Al Gore 2008

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinay ji,

 

> have you begun to rely on TPC more than any other Dasha? Just my curiosity,> I

remember you said a few months ago that Michael Jackson has good chances> of

going to jail. But he has been acquitted and is free…do you still see him>

getting into trouble in the days to come?

You misunderstood my prediction on Michael Jackson. We discussed his chart in

detail in one of my classes. The prediction of my class was that he would be

fine now, but fresh problem would come in 2006 and that he would be jailed in

2007.

 

We may very well go wrong, but haven't gone wrong yet. I did not predict that he

would be jailed now. I WAS expecting him to do fine for now. Our expectation is

based on Vimsottari dasa and annual TP charts. The year 2007 shows a strong

chance of imprisonment or serious hospitalization or moving to a different

country. Let us wait and see.

 

> Will be interesting to watch Al Gore in 2008. Narasimha, If TPC so clearly>

shows power in 2008 then Vimshottari & other dashas also should show the> same

for him in 2008. Do they? Is it not risky to rely solely on TPC? Or> have you

begun to rely on TPC more than any other Dasha?

 

I am not relying on TPC alone. I am also using natal dasas.

 

However, I find annual TP charts to be far more reliable than natal dasas. With

natal dasas, it is easy to pick a wrong dasa system and make a mistake. I find

annual TPC less fallible in my experience.

 

> With regard to BPHS & Chara Dasha, well how do we know that the rules given>

for calculation are not distorted? Remember we are talking of a 5000 year> old

text. Only the Lord knows how much of it is correct.

 

Agree. However, if you throw away the books completely, you are at the ground

level. And, there is no need to be there. We are far better off accepting the

text and going from there.

 

Honestly, I find this an escapist argument. The corruption in classics, esp

BPHS, is not as bad as it is made out to be. Perhaps a small percentage of the

verses are corrupted, but a significant percentage of verses seem fine to me.

 

> I think we should> give more importance to a technique that works and has been

tried by some> one rather than taking a particular shloka in any classic and

treating it as> a dictum.

 

Yes, what works should definitely be the criterion. However, people make a

mistake here. Let me give me views on this.

 

With due respect, something working for someone is not a criterion for me. I

know a gentleman who is a great worshipper of the Mother and can tell a lot of

things that I could not have figured out from the chart using ANY technique.

Interestingly, despite his stupendous powers, he respects sastram and wants to

learn it. The fact that he made a lot of correct predictions is irrelevant to

me. If he does not have a replicable technique that works and relies on his

excellent intuition to achieve his stupendous success, he is not a role model

for scientific astrology.

 

My criterion is this: I should be able to have a set of simple and well-defined

criteria that work reliably and replicably when I test them retro-actively on a

large data set. Also the performance of the criteria should be well above the

random probability. Let me explain.

 

Suppose an astrologer uses the following criterion to predict the birth of a

brother: "Chara dasa sign should be occupied or aspected by the 3rd house or

3rd lord or Mars or BK." The probability that a sign is occupied or aspected by

3rd house is 1/3. The probability that a sign is occupied or aspected by 3rd

lord is 1/3. The probability that a sign is occupied or aspected by BK is 1/3.

The probability that a sign is occupied or aspected by Mars is 1/3. The

probability that one of them is true is 4 * 1/3 - 6 * 1/9 + 4 * 1/27 - 1/81 =

65/81 = 80%. So, if you take a random chart and a random dasa, it is aspected

by 3rd house or 3rd lord or Mars or BK in 80% cases.

 

If you take examples of dasas that gave the birth of a brother and verify them,

you will find the principle to hold true in 80% cases even if your calculations

are wrong (simply because the principle is too general/vague and random

probability). You may conclude that this principle is a highly replicable

principle. But the fact of the matter is that it is useless for predictions, as

there are too many possibilities. On the other hand, if a principle has a random

probability of 15% but seen to work in 60% cases, it has some worth in it.

 

One particular astrologer may have made a lot of correct predictions using what

I call a vague and useless principle and hence you may think that it has some

worth in it. However, it is possible that his success had other reasons (such

as excellent intuition). The above principle, for example, is useless even if

you find it work in 90% cases.

 

When you evaluate astrological principles scientifically to isolate replicable

and reliable techniques, you have to separate the factor of intuition. Thus,

the amount of actual correct predictions made by an astrologer is not a useful

criterion, as the factor of intuition is embedded in it. What's useful is to

formulate the principle crisply in scientific language (i.e. in a well-defined

manner), estimate its random probability and retro-actively apply it on a large

data set and see if the success rate beats the probabillities considerably. If

so, you have a useful principle. If not, the principle is useless (even if an

astrologer made fantastic predictions using the same technique).

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us, Narasimha

-------------------------------Free Jyotish

lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.netFree Jyotish software

(Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website:

http://www.SriJagannath.org-------------------------------

 

> Hi Narasimha & others,> > Will be interesting to watch Al Gore in 2008.

Narasimha, If TPC so clearly> shows power in 2008 then Vimshottari & other

dashas also should show the> same for him in 2008. Do they? Is it not risky to

rely solely on TPC? Or> have you begun to rely on TPC more than any other

Dasha? Just my curiosity,> I remember you said a few months ago that Michael

Jackson has good chances> of going to jail. But he has been acquitted and is

free…do you still see him> getting into trouble in the days to come?> > BTW

the two photos (peacock & snake) you posted of Chandi Homa were nice,> esp the

peacock one. Does look like a peacock.> > With regard to BPHS & Chara Dasha,

well how do we know that the rules given> for calculation are not distorted?

Remember we are talking of a 5000 year> old text. Only the Lord knows how much

of it is correct. I think we should> give more importance to a technique that

works and has been tried by some> one rather than taking a particular shloka in

any classic and treating it as> a dictum. But it is alright to treat a classic

as a starting point, test it> and see if it is working. In any other sense any

classical text does not do> very much good I guess.> > Regards,> > Vinay

Kumar> > > >