Bhatia ji on the Lagna sarini/ nirmal ji's calculations

[Guest guest]

Respected Punit ji, perhaps you were too busy too see that a file on

lagn sarani calculations has been loaded by nirmal ji in the files

section where he has given detailed calculations and proved that

calculations based on his method are close to correct calculations

by any software. since you have a deatiled background of

mathematical astrology and also the responsibilty of moderatorship.

may i request u to give a final conclusion because as you will come

to see from nirmal bhardawj's calculations, the method adopted by

bhatia ji and loaded in the files section of this group has been

proved wrong by nirmal's calculations. now that we have a proof that

the forign birth time correction method is wrong, there should be a

statement from ur side. there shouldn't be 2 conradictory methods. u

can keep both in files section for record's sake but it is time u

gave ur conclusion and rst the controversy once and for all.

thanks

kulbir

lalkitab , " 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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Kulbir ji,

 

I guess you have not checked all the email exchange between me and Miglani

ji. Please check those and you will understand my point of view. In a

nutshell, I want to say that mathematical astrology is not the way for

proving lal kitab principles and better we should apply those principles and

check whether those are coming correct or not. We should not drop any method

just because it seems illogical or doesn't match with the software. In fact,

I was watching this thread closely and I am very well aware of the uploaded

file. I appreciate the efforts there but personally I believe that it is not

the right way to prove or disprove any theory.

 

Let me give an example how, in my opinion, we should validate a theory. I

have another forum on KP System

</>where we had a debate on

the foreign travel theory. So we have taken 100 AA

rated charts ad applied the theory on those charts. Based on that we decided

whether the theory is correct or not. Though it may not be much useful to

talk about KP system in this forum, but I am attaching the file to give a

idea how we should take statistical approach which seems more convincing to

me.

 

Thanks & Regards,

 

Punit Pandey

 

 

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

>

> Respected Punit ji, perhaps you were too busy too see that a file on

> lagn sarani calculations has been loaded by nirmal ji in the files

> section where he has given detailed calculations and proved that

> calculations based on his method are close to correct calculations

> by any software. since you have a deatiled background of

> mathematical astrology and also the responsibilty of moderatorship.

> may i request u to give a final conclusion because as you will come

> to see from nirmal bhardawj's calculations, the method adopted by

> bhatia ji and loaded in the files section of this group has been

> proved wrong by nirmal's calculations. now that we have a proof that

> the forign birth time correction method is wrong, there should be a

> statement from ur side. there shouldn't be 2 conradictory methods. u

> can keep both in files section for record's sake but it is time u

> gave ur conclusion and rst the controversy once and for all.

> thanks

> kulbir

> lalkitab <lalkitab%40>, " 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><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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >