanted to communicate that the benchmark you are taking

to

> disprove the sarni is not correct. What you are assuming that

whatever we

> will calculate through software/ manually should be correct from

Lal Kitab

> perspective and sarni should match that. Why it should be required?

The way

> we need to validate is to cast the horoscopes using both the

methods and

> apply Lal Kitab principles. Let us see which chart is helping us to

> understand the nativity and based on that we can decide whether the

method

> is correct or not.

>

> Last time I have given example of Rahu and Ketu which is a very

common

> example. Let me take another example. The chart is the astronomical

map of

> heaven at a given point of time. In other words, the chart is

position of

> planets and certain other points at a given moment. Now, in Lal

Kitab we

> cast chart using palm which seems totally illogical. Isn't it? Do

you think

> that it is logical in the light of mathematical astrology? First of

all, it

> doesn't match with the planetary positions at the birth time. Also

there

> seems no logic to put planet in random houses just seeing some

symbols on

> palm? This may be a scientist's view. But we take it as-it is

because we

> believe that there is something more than science and the Lal Kitab

> principles are developed based on this 'something more'. Again to

reiterate

> my point, we can not say that some Lal Kitab principle is incorrect

just

> because it seems illogical or doesn't match with our existing

knowledge

> (scientific/ ration view). If we take scientific/ rational view, I

think it

> is very easy to prove whole Lal Kitab absurd. As a matter of fact,

the

> astrology itself is not accepted as a science.

>

> I personally want to clarify that I don't use Lal Kitab sarni and

never

> tried to validate this method. Like you, it doesn't seems logical

to me :-).

> Though the point I want to make that this is not enough reason to

call it

> incorrect.

>

> Thanks & Regards,

>

> Punit Pandey

>

>

> On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani wrote:

> >

> > Dear Punit ji,

> >

> > What Bhatia ji had written is very much keeping in with what has

been

> > written in the preamble of the Sarini. Any body who reads the

Sarini

> > would take those words to mean what Bhatia ji had taken them to

mean.

> > Bhatia ji also claims that Pundit ji worked out the horoscopes of

his

> > children, born abroad, through the same procedure and the

predictions

> > have come true.

> >

> > Although the procedure to work out the Lagna given in the sarini

is

> > not 'Shastra sammat' [according to the scriptures] yet we took it

to

> > be another method because Pt. Rupchand ji is claimed to have told

> > Bhatia ji that ' he is aware of having violated the rules of

> > astrology' while preparing this Sarini.

> >

> > Three of us; me, Varun Trivedi and CP Tyagi worked out more than a

> > dozen foreign and Indian births through the procedure given in the

> > Sarini and as explained by Bhatia ji in his article. The worked

out

> > horoscopes are here in the message archives.

> >

> > The results were very inaccurate.

> >

> > Therefore I think we should leave it to Bhatia ji whether he wants

> > his article to stay as it is or he may want to revise it in the

light

> > of our findings. This is a scientific approach where an article

could

> > be revised in the light of findings that are different from the

> > earlier claims.

> >

> > Sincerely,

> >

> > KP Miglani

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Miglani ji,

 

What you are saying makes perfect sense. I just want to make sure that we

are considering other facts -

 

1. The Bhatia ji has mentioned that Pundit ji himself has asked him to use

this method for foreign charts. (I know you don't believe it but it gives me

at least one reason)

2. In Lal Kitab, sarnis in general don't mave much mathematical value. These

are the way these are. Take the most important Varshphal sarni or Dimagi

khana sarni. This is all created by Pundit ji without giving any rational.

We need to keep this fact in mind as well. If that works, however incorrect

mathematically it seems, we will have to use it. Instead of discussing it

from mathematical perspective, we should discuss it from Lal Kitab

application perspective.

 

Thanks & Regards,

 

Punit Pandey

 

 

On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani wrote:

>

> Dear Punit ji,

>

> Our objection to the Sarinis in general and this sarini in particular

> is that:

>

> A Sarini should be used for the place it has been calculated for i.e.

> for those longitudes and Latitudes. At the most a sarini can be used

> for the adjoining towns in that region. It should not be used for

> areas beyond that region.

>

> Our logic is simple;

>

> A sarini can be used for any place around the earth along the same

> latitude because the longitude difference will be taken care of

> through the time difference.

> But it will not be logical to use a sarini for a place with different

> latitude, because there is no method to take care of the latitude

> difference.

>

> Therefore this Sarini if calculated with the coordinates of madras [

> as has been claimed ] can be used for the latitude 13N4 at any

> longitude around the world but can not be used for any latitude north

> or south of 13N4.

>

> Since you have studied mathematics of astrology, you would know what

> we are talking about.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> KP Miglani

>

> lalkitab <lalkitab%40>, " Punit

> Pandey " <punitp wrote:

> >

> > Dear KP Miglani ji,

> >

> > I have studied celestial astronomy, spherical trigonometry, and

> other

> > related branches of mathematical astrology from ancient as well as

> modern

> > texts. I have also developed many softwares on astrology. I am

> mentioning

> > this not to speak high about myself, but just to communicate that I

> have at

> > least basic knowledge of mathematical astrology and I can

> understand and

> > comprehend what we are discussing here.

> >

> > The point I wanted to communicate that the benchmark you are taking

> to

> > disprove the sarni is not correct. What you are assuming that

> whatever we

> > will calculate through software/ manually should be correct from

> Lal Kitab

> > perspective and sarni should match that. Why it should be required?

> The way

> > we need to validate is to cast the horoscopes using both the

> methods and

> > apply Lal Kitab principles. Let us see which chart is helping us to

> > understand the nativity and based on that we can decide whether the

> method

> > is correct or not.

> >

> > Last time I have given example of Rahu and Ketu which is a very

> common

> > example. Let me take another example. The chart is the astronomical

> map of

> > heaven at a given point of time. In other words, the chart is

> position of

> > planets and certain other points at a given moment. Now, in Lal

> Kitab we

> > cast chart using palm which seems totally illogical. Isn't it? Do

> you think

> > that it is logical in the light of mathematical astrology? First of

> all, it

> > doesn't match with the planetary positions at the birth time. Also

> there

> > seems no logic to put planet in random houses just seeing some

> symbols on

> > palm? This may be a scientist's view. But we take it as-it is

> because we

> > believe that there is something more than science and the Lal Kitab

> > principles are developed based on this 'something more'. Again to

> reiterate

> > my point, we can not say that some Lal Kitab principle is incorrect

> just

> > because it seems illogical or doesn't match with our existing

> knowledge

> > (scientific/ ration view). If we take scientific/ rational view, I

> think it

> > is very easy to prove whole Lal Kitab absurd. As a matter of fact,

> the

> > astrology itself is not accepted as a science.

> >

> > I personally want to clarify that I don't use Lal Kitab sarni and

> never

> > tried to validate this method. Like you, it doesn't seems logical

> to me :-).

> > Though the point I want to make that this is not enough reason to

> call it

> > incorrect.

> >

> > Thanks & Regards,

> >

> > Punit Pandey

> >

> >

> > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Punit ji,

> > >

> > > What Bhatia ji had written is very much keeping in with what has

> been

> > > written in the preamble of the Sarini. Any body who reads the

> Sarini

> > > would take those words to mean what Bhatia ji had taken them to

> mean.

> > > Bhatia ji also claims that Pundit ji worked out the horoscopes of

> his

> > > children, born abroad, through the same procedure and the

> predictions

> > > have come true.

> > >

> > > Although the procedure to work out the Lagna given in the sarini

> is

> > > not 'Shastra sammat' [according to the scriptures] yet we took it

> to

> > > be another method because Pt. Rupchand ji is claimed to have told

> > > Bhatia ji that ' he is aware of having violated the rules of

> > > astrology' while preparing this Sarini.

> > >

> > > Three of us; me, Varun Trivedi and CP Tyagi worked out more than a

> > > dozen foreign and Indian births through the procedure given in the

> > > Sarini and as explained by Bhatia ji in his article. The worked

> out

> > > horoscopes are here in the message archives.

> > >

> > > The results were very inaccurate.

> > >

> > > Therefore I think we should leave it to Bhatia ji whether he wants

> > > his article to stay as it is or he may want to revise it in the

> light

> > > of our findings. This is a scientific approach where an article

> could

> > > be revised in the light of findings that are different from the

> > > earlier claims.

> > >

> > > Sincerely,

> > >

> > > KP Miglani

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Punitji,

 

Seems that you're now becoming part of the game by

reacting in such manner:).

 

Regards,

Bhupinder

 

--- Punit Pandey <punitp wrote:

 

> Dear Miglani ji,

>

> Do you call 'analysis of only one foreign chart' a

> litmus test? If this is

> the accepted sample size, I can prove any theory

> incorrect.

>

> Thanks & Regards,

>

> Punit Pandey

>

>

> On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Punit ji,

> >

> > The litmus test is already done. In the Lal Kitab

> discussion group

> > Pt. Lalkitabee has already posted an analysis of a

> foreign birth

> > today of a well known member of this group. His

> findings are that a

> > horoscope cast through traditional Parashar method

> comes true for

> > predictions rather than the one cast through the

> Sarini method.

> >

> > sincerely,

> >

> > KP Miglani

> >

> > lalkitab

> <lalkitab%40>, " Punit

> > Pandey " <punitp wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear KP Miglani ji,

> > >

> > > I have studied celestial astronomy, spherical

> trigonometry, and

> > other

> > > related branches of mathematical astrology from

> ancient as well as

> > modern

> > > texts. I have also developed many softwares on

> astrology. I am

> > mentioning

> > > this not to speak high about myself, but just to

> communicate that I

> > have at

> > > least basic knowledge of mathematical astrology

> and I can

> > understand and

> > > comprehend what we are discussing here.

> > >

> > > The point I wanted to communicate that the

> benchmark you are taking

> > to

> > > disprove the sarni is not correct. What you are

> assuming that

> > whatever we

> > > will calculate through software/ manually should

> be correct from

> > Lal Kitab

> > > perspective and sarni should match that. Why it

> should be required?

> > The way

> > > we need to validate is to cast the horoscopes

> using both the

> > methods and

> > > apply Lal Kitab principles. Let us see which

> chart is helping us to

> > > understand the nativity and based on that we can

> decide whether the

> > method

> > > is correct or not.

> > >

> > > Last time I have given example of Rahu and Ketu

> which is a very

> > common

> > > example. Let me take another example. The chart

> is the astronomical

> > map of

> > > heaven at a given point of time. In other words,

> the chart is

> > position of

> > > planets and certain other points at a given

> moment. Now, in Lal

> > Kitab we

> > > cast chart using palm which seems totally

> illogical. Isn't it? Do

> > you think

> > > that it is logical in the light of mathematical

> astrology? First of

> > all, it

> > > doesn't match with the planetary positions at

> the birth time. Also

> > there

> > > seems no logic to put planet in random houses

> just seeing some

> > symbols on

> > > palm? This may be a scientist's view. But we

> take it as-it is

> > because we

> > > believe that there is something more than

> science and the Lal Kitab

> > > principles are developed based on this

> 'something more'. Again to

> > reiterate

> > > my point, we can not say that some Lal Kitab

> principle is incorrect

> > just

> > > because it seems illogical or doesn't match with

> our existing

> > knowledge

> > > (scientific/ ration view). If we take

> scientific/ rational view, I

> > think it

> > > is very easy to prove whole Lal Kitab absurd. As

> a matter of fact,

> > the

> > > astrology itself is not accepted as a science.

> > >

> > > I personally want to clarify that I don't use

> Lal Kitab sarni and

> > never

> > > tried to validate this method. Like you, it

> doesn't seems logical

> > to me :-).

> > > Though the point I want to make that this is not

> enough reason to

> > call it

> > > incorrect.

> > >

> > > Thanks & Regards,

> > >

> > > Punit Pandey

> > >

> > >

> > > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Punit ji,

> > > >

> > > > What Bhatia ji had written is very much

> keeping in with what has

> > been

> > > > written in the preamble of the Sarini. Any

> body who reads the

> > Sarini

> > > > would take those words to mean what Bhatia ji

> had taken them to

> > mean.

> > > > Bhatia ji also claims that Pundit ji worked

> out the horoscopes of

> > his

> > > > children, born abroad, through the same

> procedure and the

> > predictions

> > > > have come true.

> > > >

> > > > Although the procedure to work out the Lagna

> given in the sarini

> > is

> > > > not 'Shastra sammat' [according to the

> scriptures] yet we took it

> > to

> > > > be another method because Pt. Rupchand ji is

> claimed to have told

> > > > Bhatia ji that ' he is aware of having

> violated the rules of

> > > > astrology' while preparing this Sarini.

> > > >

> > > > Three of us; me, Varun Trivedi and CP Tyagi

> worked out more than a

> > > > dozen foreign and Indian births through the

> procedure given in the

> > > > Sarini and as explained by Bhatia ji in his

> article. The worked

> > out

> > > > horoscopes are here in the message archives.

> > > >

> > > > The results were very inaccurate.

> > > >

> > > > Therefore I think we should leave it to Bhatia

> ji whether he wants

> > > > his article to stay as it is or he may want to

> revise it in the

> > light

> > > > of our findings. This is a scientific approach

> where an article

> > could

> > > > be revised in the light of findings that are

> different from the

> > > > earlier claims.

> > > >

> > > > Sincerely,

> > > >

> > > > KP Miglani

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Punit ji,

 

I am happy that you agree at least on this account that using this

sarini doesn't hold good as far as the mathematics of astrology goes.

 

Now coming to the Varsh Phal table:

 

We know that there is a formula behind that table also. The Varsh

Phal table is not as irrational as it appears to be. We as a group

are already working at it.

 

We have already decoded that a 'dhruvanka' number is used. I hope you

are familiar with the concept of 'dhruvank'. It is commonly used in

Vedic astrology mathematics.

 

But in astrology there are scores of such concepts which we accept as

fundamentals. The entire concepts of divisional charts,as harmonics

of the natal chart is a concept accepted without having gone into the

logic of it. The same about the atmakarak, amatyakarak etc, the

argala etc. There is no end to such concepts in astrology.

 

But accepting that the Janma kundali [which is a base for every thing

else that follows] that is not based on any rational law is a bit too

much for us to accept.

 

Sincerely,

 

KP Miglani

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lalkitab , " Punit Pandey " <punitp wrote:

>

> Dear Miglani ji,

>

> What you are saying makes perfect sense. I just want to make sure

that we

> are considering other facts -

>

> 1. The Bhatia ji has mentioned that Pundit ji himself has asked him

to use

> this method for foreign charts. (I know you don't believe it but it

gives me

> at least one reason)

> 2. In Lal Kitab, sarnis in general don't mave much mathematical

value. These

> are the way these are. Take the most important Varshphal sarni or

Dimagi

> khana sarni. This is all created by Pundit ji without giving any

rational.

> We need to keep this fact in mind as well. If that works, however

incorrect

> mathematically it seems, we will have to use it. Instead of

discussing it

> from mathematical perspective, we should discuss it from Lal Kitab

> application perspective.

>

> Thanks & Regards,

>

> Punit Pandey

>

>

> On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani wrote:

> >

> > Dear Punit ji,

> >

> > Our objection to the Sarinis in general and this sarini in

particular

> > is that:

> >

> > A Sarini should be used for the place it has been calculated for

i.e.

> > for those longitudes and Latitudes. At the most a sarini can be

used

> > for the adjoining towns in that region. It should not be used for

> > areas beyond that region.

> >

> > Our logic is simple;

> >

> > A sarini can be used for any place around the earth along the same

> > latitude because the longitude difference will be taken care of

> > through the time difference.

> > But it will not be logical to use a sarini for a place with

different

> > latitude, because there is no method to take care of the latitude

> > difference.

> >

> > Therefore this Sarini if calculated with the coordinates of

madras [

> > as has been claimed ] can be used for the latitude 13N4 at any

> > longitude around the world but can not be used for any latitude

north

> > or south of 13N4.

> >

> > Since you have studied mathematics of astrology, you would know

what

> > we are talking about.

> >

> > Sincerely,

> >

> > KP Miglani

> >

> > lalkitab <lalkitab%

40>, " Punit

> > Pandey " <punitp@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear KP Miglani ji,

> > >

> > > I have studied celestial astronomy, spherical trigonometry, and

> > other

> > > related branches of mathematical astrology from ancient as well

as

> > modern

> > > texts. I have also developed many softwares on astrology. I am

> > mentioning

> > > this not to speak high about myself, but just to communicate

that I

> > have at

> > > least basic knowledge of mathematical astrology and I can

> > understand and

> > > comprehend what we are discussing here.

> > >

> > > The point I wanted to communicate that the benchmark you are

taking

> > to

> > > disprove the sarni is not correct. What you are assuming that

> > whatever we

> > > will calculate through software/ manually should be correct from

> > Lal Kitab

> > > perspective and sarni should match that. Why it should be

required?

> > The way

> > > we need to validate is to cast the horoscopes using both the

> > methods and

> > > apply Lal Kitab principles. Let us see which chart is helping

us to

> > > understand the nativity and based on that we can decide whether

the

> > method

> > > is correct or not.

> > >

> > > Last time I have given example of Rahu and Ketu which is a very

> > common

> > > example. Let me take another example. The chart is the

astronomical

> > map of

> > > heaven at a given point of time. In other words, the chart is

> > position of

> > > planets and certain other points at a given moment. Now, in Lal

> > Kitab we

> > > cast chart using palm which seems totally illogical. Isn't it?

Do

> > you think

> > > that it is logical in the light of mathematical astrology?

First of

> > all, it

> > > doesn't match with the planetary positions at the birth time.

Also

> > there

> > > seems no logic to put planet in random houses just seeing some

> > symbols on

> > > palm? This may be a scientist's view. But we take it as-it is

> > because we

> > > believe that there is something more than science and the Lal

Kitab

> > > principles are developed based on this 'something more'. Again

to

> > reiterate

> > > my point, we can not say that some Lal Kitab principle is

incorrect

> > just

> > > because it seems illogical or doesn't match with our existing

> > knowledge

> > > (scientific/ ration view). If we take scientific/ rational

view, I

> > think it

> > > is very easy to prove whole Lal Kitab absurd. As a matter of

fact,

> > the

> > > astrology itself is not accepted as a science.

> > >

> > > I personally want to clarify that I don't use Lal Kitab sarni

and

> > never

> > > tried to validate this method. Like you, it doesn't seems

logical

> > to me :-).

> > > Though the point I want to make that this is not enough reason

to

> > call it

> > > incorrect.

> > >

> > > Thanks & Regards,

> > >

> > > Punit Pandey

> > >

> > >

> > > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Punit ji,

> > > >

> > > > What Bhatia ji had written is very much keeping in with what

has

> > been

> > > > written in the preamble of the Sarini. Any body who reads the

> > Sarini

> > > > would take those words to mean what Bhatia ji had taken them

to

> > mean.

> > > > Bhatia ji also claims that Pundit ji worked out the

horoscopes of

> > his

> > > > children, born abroad, through the same procedure and the

> > predictions

> > > > have come true.

> > > >

> > > > Although the procedure to work out the Lagna given in the

sarini

> > is

> > > > not 'Shastra sammat' [according to the scriptures] yet we

took it

> > to

> > > > be another method because Pt. Rupchand ji is claimed to have

told

> > > > Bhatia ji that ' he is aware of having violated the rules of

> > > > astrology' while preparing this Sarini.

> > > >

> > > > Three of us; me, Varun Trivedi and CP Tyagi worked out more

than a

> > > > dozen foreign and Indian births through the procedure given

in the

> > > > Sarini and as explained by Bhatia ji in his article. The

worked

> > out

> > > > horoscopes are here in the message archives.

> > > >

> > > > The results were very inaccurate.

> > > >

> > > > Therefore I think we should leave it to Bhatia ji whether he

wants

> > > > his article to stay as it is or he may want to revise it in

the

> > light

> > > > of our findings. This is a scientific approach where an

article

> > could

> > > > be revised in the light of findings that are different from

the

> > > > earlier claims.

> > > >

> > > > Sincerely,

> > > >

> > > > KP Miglani

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhupinder ji,

 

This is very vague statement. Please state clearly in what manner? Are you

saying that we can prove or disprove a theory just by applying it on one

single chart?

 

Thanks & Regards,

 

Punit Pandey

 

 

 

On 11/11/07, bhupinder johar <bsjoharsnp wrote:

>

> Punitji,

>

> Seems that you're now becoming part of the game by

> reacting in such manner:).

>

> Regards,

> Bhupinder

>

> --- Punit Pandey <punitp <punitp%40gmail.com>> wrote:

>

> > Dear Miglani ji,

> >

> > Do you call 'analysis of only one foreign chart' a

> > litmus test? If this is

> > the accepted sample size, I can prove any theory

> > incorrect.

> >

> > Thanks & Regards,

> >

> > Punit Pandey

> >

> >

> > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani <kpmiglani%40.co.in>>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Punit ji,

> > >

> > > The litmus test is already done. In the Lal Kitab

> > discussion group

> > > Pt. Lalkitabee has already posted an analysis of a

> > foreign birth

> > > today of a well known member of this group. His

> > findings are that a

> > > horoscope cast through traditional Parashar method

> > comes true for

> > > predictions rather than the one cast through the

> > Sarini method.

> > >

> > > sincerely,

> > >

> > > KP Miglani

> > >

> > > lalkitab <lalkitab%40>

> > <lalkitab%40>, " Punit

> > > Pandey " <punitp wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear KP Miglani ji,

> > > >

> > > > I have studied celestial astronomy, spherical

> > trigonometry, and

> > > other

> > > > related branches of mathematical astrology from

> > ancient as well as

> > > modern

> > > > texts. I have also developed many softwares on

> > astrology. I am

> > > mentioning

> > > > this not to speak high about myself, but just to

> > communicate that I

> > > have at

> > > > least basic knowledge of mathematical astrology

> > and I can

> > > understand and

> > > > comprehend what we are discussing here.

> > > >

> > > > The point I wanted to communicate that the

> > benchmark you are taking

> > > to

> > > > disprove the sarni is not correct. What you are

> > assuming that

> > > whatever we

> > > > will calculate through software/ manually should

> > be correct from

> > > Lal Kitab

> > > > perspective and sarni should match that. Why it

> > should be required?

> > > The way

> > > > we need to validate is to cast the horoscopes

> > using both the

> > > methods and

> > > > apply Lal Kitab principles. Let us see which

> > chart is helping us to

> > > > understand the nativity and based on that we can

> > decide whether the

> > > method

> > > > is correct or not.

> > > >

> > > > Last time I have given example of Rahu and Ketu

> > which is a very

> > > common

> > > > example. Let me take another example. The chart

> > is the astronomical

> > > map of

> > > > heaven at a given point of time. In other words,

> > the chart is

> > > position of

> > > > planets and certain other points at a given

> > moment. Now, in Lal

> > > Kitab we

> > > > cast chart using palm which seems totally

> > illogical. Isn't it? Do

> > > you think

> > > > that it is logical in the light of mathematical

> > astrology? First of

> > > all, it

> > > > doesn't match with the planetary positions at

> > the birth time. Also

> > > there

> > > > seems no logic to put planet in random houses

> > just seeing some

> > > symbols on

> > > > palm? This may be a scientist's view. But we

> > take it as-it is

> > > because we

> > > > believe that there is something more than

> > science and the Lal Kitab

> > > > principles are developed based on this

> > 'something more'. Again to

> > > reiterate

> > > > my point, we can not say that some Lal Kitab

> > principle is incorrect

> > > just

> > > > because it seems illogical or doesn't match with

> > our existing

> > > knowledge

> > > > (scientific/ ration view). If we take

> > scientific/ rational view, I

> > > think it

> > > > is very easy to prove whole Lal Kitab absurd. As

> > a matter of fact,

> > > the

> > > > astrology itself is not accepted as a science.

> > > >

> > > > I personally want to clarify that I don't use

> > Lal Kitab sarni and

> > > never

> > > > tried to validate this method. Like you, it

> > doesn't seems logical

> > > to me :-).

> > > > Though the point I want to make that this is not

> > enough reason to

> > > call it

> > > > incorrect.

> > > >

> > > > Thanks & Regards,

> > > >

> > > > Punit Pandey

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Punit ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > What Bhatia ji had written is very much

> > keeping in with what has

> > > been

> > > > > written in the preamble of the Sarini. Any

> > body who reads the

> > > Sarini

> > > > > would take those words to mean what Bhatia ji

> > had taken them to

> > > mean.

> > > > > Bhatia ji also claims that Pundit ji worked

> > out the horoscopes of

> > > his

> > > > > children, born abroad, through the same

> > procedure and the

> > > predictions

> > > > > have come true.

> > > > >

> > > > > Although the procedure to work out the Lagna

> > given in the sarini

> > > is

> > > > > not 'Shastra sammat' [according to the

> > scriptures] yet we took it

> > > to

> > > > > be another method because Pt. Rupchand ji is

> > claimed to have told

> > > > > Bhatia ji that ' he is aware of having

> > violated the rules of

> > > > > astrology' while preparing this Sarini.

> > > > >

> > > > > Three of us; me, Varun Trivedi and CP Tyagi

> > worked out more than a

> > > > > dozen foreign and Indian births through the

> > procedure given in the

> > > > > Sarini and as explained by Bhatia ji in his

> > article. The worked

> > > out

> > > > > horoscopes are here in the message archives.

> > > > >

> > > > > The results were very inaccurate.

> > > > >

> > > > > Therefore I think we should leave it to Bhatia

> > ji whether he wants

> > > > > his article to stay as it is or he may want to

> > revise it in the

> > > light

> > > > > of our findings. This is a scientific approach

> > where an article

> > > could

> > > > > be revised in the light of findings that are

> > different from the

> > > > > earlier claims.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > >

> > > > > KP Miglani

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> >

> === message truncated ===

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Miglani ji,

 

It looks like we are deviating a little from the discussion. But thanks to

Sunday I have enough time to discuss.

 

First of all, if you have already decoded the lal kitab varshphal sarni,

please post it here for discussion. If you can not do that, please don't

refer it. I just read the Lal Kitab and I don't see any rational given

there.

 

I would request you to see this dicussion from another perspective. We say

that we will use Lal Kitab table for casting varsh charts but we will not

use Lal Kitab table for casting birth chart. Isn't that double standard? I

will repeat that we need to apply it on some charts (without any bias) and

then after applying it on sufficient number of charts, if we see that it is

not working then we can throw it away. But it should not be thrown away just

because it doesn't look rational or doesn't look good from the existing

mathematical astrology principles perspective.

 

Even if you have decoded Lal Kitab Varshphal table, would you have thrown it

away if you had failed in decoding it?

 

Let me repeat again that I am neither pro nor against the Sarni. I am

arguing in favour of Sarni just becuase the mehtod recently adopted for

disproving it doesn't look appropriate to me.

 

Thanks & Regards,

 

Punit Pandey

 

 

On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani wrote:

>

> Dear Punit ji,

>

> I am happy that you agree at least on this account that using this

> sarini doesn't hold good as far as the mathematics of astrology goes.

>

> Now coming to the Varsh Phal table:

>

> We know that there is a formula behind that table also. The Varsh

> Phal table is not as irrational as it appears to be. We as a group

> are already working at it.

>

> We have already decoded that a 'dhruvanka' number is used. I hope you

> are familiar with the concept of 'dhruvank'. It is commonly used in

> Vedic astrology mathematics.

>

> But in astrology there are scores of such concepts which we accept as

> fundamentals. The entire concepts of divisional charts,as harmonics

> of the natal chart is a concept accepted without having gone into the

> logic of it. The same about the atmakarak, amatyakarak etc, the

> argala etc. There is no end to such concepts in astrology.

>

> But accepting that the Janma kundali [which is a base for every thing

> else that follows] that is not based on any rational law is a bit too

> much for us to accept.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> KP Miglani

>

> lalkitab <lalkitab%40>, " Punit

> Pandey " <punitp wrote:

> >

> > Dear Miglani ji,

> >

> > What you are saying makes perfect sense. I just want to make sure

> that we

> > are considering other facts -

> >

> > 1. The Bhatia ji has mentioned that Pundit ji himself has asked him

> to use

> > this method for foreign charts. (I know you don't believe it but it

> gives me

> > at least one reason)

> > 2. In Lal Kitab, sarnis in general don't mave much mathematical

> value. These

> > are the way these are. Take the most important Varshphal sarni or

> Dimagi

> > khana sarni. This is all created by Pundit ji without giving any

> rational.

> > We need to keep this fact in mind as well. If that works, however

> incorrect

> > mathematically it seems, we will have to use it. Instead of

> discussing it

> > from mathematical perspective, we should discuss it from Lal Kitab

> > application perspective.

> >

> > Thanks & Regards,

> >

> > Punit Pandey

> >

> >

> > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Punit ji,

> > >

> > > Our objection to the Sarinis in general and this sarini in

> particular

> > > is that:

> > >

> > > A Sarini should be used for the place it has been calculated for

> i.e.

> > > for those longitudes and Latitudes. At the most a sarini can be

> used

> > > for the adjoining towns in that region. It should not be used for

> > > areas beyond that region.

> > >

> > > Our logic is simple;

> > >

> > > A sarini can be used for any place around the earth along the same

> > > latitude because the longitude difference will be taken care of

> > > through the time difference.

> > > But it will not be logical to use a sarini for a place with

> different

> > > latitude, because there is no method to take care of the latitude

> > > difference.

> > >

> > > Therefore this Sarini if calculated with the coordinates of

> madras [

> > > as has been claimed ] can be used for the latitude 13N4 at any

> > > longitude around the world but can not be used for any latitude

> north

> > > or south of 13N4.

> > >

> > > Since you have studied mathematics of astrology, you would know

> what

> > > we are talking about.

> > >

> > > Sincerely,

> > >

> > > KP Miglani

> > >

> > > lalkitab <lalkitab%40><lalkitab%

> 40>, " Punit

> > > Pandey " <punitp@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear KP Miglani ji,

> > > >

> > > > I have studied celestial astronomy, spherical trigonometry, and

> > > other

> > > > related branches of mathematical astrology from ancient as well

> as

> > > modern

> > > > texts. I have also developed many softwares on astrology. I am

> > > mentioning

> > > > this not to speak high about myself, but just to communicate

> that I

> > > have at

> > > > least basic knowledge of mathematical astrology and I can

> > > understand and

> > > > comprehend what we are discussing here.

> > > >

> > > > The point I wanted to communicate that the benchmark you are

> taking

> > > to

> > > > disprove the sarni is not correct. What you are assuming that

> > > whatever we

> > > > will calculate through software/ manually should be correct from

> > > Lal Kitab

> > > > perspective and sarni should match that. Why it should be

> required?

> > > The way

> > > > we need to validate is to cast the horoscopes using both the

> > > methods and

> > > > apply Lal Kitab principles. Let us see which chart is helping

> us to

> > > > understand the nativity and based on that we can decide whether

> the

> > > method

> > > > is correct or not.

> > > >

> > > > Last time I have given example of Rahu and Ketu which is a very

> > > common

> > > > example. Let me take another example. The chart is the

> astronomical

> > > map of

> > > > heaven at a given point of time. In other words, the chart is

> > > position of

> > > > planets and certain other points at a given moment. Now, in Lal

> > > Kitab we

> > > > cast chart using palm which seems totally illogical. Isn't it?

> Do

> > > you think

> > > > that it is logical in the light of mathematical astrology?

> First of

> > > all, it

> > > > doesn't match with the planetary positions at the birth time.

> Also

> > > there

> > > > seems no logic to put planet in random houses just seeing some

> > > symbols on

> > > > palm? This may be a scientist's view. But we take it as-it is

> > > because we

> > > > believe that there is something more than science and the Lal

> Kitab

> > > > principles are developed based on this 'something more'. Again

> to

> > > reiterate

> > > > my point, we can not say that some Lal Kitab principle is

> incorrect

> > > just

> > > > because it seems illogical or doesn't match with our existing

> > > knowledge

> > > > (scientific/ ration view). If we take scientific/ rational

> view, I

> > > think it

> > > > is very easy to prove whole Lal Kitab absurd. As a matter of

> fact,

> > > the

> > > > astrology itself is not accepted as a science.

> > > >

> > > > I personally want to clarify that I don't use Lal Kitab sarni

> and

> > > never

> > > > tried to validate this method. Like you, it doesn't seems

> logical

> > > to me :-).

> > > > Though the point I want to make that this is not enough reason

> to

> > > call it

> > > > incorrect.

> > > >

> > > > Thanks & Regards,

> > > >

> > > > Punit Pandey

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Punit ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > What Bhatia ji had written is very much keeping in with what

> has

> > > been

> > > > > written in the preamble of the Sarini. Any body who reads the

> > > Sarini

> > > > > would take those words to mean what Bhatia ji had taken them

> to

> > > mean.

> > > > > Bhatia ji also claims that Pundit ji worked out the

> horoscopes of

> > > his

> > > > > children, born abroad, through the same procedure and the

> > > predictions

> > > > > have come true.

> > > > >

> > > > > Although the procedure to work out the Lagna given in the

> sarini

> > > is

> > > > > not 'Shastra sammat' [according to the scriptures] yet we

> took it

> > > to

> > > > > be another method because Pt. Rupchand ji is claimed to have

> told

> > > > > Bhatia ji that ' he is aware of having violated the rules of

> > > > > astrology' while preparing this Sarini.

> > > > >

> > > > > Three of us; me, Varun Trivedi and CP Tyagi worked out more

> than a

> > > > > dozen foreign and Indian births through the procedure given

> in the

> > > > > Sarini and as explained by Bhatia ji in his article. The

> worked

> > > out

> > > > > horoscopes are here in the message archives.

> > > > >

> > > > > The results were very inaccurate.

> > > > >

> > > > > Therefore I think we should leave it to Bhatia ji whether he

> wants

> > > > > his article to stay as it is or he may want to revise it in

> the

> > > light

> > > > > of our findings. This is a scientific approach where an

> article

> > > could

> > > > > be revised in the light of findings that are different from

> the

> > > > > earlier claims.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > >

> > > > > KP Miglani

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Miglani ji,

 

Another correction from your email that there was no question of agreement

and disagreement. Please see my message no. 10702 (

lalkitab/message/10702) where I stated and I

quote -

 

I personally want to clarify that I don't use Lal Kitab sarni and never

tried to validate this method. *Like you, it doesn't seems logical to me

:-).* Though the point I want to make that this is not enough reason to call

it incorrect.

 

Why you want to prove that " now " I agree with you?

 

Thanks & Regards,

 

Punit Pandey

 

 

On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani wrote:

>

> Dear Punit ji,

>

> I am happy that you agree at least on this account that using this

> sarini doesn't hold good as far as the mathematics of astrology goes.

>

> Now coming to the Varsh Phal table:

>

> We know that there is a formula behind that table also. The Varsh

> Phal table is not as irrational as it appears to be. We as a group

> are already working at it.

>

> We have already decoded that a 'dhruvanka' number is used. I hope you

> are familiar with the concept of 'dhruvank'. It is commonly used in

> Vedic astrology mathematics.

>

> But in astrology there are scores of such concepts which we accept as

> fundamentals. The entire concepts of divisional charts,as harmonics

> of the natal chart is a concept accepted without having gone into the

> logic of it. The same about the atmakarak, amatyakarak etc, the

> argala etc. There is no end to such concepts in astrology.

>

> But accepting that the Janma kundali [which is a base for every thing

> else that follows] that is not based on any rational law is a bit too

> much for us to accept.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> KP Miglani

>

> lalkitab <lalkitab%40>, " Punit

> Pandey " <punitp wrote:

> >

> > Dear Miglani ji,

> >

> > What you are saying makes perfect sense. I just want to make sure

> that we

> > are considering other facts -

> >

> > 1. The Bhatia ji has mentioned that Pundit ji himself has asked him

> to use

> > this method for foreign charts. (I know you don't believe it but it

> gives me

> > at least one reason)

> > 2. In Lal Kitab, sarnis in general don't mave much mathematical

> value. These

> > are the way these are. Take the most important Varshphal sarni or

> Dimagi

> > khana sarni. This is all created by Pundit ji without giving any

> rational.

> > We need to keep this fact in mind as well. If that works, however

> incorrect

> > mathematically it seems, we will have to use it. Instead of

> discussing it

> > from mathematical perspective, we should discuss it from Lal Kitab

> > application perspective.

> >

> > Thanks & Regards,

> >

> > Punit Pandey

> >

> >

> > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Punit ji,

> > >

> > > Our objection to the Sarinis in general and this sarini in

> particular

> > > is that:

> > >

> > > A Sarini should be used for the place it has been calculated for

> i.e.

> > > for those longitudes and Latitudes. At the most a sarini can be

> used

> > > for the adjoining towns in that region. It should not be used for

> > > areas beyond that region.

> > >

> > > Our logic is simple;

> > >

> > > A sarini can be used for any place around the earth along the same

> > > latitude because the longitude difference will be taken care of

> > > through the time difference.

> > > But it will not be logical to use a sarini for a place with

> different

> > > latitude, because there is no method to take care of the latitude

> > > difference.

> > >

> > > Therefore this Sarini if calculated with the coordinates of

> madras [

> > > as has been claimed ] can be used for the latitude 13N4 at any

> > > longitude around the world but can not be used for any latitude

> north

> > > or south of 13N4.

> > >

> > > Since you have studied mathematics of astrology, you would know

> what

> > > we are talking about.

> > >

> > > Sincerely,

> > >

> > > KP Miglani

> > >

> > > lalkitab <lalkitab%40><lalkitab%

> 40>, " Punit

> > > Pandey " <punitp@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear KP Miglani ji,

> > > >

> > > > I have studied celestial astronomy, spherical trigonometry, and

> > > other

> > > > related branches of mathematical astrology from ancient as well

> as

> > > modern

> > > > texts. I have also developed many softwares on astrology. I am

> > > mentioning

> > > > this not to speak high about myself, but just to communicate

> that I

> > > have at

> > > > least basic knowledge of mathematical astrology and I can

> > > understand and

> > > > comprehend what we are discussing here.

> > > >

> > > > The point I wanted to communicate that the benchmark you are

> taking

> > > to

> > > > disprove the sarni is not correct. What you are assuming that

> > > whatever we

> > > > will calculate through software/ manually should be correct from

> > > Lal Kitab

> > > > perspective and sarni should match that. Why it should be

> required?

> > > The way

> > > > we need to validate is to cast the horoscopes using both the

> > > methods and

> > > > apply Lal Kitab principles. Let us see which chart is helping

> us to

> > > > understand the nativity and based on that we can decide whether

> the

> > > method

> > > > is correct or not.

> > > >

> > > > Last time I have given example of Rahu and Ketu which is a very

> > > common

> > > > example. Let me take another example. The chart is the

> astronomical

> > > map of

> > > > heaven at a given point of time. In other words, the chart is

> > > position of

> > > > planets and certain other points at a given moment. Now, in Lal

> > > Kitab we

> > > > cast chart using palm which seems totally illogical. Isn't it?

> Do

> > > you think

> > > > that it is logical in the light of mathematical astrology?

> First of

> > > all, it

> > > > doesn't match with the planetary positions at the birth time.

> Also

> > > there

> > > > seems no logic to put planet in random houses just seeing some

> > > symbols on

> > > > palm? This may be a scientist's view. But we take it as-it is

> > > because we

> > > > believe that there is something more than science and the Lal

> Kitab

> > > > principles are developed based on this 'something more'. Again

> to

> > > reiterate

> > > > my point, we can not say that some Lal Kitab principle is

> incorrect

> > > just

> > > > because it seems illogical or doesn't match with our existing

> > > knowledge

> > > > (scientific/ ration view). If we take scientific/ rational

> view, I

> > > think it

> > > > is very easy to prove whole Lal Kitab absurd. As a matter of

> fact,

> > > the

> > > > astrology itself is not accepted as a science.

> > > >

> > > > I personally want to clarify that I don't use Lal Kitab sarni

> and

> > > never

> > > > tried to validate this method. Like you, it doesn't seems

> logical

> > > to me :-).

> > > > Though the point I want to make that this is not enough reason

> to

> > > call it

> > > > incorrect.

> > > >

> > > > Thanks & Regards,

> > > >

> > > > Punit Pandey

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Punit ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > What Bhatia ji had written is very much keeping in with what

> has

> > > been

> > > > > written in the preamble of the Sarini. Any body who reads the

> > > Sarini

> > > > > would take those words to mean what Bhatia ji had taken them

> to

> > > mean.

> > > > > Bhatia ji also claims that Pundit ji worked out the

> horoscopes of

> > > his

> > > > > children, born abroad, through the same procedure and the

> > > predictions

> > > > > have come true.

> > > > >

> > > > > Although the procedure to work out the Lagna given in the

> sarini

> > > is

> > > > > not 'Shastra sammat' [according to the scriptures] yet we

> took it

> > > to

> > > > > be another method because Pt. Rupchand ji is claimed to have

> told

> > > > > Bhatia ji that ' he is aware of having violated the rules of

> > > > > astrology' while preparing this Sarini.

> > > > >

> > > > > Three of us; me, Varun Trivedi and CP Tyagi worked out more

> than a

> > > > > dozen foreign and Indian births through the procedure given

> in the

> > > > > Sarini and as explained by Bhatia ji in his article. The

> worked

> > > out

> > > > > horoscopes are here in the message archives.

> > > > >

> > > > > The results were very inaccurate.

> > > > >

> > > > > Therefore I think we should leave it to Bhatia ji whether he

> wants

> > > > > his article to stay as it is or he may want to revise it in

> the

> > > light

> > > > > of our findings. This is a scientific approach where an

> article

> > > could

> > > > > be revised in the light of findings that are different from

> the

> > > > > earlier claims.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > >

> > > > > KP Miglani

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Punit ji,

 

Yes as and when we decode the rationale of the Varsh Phal table we

would let every one know about it. I said we are working at it and we

are at the stage of hypothesis that a 'dhruvank' has been used.

 

Lal Kitab Varsh Phal chart or other Lal Kitab calculations are the

derivatives of the first and the basic chart known as the Janma

Kundali. Even Pundit ji was very particular that the kundali should

be cast very accurately so much so that he suggested that the

horoscope should be got prepared by a learned pundit even if it means

paying him some handsome amount.

 

He never said that it should be cast according to his sarini. He

studied horoscopes cast by other pundits based on their knowledge of

the Vedic system.

 

Therefore Lal Kitab analysis is not sarini specific. The sarini is

not an essential part of the Lal Kitab system. Till a month or so ago

it was not even a public document. The sarini became a public

document when it was uploaded in the Lal Kitab discussion group last

month.

 

Therefore your contention that the lal Kitab analysis should be done

of a horoscope based on the sarini then only it will be an acceptable

Lal Kitab analysis doesn't hold good.

 

As I have said earlier, I do not find any thing contradictory in

casting a Varsh Phal chart according to the Table given in the book;

because a varsh phal chart is a derived chart, it is not a basic

chart. It is the same as we cast divisional charts, calculate

argalas, calculate planetary strength etc. But all these are based on

a kundali cast along the principles of mathematics.

 

But we do find it unacceptable that the basic 'key stone'of the

entire structure could also be based on some thing irrational.

 

Sincerely,

 

KP Miglani

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lalkitab , " Punit Pandey " <punitp wrote:

>

> Dear Miglani ji,

>

> It looks like we are deviating a little from the discussion. But

thanks to

> Sunday I have enough time to discuss.

>

> First of all, if you have already decoded the lal kitab varshphal

sarni,

> please post it here for discussion. If you can not do that, please

don't

> refer it. I just read the Lal Kitab and I don't see any rational

given

> there.

>

> I would request you to see this dicussion from another perspective.

We say

> that we will use Lal Kitab table for casting varsh charts but we

will not

> use Lal Kitab table for casting birth chart. Isn't that double

standard? I

> will repeat that we need to apply it on some charts (without any

bias) and

> then after applying it on sufficient number of charts, if we see

that it is

> not working then we can throw it away. But it should not be thrown

away just

> because it doesn't look rational or doesn't look good from the

existing

> mathematical astrology principles perspective.

>

> Even if you have decoded Lal Kitab Varshphal table, would you have

thrown it

> away if you had failed in decoding it?

>

> Let me repeat again that I am neither pro nor against the Sarni. I

am

> arguing in favour of Sarni just becuase the mehtod recently adopted

for

> disproving it doesn't look appropriate to me.

>

> Thanks & Regards,

>

> Punit Pandey

>

>

> On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani wrote:

> >

> > Dear Punit ji,

> >

> > I am happy that you agree at least on this account that using this

> > sarini doesn't hold good as far as the mathematics of astrology

goes.

> >

> > Now coming to the Varsh Phal table:

> >

> > We know that there is a formula behind that table also. The Varsh

> > Phal table is not as irrational as it appears to be. We as a group

> > are already working at it.

> >

> > We have already decoded that a 'dhruvanka' number is used. I hope

you

> > are familiar with the concept of 'dhruvank'. It is commonly used

in

> > Vedic astrology mathematics.

> >

> > But in astrology there are scores of such concepts which we

accept as

> > fundamentals. The entire concepts of divisional charts,as

harmonics

> > of the natal chart is a concept accepted without having gone into

the

> > logic of it. The same about the atmakarak, amatyakarak etc, the

> > argala etc. There is no end to such concepts in astrology.

> >

> > But accepting that the Janma kundali [which is a base for every

thing

> > else that follows] that is not based on any rational law is a bit

too

> > much for us to accept.

> >

> > Sincerely,

> >

> > KP Miglani

> >

> > lalkitab <lalkitab%

40>, " Punit

> > Pandey " <punitp@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Miglani ji,

> > >

> > > What you are saying makes perfect sense. I just want to make

sure

> > that we

> > > are considering other facts -

> > >

> > > 1. The Bhatia ji has mentioned that Pundit ji himself has asked

him

> > to use

> > > this method for foreign charts. (I know you don't believe it

but it

> > gives me

> > > at least one reason)

> > > 2. In Lal Kitab, sarnis in general don't mave much mathematical

> > value. These

> > > are the way these are. Take the most important Varshphal sarni

or

> > Dimagi

> > > khana sarni. This is all created by Pundit ji without giving any

> > rational.

> > > We need to keep this fact in mind as well. If that works,

however

> > incorrect

> > > mathematically it seems, we will have to use it. Instead of

> > discussing it

> > > from mathematical perspective, we should discuss it from Lal

Kitab

> > > application perspective.

> > >

> > > Thanks & Regards,

> > >

> > > Punit Pandey

> > >

> > >

> > > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Punit ji,

> > > >

> > > > Our objection to the Sarinis in general and this sarini in

> > particular

> > > > is that:

> > > >

> > > > A Sarini should be used for the place it has been calculated

for

> > i.e.

> > > > for those longitudes and Latitudes. At the most a sarini can

be

> > used

> > > > for the adjoining towns in that region. It should not be used

for

> > > > areas beyond that region.

> > > >

> > > > Our logic is simple;

> > > >

> > > > A sarini can be used for any place around the earth along the

same

> > > > latitude because the longitude difference will be taken care

of

> > > > through the time difference.

> > > > But it will not be logical to use a sarini for a place with

> > different

> > > > latitude, because there is no method to take care of the

latitude

> > > > difference.

> > > >

> > > > Therefore this Sarini if calculated with the coordinates of

> > madras [

> > > > as has been claimed ] can be used for the latitude 13N4 at any

> > > > longitude around the world but can not be used for any

latitude

> > north

> > > > or south of 13N4.

> > > >

> > > > Since you have studied mathematics of astrology, you would

know

> > what

> > > > we are talking about.

> > > >

> > > > Sincerely,

> > > >

> > > > KP Miglani

> > > >

> > > > lalkitab <lalkitab%

40><lalkitab%

> > 40>, " Punit

> > > > Pandey " <punitp@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear KP Miglani ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > I have studied celestial astronomy, spherical trigonometry,

and

> > > > other

> > > > > related branches of mathematical astrology from ancient as

well

> > as

> > > > modern

> > > > > texts. I have also developed many softwares on astrology. I

am

> > > > mentioning

> > > > > this not to speak high about myself, but just to communicate

> > that I

> > > > have at

> > > > > least basic knowledge of mathematical astrology and I can

> > > > understand and

> > > > > comprehend what we are discussing here.

> > > > >

> > > > > The point I wanted to communicate that the benchmark you are

> > taking

> > > > to

> > > > > disprove the sarni is not correct. What you are assuming

that

> > > > whatever we

> > > > > will calculate through software/ manually should be correct

from

> > > > Lal Kitab

> > > > > perspective and sarni should match that. Why it should be

> > required?

> > > > The way

> > > > > we need to validate is to cast the horoscopes using both the

> > > > methods and

> > > > > apply Lal Kitab principles. Let us see which chart is

helping

> > us to

> > > > > understand the nativity and based on that we can decide

whether

> > the

> > > > method

> > > > > is correct or not.

> > > > >

> > > > > Last time I have given example of Rahu and Ketu which is a

very

> > > > common

> > > > > example. Let me take another example. The chart is the

> > astronomical

> > > > map of

> > > > > heaven at a given point of time. In other words, the chart

is

> > > > position of

> > > > > planets and certain other points at a given moment. Now, in

Lal

> > > > Kitab we

> > > > > cast chart using palm which seems totally illogical. Isn't

it?

> > Do

> > > > you think

> > > > > that it is logical in the light of mathematical astrology?

> > First of

> > > > all, it

> > > > > doesn't match with the planetary positions at the birth

time.

> > Also

> > > > there

> > > > > seems no logic to put planet in random houses just seeing

some

> > > > symbols on

> > > > > palm? This may be a scientist's view. But we take it as-it

is

> > > > because we

> > > > > believe that there is something more than science and the

Lal

> > Kitab

> > > > > principles are developed based on this 'something more'.

Again

> > to

> > > > reiterate

> > > > > my point, we can not say that some Lal Kitab principle is

> > incorrect

> > > > just

> > > > > because it seems illogical or doesn't match with our

existing

> > > > knowledge

> > > > > (scientific/ ration view). If we take scientific/ rational

> > view, I

> > > > think it

> > > > > is very easy to prove whole Lal Kitab absurd. As a matter of

> > fact,

> > > > the

> > > > > astrology itself is not accepted as a science.

> > > > >

> > > > > I personally want to clarify that I don't use Lal Kitab

sarni

> > and

> > > > never

> > > > > tried to validate this method. Like you, it doesn't seems

> > logical

> > > > to me :-).

> > > > > Though the point I want to make that this is not enough

reason

> > to

> > > > call it

> > > > > incorrect.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks & Regards,

> > > > >

> > > > > Punit Pandey

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Punit ji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What Bhatia ji had written is very much keeping in with

what

> > has

> > > > been

> > > > > > written in the preamble of the Sarini. Any body who reads

the

> > > > Sarini

> > > > > > would take those words to mean what Bhatia ji had taken

them

> > to

> > > > mean.

> > > > > > Bhatia ji also claims that Pundit ji worked out the

> > horoscopes of

> > > > his

> > > > > > children, born abroad, through the same procedure and the

> > > > predictions

> > > > > > have come true.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Although the procedure to work out the Lagna given in the

> > sarini

> > > > is

> > > > > > not 'Shastra sammat' [according to the scriptures] yet we

> > took it

> > > > to

> > > > > > be another method because Pt. Rupchand ji is claimed to

have

> > told

> > > > > > Bhatia ji that ' he is aware of having violated the rules

of

> > > > > > astrology' while preparing this Sarini.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Three of us; me, Varun Trivedi and CP Tyagi worked out

more

> > than a

> > > > > > dozen foreign and Indian births through the procedure

given

> > in the

> > > > > > Sarini and as explained by Bhatia ji in his article. The

> > worked

> > > > out

> > > > > > horoscopes are here in the message archives.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The results were very inaccurate.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Therefore I think we should leave it to Bhatia ji whether

he

> > wants

> > > > > > his article to stay as it is or he may want to revise it

in

> > the

> > > > light

> > > > > > of our findings. This is a scientific approach where an

> > article

> > > > could

> > > > > > be revised in the light of findings that are different

from

> > the

> > > > > > earlier claims.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > KP Miglani

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Punit ji,

 

ooops, if you are already convinced and have said, " it doesn't seems

logical to me " , all the better.

 

All we are trying to say is exactly what you seem to be convinced

with already that the use of this Sarini is not " logical " .

 

Sincerely,

 

KP Miglani

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lalkitab , " Punit Pandey " <punitp wrote:

>

> Dear Miglani ji,

>

> Another correction from your email that there was no question of

agreement

> and disagreement. Please see my message no. 10702 (

> lalkitab/message/10702) where I

stated and I

> quote -

>

> I personally want to clarify that I don't use Lal Kitab sarni and

never

> tried to validate this method. *Like you, it doesn't seems logical

to me

> :-).* Though the point I want to make that this is not enough

reason to call

> it incorrect.

>

> Why you want to prove that " now " I agree with you?

>

> Thanks & Regards,

>

> Punit Pandey

>

>

> On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani wrote:

> >

> > Dear Punit ji,

> >

> > I am happy that you agree at least on this account that using this

> > sarini doesn't hold good as far as the mathematics of astrology

goes.

> >

> > Now coming to the Varsh Phal table:

> >

> > We know that there is a formula behind that table also. The Varsh

> > Phal table is not as irrational as it appears to be. We as a group

> > are already working at it.

> >

> > We have already decoded that a 'dhruvanka' number is used. I hope

you

> > are familiar with the concept of 'dhruvank'. It is commonly used

in

> > Vedic astrology mathematics.

> >

> > But in astrology there are scores of such concepts which we

accept as

> > fundamentals. The entire concepts of divisional charts,as

harmonics

> > of the natal chart is a concept accepted without having gone into

the

> > logic of it. The same about the atmakarak, amatyakarak etc, the

> > argala etc. There is no end to such concepts in astrology.

> >

> > But accepting that the Janma kundali [which is a base for every

thing

> > else that follows] that is not based on any rational law is a bit

too

> > much for us to accept.

> >

> > Sincerely,

> >

> > KP Miglani

> >

> > lalkitab <lalkitab%

40>, " Punit

> > Pandey " <punitp@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Miglani ji,

> > >

> > > What you are saying makes perfect sense. I just want to make

sure

> > that we

> > > are considering other facts -

> > >

> > > 1. The Bhatia ji has mentioned that Pundit ji himself has asked

him

> > to use

> > > this method for foreign charts. (I know you don't believe it

but it

> > gives me

> > > at least one reason)

> > > 2. In Lal Kitab, sarnis in general don't mave much mathematical

> > value. These

> > > are the way these are. Take the most important Varshphal sarni

or

> > Dimagi

> > > khana sarni. This is all created by Pundit ji without giving any

> > rational.

> > > We need to keep this fact in mind as well. If that works,

however

> > incorrect

> > > mathematically it seems, we will have to use it. Instead of

> > discussing it

> > > from mathematical perspective, we should discuss it from Lal

Kitab

> > > application perspective.

> > >

> > > Thanks & Regards,

> > >

> > > Punit Pandey

> > >

> > >

> > > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Punit ji,

> > > >

> > > > Our objection to the Sarinis in general and this sarini in

> > particular

> > > > is that:

> > > >

> > > > A Sarini should be used for the place it has been calculated

for

> > i.e.

> > > > for those longitudes and Latitudes. At the most a sarini can

be

> > used

> > > > for the adjoining towns in that region. It should not be used

for

> > > > areas beyond that region.

> > > >

> > > > Our logic is simple;

> > > >

> > > > A sarini can be used for any place around the earth along the

same

> > > > latitude because the longitude difference will be taken care

of

> > > > through the time difference.

> > > > But it will not be logical to use a sarini for a place with

> > different

> > > > latitude, because there is no method to take care of the

latitude

> > > > difference.

> > > >

> > > > Therefore this Sarini if calculated with the coordinates of

> > madras [

> > > > as has been claimed ] can be used for the latitude 13N4 at any

> > > > longitude around the world but can not be used for any

latitude

> > north

> > > > or south of 13N4.

> > > >

> > > > Since you have studied mathematics of astrology, you would

know

> > what

> > > > we are talking about.

> > > >

> > > > Sincerely,

> > > >

> > > > KP Miglani

> > > >

> > > > lalkitab <lalkitab%

40><lalkitab%

> > 40>, " Punit

> > > > Pandey " <punitp@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear KP Miglani ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > I have studied celestial astronomy, spherical trigonometry,

and

> > > > other

> > > > > related branches of mathematical astrology from ancient as

well

> > as

> > > > modern

> > > > > texts. I have also developed many softwares on astrology. I

am

> > > > mentioning

> > > > > this not to speak high about myself, but just to communicate

> > that I

> > > > have at

> > > > > least basic knowledge of mathematical astrology and I can

> > > > understand and

> > > > > comprehend what we are discussing here.

> > > > >

> > > > > The point I wanted to communicate that the benchmark you are

> > taking

> > > > to

> > > > > disprove the sarni is not correct. What you are assuming

that

> > > > whatever we

> > > > > will calculate through software/ manually should be correct

from

> > > > Lal Kitab

> > > > > perspective and sarni should match that. Why it should be

> > required?

> > > > The way

> > > > > we need to validate is to cast the horoscopes using both the

> > > > methods and

> > > > > apply Lal Kitab principles. Let us see which chart is

helping

> > us to

> > > > > understand the nativity and based on that we can decide

whether

> > the

> > > > method

> > > > > is correct or not.

> > > > >

> > > > > Last time I have given example of Rahu and Ketu which is a

very

> > > > common

> > > > > example. Let me take another example. The chart is the

> > astronomical

> > > > map of

> > > > > heaven at a given point of time. In other words, the chart

is

> > > > position of

> > > > > planets and certain other points at a given moment. Now, in

Lal

> > > > Kitab we

> > > > > cast chart using palm which seems totally illogical. Isn't

it?

> > Do

> > > > you think

> > > > > that it is logical in the light of mathematical astrology?

