Request to Shri Pradeepji: The right way for Vijayadas Pradeep to proceed

[Guest guest]

Dear Vijayadas Pradeep,

 

I have seen your posts on the matter of D-charts for maybe 1-2

years now. I dont see you having gotten significant traction in this

matter, at least on the forums, but perhaps your personal conviction

in the correctness of your theory has grown.

 

I hope you now see what is the right way to proceed. You have

drummed up enough interest from people so that they keep asking you

the same questions over and over again, and you keep giving them the

same tantalizing yet incomplete answers over and over again. It is

now pointless to make claims against the proven scholars in this

field by throwing them the gauntlet to interpret X shloka and Y

shloka.

 

What you need to do is simply follow standard research technique

used in a thousand scientific journals & conferences. I am sure you

understand. You need to collect all your information and ORGANIZE it

into ONE paper. Perhaps you can title it: " Divisional Charts: Myth

or Reality? " . You need the following sections in it:

 

1) First an overall synopsis: What you claim (that divisional charts

are a myth), why you claim it ((a) analysis of scriptures (b)

analysis of several well known charts) and how successful you have

been with your method

2) Introduction - longer version of the synopsis, description of the

rest of the paper

3) Background - very important - References to all you have read

(i.e. how much knowledge are you basing your hypothesis on?), the

ones you consider good and why, the ones you consider wrong and why.

4) Your essential hypothesis

5) Scriptural proof of your hypothesis: Cite every single

controversial shloka you know and how you feel the controversy can

be eliminated by your style of interpretation.

6) Predictive proof of your hypothesis: Dont just take 2 or 3 of

your " pet " charts. Take 10 charts of WELL KNOWN people with WELL

KNOWN LIFE EVENTS with a Rodden AA birthtime (i.e. well accepted

birthtime, not controversial). Preferably these peoples charts have

been multiply analyzed IN PRINT using the techniques you think are

wrong (i.e using D-charts) by the astrologers you think are wrong.

Refer to their explanations, and show how yours are better or

simpler.

7) Conclusion showing the future directions for expanding the reach

of your theory

 

Once this paper is written (you should probably take a month off

from the lists to prepare it), get it reviewed by some people who

are in favor of your theory to polish it up properly. Then, post a

link to it on all the important forums, send it for publication to

the important journals (KNRao's, Sanjay Rath's etc).

 

Then open another forum to discuss it. Of course people may discuss

it on any forum. For all simple questions, refer them to the paper.

For deeper questions, invite them to your forum.

 

This way, you will actually get the attention of a lot of people.

You yourself will either end up really championing the theory or

discarding it (in the process of writing the paper and organizing

your thoughts). People wont endlessly waste bandwidth by asking the

same questions over and over again. There will be real progress.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Sundeep

[Guest guest]

Sundeep,

 

Thats a great suggestion. I disagree that vijaydas has

not much traction on the forums. Infact people have

started questioning the very foundation on which last

25 years of jyotish leterature is based and have

started taking a critical look at even the writings of

past masters. It is coming to light that there are

many unresolved controversies in jyotish and even the

past mastrs had significant disagreements.

 

I hope people with a scientific bend of mind start

thinking critically about what has been written and

advocated in the past. Even Eienstein was proved

wrong. He beleived in static unioverse until he was

shown the evidence of red shift. Ofcourse scientist go

by the evidence and he admitted to the

mistake.Ofcourse he was a scientist and it was

possible.I think it is possible in jyotish as well.

 

Satish

--- vedicastrostudent <vedicastrostudent

wrote:

 

> Dear Vijayadas Pradeep,

>

> I have seen your posts on the matter of D-charts

> for maybe 1-2

> years now. I dont see you having gotten significant

> traction in this

> matter, at least on the forums, but perhaps your

> personal conviction

> in the correctness of your theory has grown.

>

> I hope you now see what is the right way to

> proceed. You have

> drummed up enough interest from people so that they

> keep asking you

> the same questions over and over again, and you keep

> giving them the

> same tantalizing yet incomplete answers over and

> over again. It is

> now pointless to make claims against the proven

> scholars in this

> field by throwing them the gauntlet to interpret X

> shloka and Y

> shloka.

>

> What you need to do is simply follow standard

> research technique

> used in a thousand scientific journals &

> conferences. I am sure you

> understand. You need to collect all your information

> and ORGANIZE it

> into ONE paper. Perhaps you can title it:

> " Divisional Charts: Myth

> or Reality? " . You need the following sections in it:

>

> 1) First an overall synopsis: What you claim (that

> divisional charts

> are a myth), why you claim it ((a) analysis of

> scriptures (b)

> analysis of several well known charts) and how

> successful you have

> been with your method

> 2) Introduction - longer version of the synopsis,

> description of the

> rest of the paper

> 3) Background - very important - References to all

> you have read

> (i.e. how much knowledge are you basing your

> hypothesis on?), the

> ones you consider good and why, the ones you

> consider wrong and why.

> 4) Your essential hypothesis

> 5) Scriptural proof of your hypothesis: Cite every

> single

> controversial shloka you know and how you feel the

> controversy can

> be eliminated by your style of interpretation.

> 6) Predictive proof of your hypothesis: Dont just

> take 2 or 3 of

> your " pet " charts. Take 10 charts of WELL KNOWN

> people with WELL

> KNOWN LIFE EVENTS with a Rodden AA birthtime (i.e.

> well accepted

> birthtime, not controversial). Preferably these

> peoples charts have

> been multiply analyzed IN PRINT using the techniques

> you think are

> wrong (i.e using D-charts) by the astrologers you

> think are wrong.

> Refer to their explanations, and show how yours are

> better or

> simpler.

> 7) Conclusion showing the future directions for

> expanding the reach

> of your theory

>

> Once this paper is written (you should probably take

> a month off

> from the lists to prepare it), get it reviewed by

> some people who

> are in favor of your theory to polish it up

> properly. Then, post a

> link to it on all the important forums, send it for

> publication to

> the important journals (KNRao's, Sanjay Rath's etc).

>

> Then open another forum to discuss it. Of course

> people may discuss

> it on any forum. For all simple questions, refer

> them to the paper.

> For deeper questions, invite them to your forum.

>

> This way, you will actually get the attention of a

> lot of people.

> You yourself will either end up really championing

> the theory or

> discarding it (in the process of writing the paper

> and organizing

> your thoughts). People wont endlessly waste

> bandwidth by asking the

> same questions over and over again. There will be

> real progress.

>

>

> Thank you,

>

> Sundeep

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Building a website is a piece of cake. Small Business gives you all the

tools to get online.

http://smallbusiness./webhosting

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

 

I too agree and appreciate the Heruclean tasks

undertaken by Shri Pradeepji or for that matter

anyone else, to swim against the flow, and try

to reach the Mula (Root),in search for the truth.

this is really admirable quality in him, and we

have no right to discourage him for his

efforts, because none of us are a part of any

such tasks,to unearth the old and ancient texts,

and try to unlock the real hidden meanings

which were actually meant to be conveyed.

We are taking the easy way out by reading the

available commentaries, which may be the

right thing to do, or maybe not, we are not

100% sure. He is actually spending time and

energy in doing what most of us would decline

to do, for sundry reasons.

 

One should remember that the world only notices

when Einstein was able to derive the Formula,

and utter the word 'Eureka'. Till that time,

he may not be listened to or taken seriously by

all. In the same way, I hope Shri Pradeepji would

reach the truth and be able to substantiate the

same and prove it to the world.

That would be a great day, and would be happy to

know him as a Forum coleage, though he is senior.

 

I wish him all the best in his endevaours.

 

Bhaskar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

, SPK <aquaris_rising wrote:

>

> Sundeep,

>

> Thats a great suggestion. I disagree that vijaydas has

> not much traction on the forums. Infact people have

> started questioning the very foundation on which last

> 25 years of jyotish leterature is based and have

> started taking a critical look at even the writings of

> past masters. It is coming to light that there are

> many unresolved controversies in jyotish and even the

> past mastrs had significant disagreements.

>

> I hope people with a scientific bend of mind start

> thinking critically about what has been written and

> advocated in the past. Even Eienstein was proved

> wrong. He beleived in static unioverse until he was

> shown the evidence of red shift. Ofcourse scientist go

> by the evidence and he admitted to the

> mistake.Ofcourse he was a scientist and it was

> possible.I think it is possible in jyotish as well.

>

> Satish

> --- vedicastrostudent <vedicastrostudent

> wrote:

>

> > Dear Vijayadas Pradeep,

> >

> > I have seen your posts on the matter of D-charts

> > for maybe 1-2

> > years now. I dont see you having gotten significant

> > traction in this

> > matter, at least on the forums, but perhaps your

> > personal conviction

> > in the correctness of your theory has grown.

> >

> > I hope you now see what is the right way to

> > proceed. You have

> > drummed up enough interest from people so that they

> > keep asking you

> > the same questions over and over again, and you keep

> > giving them the

> > same tantalizing yet incomplete answers over and

> > over again. It is

> > now pointless to make claims against the proven

> > scholars in this

> > field by throwing them the gauntlet to interpret X

> > shloka and Y

> > shloka.

> >

> > What you need to do is simply follow standard

> > research technique

> > used in a thousand scientific journals &

> > conferences. I am sure you

> > understand. You need to collect all your information

> > and ORGANIZE it

> > into ONE paper. Perhaps you can title it:

> > " Divisional Charts: Myth

> > or Reality? " . You need the following sections in it:

> >

> > 1) First an overall synopsis: What you claim (that

> > divisional charts

> > are a myth), why you claim it ((a) analysis of

> > scriptures (b)

> > analysis of several well known charts) and how

> > successful you have

> > been with your method

> > 2) Introduction - longer version of the synopsis,

> > description of the

> > rest of the paper

> > 3) Background - very important - References to all

> > you have read

> > (i.e. how much knowledge are you basing your

> > hypothesis on?), the

> > ones you consider good and why, the ones you

> > consider wrong and why.

> > 4) Your essential hypothesis

> > 5) Scriptural proof of your hypothesis: Cite every

> > single

> > controversial shloka you know and how you feel the

> > controversy can

> > be eliminated by your style of interpretation.

> > 6) Predictive proof of your hypothesis: Dont just

> > take 2 or 3 of

> > your " pet " charts. Take 10 charts of WELL KNOWN

> > people with WELL

> > KNOWN LIFE EVENTS with a Rodden AA birthtime (i.e.

> > well accepted

> > birthtime, not controversial). Preferably these

> > peoples charts have

> > been multiply analyzed IN PRINT using the techniques

> > you think are

> > wrong (i.e using D-charts) by the astrologers you

> > think are wrong.

> > Refer to their explanations, and show how yours are

> > better or

> > simpler.

> > 7) Conclusion showing the future directions for

> > expanding the reach

> > of your theory

> >

> > Once this paper is written (you should probably take

> > a month off

> > from the lists to prepare it), get it reviewed by

> > some people who

> > are in favor of your theory to polish it up

> > properly. Then, post a

> > link to it on all the important forums, send it for

> > publication to

> > the important journals (KNRao's, Sanjay Rath's etc).

> >

> > Then open another forum to discuss it. Of course

> > people may discuss

> > it on any forum. For all simple questions, refer

> > them to the paper.

> > For deeper questions, invite them to your forum.

> >

> > This way, you will actually get the attention of a

> > lot of people.

> > You yourself will either end up really championing

> > the theory or

> > discarding it (in the process of writing the paper

> > and organizing

> > your thoughts). People wont endlessly waste

> > bandwidth by asking the

> > same questions over and over again. There will be

> > real progress.

> >

> >

> > Thank you,

> >

> > Sundeep

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

______________________________\

____

> Building a website is a piece of cake. Small Business gives

you all the tools to get online.

> http://smallbusiness./webhosting

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sundeepji,

 

This is one of the most helpful mails coming in,

I have seen in recent times, coming as good advise

as love for humanity and hard work,to another fellow

being.

 

I liked all the mail, except one part,(Though

it was mentioned for his good) his going away

for a month. The family always looks good

and complete when all are present in Home.

 

regards,

Bhaskar.

 

 

 

 

, " vedicastrostudent "

<vedicastrostudent wrote:

>

> Dear Vijayadas Pradeep,

>

> I have seen your posts on the matter of D-charts for maybe 1-2

> years now. I dont see you having gotten significant traction in this

> matter, at least on the forums, but perhaps your personal conviction

> in the correctness of your theory has grown.

>

> I hope you now see what is the right way to proceed. You have

> drummed up enough interest from people so that they keep asking you

> the same questions over and over again, and you keep giving them the

> same tantalizing yet incomplete answers over and over again. It is

> now pointless to make claims against the proven scholars in this

> field by throwing them the gauntlet to interpret X shloka and Y

> shloka.

>

> What you need to do is simply follow standard research technique

> used in a thousand scientific journals & conferences. I am sure you

> understand. You need to collect all your information and ORGANIZE it

> into ONE paper. Perhaps you can title it: " Divisional Charts: Myth

> or Reality? " . You need the following sections in it:

>

> 1) First an overall synopsis: What you claim (that divisional charts

> are a myth), why you claim it ((a) analysis of scriptures (b)

> analysis of several well known charts) and how successful you have

> been with your method

> 2) Introduction - longer version of the synopsis, description of the

> rest of the paper

> 3) Background - very important - References to all you have read

> (i.e. how much knowledge are you basing your hypothesis on?), the

> ones you consider good and why, the ones you consider wrong and why.

> 4) Your essential hypothesis

> 5) Scriptural proof of your hypothesis: Cite every single

> controversial shloka you know and how you feel the controversy can

> be eliminated by your style of interpretation.

> 6) Predictive proof of your hypothesis: Dont just take 2 or 3 of

> your " pet " charts. Take 10 charts of WELL KNOWN people with WELL

> KNOWN LIFE EVENTS with a Rodden AA birthtime (i.e. well accepted

> birthtime, not controversial). Preferably these peoples charts have

> been multiply analyzed IN PRINT using the techniques you think are

> wrong (i.e using D-charts) by the astrologers you think are wrong.

> Refer to their explanations, and show how yours are better or

> simpler.

> 7) Conclusion showing the future directions for expanding the reach

> of your theory

>

> Once this paper is written (you should probably take a month off

> from the lists to prepare it), get it reviewed by some people who

> are in favor of your theory to polish it up properly. Then, post a

> link to it on all the important forums, send it for publication to

> the important journals (KNRao's, Sanjay Rath's etc).

>

> Then open another forum to discuss it. Of course people may discuss

> it on any forum. For all simple questions, refer them to the paper.

> For deeper questions, invite them to your forum.

>

> This way, you will actually get the attention of a lot of people.

> You yourself will either end up really championing the theory or

> discarding it (in the process of writing the paper and organizing

> your thoughts). People wont endlessly waste bandwidth by asking the

> same questions over and over again. There will be real progress.

>

>

> Thank you,

>

> Sundeep

>

[Guest guest]

Dear shri Sundeep

 

I can see a scientific mind here.I also take this opportunity to

thank you for the approach you have been having towards discussions.I

have always oserved your neutral position.

 

 

As they(astrologers) say ,there is a time for everything.Today since

morning,i have been having a strong motivation to start a blogspot

specifically for the concerned topic.

 

It is indeed a lucky coincidence,that you have come up with a very

valid advise.

 

To be honest i was bit worried.How many times ,i have to repeat the

same thing over and over again.

 

I consider your opinion as a message from the Lord.A helping

hand.Once shri Sreendh had to leave,Satish ji and myslef have been

trying to answer the questions.

 

I am thankful for your advise and guidance and will try to bring out

the best,with the help of likeminded fellow members.

 

Wishing you the best in life

Pradeep

, " vedicastrostudent "

<vedicastrostudent wrote:

>

> Dear Vijayadas Pradeep,

>

> I have seen your posts on the matter of D-charts for maybe 1-2

> years now. I dont see you having gotten significant traction in

this

> matter, at least on the forums, but perhaps your personal

conviction

> in the correctness of your theory has grown.

>

> I hope you now see what is the right way to proceed. You have

> drummed up enough interest from people so that they keep asking you

> the same questions over and over again, and you keep giving them

the

> same tantalizing yet incomplete answers over and over again. It is

> now pointless to make claims against the proven scholars in this

> field by throwing them the gauntlet to interpret X shloka and Y

> shloka.

>

> What you need to do is simply follow standard research technique

> used in a thousand scientific journals & conferences. I am sure you

> understand. You need to collect all your information and ORGANIZE

it

> into ONE paper. Perhaps you can title it: " Divisional Charts: Myth

> or Reality? " . You need the following sections in it:

>

> 1) First an overall synopsis: What you claim (that divisional

charts

> are a myth), why you claim it ((a) analysis of scriptures (b)

> analysis of several well known charts) and how successful you have

> been with your method

> 2) Introduction - longer version of the synopsis, description of

the

> rest of the paper

> 3) Background - very important - References to all you have read

> (i.e. how much knowledge are you basing your hypothesis on?), the

> ones you consider good and why, the ones you consider wrong and why.

> 4) Your essential hypothesis

> 5) Scriptural proof of your hypothesis: Cite every single

> controversial shloka you know and how you feel the controversy can

> be eliminated by your style of interpretation.

> 6) Predictive proof of your hypothesis: Dont just take 2 or 3 of

> your " pet " charts. Take 10 charts of WELL KNOWN people with WELL

> KNOWN LIFE EVENTS with a Rodden AA birthtime (i.e. well accepted

> birthtime, not controversial). Preferably these peoples charts have

> been multiply analyzed IN PRINT using the techniques you think are

> wrong (i.e using D-charts) by the astrologers you think are wrong.

> Refer to their explanations, and show how yours are better or

> simpler.

> 7) Conclusion showing the future directions for expanding the reach

> of your theory

>

> Once this paper is written (you should probably take a month off

> from the lists to prepare it), get it reviewed by some people who

> are in favor of your theory to polish it up properly. Then, post a

> link to it on all the important forums, send it for publication to

> the important journals (KNRao's, Sanjay Rath's etc).

>

> Then open another forum to discuss it. Of course people may discuss

> it on any forum. For all simple questions, refer them to the paper.

> For deeper questions, invite them to your forum.

>

> This way, you will actually get the attention of a lot of people.

> You yourself will either end up really championing the theory or

> discarding it (in the process of writing the paper and organizing

> your thoughts). People wont endlessly waste bandwidth by asking the

> same questions over and over again. There will be real progress.

>

>

> Thank you,

>

> Sundeep

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Pradeepji,

 

That is a good idea, but do not take many persons help.

and do not go much public, till certain period, because

you would have to spend half time in answering questions

only, then how would you continue your research, or

bring it to a finish, either way ?

 

Today the world is not full of good people, hence i

said, whatever you learn through Your efforts, do not

disclose it, first print a book, and then let the public

know . And the names you took, sorry, but honestly I

say they would create more trouble for you

instead of helping you, and may land you in a tight

spot, because their behaviors, language,

way of approach to queries, manner of replying etc.

are in direct contrast , to your patient and sublime

countenance.

 

regards,

Bhaskar.

 

 

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear shri Sundeep

>

> I can see a scientific mind here.I also take this opportunity to

> thank you for the approach you have been having towards discussions.I

> have always oserved your neutral position.

>

>

> As they(astrologers) say ,there is a time for everything.Today since

> morning,i have been having a strong motivation to start a blogspot

> specifically for the concerned topic.

>

> It is indeed a lucky coincidence,that you have come up with a very

> valid advise.

>

> To be honest i was bit worried.How many times ,i have to repeat the

> same thing over and over again.

>

> I consider your opinion as a message from the Lord.A helping

> hand.Once shri Sreendh had to leave,Satish ji and myslef have been

> trying to answer the questions.

>

> I am thankful for your advise and guidance and will try to bring out

> the best,with the help of likeminded fellow members.

>

> Wishing you the best in life

> Pradeep

> , " vedicastrostudent "

> <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Vijayadas Pradeep,

> >

> > I have seen your posts on the matter of D-charts for maybe 1-2

> > years now. I dont see you having gotten significant traction in

> this

> > matter, at least on the forums, but perhaps your personal

> conviction

> > in the correctness of your theory has grown.

> >

> > I hope you now see what is the right way to proceed. You have

> > drummed up enough interest from people so that they keep asking you

> > the same questions over and over again, and you keep giving them

> the

> > same tantalizing yet incomplete answers over and over again. It is

> > now pointless to make claims against the proven scholars in this

> > field by throwing them the gauntlet to interpret X shloka and Y

> > shloka.

> >

> > What you need to do is simply follow standard research technique

> > used in a thousand scientific journals & conferences. I am sure you

> > understand. You need to collect all your information and ORGANIZE

> it

> > into ONE paper. Perhaps you can title it: " Divisional Charts: Myth

> > or Reality? " . You need the following sections in it:

> >

> > 1) First an overall synopsis: What you claim (that divisional

> charts

> > are a myth), why you claim it ((a) analysis of scriptures (b)

> > analysis of several well known charts) and how successful you have

> > been with your method

> > 2) Introduction - longer version of the synopsis, description of

> the

> > rest of the paper

> > 3) Background - very important - References to all you have read

> > (i.e. how much knowledge are you basing your hypothesis on?), the

> > ones you consider good and why, the ones you consider wrong and why.

> > 4) Your essential hypothesis

> > 5) Scriptural proof of your hypothesis: Cite every single

> > controversial shloka you know and how you feel the controversy can

> > be eliminated by your style of interpretation.

> > 6) Predictive proof of your hypothesis: Dont just take 2 or 3 of

> > your " pet " charts. Take 10 charts of WELL KNOWN people with WELL

> > KNOWN LIFE EVENTS with a Rodden AA birthtime (i.e. well accepted

> > birthtime, not controversial). Preferably these peoples charts have

> > been multiply analyzed IN PRINT using the techniques you think are

> > wrong (i.e using D-charts) by the astrologers you think are wrong.

> > Refer to their explanations, and show how yours are better or

> > simpler.

> > 7) Conclusion showing the future directions for expanding the reach

> > of your theory

> >

> > Once this paper is written (you should probably take a month off

> > from the lists to prepare it), get it reviewed by some people who

> > are in favor of your theory to polish it up properly. Then, post a

> > link to it on all the important forums, send it for publication to

> > the important journals (KNRao's, Sanjay Rath's etc).

> >

> > Then open another forum to discuss it. Of course people may discuss

> > it on any forum. For all simple questions, refer them to the paper.

> > For deeper questions, invite them to your forum.

> >

> > This way, you will actually get the attention of a lot of people.

> > You yourself will either end up really championing the theory or

> > discarding it (in the process of writing the paper and organizing

> > your thoughts). People wont endlessly waste bandwidth by asking the

> > same questions over and over again. There will be real progress.

> >

> >

> > Thank you,

> >

> > Sundeep

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Satish ji

 

Well written.We may collectively try to see if any discrepencies have

crept in.The Big names in todays astrology have done a great job and

their contributions are invaluable.Thus we may inform the group

that ,our approach may not be misundertood as aganist somebody in

person.It is an objective approach.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

 

 

, SPK <aquaris_rising wrote:

>

> Sundeep,

>

> Thats a great suggestion. I disagree that vijaydas has

> not much traction on the forums. Infact people have

> started questioning the very foundation on which last

> 25 years of jyotish leterature is based and have

> started taking a critical look at even the writings of

> past masters. It is coming to light that there are

> many unresolved controversies in jyotish and even the

> past mastrs had significant disagreements.

>

> I hope people with a scientific bend of mind start

> thinking critically about what has been written and

> advocated in the past. Even Eienstein was proved

> wrong. He beleived in static unioverse until he was

> shown the evidence of red shift. Ofcourse scientist go

> by the evidence and he admitted to the

> mistake.Ofcourse he was a scientist and it was

> possible.I think it is possible in jyotish as well.

>

> Satish

> --- vedicastrostudent <vedicastrostudent

> wrote:

>

> > Dear Vijayadas Pradeep,

> >

> > I have seen your posts on the matter of D-charts

> > for maybe 1-2

> > years now. I dont see you having gotten significant

> > traction in this

> > matter, at least on the forums, but perhaps your

> > personal conviction

> > in the correctness of your theory has grown.

> >

> > I hope you now see what is the right way to

> > proceed. You have

> > drummed up enough interest from people so that they

> > keep asking you

> > the same questions over and over again, and you keep

> > giving them the

> > same tantalizing yet incomplete answers over and

> > over again. It is

> > now pointless to make claims against the proven

> > scholars in this

> > field by throwing them the gauntlet to interpret X

> > shloka and Y

> > shloka.

> >

> > What you need to do is simply follow standard

> > research technique

> > used in a thousand scientific journals &

> > conferences. I am sure you

> > understand. You need to collect all your information

> > and ORGANIZE it

> > into ONE paper. Perhaps you can title it:

> > " Divisional Charts: Myth

> > or Reality? " . You need the following sections in it:

> >

> > 1) First an overall synopsis: What you claim (that

> > divisional charts

> > are a myth), why you claim it ((a) analysis of

> > scriptures (b)

> > analysis of several well known charts) and how

> > successful you have

> > been with your method

> > 2) Introduction - longer version of the synopsis,

> > description of the

> > rest of the paper

> > 3) Background - very important - References to all

> > you have read

> > (i.e. how much knowledge are you basing your

> > hypothesis on?), the

> > ones you consider good and why, the ones you

> > consider wrong and why.

> > 4) Your essential hypothesis

> > 5) Scriptural proof of your hypothesis: Cite every

> > single

> > controversial shloka you know and how you feel the

> > controversy can

> > be eliminated by your style of interpretation.

> > 6) Predictive proof of your hypothesis: Dont just

> > take 2 or 3 of

> > your " pet " charts. Take 10 charts of WELL KNOWN

> > people with WELL

> > KNOWN LIFE EVENTS with a Rodden AA birthtime (i.e.

> > well accepted

> > birthtime, not controversial). Preferably these

> > peoples charts have

> > been multiply analyzed IN PRINT using the techniques

> > you think are

> > wrong (i.e using D-charts) by the astrologers you

> > think are wrong.

> > Refer to their explanations, and show how yours are

> > better or

> > simpler.

> > 7) Conclusion showing the future directions for

> > expanding the reach

> > of your theory

> >

> > Once this paper is written (you should probably take

> > a month off

> > from the lists to prepare it), get it reviewed by

> > some people who

> > are in favor of your theory to polish it up

> > properly. Then, post a

> > link to it on all the important forums, send it for

> > publication to

> > the important journals (KNRao's, Sanjay Rath's etc).

> >

> > Then open another forum to discuss it. Of course

> > people may discuss

> > it on any forum. For all simple questions, refer

> > them to the paper.

> > For deeper questions, invite them to your forum.

> >

> > This way, you will actually get the attention of a

> > lot of people.

> > You yourself will either end up really championing

> > the theory or

> > discarding it (in the process of writing the paper

> > and organizing

> > your thoughts). People wont endlessly waste

> > bandwidth by asking the

> > same questions over and over again. There will be

> > real progress.

> >

> >

> > Thank you,

> >

> > Sundeep

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

____________________

______________

> Building a website is a piece of cake. Small Business gives

you all the tools to get online.

> http://smallbusiness./webhosting

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar ji

 

Thanks a lot for the good words in this as well as previous mails.

Also for the good advises.

 

I personally feel Jyotish knowledge is not mine and i may not have

the right to copyright it.Ofcourse a book with publishers point of

view-yes.But as Satish ji has said(Kite and aeroplane) and as my

father has said - there is a difference between the mango which is

beaten to become a fruit,and the one which turns ripe and then a

fruit.Thus i feel i have to learn astrology before, i write a book.

 

But otherwise,if some one else is popularising what we discuss,i am

more than happy as the knowledge is getting publicity and it is not

at all my knowledge.Due to Lords grace and the blessings of many

learned scholars in this group,we are gaining some thing.

 

However we will publish the paper in full and not in pieces as you

have rightly said.

 

It is human to err and sublime to forgive.Thus we all have our own

weaknesses and deficiencies.I am no different.

 

Thanks again for your kind support.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

 

, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish

wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Pradeepji,

>

> That is a good idea, but do not take many persons help.

> and do not go much public, till certain period, because

> you would have to spend half time in answering questions

> only, then how would you continue your research, or

> bring it to a finish, either way ?

>

> Today the world is not full of good people, hence i

> said, whatever you learn through Your efforts, do not

> disclose it, first print a book, and then let the public

> know . And the names you took, sorry, but honestly I

> say they would create more trouble for you

> instead of helping you, and may land you in a tight

> spot, because their behaviors, language,

> way of approach to queries, manner of replying etc.

> are in direct contrast , to your patient and sublime

> countenance.

>

> regards,

> Bhaskar.

>

>

> , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear shri Sundeep

> >

> > I can see a scientific mind here.I also take this opportunity to

> > thank you for the approach you have been having towards

discussions.I

> > have always oserved your neutral position.

> >

> >

> > As they(astrologers) say ,there is a time for everything.Today

since

> > morning,i have been having a strong motivation to start a

blogspot

> > specifically for the concerned topic.

> >

> > It is indeed a lucky coincidence,that you have come up with a

very

> > valid advise.

> >

> > To be honest i was bit worried.How many times ,i have to repeat

the

> > same thing over and over again.

> >

> > I consider your opinion as a message from the Lord.A helping

> > hand.Once shri Sreendh had to leave,Satish ji and myslef have

been

> > trying to answer the questions.

> >

> > I am thankful for your advise and guidance and will try to bring

out

> > the best,with the help of likeminded fellow members.

> >

> > Wishing you the best in life

> > Pradeep

> > , " vedicastrostudent "

> > <vedicastrostudent@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Vijayadas Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I have seen your posts on the matter of D-charts for maybe 1-2

> > > years now. I dont see you having gotten significant traction in

> > this

> > > matter, at least on the forums, but perhaps your personal

> > conviction

> > > in the correctness of your theory has grown.

> > >

> > > I hope you now see what is the right way to proceed. You have

> > > drummed up enough interest from people so that they keep asking

you

> > > the same questions over and over again, and you keep giving

them

> > the

> > > same tantalizing yet incomplete answers over and over again. It

is

> > > now pointless to make claims against the proven scholars in

this

> > > field by throwing them the gauntlet to interpret X shloka and Y

> > > shloka.

> > >

> > > What you need to do is simply follow standard research

technique

> > > used in a thousand scientific journals & conferences. I am sure

you

> > > understand. You need to collect all your information and

ORGANIZE

> > it

> > > into ONE paper. Perhaps you can title it: " Divisional Charts:

Myth

> > > or Reality? " . You need the following sections in it:

> > >

> > > 1) First an overall synopsis: What you claim (that divisional

> > charts

> > > are a myth), why you claim it ((a) analysis of scriptures (b)

> > > analysis of several well known charts) and how successful you

have

> > > been with your method

> > > 2) Introduction - longer version of the synopsis, description

of

> > the

> > > rest of the paper

> > > 3) Background - very important - References to all you have

read

> > > (i.e. how much knowledge are you basing your hypothesis on?),

the

> > > ones you consider good and why, the ones you consider wrong and

why.

> > > 4) Your essential hypothesis

> > > 5) Scriptural proof of your hypothesis: Cite every single

> > > controversial shloka you know and how you feel the controversy

can

> > > be eliminated by your style of interpretation.

> > > 6) Predictive proof of your hypothesis: Dont just take 2 or 3

of

> > > your " pet " charts. Take 10 charts of WELL KNOWN people with

WELL

> > > KNOWN LIFE EVENTS with a Rodden AA birthtime (i.e. well

accepted

> > > birthtime, not controversial). Preferably these peoples charts

have

> > > been multiply analyzed IN PRINT using the techniques you think

are

> > > wrong (i.e using D-charts) by the astrologers you think are

wrong.

> > > Refer to their explanations, and show how yours are better or

> > > simpler.

> > > 7) Conclusion showing the future directions for expanding the

reach

> > > of your theory

> > >

> > > Once this paper is written (you should probably take a month

off

> > > from the lists to prepare it), get it reviewed by some people

who

> > > are in favor of your theory to polish it up properly. Then,

post a

> > > link to it on all the important forums, send it for publication

to

> > > the important journals (KNRao's, Sanjay Rath's etc).

> > >

> > > Then open another forum to discuss it. Of course people may

discuss

> > > it on any forum. For all simple questions, refer them to the

paper.

> > > For deeper questions, invite them to your forum.

> > >

> > > This way, you will actually get the attention of a lot of

people.

> > > You yourself will either end up really championing the theory

or

> > > discarding it (in the process of writing the paper and

organizing

> > > your thoughts). People wont endlessly waste bandwidth by asking

the

> > > same questions over and over again. There will be real progress.

> > >

> > >

> > > Thank you,

> > >

> > > Sundeep

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sundeep,

 

Very well written post.

 

In my personal view - the contention is not thet D9 dispositior must not be seen

in D1 or its relative position from d1 lagna (as even all those people who - use

D charts as seperate one, also use that as one of the method - but not

exclusively) - but the fallacy in using D charts itself; and using combinations

in D charts / aspects / bhava etc in D charts.

 

I presume, like any research - Shri Pradeep must be getting better predicitve

results - that is why he is pursuing this.

 

But I may add as suggestive inclusion in his whitepaper:

 

a. Predictive model must be tested on blind charts - else we may end up fixing

jyotish.

b. If D charts are used as D1 model - then the fallacies there in.

c. How does the model work for other D charts - like D10, d2, d60, d81 etc (as

it is not restricted to D9 - unless he has opinion otherwise).

d. His experiences on both a,b and c above.

 

 

regards / Prafulla Gang

http://www.prafulla.net

 

Diplomacy - n. the patriotic act of lying for one's country / community.

************************************************

 

 

>

> vedicastrostudent

> Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:23:44 -0000

>

> Re: Request to Shri Pradeepji: The right way for

> Vijayadas Pradeep to proceed

>

> Dear Vijayadas Pradeep,

>

> I have seen your posts on the matter of D-charts for maybe 1-2

> years now. I dont see you having gotten significant traction in this

> matter, at least on the forums, but perhaps your personal conviction

> in the correctness of your theory has grown.

>

> I hope you now see what is the right way to proceed. You have

> drummed up enough interest from people so that they keep asking you

> the same questions over and over again, and you keep giving them the

> same tantalizing yet incomplete answers over and over again. It is

> now pointless to make claims against the proven scholars in this

> field by throwing them the gauntlet to interpret X shloka and Y

> shloka.

>

> What you need to do is simply follow standard research technique

> used in a thousand scientific journals & conferences. I am sure you

> understand. You need to collect all your information and ORGANIZE it

> into ONE paper. Perhaps you can title it: " Divisional Charts: Myth

> or Reality? " . You need the following sections in it:

>

> 1) First an overall synopsis: What you claim (that divisional charts

> are a myth), why you claim it ((a) analysis of scriptures (b)

> analysis of several well known charts) and how successful you have

> been with your method

> 2) Introduction - longer version of the synopsis, description of the

> rest of the paper

> 3) Background - very important - References to all you have read

> (i.e. how much knowledge are you basing your hypothesis on?), the

> ones you consider good and why, the ones you consider wrong and why.

> 4) Your essential hypothesis

> 5) Scriptural proof of your hypothesis: Cite every single

> controversial shloka you know and how you feel the controversy can

> be eliminated by your style of interpretation.

> 6) Predictive proof of your hypothesis: Dont just take 2 or 3 of

> your " pet " charts. Take 10 charts of WELL KNOWN people with WELL

> KNOWN LIFE EVENTS with a Rodden AA birthtime (i.e. well accepted

> birthtime, not controversial). Preferably these peoples charts have

> been multiply analyzed IN PRINT using the techniques you think are

> wrong (i.e using D-charts) by the astrologers you think are wrong.

> Refer to their explanations, and show how yours are better or

> simpler.

> 7) Conclusion showing the future directions for expanding the reach

> of your theory

>

> Once this paper is written (you should probably take a month off

> from the lists to prepare it), get it reviewed by some people who

> are in favor of your theory to polish it up properly. Then, post a

> link to it on all the important forums, send it for publication to

> the important journals (KNRao's, Sanjay Rath's etc).

>

> Then open another forum to discuss it. Of course people may discuss

> it on any forum. For all simple questions, refer them to the paper.

> For deeper questions, invite them to your forum.

>

> This way, you will actually get the attention of a lot of people.

> You yourself will either end up really championing the theory or

> discarding it (in the process of writing the paper and organizing

> your thoughts). People wont endlessly waste bandwidth by asking the

> same questions over and over again. There will be real progress.

>

>

> Thank you,

>

> Sundeep