Nakshatras help

pt.sunilnair <pt.sunilnair

, " suniljohn_2002 "

<suniljohn_2002 wrote:

>

> OM Datta Guru

> Dear Ashwini,

> This is an interesting topic and for long i have pursued it without

> getting a clear cut guidance. Shri P.S.Sastri in his book 'Scientific

> Text Book of Astrology' gives us different sizes for each nakshatra,

(If

> i remember well) if we follow that then the nak lordship is being

> changed dramatically at times

>

> Have u or anyone gone deeper in this and found some source

>

> The size of 13.19 can you kindly quote the reference for further

studies

>

> Thanks

>

> Regards

> Sunil John

> Mumbai

>

> , " ashwinikumaras "

> ashwinikumaras@ wrote:

> >

> > , " pranesh_joshi2003 "

> > pranesh_joshi2003@ wrote:

> > >

> > > I am looking for a reference from a classic where it is clearly

> stated

> > > that each nakshatra is of an equal size (13.33 degrees).

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> > >

> > > PJ

> > >

> > I know for two size in rashi for each nakshatras:

> > 1-13.20 degrees, with this size K.N.Rao is agreed.

> > 2-13.19 from another texts

> >

> > regards,

> > ashwini

> >

>

August 31, 2007

OM Datta Guru

Dear Sunil,

1) If we take astronomically vs Phalit then thats not the question here

since first we need to agree if astronomically its different from

13.20 which so far to my knowledge P.S.Sastri has pointed out

2) Whether results i.e Phalit part is in tune with the astronomical

points we would need to decide that next after the first point is

established

3) The problem with current breed of jyotishis is hardly 1% are

astronomers & then the question of good quality astronomers

4) The tatparya of what my questions were if a nakshatra is of 10

degrees instead of 13.20 degrees then if we are taking a planet in say

Moola nakshatras 11 degree its actually not in Moola but in P.Asha and

the results will vary drastically.

> and i even heard astronomicaly rasi may be differrent in lenghth

5) If we presume the nakshatras to form the Rasis then if the

nakshatras are of different length then 'Obviously' the Rasis would be

of different length.

Lets not forget that many seasoned astrologers fail in Simple Exercise

of interpreting results of a planet could this be the reason, i do not

know but speaking aloud what i have posted here before in the past on

this nakshatra duration.

Kind regards

Sunil John

Mumbai

, " sunil nair "

<astro_tellerkerala wrote:

>

> Hare rama krishna,

>

> dear sunil

>

> What we are concenrend is only nakshatras and one nakshatra

may

> be take long time to pass by moon and some may be less as cosmos is

> oval in shape ,but 60 ghatikas(24 hours) is average ,even though 13

> degree 20 min is considered for each nakshatra -which consist of a grp

> of stars and giving a purticular shape and promininetly some 4 or 6

> nakhsatra may be viscible .But we are covering an area of 13 degree

and

> 20 minit of cosmos tru that nakshatra mandala,so 27 nakshatras will

giv

> 360 degress.

>

> And lord ship in considered same for each three nakshatras of 9 groups

>

> like ashwini ,makha ,moola is ketu is lord in vimshottarry scheme .

>

> The poets and epics say moon is travelling tru his wifes quatrers

every

> day and each nakshatra is wife of moon .and rohini is favrite among

them

> <but astronomicaly may be differrent and i am least concerned as it

does

> not come into phala bhaga as jyothish is a predictive sceince and

> astronomy is a physical science .

>

> Imagine rahu and ketu ,astromicaly there is no rahu ketu ,gulika

> ,mandi etc as physical bodies nor viscible or feel and we r using in

> delinating results and crores of planets are there we take only 7

> planets and 27 nakshatras in calculating the results along with 12

rasis

> and i even heard astronomicaly rasi may be differrent in lenghth

>

> regrds sunil nair

>

> om shreem mahalaxmai namah.

>

>

> pt.sunilnair <pt.sunilnair

>

> , " suniljohn_2002 "

> suniljohn_2002@ wrote:

> >

> > OM Datta Guru

> > Dear Ashwini,

> > This is an interesting topic and for long i have pursued it without

> > getting a clear cut guidance. Shri P.S.Sastri in his book

'Scientific

> > Text Book of Astrology' gives us different sizes for each nakshatra,

> (If

> > i remember well) if we follow that then the nak lordship is being

> > changed dramatically at times

> >

> > Have u or anyone gone deeper in this and found some source

> >

> > The size of 13.19 can you kindly quote the reference for further

> studies

> >

> > Thanks

> >

> > Regards

> > Sunil John

> > Mumbai

> >

> > , " ashwinikumaras "

> > ashwinikumaras@ wrote:

> > >

> > > , " pranesh_joshi2003 "

> > > pranesh_joshi2003@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > I am looking for a reference from a classic where it is clearly

> > stated

> > > > that each nakshatra is of an equal size (13.33 degrees).

> > > >

> > > > Thanks,

> > > >

> > > > PJ

> > > >

> > > I know for two size in rashi for each nakshatras:

> > > 1-13.20 degrees, with this size K.N.Rao is agreed.

> > > 2-13.19 from another texts

> > >

> > > regards,

> > > ashwini

> > >

> >

August 31, 2007

Hare ramakrishna,

dear sunil.

The problem of astronomy is handled by sidhnthi jyothishis who r

panchanga makers and i find only differrence is time taken by moon to

transverse one nakshatra ,as the area in space is fixed 13degree 20

minit and its a division of convenence not any purticular reason other

than their anubhava or reserch of rishis .so some nakshatras may 58

ghatikas and some may taken 65 ghatikas moon may take as moon stithi is

nakhsatra ,phala bhaga is unaffected ,only differrence is which

ayanamsa u use (use correct ayanamsa and subsequent rules -if use KP use

KP rules ,nadi nadi rules etc)

I find the tamil panchanga gives a previous nakshatra and lahiri wallas

gives a differrent nakhshatra if the time almost in end part of

nakshatra and now a days the delination for each is not properly

followed ,as tamil panchanga generaly used for nadi purpose also .

So we r as jyothishishis concerned abt results and we cannot go by some

physical scince as nakshatra is a area or mandala which is 13 degree 20

minits -so we cannot go by modern scince -as they may say to day some

planet is planet and otherdays not ,do we hav any logic why rishis given

swa ,moola ,ucha ,neecha kshetras ,astronomicaly what relevence ?Also

for them sani may be a gaseous planet ,is it is so for us ?

so phala bhaga is more what i am concerned and not astronomy .

May be other jyothishis failing is their lack of knowledge in a subjuct

and jyothisha is not simply understanding and digesting a subjuct ,i

find best knowledgeable persons fail in other subjuct also .here

jyothisha is also a scince u need guru s blessing and god s grace ,i

think even if u r a doctor u need all this .

Here i am following time tested and may a parampara of 15000 years

experince which our gurukula tradition has .

regrds sunil nair

om shreem maha laxmai namah.

pt.sunilnair <pt.sunilnair

, " suniljohn_2002 "

<suniljohn_2002 wrote:

>

> OM Datta Guru

> Dear Sunil,

>

> 1) If we take astronomically vs Phalit then thats not the question

here

> since first we need to agree if astronomically its different from

> 13.20 which so far to my knowledge P.S.Sastri has pointed out

>

> 2) Whether results i.e Phalit part is in tune with the astronomical

> points we would need to decide that next after the first point is

> established

>

> 3) The problem with current breed of jyotishis is hardly 1% are

> astronomers & then the question of good quality astronomers

>

> 4) The tatparya of what my questions were if a nakshatra is of 10

> degrees instead of 13.20 degrees then if we are taking a planet in say

> Moola nakshatras 11 degree its actually not in Moola but in P.Asha and

> the results will vary drastically.

>

> > and i even heard astronomicaly rasi may be differrent in lenghth

>

> 5) If we presume the nakshatras to form the Rasis then if the

> nakshatras are of different length then 'Obviously' the Rasis would be

> of different length.

>

> Lets not forget that many seasoned astrologers fail in Simple Exercise

> of interpreting results of a planet could this be the reason, i do not

> know but speaking aloud what i have posted here before in the past on

> this nakshatra duration.

>

> Kind regards

> Sunil John

> Mumbai

>

> , " sunil nair "

> astro_tellerkerala@ wrote:

> >

> > Hare rama krishna,

> >

> > dear sunil

> >

> > What we are concenrend is only nakshatras and one nakshatra

> may

> > be take long time to pass by moon and some may be less as cosmos is

> > oval in shape ,but 60 ghatikas(24 hours) is average ,even though 13

> > degree 20 min is considered for each nakshatra -which consist of a

grp

> > of stars and giving a purticular shape and promininetly some 4 or 6

> > nakhsatra may be viscible .But we are covering an area of 13 degree

> and

> > 20 minit of cosmos tru that nakshatra mandala,so 27 nakshatras will

> giv

> > 360 degress.

> >

> > And lord ship in considered same for each three nakshatras of 9

groups

> >

> > like ashwini ,makha ,moola is ketu is lord in vimshottarry scheme .

> >

> > The poets and epics say moon is travelling tru his wifes quatrers

> every

> > day and each nakshatra is wife of moon .and rohini is favrite among

> them

> > <but astronomicaly may be differrent and i am least concerned as it

> does

> > not come into phala bhaga as jyothish is a predictive sceince and

> > astronomy is a physical science .

> >

> > Imagine rahu and ketu ,astromicaly there is no rahu ketu ,gulika

> > ,mandi etc as physical bodies nor viscible or feel and we r using in

> > delinating results and crores of planets are there we take only 7

> > planets and 27 nakshatras in calculating the results along with 12

> rasis

> > and i even heard astronomicaly rasi may be differrent in lenghth

> >

> > regrds sunil nair

> >

> > om shreem mahalaxmai namah.

> >

> >

> > pt.sunilnair@ <pt.sunilnair@

> >

> > , " suniljohn_2002 "

> > suniljohn_2002@ wrote:

> > >

> > > OM Datta Guru

> > > Dear Ashwini,

> > > This is an interesting topic and for long i have pursued it

without

> > > getting a clear cut guidance. Shri P.S.Sastri in his book

> 'Scientific

> > > Text Book of Astrology' gives us different sizes for each

nakshatra,

> > (If

> > > i remember well) if we follow that then the nak lordship is being

> > > changed dramatically at times

> > >

> > > Have u or anyone gone deeper in this and found some source

> > >

> > > The size of 13.19 can you kindly quote the reference for further

> > studies

> > >

> > > Thanks

> > >

> > > Regards

> > > Sunil John

> > > Mumbai

> > >

> > > , " ashwinikumaras "

> > > ashwinikumaras@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > , " pranesh_joshi2003 "

> > > > pranesh_joshi2003@ wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > I am looking for a reference from a classic where it is

clearly

> > > stated

> > > > > that each nakshatra is of an equal size (13.33 degrees).

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks,

> > > > >

> > > > > PJ

> > > > >

> > > > I know for two size in rashi for each nakshatras:

> > > > 1-13.20 degrees, with this size K.N.Rao is agreed.

> > > > 2-13.19 from another texts

> > > >

> > > > regards,

> > > > ashwini

> > > >

> > >

August 31, 2007

OM Datta Guru

Dear Sunil,

I think topic gets diluted if we deviate from our main point at hand by

bringing in other areas of discussion unless we remain succinct in our

discussion is what i have observed on lists over the years. My reply on

that below :- SJ

, " sunil nair "

<astro_tellerkerala wrote:

>

> Hare ramakrishna,

>

> dear sunil.

>

> The problem of astronomy is handled by sidhnthi jyothishis who r

> panchanga makers and i find only differrence is time taken by moon to

> transverse one nakshatra ,as the area in space is fixed 13degree 20

> minit and its a division of convenence not any purticular reason other

> than their anubhava or reserch of rishis .so some nakshatras may 58

> ghatikas and some may taken 65 ghatikas moon may take as moon stithi

is

> nakhsatra ,phala bhaga is unaffected ,only differrence is which

> ayanamsa u use (use correct ayanamsa and subsequent rules -if use KP

use

> KP rules ,nadi nadi rules etc)

> SJ: My reason for writing was that i have not understood what

P.S.Sastri wrote in his book, n was asking if someone can explain what

he has written otherwise i know such discussions become non conclusive.

i think someone wrote about a source of 13.19 as duration of a nak, i

wait for that reference. Basic phalabhaga Can be from astronomy whether

we add ayanamsa that becomes our way of phalabhaga, as i said only when

we see the difference in phalabhaga minutely between the 2 different

conditions raised in previous mail then we can come to some conclusion

before that its just point of views.

> I find the tamil panchanga gives a previous nakshatra and lahiri

wallas

> gives a differrent nakhshatra if the time almost in end part of

> nakshatra and now a days the delination for each is not properly

> followed ,as tamil panchanga generaly used for nadi purpose also .

>

SJ: I recently experimented with the Vakhya panchang , though i was very

excited about it until i read a point made by B V Raman in his address

to the conference of Panchangas which made me not so sure if our

panchangas are calculated appropriately. But my point in my mail was not

ayanamsa or panchangs as thats secondary from the point of view of

discussion at hand, the first point was the nak duration in sky,

ayanamsa comes much later.

> So we r as jyothishishis concerned abt results and we cannot go by

some

> physical scince as nakshatra is a area or mandala which is 13 degree

20

> minits -so we cannot go by modern scince -as they may say to day some

> planet is planet and otherdays not ,do we hav any logic why rishis

given

> swa ,moola ,ucha ,neecha kshetras ,astronomicaly what relevence ?Also

> for them sani may be a gaseous planet ,is it is so for us ?

> SJ: I am not to sure how the above discussion came into this point

that we were discussing, but since we talk of rishis i always wondered

why they had different views on say a particular point Ven in 12H, Sat

in 7H etc etc. My explanation is observation for why Rishis thought

about ucha etc since they observed that to be so.

Infact if Shani is a gaseous planet thats a great info to know to

predict the results of shani some learned would say. I asked this

question to someone far superior than our known jyotishs and he said to

me and my friend, the answer to this is to read Padma Purana and then

think a lot, answer would come. My two cents if someone wants to go

ahead with padma purana and understand the chapter on creation & then

co-relate it to the gaseous planet or hot lava on Mars , I do not know.

People do not explain full for various reasons which i respect

> so phala bhaga is more what i am concerned and not astronomy .

> SJ: I think the discussion was on astronomy and not phalabhaga,

ofcourse i can be wrong in my assumptions

> May be other jyothishis failing is their lack of knowledge in a

subjuct

> and jyothisha is not simply understanding and digesting a subjuct ,i

> find best knowledgeable persons fail in other subjuct also .here

> jyothisha is also a scince u need guru s blessing and god s grace ,i

> think even if u r a doctor u need all this .

> SJ: Ofcourse we all know the above & has been repeated by all.

> Here i am following time tested and may a parampara of 15000 years

> experince which our gurukula tradition has .

> SJ: I thought Jyotish was beyond 15000 yrs. But I am not too sure of

paramparas as results of what planets would give results 100 back might

be different than what it is giving now. I do not know if all the

shlokas given in BPHS (some 1400 or 3000 yrs back whatever one wants to

date ) are working to the T in todays charts, so i feel we have an

uphill task of not learning from even our modern day Rishis & still

sticking to Parampara of what we know minuscule. As I repeat here i am

yet to meet a parampara astrologer who would be given 100 charts to time

marriage month and he being successful on 100 charts, if 50 still i

would be most impressed.

best wishes

SJ

> regrds sunil nair

>

> om shreem maha laxmai namah.

>

>

> pt.sunilnair <pt.sunilnair

>

, " suniljohn_2002 "

> suniljohn_2002@ wrote:

> >

> > OM Datta Guru

> > Dear Sunil,

> >

> > 1) If we take astronomically vs Phalit then thats not the question

> here

> > since first we need to agree if astronomically its different from

> > 13.20 which so far to my knowledge P.S.Sastri has pointed out

> >

> > 2) Whether results i.e Phalit part is in tune with the astronomical

> > points we would need to decide that next after the first point is

> > established

> >

> > 3) The problem with current breed of jyotishis is hardly 1% are

> > astronomers & then the question of good quality astronomers

> >

> > 4) The tatparya of what my questions were if a nakshatra is of 10

> > degrees instead of 13.20 degrees then if we are taking a planet in

say

> > Moola nakshatras 11 degree its actually not in Moola but in P.Asha

and

> > the results will vary drastically.

> >

> > > and i even heard astronomicaly rasi may be differrent in lenghth

> >

> > 5) If we presume the nakshatras to form the Rasis then if the

> > nakshatras are of different length then 'Obviously' the Rasis would

be

> > of different length.

> >

> > Lets not forget that many seasoned astrologers fail in Simple

Exercise

> > of interpreting results of a planet could this be the reason, i do

not

> > know but speaking aloud what i have posted here before in the past

on

> > this nakshatra duration.

> >

> > Kind regards

> > Sunil John

> > Mumbai

> >

> > , " sunil nair "

> > astro_tellerkerala@ wrote:

> > >

> > > Hare rama krishna,

> > >

> > > dear sunil

> > >

> > > What we are concenrend is only nakshatras and one nakshatra

> > may

> > > be take long time to pass by moon and some may be less as cosmos

is

> > > oval in shape ,but 60 ghatikas(24 hours) is average ,even though

13

> > > degree 20 min is considered for each nakshatra -which consist of a

> grp

> > > of stars and giving a purticular shape and promininetly some 4 or

6

> > > nakhsatra may be viscible .But we are covering an area of 13

degree

> > and

> > > 20 minit of cosmos tru that nakshatra mandala,so 27 nakshatras

will

> > giv

> > > 360 degress.

> > >

> > > And lord ship in considered same for each three nakshatras of 9

> groups

> > >

> > > like ashwini ,makha ,moola is ketu is lord in vimshottarry scheme

..

> > >

> > > The poets and epics say moon is travelling tru his wifes quatrers

> > every

> > > day and each nakshatra is wife of moon .and rohini is favrite

among

> > them

> > > <but astronomicaly may be differrent and i am least concerned as

it

> > does

> > > not come into phala bhaga as jyothish is a predictive sceince and

> > > astronomy is a physical science .

> > >

> > > Imagine rahu and ketu ,astromicaly there is no rahu ketu ,gulika

> > > ,mandi etc as physical bodies nor viscible or feel and we r using

in

> > > delinating results and crores of planets are there we take only 7

> > > planets and 27 nakshatras in calculating the results along with 12

> > rasis

> > > and i even heard astronomicaly rasi may be differrent in lenghth

> > >

> > > regrds sunil nair

> > >

> > > om shreem mahalaxmai namah.

> > >

> > > http://www.indiamart.com/Vedic Astrology/

> > > <http://www.indiamart.com/Vedic Astrology/>

> > >

> > > pt.sunilnair@ <pt.sunilnair@

> > >

> > > , " suniljohn_2002 "

> > > suniljohn_2002@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > OM Datta Guru

> > > > Dear Ashwini,

> > > > This is an interesting topic and for long i have pursued it

> without

> > > > getting a clear cut guidance. Shri P.S.Sastri in his book

> > 'Scientific

> > > > Text Book of Astrology' gives us different sizes for each

> nakshatra,

> > > (If

> > > > i remember well) if we follow that then the nak lordship is

being

> > > > changed dramatically at times

> > > >

> > > > Have u or anyone gone deeper in this and found some source

> > > >

> > > > The size of 13.19 can you kindly quote the reference for further

> > > studies

> > > >

> > > > Thanks

> > > >

> > > > Regards

> > > > Sunil John

> > > > Mumbai

> > > >

> > > > , " ashwinikumaras "

> > > > ashwinikumaras@ wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > , " pranesh_joshi2003 "

> > > > > pranesh_joshi2003@ wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am looking for a reference from a classic where it is

> clearly

> > > > stated

> > > > > > that each nakshatra is of an equal size (13.33 degrees).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > PJ

> > > > > >

> > > > > I know for two size in rashi for each nakshatras:

> > > > > 1-13.20 degrees, with this size K.N.Rao is agreed.

> > > > > 2-13.19 from another texts

> > > > >

> > > > > regards,

> > > > > ashwini

> > > > >

> > > >

August 31, 2007

Hare ramakrishna,

dear sunil ,

No body is diluting the topic .Naksatra is an area in this oval shaped

brhma anda so its a chapa dairghya degree ,not begining or end of any

physical thing >

More than this how i can explain it .The moon movement in that

purticular mathematical area is nakshatra and rishis called in nakshatra

(its an area only )

Now tell me were i am missing and i dont know why u r so purticular

abt astronomical accuracy as rishis called some nakshatra as males ,Now

shud we wait nasa to approve it? Or do we use our anubhava.

regrds sunil nair

om shreem mahalaxmai namah.

pt.sunilnair <pt.sunilnair

, " suniljohn_2002 "

<suniljohn_2002 wrote:

>

> OM Datta Guru

> Dear Sunil,

> I think topic gets diluted if we deviate from our main point at hand

by

> bringing in other areas of discussion unless we remain succinct in our

> discussion is what i have observed on lists over the years. My reply

on

> that below :- SJ

>

> , " sunil nair "

> astro_tellerkerala@ wrote:

> >

> > Hare ramakrishna,

> >

> > dear sunil.

> >

> > The problem of astronomy is handled by sidhnthi jyothishis who r

> > panchanga makers and i find only differrence is time taken by moon

to

> > transverse one nakshatra ,as the area in space is fixed 13degree 20

> > minit and its a division of convenence not any purticular reason

other

> > than their anubhava or reserch of rishis .so some nakshatras may 58

> > ghatikas and some may taken 65 ghatikas moon may take as moon stithi

> is

> > nakhsatra ,phala bhaga is unaffected ,only differrence is which

> > ayanamsa u use (use correct ayanamsa and subsequent rules -if use KP

> use

> > KP rules ,nadi nadi rules etc)

> > SJ: My reason for writing was that i have not understood what

> P.S.Sastri wrote in his book, n was asking if someone can explain what

> he has written otherwise i know such discussions become non

conclusive.

> i think someone wrote about a source of 13.19 as duration of a nak, i

> wait for that reference. Basic phalabhaga Can be from astronomy

whether

> we add ayanamsa that becomes our way of phalabhaga, as i said only

when

> we see the difference in phalabhaga minutely between the 2 different

> conditions raised in previous mail then we can come to some conclusion

> before that its just point of views.

>

> > I find the tamil panchanga gives a previous nakshatra and lahiri

> wallas

> > gives a differrent nakhshatra if the time almost in end part of

> > nakshatra and now a days the delination for each is not properly

> > followed ,as tamil panchanga generaly used for nadi purpose also .

> >

> SJ: I recently experimented with the Vakhya panchang , though i was

very

> excited about it until i read a point made by B V Raman in his address

> to the conference of Panchangas which made me not so sure if our

> panchangas are calculated appropriately. But my point in my mail was

not

> ayanamsa or panchangs as thats secondary from the point of view of

> discussion at hand, the first point was the nak duration in sky,

> ayanamsa comes much later.

>

> > So we r as jyothishishis concerned abt results and we cannot go by

> some

> > physical scince as nakshatra is a area or mandala which is 13 degree

> 20

> > minits -so we cannot go by modern scince -as they may say to day

some

> > planet is planet and otherdays not ,do we hav any logic why rishis

> given

> > swa ,moola ,ucha ,neecha kshetras ,astronomicaly what relevence

?Also

> > for them sani may be a gaseous planet ,is it is so for us ?

> > SJ: I am not to sure how the above discussion came into this point

> that we were discussing, but since we talk of rishis i always wondered

> why they had different views on say a particular point Ven in 12H, Sat

> in 7H etc etc. My explanation is observation for why Rishis thought

> about ucha etc since they observed that to be so.

> Infact if Shani is a gaseous planet thats a great info to know to

> predict the results of shani some learned would say. I asked this

> question to someone far superior than our known jyotishs and he said

to

> me and my friend, the answer to this is to read Padma Purana and then

> think a lot, answer would come. My two cents if someone wants to go

> ahead with padma purana and understand the chapter on creation & then

> co-relate it to the gaseous planet or hot lava on Mars , I do not

know.

> People do not explain full for various reasons which i respect

>

> > so phala bhaga is more what i am concerned and not astronomy .

> > SJ: I think the discussion was on astronomy and not phalabhaga,

> ofcourse i can be wrong in my assumptions

>

> > May be other jyothishis failing is their lack of knowledge in a

> subjuct

> > and jyothisha is not simply understanding and digesting a subjuct ,i

> > find best knowledgeable persons fail in other subjuct also .here

> > jyothisha is also a scince u need guru s blessing and god s grace ,i

> > think even if u r a doctor u need all this .

> > SJ: Ofcourse we all know the above & has been repeated by all.

>

> > Here i am following time tested and may a parampara of 15000 years

> > experince which our gurukula tradition has .

> > SJ: I thought Jyotish was beyond 15000 yrs. But I am not too sure of

> paramparas as results of what planets would give results 100 back

might

> be different than what it is giving now. I do not know if all the

> shlokas given in BPHS (some 1400 or 3000 yrs back whatever one wants

to

> date ) are working to the T in todays charts, so i feel we have an

> uphill task of not learning from even our modern day Rishis & still

> sticking to Parampara of what we know minuscule. As I repeat here i am

> yet to meet a parampara astrologer who would be given 100 charts to

time

> marriage month and he being successful on 100 charts, if 50 still i

> would be most impressed.

>

> best wishes

> SJ

>

> > regrds sunil nair

> >

> > om shreem maha laxmai namah.

> >

> >

> > pt.sunilnair@ <pt.sunilnair@

> >

> > , " suniljohn_2002 "

> > suniljohn_2002@ wrote:

> > >

> > > OM Datta Guru

> > > Dear Sunil,

> > >

> > > 1) If we take astronomically vs Phalit then thats not the question

> > here

> > > since first we need to agree if astronomically its different from

> > > 13.20 which so far to my knowledge P.S.Sastri has pointed out

> > >

> > > 2) Whether results i.e Phalit part is in tune with the

astronomical

> > > points we would need to decide that next after the first point is

> > > established

> > >

> > > 3) The problem with current breed of jyotishis is hardly 1% are

> > > astronomers & then the question of good quality astronomers

> > >

> > > 4) The tatparya of what my questions were if a nakshatra is of 10

> > > degrees instead of 13.20 degrees then if we are taking a planet in

> say

> > > Moola nakshatras 11 degree its actually not in Moola but in P.Asha

> and

> > > the results will vary drastically.

> > >

> > > > and i even heard astronomicaly rasi may be differrent in lenghth

> > >

> > > 5) If we presume the nakshatras to form the Rasis then if the

> > > nakshatras are of different length then 'Obviously' the Rasis

would

> be

> > > of different length.

> > >

> > > Lets not forget that many seasoned astrologers fail in Simple

> Exercise

> > > of interpreting results of a planet could this be the reason, i do

> not

> > > know but speaking aloud what i have posted here before in the past

> on

> > > this nakshatra duration.

> > >

> > > Kind regards

> > > Sunil John

> > > Mumbai

> > >

> > > , " sunil nair "

> > > astro_tellerkerala@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Hare rama krishna,

> > > >

> > > > dear sunil

> > > >

> > > > What we are concenrend is only nakshatras and one nakshatra

> > > may

> > > > be take long time to pass by moon and some may be less as cosmos

> is

> > > > oval in shape ,but 60 ghatikas(24 hours) is average ,even though

> 13

> > > > degree 20 min is considered for each nakshatra -which consist of

a

> > grp

> > > > of stars and giving a purticular shape and promininetly some 4

or

> 6

> > > > nakhsatra may be viscible .But we are covering an area of 13

> degree

> > > and

> > > > 20 minit of cosmos tru that nakshatra mandala,so 27 nakshatras

> will

> > > giv

> > > > 360 degress.

> > > >

> > > > And lord ship in considered same for each three nakshatras of 9

> > groups

> > > >

> > > > like ashwini ,makha ,moola is ketu is lord in vimshottarry

scheme

> .

> > > >

> > > > The poets and epics say moon is travelling tru his wifes

quatrers

> > > every

> > > > day and each nakshatra is wife of moon .and rohini is favrite

> among

> > > them

> > > > <but astronomicaly may be differrent and i am least concerned as

> it

> > > does

> > > > not come into phala bhaga as jyothish is a predictive sceince

and

> > > > astronomy is a physical science .

> > > >

> > > > Imagine rahu and ketu ,astromicaly there is no rahu ketu ,gulika

> > > > ,mandi etc as physical bodies nor viscible or feel and we r

using

> in

> > > > delinating results and crores of planets are there we take only

7

> > > > planets and 27 nakshatras in calculating the results along with

12

> > > rasis

> > > > and i even heard astronomicaly rasi may be differrent in lenghth

> > > >

> > > > regrds sunil nair

> > > >

> > > > om shreem mahalaxmai namah.

> > > >

> > > > http://www.indiamart.com/Vedic Astrology/

> > > > <http://www.indiamart.com/Vedic Astrology/>

> > > >

> > > > pt.sunilnair@ <pt.sunilnair@

> > > >

> > > > , " suniljohn_2002 "

> > > > suniljohn_2002@ wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > OM Datta Guru

> > > > > Dear Ashwini,

> > > > > This is an interesting topic and for long i have pursued it

> > without

> > > > > getting a clear cut guidance. Shri P.S.Sastri in his book

> > > 'Scientific

> > > > > Text Book of Astrology' gives us different sizes for each

> > nakshatra,

> > > > (If

> > > > > i remember well) if we follow that then the nak lordship is

> being

> > > > > changed dramatically at times

> > > > >

> > > > > Have u or anyone gone deeper in this and found some source

> > > > >

> > > > > The size of 13.19 can you kindly quote the reference for

further

> > > > studies

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards

> > > > > Sunil John

> > > > > Mumbai

> > > > >

> > > > > , " ashwinikumaras "

> > > > > ashwinikumaras@ wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , " pranesh_joshi2003 "

> > > > > > pranesh_joshi2003@ wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I am looking for a reference from a classic where it is

> > clearly

> > > > > stated

> > > > > > > that each nakshatra is of an equal size (13.33 degrees).

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > PJ

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > I know for two size in rashi for each nakshatras:

> > > > > > 1-13.20 degrees, with this size K.N.Rao is agreed.

> > > > > > 2-13.19 from another texts

> > > > > >

> > > > > > regards,

> > > > > > ashwini

> > > > > >

> > > > >

August 31, 2007

Om Datta Guru

Dear Sunil,

1) I think we all know that oval shaped brhmanda is no beginging no end

> More than this how i can explain it .The moon movement in that

> purticular mathematical area is nakshatra and rishis called in

nakshatra

> (its an area only )

2) I am confused on the moons movement part that u explain, without moon

also other areas where other planets are there there is a nakshatra

> Now tell me were i am missing and i dont know why u r so purticular

> abt astronomical accuracy as rishis called some nakshatra as males

,Now

> shud we wait nasa to approve it? Or do we use our anubhava.

3) The male or female part is the behavior and thats used in phalit not

in astronomy, my question was related to astronomy I repeat twice now,

if u are calling the astronomical part as male then u must ask NASA its

common sense i think, what i meant by diluting the topic was this part

only of wanting to ask NASA if a nak is male or female ) thats not

discussion but provocation as some may interpret.

This thread looks dead and waste of time unless u or someone can discuss

or rather is capable of discussing what P.S.Sastri wrote in his book

Textbook of Scientific astrology as i could not understand what he was

talking.

best

SJ

, " sunil nair "

<astro_tellerkerala wrote:

>

> Hare ramakrishna,

>

> dear sunil ,

>

> No body is diluting the topic .Naksatra is an area in this oval shaped

> brhma anda so its a chapa dairghya degree ,not begining or end of any

> physical thing >

>

> More than this how i can explain it .The moon movement in that

> purticular mathematical area is nakshatra and rishis called in

nakshatra

> (its an area only )

>

> Now tell me were i am missing and i dont know why u r so purticular

> abt astronomical accuracy as rishis called some nakshatra as males

,Now

> shud we wait nasa to approve it? Or do we use our anubhava.

>

> regrds sunil nair

>

> om shreem mahalaxmai namah.

>

>

> pt.sunilnair <pt.sunilnair

>

> , " suniljohn_2002 "

> suniljohn_2002@ wrote:

> >

> > OM Datta Guru

> > Dear Sunil,

> > I think topic gets diluted if we deviate from our main point at hand

> by

> > bringing in other areas of discussion unless we remain succinct in

our

> > discussion is what i have observed on lists over the years. My reply

> on

> > that below :- SJ

> >

> > , " sunil nair "

> > astro_tellerkerala@ wrote:

> > >

> > > Hare ramakrishna,

> > >

> > > dear sunil.

> > >

> > > The problem of astronomy is handled by sidhnthi jyothishis who r

> > > panchanga makers and i find only differrence is time taken by moon

> to

> > > transverse one nakshatra ,as the area in space is fixed 13degree

20

> > > minit and its a division of convenence not any purticular reason

> other

> > > than their anubhava or reserch of rishis .so some nakshatras may

58

> > > ghatikas and some may taken 65 ghatikas moon may take as moon

stithi

> > is

> > > nakhsatra ,phala bhaga is unaffected ,only differrence is which

> > > ayanamsa u use (use correct ayanamsa and subsequent rules -if use

KP

> > use

> > > KP rules ,nadi nadi rules etc)

> > > SJ: My reason for writing was that i have not understood what

> > P.S.Sastri wrote in his book, n was asking if someone can explain

what

> > he has written otherwise i know such discussions become non

> conclusive.

> > i think someone wrote about a source of 13.19 as duration of a nak,

i

> > wait for that reference. Basic phalabhaga Can be from astronomy

> whether

> > we add ayanamsa that becomes our way of phalabhaga, as i said only

> when

> > we see the difference in phalabhaga minutely between the 2 different

> > conditions raised in previous mail then we can come to some

conclusion

> > before that its just point of views.

> >

> > > I find the tamil panchanga gives a previous nakshatra and lahiri

> > wallas

> > > gives a differrent nakhshatra if the time almost in end part of

> > > nakshatra and now a days the delination for each is not properly

> > > followed ,as tamil panchanga generaly used for nadi purpose also .

> > >

> > SJ: I recently experimented with the Vakhya panchang , though i was

> very

> > excited about it until i read a point made by B V Raman in his

address

> > to the conference of Panchangas which made me not so sure if our

> > panchangas are calculated appropriately. But my point in my mail was

> not

> > ayanamsa or panchangs as thats secondary from the point of view of

> > discussion at hand, the first point was the nak duration in sky,

> > ayanamsa comes much later.

> >

> > > So we r as jyothishishis concerned abt results and we cannot go by

> > some

> > > physical scince as nakshatra is a area or mandala which is 13

degree

> > 20

> > > minits -so we cannot go by modern scince -as they may say to day

> some

> > > planet is planet and otherdays not ,do we hav any logic why rishis

> > given

> > > swa ,moola ,ucha ,neecha kshetras ,astronomicaly what relevence

> ?Also

> > > for them sani may be a gaseous planet ,is it is so for us ?

> > > SJ: I am not to sure how the above discussion came into this point

> > that we were discussing, but since we talk of rishis i always

wondered

> > why they had different views on say a particular point Ven in 12H,

Sat

> > in 7H etc etc. My explanation is observation for why Rishis thought

> > about ucha etc since they observed that to be so.

> > Infact if Shani is a gaseous planet thats a great info to know to

> > predict the results of shani some learned would say. I asked this

> > question to someone far superior than our known jyotishs and he said

> to

> > me and my friend, the answer to this is to read Padma Purana and

then

> > think a lot, answer would come. My two cents if someone wants to go

> > ahead with padma purana and understand the chapter on creation &

then

> > co-relate it to the gaseous planet or hot lava on Mars , I do not

> know.

> > People do not explain full for various reasons which i respect

> >

> > > so phala bhaga is more what i am concerned and not astronomy .

> > > SJ: I think the discussion was on astronomy and not phalabhaga,

> > ofcourse i can be wrong in my assumptions

> >

> > > May be other jyothishis failing is their lack of knowledge in a

> > subjuct

> > > and jyothisha is not simply understanding and digesting a subjuct

,i

> > > find best knowledgeable persons fail in other subjuct also .here

> > > jyothisha is also a scince u need guru s blessing and god s grace

,i

> > > think even if u r a doctor u need all this .

> > > SJ: Ofcourse we all know the above & has been repeated by all.

> >

> > > Here i am following time tested and may a parampara of 15000 years

> > > experince which our gurukula tradition has .

> > > SJ: I thought Jyotish was beyond 15000 yrs. But I am not too sure

of

> > paramparas as results of what planets would give results 100 back

> might

> > be different than what it is giving now. I do not know if all the

> > shlokas given in BPHS (some 1400 or 3000 yrs back whatever one wants

> to

> > date ) are working to the T in todays charts, so i feel we have an

> > uphill task of not learning from even our modern day Rishis & still

> > sticking to Parampara of what we know minuscule. As I repeat here i

am

> > yet to meet a parampara astrologer who would be given 100 charts to

> time

> > marriage month and he being successful on 100 charts, if 50 still i

> > would be most impressed.

> >

> > best wishes

> > SJ

> >

> > > regrds sunil nair

> > >

> > > om shreem maha laxmai namah.

> > >

> > > http://www.indiamart.com/Vedic Astrology/

> > > <http://www.indiamart.com/Vedic Astrology/>

> > >

> > > pt.sunilnair@ <pt.sunilnair@

> > >

> > > , " suniljohn_2002 "

> > > suniljohn_2002@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > OM Datta Guru

> > > > Dear Sunil,

> > > >

> > > > 1) If we take astronomically vs Phalit then thats not the

question

> > > here

> > > > since first we need to agree if astronomically its different

from

> > > > 13.20 which so far to my knowledge P.S.Sastri has pointed out

> > > >

> > > > 2) Whether results i.e Phalit part is in tune with the

> astronomical

> > > > points we would need to decide that next after the first point

is

> > > > established

> > > >

> > > > 3) The problem with current breed of jyotishis is hardly 1% are

> > > > astronomers & then the question of good quality astronomers

> > > >

> > > > 4) The tatparya of what my questions were if a nakshatra is of

10

> > > > degrees instead of 13.20 degrees then if we are taking a planet

in

> > say

> > > > Moola nakshatras 11 degree its actually not in Moola but in

P.Asha

> > and

> > > > the results will vary drastically.

> > > >

> > > > > and i even heard astronomicaly rasi may be differrent in

lenghth

> > > >

> > > > 5) If we presume the nakshatras to form the Rasis then if the

> > > > nakshatras are of different length then 'Obviously' the Rasis

> would

> > be

> > > > of different length.

> > > >

> > > > Lets not forget that many seasoned astrologers fail in Simple

> > Exercise

> > > > of interpreting results of a planet could this be the reason, i

do

> > not

> > > > know but speaking aloud what i have posted here before in the

past

> > on

> > > > this nakshatra duration.

> > > >

> > > > Kind regards

> > > > Sunil John

> > > > Mumbai

> > > >

> > > > , " sunil nair "

> > > > astro_tellerkerala@ wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Hare rama krishna,

> > > > >

> > > > > dear sunil

> > > > >

> > > > > What we are concenrend is only nakshatras and one nakshatra

> > > > may

> > > > > be take long time to pass by moon and some may be less as

cosmos

> > is

> > > > > oval in shape ,but 60 ghatikas(24 hours) is average ,even

though

> > 13

> > > > > degree 20 min is considered for each nakshatra -which consist

of

> a

> > > grp

> > > > > of stars and giving a purticular shape and promininetly some 4

> or

> > 6

> > > > > nakhsatra may be viscible .But we are covering an area of 13

> > degree

> > > > and

> > > > > 20 minit of cosmos tru that nakshatra mandala,so 27 nakshatras

> > will

> > > > giv

> > > > > 360 degress.

> > > > >

> > > > > And lord ship in considered same for each three nakshatras of

9

> > > groups

> > > > >

> > > > > like ashwini ,makha ,moola is ketu is lord in vimshottarry

> scheme

> > .

> > > > >

> > > > > The poets and epics say moon is travelling tru his wifes

> quatrers

> > > > every

> > > > > day and each nakshatra is wife of moon .and rohini is favrite

> > among

> > > > them

> > > > > <but astronomicaly may be differrent and i am least concerned

as

> > it

> > > > does

> > > > > not come into phala bhaga as jyothish is a predictive sceince

> and

> > > > > astronomy is a physical science .

> > > > >

> > > > > Imagine rahu and ketu ,astromicaly there is no rahu ketu

,gulika

> > > > > ,mandi etc as physical bodies nor viscible or feel and we r

> using

> > in

> > > > > delinating results and crores of planets are there we take

only

> 7

> > > > > planets and 27 nakshatras in calculating the results along

with

> 12

> > > > rasis

> > > > > and i even heard astronomicaly rasi may be differrent in

lenghth

> > > > >

> > > > > regrds sunil nair

> > > > >

> > > > > om shreem mahalaxmai namah.

> > > > >

> > > > > http://www.indiamart.com/Vedic Astrology/

> > > > > <http://www.indiamart.com/Vedic Astrology/>

> > > > >

> > > > > pt.sunilnair@ <pt.sunilnair@

> > > > >

> > > > > , " suniljohn_2002 "

> > > > > suniljohn_2002@ wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > OM Datta Guru

> > > > > > Dear Ashwini,

> > > > > > This is an interesting topic and for long i have pursued it

> > > without

> > > > > > getting a clear cut guidance. Shri P.S.Sastri in his book

> > > > 'Scientific

> > > > > > Text Book of Astrology' gives us different sizes for each

> > > nakshatra,

> > > > > (If

> > > > > > i remember well) if we follow that then the nak lordship is

> > being

> > > > > > changed dramatically at times

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Have u or anyone gone deeper in this and found some source

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The size of 13.19 can you kindly quote the reference for

> further

> > > > > studies

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thanks

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regards

> > > > > > Sunil John

> > > > > > Mumbai

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , " ashwinikumaras "

> > > > > > ashwinikumaras@ wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , " pranesh_joshi2003 "

> > > > > > > pranesh_joshi2003@ wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I am looking for a reference from a classic where it is

> > > clearly

> > > > > > stated

> > > > > > > > that each nakshatra is of an equal size (13.33 degrees).

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > PJ

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I know for two size in rashi for each nakshatras:

> > > > > > > 1-13.20 degrees, with this size K.N.Rao is agreed.

> > > > > > > 2-13.19 from another texts

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > regards,

> > > > > > > ashwini

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

August 31, 2007

Hare ramakrishna,

dear sunil .

Moon in purticular area is called nakshatra and other planets also

has to hav sit in some nakshatra area and its is used in phala jyothish

,nadi and evem Kp goes further divide sub lords and sub lords which is

also in nadis .

So moon movement in a purticular area called moola is called moola

nakshatra and if some born in that purticular day while moon

transversing is known take birth in moola janma nakshatra ,and ruler of

its named as ketu and his begining dasa will be calculated as ketu

mahadasa

There no confusion here ,its a mathematical area

I dont know what P S sastry says and his book and i must say so long as

i am concerned abt this very basics ,even if any one come out with any

more confusing theorey ,i dont need to take it as astrology is anubhava

and anumana and phalm as its only a predictive science .

Now u say i am going away from sub juct

Think abt yogini where the details we use other than vimshottary dasa

and y its a dasa of 36 years .

so when i use it i must use it as it is ,otherwise i can always ask why

d-9 for marriage and d-7 for kids like this where as in rasi we see 7th

house for marriage and 5th house for kids,Many of reasoning may be lost

or still hidden in oral traditions and no amount books can supplement it

..

I used NASA means so many signification cannot explained by NASA and why

u r so purticular abt this only .Some context some nakshatras are ugra

some teekshna like this ,each using at purticular time of usage and

occassions.

Because of oval ness of universe moon may take more time or less time

but mathematicaly atleast for bharatheeya astrologers one nakshatra is

13 degree and 20 minits ,nothing less .nothing more .

Only abhijit nakhsatra is calculated differrent way( again not a part

of vimshottarry dasa scheme)

Now i almost explain abt this ,but dont ask me why P S SASTRI write it

as first of all i dont hav that book abd secondly i am not interested to

read it and confuse my mind which happened in earlier period my

jyothisha profession and if he himself cannot prove by his one book then

how u expect me to prove in some mails .

if u like it,pls study it, apply it and come out with ur experince were

we are ready to accept any new theoreys .

Here atleast i am not running away from any discussions ,and if i

mistake i dont hav any problems in admitting it .But what i dont like is

we need approval from NASA and some authorities for a theorey which last

15000 years indians were using where as they started their lesson from

indian astronomy .

Atleast we hav recordical proofs much before their many theoreys .

hope i am not objucting u and u will understand my strictness towards

the subjuct which is primary concern than our frndship

regrds sunil nair

om shreem mahalaxmai namah.

pt.sunilnair <pt.sunilnair

, " suniljohn_2002 "

<suniljohn_2002 wrote:

>

> Om Datta Guru

> Dear Sunil,

>

> 1) I think we all know that oval shaped brhmanda is no beginging no

end

>

> > More than this how i can explain it .The moon movement in that

> > purticular mathematical area is nakshatra and rishis called in

> nakshatra

> > (its an area only )

>

> 2) I am confused on the moons movement part that u explain, without

moon

> also other areas where other planets are there there is a nakshatra

>

> > Now tell me were i am missing and i dont know why u r so purticular

> > abt astronomical accuracy as rishis called some nakshatra as males

> ,Now

> > shud we wait nasa to approve it? Or do we use our anubhava.

> 3) The male or female part is the behavior and thats used in phalit

not

> in astronomy, my question was related to astronomy I repeat twice now,

> if u are calling the astronomical part as male then u must ask NASA

its

> common sense i think, what i meant by diluting the topic was this part

> only of wanting to ask NASA if a nak is male or female ) thats not

> discussion but provocation as some may interpret.

>

> This thread looks dead and waste of time unless u or someone can

discuss

> or rather is capable of discussing what P.S.Sastri wrote in his book

> Textbook of Scientific astrology as i could not understand what he was

> talking.

>

> best

> SJ

>

> , " sunil nair "

> astro_tellerkerala@ wrote:

> >

> > Hare ramakrishna,

> >

> > dear sunil ,

> >

> > No body is diluting the topic .Naksatra is an area in this oval

shaped

> > brhma anda so its a chapa dairghya degree ,not begining or end of

any

> > physical thing >

> >

> > More than this how i can explain it .The moon movement in that

> > purticular mathematical area is nakshatra and rishis called in

> nakshatra

> > (its an area only )

> >

> > Now tell me were i am missing and i dont know why u r so purticular

> > abt astronomical accuracy as rishis called some nakshatra as males

> ,Now

> > shud we wait nasa to approve it? Or do we use our anubhava.

> >

> > regrds sunil nair

> >

> > om shreem mahalaxmai namah.

> >

> >

> > pt.sunilnair@ <pt.sunilnair@

> >

> > , " suniljohn_2002 "

> > suniljohn_2002@ wrote:

> > >

> > > OM Datta Guru

> > > Dear Sunil,

> > > I think topic gets diluted if we deviate from our main point at

hand

> > by

> > > bringing in other areas of discussion unless we remain succinct in

> our

> > > discussion is what i have observed on lists over the years. My

reply

> > on

> > > that below :- SJ

> > >

> > > , " sunil nair "

> > > astro_tellerkerala@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Hare ramakrishna,

> > > >

> > > > dear sunil.

> > > >

> > > > The problem of astronomy is handled by sidhnthi jyothishis who r

> > > > panchanga makers and i find only differrence is time taken by

moon

> > to

> > > > transverse one nakshatra ,as the area in space is fixed 13degree

> 20

> > > > minit and its a division of convenence not any purticular reason

> > other

> > > > than their anubhava or reserch of rishis .so some nakshatras may

> 58

> > > > ghatikas and some may taken 65 ghatikas moon may take as moon

> stithi

> > > is

> > > > nakhsatra ,phala bhaga is unaffected ,only differrence is which

> > > > ayanamsa u use (use correct ayanamsa and subsequent rules -if

use

> KP

> > > use

> > > > KP rules ,nadi nadi rules etc)

> > > > SJ: My reason for writing was that i have not understood what

> > > P.S.Sastri wrote in his book, n was asking if someone can explain

> what

> > > he has written otherwise i know such discussions become non

> > conclusive.

> > > i think someone wrote about a source of 13.19 as duration of a

nak,

> i

> > > wait for that reference. Basic phalabhaga Can be from astronomy

> > whether

> > > we add ayanamsa that becomes our way of phalabhaga, as i said only

> > when

> > > we see the difference in phalabhaga minutely between the 2

different

> > > conditions raised in previous mail then we can come to some

> conclusion

> > > before that its just point of views.

> > >

> > > > I find the tamil panchanga gives a previous nakshatra and lahiri

> > > wallas

> > > > gives a differrent nakhshatra if the time almost in end part of

> > > > nakshatra and now a days the delination for each is not properly

> > > > followed ,as tamil panchanga generaly used for nadi purpose also

..

> > > >

> > > SJ: I recently experimented with the Vakhya panchang , though i

was

> > very

> > > excited about it until i read a point made by B V Raman in his

> address

> > > to the conference of Panchangas which made me not so sure if our

> > > panchangas are calculated appropriately. But my point in my mail

was

> > not

> > > ayanamsa or panchangs as thats secondary from the point of view of

> > > discussion at hand, the first point was the nak duration in sky,

> > > ayanamsa comes much later.

> > >

> > > > So we r as jyothishishis concerned abt results and we cannot go

by

> > > some

> > > > physical scince as nakshatra is a area or mandala which is 13

> degree

> > > 20

> > > > minits -so we cannot go by modern scince -as they may say to day

> > some

> > > > planet is planet and otherdays not ,do we hav any logic why

rishis

> > > given

> > > > swa ,moola ,ucha ,neecha kshetras ,astronomicaly what relevence

> > ?Also

> > > > for them sani may be a gaseous planet ,is it is so for us ?

> > > > SJ: I am not to sure how the above discussion came into this

point

> > > that we were discussing, but since we talk of rishis i always

> wondered

> > > why they had different views on say a particular point Ven in 12H,

> Sat

> > > in 7H etc etc. My explanation is observation for why Rishis

thought

> > > about ucha etc since they observed that to be so.

> > > Infact if Shani is a gaseous planet thats a great info to know to

> > > predict the results of shani some learned would say. I asked this

> > > question to someone far superior than our known jyotishs and he

said

> > to

> > > me and my friend, the answer to this is to read Padma Purana and

> then

> > > think a lot, answer would come. My two cents if someone wants to

go

> > > ahead with padma purana and understand the chapter on creation &

> then

> > > co-relate it to the gaseous planet or hot lava on Mars , I do not

> > know.

> > > People do not explain full for various reasons which i respect

> > >

> > > > so phala bhaga is more what i am concerned and not astronomy .

> > > > SJ: I think the discussion was on astronomy and not phalabhaga,

> > > ofcourse i can be wrong in my assumptions

> > >

> > > > May be other jyothishis failing is their lack of knowledge in a

> > > subjuct

> > > > and jyothisha is not simply understanding and digesting a

subjuct

> ,i

> > > > find best knowledgeable persons fail in other subjuct also .here

> > > > jyothisha is also a scince u need guru s blessing and god s

grace

> ,i

> > > > think even if u r a doctor u need all this .

> > > > SJ: Ofcourse we all know the above & has been repeated by all.

> > >

> > > > Here i am following time tested and may a parampara of 15000

years

> > > > experince which our gurukula tradition has .

> > > > SJ: I thought Jyotish was beyond 15000 yrs. But I am not too

sure

> of

> > > paramparas as results of what planets would give results 100 back

> > might

> > > be different than what it is giving now. I do not know if all the

> > > shlokas given in BPHS (some 1400 or 3000 yrs back whatever one

wants

> > to

> > > date ) are working to the T in todays charts, so i feel we have an

> > > uphill task of not learning from even our modern day Rishis &

still

> > > sticking to Parampara of what we know minuscule. As I repeat here

i

> am

> > > yet to meet a parampara astrologer who would be given 100 charts

to

> > time

> > > marriage month and he being successful on 100 charts, if 50 still

i

> > > would be most impressed.

> > >

> > > best wishes

> > > SJ

> > >

> > > > regrds sunil nair

> > > >

> > > > om shreem maha laxmai namah.

> > > >

> > > > http://www.indiamart.com/Vedic Astrology/

> > > > <http://www.indiamart.com/Vedic Astrology/>

> > > >

> > > > pt.sunilnair@ <pt.sunilnair@

> > > >

> > > > , " suniljohn_2002 "

> > > > suniljohn_2002@ wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > OM Datta Guru

> > > > > Dear Sunil,

> > > > >

> > > > > 1) If we take astronomically vs Phalit then thats not the

> question

> > > > here

> > > > > since first we need to agree if astronomically its different

> from

> > > > > 13.20 which so far to my knowledge P.S.Sastri has pointed out

> > > > >

> > > > > 2) Whether results i.e Phalit part is in tune with the

> > astronomical

> > > > > points we would need to decide that next after the first point

> is

> > > > > established

> > > > >

> > > > > 3) The problem with current breed of jyotishis is hardly 1%

are

> > > > > astronomers & then the question of good quality astronomers

> > > > >

> > > > > 4) The tatparya of what my questions were if a nakshatra is of

> 10

> > > > > degrees instead of 13.20 degrees then if we are taking a

planet

> in

> > > say

> > > > > Moola nakshatras 11 degree its actually not in Moola but in

> P.Asha

> > > and

> > > > > the results will vary drastically.

> > > > >

> > > > > > and i even heard astronomicaly rasi may be differrent in

> lenghth

> > > > >

> > > > > 5) If we presume the nakshatras to form the Rasis then if the

> > > > > nakshatras are of different length then 'Obviously' the Rasis

> > would

> > > be

> > > > > of different length.

> > > > >

> > > > > Lets not forget that many seasoned astrologers fail in Simple

> > > Exercise

> > > > > of interpreting results of a planet could this be the reason,

i

> do

> > > not

> > > > > know but speaking aloud what i have posted here before in the

> past

> > > on

> > > > > this nakshatra duration.

> > > > >

> > > > > Kind regards

> > > > > Sunil John

> > > > > Mumbai

> > > > >

> > > > > , " sunil nair "

> > > > > astro_tellerkerala@ wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Hare rama krishna,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > dear sunil

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What we are concenrend is only nakshatras and one nakshatra

> > > > > may

> > > > > > be take long time to pass by moon and some may be less as

> cosmos

> > > is

> > > > > > oval in shape ,but 60 ghatikas(24 hours) is average ,even

> though

> > > 13

> > > > > > degree 20 min is considered for each nakshatra -which

consist

> of

> > a

> > > > grp

> > > > > > of stars and giving a purticular shape and promininetly some

4

> > or

> > > 6

> > > > > > nakhsatra may be viscible .But we are covering an area of 13

> > > degree

> > > > > and

> > > > > > 20 minit of cosmos tru that nakshatra mandala,so 27

nakshatras

> > > will

> > > > > giv

> > > > > > 360 degress.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And lord ship in considered same for each three nakshatras

of

> 9

> > > > groups

> > > > > >

> > > > > > like ashwini ,makha ,moola is ketu is lord in vimshottarry

> > scheme

> > > .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The poets and epics say moon is travelling tru his wifes

> > quatrers

> > > > > every

> > > > > > day and each nakshatra is wife of moon .and rohini is

favrite

> > > among

> > > > > them

> > > > > > <but astronomicaly may be differrent and i am least

concerned

> as

> > > it

> > > > > does

> > > > > > not come into phala bhaga as jyothish is a predictive

sceince

> > and

> > > > > > astronomy is a physical science .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Imagine rahu and ketu ,astromicaly there is no rahu ketu

> ,gulika

> > > > > > ,mandi etc as physical bodies nor viscible or feel and we r

> > using

> > > in

> > > > > > delinating results and crores of planets are there we take

> only

> > 7

> > > > > > planets and 27 nakshatras in calculating the results along

> with

> > 12

> > > > > rasis

> > > > > > and i even heard astronomicaly rasi may be differrent in

> lenghth

> > > > > >

> > > > > > regrds sunil nair

> > > > > >

> > > > > > om shreem mahalaxmai namah.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > http://www.indiamart.com/Vedic Astrology/

> > > > > > <http://www.indiamart.com/Vedic Astrology/>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > pt.sunilnair@ <pt.sunilnair@

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , " suniljohn_2002 "

> > > > > > suniljohn_2002@ wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > OM Datta Guru

> > > > > > > Dear Ashwini,

> > > > > > > This is an interesting topic and for long i have pursued

it

> > > > without

> > > > > > > getting a clear cut guidance. Shri P.S.Sastri in his book

> > > > > 'Scientific

> > > > > > > Text Book of Astrology' gives us different sizes for each

> > > > nakshatra,

> > > > > > (If

> > > > > > > i remember well) if we follow that then the nak lordship

is

> > > being

> > > > > > > changed dramatically at times

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Have u or anyone gone deeper in this and found some source

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The size of 13.19 can you kindly quote the reference for

> > further

> > > > > > studies

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thanks

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regards

> > > > > > > Sunil John

> > > > > > > Mumbai

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , " ashwinikumaras "

> > > > > > > ashwinikumaras@ wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > , " pranesh_joshi2003 "

> > > > > > > > pranesh_joshi2003@ wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I am looking for a reference from a classic where it

is

> > > > clearly

> > > > > > > stated

> > > > > > > > > that each nakshatra is of an equal size (13.33

degrees).

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > PJ

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I know for two size in rashi for each nakshatras:

> > > > > > > > 1-13.20 degrees, with this size K.N.Rao is agreed.

> > > > > > > > 2-13.19 from another texts

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > regards,

> > > > > > > > ashwini

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

August 31, 2007

, " suniljohn_2002 "

<suniljohn_2002 wrote:

>

> OM Datta Guru

> Dear Ashwini,

> This is an interesting topic and for long i have pursued it without

> getting a clear cut guidance. Shri P.S.Sastri in his book 'Scientific

> Text Book of Astrology' gives us different sizes for each nakshatra, (If

> i remember well) if we follow that then the nak lordship is being

> changed dramatically at times

>

> Have u or anyone gone deeper in this and found some source

>

> The size of 13.19 can you kindly quote the reference for further studies

>

> Thanks

>

> Regards

> Sunil John

> Mumbai

>

> , " ashwinikumaras "

> <ashwinikumaras@> wrote:

> >

> > , " pranesh_joshi2003 "

> > pranesh_joshi2003@ wrote:

> > >

> > > I am looking for a reference from a classic where it is clearly

> stated

> > > that each nakshatra is of an equal size (13.33 degrees).

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> > >

> > > PJ

> > >

> > I know for two size in rashi for each nakshatras:

> > 1-13.20 degrees, with this size K.N.Rao is agreed.

> > 2-13.19 from another texts

> >

> > regards,

> > ashwini

> >

>

August 31, 2007

Dear Pranesh,

13.20 Degrees x 27 = 360 degrees

13.33 Degrees x 27 = 365 .51 degrees

Please use scientific Calculator to calculate above.

But when you mention 13.33 degrees it would

numerologically be wrong. Though .33 means 1/3rd of

any whole Degree which equals to 20 minutes.

When you mention 13.33 degrees it has to be

read as 33 minutes,which is wrong, or else one

should be very clear as to what he means by .33

Anyway, before any Shastric refrence ios presented,

the other side must also be presented which says,

that the Nakshatras are not of equal length.

anyway we are here for healthy discussions therefore,

must mention that the Jyotish Shastra, as mentioned

in the Rigveda , consists of 52 verses, which if one

understands , would be able to get the clear picture

of the Nakshatras and other important aspects of

astronomy as related to astrology.

regards,

Bhaskar.

, " pranesh_joshi2003 "

<pranesh_joshi2003 wrote:

>

> I am looking for a reference from a classic where it is clearly stated

> that each nakshatra is of an equal size (13.33 degrees).

>

> Thanks,

>

> PJ

>

August 31, 2007

OM Datta Guru

Hi Sunil,

Long mail so i read few lines and am responding to it. Pls forgive

What I meant by the meaning of the word succinct is sticking to the

point of discussion at hand & not getting into diverse topics like

Yogini, NASA etc etc but then i can be wrong also

> I dont know what P S sastry says and his book and i must say so long

as

> i am concerned abt this very basics ,even if any one come out with any

> more confusing theorey ,i dont need to take it as astrology is

anubhava

> and anumana and phalm as its only a predictive science .

> Now i almost explain abt this ,but dont ask me why P S SASTRI write

it

> as first of all i dont hav that book abd secondly i am not interested

to

> read it and confuse my mind which happened in earlier period my

> jyothisha profession and if he himself cannot prove by his one book

then

> how u expect me to prove in some mails .

SJ: P S Sastri was a far superior astrologer than anyone on this forum,

maybe one can refer to what KNRao had to say about him in this very

forum which does not mean everything what Sastri said was true or should

be accepted. Nobody is asking anybody to accept, what i was asking if

someone can explain what he wrote as i could not grasp his english which

is not his limitation but mine and i accepted that and hence asked the

concerned member if he can explain i would be most happy to understand

then decide what he wrote is correct or wrong as per my understanding.

If one has not read that book nor is willing to read it or anything with

an open mind, i can only say humbly be my guest but what use is in

jumping on a thread where that question was the base question.If one

cant answer it then why divert with long lectures is what i always think

while replying on threads. Members of this forum did not start astrology

yesterday morning so i avoid basics that is already repeated 1000s of

times in all books.

> Think abt yogini where the details we use other than vimshottary

dasa

> and y its a dasa of 36 years .

SJ: Most use yogini dasa of 36 yrs then the question of whether the

events will be repeated every 36 yrs, V.P.Goel from KNRao school answers

that in his book with a new research which no software gives

unfortunately, i wonder which Rishi sanctioned that research. If one

says that oral tradition is the only thing then why bring Rishis into

discussion model when tradition can give different calculations than

books written by Rishis, then question did Rishis write everything in

their books, did they survive. Then in Yogini dasa there is another

tradition very few know which Late Wing Commander Singh learnt it from a

Sanyasi of UttarKashi where the dasa yrs changes in every chart. He

didnt teach it as he did not find a competent student

But again now i am thinking why did yogini dasa come into this

discussion of nakshatra length or did we dilute the topic

> Because of oval ness of universe moon may take more time or less

time

> but mathematicaly atleast for bharatheeya astrologers one nakshatra is

> 13 degree and 20 minits ,nothing less .nothing more .

SJ: That nothing less nothing more exists in what Sastri said (maybe)

if we try to understand what he said, before we read we cant comment or

rather before we read and understand it. Bharateeya jyotishis says many

things one just needs to travel over india and meet rare good quality

jyotishis to find out that some of them use nak lordship of a nak much

different to what we internet or city astrologers use. Without that

experience everything is bharateeya jyotish. On this Different nak

lordship and even different pada lordship (than what we know) one Mr.

Shandalya from Nagpur has written in 1970s astrological magazine of B V

Raman, once on this article of Shandalya i had interacted with ex-member

of this list Chandrashekhar Sharma if he knew about him as he was from

Nagpur too.

>

> Here atleast i am not running away from any discussions ,and if i

> mistake i dont hav any problems in admitting it .But what i dont like

is

> we need approval from NASA and some authorities for a theorey which

last

> 15000 years indians were using where as they started their lesson from

> indian astronomy .

SJ: Here is my concern with current breed of indians (am indian too lol)

and that is we tend to think after spending few yrs in jyotish that we

know everything what our sages said, what they did 15000 yrs ago, what

technique they used 15000 yrs ago. We tend to display superiority

complex & ego. Alas we do not know head or tail of the most fantastic

predictive thing in Jyotish which is Bhrigu Jyotish, not a single thing

on it that is worthy enough has come out. The dasas and transits in it

are so different then we will question how is Sage Bhrigu following a

different transit than what we are following. Ok Bhrighu is long back

lets come recent, lets take Varahamihira the transit system he used is

codefied in a verse in Brhat Jataka and a member that once Pradeep or

Sriram here mentioned discussed it in this list, thank God people did

not notice then we will think that Varahamihira was mad, the question we

must think is when Mihira or Kalyan Varma said Mer aspecting Sun how is

that possible what Transit rotation they are using is it the normal

transit they are referring. (one of these days i will write on Bhrigu

Jyotish & predicting name)

I prefer running away from discussions which are useless and time

consuming as in that time i can spend time reading on jyotish.

> if u like it,pls study it, apply it and come out with ur experince

were

> we are ready to accept any new theoreys .

SJ: This is not for u Sunil, speaking in general i for one do not

believe that new theories & researches should be shared very openly, i

use the word very since i feel most jyotishis today are Grandfathers of

Parasara, no one wants to learn, everyone wants to teach & become Gurus

unfortunately. Its better to do ones research quietly test it on

hundreds of charts over years and share to one person who is a true

seeker. its more satisfying than sharing it with 'We know everything

Men'

> hope i am not objucting u and u will understand my strictness towards

> the subjuct which is primary concern than our frndship

>

SJ:Ofcourse our friendship is never effected, i do not mind anyones

strictness provided that person has an open mind, i always asked those

hardcore Talibanists of Jyotish, how did KNRao have the guts to go

against the sages and do his research e.g the MB degrees research, the

Chara Dasha research, why did KNR not be strict in his approach of the

fundamentals that Rishis had written, at the end i think who was wiser

the KNRs or the Talibanists of Jyotish, who did greater work the ones

who stuck behind the frocks weaved out of books we do not understand or

the KNR who went beyond the books and created a path for us.

Anyways long mail from me which is too boring I must quit from this

thread as its no use for me, sorry i got to be selfish in Jyotish if i

have to converse my time in understanding it with my limited

intelligence

best

SJ

, " sunil nair "

<astro_tellerkerala wrote:

>

> Hare ramakrishna,

>

> dear sunil .

>

> Moon in purticular area is called nakshatra and other planets

also

> has to hav sit in some nakshatra area and its is used in phala

jyothish

> ,nadi and evem Kp goes further divide sub lords and sub lords which is

> also in nadis .

>

> So moon movement in a purticular area called moola is called moola

> nakshatra and if some born in that purticular day while moon

> transversing is known take birth in moola janma nakshatra ,and ruler

of

> its named as ketu and his begining dasa will be calculated as ketu

> mahadasa

>

> There no confusion here ,its a mathematical area

>

> I dont know what P S sastry says and his book and i must say so long

as

> i am concerned abt this very basics ,even if any one come out with any

> more confusing theorey ,i dont need to take it as astrology is

anubhava

> and anumana and phalm as its only a predictive science .

>

> Now u say i am going away from sub juct

>

> Think abt yogini where the details we use other than vimshottary

dasa

> and y its a dasa of 36 years .

>

> so when i use it i must use it as it is ,otherwise i can always ask

why

> d-9 for marriage and d-7 for kids like this where as in rasi we see

7th

> house for marriage and 5th house for kids,Many of reasoning may be

lost

> or still hidden in oral traditions and no amount books can supplement

it

> .

>

> I used NASA means so many signification cannot explained by NASA and

why

> u r so purticular abt this only .Some context some nakshatras are ugra

> some teekshna like this ,each using at purticular time of usage and

> occassions.

>

> Because of oval ness of universe moon may take more time or less

time

> but mathematicaly atleast for bharatheeya astrologers one nakshatra is

> 13 degree and 20 minits ,nothing less .nothing more .

>

> Only abhijit nakhsatra is calculated differrent way( again not a

part

> of vimshottarry dasa scheme)

>

> Now i almost explain abt this ,but dont ask me why P S SASTRI write

it

> as first of all i dont hav that book abd secondly i am not interested

to

> read it and confuse my mind which happened in earlier period my

> jyothisha profession and if he himself cannot prove by his one book

then

> how u expect me to prove in some mails .

>

> if u like it,pls study it, apply it and come out with ur experince

were

> we are ready to accept any new theoreys .

>

> Here atleast i am not running away from any discussions ,and if i

> mistake i dont hav any problems in admitting it .But what i dont like

is

> we need approval from NASA and some authorities for a theorey which

last

> 15000 years indians were using where as they started their lesson from

> indian astronomy .

>

> Atleast we hav recordical proofs much before their many theoreys .

>

> hope i am not objucting u and u will understand my strictness towards

> the subjuct which is primary concern than our frndship

>

> regrds sunil nair

>

> om shreem mahalaxmai namah.

>

>

> pt.sunilnair <pt.sunilnair

>

> , " suniljohn_2002 "

> suniljohn_2002@ wrote:

> >

> > Om Datta Guru

> > Dear Sunil,

> >

> > 1) I think we all know that oval shaped brhmanda is no beginging no

> end

> >

> > > More than this how i can explain it .The moon movement in that

> > > purticular mathematical area is nakshatra and rishis called in

> > nakshatra

> > > (its an area only )

> >

> > 2) I am confused on the moons movement part that u explain, without

> moon

> > also other areas where other planets are there there is a nakshatra

> >

> > > Now tell me were i am missing and i dont know why u r so

purticular

> > > abt astronomical accuracy as rishis called some nakshatra as males

> > ,Now

> > > shud we wait nasa to approve it? Or do we use our anubhava.

> > 3) The male or female part is the behavior and thats used in phalit

> not

> > in astronomy, my question was related to astronomy I repeat twice

now,

> > if u are calling the astronomical part as male then u must ask NASA

> its

> > common sense i think, what i meant by diluting the topic was this

part

> > only of wanting to ask NASA if a nak is male or female ) thats not

> > discussion but provocation as some may interpret.

> >

> > This thread looks dead and waste of time unless u or someone can

> discuss

> > or rather is capable of discussing what P.S.Sastri wrote in his book

> > Textbook of Scientific astrology as i could not understand what he

was

> > talking.

> >

> > best

> > SJ

> >

> > , " sunil nair "

> > astro_tellerkerala@ wrote:

> > >

> > > Hare ramakrishna,

> > >

> > > dear sunil ,

> > >

> > > No body is diluting the topic .Naksatra is an area in this oval

> shaped

> > > brhma anda so its a chapa dairghya degree ,not begining or end of

> any

> > > physical thing >

> > >

> > > More than this how i can explain it .The moon movement in that

> > > purticular mathematical area is nakshatra and rishis called in

> > nakshatra

> > > (its an area only )

> > >

> > > Now tell me were i am missing and i dont know why u r so

purticular

> > > abt astronomical accuracy as rishis called some nakshatra as males

> > ,Now

> > > shud we wait nasa to approve it? Or do we use our anubhava.

> > >

> > > regrds sunil nair

> > >

> > > om shreem mahalaxmai namah.

> > >

> > > http://www.indiamart.com/Vedic Astrology/

> > > <http://www.indiamart.com/Vedic Astrology/>

> > >

> > > pt.sunilnair@ <pt.sunilnair@

> > >

> > > , " suniljohn_2002 "

> > > suniljohn_2002@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > OM Datta Guru

> > > > Dear Sunil,

> > > > I think topic gets diluted if we deviate from our main point at

> hand

> > > by

> > > > bringing in other areas of discussion unless we remain succinct

in

> > our

> > > > discussion is what i have observed on lists over the years. My

> reply

> > > on

> > > > that below :- SJ

> > > >

> > > > , " sunil nair "

> > > > astro_tellerkerala@ wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Hare ramakrishna,

> > > > >

> > > > > dear sunil.

> > > > >

> > > > > The problem of astronomy is handled by sidhnthi jyothishis who

r

> > > > > panchanga makers and i find only differrence is time taken by

> moon

> > > to

> > > > > transverse one nakshatra ,as the area in space is fixed

13degree

> > 20

> > > > > minit and its a division of convenence not any purticular

reason

> > > other

> > > > > than their anubhava or reserch of rishis .so some nakshatras

may

> > 58

> > > > > ghatikas and some may taken 65 ghatikas moon may take as moon

> > stithi

> > > > is

> > > > > nakhsatra ,phala bhaga is unaffected ,only differrence is

which

> > > > > ayanamsa u use (use correct ayanamsa and subsequent rules -if

> use

> > KP

> > > > use

> > > > > KP rules ,nadi nadi rules etc)

> > > > > SJ: My reason for writing was that i have not understood what

> > > > P.S.Sastri wrote in his book, n was asking if someone can

explain

> > what

> > > > he has written otherwise i know such discussions become non

> > > conclusive.

> > > > i think someone wrote about a source of 13.19 as duration of a

> nak,

> > i

> > > > wait for that reference. Basic phalabhaga Can be from astronomy

> > > whether

> > > > we add ayanamsa that becomes our way of phalabhaga, as i said

only

> > > when

> > > > we see the difference in phalabhaga minutely between the 2

> different

> > > > conditions raised in previous mail then we can come to some

> > conclusion

> > > > before that its just point of views.

> > > >

> > > > > I find the tamil panchanga gives a previous nakshatra and

lahiri

> > > > wallas

> > > > > gives a differrent nakhshatra if the time almost in end part

of

> > > > > nakshatra and now a days the delination for each is not

properly

> > > > > followed ,as tamil panchanga generaly used for nadi purpose

also

> .

> > > > >

> > > > SJ: I recently experimented with the Vakhya panchang , though i

> was

> > > very

> > > > excited about it until i read a point made by B V Raman in his

> > address

> > > > to the conference of Panchangas which made me not so sure if our

> > > > panchangas are calculated appropriately. But my point in my mail

> was

> > > not

> > > > ayanamsa or panchangs as thats secondary from the point of view

of

> > > > discussion at hand, the first point was the nak duration in sky,

> > > > ayanamsa comes much later.

> > > >

> > > > > So we r as jyothishishis concerned abt results and we cannot

go

> by

> > > > some

> > > > > physical scince as nakshatra is a area or mandala which is 13

> > degree

> > > > 20

> > > > > minits -so we cannot go by modern scince -as they may say to

day

> > > some

> > > > > planet is planet and otherdays not ,do we hav any logic why

> rishis

> > > > given

> > > > > swa ,moola ,ucha ,neecha kshetras ,astronomicaly what

relevence

> > > ?Also

> > > > > for them sani may be a gaseous planet ,is it is so for us ?

> > > > > SJ: I am not to sure how the above discussion came into this

> point

> > > > that we were discussing, but since we talk of rishis i always

> > wondered

> > > > why they had different views on say a particular point Ven in

12H,

> > Sat

> > > > in 7H etc etc. My explanation is observation for why Rishis

> thought

> > > > about ucha etc since they observed that to be so.

> > > > Infact if Shani is a gaseous planet thats a great info to know

to

> > > > predict the results of shani some learned would say. I asked

this

> > > > question to someone far superior than our known jyotishs and he

> said

> > > to

> > > > me and my friend, the answer to this is to read Padma Purana and

> > then

> > > > think a lot, answer would come. My two cents if someone wants to

> go

> > > > ahead with padma purana and understand the chapter on creation &

> > then

> > > > co-relate it to the gaseous planet or hot lava on Mars , I do

not

> > > know.

> > > > People do not explain full for various reasons which i respect

> > > >

> > > > > so phala bhaga is more what i am concerned and not astronomy .

> > > > > SJ: I think the discussion was on astronomy and not

phalabhaga,

> > > > ofcourse i can be wrong in my assumptions

> > > >

> > > > > May be other jyothishis failing is their lack of knowledge in

a

> > > > subjuct

> > > > > and jyothisha is not simply understanding and digesting a

> subjuct

> > ,i

> > > > > find best knowledgeable persons fail in other subjuct also

..here

> > > > > jyothisha is also a scince u need guru s blessing and god s

> grace

> > ,i

> > > > > think even if u r a doctor u need all this .

> > > > > SJ: Ofcourse we all know the above & has been repeated by all.

> > > >

> > > > > Here i am following time tested and may a parampara of 15000

> years

> > > > > experince which our gurukula tradition has .

> > > > > SJ: I thought Jyotish was beyond 15000 yrs. But I am not too

> sure

> > of

> > > > paramparas as results of what planets would give results 100

back

> > > might

> > > > be different than what it is giving now. I do not know if all

the

> > > > shlokas given in BPHS (some 1400 or 3000 yrs back whatever one

> wants

> > > to

> > > > date ) are working to the T in todays charts, so i feel we have

an

> > > > uphill task of not learning from even our modern day Rishis &

> still

> > > > sticking to Parampara of what we know minuscule. As I repeat

here

> i

> > am

> > > > yet to meet a parampara astrologer who would be given 100 charts

> to

> > > time

> > > > marriage month and he being successful on 100 charts, if 50

still

> i

> > > > would be most impressed.

> > > >

> > > > best wishes

> > > > SJ

> > > >

> > > > > regrds sunil nair

> > > > >

> > > > > om shreem maha laxmai namah.

> > > > >

> > > > > http://www.indiamart.com/Vedic Astrology/

> > > > > <http://www.indiamart.com/Vedic Astrology/>

> > > > >

> > > > > pt.sunilnair@ <pt.sunilnair@

> > > > >

> > > > > , " suniljohn_2002 "

> > > > > suniljohn_2002@ wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > OM Datta Guru

> > > > > > Dear Sunil,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1) If we take astronomically vs Phalit then thats not the

> > question

> > > > > here

> > > > > > since first we need to agree if astronomically its different

> > from

> > > > > > 13.20 which so far to my knowledge P.S.Sastri has pointed

out

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 2) Whether results i.e Phalit part is in tune with the

> > > astronomical

> > > > > > points we would need to decide that next after the first

point

> > is

> > > > > > established

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 3) The problem with current breed of jyotishis is hardly 1%

> are

> > > > > > astronomers & then the question of good quality astronomers

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 4) The tatparya of what my questions were if a nakshatra is

of

> > 10

> > > > > > degrees instead of 13.20 degrees then if we are taking a

> planet

> > in

> > > > say

> > > > > > Moola nakshatras 11 degree its actually not in Moola but in

> > P.Asha

> > > > and

> > > > > > the results will vary drastically.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > and i even heard astronomicaly rasi may be differrent in

> > lenghth

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 5) If we presume the nakshatras to form the Rasis then if

the

> > > > > > nakshatras are of different length then 'Obviously' the

Rasis

> > > would

> > > > be

> > > > > > of different length.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Lets not forget that many seasoned astrologers fail in

Simple

> > > > Exercise

> > > > > > of interpreting results of a planet could this be the

reason,

> i

> > do

> > > > not

> > > > > > know but speaking aloud what i have posted here before in

the

> > past

> > > > on

> > > > > > this nakshatra duration.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Kind regards

> > > > > > Sunil John

> > > > > > Mumbai

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , " sunil nair "

> > > > > > astro_tellerkerala@ wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Hare rama krishna,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > dear sunil

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What we are concenrend is only nakshatras and one

nakshatra

> > > > > > may

> > > > > > > be take long time to pass by moon and some may be less as

> > cosmos

> > > > is

> > > > > > > oval in shape ,but 60 ghatikas(24 hours) is average ,even

> > though

> > > > 13

> > > > > > > degree 20 min is considered for each nakshatra -which

> consist

> > of

> > > a

> > > > > grp

> > > > > > > of stars and giving a purticular shape and promininetly

some

> 4

> > > or

> > > > 6

> > > > > > > nakhsatra may be viscible .But we are covering an area of

13

> > > > degree

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > 20 minit of cosmos tru that nakshatra mandala,so 27

> nakshatras

> > > > will

> > > > > > giv

> > > > > > > 360 degress.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > And lord ship in considered same for each three nakshatras

> of

> > 9

> > > > > groups

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > like ashwini ,makha ,moola is ketu is lord in vimshottarry

> > > scheme

> > > > .

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The poets and epics say moon is travelling tru his wifes

> > > quatrers

> > > > > > every

> > > > > > > day and each nakshatra is wife of moon .and rohini is

> favrite

> > > > among

> > > > > > them

> > > > > > > <but astronomicaly may be differrent and i am least

> concerned

> > as

> > > > it

> > > > > > does

> > > > > > > not come into phala bhaga as jyothish is a predictive

> sceince

> > > and

> > > > > > > astronomy is a physical science .

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Imagine rahu and ketu ,astromicaly there is no rahu ketu

> > ,gulika

> > > > > > > ,mandi etc as physical bodies nor viscible or feel and we

r

> > > using

> > > > in

> > > > > > > delinating results and crores of planets are there we take

> > only

> > > 7

> > > > > > > planets and 27 nakshatras in calculating the results along

> > with

> > > 12

> > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > and i even heard astronomicaly rasi may be differrent in

> > lenghth

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > regrds sunil nair

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > om shreem mahalaxmai namah.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > http://www.indiamart.com/Vedic Astrology/

> > > > > > > <http://www.indiamart.com/Vedic Astrology/>

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > pt.sunilnair@ <pt.sunilnair@

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , " suniljohn_2002 "

> > > > > > > suniljohn_2002@ wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > OM Datta Guru

> > > > > > > > Dear Ashwini,

> > > > > > > > This is an interesting topic and for long i have pursued

> it

> > > > > without

> > > > > > > > getting a clear cut guidance. Shri P.S.Sastri in his

book

> > > > > > 'Scientific

> > > > > > > > Text Book of Astrology' gives us different sizes for

each

> > > > > nakshatra,

> > > > > > > (If

> > > > > > > > i remember well) if we follow that then the nak lordship

> is

> > > > being

> > > > > > > > changed dramatically at times

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Have u or anyone gone deeper in this and found some

source

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The size of 13.19 can you kindly quote the reference for

> > > further

> > > > > > > studies

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thanks

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regards

> > > > > > > > Sunil John

> > > > > > > > Mumbai

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > , " ashwinikumaras "

> > > > > > > > ashwinikumaras@ wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ,

" pranesh_joshi2003 "

> > > > > > > > > pranesh_joshi2003@ wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I am looking for a reference from a classic where it

> is

> > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > stated

> > > > > > > > > > that each nakshatra is of an equal size (13.33

> degrees).

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > PJ

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I know for two size in rashi for each nakshatras:

> > > > > > > > > 1-13.20 degrees, with this size K.N.Rao is agreed.

> > > > > > > > > 2-13.19 from another texts

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > regards,

> > > > > > > > > ashwini

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

August 31, 2007

Dear Ahwiniji,

I am not having this book quoted by you people, so

would not know what Prof PS Sastriji meant. But

he must be talking about the time of commencement

of Yuga. The vedanga Jyotish followed double

Nakshatra system, that is one Nakshatra for ayanamsha,

and one for the commencement of the Yuga. Anyway

that type of discussion is not easy for us mortals,

so I would stay away from it but 13.20 gives us

the proper results, so would not think of any new

development.

regards,

Bhaskar.

, " ashwinikumaras "

<ashwinikumaras wrote:

> PJ

> > > >

> > > I know for two size in rashi for each nakshatras:

> > > 1-13.20 degrees, with this size K.N.Rao is agreed.

> > > 2-13.19 from another texts

> > >

> > > regards,

> > > ashwini

> > >

>

> , " suniljohn_2002 "

> <suniljohn_2002@> wrote:

> >

> > OM Datta Guru

> > Dear Ashwini,

> > This is an interesting topic and for long i have pursued it without

> > getting a clear cut guidance. Shri P.S.Sastri in his book 'Scientific

> > Text Book of Astrology' gives us different sizes for each

nakshatra, (If

> > i remember well) if we follow that then the nak lordship is being

> > changed dramatically at times

> >

> > Have u or anyone gone deeper in this and found some source

> >

> > The size of 13.19 can you kindly quote the reference for further

studies

> >

> > Thanks

> >

> > Regards

> > Sunil John

> > Mumbai

> >

> > , " ashwinikumaras "

> > <ashwinikumaras@> wrote:

> > >

> > > , " pranesh_joshi2003 "

> > > pranesh_joshi2003@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > I am looking for a reference from a classic where it is clearly

> > stated

> > > > that each nakshatra is of an equal size (13.33 degrees).

> > > >

> > > > Thanks,

> > > >

> > > > PJ

> > > >

> > > I know for two size in rashi for each nakshatras:

> > > 1-13.20 degrees, with this size K.N.Rao is agreed.

> > > 2-13.19 from another texts

> > >

> > > regards,

> > > ashwini

> > >

> >

August 31, 2007

SO WHAT HAS BEEN UNDERSTOOD NOW ?

13.20 or 13.33 are 2 figures which mean the

same thing,if the reader knows what measure

they are expressed in ?

..20 if taken as minutes is right.

..33 if taken as degree measure also means same thing.

(Here the writer must mention that .33 is a part

of 1 Degree if degree is concerned as 1 ).

Conclusion - To avoid unnecessary interpretations, it

is always better to mention 13.20 degrees.

Bhaskar.

, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish

wrote:

>

> Dear Pranesh,

>

> 13.20 Degrees x 27 = 360 degrees

> 13.33 Degrees x 27 = 365 .51 degrees

> Please use scientific Calculator to calculate above.

>

> But when you mention 13.33 degrees it would

> numerologically be wrong. Though .33 means 1/3rd of

> any whole Degree which equals to 20 minutes.

> When you mention 13.33 degrees it has to be

> read as 33 minutes,which is wrong, or else one

> should be very clear as to what he means by .33

>

> Anyway, before any Shastric refrence ios presented,

> the other side must also be presented which says,

> that the Nakshatras are not of equal length.

>

> anyway we are here for healthy discussions therefore,

> must mention that the Jyotish Shastra, as mentioned

> in the Rigveda , consists of 52 verses, which if one

> understands , would be able to get the clear picture

> of the Nakshatras and other important aspects of

> astronomy as related to astrology.

>

> regards,

> Bhaskar.

>

> , " pranesh_joshi2003 "

> <pranesh_joshi2003@> wrote:

> >

> > I am looking for a reference from a classic where it is clearly stated

> > that each nakshatra is of an equal size (13.33 degrees).

> >

> > Thanks,

> >

> > PJ

> >

>

August 31, 2007

Hare rama krishna,

dear sunil .

I do hav open mind to learn ,but the problem is quality of books

availbale in market and problem of contamination of subjuct by various

people ,and i don think i can or any can clean this mess .

Yes in india various 108 systems were using and same system each

school of thought may be using in differrent way .

What i told is -i am not worried abt moons atmospherical climate or

whether its oxygen or hydregen in moon .what i am concerned is its

significations recommended by rishis ,it applied to all discussions

whether nakshatra or anything .

I heard lot abt that man is using differerently and this man is using

differrently .intead of we also trumpetting it ,did we asked him to try

it on 100 charts we may provide .

As far as K N rao or his team is concerned they put their theoreys in

frnt of all astrological communities or a lot of highly educated creamy

reserch students and lacs are testing the result of his resrch and no

vedic rishi will complaint abt it .

And he is never adament that u shud use this way only .

As as talibanism in jyothish concerned --now many are superflous in

knowlwdge and always propound new theorey ,same questions being asked by

many pro and anti ppl of each system .For eg -lal kitab ( again using

example is not running away from subjuct ) i ask then straight away u

prove me on 100 charts and i will blve ,y i waist my valuable time on

some thing unless proved or i should feel its rite .Who in the world

can see and certify all systems .

Brigu reading is superior and we r egerly waiting for your reserch as u

know i also doing some reserch in nadis .

And i find each may approach a subjuct with differrent methds and each

methods instead of contradicting its leading to same results .

But what i mentioned is we r not seeing the physical properites of a

planet or nakshatra or any name mentioned in astronomy we r concerned

the predictiv part means how its giving result in actual life .

Before some months sani is in leo according to astronomy but in cancer

according vedanga jyothish and all our prashna is also showing the

result of sani in cancer only so the prathyakhsa anybhavam is my guru

,were as many who argue who does not go tru this fire like this in

real life like a professional astrologers like me can say anything

..That is the point were my talibanism starts and cannot support any new

theoreys as so long as one gives result why i shud worry abt it .

And tomorrow many may argue that in space crores of planet is there

and we should include each every thing instead of 7 planets (rahu and

ketu ,gulika are simply mathematical points ) so what can i say ?

Atleast i can say our 5 lacs astro writers only a hand few has good

prediction skills and so u know y i rejected some one .

One famous writer and astologer says abt aroodha lagna in dustan (

jaimini astrology)and its results in his books and according to any

calculations i cannot find aroodha lagna in dustana --a very famous one

--do i need to study it also?If ask this forum to vote he will get 100%

vote and i will hav to accept popular verdict as in demo-crazy.

regrds sunil nair .

om shreem mahalaxmai namah/

pt.sunilnair <pt.sunilnair

, " suniljohn_2002 "

<suniljohn_2002 wrote:

>

> OM Datta Guru

>

> Hi Sunil,

> Long mail so i read few lines and am responding to it. Pls forgive

>

> What I meant by the meaning of the word succinct is sticking to the

> point of discussion at hand & not getting into diverse topics like

> Yogini, NASA etc etc but then i can be wrong also

>

> > I dont know what P S sastry says and his book and i must say so long

> as

> > i am concerned abt this very basics ,even if any one come out with

any

> > more confusing theorey ,i dont need to take it as astrology is

> anubhava

> > and anumana and phalm as its only a predictive science .

>

> > Now i almost explain abt this ,but dont ask me why P S SASTRI write

> it

> > as first of all i dont hav that book abd secondly i am not

interested

> to

> > read it and confuse my mind which happened in earlier period my

> > jyothisha profession and if he himself cannot prove by his one book

> then

> > how u expect me to prove in some mails .

>

> SJ: P S Sastri was a far superior astrologer than anyone on this

forum,

> maybe one can refer to what KNRao had to say about him in this very

> forum which does not mean everything what Sastri said was true or

should

> be accepted. Nobody is asking anybody to accept, what i was asking if

> someone can explain what he wrote as i could not grasp his english

which

> is not his limitation but mine and i accepted that and hence asked the

> concerned member if he can explain i would be most happy to understand

> then decide what he wrote is correct or wrong as per my understanding.

> If one has not read that book nor is willing to read it or anything

with

> an open mind, i can only say humbly be my guest but what use is in

> jumping on a thread where that question was the base question.If one

> cant answer it then why divert with long lectures is what i always

think

> while replying on threads. Members of this forum did not start

astrology

> yesterday morning so i avoid basics that is already repeated 1000s of

> times in all books.

>

> > Think abt yogini where the details we use other than vimshottary

> dasa

> > and y its a dasa of 36 years .

>

> SJ: Most use yogini dasa of 36 yrs then the question of whether the

> events will be repeated every 36 yrs, V.P.Goel from KNRao school

answers

> that in his book with a new research which no software gives

> unfortunately, i wonder which Rishi sanctioned that research. If one

> says that oral tradition is the only thing then why bring Rishis into

> discussion model when tradition can give different calculations than

> books written by Rishis, then question did Rishis write everything in

> their books, did they survive. Then in Yogini dasa there is another

> tradition very few know which Late Wing Commander Singh learnt it from

a

> Sanyasi of UttarKashi where the dasa yrs changes in every chart. He

> didnt teach it as he did not find a competent student

>

> But again now i am thinking why did yogini dasa come into this

> discussion of nakshatra length or did we dilute the topic

>

> > Because of oval ness of universe moon may take more time or less

> time

> > but mathematicaly atleast for bharatheeya astrologers one nakshatra

is

> > 13 degree and 20 minits ,nothing less .nothing more .

>

> SJ: That nothing less nothing more exists in what Sastri said (maybe)

> if we try to understand what he said, before we read we cant comment

or

> rather before we read and understand it. Bharateeya jyotishis says

many

> things one just needs to travel over india and meet rare good quality

> jyotishis to find out that some of them use nak lordship of a nak much

> different to what we internet or city astrologers use. Without that

> experience everything is bharateeya jyotish. On this Different nak

> lordship and even different pada lordship (than what we know) one Mr.

> Shandalya from Nagpur has written in 1970s astrological magazine of B

V

> Raman, once on this article of Shandalya i had interacted with

ex-member

> of this list Chandrashekhar Sharma if he knew about him as he was from

> Nagpur too.

>

> >

> > Here atleast i am not running away from any discussions ,and if i

> > mistake i dont hav any problems in admitting it .But what i dont

like

> is

> > we need approval from NASA and some authorities for a theorey which

> last

> > 15000 years indians were using where as they started their lesson

from

> > indian astronomy .

>

> SJ: Here is my concern with current breed of indians (am indian too

lol)

> and that is we tend to think after spending few yrs in jyotish that we

> know everything what our sages said, what they did 15000 yrs ago, what

> technique they used 15000 yrs ago. We tend to display superiority

> complex & ego. Alas we do not know head or tail of the most fantastic

> predictive thing in Jyotish which is Bhrigu Jyotish, not a single

thing

> on it that is worthy enough has come out. The dasas and transits in it

> are so different then we will question how is Sage Bhrigu following a

> different transit than what we are following. Ok Bhrighu is long back

> lets come recent, lets take Varahamihira the transit system he used is

> codefied in a verse in Brhat Jataka and a member that once Pradeep or

> Sriram here mentioned discussed it in this list, thank God people did

> not notice then we will think that Varahamihira was mad, the question

we

> must think is when Mihira or Kalyan Varma said Mer aspecting Sun how

is

> that possible what Transit rotation they are using is it the normal

> transit they are referring. (one of these days i will write on Bhrigu

> Jyotish & predicting name)

>

> I prefer running away from discussions which are useless and time

> consuming as in that time i can spend time reading on jyotish.

>

> > if u like it,pls study it, apply it and come out with ur experince

> were

> > we are ready to accept any new theoreys .

> SJ: This is not for u Sunil, speaking in general i for one do not

> believe that new theories & researches should be shared very openly, i

> use the word very since i feel most jyotishis today are Grandfathers

of

> Parasara, no one wants to learn, everyone wants to teach & become

Gurus

> unfortunately. Its better to do ones research quietly test it on

> hundreds of charts over years and share to one person who is a true

> seeker. its more satisfying than sharing it with 'We know everything

> Men'

>

> > hope i am not objucting u and u will understand my strictness

towards

> > the subjuct which is primary concern than our frndship

> >

> SJ:Ofcourse our friendship is never effected, i do not mind anyones

> strictness provided that person has an open mind, i always asked those

> hardcore Talibanists of Jyotish, how did KNRao have the guts to go

> against the sages and do his research e.g the MB degrees research, the

> Chara Dasha research, why did KNR not be strict in his approach of the

> fundamentals that Rishis had written, at the end i think who was wiser

> the KNRs or the Talibanists of Jyotish, who did greater work the ones

> who stuck behind the frocks weaved out of books we do not understand

or

> the KNR who went beyond the books and created a path for us.

>

> Anyways long mail from me which is too boring I must quit from this

> thread as its no use for me, sorry i got to be selfish in Jyotish if i

> have to converse my time in understanding it with my limited

> intelligence

>

> best

> SJ

>

> , " sunil nair "

> astro_tellerkerala@ wrote:

> >

> > Hare ramakrishna,

> >

> > dear sunil .

> >

> > Moon in purticular area is called nakshatra and other planets

> also

> > has to hav sit in some nakshatra area and its is used in phala

> jyothish

> > ,nadi and evem Kp goes further divide sub lords and sub lords which

is

> > also in nadis .

> >

> > So moon movement in a purticular area called moola is called moola

> > nakshatra and if some born in that purticular day while moon

> > transversing is known take birth in moola janma nakshatra ,and ruler

> of

> > its named as ketu and his begining dasa will be calculated as ketu

> > mahadasa

> >

> > There no confusion here ,its a mathematical area

> >

> > I dont know what P S sastry says and his book and i must say so long

> as

> > i am concerned abt this very basics ,even if any one come out with

any

> > more confusing theorey ,i dont need to take it as astrology is

> anubhava

> > and anumana and phalm as its only a predictive science .

> >

> > Now u say i am going away from sub juct

> >

> > Think abt yogini where the details we use other than vimshottary

> dasa

> > and y its a dasa of 36 years .

> >

> > so when i use it i must use it as it is ,otherwise i can always ask

> why

> > d-9 for marriage and d-7 for kids like this where as in rasi we see

> 7th

> > house for marriage and 5th house for kids,Many of reasoning may be

> lost

> > or still hidden in oral traditions and no amount books can

supplement

> it

> > .

> >

> > I used NASA means so many signification cannot explained by NASA and

> why

> > u r so purticular abt this only .Some context some nakshatras are

ugra

> > some teekshna like this ,each using at purticular time of usage and

> > occassions.

> >

> > Because of oval ness of universe moon may take more time or less

> time

> > but mathematicaly atleast for bharatheeya astrologers one nakshatra

is

> > 13 degree and 20 minits ,nothing less .nothing more .

> >

> > Only abhijit nakhsatra is calculated differrent way( again not a

> part

> > of vimshottarry dasa scheme)

> >

> > Now i almost explain abt this ,but dont ask me why P S SASTRI write

> it

> > as first of all i dont hav that book abd secondly i am not

interested

> to

> > read it and confuse my mind which happened in earlier period my

> > jyothisha profession and if he himself cannot prove by his one book

> then

> > how u expect me to prove in some mails .

> >

> > if u like it,pls study it, apply it and come out with ur experince

> were

> > we are ready to accept any new theoreys .

> >

> > Here atleast i am not running away from any discussions ,and if i

> > mistake i dont hav any problems in admitting it .But what i dont

like

> is

> > we need approval from NASA and some authorities for a theorey which

> last

> > 15000 years indians were using where as they started their lesson

from

> > indian astronomy .

> >

> > Atleast we hav recordical proofs much before their many theoreys .

> >

> > hope i am not objucting u and u will understand my strictness

towards

> > the subjuct which is primary concern than our frndship

> >

> > regrds sunil nair

> >

> > om shreem mahalaxmai namah.

> >

> >

> > pt.sunilnair@ <pt.sunilnair@

> >

> > , " suniljohn_2002 "

> > suniljohn_2002@ wrote:

> > >

> > > Om Datta Guru

> > > Dear Sunil,

> > >

> > > 1) I think we all know that oval shaped brhmanda is no beginging

no

> > end

> > >

> > > > More than this how i can explain it .The moon movement in that

> > > > purticular mathematical area is nakshatra and rishis called in

> > > nakshatra

> > > > (its an area only )

> > >

> > > 2) I am confused on the moons movement part that u explain,

without

> > moon

> > > also other areas where other planets are there there is a

nakshatra

> > >

> > > > Now tell me were i am missing and i dont know why u r so

> purticular

> > > > abt astronomical accuracy as rishis called some nakshatra as

males

> > > ,Now

> > > > shud we wait nasa to approve it? Or do we use our anubhava.

> > > 3) The male or female part is the behavior and thats used in

phalit

> > not

> > > in astronomy, my question was related to astronomy I repeat twice

> now,

> > > if u are calling the astronomical part as male then u must ask

NASA

> > its

> > > common sense i think, what i meant by diluting the topic was this

> part

> > > only of wanting to ask NASA if a nak is male or female ) thats

not

> > > discussion but provocation as some may interpret.

> > >

> > > This thread looks dead and waste of time unless u or someone can

> > discuss

> > > or rather is capable of discussing what P.S.Sastri wrote in his

book

> > > Textbook of Scientific astrology as i could not understand what he

> was

> > > talking.

> > >

> > > best

> > > SJ

> > >

> > > , " sunil nair "

> > > astro_tellerkerala@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Hare ramakrishna,

> > > >

> > > > dear sunil ,

> > > >

> > > > No body is diluting the topic .Naksatra is an area in this oval

> > shaped

> > > > brhma anda so its a chapa dairghya degree ,not begining or end

of

> > any

> > > > physical thing >

> > > >

> > > > More than this how i can explain it .The moon movement in that

> > > > purticular mathematical area is nakshatra and rishis called in

> > > nakshatra

> > > > (its an area only )

> > > >

> > > > Now tell me were i am missing and i dont know why u r so

> purticular

> > > > abt astronomical accuracy as rishis called some nakshatra as

males

> > > ,Now

> > > > shud we wait nasa to approve it? Or do we use our anubhava.

> > > >

> > > > regrds sunil nair

> > > >

> > > > om shreem mahalaxmai namah.

> > > >

> > > > http://www.indiamart.com/Vedic Astrology/

> > > > <http://www.indiamart.com/Vedic Astrology/>

> > > >

> > > > pt.sunilnair@ <pt.sunilnair@

> > > >

> > > > , " suniljohn_2002 "

> > > > suniljohn_2002@ wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > OM Datta Guru

> > > > > Dear Sunil,

> > > > > I think topic gets diluted if we deviate from our main point

at

> > hand

> > > > by

> > > > > bringing in other areas of discussion unless we remain

succinct

> in

> > > our

> > > > > discussion is what i have observed on lists over the years. My

> > reply

> > > > on

> > > > > that below :- SJ

> > > > >

> > > > > , " sunil nair "

> > > > > astro_tellerkerala@ wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Hare ramakrishna,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > dear sunil.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The problem of astronomy is handled by sidhnthi jyothishis

who

> r

> > > > > > panchanga makers and i find only differrence is time taken

by

> > moon

> > > > to

> > > > > > transverse one nakshatra ,as the area in space is fixed

> 13degree

> > > 20

> > > > > > minit and its a division of convenence not any purticular

> reason

> > > > other

> > > > > > than their anubhava or reserch of rishis .so some nakshatras

> may

> > > 58

> > > > > > ghatikas and some may taken 65 ghatikas moon may take as

moon

> > > stithi

> > > > > is

> > > > > > nakhsatra ,phala bhaga is unaffected ,only differrence is

> which

> > > > > > ayanamsa u use (use correct ayanamsa and subsequent rules

-if

> > use

> > > KP

> > > > > use

> > > > > > KP rules ,nadi nadi rules etc)

> > > > > > SJ: My reason for writing was that i have not understood

what

> > > > > P.S.Sastri wrote in his book, n was asking if someone can

> explain

> > > what

> > > > > he has written otherwise i know such discussions become non

> > > > conclusive.

> > > > > i think someone wrote about a source of 13.19 as duration of a

> > nak,

> > > i

> > > > > wait for that reference. Basic phalabhaga Can be from

astronomy

> > > > whether

> > > > > we add ayanamsa that becomes our way of phalabhaga, as i said

> only

> > > > when

> > > > > we see the difference in phalabhaga minutely between the 2

> > different

> > > > > conditions raised in previous mail then we can come to some

> > > conclusion

> > > > > before that its just point of views.

> > > > >

> > > > > > I find the tamil panchanga gives a previous nakshatra and

> lahiri

> > > > > wallas

> > > > > > gives a differrent nakhshatra if the time almost in end part

> of

> > > > > > nakshatra and now a days the delination for each is not

> properly

> > > > > > followed ,as tamil panchanga generaly used for nadi purpose

> also

> > .

> > > > > >

> > > > > SJ: I recently experimented with the Vakhya panchang , though

i

> > was

> > > > very

> > > > > excited about it until i read a point made by B V Raman in his

> > > address

> > > > > to the conference of Panchangas which made me not so sure if

our

> > > > > panchangas are calculated appropriately. But my point in my

mail

> > was

> > > > not

> > > > > ayanamsa or panchangs as thats secondary from the point of

view

> of

> > > > > discussion at hand, the first point was the nak duration in

sky,

> > > > > ayanamsa comes much later.

> > > > >

> > > > > > So we r as jyothishishis concerned abt results and we cannot

> go

> > by

> > > > > some

> > > > > > physical scince as nakshatra is a area or mandala which is

13

> > > degree

> > > > > 20

> > > > > > minits -so we cannot go by modern scince -as they may say to

> day

> > > > some

> > > > > > planet is planet and otherdays not ,do we hav any logic why

> > rishis

> > > > > given

> > > > > > swa ,moola ,ucha ,neecha kshetras ,astronomicaly what

> relevence

> > > > ?Also

> > > > > > for them sani may be a gaseous planet ,is it is so for us ?

> > > > > > SJ: I am not to sure how the above discussion came into this

> > point

> > > > > that we were discussing, but since we talk of rishis i always

> > > wondered

> > > > > why they had different views on say a particular point Ven in

> 12H,

> > > Sat

> > > > > in 7H etc etc. My explanation is observation for why Rishis

> > thought

> > > > > about ucha etc since they observed that to be so.

> > > > > Infact if Shani is a gaseous planet thats a great info to know

> to

> > > > > predict the results of shani some learned would say. I asked

> this

> > > > > question to someone far superior than our known jyotishs and

he

> > said

> > > > to

> > > > > me and my friend, the answer to this is to read Padma Purana

and

> > > then

> > > > > think a lot, answer would come. My two cents if someone wants

to

> > go

> > > > > ahead with padma purana and understand the chapter on creation

&

> > > then

> > > > > co-relate it to the gaseous planet or hot lava on Mars , I do

> not

> > > > know.

> > > > > People do not explain full for various reasons which i respect

> > > > >

> > > > > > so phala bhaga is more what i am concerned and not astronomy

..

> > > > > > SJ: I think the discussion was on astronomy and not

> phalabhaga,

> > > > > ofcourse i can be wrong in my assumptions

> > > > >

> > > > > > May be other jyothishis failing is their lack of knowledge

in

> a

> > > > > subjuct

> > > > > > and jyothisha is not simply understanding and digesting a

> > subjuct

> > > ,i

> > > > > > find best knowledgeable persons fail in other subjuct also

> .here

> > > > > > jyothisha is also a scince u need guru s blessing and god s

> > grace

> > > ,i

> > > > > > think even if u r a doctor u need all this .

> > > > > > SJ: Ofcourse we all know the above & has been repeated by

all.

> > > > >

> > > > > > Here i am following time tested and may a parampara of 15000

> > years

> > > > > > experince which our gurukula tradition has .

> > > > > > SJ: I thought Jyotish was beyond 15000 yrs. But I am not too

> > sure

> > > of

> > > > > paramparas as results of what planets would give results 100

> back

> > > > might

> > > > > be different than what it is giving now. I do not know if all

> the

> > > > > shlokas given in BPHS (some 1400 or 3000 yrs back whatever one

> > wants

> > > > to

> > > > > date ) are working to the T in todays charts, so i feel we

have

> an

> > > > > uphill task of not learning from even our modern day Rishis &

> > still

> > > > > sticking to Parampara of what we know minuscule. As I repeat

> here

> > i

> > > am

> > > > > yet to meet a parampara astrologer who would be given 100

charts

> > to

> > > > time

> > > > > marriage month and he being successful on 100 charts, if 50

> still

> > i

> > > > > would be most impressed.

> > > > >

> > > > > best wishes

> > > > > SJ

> > > > >

> > > > > > regrds sunil nair

> > > > > >

> > > > > > om shreem maha laxmai namah.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > http://www.indiamart.com/Vedic Astrology/

> > > > > > <http://www.indiamart.com/Vedic Astrology/>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > pt.sunilnair@ <pt.sunilnair@

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , " suniljohn_2002 "

> > > > > > suniljohn_2002@ wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > OM Datta Guru

> > > > > > > Dear Sunil,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 1) If we take astronomically vs Phalit then thats not the

> > > question

> > > > > > here

> > > > > > > since first we need to agree if astronomically its

different

> > > from

> > > > > > > 13.20 which so far to my knowledge P.S.Sastri has pointed

> out

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 2) Whether results i.e Phalit part is in tune with the

> > > > astronomical

> > > > > > > points we would need to decide that next after the first

> point

> > > is

> > > > > > > established

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 3) The problem with current breed of jyotishis is hardly

1%

> > are

> > > > > > > astronomers & then the question of good quality

astronomers

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 4) The tatparya of what my questions were if a nakshatra

is

> of

> > > 10

> > > > > > > degrees instead of 13.20 degrees then if we are taking a

> > planet

> > > in

> > > > > say

> > > > > > > Moola nakshatras 11 degree its actually not in Moola but

in

> > > P.Asha

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > the results will vary drastically.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > and i even heard astronomicaly rasi may be differrent in

> > > lenghth

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 5) If we presume the nakshatras to form the Rasis then if

> the

> > > > > > > nakshatras are of different length then 'Obviously' the

> Rasis

> > > > would

> > > > > be

> > > > > > > of different length.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Lets not forget that many seasoned astrologers fail in

> Simple

> > > > > Exercise

> > > > > > > of interpreting results of a planet could this be the

> reason,

> > i

> > > do

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > know but speaking aloud what i have posted here before in

> the

> > > past

> > > > > on

> > > > > > > this nakshatra duration.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Kind regards

> > > > > > > Sunil John

> > > > > > > Mumbai

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , " sunil nair "

> > > > > > > astro_tellerkerala@ wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Hare rama krishna,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > dear sunil

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What we are concenrend is only nakshatras and one

> nakshatra

> > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > be take long time to pass by moon and some may be less

as

> > > cosmos

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > oval in shape ,but 60 ghatikas(24 hours) is average

,even

> > > though

> > > > > 13

> > > > > > > > degree 20 min is considered for each nakshatra -which

> > consist

> > > of

> > > > a

> > > > > > grp

> > > > > > > > of stars and giving a purticular shape and promininetly

> some

> > 4

> > > > or

> > > > > 6

> > > > > > > > nakhsatra may be viscible .But we are covering an area

of

> 13

> > > > > degree

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > 20 minit of cosmos tru that nakshatra mandala,so 27

> > nakshatras

> > > > > will

> > > > > > > giv

> > > > > > > > 360 degress.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > And lord ship in considered same for each three

nakshatras

> > of

> > > 9

> > > > > > groups

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > like ashwini ,makha ,moola is ketu is lord in

vimshottarry

> > > > scheme

> > > > > .

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The poets and epics say moon is travelling tru his wifes

> > > > quatrers

> > > > > > > every

> > > > > > > > day and each nakshatra is wife of moon .and rohini is

> > favrite

> > > > > among

> > > > > > > them

> > > > > > > > <but astronomicaly may be differrent and i am least

> > concerned

> > > as

> > > > > it

> > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > not come into phala bhaga as jyothish is a predictive

> > sceince

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > astronomy is a physical science .

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Imagine rahu and ketu ,astromicaly there is no rahu ketu

> > > ,gulika

> > > > > > > > ,mandi etc as physical bodies nor viscible or feel and

we

> r

> > > > using

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > > delinating results and crores of planets are there we

take

> > > only

> > > > 7

> > > > > > > > planets and 27 nakshatras in calculating the results

along

> > > with

> > > > 12

> > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > and i even heard astronomicaly rasi may be differrent in

> > > lenghth

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > regrds sunil nair

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > om shreem mahalaxmai namah.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > http://www.indiamart.com/Vedic Astrology/

> > > > > > > > <http://www.indiamart.com/Vedic Astrology/>

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > pt.sunilnair@ <pt.sunilnair@

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > , " suniljohn_2002 "

> > > > > > > > suniljohn_2002@ wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > OM Datta Guru

> > > > > > > > > Dear Ashwini,

> > > > > > > > > This is an interesting topic and for long i have

pursued

> > it

> > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > getting a clear cut guidance. Shri P.S.Sastri in his

> book

> > > > > > > 'Scientific

> > > > > > > > > Text Book of Astrology' gives us different sizes for

> each

> > > > > > nakshatra,

> > > > > > > > (If

> > > > > > > > > i remember well) if we follow that then the nak

lordship

> > is

> > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > changed dramatically at times

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Have u or anyone gone deeper in this and found some

> source

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The size of 13.19 can you kindly quote the reference

for

> > > > further

> > > > > > > > studies

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Thanks

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Regards

> > > > > > > > > Sunil John

> > > > > > > > > Mumbai

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > , " ashwinikumaras "

> > > > > > > > > ashwinikumaras@ wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > ,

> " pranesh_joshi2003 "

> > > > > > > > > > pranesh_joshi2003@ wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I am looking for a reference from a classic where

it

> > is

> > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > stated

> > > > > > > > > > > that each nakshatra is of an equal size (13.33

> > degrees).

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > PJ

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I know for two size in rashi for each nakshatras:

> > > > > > > > > > 1-13.20 degrees, with this size K.N.Rao is agreed.

> > > > > > > > > > 2-13.19 from another texts

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > regards,

> > > > > > > > > > ashwini

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

August 31, 2007

Sirs,

While crossing a physical space of a nakshatra the moon moves 13

ansh 20 kalaa or 13 degrees 20 minute and can be written as 13:20'.

Using a decimal point could be misleading because 13.20 degrees

would mean 13 degrees and 12 minute; using 13.33 degrees would be

closer to truth.

With regards

RP Singh

, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish

wrote:

>

> SO WHAT HAS BEEN UNDERSTOOD NOW ?

>

> 13.20 or 13.33 are 2 figures which mean the

> same thing,if the reader knows what measure

> they are expressed in ?

>

> .20 if taken as minutes is right.

> .33 if taken as degree measure also means same thing.

> (Here the writer must mention that .33 is a part

> of 1 Degree if degree is concerned as 1 ).

> Conclusion - To avoid unnecessary interpretations, it

> is always better to mention 13.20 degrees.

>

> Bhaskar.

>

> , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pranesh,

> >

> > 13.20 Degrees x 27 = 360 degrees

> > 13.33 Degrees x 27 = 365 .51 degrees

> > Please use scientific Calculator to calculate above.

> >

> > But when you mention 13.33 degrees it would

> > numerologically be wrong. Though .33 means 1/3rd of

> > any whole Degree which equals to 20 minutes.

> > When you mention 13.33 degrees it has to be

> > read as 33 minutes,which is wrong, or else one

> > should be very clear as to what he means by .33

> >

> > Anyway, before any Shastric refrence ios presented,

> > the other side must also be presented which says,

> > that the Nakshatras are not of equal length.

> >

> > anyway we are here for healthy discussions therefore,

> > must mention that the Jyotish Shastra, as mentioned

> > in the Rigveda , consists of 52 verses, which if one

> > understands , would be able to get the clear picture

> > of the Nakshatras and other important aspects of

> > astronomy as related to astrology.

> >

> > regards,

> > Bhaskar.

> >

> > , " pranesh_joshi2003 "

> > <pranesh_joshi2003@> wrote:

> > >

> > > I am looking for a reference from a classic where it is

clearly stated

> > > that each nakshatra is of an equal size (13.33 degrees).

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> > >

> > > PJ

> > >

> >

>

August 31, 2007

Sir,

Whenever we read the Longitude of a Planet

it is expressed as under.

For instance Moon in 08.30.02

It means 8 Degrees 30 minutes and 2 seconds.

What you say would be misleading.

For instance 13.20.00

should read as 13 degrees 20 minutes and zero

seconds.

While if we accept your way of reading.,

where You mean to say 13.33.00 is the

right way, then why dont you

multiply the same into 27 nakshatras and

see the result ?

Boss, if anyone knows to calculate the chart

manually, here,then he would know that 13.20.00

is the right way,

because 13.33.00 would mean 13 degrees 33minutes

and zero seconds which is not the normal parlance

of expressing the degrees of longitude in any

planet in any software,or any where.

So unnecessary just to prove one self as right

we cannot remove the normal parlance of

expressions of the longitudes of the planets.

The use of decimal point is understood to

differentiate between the Degrees, minutes,

and the seconds, for the common astrologers

too,forget the experts.

Do You mean that the softwares which use

decimal points to give the degrees of the planets

at Birth mean ,Not The Kalas but the percentage

of the kalas ? It is understood that they are

minutes.

So just do not prolong this useless discussion

without any weight in the argument..

regards,

Bhaskar.

, " rpsingh2710 " <rpsingh2710

wrote:

>

> Sirs,

>

> While crossing a physical space of a nakshatra the moon moves 13

> ansh 20 kalaa or 13 degrees 20 minute and can be written as 13:20'.

>

> Using a decimal point could be misleading because 13.20 degrees

> would mean 13 degrees and 12 minute; using 13.33 degrees would be

> closer to truth.

>

> With regards

>

> RP Singh

>

, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> wrote:

> >

> > SO WHAT HAS BEEN UNDERSTOOD NOW ?

> >

> > 13.20 or 13.33 are 2 figures which mean the

> > same thing,if the reader knows what measure

> > they are expressed in ?

> >

> > .20 if taken as minutes is right.

> > .33 if taken as degree measure also means same thing.

> > (Here the writer must mention that .33 is a part

> > of 1 Degree if degree is concerned as 1 ).

> > Conclusion - To avoid unnecessary interpretations, it

> > is always better to mention 13.20 degrees.

> >

> > Bhaskar.

> >

> > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pranesh,

> > >

> > > 13.20 Degrees x 27 = 360 degrees

> > > 13.33 Degrees x 27 = 365 .51 degrees

> > > Please use scientific Calculator to calculate above.

> > >

> > > But when you mention 13.33 degrees it would

> > > numerologically be wrong. Though .33 means 1/3rd of

> > > any whole Degree which equals to 20 minutes.

> > > When you mention 13.33 degrees it has to be

> > > read as 33 minutes,which is wrong, or else one

> > > should be very clear as to what he means by .33

> > >

> > > Anyway, before any Shastric refrence ios presented,

> > > the other side must also be presented which says,

> > > that the Nakshatras are not of equal length.

> > >

> > > anyway we are here for healthy discussions therefore,

> > > must mention that the Jyotish Shastra, as mentioned

> > > in the Rigveda , consists of 52 verses, which if one

> > > understands , would be able to get the clear picture

> > > of the Nakshatras and other important aspects of

> > > astronomy as related to astrology.

> > >

> > > regards,

> > > Bhaskar.

> > >

> > > , " pranesh_joshi2003 "

> > > <pranesh_joshi2003@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > I am looking for a reference from a classic where it is

> clearly stated

> > > > that each nakshatra is of an equal size (13.33 degrees).

> > > >

> > > > Thanks,

> > > >

> > > > PJ

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

August 31, 2007

Hare ramakrishna

dear singh ji ,

yes u said correct ,actaulay i was also confused abt this 13.33 -now i

came to know its decimel system where as we never write that way

thanks for pin pointing

regrds sunil nair

om shreem mahalaxmai namah.

pt.sunilnair <pt.sunilnair

, " rpsingh2710 " <rpsingh2710

wrote:

>

> Sirs,

>

> While crossing a physical space of a nakshatra the moon moves 13

> ansh 20 kalaa or 13 degrees 20 minute and can be written as 13:20'.

>

> Using a decimal point could be misleading because 13.20 degrees

> would mean 13 degrees and 12 minute; using 13.33 degrees would be

> closer to truth.

>

> With regards

>

> RP Singh

>

, " Bhaskar " bhaskar_jyotish@

> wrote:

> >

> > SO WHAT HAS BEEN UNDERSTOOD NOW ?

> >

> > 13.20 or 13.33 are 2 figures which mean the

> > same thing,if the reader knows what measure

> > they are expressed in ?

> >

> > .20 if taken as minutes is right.

> > .33 if taken as degree measure also means same thing.

> > (Here the writer must mention that .33 is a part

> > of 1 Degree if degree is concerned as 1 ).

> > Conclusion - To avoid unnecessary interpretations, it

> > is always better to mention 13.20 degrees.

> >

> > Bhaskar.

> >

> > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pranesh,

> > >

> > > 13.20 Degrees x 27 = 360 degrees

> > > 13.33 Degrees x 27 = 365 .51 degrees

> > > Please use scientific Calculator to calculate above.

> > >

> > > But when you mention 13.33 degrees it would

> > > numerologically be wrong. Though .33 means 1/3rd of

> > > any whole Degree which equals to 20 minutes.

> > > When you mention 13.33 degrees it has to be

> > > read as 33 minutes,which is wrong, or else one

> > > should be very clear as to what he means by .33

> > >

> > > Anyway, before any Shastric refrence ios presented,

> > > the other side must also be presented which says,

> > > that the Nakshatras are not of equal length.

> > >

> > > anyway we are here for healthy discussions therefore,

> > > must mention that the Jyotish Shastra, as mentioned

> > > in the Rigveda , consists of 52 verses, which if one

> > > understands , would be able to get the clear picture

> > > of the Nakshatras and other important aspects of

> > > astronomy as related to astrology.

> > >

> > > regards,

> > > Bhaskar.

> > >

> > > , " pranesh_joshi2003 "

> > > <pranesh_joshi2003@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > I am looking for a reference from a classic where it is

> clearly stated

> > > > that each nakshatra is of an equal size (13.33 degrees).

> > > >

> > > > Thanks,

> > > >

> > > > PJ

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

August 31, 2007

Hare RamKrishna,

Dear Sunilji,

But we never write the Degrees as 13 Degrees

20 kalas and 10 vikalas.

We write as 13.20.10

It is understood as degrees,Minutes and seconds.

Decimal does not always mean " a part of "

spoecially in case of astrology, it is understood

what comes after decimal.

Same way Have you ever read in any book,

13.20 written as 13.33 ?

because in above it is understood with reference

to astrology that 13 means degrees, and 20 means

minutes.

Can we accept 13 degrees and 33 minutes ?

Is it possible ?

These people are here just to flaunt their

ignorance and create confusions.

They know nothing about astrology nor the

mathematics part. and confusing others and

wasting time. I understood this long back,

that is why I entered long after the thread

had been opened.

Bhaskar.

, " sunil nair "

<astro_tellerkerala wrote:

>

> Hare ramakrishna

>

> dear singh ji ,

>

> yes u said correct ,actaulay i was also confused abt this 13.33 -now i

> came to know its decimel system where as we never write that way

>

> thanks for pin pointing

>

> regrds sunil nair

>

> om shreem mahalaxmai namah.

>

>

> pt.sunilnair <pt.sunilnair

>

> , " rpsingh2710 " <rpsingh2710@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Sirs,

> >

> > While crossing a physical space of a nakshatra the moon moves 13

> > ansh 20 kalaa or 13 degrees 20 minute and can be written as 13:20'.

> >

> > Using a decimal point could be misleading because 13.20 degrees

> > would mean 13 degrees and 12 minute; using 13.33 degrees would be

> > closer to truth.

> >

> > With regards

> >

> > RP Singh

> >

> > , " Bhaskar " bhaskar_jyotish@

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > SO WHAT HAS BEEN UNDERSTOOD NOW ?

> > >

> > > 13.20 or 13.33 are 2 figures which mean the

> > > same thing,if the reader knows what measure

> > > they are expressed in ?

> > >

> > > .20 if taken as minutes is right.

> > > .33 if taken as degree measure also means same thing.

> > > (Here the writer must mention that .33 is a part

> > > of 1 Degree if degree is concerned as 1 ).

> > > Conclusion - To avoid unnecessary interpretations, it

> > > is always better to mention 13.20 degrees.

> > >

> > > Bhaskar.

> > >

> > > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pranesh,

> > > >

> > > > 13.20 Degrees x 27 = 360 degrees

> > > > 13.33 Degrees x 27 = 365 .51 degrees

> > > > Please use scientific Calculator to calculate above.

> > > >

> > > > But when you mention 13.33 degrees it would

> > > > numerologically be wrong. Though .33 means 1/3rd of

> > > > any whole Degree which equals to 20 minutes.

> > > > When you mention 13.33 degrees it has to be

> > > > read as 33 minutes,which is wrong, or else one

> > > > should be very clear as to what he means by .33

> > > >

> > > > Anyway, before any Shastric refrence ios presented,

> > > > the other side must also be presented which says,

> > > > that the Nakshatras are not of equal length.

> > > >

> > > > anyway we are here for healthy discussions therefore,

> > > > must mention that the Jyotish Shastra, as mentioned

> > > > in the Rigveda , consists of 52 verses, which if one

> > > > understands , would be able to get the clear picture

> > > > of the Nakshatras and other important aspects of

> > > > astronomy as related to astrology.

> > > >

> > > > regards,

> > > > Bhaskar.

> > > >

> > > > , " pranesh_joshi2003 "

> > > > <pranesh_joshi2003@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > I am looking for a reference from a classic where it is

> > clearly stated

> > > > > that each nakshatra is of an equal size (13.33 degrees).

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks,

> > > > >

> > > > > PJ

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

August 31, 2007

Sirs,

No offence meant but this sounds very humorous

to me.

We all know ( Or are supposed to know)that

1 Degree is equal to 60 minutes.

If using 33 minutes sounds closer to truth

when you express the part of " 20 " ,

then what should we write when we

express 1 degree in Minutes ?

Should 99 minutes sound closer to truth ?

To express 1 degree ?

Where is the Logic and utter commonsense

I cannot understand.This is really infuriating.

Bhaskar.

, " rpsingh2710 " <rpsingh2710

wrote:

>

> Sirs,

>

> While crossing a physical space of a nakshatra the moon moves 13

> ansh 20 kalaa or 13 degrees 20 minute and can be written as 13:20'.

>

> Using a decimal point could be misleading because 13.20 degrees

> would mean 13 degrees and 12 minute; using 13.33 degrees would be

> closer to truth.

>

> With regards

>

> RP Singh

>

, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> wrote:

> >

> > SO WHAT HAS BEEN UNDERSTOOD NOW ?

> >

> > 13.20 or 13.33 are 2 figures which mean the

> > same thing,if the reader knows what measure

> > they are expressed in ?

> >

> > .20 if taken as minutes is right.

> > .33 if taken as degree measure also means same thing.

> > (Here the writer must mention that .33 is a part

> > of 1 Degree if degree is concerned as 1 ).

> > Conclusion - To avoid unnecessary interpretations, it

> > is always better to mention 13.20 degrees.

> >

> > Bhaskar.

> >

> > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pranesh,

> > >

> > > 13.20 Degrees x 27 = 360 degrees

> > > 13.33 Degrees x 27 = 365 .51 degrees

> > > Please use scientific Calculator to calculate above.

> > >

> > > But when you mention 13.33 degrees it would

> > > numerologically be wrong. Though .33 means 1/3rd of

> > > any whole Degree which equals to 20 minutes.

> > > When you mention 13.33 degrees it has to be

> > > read as 33 minutes,which is wrong, or else one

> > > should be very clear as to what he means by .33

> > >

> > > Anyway, before any Shastric refrence ios presented,

> > > the other side must also be presented which says,

> > > that the Nakshatras are not of equal length.

> > >

> > > anyway we are here for healthy discussions therefore,

> > > must mention that the Jyotish Shastra, as mentioned

> > > in the Rigveda , consists of 52 verses, which if one

> > > understands , would be able to get the clear picture

> > > of the Nakshatras and other important aspects of

> > > astronomy as related to astrology.

> > >

> > > regards,

> > > Bhaskar.

> > >

> > > , " pranesh_joshi2003 "

> > > <pranesh_joshi2003@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > I am looking for a reference from a classic where it is

> clearly stated

> > > > that each nakshatra is of an equal size (13.33 degrees).

> > > >

> > > > Thanks,

> > > >

> > > > PJ

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

August 31, 2007

To express 13.20 degrees if we write 13.33

which as per your admmission is closer to truth ,

then how do we express 13.40 degrees ?

As 13.66 ?

Is this possible ?

When 60 minutes equals to 1 degree ?

Have none of you ever made a chart manually ?

Or ever calculated longitude manually ?

Or always relied and remained

handicapped with the computer

as a wheelchair to move forward ?

I am not even sure if you are able to

understand what I am trying to say in

simple mathematics above. because if you do

not know that 60 minutes converts to 1 degree,

then God help.

In above case as soon as you express 13.40

degrees as 13.66, the degree changes to 14.06 .

have you ever heard this absurdity or seen this ?

Please tell me how should I express 13 degrees

59 kalas, and 59 Vikalas, in your newly developed

theory of writing 13.20 Degrees as 13.33 .

Bhaskar.

, " rpsingh2710 " <rpsingh2710

wrote:

>

> Sirs,

>

> While crossing a physical space of a nakshatra the moon moves 13

> ansh 20 kalaa or 13 degrees 20 minute and can be written as 13:20'.

>

> Using a decimal point could be misleading because 13.20 degrees

> would mean 13 degrees and 12 minute; using 13.33 degrees would be

> closer to truth.

>

> With regards

>

> RP Singh

>

, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> wrote:

> >

> > SO WHAT HAS BEEN UNDERSTOOD NOW ?

> >

> > 13.20 or 13.33 are 2 figures which mean the

> > same thing,if the reader knows what measure

> > they are expressed in ?

> >

> > .20 if taken as minutes is right.

> > .33 if taken as degree measure also means same thing.

> > (Here the writer must mention that .33 is a part

> > of 1 Degree if degree is concerned as 1 ).

> > Conclusion - To avoid unnecessary interpretations, it

> > is always better to mention 13.20 degrees.

> >

> > Bhaskar.

> >

> > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pranesh,

> > >

> > > 13.20 Degrees x 27 = 360 degrees

> > > 13.33 Degrees x 27 = 365 .51 degrees

> > > Please use scientific Calculator to calculate above.

> > >

> > > But when you mention 13.33 degrees it would

> > > numerologically be wrong. Though .33 means 1/3rd of

> > > any whole Degree which equals to 20 minutes.

> > > When you mention 13.33 degrees it has to be

> > > read as 33 minutes,which is wrong, or else one

> > > should be very clear as to what he means by .33

> > >

> > > Anyway, before any Shastric refrence ios presented,

> > > the other side must also be presented which says,

> > > that the Nakshatras are not of equal length.

> > >

> > > anyway we are here for healthy discussions therefore,

> > > must mention that the Jyotish Shastra, as mentioned

> > > in the Rigveda , consists of 52 verses, which if one

> > > understands , would be able to get the clear picture

> > > of the Nakshatras and other important aspects of

> > > astronomy as related to astrology.

> > >

> > > regards,

> > > Bhaskar.

> > >

> > > , " pranesh_joshi2003 "

> > > <pranesh_joshi2003@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > I am looking for a reference from a classic where it is

> clearly stated

> > > > that each nakshatra is of an equal size (13.33 degrees).

> > > >

> > > > Thanks,

> > > >

> > > > PJ

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

August 31, 2007

Hare ramakrishna .

respected sri bhaskar ji .

pranams and namaskar .

Yes ,u know as astrologer myself lacks lot of mathematical ability

and wen the tread was opened some one was always telling this 13.33 so i

dont know some one calculated this way ,as our indian system all

measurements are differrent and even in vastu ppl try to convert all

reading s to metric system which creating a havoc and confusions .so my

lack of mathematical understanding forced me to digest anything or

egerness to learn i dont know

Persons like u ,who is very strong in basics is there to corrct us

-that is a real releif and blessing .

thanks u sir

with deep respect

sunil nair

om shreem mahalaxmai namah.

, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish

wrote:

>

> Hare RamKrishna,

>

> Dear Sunilji,

> But we never write the Degrees as 13 Degrees

> 20 kalas and 10 vikalas.

>

> We write as 13.20.10

> It is understood as degrees,Minutes and seconds.

>

> Decimal does not always mean " a part of "

> spoecially in case of astrology, it is understood

> what comes after decimal.

>

> Same way Have you ever read in any book,

> 13.20 written as 13.33 ?

>

> because in above it is understood with reference

> to astrology that 13 means degrees, and 20 means

> minutes.

>

> Can we accept 13 degrees and 33 minutes ?

> Is it possible ?

>

> These people are here just to flaunt their

> ignorance and create confusions.

> They know nothing about astrology nor the

> mathematics part. and confusing others and

> wasting time. I understood this long back,

> that is why I entered long after the thread

> had been opened.

>

> Bhaskar.

>

> , " sunil nair "

> astro_tellerkerala@ wrote:

> >

> > Hare ramakrishna

> >

> > dear singh ji ,

> >

> > yes u said correct ,actaulay i was also confused abt this 13.33 -now

i

> > came to know its decimel system where as we never write that way

> >

> > thanks for pin pointing

> >

> > regrds sunil nair

> >

> > om shreem mahalaxmai namah.

> >