> > First of

> > > > all, it

> > > > > doesn't match with the planetary positions at the birth

time.

> > Also

> > > > there

> > > > > seems no logic to put planet in random houses just seeing

some

> > > > symbols on

> > > > > palm? This may be a scientist's view. But we take it as-it

is

> > > > because we

> > > > > believe that there is something more than science and the

Lal

> > Kitab

> > > > > principles are developed based on this 'something more'.

Again

> > to

> > > > reiterate

> > > > > my point, we can not say that some Lal Kitab principle is

> > incorrect

> > > > just

> > > > > because it seems illogical or doesn't match with our

existing

> > > > knowledge

> > > > > (scientific/ ration view). If we take scientific/ rational

> > view, I

> > > > think it

> > > > > is very easy to prove whole Lal Kitab absurd. As a matter of

> > fact,

> > > > the

> > > > > astrology itself is not accepted as a science.

> > > > >

> > > > > I personally want to clarify that I don't use Lal Kitab

sarni

> > and

> > > > never

> > > > > tried to validate this method. Like you, it doesn't seems

> > logical

> > > > to me :-).

> > > > > Though the point I want to make that this is not enough

reason

> > to

> > > > call it

> > > > > incorrect.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks & Regards,

> > > > >

> > > > > Punit Pandey

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Punit ji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What Bhatia ji had written is very much keeping in with

what

> > has

> > > > been

> > > > > > written in the preamble of the Sarini. Any body who reads

the

> > > > Sarini

> > > > > > would take those words to mean what Bhatia ji had taken

them

> > to

> > > > mean.

> > > > > > Bhatia ji also claims that Pundit ji worked out the

> > horoscopes of

> > > > his

> > > > > > children, born abroad, through the same procedure and the

> > > > predictions

> > > > > > have come true.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Although the procedure to work out the Lagna given in the

> > sarini

> > > > is

> > > > > > not 'Shastra sammat' [according to the scriptures] yet we

> > took it

> > > > to

> > > > > > be another method because Pt. Rupchand ji is claimed to

have

> > told

> > > > > > Bhatia ji that ' he is aware of having violated the rules

of

> > > > > > astrology' while preparing this Sarini.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Three of us; me, Varun Trivedi and CP Tyagi worked out

more

> > than a

> > > > > > dozen foreign and Indian births through the procedure

given

> > in the

> > > > > > Sarini and as explained by Bhatia ji in his article. The

> > worked

> > > > out

> > > > > > horoscopes are here in the message archives.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The results were very inaccurate.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Therefore I think we should leave it to Bhatia ji whether

he

> > wants

> > > > > > his article to stay as it is or he may want to revise it

in

> > the

> > > > light

> > > > > > of our findings. This is a scientific approach where an

> > article

> > > > could

> > > > > > be revised in the light of findings that are different

from

> > the

> > > > > > earlier claims.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > KP Miglani

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Miglani ji,

 

Firstly, If you were not reading my emails what you were discussing? :-)

 

Secondly, I said that it doesn't looks logical to me ... where is the

quesiton of conviction? Please read my last few emails that there are

certain other concepts in lal kitab that also doesn't lool logical to me. It

doesn't mean that I think those are all incorrect and useless. Please

understand that it has nothing to do with conviction, otherwise there is no

benefit of discussion. Also, my conviction is not important. Even if I am

convinced that it works doesn't mean that it is accurate same it true if I

am not convinced. Make sense?

 

Thanks & Regards,

 

Punit Pandey

 

 

On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani wrote:

>

>

> Dear Punit ji,

>

> ooops, if you are already convinced and have said, " it doesn't seems

> logical to me " , all the better.

>

> All we are trying to say is exactly what you seem to be convinced

> with already that the use of this Sarini is not " logical " .

>

> Sincerely,

>

> KP Miglani

>

> lalkitab <lalkitab%40>, " Punit

> Pandey " <punitp wrote:

> >

> > Dear Miglani ji,

> >

> > Another correction from your email that there was no question of

> agreement

> > and disagreement. Please see my message no. 10702 (

> > lalkitab/message/10702) where I

> stated and I

> > quote -

> >

> > I personally want to clarify that I don't use Lal Kitab sarni and

> never

> > tried to validate this method. *Like you, it doesn't seems logical

> to me

> > :-).* Though the point I want to make that this is not enough

> reason to call

> > it incorrect.

> >

> > Why you want to prove that " now " I agree with you?

> >

> > Thanks & Regards,

> >

> > Punit Pandey

> >

> >

> > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Punit ji,

> > >

> > > I am happy that you agree at least on this account that using this

> > > sarini doesn't hold good as far as the mathematics of astrology

> goes.

> > >

> > > Now coming to the Varsh Phal table:

> > >

> > > We know that there is a formula behind that table also. The Varsh

> > > Phal table is not as irrational as it appears to be. We as a group

> > > are already working at it.

> > >

> > > We have already decoded that a 'dhruvanka' number is used. I hope

> you

> > > are familiar with the concept of 'dhruvank'. It is commonly used

> in

> > > Vedic astrology mathematics.

> > >

> > > But in astrology there are scores of such concepts which we

> accept as

> > > fundamentals. The entire concepts of divisional charts,as

> harmonics

> > > of the natal chart is a concept accepted without having gone into

> the

> > > logic of it. The same about the atmakarak, amatyakarak etc, the

> > > argala etc. There is no end to such concepts in astrology.

> > >

> > > But accepting that the Janma kundali [which is a base for every

> thing

> > > else that follows] that is not based on any rational law is a bit

> too

> > > much for us to accept.

> > >

> > > Sincerely,

> > >

> > > KP Miglani

> > >

> > > lalkitab <lalkitab%40><lalkitab%

> 40>, " Punit

> > > Pandey " <punitp@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Miglani ji,

> > > >

> > > > What you are saying makes perfect sense. I just want to make

> sure

> > > that we

> > > > are considering other facts -

> > > >

> > > > 1. The Bhatia ji has mentioned that Pundit ji himself has asked

> him

> > > to use

> > > > this method for foreign charts. (I know you don't believe it

> but it

> > > gives me

> > > > at least one reason)

> > > > 2. In Lal Kitab, sarnis in general don't mave much mathematical

> > > value. These

> > > > are the way these are. Take the most important Varshphal sarni

> or

> > > Dimagi

> > > > khana sarni. This is all created by Pundit ji without giving any

> > > rational.

> > > > We need to keep this fact in mind as well. If that works,

> however

> > > incorrect

> > > > mathematically it seems, we will have to use it. Instead of

> > > discussing it

> > > > from mathematical perspective, we should discuss it from Lal

> Kitab

> > > > application perspective.

> > > >

> > > > Thanks & Regards,

> > > >

> > > > Punit Pandey

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Punit ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > Our objection to the Sarinis in general and this sarini in

> > > particular

> > > > > is that:

> > > > >

> > > > > A Sarini should be used for the place it has been calculated

> for

> > > i.e.

> > > > > for those longitudes and Latitudes. At the most a sarini can

> be

> > > used

> > > > > for the adjoining towns in that region. It should not be used

> for

> > > > > areas beyond that region.

> > > > >

> > > > > Our logic is simple;

> > > > >

> > > > > A sarini can be used for any place around the earth along the

> same

> > > > > latitude because the longitude difference will be taken care

> of

> > > > > through the time difference.

> > > > > But it will not be logical to use a sarini for a place with

> > > different

> > > > > latitude, because there is no method to take care of the

> latitude

> > > > > difference.

> > > > >

> > > > > Therefore this Sarini if calculated with the coordinates of

> > > madras [

> > > > > as has been claimed ] can be used for the latitude 13N4 at any

> > > > > longitude around the world but can not be used for any

> latitude

> > > north

> > > > > or south of 13N4.

> > > > >

> > > > > Since you have studied mathematics of astrology, you would

> know

> > > what

> > > > > we are talking about.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > >

> > > > > KP Miglani

> > > > >

> > > > > lalkitab <lalkitab%40><lalkitab%

> 40><lalkitab%

> > > 40>, " Punit

> > > > > Pandey " <punitp@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear KP Miglani ji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have studied celestial astronomy, spherical trigonometry,

> and

> > > > > other

> > > > > > related branches of mathematical astrology from ancient as

> well

> > > as

> > > > > modern

> > > > > > texts. I have also developed many softwares on astrology. I

> am

> > > > > mentioning

> > > > > > this not to speak high about myself, but just to communicate

> > > that I

> > > > > have at

> > > > > > least basic knowledge of mathematical astrology and I can

> > > > > understand and

> > > > > > comprehend what we are discussing here.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The point I wanted to communicate that the benchmark you are

> > > taking

> > > > > to

> > > > > > disprove the sarni is not correct. What you are assuming

> that

> > > > > whatever we

> > > > > > will calculate through software/ manually should be correct

> from

> > > > > Lal Kitab

> > > > > > perspective and sarni should match that. Why it should be

> > > required?

> > > > > The way

> > > > > > we need to validate is to cast the horoscopes using both the

> > > > > methods and

> > > > > > apply Lal Kitab principles. Let us see which chart is

> helping

> > > us to

> > > > > > understand the nativity and based on that we can decide

> whether

> > > the

> > > > > method

> > > > > > is correct or not.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Last time I have given example of Rahu and Ketu which is a

> very

> > > > > common

> > > > > > example. Let me take another example. The chart is the

> > > astronomical

> > > > > map of

> > > > > > heaven at a given point of time. In other words, the chart

> is

> > > > > position of

> > > > > > planets and certain other points at a given moment. Now, in

> Lal

> > > > > Kitab we

> > > > > > cast chart using palm which seems totally illogical. Isn't

> it?

> > > Do

> > > > > you think

> > > > > > that it is logical in the light of mathematical astrology?

> > > First of

> > > > > all, it

> > > > > > doesn't match with the planetary positions at the birth

> time.

> > > Also

> > > > > there

> > > > > > seems no logic to put planet in random houses just seeing

> some

> > > > > symbols on

> > > > > > palm? This may be a scientist's view. But we take it as-it

> is

> > > > > because we

> > > > > > believe that there is something more than science and the

> Lal

> > > Kitab

> > > > > > principles are developed based on this 'something more'.

> Again

> > > to

> > > > > reiterate

> > > > > > my point, we can not say that some Lal Kitab principle is

> > > incorrect

> > > > > just

> > > > > > because it seems illogical or doesn't match with our

> existing

> > > > > knowledge

> > > > > > (scientific/ ration view). If we take scientific/ rational

> > > view, I

> > > > > think it

> > > > > > is very easy to prove whole Lal Kitab absurd. As a matter of

> > > fact,

> > > > > the

> > > > > > astrology itself is not accepted as a science.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I personally want to clarify that I don't use Lal Kitab

> sarni

> > > and

> > > > > never

> > > > > > tried to validate this method. Like you, it doesn't seems

> > > logical

> > > > > to me :-).

> > > > > > Though the point I want to make that this is not enough

> reason

> > > to

> > > > > call it

> > > > > > incorrect.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thanks & Regards,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Punit Pandey

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Punit ji,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What Bhatia ji had written is very much keeping in with

> what

> > > has

> > > > > been

> > > > > > > written in the preamble of the Sarini. Any body who reads

> the

> > > > > Sarini

> > > > > > > would take those words to mean what Bhatia ji had taken

> them

> > > to

> > > > > mean.

> > > > > > > Bhatia ji also claims that Pundit ji worked out the

> > > horoscopes of

> > > > > his

> > > > > > > children, born abroad, through the same procedure and the

> > > > > predictions

> > > > > > > have come true.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Although the procedure to work out the Lagna given in the

> > > sarini

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > not 'Shastra sammat' [according to the scriptures] yet we

> > > took it

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > be another method because Pt. Rupchand ji is claimed to

> have

> > > told

> > > > > > > Bhatia ji that ' he is aware of having violated the rules

> of

> > > > > > > astrology' while preparing this Sarini.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Three of us; me, Varun Trivedi and CP Tyagi worked out

> more

> > > than a

> > > > > > > dozen foreign and Indian births through the procedure

> given

> > > in the

> > > > > > > Sarini and as explained by Bhatia ji in his article. The

> > > worked

> > > > > out

> > > > > > > horoscopes are here in the message archives.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The results were very inaccurate.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Therefore I think we should leave it to Bhatia ji whether

> he

> > > wants

> > > > > > > his article to stay as it is or he may want to revise it

> in

> > > the

> > > > > light

> > > > > > > of our findings. This is a scientific approach where an

> > > article

> > > > > could

> > > > > > > be revised in the light of findings that are different

> from

> > > the

> > > > > > > earlier claims.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > KP Miglani

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Respected Punit Ji,

 

What evidence do you have that Pandit Ji informed Bhatia Ji to only use this

approach?$

 

Are you aware that Pandit Ji's son uses a different approach (Vedic Jyotish

Lagna Calendar) to craft a chart and he too claims that Pandit Ji informed his

of this approach?

 

You are suggesting that Pandit Ji enforced the Lagna Sarini as mandatory -

Notwithstanding Bhatia Ji, don't you think Pandit Ji had more people in mind if

he in fact wanted this approach to be used? Pandit Ji published volumes of work

for the benefit of humanity, only to reveal one secret only to one individual?

 

Do you honestly believe what you are suggesting?

 

Best Regards,

Iqbal

USA

 

Sent via Blackberry

 

 

" Punit Pandey " <punitp

 

Sun, 11 Nov 2007 11:31:04

To:lalkitab

Re: [lalkitab] Re: Bhatia ji's article on the Lagna sarini

 

 

Dear Miglani ji,

 

What you are saying makes perfect sense. I just want to make sure that we

are considering other facts -

 

1. The Bhatia ji has mentioned that Pundit ji himself has asked him to use

this method for foreign charts. (I know you don't believe it but it gives me

at least one reason)

2. In Lal Kitab, sarnis in general don't mave much mathematical value. These

are the way these are. Take the most important Varshphal sarni or Dimagi

khana sarni. This is all created by Pundit ji without giving any rational.

We need to keep this fact in mind as well. If that works, however incorrect

mathematically it seems, we will have to use it. Instead of discussing it

from mathematical perspective, we should discuss it from Lal Kitab

application perspective.

 

Thanks & Regards,

 

Punit Pandey

 

On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani (AT) (DOT) <kpmiglani%40.co.in>

co.in> wrote:

>

> Dear Punit ji,

>

> Our objection to the Sarinis in general and this sarini in particular

> is that:

>

> A Sarini should be used for the place it has been calculated for i.e.

> for those longitudes and Latitudes. At the most a sarini can be used

> for the adjoining towns in that region. It should not be used for

> areas beyond that region.

>

> Our logic is simple;

>

> A sarini can be used for any place around the earth along the same

> latitude because the longitude difference will be taken care of

> through the time difference.

> But it will not be logical to use a sarini for a place with different

> latitude, because there is no method to take care of the latitude

> difference.

>

> Therefore this Sarini if calculated with the coordinates of madras [

> as has been claimed ] can be used for the latitude 13N4 at any

> longitude around the world but can not be used for any latitude north

> or south of 13N4.

>

> Since you have studied mathematics of astrology, you would know what

> we are talking about.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> KP Miglani

>

> lalkitab@ <lalkitab%40> s.com

<lalkitab%40>, " Punit

> Pandey " <punitp wrote:

> >

> > Dear KP Miglani ji,

> >

> > I have studied celestial astronomy, spherical trigonometry, and

> other

> > related branches of mathematical astrology from ancient as well as

> modern

> > texts. I have also developed many softwares on astrology. I am

> mentioning

> > this not to speak high about myself, but just to communicate that I

> have at

> > least basic knowledge of mathematical astrology and I can

> understand and

> > comprehend what we are discussing here.

> >

> > The point I wanted to communicate that the benchmark you are taking

> to

> > disprove the sarni is not correct. What you are assuming that

> whatever we

> > will calculate through software/ manually should be correct from

> Lal Kitab

> > perspective and sarni should match that. Why it should be required?

> The way

> > we need to validate is to cast the horoscopes using both the

> methods and

> > apply Lal Kitab principles. Let us see which chart is helping us to

> > understand the nativity and based on that we can decide whether the

> method

> > is correct or not.

> >

> > Last time I have given example of Rahu and Ketu which is a very

> common

> > example. Let me take another example. The chart is the astronomical

> map of

> > heaven at a given point of time. In other words, the chart is

> position of

> > planets and certain other points at a given moment. Now, in Lal

> Kitab we

> > cast chart using palm which seems totally illogical. Isn't it? Do

> you think

> > that it is logical in the light of mathematical astrology? First of

> all, it

> > doesn't match with the planetary positions at the birth time. Also

> there

> > seems no logic to put planet in random houses just seeing some

> symbols on

> > palm? This may be a scientist's view. But we take it as-it is

> because we

> > believe that there is something more than science and the Lal Kitab

> > principles are developed based on this 'something more'. Again to

> reiterate

> > my point, we can not say that some Lal Kitab principle is incorrect

> just

> > because it seems illogical or doesn't match with our existing

> knowledge

> > (scientific/ ration view). If we take scientific/ rational view, I

> think it

> > is very easy to prove whole Lal Kitab absurd. As a matter of fact,

> the

> > astrology itself is not accepted as a science.

> >

> > I personally want to clarify that I don't use Lal Kitab sarni and

> never

> > tried to validate this method. Like you, it doesn't seems logical

> to me :-).

> > Though the point I want to make that this is not enough reason to

> call it

> > incorrect.

> >

> > Thanks & Regards,

> >

> > Punit Pandey

> >

> >

> > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Punit ji,

> > >

> > > What Bhatia ji had written is very much keeping in with what has

> been

> > > written in the preamble of the Sarini. Any body who reads the

> Sarini

> > > would take those words to mean what Bhatia ji had taken them to

> mean.

> > > Bhatia ji also claims that Pundit ji worked out the horoscopes of

> his

> > > children, born abroad, through the same procedure and the

> predictions

> > > have come true.

> > >

> > > Although the procedure to work out the Lagna given in the sarini

> is

> > > not 'Shastra sammat' [according to the scriptures] yet we took it

> to

> > > be another method because Pt. Rupchand ji is claimed to have told

> > > Bhatia ji that ' he is aware of having violated the rules of

> > > astrology' while preparing this Sarini.

> > >

> > > Three of us; me, Varun Trivedi and CP Tyagi worked out more than a

> > > dozen foreign and Indian births through the procedure given in the

> > > Sarini and as explained by Bhatia ji in his article. The worked

> out

> > > horoscopes are here in the message archives.

> > >

> > > The results were very inaccurate.

> > >

> > > Therefore I think we should leave it to Bhatia ji whether he wants

> > > his article to stay as it is or he may want to revise it in the

> light

> > > of our findings. This is a scientific approach where an article

> could

> > > be revised in the light of findings that are different from the

> > > earlier claims.

> > >

> > > Sincerely,

> > >

> > > KP Miglani

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dera Miglani ji,

 

Where did you see this contention that " the lal Kitab analysis should be

done of a horoscope based on the sarni then only it will be an acceptable

Lal Kitab analysis doesn't hold good. " ? Can you quote from my past posts?

My point is only that the method adopted to disprove it doesn't look

correct. We should use analytical approach and not the mathematical

approach. The above sentence that you made is misleading.

 

Also when you say that " But we do find it unacceptable that the basic 'key

stone'of the entire structure could also be based on some thing irrational. "

This is your opinion and nobody has any objection to that. But if you want

to make it universal than it should be proven and I propose that analytical

approach is better than the mathematical approach. This is the major

argument I have.

 

Thanks & Regards,

 

Punit Pandey

 

 

On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani wrote:

>

> Dear Punit ji,

>

> Yes as and when we decode the rationale of the Varsh Phal table we

> would let every one know about it. I said we are working at it and we

> are at the stage of hypothesis that a 'dhruvank' has been used.

>

> Lal Kitab Varsh Phal chart or other Lal Kitab calculations are the

> derivatives of the first and the basic chart known as the Janma

> Kundali. Even Pundit ji was very particular that the kundali should

> be cast very accurately so much so that he suggested that the

> horoscope should be got prepared by a learned pundit even if it means

> paying him some handsome amount.

>

> He never said that it should be cast according to his sarini. He

> studied horoscopes cast by other pundits based on their knowledge of

> the Vedic system.

>

> Therefore Lal Kitab analysis is not sarini specific. The sarini is

> not an essential part of the Lal Kitab system. Till a month or so ago

> it was not even a public document. The sarini became a public

> document when it was uploaded in the Lal Kitab discussion group last

> month.

>

> Therefore your contention that the lal Kitab analysis should be done

> of a horoscope based on the sarini then only it will be an acceptable

> Lal Kitab analysis doesn't hold good.

>

> As I have said earlier, I do not find any thing contradictory in

> casting a Varsh Phal chart according to the Table given in the book;

> because a varsh phal chart is a derived chart, it is not a basic

> chart. It is the same as we cast divisional charts, calculate

> argalas, calculate planetary strength etc. But all these are based on

> a kundali cast along the principles of mathematics.

>

> But we do find it unacceptable that the basic 'key stone'of the

> entire structure could also be based on some thing irrational.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> KP Miglani

>

> lalkitab <lalkitab%40>, " Punit

> Pandey " <punitp wrote:

> >

> > Dear Miglani ji,

> >

> > It looks like we are deviating a little from the discussion. But

> thanks to

> > Sunday I have enough time to discuss.

> >

> > First of all, if you have already decoded the lal kitab varshphal

> sarni,

> > please post it here for discussion. If you can not do that, please

> don't

> > refer it. I just read the Lal Kitab and I don't see any rational

> given

> > there.

> >

> > I would request you to see this dicussion from another perspective.

> We say

> > that we will use Lal Kitab table for casting varsh charts but we

> will not

> > use Lal Kitab table for casting birth chart. Isn't that double

> standard? I

> > will repeat that we need to apply it on some charts (without any

> bias) and

> > then after applying it on sufficient number of charts, if we see

> that it is

> > not working then we can throw it away. But it should not be thrown

> away just

> > because it doesn't look rational or doesn't look good from the

> existing

> > mathematical astrology principles perspective.

> >

> > Even if you have decoded Lal Kitab Varshphal table, would you have

> thrown it

> > away if you had failed in decoding it?

> >

> > Let me repeat again that I am neither pro nor against the Sarni. I

> am

> > arguing in favour of Sarni just becuase the mehtod recently adopted

> for

> > disproving it doesn't look appropriate to me.

> >

> > Thanks & Regards,

> >

> > Punit Pandey

> >

> >

> > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Punit ji,

> > >

> > > I am happy that you agree at least on this account that using this

> > > sarini doesn't hold good as far as the mathematics of astrology

> goes.

> > >

> > > Now coming to the Varsh Phal table:

> > >

> > > We know that there is a formula behind that table also. The Varsh

> > > Phal table is not as irrational as it appears to be. We as a group

> > > are already working at it.

> > >

> > > We have already decoded that a 'dhruvanka' number is used. I hope

> you

> > > are familiar with the concept of 'dhruvank'. It is commonly used

> in

> > > Vedic astrology mathematics.

> > >

> > > But in astrology there are scores of such concepts which we

> accept as

> > > fundamentals. The entire concepts of divisional charts,as

> harmonics

> > > of the natal chart is a concept accepted without having gone into

> the

> > > logic of it. The same about the atmakarak, amatyakarak etc, the

> > > argala etc. There is no end to such concepts in astrology.

> > >

> > > But accepting that the Janma kundali [which is a base for every

> thing

> > > else that follows] that is not based on any rational law is a bit

> too

> > > much for us to accept.

> > >

> > > Sincerely,

> > >

> > > KP Miglani

> > >

> > > lalkitab <lalkitab%40><lalkitab%

> 40>, " Punit

> > > Pandey " <punitp@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Miglani ji,

> > > >

> > > > What you are saying makes perfect sense. I just want to make

> sure

> > > that we

> > > > are considering other facts -

> > > >

> > > > 1. The Bhatia ji has mentioned that Pundit ji himself has asked

> him

> > > to use

> > > > this method for foreign charts. (I know you don't believe it

> but it

> > > gives me

> > > > at least one reason)

> > > > 2. In Lal Kitab, sarnis in general don't mave much mathematical

> > > value. These

> > > > are the way these are. Take the most important Varshphal sarni

> or

> > > Dimagi

> > > > khana sarni. This is all created by Pundit ji without giving any

> > > rational.

> > > > We need to keep this fact in mind as well. If that works,

> however

> > > incorrect

> > > > mathematically it seems, we will have to use it. Instead of

> > > discussing it

> > > > from mathematical perspective, we should discuss it from Lal

> Kitab

> > > > application perspective.

> > > >

> > > > Thanks & Regards,

> > > >

> > > > Punit Pandey

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Punit ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > Our objection to the Sarinis in general and this sarini in

> > > particular

> > > > > is that:

> > > > >

> > > > > A Sarini should be used for the place it has been calculated

> for

> > > i.e.

> > > > > for those longitudes and Latitudes. At the most a sarini can

> be

> > > used

> > > > > for the adjoining towns in that region. It should not be used

> for

> > > > > areas beyond that region.

> > > > >

> > > > > Our logic is simple;

> > > > >

> > > > > A sarini can be used for any place around the earth along the

> same

> > > > > latitude because the longitude difference will be taken care

> of

> > > > > through the time difference.

> > > > > But it will not be logical to use a sarini for a place with

> > > different

> > > > > latitude, because there is no method to take care of the

> latitude

> > > > > difference.

> > > > >

> > > > > Therefore this Sarini if calculated with the coordinates of

> > > madras [

> > > > > as has been claimed ] can be used for the latitude 13N4 at any

> > > > > longitude around the world but can not be used for any

> latitude

> > > north

> > > > > or south of 13N4.

> > > > >

> > > > > Since you have studied mathematics of astrology, you would

> know

> > > what

> > > > > we are talking about.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > >

> > > > > KP Miglani

> > > > >

> > > > > lalkitab <lalkitab%40><lalkitab%

> 40><lalkitab%

> > > 40>, " Punit

> > > > > Pandey " <punitp@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear KP Miglani ji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have studied celestial astronomy, spherical trigonometry,

> and

> > > > > other

> > > > > > related branches of mathematical astrology from ancient as

> well

> > > as

> > > > > modern

> > > > > > texts. I have also developed many softwares on astrology. I

> am

> > > > > mentioning

> > > > > > this not to speak high about myself, but just to communicate

> > > that I

> > > > > have at

> > > > > > least basic knowledge of mathematical astrology and I can

> > > > > understand and

> > > > > > comprehend what we are discussing here.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The point I wanted to communicate that the benchmark you are

> > > taking

> > > > > to

> > > > > > disprove the sarni is not correct. What you are assuming

> that

> > > > > whatever we

> > > > > > will calculate through software/ manually should be correct

> from

> > > > > Lal Kitab

> > > > > > perspective and sarni should match that. Why it should be

> > > required?

> > > > > The way

> > > > > > we need to validate is to cast the horoscopes using both the

> > > > > methods and

> > > > > > apply Lal Kitab principles. Let us see which chart is

> helping

> > > us to

> > > > > > understand the nativity and based on that we can decide

> whether

> > > the

> > > > > method

> > > > > > is correct or not.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Last time I have given example of Rahu and Ketu which is a

> very

> > > > > common

> > > > > > example. Let me take another example. The chart is the

> > > astronomical

> > > > > map of

> > > > > > heaven at a given point of time. In other words, the chart

> is

> > > > > position of

> > > > > > planets and certain other points at a given moment. Now, in

> Lal

> > > > > Kitab we

> > > > > > cast chart using palm which seems totally illogical. Isn't

> it?

> > > Do

> > > > > you think

> > > > > > that it is logical in the light of mathematical astrology?

> > > First of

> > > > > all, it

> > > > > > doesn't match with the planetary positions at the birth

> time.

> > > Also

> > > > > there

> > > > > > seems no logic to put planet in random houses just seeing

> some

> > > > > symbols on

> > > > > > palm? This may be a scientist's view. But we take it as-it

> is

> > > > > because we

> > > > > > believe that there is something more than science and the

> Lal

> > > Kitab

> > > > > > principles are developed based on this 'something more'.

> Again

> > > to

> > > > > reiterate

> > > > > > my point, we can not say that some Lal Kitab principle is

> > > incorrect

> > > > > just

> > > > > > because it seems illogical or doesn't match with our

> existing

> > > > > knowledge

> > > > > > (scientific/ ration view). If we take scientific/ rational

> > > view, I

> > > > > think it

> > > > > > is very easy to prove whole Lal Kitab absurd. As a matter of

> > > fact,

> > > > > the

> > > > > > astrology itself is not accepted as a science.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I personally want to clarify that I don't use Lal Kitab

> sarni

> > > and

> > > > > never

> > > > > > tried to validate this method. Like you, it doesn't seems

> > > logical

> > > > > to me :-).

> > > > > > Though the point I want to make that this is not enough

> reason

> > > to

> > > > > call it

> > > > > > incorrect.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thanks & Regards,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Punit Pandey

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Punit ji,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What Bhatia ji had written is very much keeping in with

> what

> > > has

> > > > > been

> > > > > > > written in the preamble of the Sarini. Any body who reads

> the

> > > > > Sarini

> > > > > > > would take those words to mean what Bhatia ji had taken

> them

> > > to

> > > > > mean.

> > > > > > > Bhatia ji also claims that Pundit ji worked out the

> > > horoscopes of

> > > > > his

> > > > > > > children, born abroad, through the same procedure and the

> > > > > predictions

> > > > > > > have come true.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Although the procedure to work out the Lagna given in the

> > > sarini

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > not 'Shastra sammat' [according to the scriptures] yet we

> > > took it

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > be another method because Pt. Rupchand ji is claimed to

> have

> > > told

> > > > > > > Bhatia ji that ' he is aware of having violated the rules

> of

> > > > > > > astrology' while preparing this Sarini.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Three of us; me, Varun Trivedi and CP Tyagi worked out

> more

> > > than a

> > > > > > > dozen foreign and Indian births through the procedure

> given

> > > in the

> > > > > > > Sarini and as explained by Bhatia ji in his article. The

> > > worked

> > > > > out

> > > > > > > horoscopes are here in the message archives.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The results were very inaccurate.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Therefore I think we should leave it to Bhatia ji whether

> he

> > > wants

> > > > > > > his article to stay as it is or he may want to revise it

> in

> > > the

> > > > > light

> > > > > > > of our findings. This is a scientific approach where an

> > > article

> > > > > could

> > > > > > > be revised in the light of findings that are different

> from

> > > the

> > > > > > > earlier claims.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > KP Miglani

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Punit ji,

 

In your message 10715 when you said that using a table to cast the

Varsh phal and denying to use the sarini for Kundali is double

standard, I thought you mean to say that the Lal Kitab analysis

should be done only with a horoscope cast through the sarini.

 

For decades astrologers have been analysing Kundalis on the basis of

the Lal Kitab. None of those kundalis was cast according to the

Sarini because till a month ago the kundali was not even known. The

sarini was in the hands of a few only. It was not in the public

domain.

 

Do you need any more proof that the kundalis cast according to the

Vedic system are the ones to be used for Lal Kitab also?

 

Want to see the Proof that a kundali cast through vedic system for a

foreign birth gives accurate results ?

 

Read Mr. Iqbals message in reply to Pt lal Kitabee's analysis in the

lal Kitab discussion group.

 

Sincerely,

 

KP Miglani

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lalkitab , " Punit Pandey " <punitp wrote:

>

> Dera Miglani ji,

>

> Where did you see this contention that " the lal Kitab analysis

should be

> done of a horoscope based on the sarni then only it will be an

acceptable

> Lal Kitab analysis doesn't hold good. " ? Can you quote from my past

posts?

> My point is only that the method adopted to disprove it doesn't look

> correct. We should use analytical approach and not the mathematical

> approach. The above sentence that you made is misleading.

>

> Also when you say that " But we do find it unacceptable that the

basic 'key

> stone'of the entire structure could also be based on some thing

irrational. "

> This is your opinion and nobody has any objection to that. But if

you want

> to make it universal than it should be proven and I propose that

analytical

> approach is better than the mathematical approach. This is the major

> argument I have.

>

> Thanks & Regards,

>

> Punit Pandey

>

>

> On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani wrote:

> >

> > Dear Punit ji,

> >

> > Yes as and when we decode the rationale of the Varsh Phal table we

> > would let every one know about it. I said we are working at it

and we

> > are at the stage of hypothesis that a 'dhruvank' has been used.

> >

> > Lal Kitab Varsh Phal chart or other Lal Kitab calculations are the

> > derivatives of the first and the basic chart known as the Janma

> > Kundali. Even Pundit ji was very particular that the kundali

should

> > be cast very accurately so much so that he suggested that the

> > horoscope should be got prepared by a learned pundit even if it

means

> > paying him some handsome amount.

> >

> > He never said that it should be cast according to his sarini. He

> > studied horoscopes cast by other pundits based on their knowledge

of

> > the Vedic system.

> >

> > Therefore Lal Kitab analysis is not sarini specific. The sarini is

> > not an essential part of the Lal Kitab system. Till a month or so

ago

> > it was not even a public document. The sarini became a public

> > document when it was uploaded in the Lal Kitab discussion group

last

> > month.

> >

> > Therefore your contention that the lal Kitab analysis should be

done

> > of a horoscope based on the sarini then only it will be an

acceptable

> > Lal Kitab analysis doesn't hold good.

> >

> > As I have said earlier, I do not find any thing contradictory in

> > casting a Varsh Phal chart according to the Table given in the

book;

> > because a varsh phal chart is a derived chart, it is not a basic

> > chart. It is the same as we cast divisional charts, calculate

> > argalas, calculate planetary strength etc. But all these are

based on

> > a kundali cast along the principles of mathematics.

> >

> > But we do find it unacceptable that the basic 'key stone'of the

> > entire structure could also be based on some thing irrational.

> >

> > Sincerely,

> >

> > KP Miglani

> >

> > lalkitab <lalkitab%

40>, " Punit

> > Pandey " <punitp@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Miglani ji,

> > >

> > > It looks like we are deviating a little from the discussion. But

> > thanks to

> > > Sunday I have enough time to discuss.

> > >

> > > First of all, if you have already decoded the lal kitab

varshphal

> > sarni,

> > > please post it here for discussion. If you can not do that,

please

> > don't

> > > refer it. I just read the Lal Kitab and I don't see any rational

> > given

> > > there.

> > >

> > > I would request you to see this dicussion from another

perspective.

> > We say

> > > that we will use Lal Kitab table for casting varsh charts but we

> > will not

> > > use Lal Kitab table for casting birth chart. Isn't that double

> > standard? I

> > > will repeat that we need to apply it on some charts (without any

> > bias) and

> > > then after applying it on sufficient number of charts, if we see

> > that it is

> > > not working then we can throw it away. But it should not be

thrown

> > away just

> > > because it doesn't look rational or doesn't look good from the

> > existing

> > > mathematical astrology principles perspective.

> > >

> > > Even if you have decoded Lal Kitab Varshphal table, would you

have

> > thrown it

> > > away if you had failed in decoding it?

> > >

> > > Let me repeat again that I am neither pro nor against the

Sarni. I

> > am

> > > arguing in favour of Sarni just becuase the mehtod recently

adopted

> > for

> > > disproving it doesn't look appropriate to me.

> > >

> > > Thanks & Regards,

> > >

> > > Punit Pandey

> > >

> > >

> > > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Punit ji,

> > > >

> > > > I am happy that you agree at least on this account that using

this

> > > > sarini doesn't hold good as far as the mathematics of

astrology

> > goes.

> > > >

> > > > Now coming to the Varsh Phal table:

> > > >

> > > > We know that there is a formula behind that table also. The

Varsh

> > > > Phal table is not as irrational as it appears to be. We as a

group

> > > > are already working at it.

> > > >

> > > > We have already decoded that a 'dhruvanka' number is used. I

hope

> > you

> > > > are familiar with the concept of 'dhruvank'. It is commonly

used

> > in

> > > > Vedic astrology mathematics.

> > > >

> > > > But in astrology there are scores of such concepts which we

> > accept as

> > > > fundamentals. The entire concepts of divisional charts,as

> > harmonics

> > > > of the natal chart is a concept accepted without having gone

into

> > the

> > > > logic of it. The same about the atmakarak, amatyakarak etc,

the

> > > > argala etc. There is no end to such concepts in astrology.

> > > >

> > > > But accepting that the Janma kundali [which is a base for

every

> > thing

> > > > else that follows] that is not based on any rational law is a

bit

> > too

> > > > much for us to accept.

> > > >

> > > > Sincerely,

> > > >

> > > > KP Miglani

> > > >

> > > > lalkitab <lalkitab%

40><lalkitab%

> > 40>, " Punit

> > > > Pandey " <punitp@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Miglani ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > What you are saying makes perfect sense. I just want to make

> > sure

> > > > that we

> > > > > are considering other facts -

> > > > >

> > > > > 1. The Bhatia ji has mentioned that Pundit ji himself has

asked

> > him

> > > > to use

> > > > > this method for foreign charts. (I know you don't believe it

> > but it

> > > > gives me

> > > > > at least one reason)

> > > > > 2. In Lal Kitab, sarnis in general don't mave much

mathematical

> > > > value. These

> > > > > are the way these are. Take the most important Varshphal

sarni

> > or

> > > > Dimagi

> > > > > khana sarni. This is all created by Pundit ji without

giving any

> > > > rational.

> > > > > We need to keep this fact in mind as well. If that works,

> > however

> > > > incorrect

> > > > > mathematically it seems, we will have to use it. Instead of

> > > > discussing it

> > > > > from mathematical perspective, we should discuss it from Lal

> > Kitab

> > > > > application perspective.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks & Regards,

> > > > >

> > > > > Punit Pandey

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Punit ji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Our objection to the Sarinis in general and this sarini in

> > > > particular

> > > > > > is that:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > A Sarini should be used for the place it has been

calculated

> > for

> > > > i.e.

> > > > > > for those longitudes and Latitudes. At the most a sarini

can

> > be

> > > > used

> > > > > > for the adjoining towns in that region. It should not be

used

> > for

> > > > > > areas beyond that region.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Our logic is simple;

> > > > > >

> > > > > > A sarini can be used for any place around the earth along

the

> > same

> > > > > > latitude because the longitude difference will be taken

care

> > of

> > > > > > through the time difference.

> > > > > > But it will not be logical to use a sarini for a place

with

> > > > different

> > > > > > latitude, because there is no method to take care of the

> > latitude

> > > > > > difference.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Therefore this Sarini if calculated with the coordinates

of

> > > > madras [

> > > > > > as has been claimed ] can be used for the latitude 13N4

at any

> > > > > > longitude around the world but can not be used for any

> > latitude

> > > > north

> > > > > > or south of 13N4.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Since you have studied mathematics of astrology, you would

> > know

> > > > what

> > > > > > we are talking about.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > KP Miglani

> > > > > >

> > > > > > lalkitab <lalkitab%

40><lalkitab%

> > 40><lalkitab%

> > > > 40>, " Punit

> > > > > > Pandey " <punitp@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear KP Miglani ji,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have studied celestial astronomy, spherical

trigonometry,

> > and

> > > > > > other

> > > > > > > related branches of mathematical astrology from ancient

as

> > well

> > > > as

> > > > > > modern

> > > > > > > texts. I have also developed many softwares on

astrology. I

> > am

> > > > > > mentioning

> > > > > > > this not to speak high about myself, but just to

communicate

> > > > that I

> > > > > > have at

> > > > > > > least basic knowledge of mathematical astrology and I

can

> > > > > > understand and

> > > > > > > comprehend what we are discussing here.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The point I wanted to communicate that the benchmark

you are

> > > > taking

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > disprove the sarni is not correct. What you are assuming

> > that

> > > > > > whatever we

> > > > > > > will calculate through software/ manually should be

correct

> > from

> > > > > > Lal Kitab

> > > > > > > perspective and sarni should match that. Why it should

be

> > > > required?

> > > > > > The way

> > > > > > > we need to validate is to cast the horoscopes using

both the

> > > > > > methods and

> > > > > > > apply Lal Kitab principles. Let us see which chart is

> > helping

> > > > us to

> > > > > > > understand the nativity and based on that we can decide

> > whether

> > > > the

> > > > > > method

> > > > > > > is correct or not.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Last time I have given example of Rahu and Ketu which

is a

> > very

> > > > > > common

> > > > > > > example. Let me take another example. The chart is the

> > > > astronomical

> > > > > > map of

> > > > > > > heaven at a given point of time. In other words, the

chart

> > is

> > > > > > position of

> > > > > > > planets and certain other points at a given moment.

Now, in

> > Lal

> > > > > > Kitab we

> > > > > > > cast chart using palm which seems totally illogical.

Isn't

> > it?

> > > > Do

> > > > > > you think

> > > > > > > that it is logical in the light of mathematical

astrology?

> > > > First of

> > > > > > all, it

> > > > > > > doesn't match with the planetary positions at the birth

> > time.

> > > > Also

> > > > > > there

> > > > > > > seems no logic to put planet in random houses just

seeing

> > some

> > > > > > symbols on

> > > > > > > palm? This may be a scientist's view. But we take it as-

it

> > is

> > > > > > because we

> > > > > > > believe that there is something more than science and

the

> > Lal

> > > > Kitab

> > > > > > > principles are developed based on this 'something more'.

> > Again

> > > > to

> > > > > > reiterate

> > > > > > > my point, we can not say that some Lal Kitab principle

is

> > > > incorrect

> > > > > > just

> > > > > > > because it seems illogical or doesn't match with our

> > existing

> > > > > > knowledge

> > > > > > > (scientific/ ration view). If we take scientific/

rational

> > > > view, I

> > > > > > think it

> > > > > > > is very easy to prove whole Lal Kitab absurd. As a

matter of

> > > > fact,

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > astrology itself is not accepted as a science.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I personally want to clarify that I don't use Lal Kitab

> > sarni

> > > > and

> > > > > > never

> > > > > > > tried to validate this method. Like you, it doesn't

seems

> > > > logical

> > > > > > to me :-).

> > > > > > > Though the point I want to make that this is not enough

> > reason

> > > > to

> > > > > > call it

> > > > > > > incorrect.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thanks & Regards,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Punit Pandey

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Punit ji,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What Bhatia ji had written is very much keeping in

with

> > what

> > > > has

> > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > written in the preamble of the Sarini. Any body who

reads

> > the

> > > > > > Sarini

> > > > > > > > would take those words to mean what Bhatia ji had

taken

> > them

> > > > to

> > > > > > mean.

> > > > > > > > Bhatia ji also claims that Pundit ji worked out the

> > > > horoscopes of

> > > > > > his

> > > > > > > > children, born abroad, through the same procedure and

the

> > > > > > predictions

> > > > > > > > have come true.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Although the procedure to work out the Lagna given in

the

> > > > sarini

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > not 'Shastra sammat' [according to the scriptures]

yet we

> > > > took it

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > be another method because Pt. Rupchand ji is claimed

to

> > have

> > > > told

> > > > > > > > Bhatia ji that ' he is aware of having violated the

rules

> > of

> > > > > > > > astrology' while preparing this Sarini.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Three of us; me, Varun Trivedi and CP Tyagi worked out

> > more

> > > > than a

> > > > > > > > dozen foreign and Indian births through the procedure

> > given

> > > > in the

> > > > > > > > Sarini and as explained by Bhatia ji in his article.

