Guest guest Posted May 15, 2002 Report Share Posted May 15, 2002 Dear Narasimha, If indeed we are slightly unsure as to the measure of the exact days in a year, then I am thinking that our dasa calculations may actually be off. Increasingly so as the age of a native progresses. If we accept the tithi year, then by age 35-36, the count for dasa and antardasa is off target by the equivalent of a full year. So then, is this the reason for why sometimes gochara and dasa results dont seem to match? Because the calculation may actually be substantially off from actual dasa-bhukti? Learned members please comment. Thanks. Viraj vedic astrology, "pvr108" <pvr@c...> wrote: > Dear Claudio, > > > So at the time of Parashara, there was a length of > > time that seems to have been generaly known as a > > "year" and for which there was no doubt. If it was > > otherwise the rishi could not have missed to point > > it out. We know that in the BPHS when some choice > > is possible (or some doubt could arise) like with > > the chara karakas he mentions that there are 2 > > schools (7 or 8 karakas)and he opines for 8. > > Parashara is too subtle to use inadequate words > > for definig something. > > Good thinking, but not definitive. If Parasara did not clarify what > a "year" means, it is not necessarily because it was well-known in > his time and there was no need to clarify. There are two possible > reasons: > > (1) He clarified this, but it is in lost verses. The BPHS we have > today is not complete. > > (2) The truth is too complex to be clarified in a verse. Parasara > wanted us to discover it when we are advanced enough in our tapas in > Jyotish. For example, it could be that different kind of years can be > used in the same dasa, for different purposes. Though this seems > wild, the reality sometimes can be too complex. > > In any case, it is not true that there was a fixed thing known > as "year" in Parasara's time. In the chapter on lost horoscopy, > Parasara used the word year for Barhaspatya (Jovian) years, which is > based on Jupiter's cycle. In the chapter on strengths (graha and > bhava balas), he very clearly mentioned the savana years (360-day > years). Savana years are absolutely irrespective of the motion of > planets (Sun and Moon) and absolutely a fixed measurement of Time as > an entity independent of everything else. > > So, Parasara knew of two different years. In fact, he talks of > Dharmaraja of Mahabharata as a contemporary and, in Mahabharata, we > find an argument between Duryodhana and Bhishma/Dharmaraja/Arjuna > about what constitutes a year. Duryodhana insists on a solar year to > be used to measure the time Pandavas spent in jungles and exile. > Dharmaraja, Arjuna and Bhishma argue that 360 tithis constitute a > year. This argument was the basis of Mahabharata war (in which > Duryodhana loses and dies). > > Thus, we know that Savana years (360-day), solar years (365.2425- day) > and 360-tithis years (354-days) were all known at Parasara's time. > > So your argument that there was a fixed and well-known year at > Parasara's time does not hold water. > > Finally, what is the correct year to be used? > > There is no definitive answer at this time. The truth can be, as I > pointed out previously, very complex and stranger than we may imagine. > > May Jupiter's light shine on us, > Narasimha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.