Vimshottari dasa

March 5, 2006

Dear Visti,

I know that in SJC, Vimshottari dasa 365 days is used ; but I'd be more than

happy to now exactly why, because some authors do prefer this one in 360 days,

arguing occult reasons, and so on.

It'll be very simple a query for you, but I need to understand clearly this question.

Thanks in advance.

Warm regards,

Annick

March 5, 2006

color:#FF0080">||Hare Rama Krsna||

Dear Annick,

Namaskar

We at SJC

follow those who know better.

Mantresvara

in his Phala Deepika writes:

“Chapter

19, sloka 4||

ravisphuTaM

tajjanane yadaasIt tathaa vidhashcetprativarShamarkaH|

aavR^ittayaH

santi dashaabdakaanaaM bhaagakramattaddivasaaH prakalpyaaH||”

In english;

Take the degree of the Sun and mark when it next arrives at the same position.

This is considered as one year| This is also considered as one year for the Udu

dasa system. By subdividing the same the days are also calculated||

So to be

more acurate, we use the exact solar longitude to find the year.

Best

wishes,

***

10.0pt;font-family:bookman;color:navy">Visti Larsen

10.0pt;font-family:bookman;color:navy">For services and articles visit:

http://srigaruda.com

color:navy"> or http://astrovisti.com

***

font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">

[] On Behalf Of Annick Bidreman

05 March 2006 13:25

[Om Krishna Guru]

Vimshottari dasa

12.0pt">

font-family:Arial;color:navy">Dear Visti,

12.0pt">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">I know that in SJC, Vimshottari dasa 365

days is used ; but I'd be more than happy to now exactly why, because some

authors do prefer this one in 360 days, arguing occult reasons, and so on.

12.0pt">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">It'll be very simple a query for you,

but I need to understand clearly this question.

12.0pt">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">Thanks in advance.

12.0pt">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">Warm regards,

12.0pt">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">Annick

March 20, 2006

Dear all,

Most of the computers are using the date to date method(ie 365 days

for a non leap year and 366 days for leap year)

While what Visti Larsen wrote makes sense and stands to logic, the

actual method of arriving at the planetary periods is based on a 360

days of year.

For eg., the duration of Sun is taken as 36 days and in terms of

ghatikas, this translates to 2160 units(60X36)which is taken as 6

years, by equating each unit to one day and taking 360 days per year.

(ref Nakshatra by K T Shubhakaran vol II, Sagar publications)

Hence, while the easiest way is to accept the date to date method,

it is more accurate to take the 360 days into account, while the

method suggested by Visti is the most accurate but involves hardwork.

Hope this helps,

Kishore patnaik

, "Annick Bidreman"

<annick.bidreman wrote:

>

> Dear Visti,

>

> I know that in SJC, Vimshottari dasa 365 days is used ; but I'd be

more than happy to now exactly why, because some authors do prefer

this one in 360 days, arguing occult reasons, and so on.

>

> It'll be very simple a query for you, but I need to understand

clearly this question.

>

> Thanks in advance.

>

> Warm regards,

>

> Annick

>

March 20, 2006

||Hare Rama Krsna||

Dear Kishore, Namaskar

No, that is not appropriate. That would make dasa dates off by 5 days a

year, and every 4 years an entire month off. Then you need to make a leap

year. But either way this compromises the acuracy of the dasa.

Best wishes,

***

Visti Larsen

For services and articles visit:

http://srigaruda.com or http://astrovisti.com

***

[] On

Behalf Of kishore mohan

20 March 2006 17:01

Re: [Om Krishna Guru] Vimshottari dasa

Dear all,

Most of the computers are using the date to date method(ie 365 days

for a non leap year and 366 days for leap year)

While what Visti Larsen wrote makes sense and stands to logic, the

actual method of arriving at the planetary periods is based on a 360

days of year.

For eg., the duration of Sun is taken as 36 days and in terms of

ghatikas, this translates to 2160 units(60X36)which is taken as 6

years, by equating each unit to one day and taking 360 days per year.

(ref Nakshatra by K T Shubhakaran vol II, Sagar publications)

Hence, while the easiest way is to accept the date to date method,

it is more accurate to take the 360 days into account, while the

method suggested by Visti is the most accurate but involves hardwork.

Hope this helps,

Kishore patnaik

, "Annick Bidreman"

<annick.bidreman wrote:

>

> Dear Visti,

>

> I know that in SJC, Vimshottari dasa 365 days is used ; but I'd be

more than happy to now exactly why, because some authors do prefer

this one in 360 days, arguing occult reasons, and so on.

>

> It'll be very simple a query for you, but I need to understand

clearly this question.

>

> Thanks in advance.

>

> Warm regards,

>

> Annick

>

~ om tat sat ~

Thank you for maintaining the decorum of the Achyuta Ashram.

Reminders: (1) Recite the Shadakshari Mantra 'Hare Rama Krishna'

(2) Try to become Vegetarian - remember Akbar the Great who said that the

human stomach should not become a graveyard for animals.

(3) Practise charity in thought and deed - do one free chart reading today

Links

March 20, 2006

Dear Kishore,

Thank you for this interesting view on this difficult question. As

Visti says in his reply, those who adhere strictly to the true solar

year would find that your suggestion of using 360 days (which my

experience so far bears out) cannot accept your reasoning, as the

true solar year is just over 5 days more. But I don't understand why

you first persuasively set out the merits of the "ideal" 360 day

year for dasa calculation (as opposed to the solar year used by most

computer programs), and then say that Visti's way is more accurate.

His 365+ true solar year works out the same as that of the

computers, doesn't it? Have I failed to understand soemthing?

Thanks for any clarification of your interesting point of view, and

thanks for giving the reference to Shubhakaran to enable further

investigation.

Graham Fox

, "kishore mohan"

<kishorepatnaik09 wrote:

>

> Dear all,

>

> Most of the computers are using the date to date method(ie 365

days

> for a non leap year and 366 days for leap year)

>

> While what Visti Larsen wrote makes sense and stands to logic, the

> actual method of arriving at the planetary periods is based on a

360

> days of year.

>

> For eg., the duration of Sun is taken as 36 days and in terms of

> ghatikas, this translates to 2160 units(60X36)which is taken as 6

> years, by equating each unit to one day and taking 360 days per

year.

> (ref Nakshatra by K T Shubhakaran vol II, Sagar publications)

>

> Hence, while the easiest way is to accept the date to date

method,

> it is more accurate to take the 360 days into account, while the

> method suggested by Visti is the most accurate but involves

hardwork.

>

> Hope this helps,

>

> Kishore patnaik

>

> , "Annick Bidreman"

> <annick.bidreman@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Visti,

> >

> > I know that in SJC, Vimshottari dasa 365 days is used ; but I'd

be

> more than happy to now exactly why, because some authors do prefer

> this one in 360 days, arguing occult reasons, and so on.

> >

> > It'll be very simple a query for you, but I need to understand

> clearly this question.

> >

> > Thanks in advance.

> >

> > Warm regards,

> >

> > Annick

> >

>

March 29, 2006

Dear sri Graham Fox,

Sorry for the late reply.

The contradiction is due to the hastiness with which I have replied.

The contradiction can also be attributed to the fact that while I

believe that 360 days year gives more accurate results, practically I

follow the date wise year system. Of course, this does not distort my

predictions because I do not go beyond pratyandardasa and strongly

depend upon the transits and panchang for predictions which gives an

edge in the predictions.

Hence, this discussion is more academic oriented.

Following the 360 days year is on in several traditions. Not only

calculation of graha bala is based on 360 days year,but also if you

add up the sub sub periods(sukshma dasa),it is obvious that the 360

days period is followed.

In SJC, sri Narasimha rao also talks of 360 days period in his book.

Thus, if you follow only dasa system of predictions going into sub

periods beyond pratyantar dasas, then I feel you will have to take

only 360 days year into consideration.

On the other hand, the early vedic jyotisham(which was primarily used

timing of agricultural and yajna events), the year was taken as

366 days called savana year. But again, they followed such

complicated systems that even by following the 366 days year, they

arrived at correct day and hora. Because of this alone, I have said

Mr Visti's system gives accurate calculation.

while it looks like Vistiji is not agreeing with me, I hope he posts

a long reply why he is not agreeing with me.

regards,

Kishore patnaik

, "Graham Fox" <fox.graham

wrote:

>

> Dear Kishore,

> Thank you for this interesting view on this difficult question. As

> Visti says in his reply, those who adhere strictly to the true

solar

> year would find that your suggestion of using 360 days (which my

> experience so far bears out) cannot accept your reasoning, as the

> true solar year is just over 5 days more. But I don't understand

why

> you first persuasively set out the merits of the "ideal" 360 day

> year for dasa calculation (as opposed to the solar year used by

most

> computer programs), and then say that Visti's way is more accurate.

> His 365+ true solar year works out the same as that of the

> computers, doesn't it? Have I failed to understand soemthing?

> Thanks for any clarification of your interesting point of view, and

> thanks for giving the reference to Shubhakaran to enable further

> investigation.

> Graham Fox

>

> , "kishore mohan"

> <kishorepatnaik09@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear all,

> >

> > Most of the computers are using the date to date method(ie 365

> days

> > for a non leap year and 366 days for leap year)

> >

> > While what Visti Larsen wrote makes sense and stands to logic,

the

> > actual method of arriving at the planetary periods is based on a

> 360

> > days of year.

> >

> > For eg., the duration of Sun is taken as 36 days and in terms of

> > ghatikas, this translates to 2160 units(60X36)which is taken as 6

> > years, by equating each unit to one day and taking 360 days per

> year.

> > (ref Nakshatra by K T Shubhakaran vol II, Sagar publications)

> >

> > Hence, while the easiest way is to accept the date to date

> method,

> > it is more accurate to take the 360 days into account, while the

> > method suggested by Visti is the most accurate but involves

> hardwork.

> >

> > Hope this helps,

> >

> > Kishore patnaik

> >

> > , "Annick Bidreman"

> > <annick.bidreman@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Visti,

> > >

> > > I know that in SJC, Vimshottari dasa 365 days is used ; but I'd

> be

> > more than happy to now exactly why, because some authors do

prefer

> > this one in 360 days, arguing occult reasons, and so on.

> > >

> > > It'll be very simple a query for you, but I need to understand

> > clearly this question.

> > >

> > > Thanks in advance.

> > >

> > > Warm regards,

> > >

> > > Annick

> > >

> >

>

March 30, 2006

Dear Kishore,

Thank you for your reply, but I'm afraid you've lost me. If one uses

360 day years for dasas, the difference will be seen even in

mahadasa, as each year is 5.25 days less. So a 10 year Moon dasa,

for example, would be 52.5 days shorter, without even looking at

antardasas. And so I don't see why, if you add up the suksmadasas,

the "360 day year is obvious", as you say, since the length of the

suksmadasa is determined by what year length one uses for the

mahadasa (as SD, PAD and AD are subdivisions of MD). Also, I'd never

heard of a Savana year being 366 days, this is new to me.

Hovever, I still favour the 360 year at present, because it seems to

me to give more accurate periods, and because it is an "ideal" year

found in prophetic and ceremonial functions in many ancient

cultures, including for some ceremonies in Vedic times. Since the

Vedas don't specifically deal with dasa periods and the panoply of

later astrological techniques (they simply observe positions of

heavenly bodies, principally the moon, in the older system of 28

nakshatra, as I understand it), and since Parasara doesn't

specfically say what year to use with vimsottari dasa, I think there

are valid arguments on both sides of this question.

Thank you again for further references for reading.

Very best wishes

Graham

, "kishore mohan"

<kishorepatnaik09 wrote:

>

> Dear sri Graham Fox,

>

> Sorry for the late reply.

>

> The contradiction is due to the hastiness with which I have

replied.

> The contradiction can also be attributed to the fact that while I

> believe that 360 days year gives more accurate results,

practically I

> follow the date wise year system. Of course, this does not distort

my

> predictions because I do not go beyond pratyandardasa and strongly

> depend upon the transits and panchang for predictions which gives

an

> edge in the predictions.

>

> Hence, this discussion is more academic oriented.

>

> Following the 360 days year is on in several traditions. Not only

> calculation of graha bala is based on 360 days year,but also if

you

> add up the sub sub periods(sukshma dasa),it is obvious that the

360

> days period is followed.

>

> In SJC, sri Narasimha rao also talks of 360 days period in his

book.

>

> Thus, if you follow only dasa system of predictions going into sub

> periods beyond pratyantar dasas, then I feel you will have to take

> only 360 days year into consideration.

>

> On the other hand, the early vedic jyotisham(which was primarily

used

> timing of agricultural and yajna events), the year was taken as

> 366 days called savana year. But again, they followed such

> complicated systems that even by following the 366 days year, they

> arrived at correct day and hora. Because of this alone, I have

said

> Mr Visti's system gives accurate calculation.

>

> while it looks like Vistiji is not agreeing with me, I hope he

posts

> a long reply why he is not agreeing with me.

>

> regards,

>

> Kishore patnaik

>

> , "Graham Fox" <fox.graham@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Kishore,

> > Thank you for this interesting view on this difficult question.

As

> > Visti says in his reply, those who adhere strictly to the true

> solar

> > year would find that your suggestion of using 360 days (which my

> > experience so far bears out) cannot accept your reasoning, as

the

> > true solar year is just over 5 days more. But I don't understand

> why

> > you first persuasively set out the merits of the "ideal" 360 day

> > year for dasa calculation (as opposed to the solar year used by

> most

> > computer programs), and then say that Visti's way is more

accurate.

> > His 365+ true solar year works out the same as that of the

> > computers, doesn't it? Have I failed to understand soemthing?

> > Thanks for any clarification of your interesting point of view,

and

> > thanks for giving the reference to Shubhakaran to enable further

> > investigation.

> > Graham Fox

> >

> > , "kishore mohan"

> > <kishorepatnaik09@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear all,

> > >

> > > Most of the computers are using the date to date method(ie 365

> > days

> > > for a non leap year and 366 days for leap year)

> > >

> > > While what Visti Larsen wrote makes sense and stands to logic,

> the

> > > actual method of arriving at the planetary periods is based on

a

> > 360

> > > days of year.

> > >

> > > For eg., the duration of Sun is taken as 36 days and in terms

of

> > > ghatikas, this translates to 2160 units(60X36)which is taken

as 6

> > > years, by equating each unit to one day and taking 360 days

per

> > year.

> > > (ref Nakshatra by K T Shubhakaran vol II, Sagar publications)

> > >

> > > Hence, while the easiest way is to accept the date to date

> > method,

> > > it is more accurate to take the 360 days into account, while

the

> > > method suggested by Visti is the most accurate but involves

> > hardwork.

> > >

> > > Hope this helps,

> > >

> > > Kishore patnaik

> > >

> > > , "Annick Bidreman"

> > > <annick.bidreman@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Visti,

> > > >

> > > > I know that in SJC, Vimshottari dasa 365 days is used ; but

I'd

> > be

> > > more than happy to now exactly why, because some authors do

> prefer

> > > this one in 360 days, arguing occult reasons, and so on.

> > > >

> > > > It'll be very simple a query for you, but I need to

understand

> > > clearly this question.

> > > >

> > > > Thanks in advance.

> > > >

> > > > Warm regards,

> > > >

> > > > Annick

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

April 5, 2006

Dear graham,

namaskar. thank you for your reply. For a strange reason, this mail

was not shown to me by !

While we seem to be agreeing on the importance of 360 days year, we

dont seem to be catching up on the logic behind in toto.

to start with, vedanga jyotisham is a very ancient branch of Vedas,

which was used to find the muhurtha for the natural events,mundane

events as well as such important rituals as yagas and yajnas.

The only book available on this is the sermons of the Sage Lagadha> i

have an indian version of ranjan publications. I suggest you read

this book before really getting into astro mathematics. (siddhanta)

this is where I ended up knowing that savana year is of 366 days. If

you happen to read the book, you can pass your comments.

I agree with you that there will be a difference of 5 days for each

year, which advances the completion of each dasha/bhukti etc by few

days depending upon the number of years, as compared to the normal

computer calculation. Yet, taking 360 days will be the right method.

The length of suskma dasa is already determined by standard text

books and it will be wrong for us to calculate again. But usually, we

calculate it(if at all we use it)time and again, for adjustments with

the calender month/year, which we usually take as the basis.

I refer to you once again to subhakaran for the periods of sukshma

dasa. your statment of "Hovever, I still favour the 360 year at

present, because it seems to .." made me think that you do not really

support the 360 days period from a logical point of view, though you

are compelled to practice it because of your observations of

correctness of predictions based on such year.

what you have written about the ancient vedic indians holds water and

I think(atleast I think) that is I wrote in my last post.

you are welcome to chastise me on this, till we arrive at a logical

basis for 360 days year.

kishore patnaik

, "Graham Fox" <fox.graham

wrote:

>

> Dear Kishore,

> Thank you for your reply, but I'm afraid you've lost me. If one

uses

> 360 day years for dasas, the difference will be seen even in

> mahadasa, as each year is 5.25 days less. So a 10 year Moon dasa,

> for example, would be 52.5 days shorter, without even looking at

> antardasas. And so I don't see why, if you add up the suksmadasas,

> the "360 day year is obvious", as you say, since the length of the

> suksmadasa is determined by what year length one uses for the

> mahadasa (as SD, PAD and AD are subdivisions of MD). Also, I'd

never

> heard of a Savana year being 366 days, this is new to me.

> > me to give more accurate periods, and because it is an "ideal"

year

> found in prophetic and ceremonial functions in many ancient

> cultures, including for some ceremonies in Vedic times. Since the

> Vedas don't specifically deal with dasa periods and the panoply of

> later astrological techniques (they simply observe positions of

> heavenly bodies, principally the moon, in the older system of 28

> nakshatra, as I understand it), and since Parasara doesn't

> specfically say what year to use with vimsottari dasa, I think

there

> are valid arguments on both sides of this question.

> Thank you again for further references for reading.

> Very best wishes

> Graham

>

> , "kishore mohan"

> <kishorepatnaik09@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear sri Graham Fox,

> >

> > Sorry for the late reply.

> >

> > The contradiction is due to the hastiness with which I have

> replied.

> > The contradiction can also be attributed to the fact that while I

> > believe that 360 days year gives more accurate results,

> practically I

> > follow the date wise year system. Of course, this does not

distort

> my

> > predictions because I do not go beyond pratyandardasa and

strongly

> > depend upon the transits and panchang for predictions which gives

> an

> > edge in the predictions.

> >

> > Hence, this discussion is more academic oriented.

> >

> > Following the 360 days year is on in several traditions. Not only

> > calculation of graha bala is based on 360 days year,but also if

> you

> > add up the sub sub periods(sukshma dasa),it is obvious that the

> 360

> > days period is followed.

> >

> > In SJC, sri Narasimha rao also talks of 360 days period in his

> book.

> >

> > Thus, if you follow only dasa system of predictions going into

sub

> > periods beyond pratyantar dasas, then I feel you will have to

take

> > only 360 days year into consideration.

> >

> > On the other hand, the early vedic jyotisham(which was primarily

> used

> > timing of agricultural and yajna events), the year was taken

as

> > 366 days called savana year. But again, they followed such

> > complicated systems that even by following the 366 days year,

they

> > arrived at correct day and hora. Because of this alone, I have

> said

> > Mr Visti's system gives accurate calculation.

> >

> > while it looks like Vistiji is not agreeing with me, I hope he

> posts

> > a long reply why he is not agreeing with me.

> >

> > regards,

> >

> > Kishore patnaik

> >

> > , "Graham Fox" <fox.graham@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Kishore,

> > > Thank you for this interesting view on this difficult question.

> As

> > > Visti says in his reply, those who adhere strictly to the true

> > solar

> > > year would find that your suggestion of using 360 days (which

my

> > > experience so far bears out) cannot accept your reasoning, as

> the

> > > true solar year is just over 5 days more. But I don't

understand

> > why

> > > you first persuasively set out the merits of the "ideal" 360

day

> > > year for dasa calculation (as opposed to the solar year used by

> > most

> > > computer programs), and then say that Visti's way is more

> accurate.

> > > His 365+ true solar year works out the same as that of the

> > > computers, doesn't it? Have I failed to understand soemthing?

> > > Thanks for any clarification of your interesting point of view,

> and

> > > thanks for giving the reference to Shubhakaran to enable

further

> > > investigation.

> > > Graham Fox

> > >

> > > , "kishore mohan"

> > > <kishorepatnaik09@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear all,

> > > >

> > > > Most of the computers are using the date to date method(ie

365

> > > days

> > > > for a non leap year and 366 days for leap year)

> > > >

> > > > While what Visti Larsen wrote makes sense and stands to

logic,

> > the

> > > > actual method of arriving at the planetary periods is based

on

> a

> > > 360

> > > > days of year.

> > > >

> > > > For eg., the duration of Sun is taken as 36 days and in terms

> of

> > > > ghatikas, this translates to 2160 units(60X36)which is taken

> as 6

> > > > years, by equating each unit to one day and taking 360 days

> per

> > > year.

> > > > (ref Nakshatra by K T Shubhakaran vol II, Sagar publications)

> > > >

> > > > Hence, while the easiest way is to accept the date to date

> > > method,

> > > > it is more accurate to take the 360 days into account, while

> the

> > > > method suggested by Visti is the most accurate but involves

> > > hardwork.

> > > >

> > > > Hope this helps,

> > > >

> > > > Kishore patnaik

> > > >

> > > > , "Annick Bidreman"

> > > > <annick.bidreman@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Visti,

> > > > >

> > > > > I know that in SJC, Vimshottari dasa 365 days is used ; but

> I'd

> > > be

> > > > more than happy to now exactly why, because some authors do

> > prefer

> > > > this one in 360 days, arguing occult reasons, and so on.

> > > > >

> > > > > It'll be very simple a query for you, but I need to

> understand

> > > > clearly this question.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks in advance.

> > > > >

> > > > > Warm regards,

> > > > >

> > > > > Annick

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

October 26, 2006

dear all,(especially sri visti and Graham Fox)

I found an article written by sri PS satri on the net. Please read

the same and post your opinions. Hope we can move something further

thanx to this article.

regards,

Kishore patnaik

http://www.webspawner.com/users/astroclinic19/index.html

How many Days Make a Year ? by Prof. P S Sastri

THERE has been a needless controversy about the duation of the year

in the calculation of Vimshottari and other Dasas. Some have argued

for 360 days as one year, while others take 365 days. Which would we

accept? Phaladeepika and other texts speak of 324 days per year in

the calculation of longevity as per Ashtakavarga.

In the "Madhya-gati Vasana" section of Siddhanta Siromani, Bhaskara

gives 365 days. 15 ghatis and 30.375 vighatis for a solar year (verse

8). The moderns take the sidereal solar year to be of 365.256363

days. The synodic period of the Moon is 29.531 days giving in twelve

months a total of 354.372 days. The lunar year is less than the solar

year by 10.884 days. This is met by two intercalary months (adhika or

mala masa) in five years. Whatever discrepancy exists is squared up

by kshaya masa. Thus the so-called lunar year is actually luni-solar

year.

When people take a month of 30 days and a year of 360 days, they

cannot and should not go by the western calendar merely. Actually the

count should be from the lunar solar month and tithi onwards. This

puts an end to the controversy. In five years we get 1825.769 days as

per the moderns and in five lunar years with tow intercalary months

we get 1825.28 days.

In "Madhyanmadhikara" of Surya Siddhanta (verse 35) the solar month

is said to have 30.4382266 days (30. gh 26.17.37) and the lunar month

has 29.5305833 days (29 gh.31.50.6). The lunar month is less

by .907643 days (gh. 54.27.31). This difference gets cancelled by one

intercalary month after every 32 months and 15.5246 days. Thus as per

Surya Siddhanta in one Mahayuga there are 157,79,17,828 solar days

and 160,30,00,081 lunar days (verse 37). The difference is negated by

introduction of intercalary (Adhika) and Kshaya months.

It is then illogical and un-astronomical to take 360 days per year.

If one wants to accept only the lunar synodic year he will have to

accept only 354.372 days per year. Even 324 days per year in

Ashtakavarga calculation is unscientific. The sidereal period of the

Moon is 27.3216615 days; and this gives 327.859938 days for twelve

months.

It is only for the sake of convenience we take thirty days per month

as the average. Even the ancient Egyptians had five no-days after 360

days. The Greeks of yore also had a similar reckoning.

If one is born as Prabha Chaitra Sukla Navami with a balance of

Jupiter Dasa for ten years, the next Dasa of Saturn will begin as

Chaitra Sukla Navami of the year Iswara. One may count the days and

see if he gets 3600 days or more. The current count is from the luni-

solar month and tithi only. Hence the argument in favour of 360 days

is not scientifically valid.

***

(Courtesy: The Astrological Magazine, June, 1987)

, "Graham Fox" <fox.graham

wrote:

>

> Dear Kishore,

> Thank you for your reply, but I'm afraid you've lost me. If one

uses

> 360 day years for dasas, the difference will be seen even in

> mahadasa, as each year is 5.25 days less. So a 10 year Moon dasa,

> for example, would be 52.5 days shorter, without even looking at

> antardasas. And so I don't see why, if you add up the suksmadasas,

> the "360 day year is obvious", as you say, since the length of the

> suksmadasa is determined by what year length one uses for the

> mahadasa (as SD, PAD and AD are subdivisions of MD). Also, I'd

never

> heard of a Savana year being 366 days, this is new to me.

> Hovever, I still favour the 360 year at present, because it seems

to

> me to give more accurate periods, and because it is an "ideal" year

> found in prophetic and ceremonial functions in many ancient

> cultures, including for some ceremonies in Vedic times. Since the

> Vedas don't specifically deal with dasa periods and the panoply of

> later astrological techniques (they simply observe positions of

> heavenly bodies, principally the moon, in the older system of 28

> nakshatra, as I understand it), and since Parasara doesn't

> specfically say what year to use with vimsottari dasa, I think

there

> are valid arguments on both sides of this question.

> Thank you again for further references for reading.

> Very best wishes

> Graham

>

> , "kishore mohan"

> <kishorepatnaik09@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear sri Graham Fox,

> >

> > Sorry for the late reply.

> >

> > The contradiction is due to the hastiness with which I have

> replied.

> > The contradiction can also be attributed to the fact that while I

> > believe that 360 days year gives more accurate results,

> practically I

> > follow the date wise year system. Of course, this does not

distort

> my

> > predictions because I do not go beyond pratyandardasa and

strongly

> > depend upon the transits and panchang for predictions which gives

> an

> > edge in the predictions.

> >

> > Hence, this discussion is more academic oriented.

> >

> > Following the 360 days year is on in several traditions. Not only

> > calculation of graha bala is based on 360 days year,but also if

> you

> > add up the sub sub periods(sukshma dasa),it is obvious that the

> 360

> > days period is followed.

> >

> > In SJC, sri Narasimha rao also talks of 360 days period in his

> book.

> >

> > Thus, if you follow only dasa system of predictions going into

sub

> > periods beyond pratyantar dasas, then I feel you will have to

take

> > only 360 days year into consideration.

> >

> > On the other hand, the early vedic jyotisham(which was primarily

> used

> > timing of agricultural and yajna events), the year was taken

as

> > 366 days called savana year. But again, they followed such

> > complicated systems that even by following the 366 days year,

they

> > arrived at correct day and hora. Because of this alone, I have

> said

> > Mr Visti's system gives accurate calculation.

> >

> > while it looks like Vistiji is not agreeing with me, I hope he

> posts

> > a long reply why he is not agreeing with me.

> >

> > regards,

> >

> > Kishore patnaik

> >

> > , "Graham Fox" <fox.graham@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Kishore,

> > > Thank you for this interesting view on this difficult question.

> As

> > > Visti says in his reply, those who adhere strictly to the true

> > solar

> > > year would find that your suggestion of using 360 days (which

my

> > > experience so far bears out) cannot accept your reasoning, as

> the

> > > true solar year is just over 5 days more. But I don't

understand

> > why

> > > you first persuasively set out the merits of the "ideal" 360

day

> > > year for dasa calculation (as opposed to the solar year used by

> > most

> > > computer programs), and then say that Visti's way is more

> accurate.

> > > His 365+ true solar year works out the same as that of the

> > > computers, doesn't it? Have I failed to understand soemthing?

> > > Thanks for any clarification of your interesting point of view,

> and

> > > thanks for giving the reference to Shubhakaran to enable

further

> > > investigation.

> > > Graham Fox

> > >

> > > , "kishore mohan"

> > > <kishorepatnaik09@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear all,

> > > >

> > > > Most of the computers are using the date to date method(ie

365

> > > days

> > > > for a non leap year and 366 days for leap year)

> > > >

> > > > While what Visti Larsen wrote makes sense and stands to

logic,

> > the

> > > > actual method of arriving at the planetary periods is based

on

> a

> > > 360

> > > > days of year.

> > > >

> > > > For eg., the duration of Sun is taken as 36 days and in terms

> of

> > > > ghatikas, this translates to 2160 units(60X36)which is taken

> as 6

> > > > years, by equating each unit to one day and taking 360 days

> per

> > > year.

> > > > (ref Nakshatra by K T Shubhakaran vol II, Sagar publications)

> > > >

> > > > Hence, while the easiest way is to accept the date to date

> > > method,

> > > > it is more accurate to take the 360 days into account, while

> the

> > > > method suggested by Visti is the most accurate but involves

> > > hardwork.

> > > >

> > > > Hope this helps,

> > > >

> > > > Kishore patnaik

> > > >

> > > > , "Annick Bidreman"

> > > > <annick.bidreman@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Visti,

> > > > >

> > > > > I know that in SJC, Vimshottari dasa 365 days is used ; but

> I'd

> > > be

> > > > more than happy to now exactly why, because some authors do

> > prefer

> > > > this one in 360 days, arguing occult reasons, and so on.

> > > > >

> > > > > It'll be very simple a query for you, but I need to

> understand

> > > > clearly this question.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks in advance.

> > > > >

> > > > > Warm regards,

> > > > >

> > > > > Annick

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

October 30, 2006

|Hare Rama Krsna|

Dear Kishore, Namaskar.

P.S. Sastri is quoting Phala Deepika. In the chapter on Vimsottari dasa,

we find sloka 4 stating that we must find the solar return of the Sun to

ascertain the length of a year for Vimsottari dasa. Hence for all udu

dasas many astrologers follow solar years. This differs when we talk of

specific ayur-dasas, like the pindayur, naisargayu, etc, where Jataka

Parijata has advised us to use savana years. This also means that

Naisargika Dasa has to be reckoned as using Savana years.

I cannot comment on the reference to the Astakavarga Dasa, but will try

to do some work on this.

Yours sincerely,

Visti Larsen

Email: visti (AT) srigaruda (DOT) com

For Consultations and Articles visit: http://srigaruda.com

kishore mohan wrote:

>

> dear all,(especially sri visti and Graham Fox)

>

> I found an article written by sri PS satri on the net. Please read

> the same and post your opinions. Hope we can move something further

> thanx to this article.

>

> regards,

>

> Kishore patnaik

>

> http://www.webspawn er.com/users/ astroclinic19/ index.html

> <http://www.webspawner.com/users/astroclinic19/index.html>

>

> How many Days Make a Year ? by Prof. P S Sastri

>

> THERE has been a needless controversy about the duation of the year

> in the calculation of Vimshottari and other Dasas. Some have argued

> for 360 days as one year, while others take 365 days. Which would we

> accept? Phaladeepika and other texts speak of 324 days per year in

> the calculation of longevity as per Ashtakavarga.

> In the "Madhya-gati Vasana" section of Siddhanta Siromani, Bhaskara

> gives 365 days. 15 ghatis and 30.375 vighatis for a solar year (verse

> 8). The moderns take the sidereal solar year to be of 365.256363

> days. The synodic period of the Moon is 29.531 days giving in twelve

> months a total of 354.372 days. The lunar year is less than the solar

> year by 10.884 days. This is met by two intercalary months (adhika or

> mala masa) in five years. Whatever discrepancy exists is squared up

> by kshaya masa. Thus the so-called lunar year is actually luni-solar

> year.

> When people take a month of 30 days and a year of 360 days, they

> cannot and should not go by the western calendar merely. Actually the

> count should be from the lunar solar month and tithi onwards. This

> puts an end to the controversy. In five years we get 1825.769 days as

> per the moderns and in five lunar years with tow intercalary months

> we get 1825.28 days.

> In "Madhyanmadhikara" of Surya Siddhanta (verse 35) the solar month

> is said to have 30.4382266 days (30. gh 26.17.37) and the lunar month

> has 29.5305833 days (29 gh.31.50.6). The lunar month is less

> by .907643 days (gh. 54.27.31). This difference gets cancelled by one

> intercalary month after every 32 months and 15.5246 days. Thus as per

> Surya Siddhanta in one Mahayuga there are 157,79,17,828 solar days

> and 160,30,00,081 lunar days (verse 37). The difference is negated by

> introduction of intercalary (Adhika) and Kshaya months.

> It is then illogical and un-astronomical to take 360 days per year.

> If one wants to accept only the lunar synodic year he will have to

> accept only 354.372 days per year. Even 324 days per year in

> Ashtakavarga calculation is unscientific. The sidereal period of the

> Moon is 27.3216615 days; and this gives 327.859938 days for twelve

> months.

> It is only for the sake of convenience we take thirty days per month

> as the average. Even the ancient Egyptians had five no-days after 360

> days. The Greeks of yore also had a similar reckoning.

> If one is born as Prabha Chaitra Sukla Navami with a balance of

> Jupiter Dasa for ten years, the next Dasa of Saturn will begin as

> Chaitra Sukla Navami of the year Iswara. One may count the days and

> see if he gets 3600 days or more. The current count is from the luni-

> solar month and tithi only. Hence the argument in favour of 360 days

> is not scientifically valid.

> ***

> (Courtesy: The Astrological Magazine, June, 1987)

>

> <%40>, "Graham Fox" <fox.graham@ ...>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Kishore,

> > Thank you for your reply, but I'm afraid you've lost me. If one

> uses

> > 360 day years for dasas, the difference will be seen even in

> > mahadasa, as each year is 5.25 days less. So a 10 year Moon dasa,

> > for example, would be 52.5 days shorter, without even looking at

> > antardasas. And so I don't see why, if you add up the suksmadasas,

> > the "360 day year is obvious", as you say, since the length of the

> > suksmadasa is determined by what year length one uses for the

> > mahadasa (as SD, PAD and AD are subdivisions of MD). Also, I'd

> never

> > heard of a Savana year being 366 days, this is new to me.

> > Hovever, I still favour the 360 year at present, because it seems

> to

> > me to give more accurate periods, and because it is an "ideal" year

> > found in prophetic and ceremonial functions in many ancient

> > cultures, including for some ceremonies in Vedic times. Since the

> > Vedas don't specifically deal with dasa periods and the panoply of

> > later astrological techniques (they simply observe positions of

> > heavenly bodies, principally the moon, in the older system of 28

> > nakshatra, as I understand it), and since Parasara doesn't

> > specfically say what year to use with vimsottari dasa, I think

> there

> > are valid arguments on both sides of this question.

> > Thank you again for further references for reading.

> > Very best wishes

> > Graham

> >

> <%40>, "kishore mohan"

> > <kishorepatnaik09@ > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear sri Graham Fox,

> > >

> > > Sorry for the late reply.

> > >

> > > The contradiction is due to the hastiness with which I have

> > replied.

> > > The contradiction can also be attributed to the fact that while I

> > > believe that 360 days year gives more accurate results,

> > practically I

> > > follow the date wise year system. Of course, this does not

> distort

> > my

> > > predictions because I do not go beyond pratyandardasa and

> strongly

> > > depend upon the transits and panchang for predictions which gives

> > an

> > > edge in the predictions.

> > >

> > > Hence, this discussion is more academic oriented.

> > >

> > > Following the 360 days year is on in several traditions. Not only

> > > calculation of graha bala is based on 360 days year,but also if

> > you

> > > add up the sub sub periods(sukshma dasa),it is obvious that the

> > 360

> > > days period is followed.

> > >

> > > In SJC, sri Narasimha rao also talks of 360 days period in his

> > book.

> > >

> > > Thus, if you follow only dasa system of predictions going into

> sub

> > > periods beyond pratyantar dasas, then I feel you will have to

> take

> > > only 360 days year into consideration.

> > >

> > > On the other hand, the early vedic jyotisham(which was primarily

> > used

> > > timing of agricultural and yajna events), the year was taken

> as

> > > 366 days called savana year. But again, they followed such

> > > complicated systems that even by following the 366 days year,

> they

> > > arrived at correct day and hora. Because of this alone, I have

> > said

> > > Mr Visti's system gives accurate calculation.

> > >

> > > while it looks like Vistiji is not agreeing with me, I hope he

> > posts

> > > a long reply why he is not agreeing with me.

> > >

> > > regards,

> > >

> > > Kishore patnaik

> > >

> <%40>, "Graham Fox" <fox.graham@ >

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Kishore,

> > > > Thank you for this interesting view on this difficult question.

> > As

> > > > Visti says in his reply, those who adhere strictly to the true

> > > solar

> > > > year would find that your suggestion of using 360 days (which

> my

> > > > experience so far bears out) cannot accept your reasoning, as

> > the

> > > > true solar year is just over 5 days more. But I don't

> understand

> > > why

> > > > you first persuasively set out the merits of the "ideal" 360

> day

> > > > year for dasa calculation (as opposed to the solar year used by

> > > most

> > > > computer programs), and then say that Visti's way is more

> > accurate.

> > > > His 365+ true solar year works out the same as that of the

> > > > computers, doesn't it? Have I failed to understand soemthing?

> > > > Thanks for any clarification of your interesting point of view,

> > and

> > > > thanks for giving the reference to Shubhakaran to enable

> further

> > > > investigation.

> > > > Graham Fox

> > > >

> <%40>, "kishore mohan"

> > > > <kishorepatnaik09@ > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear all,

> > > > >

> > > > > Most of the computers are using the date to date method(ie

> 365

> > > > days

> > > > > for a non leap year and 366 days for leap year)

> > > > >

> > > > > While what Visti Larsen wrote makes sense and stands to

> logic,

> > > the

> > > > > actual method of arriving at the planetary periods is based

> on

> > a

> > > > 360

> > > > > days of year.

> > > > >

> > > > > For eg., the duration of Sun is taken as 36 days and in terms

> > of

> > > > > ghatikas, this translates to 2160 units(60X36) which is taken

> > as 6

> > > > > years, by equating each unit to one day and taking 360 days

> > per

> > > > year.

> > > > > (ref Nakshatra by K T Shubhakaran vol II, Sagar publications)

> > > > >

> > > > > Hence, while the easiest way is to accept the date to date

> > > > method,

> > > > > it is more accurate to take the 360 days into account, while

> > the

> > > > > method suggested by Visti is the most accurate but involves

> > > > hardwork.

> > > > >

> > > > > Hope this helps,

> > > > >

> > > > > Kishore patnaik

> > > > >

> <%40>, "Annick Bidreman"

> > > > > <annick.bidreman@ > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Visti,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I know that in SJC, Vimshottari dasa 365 days is used ; but

> > I'd

> > > > be

> > > > > more than happy to now exactly why, because some authors do

> > > prefer

> > > > > this one in 360 days, arguing occult reasons, and so on.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It'll be very simple a query for you, but I need to

> > understand

> > > > > clearly this question.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thanks in advance.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Warm regards,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Annick

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

October 30, 2006

dear visti,

namaskar. thanks for the mail. to be frank, I am still trying to understand

the article of

SRi Sastry.

Revert to with some homework done,

best regards,

Kishore patnaik

On 10/30/06, Visti Larsen <visti (AT) srigaruda (DOT) com> wrote:

>

> |Hare Rama Krsna|

> Dear Kishore, Namaskar.

> P.S. Sastri is quoting Phala Deepika. In the chapter on Vimsottari dasa,

> we find sloka 4 stating that we must find the solar return of the Sun to

> ascertain the length of a year for Vimsottari dasa. Hence for all udu dasas

> many astrologers follow solar years. This differs when we talk of specific

> ayur-dasas, like the pindayur, naisargayu, etc, where Jataka Parijata has

> advised us to use savana years. This also means that Naisargika Dasa has to

> be reckoned as using Savana years.

> I cannot comment on the reference to the Astakavarga Dasa, but will try to

> do some work on this.

> Yours sincerely,

>

> Visti Larsen

> Email: visti (AT) srigaruda (DOT) com

> For Consultations and Articles visit: http://srigaruda.com

>

> kishore mohan wrote:

>

> dear all,(especially sri visti and Graham Fox)

>

> I found an article written by sri PS satri on the net. Please read

> the same and post your opinions. Hope we can move something further

> thanx to this article.

>

> regards,

>

> Kishore patnaik

>

> http://www.webspawn er.com/users/ astroclinic19/ index.html<http://www.webspawner.com/users/astroclinic19/index.html>