The

> > > > worked

> > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > horoscopes are here in the message archives.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The results were very inaccurate.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Therefore I think we should leave it to Bhatia ji

whether

> > he

> > > > wants

> > > > > > > > his article to stay as it is or he may want to revise

it

> > in

> > > > the

> > > > > > light

> > > > > > > > of our findings. This is a scientific approach where

an

> > > > article

> > > > > > could

> > > > > > > > be revised in the light of findings that are different

> > from

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > earlier claims.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > KP Miglani

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Miglani ji,

 

Where is the question of vedic kundli. We are talking about the kundlis

prepared using Lal Kitab sarni. I would love to see the proof that kundli

based on lal kitab doesn't work (or does work).

 

Thanks & Regards,

 

Punit Pandey

 

 

On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani wrote:

>

> Dear Punit ji,

>

> In your message 10715 when you said that using a table to cast the

> Varsh phal and denying to use the sarini for Kundali is double

> standard, I thought you mean to say that the Lal Kitab analysis

> should be done only with a horoscope cast through the sarini.

>

> For decades astrologers have been analysing Kundalis on the basis of

> the Lal Kitab. None of those kundalis was cast according to the

> Sarini because till a month ago the kundali was not even known. The

> sarini was in the hands of a few only. It was not in the public

> domain.

>

> Do you need any more proof that the kundalis cast according to the

> Vedic system are the ones to be used for Lal Kitab also?

>

> Want to see the Proof that a kundali cast through vedic system for a

> foreign birth gives accurate results ?

>

> Read Mr. Iqbals message in reply to Pt lal Kitabee's analysis in the

> lal Kitab discussion group.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> KP Miglani

>

> lalkitab <lalkitab%40>, " Punit

> Pandey " <punitp wrote:

> >

> > Dera Miglani ji,

> >

> > Where did you see this contention that " the lal Kitab analysis

> should be

> > done of a horoscope based on the sarni then only it will be an

> acceptable

> > Lal Kitab analysis doesn't hold good. " ? Can you quote from my past

> posts?

> > My point is only that the method adopted to disprove it doesn't look

> > correct. We should use analytical approach and not the mathematical

> > approach. The above sentence that you made is misleading.

> >

> > Also when you say that " But we do find it unacceptable that the

> basic 'key

> > stone'of the entire structure could also be based on some thing

> irrational. "

> > This is your opinion and nobody has any objection to that. But if

> you want

> > to make it universal than it should be proven and I propose that

> analytical

> > approach is better than the mathematical approach. This is the major

> > argument I have.

> >

> > Thanks & Regards,

> >

> > Punit Pandey

> >

> >

> > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Punit ji,

> > >

> > > Yes as and when we decode the rationale of the Varsh Phal table we

> > > would let every one know about it. I said we are working at it

> and we

> > > are at the stage of hypothesis that a 'dhruvank' has been used.

> > >

> > > Lal Kitab Varsh Phal chart or other Lal Kitab calculations are the

> > > derivatives of the first and the basic chart known as the Janma

> > > Kundali. Even Pundit ji was very particular that the kundali

> should

> > > be cast very accurately so much so that he suggested that the

> > > horoscope should be got prepared by a learned pundit even if it

> means

> > > paying him some handsome amount.

> > >

> > > He never said that it should be cast according to his sarini. He

> > > studied horoscopes cast by other pundits based on their knowledge

> of

> > > the Vedic system.

> > >

> > > Therefore Lal Kitab analysis is not sarini specific. The sarini is

> > > not an essential part of the Lal Kitab system. Till a month or so

> ago

> > > it was not even a public document. The sarini became a public

> > > document when it was uploaded in the Lal Kitab discussion group

> last

> > > month.

> > >

> > > Therefore your contention that the lal Kitab analysis should be

> done

> > > of a horoscope based on the sarini then only it will be an

> acceptable

> > > Lal Kitab analysis doesn't hold good.

> > >

> > > As I have said earlier, I do not find any thing contradictory in

> > > casting a Varsh Phal chart according to the Table given in the

> book;

> > > because a varsh phal chart is a derived chart, it is not a basic

> > > chart. It is the same as we cast divisional charts, calculate

> > > argalas, calculate planetary strength etc. But all these are

> based on

> > > a kundali cast along the principles of mathematics.

> > >

> > > But we do find it unacceptable that the basic 'key stone'of the

> > > entire structure could also be based on some thing irrational.

> > >

> > > Sincerely,

> > >

> > > KP Miglani

> > >

> > > lalkitab <lalkitab%40><lalkitab%

> 40>, " Punit

> > > Pandey " <punitp@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Miglani ji,

> > > >

> > > > It looks like we are deviating a little from the discussion. But

> > > thanks to

> > > > Sunday I have enough time to discuss.

> > > >

> > > > First of all, if you have already decoded the lal kitab

> varshphal

> > > sarni,

> > > > please post it here for discussion. If you can not do that,

> please

> > > don't

> > > > refer it. I just read the Lal Kitab and I don't see any rational

> > > given

> > > > there.

> > > >

> > > > I would request you to see this dicussion from another

> perspective.

> > > We say

> > > > that we will use Lal Kitab table for casting varsh charts but we

> > > will not

> > > > use Lal Kitab table for casting birth chart. Isn't that double

> > > standard? I

> > > > will repeat that we need to apply it on some charts (without any

> > > bias) and

> > > > then after applying it on sufficient number of charts, if we see

> > > that it is

> > > > not working then we can throw it away. But it should not be

> thrown

> > > away just

> > > > because it doesn't look rational or doesn't look good from the

> > > existing

> > > > mathematical astrology principles perspective.

> > > >

> > > > Even if you have decoded Lal Kitab Varshphal table, would you

> have

> > > thrown it

> > > > away if you had failed in decoding it?

> > > >

> > > > Let me repeat again that I am neither pro nor against the

> Sarni. I

> > > am

> > > > arguing in favour of Sarni just becuase the mehtod recently

> adopted

> > > for

> > > > disproving it doesn't look appropriate to me.

> > > >

> > > > Thanks & Regards,

> > > >

> > > > Punit Pandey

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Punit ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > I am happy that you agree at least on this account that using

> this

> > > > > sarini doesn't hold good as far as the mathematics of

> astrology

> > > goes.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now coming to the Varsh Phal table:

> > > > >

> > > > > We know that there is a formula behind that table also. The

> Varsh

> > > > > Phal table is not as irrational as it appears to be. We as a

> group

> > > > > are already working at it.

> > > > >

> > > > > We have already decoded that a 'dhruvanka' number is used. I

> hope

> > > you

> > > > > are familiar with the concept of 'dhruvank'. It is commonly

> used

> > > in

> > > > > Vedic astrology mathematics.

> > > > >

> > > > > But in astrology there are scores of such concepts which we

> > > accept as

> > > > > fundamentals. The entire concepts of divisional charts,as

> > > harmonics

> > > > > of the natal chart is a concept accepted without having gone

> into

> > > the

> > > > > logic of it. The same about the atmakarak, amatyakarak etc,

> the

> > > > > argala etc. There is no end to such concepts in astrology.

> > > > >

> > > > > But accepting that the Janma kundali [which is a base for

> every

> > > thing

> > > > > else that follows] that is not based on any rational law is a

> bit

> > > too

> > > > > much for us to accept.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > >

> > > > > KP Miglani

> > > > >

> > > > > lalkitab <lalkitab%40><lalkitab%

> 40><lalkitab%

> > > 40>, " Punit

> > > > > Pandey " <punitp@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Miglani ji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What you are saying makes perfect sense. I just want to make

> > > sure

> > > > > that we

> > > > > > are considering other facts -

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1. The Bhatia ji has mentioned that Pundit ji himself has

> asked

> > > him

> > > > > to use

> > > > > > this method for foreign charts. (I know you don't believe it

> > > but it

> > > > > gives me

> > > > > > at least one reason)

> > > > > > 2. In Lal Kitab, sarnis in general don't mave much

> mathematical

> > > > > value. These

> > > > > > are the way these are. Take the most important Varshphal

> sarni

> > > or

> > > > > Dimagi

> > > > > > khana sarni. This is all created by Pundit ji without

> giving any

> > > > > rational.

> > > > > > We need to keep this fact in mind as well. If that works,

> > > however

> > > > > incorrect

> > > > > > mathematically it seems, we will have to use it. Instead of

> > > > > discussing it

> > > > > > from mathematical perspective, we should discuss it from Lal

> > > Kitab

> > > > > > application perspective.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thanks & Regards,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Punit Pandey

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Punit ji,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Our objection to the Sarinis in general and this sarini in

> > > > > particular

> > > > > > > is that:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > A Sarini should be used for the place it has been

> calculated

> > > for

> > > > > i.e.

> > > > > > > for those longitudes and Latitudes. At the most a sarini

> can

> > > be

> > > > > used

> > > > > > > for the adjoining towns in that region. It should not be

> used

> > > for

> > > > > > > areas beyond that region.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Our logic is simple;

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > A sarini can be used for any place around the earth along

> the

> > > same

> > > > > > > latitude because the longitude difference will be taken

> care

> > > of

> > > > > > > through the time difference.

> > > > > > > But it will not be logical to use a sarini for a place

> with

> > > > > different

> > > > > > > latitude, because there is no method to take care of the

> > > latitude

> > > > > > > difference.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Therefore this Sarini if calculated with the coordinates

> of

> > > > > madras [

> > > > > > > as has been claimed ] can be used for the latitude 13N4

> at any

> > > > > > > longitude around the world but can not be used for any

> > > latitude

> > > > > north

> > > > > > > or south of 13N4.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Since you have studied mathematics of astrology, you would

> > > know

> > > > > what

> > > > > > > we are talking about.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > KP Miglani

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > lalkitab

<lalkitab%40><lalkitab%

> 40><lalkitab%

> > > 40><lalkitab%

> > > > > 40>, " Punit

> > > > > > > Pandey " <punitp@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear KP Miglani ji,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have studied celestial astronomy, spherical

> trigonometry,

> > > and

> > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > related branches of mathematical astrology from ancient

> as

> > > well

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > modern

> > > > > > > > texts. I have also developed many softwares on

> astrology. I

> > > am

> > > > > > > mentioning

> > > > > > > > this not to speak high about myself, but just to

> communicate

> > > > > that I

> > > > > > > have at

> > > > > > > > least basic knowledge of mathematical astrology and I

> can

> > > > > > > understand and

> > > > > > > > comprehend what we are discussing here.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The point I wanted to communicate that the benchmark

> you are

> > > > > taking

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > disprove the sarni is not correct. What you are assuming

> > > that

> > > > > > > whatever we

> > > > > > > > will calculate through software/ manually should be

> correct

> > > from

> > > > > > > Lal Kitab

> > > > > > > > perspective and sarni should match that. Why it should

> be

> > > > > required?

> > > > > > > The way

> > > > > > > > we need to validate is to cast the horoscopes using

> both the

> > > > > > > methods and

> > > > > > > > apply Lal Kitab principles. Let us see which chart is

> > > helping

> > > > > us to

> > > > > > > > understand the nativity and based on that we can decide

> > > whether

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > method

> > > > > > > > is correct or not.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Last time I have given example of Rahu and Ketu which

> is a

> > > very

> > > > > > > common

> > > > > > > > example. Let me take another example. The chart is the

> > > > > astronomical

> > > > > > > map of

> > > > > > > > heaven at a given point of time. In other words, the

> chart

> > > is

> > > > > > > position of

> > > > > > > > planets and certain other points at a given moment.

> Now, in

> > > Lal

> > > > > > > Kitab we

> > > > > > > > cast chart using palm which seems totally illogical.

> Isn't

> > > it?

> > > > > Do

> > > > > > > you think

> > > > > > > > that it is logical in the light of mathematical

> astrology?

> > > > > First of

> > > > > > > all, it

> > > > > > > > doesn't match with the planetary positions at the birth

> > > time.

> > > > > Also

> > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > seems no logic to put planet in random houses just

> seeing

> > > some

> > > > > > > symbols on

> > > > > > > > palm? This may be a scientist's view. But we take it as-

> it

> > > is

> > > > > > > because we

> > > > > > > > believe that there is something more than science and

> the

> > > Lal

> > > > > Kitab

> > > > > > > > principles are developed based on this 'something more'.

> > > Again

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > reiterate

> > > > > > > > my point, we can not say that some Lal Kitab principle

> is

> > > > > incorrect

> > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > because it seems illogical or doesn't match with our

> > > existing

> > > > > > > knowledge

> > > > > > > > (scientific/ ration view). If we take scientific/

> rational

> > > > > view, I

> > > > > > > think it

> > > > > > > > is very easy to prove whole Lal Kitab absurd. As a

> matter of

> > > > > fact,

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > astrology itself is not accepted as a science.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I personally want to clarify that I don't use Lal Kitab

> > > sarni

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > tried to validate this method. Like you, it doesn't

> seems

> > > > > logical

> > > > > > > to me :-).

> > > > > > > > Though the point I want to make that this is not enough

> > > reason

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > call it

> > > > > > > > incorrect.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Punit Pandey

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > On 11/11/07, kpmiglani <kpmiglani@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Punit ji,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > What Bhatia ji had written is very much keeping in

> with

> > > what

> > > > > has

> > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > written in the preamble of the Sarini. Any body who

> reads

> > > the

> > > > > > > Sarini

> > > > > > > > > would take those words to mean what Bhatia ji had

> taken

> > > them

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > mean.

> > > > > > > > > Bhatia ji also claims that Pundit ji worked out the

> > > > > horoscopes of

> > > > > > > his

> > > > > > > > > children, born abroad, through the same procedure and

> the

> > > > > > > predictions

> > > > > > > > > have come true.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Although the procedure to work out the Lagna given in

> the

> > > > > sarini

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > not 'Shastra sammat' [according to the scriptures]

> yet we

> > > > > took it

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > be another method because Pt. Rupchand ji is claimed

> to

> > > have

> > > > > told

> > > > > > > > > Bhatia ji that ' he is aware of having violated the

> rules

> > > of

> > > > > > > > > astrology' while preparing this Sarini.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Three of us; me, Varun Trivedi and CP Tyagi worked out

> > > more

> > > > > than a

> > > > > > > > > dozen foreign and Indian births through the procedure

> > > given

> > > > > in the

> > > > > > > > > Sarini and as explained by Bhatia ji in his article.

> The

> > > > > worked

> > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > horoscopes are here in the message archives.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The results were very inaccurate.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Therefore I think we should leave it to Bhatia ji

> whether

> > > he

> > > > > wants

> > > > > > > > > his article to stay as it is or he may want to revise

> it

> > > in

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > light

> > > > > > > > > of our findings. This is a scientific approach where

> an

> > > > > article

> > > > > > > could

> > > > > > > > > be revised in the light of findings that are different

> > > from

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > earlier claims.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > KP Miglani

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >