Guest guest Posted May 14, 2008 Report Share Posted May 14, 2008 Dear Friends, L-57 sec. +365.2425 gives much better results. This is my experience. Regads,  G.K.GOEL Ph: 09350311433 Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR NEW DELHI-110 076 INDIA Sreenadh <sreesog Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 1:30:39 PM Re: Choice of year length (Tabulation against event) ancient_indian_ astrology, " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote: Dear Neelam ji,  Sorry, I just noticed that I made one more typo in that mail related to the Dasa listing related to L+365.2425 days. There fore I am posing the corrected mail again below - ==>  Please check yourself before buying some arguments on face value, even if provided by Chandra hari ji. Here is the actual values for your reference. (DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, Kerala, India. Marriage date: 24 Feb 2008). The Vimsottari Dasa-Antara upto 5 levels using JHora for various Ayanamsa and year length combinations are given below. CH(L+44);365. 2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve Fails miserably CH(L+44); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Ke- Ju-Ve Matches with the event. But none proposes this combination. CH(L+46); 365.2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Sa- Sa-Ma Fails miserably.. CH (L+46); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Me- Ve-Sa Matches with the event; Perfect L+365.2425 days Me -Ju-Sa-Su-Ma- Mo Almost there. But why Su, Ma and Mo? Where is Ve? L+360 days Me-Ju-Ke-Mo- Ju-Sa Not satisfactory. Why Ke and Mo? And why not Ve present?  From the above table it is clear that the opinion expressed by Chandrahari that the event took place in Me-Ju-Sa is wrong if we buy his argument on 44 more than Lahari and 365.2425 days. As per the conditions 44 min more than Lahari and 365.2425 days, it would be only " Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve  which would fail as per every normal logic for deriving the marriage timing.    As normal astrologers what would we expect, for something like marriage to fulfill in a chart as per Vimsottari dasa? For me the simple and straight rule would be - Involvement of 7th lord, lagna lord and Venus. If it is a love marriage the 5th lord should be involved. The involvement of 2nd lord, 11th lord, and any planet in its own Sign are also possibilities, even though secondary. As per this simple thumb rule, in the above chart, the planets I would expect to involve are - Ju (7th lord), Me (Lagna lord), Ve (marriage significator) , Sa (5th lord, since it is a love marriage). Mo (the 11th lord) and Ke (planet placed in 11th) could be possibilities but only secondary. And I find only 2 sets of data in the above table that satisfies this condition,  viz,  1) CH (L+46); 360 days   2) CH (L+44); 360 days.  The third choice L + 365.2425 is almost there upto Paryantara level but not beyond that. I discard CH(L+44); 360 days due to the following reasons -   1) None is in support of such an argument     2) This is almost an exception, a rare case. When we consider numerous charts this usually does not seems to be as convincing as the other combination CH (L+46), 360 days. After contrasting L+44 with L+46, I feel more comfortable with L+46 for all practical purposes.  Thus I resort to my last and usual choice - L+46; 360 days. But I know that, the people who use L+44 with 360 days and L with 365.2425 days would also be " Almost there " .   Hope I am clear. <== Love and regards, Sreenadh Re: Choice of year length Dear Neelam ji,   There is a typo in my previous mail; It is NOT 2 Feb 2008 but instead 24th Feb 2008 as stated in previous mails. The table of Dasa-Antara provided in my earlier mail is prepared for 24 Feb 2008 it self and is correct. Love and regards, Sreenadh ancient_indian_ astrology, " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote: Re: Choice of year length Dear Neelam ji,   Please verify it agin - especially the comparison of what Chandra hari is speaking about and what you are speaking about.    * Please note that Chandra hari is speaking about L+44 along with 365.2425 days and NOT ABOUT Lahari + 365.2425 days; and you are speaking about Lahari + 365.25 days (Of course you are true that with Lahari+365.25 we will get Me-Ju-Sa. But that is NOT the issue here and that will not solve the problem - since the argument is, whether to use 365.2425 or 360 days along with CHANDRAHARI AYANAMSA)   * DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, Kerala. Marriage date: 2 Feb 2008. Year length: 365.2425 days (and NOT 365.25 days). Use the latest version of JHora. (It could be a JHora bug/correction as well)  * Consider the Dasa from Moon only (and NOT from Lagna sputa)  * Go up to the 5th level (and not just upto 3rd level) to ensure that Unintended planets are not involved. (When you go upto 5th level, you can easly see that L+365.2425 day combination too fails)  Conclusion: Only L+46 along with 360 days savana year holds good. Love and regards, Sreenadh > ancient_indian_ astrology, " neelam gupta " > neelamgupta07@ wrote: > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji, > > > > Namaste, > > > > With PL 7.1, lahiri ayanamsha, 365.25 days I am getting Mer-Ju-sa-ve > as the > > dasha sequence from 12 Feb -5 mar. > > This to me is showing an absolute possibility for marriage that > happened on > > 24-feb. > > Hence I said so. Reasons already given in my mail. > > > > Regards > > > > Neelam > > > Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Go to http://in.promos./groups/bestof/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2008 Report Share Posted May 14, 2008 Dear Goel, You can get even better results if u follow Krushna's Ayanamsa. 24th Feb 366 AD Which is approximately Lahiri - 54 Minutes. In due course of time, you will reach that date. That is my belief :-) Cheers !!! Ash -> http:///www.ashtro.ca vedic astrology , Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937 wrote: > > Dear Friends, > L-57 sec. +365.2425 gives much better results. > This is my experience. > Regads, >  G.K.GOEL > Ph: 09350311433 > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR > NEW DELHI-110 076 > INDIA > > > > > Sreenadh <sreesog > > Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 1:30:39 PM > Re: Choice of year length (Tabulation against event) > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Sreenadh " <sreesog@> wrote: > > Dear Neelam ji, >  Sorry, I just noticed that I made one more typo in that mail related to the Dasa listing related to L+365.2425 days. There fore I am posing the corrected mail again below - > ==> >  Please check yourself before buying some arguments on face value, even if provided by Chandra hari ji. Here is the actual values for your reference. (DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, Kerala, India. Marriage date: 24 Feb 2008). The Vimsottari Dasa-Antara upto 5 levels using JHora for various Ayanamsa and year length combinations are given below. > CH(L+44);365. 2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve Fails miserably > CH(L+44); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Ke- Ju-Ve Matches with the event. But none proposes this combination. > CH(L+46); 365.2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Sa- Sa-Ma Fails miserably.. > CH (L+46); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Me- Ve-Sa Matches with the event; Perfect > L+365.2425 days Me -Ju-Sa-Su-Ma- Mo Almost there. But why Su, Ma and Mo? Where is Ve? > L+360 days Me-Ju-Ke-Mo- Ju-Sa Not satisfactory. Why Ke and Mo? And why not Ve present? >  From the above table it is clear that the opinion expressed by Chandrahari that the event took place in Me-Ju-Sa is wrong if we buy his argument on 44 more than Lahari and 365.2425 days. As per the conditions 44 min more than Lahari and 365.2425 days, it would be only " Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve  which would fail as per every normal logic for deriving the marriage timing.  >   As normal astrologers what would we expect, for something like marriage to fulfill in a chart as per Vimsottari dasa? For me the simple and straight rule would be - Involvement of 7th lord, lagna lord and Venus. If it is a love marriage the 5th lord should be involved. The involvement of 2nd lord, 11th lord, and any planet in its own Sign are also possibilities, even though secondary. As per this simple thumb rule, in the above chart, the planets I would expect to involve are - Ju (7th lord), Me (Lagna lord), Ve (marriage significator) , Sa (5th lord, since it is a love marriage). Mo (the 11th lord) and Ke (planet placed in 11th) could be possibilities but only secondary. And I find only 2 sets of data in the above table that satisfies this condition,  viz, >  1) CH (L+46); 360 days >   2) CH (L+44); 360 days. >  The third choice L + 365.2425 is almost there upto Paryantara level but not beyond that. I discard CH(L+44); 360 days due to the following reasons - >   1) None is in support of such an argument   >   2) This is almost an exception, a rare case. When we consider numerous charts this usually does not seems to be as convincing as the other combination CH (L+46), 360 days. After contrasting L+44 with L+46, I feel more comfortable with L+46 for all practical purposes. >  Thus I resort to my last and usual choice - L+46; 360 days. But I know that, the people who use L+44 with 360 days and L with 365.2425 days would also be " Almost there " .  >  Hope I am clear. > <== > Love and regards, > Sreenadh > Re: Choice of year length > > Dear Neelam ji, >   There is a typo in my previous mail; It is NOT 2 Feb 2008 but instead 24th Feb 2008 as stated in previous mails. The table of Dasa-Antara provided in my earlier mail is prepared for 24 Feb 2008 it self and is correct. > Love and regards, > Sreenadh > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Sreenadh " <sreesog@> wrote: > > Re: Choice of year length > > Dear Neelam ji, >   Please verify it agin - especially the comparison of what Chandra hari is speaking about and what you are speaking about.  >   * Please note that Chandra hari is speaking about L+44 along with 365.2425 days and NOT ABOUT Lahari + 365.2425 days; and you are speaking about Lahari + 365.25 days (Of course you are true that with Lahari+365.25 we will get Me-Ju-Sa. But that is NOT the issue here and that will not solve the problem - since the argument is, whether to use 365.2425 or 360 days along with CHANDRAHARI AYANAMSA) >   * DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, Kerala. Marriage date: 2 Feb 2008. Year length: 365.2425 days (and NOT 365.25 days). Use the latest version of JHora. (It could be a JHora bug/correction as well) >  * Consider the Dasa from Moon only (and NOT from Lagna sputa) >  * Go up to the 5th level (and not just upto 3rd level) to ensure that Unintended planets are not involved. (When you go upto 5th level, you can easly see that L+365.2425 day combination too fails) >  Conclusion: Only L+46 along with 360 days savana year holds good. > Love and regards, > Sreenadh > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " neelam gupta " > > neelamgupta07@ wrote: > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji, > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > With PL 7.1, lahiri ayanamsha, 365.25 days I am getting Mer-Ju-sa-ve > > as the > > > dasha sequence from 12 Feb -5 mar. > > > This to me is showing an absolute possibility for marriage that > > happened on > > > 24-feb. > > > Hence I said so. Reasons already given in my mail. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Neelam > > > > > > > > Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Go to http://in.promos./groups/bestof/ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2008 Report Share Posted May 14, 2008 Dear Friends, L-57 sec. +365.2425 gives much better results. This is my experience. Regads, G.K.GOELPh: 09350311433Add: L-409, SARITA VIHARNEW DELHI-110 076INDIA Sreenadh <sreesog Sent: Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 1:30:39 PM Re: Choice of year length (Tabulation against event) Dear Neelam ji, Sorry, I just noticed that I made one more typo in that mail related to the Dasa listing related to L+365.2425 days. There fore I am posing the corrected mail again below -==> Please check yourself before buying some arguments on face value, even if provided by Chandra hari ji. Here is the actual values for your reference. (DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, Kerala, India. Marriage date: 24 Feb 2008). The Vimsottari Dasa-Antara upto 5 levels using JHora for various Ayanamsa and year length combinations are given below.. CH(L+44);365. 2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve Fails miserably CH(L+44); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Ke- Ju-Ve Matches with the event. But none proposes this combination. CH(L+46); 365.2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Sa- Sa-Ma Fails miserably. CH (L+46); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Me- Ve-Sa Matches with the event; Perfect L+365.2425 days Me -Ju-Sa-Su-Ma- Mo Almost there. But why Su, Ma and Mo? Where is Ve? L+360 days Me-Ju-Ke-Mo- Ju-Sa Not satisfactory. Why Ke and Mo? And why not Ve present? From the above table it is clear that the opinion expressed by Chandrahari that the event took place in Me-Ju-Sa is wrong if we buy his argument on 44 more than Lahari and 365.2425 days. As per the conditions 44 min more than Lahari and 365.2425 days, it would be only "Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve which would fail as per every normal logic for deriving the marriage timing. As normal astrologers what would we expect, for something like marriage to fulfill in a chart as per Vimsottari dasa? For me the simple and straight rule would be - Involvement of 7th lord, lagna lord and Venus. If it is a love marriage the 5th lord should be involved. The involvement of 2nd lord, 11th lord, and any planet in its own Sign are also possibilities, even though secondary. As per this simple thumb rule, in the above chart, the planets I would expect to involve are - Ju (7th lord), Me (Lagna lord), Ve (marriage significator) , Sa (5th lord, since it is a love marriage). Mo (the 11th lord) and Ke (planet placed in 11th) could be possibilities but only secondary. And I find only 2 sets of data in the above table that satisfies this condition, viz, 1) CH (L+46); 360 days 2) CH (L+44); 360 days. The third choice L + 365.2425 is almost there upto Paryantara level but not beyond that. I discard CH(L+44); 360 days due to the following reasons - 1) None is in support of such an argument 2) This is almost an exception, a rare case. When we consider numerous charts this usually does not seems to be as convincing as the other combination CH (L+46), 360 days. After contrasting L+44 with L+46, I feel more comfortable with L+46 for all practical purposes. Thus I resort to my last and usual choice - L+46; 360 days. But I know that, the people who use L+44 with 360 days and L with 365.2425 days would also be "Almost there". Hope I am clear.<==Love and regards,Sreenadhancient_indian_ astrology, "Sreenadh" <sreesog wrote: Re: Choice of year length Dear Neelam ji, There is a typo in my previous mail; It is NOT 2 Feb 2008 but instead 24th Feb 2008 as stated in previous mails. The table of Dasa-Antara provided in my earlier mail is prepared for 24 Feb 2008 it self and is correct.Love and regards,Sreenadhancient_indian_ astrology, "Sreenadh" <sreesog wrote: Re: Choice of year length Dear Neelam ji, Please verify it agin - especially the comparison of what Chandra hari is speaking about and what you are speaking about. * Please note that Chandra hari is speaking about L+44 along with 365.2425 days and NOT ABOUT Lahari + 365.2425 days; and you are speaking about Lahari + 365.25 days (Of course you are true that with Lahari+365.25 we will get Me-Ju-Sa. But that is NOT the issue here and that will not solve the problem - since the argument is, whether to use 365.2425 or 360 days along with CHANDRAHARI AYANAMSA) * DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, Kerala. Marriage date: 2 Feb 2008. Year length: 365.2425 days (and NOT 365.25 days). Use the latest version of JHora. (It could be a JHora bug/correction as well) * Consider the Dasa from Moon only (and NOT from Lagna sputa) * Go up to the 5th level (and not just upto 3rd level) to ensure that Unintended planets are not involved. (When you go upto 5th level, you can easly see that L+365.2425 day combination too fails) Conclusion: Only L+46 along with 360 days savana year holds good.Love and regards,Sreenadh> ancient_indian_ astrology, "neelam gupta"> neelamgupta07@ wrote:> >> > Dear Sreenadh ji,> >> > Namaste,> >> > With PL 7.1, lahiri ayanamsha, 365.25 days I am getting Mer-Ju-sa-ve> as the> > dasha sequence from 12 Feb -5 mar.> > This to me is showing an absolute possibility for marriage that> happened on> > 24-feb.> > Hence I said so. Reasons already given in my mail.> >> > Regards> >> > Neelam> >> Explore your hobbies and interests. Click here to begin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2008 Report Share Posted May 14, 2008 Namaste Sreenadhji, Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I usually use this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008 Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that) Regards, bhagavathi , Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937 wrote: > > Dear Friends, > L-57 sec. +365.2425 gives much better results. > This is my experience. > Regads, >  G.K.GOEL > Ph: 09350311433 > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR > NEW DELHI-110 076 > INDIA > > > > > Sreenadh <sreesog > > Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 1:30:39 PM > Re: Choice of year length (Tabulation against event) > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Sreenadh " <sreesog@> wrote: > > Dear Neelam ji, >  Sorry, I just noticed that I made one more typo in that mail related to the Dasa listing related to L+365.2425 days. There fore I am posing the corrected mail again below - > ==> >  Please check yourself before buying some arguments on face value, even if provided by Chandra hari ji. Here is the actual values for your reference. (DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, Kerala, India. Marriage date: 24 Feb 2008). The Vimsottari Dasa- Antara upto 5 levels using JHora for various Ayanamsa and year length combinations are given below. > CH(L+44);365. 2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve Fails miserably > CH(L+44); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Ke- Ju-Ve Matches with the event. But none proposes this combination. > CH(L+46); 365.2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Sa- Sa-Ma Fails miserably.. > CH (L+46); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Me- Ve-Sa Matches with the event; Perfect > L+365.2425 days Me -Ju-Sa-Su-Ma- Mo Almost there. But why Su, Ma and Mo? Where is Ve? > L+360 days Me-Ju-Ke-Mo- Ju-Sa Not satisfactory. Why Ke and Mo? And why not Ve present? >  From the above table it is clear that the opinion expressed by Chandrahari that the event took place in Me-Ju-Sa is wrong if we buy his argument on 44 more than Lahari and 365.2425 days. As per the conditions 44 min more than Lahari and 365.2425 days, it would be only " Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve  which would fail as per every normal logic for deriving the marriage timing.  >   As normal astrologers what would we expect, for something like marriage to fulfill in a chart as per Vimsottari dasa? For me the simple and straight rule would be - Involvement of 7th lord, lagna lord and Venus. If it is a love marriage the 5th lord should be involved. The involvement of 2nd lord, 11th lord, and any planet in its own Sign are also possibilities, even though secondary. As per this simple thumb rule, in the above chart, the planets I would expect to involve are - Ju (7th lord), Me (Lagna lord), Ve (marriage significator) , Sa (5th lord, since it is a love marriage). Mo (the 11th lord) and Ke (planet placed in 11th) could be possibilities but only secondary. And I find only 2 sets of data in the above table that satisfies this condition,  viz, >  1) CH (L+46); 360 days >   2) CH (L+44); 360 days. >  The third choice L + 365.2425 is almost there upto Paryantara level but not beyond that. I discard CH(L+44); 360 days due to the following reasons - >   1) None is in support of such an argument   >   2) This is almost an exception, a rare case. When we consider numerous charts this usually does not seems to be as convincing as the other combination CH (L+46), 360 days. After contrasting L+44 with L+46, I feel more comfortable with L+46 for all practical purposes. >  Thus I resort to my last and usual choice - L+46; 360 days. But I know that, the people who use L+44 with 360 days and L with 365.2425 days would also be " Almost there " .  >  Hope I am clear. > <== > Love and regards, > Sreenadh > Re: Choice of year length > > Dear Neelam ji, >   There is a typo in my previous mail; It is NOT 2 Feb 2008 but instead 24th Feb 2008 as stated in previous mails. The table of Dasa- Antara provided in my earlier mail is prepared for 24 Feb 2008 it self and is correct. > Love and regards, > Sreenadh > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Sreenadh " <sreesog@> wrote: > > Re: Choice of year length > > Dear Neelam ji, >   Please verify it agin - especially the comparison of what Chandra hari is speaking about and what you are speaking about.  >   * Please note that Chandra hari is speaking about L+44 along with 365.2425 days and NOT ABOUT Lahari + 365.2425 days; and you are speaking about Lahari + 365.25 days (Of course you are true that with Lahari+365.25 we will get Me-Ju-Sa. But that is NOT the issue here and that will not solve the problem - since the argument is, whether to use 365.2425 or 360 days along with CHANDRAHARI AYANAMSA) >   * DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, Kerala. Marriage date: 2 Feb 2008. Year length: 365.2425 days (and NOT 365.25 days). Use the latest version of JHora. (It could be a JHora bug/correction as well) >  * Consider the Dasa from Moon only (and NOT from Lagna sputa) >  * Go up to the 5th level (and not just upto 3rd level) to ensure that Unintended planets are not involved. (When you go upto 5th level, you can easly see that L+365.2425 day combination too fails) >  Conclusion: Only L+46 along with 360 days savana year holds good. > Love and regards, > Sreenadh > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " neelam gupta " > > neelamgupta07@ wrote: > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji, > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > With PL 7.1, lahiri ayanamsha, 365.25 days I am getting Mer-Ju- sa-ve > > as the > > > dasha sequence from 12 Feb -5 mar. > > > This to me is showing an absolute possibility for marriage that > > happened on > > > 24-feb. > > > Hence I said so. Reasons already given in my mail. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Neelam > > > > > > > > Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Go to http://in.promos./groups/bestof/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2008 Report Share Posted May 14, 2008 Dear Goel, You can get even better results if u follow Krushna's Ayanamsa. 24th Feb 366 AD Which is approximately Lahiri - 54 Minutes. In due course of time, you will reach that date. That is my belief :-) Cheers !!! Ash -> http:///www.ashtro.ca , Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937 wrote: > > Dear Friends, > L-57 sec. +365.2425 gives much better results. > This is my experience. > Regads, >  G.K.GOEL > Ph: 09350311433 > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR > NEW DELHI-110 076 > INDIA > > > > > Sreenadh <sreesog > > Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 1:30:39 PM > Re: Choice of year length (Tabulation against event) > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Sreenadh " <sreesog@> wrote: > > Dear Neelam ji, >  Sorry, I just noticed that I made one more typo in that mail related to the Dasa listing related to L+365.2425 days. There fore I am posing the corrected mail again below - > ==> >  Please check yourself before buying some arguments on face value, even if provided by Chandra hari ji. Here is the actual values for your reference. (DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, Kerala, India. Marriage date: 24 Feb 2008). The Vimsottari Dasa-Antara upto 5 levels using JHora for various Ayanamsa and year length combinations are given below. > CH(L+44);365. 2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve Fails miserably > CH(L+44); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Ke- Ju-Ve Matches with the event. But none proposes this combination. > CH(L+46); 365.2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Sa- Sa-Ma Fails miserably.. > CH (L+46); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Me- Ve-Sa Matches with the event; Perfect > L+365.2425 days Me -Ju-Sa-Su-Ma- Mo Almost there. But why Su, Ma and Mo? Where is Ve? > L+360 days Me-Ju-Ke-Mo- Ju-Sa Not satisfactory. Why Ke and Mo? And why not Ve present? >  From the above table it is clear that the opinion expressed by Chandrahari that the event took place in Me-Ju-Sa is wrong if we buy his argument on 44 more than Lahari and 365.2425 days. As per the conditions 44 min more than Lahari and 365.2425 days, it would be only " Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve  which would fail as per every normal logic for deriving the marriage timing.  >   As normal astrologers what would we expect, for something like marriage to fulfill in a chart as per Vimsottari dasa? For me the simple and straight rule would be - Involvement of 7th lord, lagna lord and Venus. If it is a love marriage the 5th lord should be involved. The involvement of 2nd lord, 11th lord, and any planet in its own Sign are also possibilities, even though secondary. As per this simple thumb rule, in the above chart, the planets I would expect to involve are - Ju (7th lord), Me (Lagna lord), Ve (marriage significator) , Sa (5th lord, since it is a love marriage). Mo (the 11th lord) and Ke (planet placed in 11th) could be possibilities but only secondary. And I find only 2 sets of data in the above table that satisfies this condition,  viz, >  1) CH (L+46); 360 days >   2) CH (L+44); 360 days. >  The third choice L + 365.2425 is almost there upto Paryantara level but not beyond that. I discard CH(L+44); 360 days due to the following reasons - >   1) None is in support of such an argument   >   2) This is almost an exception, a rare case. When we consider numerous charts this usually does not seems to be as convincing as the other combination CH (L+46), 360 days. After contrasting L+44 with L+46, I feel more comfortable with L+46 for all practical purposes. >  Thus I resort to my last and usual choice - L+46; 360 days. But I know that, the people who use L+44 with 360 days and L with 365.2425 days would also be " Almost there " .  >  Hope I am clear. > <== > Love and regards, > Sreenadh > Re: Choice of year length > > Dear Neelam ji, >   There is a typo in my previous mail; It is NOT 2 Feb 2008 but instead 24th Feb 2008 as stated in previous mails. The table of Dasa-Antara provided in my earlier mail is prepared for 24 Feb 2008 it self and is correct. > Love and regards, > Sreenadh > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Sreenadh " <sreesog@> wrote: > > Re: Choice of year length > > Dear Neelam ji, >   Please verify it agin - especially the comparison of what Chandra hari is speaking about and what you are speaking about.  >   * Please note that Chandra hari is speaking about L+44 along with 365.2425 days and NOT ABOUT Lahari + 365.2425 days; and you are speaking about Lahari + 365.25 days (Of course you are true that with Lahari+365.25 we will get Me-Ju-Sa. But that is NOT the issue here and that will not solve the problem - since the argument is, whether to use 365.2425 or 360 days along with CHANDRAHARI AYANAMSA) >   * DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, Kerala. Marriage date: 2 Feb 2008. Year length: 365.2425 days (and NOT 365.25 days). Use the latest version of JHora. (It could be a JHora bug/correction as well) >  * Consider the Dasa from Moon only (and NOT from Lagna sputa) >  * Go up to the 5th level (and not just upto 3rd level) to ensure that Unintended planets are not involved. (When you go upto 5th level, you can easly see that L+365.2425 day combination too fails) >  Conclusion: Only L+46 along with 360 days savana year holds good. > Love and regards, > Sreenadh > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " neelam gupta " > > neelamgupta07@ wrote: > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji, > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > With PL 7.1, lahiri ayanamsha, 365.25 days I am getting Mer-Ju-sa-ve > > as the > > > dasha sequence from 12 Feb -5 mar. > > > This to me is showing an absolute possibility for marriage that > > happened on > > > 24-feb. > > > Hence I said so. Reasons already given in my mail. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Neelam > > > > > > > > Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Go to http://in.promos./groups/bestof/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2008 Report Share Posted May 15, 2008 Dear Mr. Sreenadh and other fellow members, Ex. Chart:-18-11-1971,2.55AM, Trivandrum - Marriage on 24-2-2008 JH7.2 Citra Ayanamsa-23-26-54.43 Lagna -Virgo , Navamsa Aries with retrograde Saturn Marriage took place in dasa of  Mer'Jup/ Sat/Jup/Mer/(Jup-Sat) Some specific features of the chart: 1. LLand 7L are conjoined 2.No planet in Angular houses 3. Six planets in Upchaya houses 4. Trine are occupied by Rahu and Saturn 5. Mars is placed in 6H ,in 5H from Moon ,and in 2H from AL 6. In D-9 , Mars ans VENUS BEING LLand 7L are in 10H IN Capricorn with Mercury( this indicate the some kind of failure in 1st marriage) 7Saturn and Mars are in exchange in D-9 , Mars being 7L. 8. Transit Jupiter in Libra and Natal Jupiter in Sag. Navamsa are aspecting  Navamsa Lagna on the day of Marriage. Dasa  Analysis: Mer. is Lagna lord,Jup is 7L, Sat is in Navamsa lagna and in exchange with Navamsa lagna lord Mars, AS SUCH SATURN IS FULLY QUALIFIED TO GIVE MARRIAGE IN ITS SUB-SUB PERIOD. 4TH,5TH AND 6TH level dasa's are of Jup, Mer, and Jup respectively. These dasa's are based on 360 deg. Solar year basis. As I do not know the person , it may be a folly to discuss adverse feature in this nativity. Dear Mr. Sreenadh , this is the reason I say Lahiri's Ayanamsa minus-57sec and year of 365.2524 give more reliable results. I hasten to add that I have no claims and does mean to offend any person's beliefs or understanding. Regards to all,  G.K.GOEL Ph: 09350311433 Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR NEW DELHI-110 076 INDIA Sreenadh <sreesog Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 11:54:19 AM Re: Choice of year length Dear Neelam,  Please check yourself before buying some arguments on face value, even if provided by Chandra hari ji. Here is the actual values for your reference. (DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; Marriage date: 2 Feb 2008). The Vimsottari Dasa-Antara upto 5 levels using JHora for various Ayanamsa and year length combinations are given below. CH(L+44);365. 2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve Fails miserably CH(L+44); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Ke- Ju-Ve Matches with the event. But none proposes this combination. CH(L+46); 365.2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Sa- Sa-Ma Fails miserably. CH (L+46); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Me- Ve-Sa Matches with the event; Perfect L+365.2425 days Ju-Ju-Sa-Su- Ma-Mo Almost there. But why Su, Ma and Mo? Where is Ve? L+360 days Me-Ju-Ke-Mo- Ju-Sa Not satisfactory. Why Ke and Mo? And why not Ve present?  From the above table it is clear that the opinion expressed by Chandrahari that the event took place in Me-Ju-Sa is wrong if we buy his argument on 44 more than Lahari and 365.2425 days. As per the conditions 44 min more than Lahari and 365.2425 days, it would be only " Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve " which would fail as per every normal logic for deriving the marriage timing.    As normal astrologers what would we expect, for something like marriage to fulfill in a chart as per Vimsottari dasa? For me the simple and straight rule would be - Involvement of 7th lord, lagna lord and Venus. If it is a love marriage the 5th lord should be involved. The involvement of 2nd lord, 11th lord, and any planet in its own Sign are also possibilities, even though secondary. As per this simple thumb rule, in the above chart, the planets I would expect to involve are - Ju (7th lord), Me (Lagna lord), Ve (marriage significator) , Sa (5th lord, since it is a love marriage). Mo (the 11th lord) and Ke (planet placed in 11th) could be possibilities but only secondary. And I find only 2 sets of data in the above table that satisfies this condition,  viz,  1) CH (L+46); 360 days   2) CH (L+44); 360 days.  The third choice L + 365.2425 is almost there upto Paryantara level but not beyond that. I discard CH(L+44); 360 days due to the following reasons -   1) None is in support of such an argument     2) This is almost an exception, a rare case. When we consider numerous charts this usually does not seems to be as convincing as the other combination CH (L+46), 360 days. After contrasting L+44 with L+46, I feel more comfortable with L+46 for all practical purposes.  Thus I resort to my last and usual choice - L+46; 360 days. But I know that, the people who use L+44 with 360 days and L with 365.2425 days would also be " Almost there " .   Hope I am clear. Love and regards, Sreenadh Neelam gupta07 wrote: > > In fact Sreenadh ji. I agree with Chandra hari ji, Mer-Jup-Sat is perfect > for giving marriage, a long overdue marriage finally performed after hassles > and much delay. > > Saturn from 9H aspects Jupiter, the antardashanath, who is also the 7L of > marriage and and 4L of domestic bliss, Venus for family and addition to > family and hagya, 12L of marital pleasures and lagna lord and 10L sun. This > yoga is also samsaptam. It couldn't have been a better timing. There is a > perfect connection between MD-AD-PD lords. Mercury with 7L jupiter who > aspects own house, both aspected by PD nath saturn, whose dispositor is with > MD-AD lords. All this happening in 3H -- love marriage, opposition from > relations, intercaste marriage, etc. The person himself might becoming wary > of everything and wanting to renounce! > > Also, Saturn retrograde being 5L and 6L of sanchit and rinanubandhan in > bhagyasthan, it should've given the native a delayed result of past > connection only. > > Then it connects lagna and 7H in navamsh. > > From moon this Saturn is in Mangalya house but also bears the blemish > of 8thlordship. It aspects 7L mars in 5H of love and emotions. There > might have > been a long and arduous emotional journey to get his lady love. > > Chandra Hari ji we have already started exploring the other possibilities. > But with limited knowledge in hand the progress will be slow and so please > bear with us and keep guiding us till we are able to form some firm opinion. > > Regards > > Neelam > Messenger blocked? Want to chat? Go to http://in.messenger./webmessengerpromo.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2008 Report Share Posted May 15, 2008 Dear bhagavathi ji, ==> > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I usually use > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008 Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that) <== Muhurta was at 11.30 AM. In the sequence you provided (i.e. Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu), why Mo? that too twice? Why Rahu? Why Ve is missing? Mo is 11th lord placed in 2nd; Ra is planet placed in 5th; But the most important thing why Ve the marriage significator (owner of 2nd house as well) missing from the list? I don't feel that these are ok, and do not think that, if the event was not known, you would be able to pin-point this event with this combination of Ayanamsa and Year length. Note to Goel ji: Dear Goel ji, what are these " much better results " ? Regards, Sreenadh , " bhagavathi_hariharan " <bhagavathi_hariharan wrote: > > Namaste Sreenadhji, > > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I usually use > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008 Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that) > > Regards, > > bhagavathi > > > > , Gopal Goel > gkgoel1937@ wrote: > > > > Dear Friends, > > L-57 sec. +365.2425 gives much better results. > > This is my experience. > > Regads, > > G.K.GOEL > > Ph: 09350311433 > > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR > > NEW DELHI-110 076 > > INDIA > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@ > > > > Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 1:30:39 PM > > Re: Choice of year length > (Tabulation against event) > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Sreenadh " > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > Sorry, I just noticed that I made one more typo in that mail > related to the Dasa listing related to L+365.2425 days. There fore I > am posing the corrected mail again below - > > ==> > > Please check yourself before buying some arguments on face > value, even if provided by Chandra hari ji. Here is the actual values > for your reference. (DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, > Kerala, India. Marriage date: 24 Feb 2008). The Vimsottari Dasa- > Antara upto 5 levels using JHora for various Ayanamsa and year length > combinations are given below. > > CH(L+44);365. 2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve Fails miserably > > CH(L+44); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Ke- Ju-Ve Matches with the event. But > none proposes this combination. > > CH(L+46); 365.2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Sa- Sa-Ma Fails miserably.. > > CH (L+46); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Me- Ve-Sa Matches with the event; > Perfect > > L+365.2425 days Me -Ju-Sa-Su-Ma- Mo Almost there. But why Su, Ma > and Mo? Where is Ve? > > L+360 days Me-Ju-Ke-Mo- Ju-Sa Not satisfactory. Why Ke and Mo? And > why not Ve present? > > From the above table it is clear that the opinion expressed by > Chandrahari that the event took place in Me-Ju-Sa is wrong if we buy > his argument on 44 more than Lahari and 365.2425 days. As per the > conditions 44 min more than Lahari and 365.2425 days, it would be > only " Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve which would fail as per every normal logic > for deriving the marriage timing. > > As normal astrologers what would we expect, for something like > marriage to fulfill in a chart as per Vimsottari dasa? For me the > simple and straight rule would be - Involvement of 7th lord, lagna > lord and Venus. If it is a love marriage the 5th lord should be > involved. The involvement of 2nd lord, 11th lord, and any planet in > its own Sign are also possibilities, even though secondary. As per > this simple thumb rule, in the above chart, the planets I would > expect to involve are - Ju (7th lord), Me (Lagna lord), Ve (marriage > significator) , Sa (5th lord, since it is a love marriage). Mo (the > 11th lord) and Ke (planet placed in 11th) could be possibilities but > only secondary. And I find only 2 sets of data in the above table > that satisfies this condition, viz, > > 1) CH (L+46); 360 days > > 2) CH (L+44); 360 days. > > The third choice L + 365.2425 is almost there upto Paryantara > level but not beyond that. I discard CH(L+44); 360 days due to the > following reasons - > > 1) None is in support of such an argument > > 2) This is almost an exception, a rare case. When we consider > numerous charts this usually does not seems to be as convincing as > the other combination CH (L+46), 360 days. After contrasting L+44 > with L+46, I feel more comfortable with L+46 for all practical > purposes. > > Thus I resort to my last and usual choice - L+46; 360 days. But > I know that, the people who use L+44 with 360 days and L with > 365.2425 days would also be " Almost there " . > > Hope I am clear. > > <== > > Love and regards, > > Sreenadh > > Re: Choice of year length > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > There is a typo in my previous mail; It is NOT 2 Feb 2008 but > instead 24th Feb 2008 as stated in previous mails. The table of Dasa- > Antara provided in my earlier mail is prepared for 24 Feb 2008 it > self and is correct. > > Love and regards, > > Sreenadh > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Sreenadh " > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > Re: Choice of year length > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > Please verify it agin - especially the comparison of what > Chandra hari is speaking about and what you are speaking about. > > * Please note that Chandra hari is speaking about L+44 along > with 365.2425 days and NOT ABOUT Lahari + 365.2425 days; and you are > speaking about Lahari + 365.25 days (Of course you are true that with > Lahari+365.25 we will get Me-Ju-Sa. But that is NOT the issue here > and that will not solve the problem - since the argument is, whether > to use 365.2425 or 360 days along with CHANDRAHARI AYANAMSA) > > * DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, Kerala. Marriage > date: 2 Feb 2008. Year length: 365.2425 days (and NOT 365.25 days). > Use the latest version of JHora. (It could be a JHora bug/correction > as well) > > * Consider the Dasa from Moon only (and NOT from Lagna sputa) > > * Go up to the 5th level (and not just upto 3rd level) to ensure > that Unintended planets are not involved. (When you go upto 5th > level, you can easly see that L+365.2425 day combination too fails) > > Conclusion: Only L+46 along with 360 days savana year holds good. > > Love and regards, > > Sreenadh > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " neelam gupta " > > > neelamgupta07@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji, > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > > > With PL 7.1, lahiri ayanamsha, 365.25 days I am getting Mer-Ju- > sa-ve > > > as the > > > > dasha sequence from 12 Feb -5 mar. > > > > This to me is showing an absolute possibility for marriage that > > > happened on > > > > 24-feb. > > > > Hence I said so. Reasons already given in my mail. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > Neelam > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Go to > http://in.promos./groups/bestof/ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2008 Report Share Posted May 15, 2008 Dear Sreenadh, It is unfortunate that Jyotisha is not included by the Swiss Academy as a topic for Nobel Prize. Had that been so, the first contender would have been Gopal Goel and the second none other than Bhagavathi Hariharan. In some cases I am finding better results when year is 300 tithis - ancient Roman year of 10 months In few other cases I am finding better results when year is 360/371/372 In few others when the ayanamsa is 0 In few others when ayanamsa is Raman Research is flourishing and so we must write to Swiss Academy to begin their award beginning with Gopal Goel and Bhagavathi Hariharan. chandra hari , " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote: > > > Dear bhagavathi ji, > ==> > > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I usually use > > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008 Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu > > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that) > <== > Muhurta was at 11.30 AM. In the sequence you provided (i.e. > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu), why Mo? that too twice? Why Rahu? Why Ve is > missing? Mo is 11th lord placed in 2nd; Ra is planet placed in 5th; But > the most important thing why Ve the marriage significator (owner of 2nd > house as well) missing from the list? I don't feel that these are ok, > and do not think that, if the event was not known, you would be able to > pin-point this event with this combination of Ayanamsa and Year length. > Note to Goel ji: Dear Goel ji, what are these " much better results " ? > Regards, > Sreenadh > > , " bhagavathi_hariharan " > bhagavathi_hariharan@ wrote: > > > > Namaste Sreenadhji, > > > > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I usually use > > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008 Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu > > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that) > > > > Regards, > > > > bhagavathi > > > > > > > > , Gopal Goel > > gkgoel1937@ wrote: > > > > > > Dear Friends, > > > L-57 sec. +365.2425 gives much better results. > > > This is my experience. > > > Regads, > > > G.K.GOEL > > > Ph: 09350311433 > > > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR > > > NEW DELHI-110 076 > > > INDIA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@ > > > > > > Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 1:30:39 PM > > > Re: Choice of year length > > (Tabulation against event) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Sreenadh " > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > > Sorry, I just noticed that I made one more typo in that mail > > related to the Dasa listing related to L+365.2425 days. There fore I > > am posing the corrected mail again below - > > > ==> > > > Please check yourself before buying some arguments on face > > value, even if provided by Chandra hari ji. Here is the actual values > > for your reference. (DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, > > Kerala, India. Marriage date: 24 Feb 2008). The Vimsottari Dasa- > > Antara upto 5 levels using JHora for various Ayanamsa and year length > > combinations are given below. > > > CH(L+44);365. 2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve Fails miserably > > > CH(L+44); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Ke- Ju-Ve Matches with the event. But > > none proposes this combination. > > > CH(L+46); 365.2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Sa- Sa-Ma Fails miserably.. > > > CH (L+46); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Me- Ve-Sa Matches with the event; > > Perfect > > > L+365.2425 days Me -Ju-Sa-Su-Ma- Mo Almost there. But why Su, Ma > > and Mo? Where is Ve? > > > L+360 days Me-Ju-Ke-Mo- Ju-Sa Not satisfactory. Why Ke and Mo? And > > why not Ve present? > > > From the above table it is clear that the opinion expressed by > > Chandrahari that the event took place in Me-Ju-Sa is wrong if we buy > > his argument on 44 more than Lahari and 365.2425 days. As per the > > conditions 44 min more than Lahari and 365.2425 days, it would be > > only " Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve which would fail as per every normal logic > > for deriving the marriage timing. > > > As normal astrologers what would we expect, for something like > > marriage to fulfill in a chart as per Vimsottari dasa? For me the > > simple and straight rule would be - Involvement of 7th lord, lagna > > lord and Venus. If it is a love marriage the 5th lord should be > > involved. The involvement of 2nd lord, 11th lord, and any planet in > > its own Sign are also possibilities, even though secondary. As per > > this simple thumb rule, in the above chart, the planets I would > > expect to involve are - Ju (7th lord), Me (Lagna lord), Ve (marriage > > significator) , Sa (5th lord, since it is a love marriage). Mo (the > > 11th lord) and Ke (planet placed in 11th) could be possibilities but > > only secondary. And I find only 2 sets of data in the above table > > that satisfies this condition, viz, > > > 1) CH (L+46); 360 days > > > 2) CH (L+44); 360 days. > > > The third choice L + 365.2425 is almost there upto Paryantara > > level but not beyond that. I discard CH(L+44); 360 days due to the > > following reasons - > > > 1) None is in support of such an argument > > > 2) This is almost an exception, a rare case. When we consider > > numerous charts this usually does not seems to be as convincing as > > the other combination CH (L+46), 360 days. After contrasting L+44 > > with L+46, I feel more comfortable with L+46 for all practical > > purposes. > > > Thus I resort to my last and usual choice - L+46; 360 days. But > > I know that, the people who use L+44 with 360 days and L with > > 365.2425 days would also be " Almost there " . > > > Hope I am clear. > > > <== > > > Love and regards, > > > Sreenadh > > > Re: Choice of year length > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > > There is a typo in my previous mail; It is NOT 2 Feb 2008 but > > instead 24th Feb 2008 as stated in previous mails. The table of Dasa- > > Antara provided in my earlier mail is prepared for 24 Feb 2008 it > > self and is correct. > > > Love and regards, > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Sreenadh " > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > Re: Choice of year length > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > > Please verify it agin - especially the comparison of what > > Chandra hari is speaking about and what you are speaking about. > > > * Please note that Chandra hari is speaking about L+44 along > > with 365.2425 days and NOT ABOUT Lahari + 365.2425 days; and you are > > speaking about Lahari + 365.25 days (Of course you are true that with > > Lahari+365.25 we will get Me-Ju-Sa. But that is NOT the issue here > > and that will not solve the problem - since the argument is, whether > > to use 365.2425 or 360 days along with CHANDRAHARI AYANAMSA) > > > * DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, Kerala. Marriage > > date: 2 Feb 2008. Year length: 365.2425 days (and NOT 365.25 days). > > Use the latest version of JHora. (It could be a JHora bug/correction > > as well) > > > * Consider the Dasa from Moon only (and NOT from Lagna sputa) > > > * Go up to the 5th level (and not just upto 3rd level) to ensure > > that Unintended planets are not involved. (When you go upto 5th > > level, you can easly see that L+365.2425 day combination too fails) > > > Conclusion: Only L+46 along with 360 days savana year holds good. > > > Love and regards, > > > Sreenadh > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " neelam gupta " > > > > neelamgupta07@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji, > > > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > > > > > With PL 7.1, lahiri ayanamsha, 365.25 days I am getting Mer-Ju- > > sa-ve > > > > as the > > > > > dasha sequence from 12 Feb -5 mar. > > > > > This to me is showing an absolute possibility for marriage that > > > > happened on > > > > > 24-feb. > > > > > Hence I said so. Reasons already given in my mail. > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > Neelam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Go to > > http://in.promos./groups/bestof/ > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2008 Report Share Posted May 15, 2008 Dear Mr Goel, Sreenadh has justified it using his technique, you have justified using your technique each using different ayanamsa? It is not a small thing, one is using Lahiri - 57 seconds, other is using Lahiri + 40 with 360 days for year. IT just goes to show that anyone can justify anything? This mail is a nimita for me, as I just wrote about it in my previous mail on the ABSOLUTE need to have proper technique FIRST before venturing into verifying an ayanamsa. Verification CAN ONLY COME AFTER the Set of LAWS to test are FIXED and agreed by everyone. I believe that everyone will agree with that. Cheers !!! Ash -> http://www.ashtro.ca , Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937 wrote: > > Dear Mr. Sreenadh and other fellow members, > Ex. Chart:-18-11-1971,2.55AM, Trivandrum - Marriage on 24-2-2008 > JH7.2 Citra Ayanamsa-23-26-54.43 Lagna -Virgo , Navamsa Aries with retrograde Saturn > Marriage took place in dasa of  Mer'Jup/ Sat/Jup/Mer/(Jup-Sat) > Some specific features of the chart: > 1. LLand 7L are conjoined > 2.No planet in Angular houses > 3. Six planets in Upchaya houses > 4. Trine are occupied by Rahu and Saturn > 5. Mars is placed in 6H ,in 5H from Moon ,and in 2H from AL > 6. In D-9 , Mars ans VENUS BEING LLand 7L are in 10H IN Capricorn > with Mercury( this indicate the some kind of failure in 1st marriage) > 7Saturn and Mars are in exchange in D-9 , Mars being 7L. > 8. Transit Jupiter in Libra and Natal Jupiter in Sag. Navamsa are aspecting >  Navamsa Lagna on the day of Marriage. > Dasa  Analysis: > Mer. is Lagna lord,Jup is 7L, Sat is in Navamsa lagna and in exchange with Navamsa lagna lord Mars, > AS SUCH SATURN IS FULLY QUALIFIED TO GIVE MARRIAGE IN ITS SUB-SUB PERIOD. > 4TH,5TH AND 6TH level dasa's are of Jup, Mer, and Jup respectively. > These dasa's are based on 360 deg. Solar year basis. > As I do not know the person , it may be a folly to discuss adverse feature in this nativity. > Dear Mr. Sreenadh , this is the reason I say Lahiri's Ayanamsa minus-57sec and year of 365.2524 give more reliable results. > I hasten to add that I have no claims and does mean to offend any person's beliefs or understanding. > Regards to all, > >  G.K.GOEL > Ph: 09350311433 > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR > NEW DELHI-110 076 > INDIA > > > > > Sreenadh <sreesog > > Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 11:54:19 AM > Re: Choice of year length > > > Dear Neelam, >  Please check yourself before buying some arguments on face value, even if provided by Chandra hari ji. Here is the actual values for your reference. (DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; Marriage date: 2 Feb 2008). The Vimsottari Dasa-Antara upto 5 levels using JHora for various Ayanamsa and year length combinations are given below. > CH(L+44);365. 2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve Fails miserably > CH(L+44); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Ke- Ju-Ve Matches with the event. But none proposes this combination. > CH(L+46); 365.2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Sa- Sa-Ma Fails miserably. > CH (L+46); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Me- Ve-Sa Matches with the event; Perfect > L+365.2425 days Ju-Ju-Sa-Su- Ma-Mo Almost there. But why Su, Ma and Mo? Where is Ve? > L+360 days Me-Ju-Ke-Mo- Ju-Sa Not satisfactory. Why Ke and Mo? And why not Ve present? > >  From the above table it is clear that the opinion expressed by Chandrahari that the event took place in Me-Ju-Sa is wrong if we buy his argument on 44 more than Lahari and 365.2425 days. As per the conditions 44 min more than Lahari and 365.2425 days, it would be only " Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve " which would fail as per every normal logic for deriving the marriage timing.  >   As normal astrologers what would we expect, for something like marriage to fulfill in a chart as per Vimsottari dasa? For me the simple and straight rule would be - Involvement of 7th lord, lagna lord and Venus. If it is a love marriage the 5th lord should be involved. The involvement of 2nd lord, 11th lord, and any planet in its own Sign are also possibilities, even though secondary. As per this simple thumb rule, in the above chart, the planets I would expect to involve are - Ju (7th lord), Me (Lagna lord), Ve (marriage significator) , Sa (5th lord, since it is a love marriage). Mo (the 11th lord) and Ke (planet placed in 11th) could be possibilities but only secondary. And I find only 2 sets of data in the above table that satisfies this condition,  viz, >  1) CH (L+46); 360 days >   2) CH (L+44); 360 days. >  The third choice L + 365.2425 is almost there upto Paryantara level but not beyond that. I discard CH(L+44); 360 days due to the following reasons - >   1) None is in support of such an argument   >   2) This is almost an exception, a rare case. When we consider numerous charts this usually does not seems to be as convincing as the other combination CH (L+46), 360 days. After contrasting L+44 with L+46, I feel more comfortable with L+46 for all practical purposes. >  Thus I resort to my last and usual choice - L+46; 360 days. But I know that, the people who use L+44 with 360 days and L with 365.2425 days would also be " Almost there " .  >  Hope I am clear. > Love and regards, > Sreenadh > > Neelam gupta07@> wrote: > > > > In fact Sreenadh ji. I agree with Chandra hari ji, Mer-Jup-Sat is perfect > > for giving marriage, a long overdue marriage finally performed after hassles > > and much delay. > > > > Saturn from 9H aspects Jupiter, the antardashanath, who is also the 7L of > > marriage and and 4L of domestic bliss, Venus for family and addition to > > family and hagya, 12L of marital pleasures and lagna lord and 10L sun. This > > yoga is also samsaptam. It couldn't have been a better timing. There is a > > perfect connection between MD-AD-PD lords. Mercury with 7L jupiter who > > aspects own house, both aspected by PD nath saturn, whose dispositor is with > > MD-AD lords. All this happening in 3H -- love marriage, opposition from > > relations, intercaste marriage, etc. The person himself might becoming wary > > of everything and wanting to renounce! > > > > Also, Saturn retrograde being 5L and 6L of sanchit and rinanubandhan in > > bhagyasthan, it should've given the native a delayed result of past > > connection only. > > > > Then it connects lagna and 7H in navamsh. > > > > From moon this Saturn is in Mangalya house but also bears the blemish > > of 8thlordship. It aspects 7L mars in 5H of love and emotions. There > > might have > > been a long and arduous emotional journey to get his lady love. > > > > Chandra Hari ji we have already started exploring the other possibilities. > > But with limited knowledge in hand the progress will be slow and so please > > bear with us and keep guiding us till we are able to form some firm opinion. > > > > Regards > > > > Neelam > > > > > > Messenger blocked? Want to chat? Go to http://in.messenger./webmessengerpromo.php > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2008 Report Share Posted May 15, 2008 Dear Chandrahariji, Thanks for the compliment. I am already eyeing for the nobel in my field- scientific research. I will surely consider Jyotisham also. If you do not know what research is I can surely help you understand (with my research background), research is experimentation- good or bad does not matter. Critics like you are the heart of research. If your intentions are " sarcastic " , then I would say all your learnings have gone waste. Learn form Sreenadhji- he is a true researcher, he cared to respond, see the efforts of Goelji, another true researcher. I do not know how old you are, maybe I am not learned like you but I definitely have superior thoughts than you, to respect others views. I suggest everyone, not to continue this thread- that would spoil the intentions of this discussion Sreenadhji, Rahu is also a natural significator of marriage, moon is 2nd and 11th lord, dispositior is venus, Rahu in the constellation of moon. Moon in the constellation of Jupiter is very significant here - whichever works for you is fine. The said combination has been working good for me. Regards bhagavathi , " chandra_hari18 " <chandra_hari18 wrote: > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > It is unfortunate that Jyotisha is not included by the Swiss Academy as > a topic for Nobel Prize. Had that been so, the first contender would > have been Gopal Goel and the second none other than Bhagavathi > Hariharan. > > In some cases I am finding better results when year is 300 tithis - > ancient Roman year of 10 months > > In few other cases I am finding better results when year is 360/371/372 > > In few others when the ayanamsa is 0 > > In few others when ayanamsa is Raman > > Research is flourishing and so we must write to Swiss Academy to begin > their award beginning with Gopal Goel and Bhagavathi Hariharan. > > chandra hari > > > > > , " Sreenadh " > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear bhagavathi ji, > > ==> > > > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I usually use > > > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008 Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu > > > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that) > > <== > > Muhurta was at 11.30 AM. In the sequence you provided (i.e. > > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu), why Mo? that too twice? Why Rahu? Why Ve is > > missing? Mo is 11th lord placed in 2nd; Ra is planet placed in 5th; > But > > the most important thing why Ve the marriage significator (owner of > 2nd > > house as well) missing from the list? I don't feel that these are ok, > > and do not think that, if the event was not known, you would be able > to > > pin-point this event with this combination of Ayanamsa and Year > length. > > Note to Goel ji: Dear Goel ji, what are these " much better results " ? > > > Regards, > > Sreenadh > > > > , > " bhagavathi_hariharan " > > bhagavathi_hariharan@ wrote: > > > > > > Namaste Sreenadhji, > > > > > > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I usually use > > > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008 Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu > > > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that) > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > bhagavathi > > > > > > > > > > > > , Gopal Goel > > > gkgoel1937@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > L-57 sec. +365.2425 gives much better results. > > > > This is my experience. > > > > Regads, > > > > G.K.GOEL > > > > Ph: 09350311433 > > > > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR > > > > NEW DELHI-110 076 > > > > INDIA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@ > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 1:30:39 PM > > > > Re: Choice of year length > > > (Tabulation against event) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Sreenadh " > > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > > > Sorry, I just noticed that I made one more typo in that mail > > > related to the Dasa listing related to L+365.2425 days. There fore I > > > am posing the corrected mail again below - > > > > ==> > > > > Please check yourself before buying some arguments on face > > > value, even if provided by Chandra hari ji. Here is the actual > values > > > for your reference. (DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, > > > Kerala, India. Marriage date: 24 Feb 2008). The Vimsottari Dasa- > > > Antara upto 5 levels using JHora for various Ayanamsa and year > length > > > combinations are given below. > > > > CH(L+44);365. 2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve Fails miserably > > > > CH(L+44); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Ke- Ju-Ve Matches with the event. But > > > none proposes this combination. > > > > CH(L+46); 365.2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Sa- Sa-Ma Fails miserably.. > > > > CH (L+46); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Me- Ve-Sa Matches with the event; > > > Perfect > > > > L+365.2425 days Me -Ju-Sa-Su-Ma- Mo Almost there. But why Su, Ma > > > and Mo? Where is Ve? > > > > L+360 days Me-Ju-Ke-Mo- Ju-Sa Not satisfactory. Why Ke and Mo? And > > > why not Ve present? > > > > From the above table it is clear that the opinion expressed by > > > Chandrahari that the event took place in Me-Ju-Sa is wrong if we buy > > > his argument on 44 more than Lahari and 365.2425 days. As per the > > > conditions 44 min more than Lahari and 365.2425 days, it would be > > > only " Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve which would fail as per every normal logic > > > for deriving the marriage timing. > > > > As normal astrologers what would we expect, for something like > > > marriage to fulfill in a chart as per Vimsottari dasa? For me the > > > simple and straight rule would be - Involvement of 7th lord, lagna > > > lord and Venus. If it is a love marriage the 5th lord should be > > > involved. The involvement of 2nd lord, 11th lord, and any planet in > > > its own Sign are also possibilities, even though secondary. As per > > > this simple thumb rule, in the above chart, the planets I would > > > expect to involve are - Ju (7th lord), Me (Lagna lord), Ve (marriage > > > significator) , Sa (5th lord, since it is a love marriage). Mo (the > > > 11th lord) and Ke (planet placed in 11th) could be possibilities but > > > only secondary. And I find only 2 sets of data in the above table > > > that satisfies this condition, viz, > > > > 1) CH (L+46); 360 days > > > > 2) CH (L+44); 360 days. > > > > The third choice L + 365.2425 is almost there upto Paryantara > > > level but not beyond that. I discard CH(L+44); 360 days due to the > > > following reasons - > > > > 1) None is in support of such an argument > > > > 2) This is almost an exception, a rare case. When we consider > > > numerous charts this usually does not seems to be as convincing as > > > the other combination CH (L+46), 360 days. After contrasting L+44 > > > with L+46, I feel more comfortable with L+46 for all practical > > > purposes. > > > > Thus I resort to my last and usual choice - L+46; 360 days. But > > > I know that, the people who use L+44 with 360 days and L with > > > 365.2425 days would also be " Almost there " . > > > > Hope I am clear. > > > > <== > > > > Love and regards, > > > > Sreenadh > > > > Re: Choice of year length > > > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > > > There is a typo in my previous mail; It is NOT 2 Feb 2008 but > > > instead 24th Feb 2008 as stated in previous mails. The table of > Dasa- > > > Antara provided in my earlier mail is prepared for 24 Feb 2008 it > > > self and is correct. > > > > Love and regards, > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Sreenadh " > > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Re: Choice of year length > > > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > > > Please verify it agin - especially the comparison of what > > > Chandra hari is speaking about and what you are speaking about. > > > > * Please note that Chandra hari is speaking about L+44 along > > > with 365.2425 days and NOT ABOUT Lahari + 365.2425 days; and you are > > > speaking about Lahari + 365.25 days (Of course you are true that > with > > > Lahari+365.25 we will get Me-Ju-Sa. But that is NOT the issue here > > > and that will not solve the problem - since the argument is, whether > > > to use 365.2425 or 360 days along with CHANDRAHARI AYANAMSA) > > > > * DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, Kerala. Marriage > > > date: 2 Feb 2008. Year length: 365.2425 days (and NOT 365.25 days). > > > Use the latest version of JHora. (It could be a JHora bug/correction > > > as well) > > > > * Consider the Dasa from Moon only (and NOT from Lagna sputa) > > > > * Go up to the 5th level (and not just upto 3rd level) to ensure > > > that Unintended planets are not involved. (When you go upto 5th > > > level, you can easly see that L+365.2425 day combination too fails) > > > > Conclusion: Only L+46 along with 360 days savana year holds good. > > > > Love and regards, > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " neelam > gupta " > > > > > neelamgupta07@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > > > > > > > With PL 7.1, lahiri ayanamsha, 365.25 days I am getting > Mer-Ju- > > > sa-ve > > > > > as the > > > > > > dasha sequence from 12 Feb -5 mar. > > > > > > This to me is showing an absolute possibility for marriage > that > > > > > happened on > > > > > > 24-feb. > > > > > > Hence I said so. Reasons already given in my mail. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > Neelam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Go to > > > http://in.promos./groups/bestof/ > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2008 Report Share Posted May 15, 2008 Dear Ash,You made a very valid statement: Verification CAN ONLY COME AFTER the Set of LAWS to test are FIXED and agreed by everyone.Unfortunately, like Ayanamsha, getting agreement on the LAWS to test is also a huge task, close to impossible as I can see. It appears that each and every Astrologer has his own set of rules (me included :-)) that he/she latches on to.In modern sciences it is easy to develop standards as the theories can be put to test and verify the results. It may not be impossible to achieve the same in Astrology but it can be very difficult task. But, when it is done, Astrology can be established as the Super Science.Regards,Krishnaashsam73 <kas wrote: Dear Mr Goel, Sreenadh has justified it using his technique, you have justified using your technique each using different ayanamsa? It is not a small thing, one is using Lahiri - 57 seconds, other is using Lahiri + 40 with 360 days for year. IT just goes to show that anyone can justify anything? This mail is a nimita for me, as I just wrote about it in my previous mail on the ABSOLUTE need to have proper technique FIRST before venturing into verifying an ayanamsa. Verification CAN ONLY COME AFTER the Set of LAWS to test are FIXED and agreed by everyone. I believe that everyone will agree with that. Cheers !!! Ash -> http://www.ashtro.ca , Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937 wrote: > > Dear Mr. Sreenadh and other fellow members, > Ex. Chart:-18-11-1971,2.55AM, Trivandrum - Marriage on 24-2-2008 > JH7.2 Citra Ayanamsa-23-26-54.43 Lagna -Virgo , Navamsa Aries with retrograde Saturn > Marriage took place in dasa of  Mer'Jup/ Sat/Jup/Mer/(Jup-Sat) > Some specific features of the chart: > 1. LLand 7L are conjoined > 2.No planet in Angular houses > 3. Six planets in Upchaya houses > 4. Trine are occupied by Rahu and Saturn > 5. Mars is placed in 6H ,in 5H from Moon ,and in 2H from AL > 6. In D-9 , Mars ans VENUS BEING LLand 7L are in 10H IN Capricorn > with Mercury( this indicate the some kind of failure in 1st marriage) > 7Saturn and Mars are in exchange in D-9 , Mars being 7L. > 8. Transit Jupiter in Libra and Natal Jupiter in Sag. Navamsa are aspecting >  Navamsa Lagna on the day of Marriage. > Dasa  Analysis: > Mer. is Lagna lord,Jup is 7L, Sat is in Navamsa lagna and in exchange with Navamsa lagna lord Mars, > AS SUCH SATURN IS FULLY QUALIFIED TO GIVE MARRIAGE IN ITS SUB-SUB PERIOD. > 4TH,5TH AND 6TH level dasa's are of Jup, Mer, and Jup respectively. > These dasa's are based on 360 deg. Solar year basis. > As I do not know the person , it may be a folly to discuss adverse feature in this nativity. > Dear Mr. Sreenadh , this is the reason I say Lahiri's Ayanamsa minus-57sec and year of 365.2524 give more reliable results. > I hasten to add that I have no claims and does mean to offend any person's beliefs or understanding. > Regards to all, > >  G.K.GOEL > Ph: 09350311433 > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR > NEW DELHI-110 076 > INDIA > > > > > Sreenadh <sreesog > > Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 11:54:19 AM > Re: Choice of year length > > > Dear Neelam, >  Please check yourself before buying some arguments on face value, even if provided by Chandra hari ji. Here is the actual values for your reference. (DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; Marriage date: 2 Feb 2008). The Vimsottari Dasa-Antara upto 5 levels using JHora for various Ayanamsa and year length combinations are given below. > CH(L+44);365. 2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve Fails miserably > CH(L+44); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Ke- Ju-Ve Matches with the event. But none proposes this combination. > CH(L+46); 365.2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Sa- Sa-Ma Fails miserably. > CH (L+46); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Me- Ve-Sa Matches with the event; Perfect > L+365.2425 days Ju-Ju-Sa-Su- Ma-Mo Almost there. But why Su, Ma and Mo? Where is Ve? > L+360 days Me-Ju-Ke-Mo- Ju-Sa Not satisfactory. Why Ke and Mo? And why not Ve present? > >  From the above table it is clear that the opinion expressed by Chandrahari that the event took place in Me-Ju-Sa is wrong if we buy his argument on 44 more than Lahari and 365.2425 days. As per the conditions 44 min more than Lahari and 365.2425 days, it would be only "Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve" which would fail as per every normal logic for deriving the marriage timing.  >   As normal astrologers what would we expect, for something like marriage to fulfill in a chart as per Vimsottari dasa? For me the simple and straight rule would be - Involvement of 7th lord, lagna lord and Venus. If it is a love marriage the 5th lord should be involved. The involvement of 2nd lord, 11th lord, and any planet in its own Sign are also possibilities, even though secondary. As per this simple thumb rule, in the above chart, the planets I would expect to involve are - Ju (7th lord), Me (Lagna lord), Ve (marriage significator) , Sa (5th lord, since it is a love marriage). Mo (the 11th lord) and Ke (planet placed in 11th) could be possibilities but only secondary. And I find only 2 sets of data in the above table that satisfies this condition,  viz, >  1) CH (L+46); 360 days >   2) CH (L+44); 360 days. >  The third choice L + 365.2425 is almost there upto Paryantara level but not beyond that. I discard CH(L+44); 360 days due to the following reasons - >   1) None is in support of such an argument   >   2) This is almost an exception, a rare case. When we consider numerous charts this usually does not seems to be as convincing as the other combination CH (L+46), 360 days. After contrasting L+44 with L+46, I feel more comfortable with L+46 for all practical purposes. >  Thus I resort to my last and usual choice - L+46; 360 days. But I know that, the people who use L+44 with 360 days and L with 365.2425 days would also be "Almost there".  >  Hope I am clear. > Love and regards, > Sreenadh > > Neelam gupta07@> wrote: > > > > In fact Sreenadh ji. I agree with Chandra hari ji, Mer-Jup-Sat is perfect > > for giving marriage, a long overdue marriage finally performed after hassles > > and much delay. > > > > Saturn from 9H aspects Jupiter, the antardashanath, who is also the 7L of > > marriage and and 4L of domestic bliss, Venus for family and addition to > > family and hagya, 12L of marital pleasures and lagna lord and 10L sun. This > > yoga is also samsaptam. It couldn't have been a better timing. There is a > > perfect connection between MD-AD-PD lords. Mercury with 7L jupiter who > > aspects own house, both aspected by PD nath saturn, whose dispositor is with > > MD-AD lords. All this happening in 3H -- love marriage, opposition from > > relations, intercaste marriage, etc. The person himself might becoming wary > > of everything and wanting to renounce! > > > > Also, Saturn retrograde being 5L and 6L of sanchit and rinanubandhan in > > bhagyasthan, it should've given the native a delayed result of past > > connection only. > > > > Then it connects lagna and 7H in navamsh. > > > > From moon this Saturn is in Mangalya house but also bears the blemish > > of 8thlordship. It aspects 7L mars in 5H of love and emotions. There > > might have > > been a long and arduous emotional journey to get his lady love. > > > > Chandra Hari ji we have already started exploring the other possibilities. > > But with limited knowledge in hand the progress will be slow and so please > > bear with us and keep guiding us till we are able to form some firm opinion. > > > > Regards > > > > Neelam > > > > > > Messenger blocked? Want to chat? Go to http://in.messenger./webmessengerpromo.php > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2008 Report Share Posted May 15, 2008 Dear Bhagavathi, I will be much grateful if you can make me understand as to what is research and what kind of research you have done in science? Please charter a scientific programme of research by which everyone can propose pet theories and prove for themselves and then call it a science. chandra hari , " bhagavathi_hariharan " <bhagavathi_hariharan wrote: > > Dear Chandrahariji, > > Thanks for the compliment. I am already eyeing for the nobel in my > field- scientific research. I will surely consider Jyotisham also. If > you do not know what research is I can surely help you understand > (with my research background), research is experimentation- good or > bad does not matter. Critics like you are the heart of research. > > If your intentions are " sarcastic " , then I would say all your > learnings have gone waste. Learn form Sreenadhji- he is a true > researcher, he cared to respond, see the efforts of Goelji, another > true researcher. I do not know how old you are, maybe I am not > learned like you but I definitely have superior thoughts than you, to > respect others views. > > I suggest everyone, not to continue this thread- that would spoil the > intentions of this discussion > > Sreenadhji, Rahu is also a natural significator of marriage, moon is > 2nd and 11th lord, dispositior is venus, Rahu in the constellation of > moon. Moon in the constellation of Jupiter is very significant here - > whichever works for you is fine. The said combination has been > working good for me. > > Regards > bhagavathi > > > , " chandra_hari18 " > chandra_hari18@ wrote: > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > It is unfortunate that Jyotisha is not included by the Swiss > Academy as > > a topic for Nobel Prize. Had that been so, the first contender would > > have been Gopal Goel and the second none other than Bhagavathi > > Hariharan. > > > > In some cases I am finding better results when year is 300 tithis - > > ancient Roman year of 10 months > > > > In few other cases I am finding better results when year is > 360/371/372 > > > > In few others when the ayanamsa is 0 > > > > In few others when ayanamsa is Raman > > > > Research is flourishing and so we must write to Swiss Academy to > begin > > their award beginning with Gopal Goel and Bhagavathi Hariharan. > > > > chandra hari > > > > > > > > > > , " Sreenadh " > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear bhagavathi ji, > > > ==> > > > > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I usually > use > > > > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008 > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu > > > > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that) > > > <== > > > Muhurta was at 11.30 AM. In the sequence you provided (i.e. > > > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu), why Mo? that too twice? Why Rahu? Why Ve > is > > > missing? Mo is 11th lord placed in 2nd; Ra is planet placed in > 5th; > > But > > > the most important thing why Ve the marriage significator (owner > of > > 2nd > > > house as well) missing from the list? I don't feel that these are > ok, > > > and do not think that, if the event was not known, you would be > able > > to > > > pin-point this event with this combination of Ayanamsa and Year > > length. > > > Note to Goel ji: Dear Goel ji, what are these " much better > results " ? > > > > > Regards, > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > , > > " bhagavathi_hariharan " > > > bhagavathi_hariharan@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Namaste Sreenadhji, > > > > > > > > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I usually > use > > > > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008 > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu > > > > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that) > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > bhagavathi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Gopal Goel > > > > gkgoel1937@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > > L-57 sec. +365.2425 gives much better results. > > > > > This is my experience. > > > > > Regads, > > > > > G.K.GOEL > > > > > Ph: 09350311433 > > > > > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR > > > > > NEW DELHI-110 076 > > > > > INDIA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@ > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 1:30:39 PM > > > > > Re: Choice of year length > > > > (Tabulation against event) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Sreenadh " > > > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > > > > Sorry, I just noticed that I made one more typo in that mail > > > > related to the Dasa listing related to L+365.2425 days. There > fore I > > > > am posing the corrected mail again below - > > > > > ==> > > > > > Please check yourself before buying some arguments on face > > > > value, even if provided by Chandra hari ji. Here is the actual > > values > > > > for your reference. (DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, > > > > Kerala, India. Marriage date: 24 Feb 2008). The Vimsottari Dasa- > > > > Antara upto 5 levels using JHora for various Ayanamsa and year > > length > > > > combinations are given below. > > > > > CH(L+44);365. 2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve Fails miserably > > > > > CH(L+44); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Ke- Ju-Ve Matches with the event. > But > > > > none proposes this combination. > > > > > CH(L+46); 365.2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Sa- Sa-Ma Fails miserably.. > > > > > CH (L+46); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Me- Ve-Sa Matches with the event; > > > > Perfect > > > > > L+365.2425 days Me -Ju-Sa-Su-Ma- Mo Almost there. But why Su, > Ma > > > > and Mo? Where is Ve? > > > > > L+360 days Me-Ju-Ke-Mo- Ju-Sa Not satisfactory. Why Ke and > Mo? And > > > > why not Ve present? > > > > > From the above table it is clear that the opinion expressed by > > > > Chandrahari that the event took place in Me-Ju-Sa is wrong if > we buy > > > > his argument on 44 more than Lahari and 365.2425 days. As per > the > > > > conditions 44 min more than Lahari and 365.2425 days, it would > be > > > > only " Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve which would fail as per every normal > logic > > > > for deriving the marriage timing. > > > > > As normal astrologers what would we expect, for something like > > > > marriage to fulfill in a chart as per Vimsottari dasa? For me > the > > > > simple and straight rule would be - Involvement of 7th lord, > lagna > > > > lord and Venus. If it is a love marriage the 5th lord should be > > > > involved. The involvement of 2nd lord, 11th lord, and any > planet in > > > > its own Sign are also possibilities, even though secondary. As > per > > > > this simple thumb rule, in the above chart, the planets I would > > > > expect to involve are - Ju (7th lord), Me (Lagna lord), Ve > (marriage > > > > significator) , Sa (5th lord, since it is a love marriage). Mo > (the > > > > 11th lord) and Ke (planet placed in 11th) could be > possibilities but > > > > only secondary. And I find only 2 sets of data in the above > table > > > > that satisfies this condition, viz, > > > > > 1) CH (L+46); 360 days > > > > > 2) CH (L+44); 360 days. > > > > > The third choice L + 365.2425 is almost there upto Paryantara > > > > level but not beyond that. I discard CH(L+44); 360 days due to > the > > > > following reasons - > > > > > 1) None is in support of such an argument > > > > > 2) This is almost an exception, a rare case. When we consider > > > > numerous charts this usually does not seems to be as convincing > as > > > > the other combination CH (L+46), 360 days. After contrasting > L+44 > > > > with L+46, I feel more comfortable with L+46 for all practical > > > > purposes. > > > > > Thus I resort to my last and usual choice - L+46; 360 days. > But > > > > I know that, the people who use L+44 with 360 days and L with > > > > 365.2425 days would also be " Almost there " . > > > > > Hope I am clear. > > > > > <== > > > > > Love and regards, > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > Re: Choice of year length > > > > > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > > > > There is a typo in my previous mail; It is NOT 2 Feb 2008 but > > > > instead 24th Feb 2008 as stated in previous mails. The table of > > Dasa- > > > > Antara provided in my earlier mail is prepared for 24 Feb 2008 > it > > > > self and is correct. > > > > > Love and regards, > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Sreenadh " > > > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Re: Choice of year length > > > > > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > > > > Please verify it agin - especially the comparison of what > > > > Chandra hari is speaking about and what you are speaking about. > > > > > * Please note that Chandra hari is speaking about L+44 along > > > > with 365.2425 days and NOT ABOUT Lahari + 365.2425 days; and > you are > > > > speaking about Lahari + 365.25 days (Of course you are true that > > with > > > > Lahari+365.25 we will get Me-Ju-Sa. But that is NOT the issue > here > > > > and that will not solve the problem - since the argument is, > whether > > > > to use 365.2425 or 360 days along with CHANDRAHARI AYANAMSA) > > > > > * DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, Kerala. Marriage > > > > date: 2 Feb 2008. Year length: 365.2425 days (and NOT 365.25 > days). > > > > Use the latest version of JHora. (It could be a JHora > bug/correction > > > > as well) > > > > > * Consider the Dasa from Moon only (and NOT from Lagna sputa) > > > > > * Go up to the 5th level (and not just upto 3rd level) to > ensure > > > > that Unintended planets are not involved. (When you go upto 5th > > > > level, you can easly see that L+365.2425 day combination too > fails) > > > > > Conclusion: Only L+46 along with 360 days savana year holds > good. > > > > > Love and regards, > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " neelam > > gupta " > > > > > > neelamgupta07@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With PL 7.1, lahiri ayanamsha, 365.25 days I am getting > > Mer-Ju- > > > > sa-ve > > > > > > as the > > > > > > > dasha sequence from 12 Feb -5 mar. > > > > > > > This to me is showing an absolute possibility for marriage > > that > > > > > > happened on > > > > > > > 24-feb. > > > > > > > Hence I said so. Reasons already given in my mail. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Neelam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Go to > > > > http://in.promos./groups/bestof/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2008 Report Share Posted May 15, 2008 Hare rama krishna dear chandra ji and madam bhagavathi ji pls dont take personal level this issues each other .The main problem in astrology is we cant proov any thing on table top like we do in Laboratery >here i agree with sri ash ,we shud follow deffenit set of rules and then only we can prov or discard anything .And that was the main agenda behind Ohm nama sivaya grp . we must identify some charts with max accuracy in birth time and with a series of known events ,then we can test any theories or yr lenghts . but we must be open also .Like if some one wants venus always for marriage or sani always for profession is simple dry statements . there is defenit set of rules prescribed by rishis who propogated this astrology ,even i doubt wat was ayanamsas used by old savants or did they use just drik ganita ( or wat they see frm geo centic view( i am not sure abt this word ) ) ,or was there is any ayanamsa controversy b4 . i find in prashna reethi some ayanamsa propoagted by kukaniyar but again lack of much knowledge i could not digest it . also chadra ji ,smt .bhagavthi ji is a student only tho belong to astro parampara ,so her statements are subjuct to change over a period of time may be when she has more grasp in subjuct and she is max trying for it also . I hope u both will understand each other . regrds sunil nair om shreem mahalaxmai namah . , "chandra_hari18" <chandra_hari18 wrote:>> > Dear Bhagavathi,> > I will be much grateful if you can make me understand as to what is> research and what kind of research you have done in science? Please> charter a scientific programme of research by which everyone can propose> pet theories and prove for themselves and then call it a science.> > chandra hari> > > , "bhagavathi_hariharan"> bhagavathi_hariharan@ wrote:> >> > Dear Chandrahariji,> >> > Thanks for the compliment. I am already eyeing for the nobel in my> > field- scientific research. I will surely consider Jyotisham also. If> > you do not know what research is I can surely help you understand> > (with my research background), research is experimentation- good or> > bad does not matter. Critics like you are the heart of research.> >> > If your intentions are "sarcastic", then I would say all your> > learnings have gone waste. Learn form Sreenadhji- he is a true> > researcher, he cared to respond, see the efforts of Goelji, another> > true researcher. I do not know how old you are, maybe I am not> > learned like you but I definitely have superior thoughts than you, to> > respect others views.> >> > I suggest everyone, not to continue this thread- that would spoil the> > intentions of this discussion> >> > Sreenadhji, Rahu is also a natural significator of marriage, moon is> > 2nd and 11th lord, dispositior is venus, Rahu in the constellation of> > moon. Moon in the constellation of Jupiter is very significant here -> > whichever works for you is fine. The said combination has been> > working good for me.> >> > Regards> > bhagavathi> >> >> > , "chandra_hari18"> > chandra_hari18@ wrote:> > >> > >> > > Dear Sreenadh,> > >> > > It is unfortunate that Jyotisha is not included by the Swiss> > Academy as> > > a topic for Nobel Prize. Had that been so, the first contender would> > > have been Gopal Goel and the second none other than Bhagavathi> > > Hariharan.> > >> > > In some cases I am finding better results when year is 300 tithis -> > > ancient Roman year of 10 months> > >> > > In few other cases I am finding better results when year is> > 360/371/372> > >> > > In few others when the ayanamsa is 0> > >> > > In few others when ayanamsa is Raman> > >> > > Research is flourishing and so we must write to Swiss Academy to> > begin> > > their award beginning with Gopal Goel and Bhagavathi Hariharan.> > >> > > chandra hari> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > , "Sreenadh"> > > <sreesog@> wrote:> > > >> > > >> > > > Dear bhagavathi ji,> > > > ==>> > > > > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I usually> > use> > > > > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008> > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu> > > > > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that)> > > > <==> > > > Muhurta was at 11.30 AM. In the sequence you provided (i.e.> > > > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu), why Mo? that too twice? Why Rahu? Why Ve> > is> > > > missing? Mo is 11th lord placed in 2nd; Ra is planet placed in> > 5th;> > > But> > > > the most important thing why Ve the marriage significator (owner> > of> > > 2nd> > > > house as well) missing from the list? I don't feel that these are> > ok,> > > > and do not think that, if the event was not known, you would be> > able> > > to> > > > pin-point this event with this combination of Ayanamsa and Year> > > length.> > > > Note to Goel ji: Dear Goel ji, what are these "much better> > results"?> > > > > > > Regards,> > > > Sreenadh> > > >> > > > ,> > > "bhagavathi_hariharan"> > > > bhagavathi_hariharan@ wrote:> > > > >> > > > > Namaste Sreenadhji,> > > > >> > > > > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I usually> > use> > > > > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008> > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu> > > > > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that)> > > > >> > > > > Regards,> > > > >> > > > > bhagavathi> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > , Gopal Goel> > > > > gkgoel1937@ wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear Friends,> > > > > > L-57 sec. +365.2425 gives much better results.> > > > > > This is my experience.> > > > > > Regads,> > > > > > G.K.GOEL> > > > > > Ph: 09350311433> > > > > > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR> > > > > > NEW DELHI-110 076> > > > > > INDIA> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@> > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 1:30:39 PM> > > > > > Re: Choice of year length> > > > > (Tabulation against event)> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Sreenadh"> > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear Neelam ji,> > > > > > Sorry, I just noticed that I made one more typo in that mail> > > > > related to the Dasa listing related to L+365.2425 days. There> > fore I> > > > > am posing the corrected mail again below -> > > > > > ==>> > > > > > Please check yourself before buying some arguments on face> > > > > value, even if provided by Chandra hari ji. Here is the actual> > > values> > > > > for your reference. (DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum,> > > > > Kerala, India. Marriage date: 24 Feb 2008). The Vimsottari Dasa-> > > > > Antara upto 5 levels using JHora for various Ayanamsa and year> > > length> > > > > combinations are given below.> > > > > > CH(L+44);365. 2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve Fails miserably> > > > > > CH(L+44); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Ke- Ju-Ve Matches with the event.> > But> > > > > none proposes this combination.> > > > > > CH(L+46); 365.2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Sa- Sa-Ma Fails miserably..> > > > > > CH (L+46); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Me- Ve-Sa Matches with the event;> > > > > Perfect> > > > > > L+365.2425 days Me -Ju-Sa-Su-Ma- Mo Almost there. But why Su,> > Ma> > > > > and Mo? Where is Ve?> > > > > > L+360 days Me-Ju-Ke-Mo- Ju-Sa Not satisfactory. Why Ke and> > Mo? And> > > > > why not Ve present?> > > > > > From the above table it is clear that the opinion expressed by> > > > > Chandrahari that the event took place in Me-Ju-Sa is wrong if> > we buy> > > > > his argument on 44 more than Lahari and 365.2425 days. As per> > the> > > > > conditions 44 min more than Lahari and 365.2425 days, it would> > be> > > > > only "Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve which would fail as per every normal> > logic> > > > > for deriving the marriage timing.> > > > > > As normal astrologers what would we expect, for something like> > > > > marriage to fulfill in a chart as per Vimsottari dasa? For me> > the> > > > > simple and straight rule would be - Involvement of 7th lord,> > lagna> > > > > lord and Venus. If it is a love marriage the 5th lord should be> > > > > involved. The involvement of 2nd lord, 11th lord, and any> > planet in> > > > > its own Sign are also possibilities, even though secondary. As> > per> > > > > this simple thumb rule, in the above chart, the planets I would> > > > > expect to involve are - Ju (7th lord), Me (Lagna lord), Ve> > (marriage> > > > > significator) , Sa (5th lord, since it is a love marriage). Mo> > (the> > > > > 11th lord) and Ke (planet placed in 11th) could be> > possibilities but> > > > > only secondary. And I find only 2 sets of data in the above> > table> > > > > that satisfies this condition, viz,> > > > > > 1) CH (L+46); 360 days> > > > > > 2) CH (L+44); 360 days.> > > > > > The third choice L + 365.2425 is almost there upto Paryantara> > > > > level but not beyond that. I discard CH(L+44); 360 days due to> > the> > > > > following reasons -> > > > > > 1) None is in support of such an argument> > > > > > 2) This is almost an exception, a rare case. When we consider> > > > > numerous charts this usually does not seems to be as convincing> > as> > > > > the other combination CH (L+46), 360 days. After contrasting> > L+44> > > > > with L+46, I feel more comfortable with L+46 for all practical> > > > > purposes.> > > > > > Thus I resort to my last and usual choice - L+46; 360 days.> > But> > > > > I know that, the people who use L+44 with 360 days and L with> > > > > 365.2425 days would also be "Almost there". > > > > > > Hope I am clear.> > > > > > <==> > > > > > Love and regards,> > > > > > Sreenadh> > > > > > Re: Choice of year length> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear Neelam ji,> > > > > > There is a typo in my previous mail; It is NOT 2 Feb 2008 but> > > > > instead 24th Feb 2008 as stated in previous mails. The table of> > > Dasa-> > > > > Antara provided in my earlier mail is prepared for 24 Feb 2008> > it> > > > > self and is correct.> > > > > > Love and regards,> > > > > > Sreenadh> > > > > >> > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Sreenadh"> > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Re: Choice of year length> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear Neelam ji,> > > > > > Please verify it agin - especially the comparison of what> > > > > Chandra hari is speaking about and what you are speaking about.> > > > > > * Please note that Chandra hari is speaking about L+44 along> > > > > with 365.2425 days and NOT ABOUT Lahari + 365.2425 days; and> > you are> > > > > speaking about Lahari + 365.25 days (Of course you are true that> > > with> > > > > Lahari+365.25 we will get Me-Ju-Sa. But that is NOT the issue> > here> > > > > and that will not solve the problem - since the argument is,> > whether> > > > > to use 365.2425 or 360 days along with CHANDRAHARI AYANAMSA)> > > > > > * DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, Kerala. Marriage> > > > > date: 2 Feb 2008. Year length: 365.2425 days (and NOT 365.25> > days).> > > > > Use the latest version of JHora. (It could be a JHora> > bug/correction> > > > > as well)> > > > > > * Consider the Dasa from Moon only (and NOT from Lagna sputa)> > > > > > * Go up to the 5th level (and not just upto 3rd level) to> > ensure> > > > > that Unintended planets are not involved. (When you go upto 5th> > > > > level, you can easly see that L+365.2425 day combination too> > fails)> > > > > > Conclusion: Only L+46 along with 360 days savana year holds> > good.> > > > > > Love and regards,> > > > > > Sreenadh> > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "neelam> > > gupta"> > > > > > > neelamgupta07@ wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji,> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Namaste,> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > With PL 7.1, lahiri ayanamsha, 365.25 days I am getting> > > Mer-Ju-> > > > > sa-ve> > > > > > > as the> > > > > > > > dasha sequence from 12 Feb -5 mar.> > > > > > > > This to me is showing an absolute possibility for marriage> > > that> > > > > > > happened on> > > > > > > > 24-feb.> > > > > > > > Hence I said so. Reasons already given in my mail.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Regards> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Neelam> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Go to> > > > > http://in.promos./groups/bestof/> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2008 Report Share Posted May 15, 2008 Chandrahariji, You couldn't have reached the XYZ's without knowing the ABC's. I have read your writings before. I do not have to tell anyone about what research I have done in science because I am still not famous. A true scientist never talks about his work, he shows his work later to the world. Just for you- an open question: Given the birth details of a person, how will you predict the exact or atleast a closer date of a significant event say marriage. You are only given the birth info.This is my scientific proposal Regards, bhagavathi , " chandra_hari18 " <chandra_hari18 wrote: > > > Dear Bhagavathi, > > I will be much grateful if you can make me understand as to what is > research and what kind of research you have done in science? Please > charter a scientific programme of research by which everyone can propose > pet theories and prove for themselves and then call it a science. > > chandra hari > > > --- In , " bhagavathi_hariharan " > <bhagavathi_hariharan@> wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrahariji, > > > > Thanks for the compliment. I am already eyeing for the nobel in my > > field- scientific research. I will surely consider Jyotisham also. If > > you do not know what research is I can surely help you understand > > (with my research background), research is experimentation- good or > > bad does not matter. Critics like you are the heart of research. > > > > If your intentions are " sarcastic " , then I would say all your > > learnings have gone waste. Learn form Sreenadhji- he is a true > > researcher, he cared to respond, see the efforts of Goelji, another > > true researcher. I do not know how old you are, maybe I am not > > learned like you but I definitely have superior thoughts than you, to > > respect others views. > > > > I suggest everyone, not to continue this thread- that would spoil the > > intentions of this discussion > > > > Sreenadhji, Rahu is also a natural significator of marriage, moon is > > 2nd and 11th lord, dispositior is venus, Rahu in the constellation of > > moon. Moon in the constellation of Jupiter is very significant here - > > whichever works for you is fine. The said combination has been > > working good for me. > > > > Regards > > bhagavathi > > > > > > , " chandra_hari18 " > > chandra_hari18@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > It is unfortunate that Jyotisha is not included by the Swiss > > Academy as > > > a topic for Nobel Prize. Had that been so, the first contender would > > > have been Gopal Goel and the second none other than Bhagavathi > > > Hariharan. > > > > > > In some cases I am finding better results when year is 300 tithis - > > > ancient Roman year of 10 months > > > > > > In few other cases I am finding better results when year is > > 360/371/372 > > > > > > In few others when the ayanamsa is 0 > > > > > > In few others when ayanamsa is Raman > > > > > > Research is flourishing and so we must write to Swiss Academy to > > begin > > > their award beginning with Gopal Goel and Bhagavathi Hariharan. > > > > > > chandra hari > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Sreenadh " > > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear bhagavathi ji, > > > > ==> > > > > > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I usually > > use > > > > > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008 > > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu > > > > > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that) > > > > <== > > > > Muhurta was at 11.30 AM. In the sequence you provided (i.e. > > > > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu), why Mo? that too twice? Why Rahu? Why Ve > > is > > > > missing? Mo is 11th lord placed in 2nd; Ra is planet placed in > > 5th; > > > But > > > > the most important thing why Ve the marriage significator (owner > > of > > > 2nd > > > > house as well) missing from the list? I don't feel that these are > > ok, > > > > and do not think that, if the event was not known, you would be > > able > > > to > > > > pin-point this event with this combination of Ayanamsa and Year > > > length. > > > > Note to Goel ji: Dear Goel ji, what are these " much better > > results " ? > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > , > > > " bhagavathi_hariharan " > > > > bhagavathi_hariharan@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Sreenadhji, > > > > > > > > > > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I usually > > use > > > > > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008 > > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu > > > > > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that) > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > bhagavathi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Gopal Goel > > > > > gkgoel1937@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > > > L-57 sec. +365.2425 gives much better results. > > > > > > This is my experience. > > > > > > Regads, > > > > > > G.K.GOEL > > > > > > Ph: 09350311433 > > > > > > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR > > > > > > NEW DELHI-110 076 > > > > > > INDIA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@ > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 1:30:39 PM > > > > > > Re: Choice of year length > > > > > (Tabulation against event) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology@ . com, " Sreenadh " > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > > > > > Sorry, I just noticed that I made one more typo in that mail > > > > > related to the Dasa listing related to L+365.2425 days. There > > fore I > > > > > am posing the corrected mail again below - > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > Please check yourself before buying some arguments on face > > > > > value, even if provided by Chandra hari ji. Here is the actual > > > values > > > > > for your reference. (DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, > > > > > Kerala, India. Marriage date: 24 Feb 2008). The Vimsottari Dasa- > > > > > Antara upto 5 levels using JHora for various Ayanamsa and year > > > length > > > > > combinations are given below. > > > > > > CH(L+44);365. 2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve Fails miserably > > > > > > CH(L+44); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Ke- Ju-Ve Matches with the event. > > But > > > > > none proposes this combination. > > > > > > CH(L+46); 365.2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Sa- Sa-Ma Fails miserably.. > > > > > > CH (L+46); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Me- Ve-Sa Matches with the event; > > > > > Perfect > > > > > > L+365.2425 days Me -Ju-Sa-Su-Ma- Mo Almost there. But why Su, > > Ma > > > > > and Mo? Where is Ve? > > > > > > L+360 days Me-Ju-Ke-Mo- Ju-Sa Not satisfactory. Why Ke and > > Mo? And > > > > > why not Ve present? > > > > > > From the above table it is clear that the opinion expressed by > > > > > Chandrahari that the event took place in Me-Ju-Sa is wrong if > > we buy > > > > > his argument on 44 more than Lahari and 365.2425 days. As per > > the > > > > > conditions 44 min more than Lahari and 365.2425 days, it would > > be > > > > > only " Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve which would fail as per every normal > > logic > > > > > for deriving the marriage timing. > > > > > > As normal astrologers what would we expect, for something like > > > > > marriage to fulfill in a chart as per Vimsottari dasa? For me > > the > > > > > simple and straight rule would be - Involvement of 7th lord, > > lagna > > > > > lord and Venus. If it is a love marriage the 5th lord should be > > > > > involved. The involvement of 2nd lord, 11th lord, and any > > planet in > > > > > its own Sign are also possibilities, even though secondary. As > > per > > > > > this simple thumb rule, in the above chart, the planets I would > > > > > expect to involve are - Ju (7th lord), Me (Lagna lord), Ve > > (marriage > > > > > significator) , Sa (5th lord, since it is a love marriage). Mo > > (the > > > > > 11th lord) and Ke (planet placed in 11th) could be > > possibilities but > > > > > only secondary. And I find only 2 sets of data in the above > > table > > > > > that satisfies this condition, viz, > > > > > > 1) CH (L+46); 360 days > > > > > > 2) CH (L+44); 360 days. > > > > > > The third choice L + 365.2425 is almost there upto Paryantara > > > > > level but not beyond that. I discard CH(L+44); 360 days due to > > the > > > > > following reasons - > > > > > > 1) None is in support of such an argument > > > > > > 2) This is almost an exception, a rare case. When we consider > > > > > numerous charts this usually does not seems to be as convincing > > as > > > > > the other combination CH (L+46), 360 days. After contrasting > > L+44 > > > > > with L+46, I feel more comfortable with L+46 for all practical > > > > > purposes. > > > > > > Thus I resort to my last and usual choice - L+46; 360 days. > > But > > > > > I know that, the people who use L+44 with 360 days and L with > > > > > 365.2425 days would also be " Almost there " . > > > > > > Hope I am clear. > > > > > > <== > > > > > > Love and regards, > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > Re: Choice of year length > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > > > > > There is a typo in my previous mail; It is NOT 2 Feb 2008 but > > > > > instead 24th Feb 2008 as stated in previous mails. The table of > > > Dasa- > > > > > Antara provided in my earlier mail is prepared for 24 Feb 2008 > > it > > > > > self and is correct. > > > > > > Love and regards, > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology@ . com, " Sreenadh " > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Choice of year length > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > > > > > Please verify it agin - especially the comparison of what > > > > > Chandra hari is speaking about and what you are speaking about. > > > > > > * Please note that Chandra hari is speaking about L+44 along > > > > > with 365.2425 days and NOT ABOUT Lahari + 365.2425 days; and > > you are > > > > > speaking about Lahari + 365.25 days (Of course you are true that > > > with > > > > > Lahari+365.25 we will get Me-Ju-Sa. But that is NOT the issue > > here > > > > > and that will not solve the problem - since the argument is, > > whether > > > > > to use 365.2425 or 360 days along with CHANDRAHARI AYANAMSA) > > > > > > * DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, Kerala. Marriage > > > > > date: 2 Feb 2008. Year length: 365.2425 days (and NOT 365.25 > > days). > > > > > Use the latest version of JHora. (It could be a JHora > > bug/correction > > > > > as well) > > > > > > * Consider the Dasa from Moon only (and NOT from Lagna sputa) > > > > > > * Go up to the 5th level (and not just upto 3rd level) to > > ensure > > > > > that Unintended planets are not involved. (When you go upto 5th > > > > > level, you can easly see that L+365.2425 day combination too > > fails) > > > > > > Conclusion: Only L+46 along with 360 days savana year holds > > good. > > > > > > Love and regards, > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology@ . com, " neelam > > > gupta " > > > > > > > neelamgupta07@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With PL 7.1, lahiri ayanamsha, 365.25 days I am getting > > > Mer-Ju- > > > > > sa-ve > > > > > > > as the > > > > > > > > dasha sequence from 12 Feb -5 mar. > > > > > > > > This to me is showing an absolute possibility for marriage > > > that > > > > > > > happened on > > > > > > > > 24-feb. > > > > > > > > Hence I said so. Reasons already given in my mail. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Neelam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Go to > > > > > http://in.promos./groups/bestof/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2008 Report Share Posted May 15, 2008 Dear Krishna, Yes, absolutely, so shouldnt one be focusing on the technique's first before making statements, stating that such and such ayanamsa is correct? Actually, everyone can check the past discussion that I was involved with on this list, and it comes back to this moot point, WHAT ARE THE LAWS TO TEST THE AYANAMSA? Just check the Justification that Sreenadh his given where Chandra Hari has said, that 365.2425 is proper, but Sreenadh is unable to justifiy that as, based on THE TECHNIQUE he uses, its not fitting?, so then what to do? Birth time is correct, so it must mean, that a) Ayanamsa is incorrect b) Days of year can be 360 vs 365.2425 or c) Technique might be incorrect. Point c for anyone to accept is VERY DIFFICULT, so THEN LOGICALLY IT MUST BE, point a or b. lol... Really, and we again start to go round and round the mulberry bush ROFLMAO ...... Cheers !!! Ash -> http://www.ashtro.ca , Krishnamurthy Seetharama <krishna_1998 wrote: > > Dear Ash, > > You made a very valid statement: > > Verification CAN ONLY COME AFTER the Set of LAWS to test are FIXED and > agreed by everyone. > > Unfortunately, like Ayanamsha, getting agreement on the LAWS to test is also a huge task, close to impossible as I can see. It appears that each and every Astrologer has his own set of rules (me included :-)) that he/she latches on to. > > In modern sciences it is easy to develop standards as the theories can be put to test and verify the results. It may not be impossible to achieve the same in Astrology but it can be very difficult task. But, when it is done, Astrology can be established as the Super Science. > > Regards, > Krishna > > > > > ashsam73 <kas wrote: Dear Mr Goel, > > Sreenadh has justified it using his technique, you have justified > using your technique each using different ayanamsa? > > It is not a small thing, one is using Lahiri - 57 seconds, other is > using Lahiri + 40 with 360 days for year. > > IT just goes to show that anyone can justify anything? > > This mail is a nimita for me, as I just wrote about it in my previous > mail on the ABSOLUTE need to have proper technique FIRST before > venturing into verifying an ayanamsa. > > Verification CAN ONLY COME AFTER the Set of LAWS to test are FIXED and > agreed by everyone. > > I believe that everyone will agree with that. > > Cheers !!! > Ash -> http://www.ashtro.ca > > , Gopal Goel > <gkgoel1937@> wrote: > > > > Dear Mr. Sreenadh and other fellow members, > > Ex. Chart:-18-11-1971,2.55AM, Trivandrum - Marriage on 24-2-2008 > > JH7.2 Citra Ayanamsa-23-26-54.43 Lagna -Virgo , Navamsa Aries with > retrograde Saturn > > Marriage took place in dasa of  Mer'Jup/ Sat/Jup/Mer/(Jup-Sat) > > Some specific features of the chart: > > 1. LLand 7L are conjoined > > 2.No planet in Angular houses > > 3. Six planets in Upchaya houses > > 4. Trine are occupied by Rahu and Saturn > > 5. Mars is placed in 6H ,in 5H from Moon ,and in 2H from AL > > 6. In D-9 , Mars ans VENUS BEING LLand 7L are in 10H IN Capricorn > > with Mercury( this indicate the some kind of failure in 1st marriage) > > 7Saturn and Mars are in exchange in D-9 , Mars being 7L. > > 8. Transit Jupiter in Libra and Natal Jupiter in Sag. Navamsa are > aspecting > >  Navamsa Lagna on the day of Marriage. > > Dasa  Analysis: > > Mer. is Lagna lord,Jup is 7L, Sat is in Navamsa lagna and in > exchange with Navamsa lagna lord Mars, > > AS SUCH SATURN IS FULLY QUALIFIED TO GIVE MARRIAGE IN ITS SUB-SUB > PERIOD. > > 4TH,5TH AND 6TH level dasa's are of Jup, Mer, and Jup respectively. > > These dasa's are based on 360 deg. Solar year basis. > > As I do not know the person , it may be a folly to discuss adverse > feature in this nativity. > > Dear Mr. Sreenadh , this is the reason I say Lahiri's Ayanamsa > minus-57sec and year of 365.2524 give more reliable results. > > I hasten to add that I have no claims and does mean to offend any > person's beliefs or understanding. > > Regards to all, > > > >  G.K.GOEL > > Ph: 09350311433 > > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR > > NEW DELHI-110 076 > > INDIA > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh <sreesog@> > > > > Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 11:54:19 AM > > Re: Choice of year length > > > > > > Dear Neelam, > >  Please check yourself before buying some arguments on face value, > even if provided by Chandra hari ji. Here is the actual values for > your reference. (DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; Marriage date: 2 Feb > 2008). The Vimsottari Dasa-Antara upto 5 levels using JHora for > various Ayanamsa and year length combinations are given below. > > CH(L+44);365. 2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve Fails miserably > > CH(L+44); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Ke- Ju-Ve Matches with the event. But > none proposes this combination. > > CH(L+46); 365.2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Sa- Sa-Ma Fails miserably. > > CH (L+46); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Me- Ve-Sa Matches with the event; Perfect > > L+365.2425 days Ju-Ju-Sa-Su- Ma-Mo Almost there. But why Su, Ma and > Mo? Where is Ve? > > L+360 days Me-Ju-Ke-Mo- Ju-Sa Not satisfactory. Why Ke and Mo? And > why not Ve present? > > > >  From the above table it is clear that the opinion expressed by > Chandrahari that the event took place in Me-Ju-Sa is wrong if we buy > his argument on 44 more than Lahari and 365.2425 days. As per the > conditions 44 min more than Lahari and 365.2425 days, it would be only > " Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve " which would fail as per every normal logic for > deriving the marriage timing.  > >   As normal astrologers what would we expect, for something like > marriage to fulfill in a chart as per Vimsottari dasa? For me the > simple and straight rule would be - Involvement of 7th lord, lagna > lord and Venus. If it is a love marriage the 5th lord should be > involved. The involvement of 2nd lord, 11th lord, and any planet in > its own Sign are also possibilities, even though secondary. As per > this simple thumb rule, in the above chart, the planets I would > expect to involve are - Ju (7th lord), Me (Lagna lord), Ve (marriage > significator) , Sa (5th lord, since it is a love marriage). Mo (the > 11th lord) and Ke (planet placed in 11th) could be possibilities but > only secondary. And I find only 2 sets of data in the above table > that satisfies this condition,  viz, > >  1) CH (L+46); 360 days > >   2) CH (L+44); 360 days. > >  The third choice L + 365.2425 is almost there upto Paryantara > level but not beyond that. I discard CH(L+44); 360 days due to the > following reasons - > >   1) None is in support of such an argument   > >   2) This is almost an exception, a rare case. When we consider > numerous charts this usually does not seems to be as convincing as the > other combination CH (L+46), 360 days. After contrasting L+44 with > L+46, I feel more comfortable with L+46 for all practical purposes. > >  Thus I resort to my last and usual choice - L+46; 360 days. But I > know that, the people who use L+44 with 360 days and L with 365.2425 > days would also be " Almost there " .  > >  Hope I am clear. > > Love and regards, > > Sreenadh > > > > Neelam gupta07@> wrote: > > > > > > In fact Sreenadh ji. I agree with Chandra hari ji, Mer-Jup-Sat is > perfect > > > for giving marriage, a long overdue marriage finally performed > after hassles > > > and much delay. > > > > > > Saturn from 9H aspects Jupiter, the antardashanath, who is also > the 7L of > > > marriage and and 4L of domestic bliss, Venus for family and > addition to > > > family and hagya, 12L of marital pleasures and lagna lord and 10L > sun. This > > > yoga is also samsaptam. It couldn't have been a better timing. > There is a > > > perfect connection between MD-AD-PD lords. Mercury with 7L jupiter who > > > aspects own house, both aspected by PD nath saturn, whose > dispositor is with > > > MD-AD lords. All this happening in 3H -- love marriage, opposition > from > > > relations, intercaste marriage, etc. The person himself might > becoming wary > > > of everything and wanting to renounce! > > > > > > Also, Saturn retrograde being 5L and 6L of sanchit and > rinanubandhan in > > > bhagyasthan, it should've given the native a delayed result of past > > > connection only. > > > > > > Then it connects lagna and 7H in navamsh. > > > > > > From moon this Saturn is in Mangalya house but also bears the blemish > > > of 8thlordship. It aspects 7L mars in 5H of love and emotions. There > > > might have > > > been a long and arduous emotional journey to get his lady love. > > > > > > Chandra Hari ji we have already started exploring the other > possibilities. > > > But with limited knowledge in hand the progress will be slow and > so please > > > bear with us and keep guiding us till we are able to form some > firm opinion. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Neelam > > > > > > > > > > > Messenger blocked? Want to chat? Go to > http://in.messenger./webmessengerpromo.php > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2008 Report Share Posted May 15, 2008 Namaste Guruji, I understand your statement. You know very well about my level of study. It was he who passed sarcastic statements instead of sharing knowledge. I apologize to you bhagavathi , " sunil nair " <astro_tellerkerala wrote: > > > > > Hare rama krishna > > dear chandra ji and madam bhagavathi ji > > > > pls dont take personal level this issues each other .The main problem > in astrology is we cant proov any thing on table top like we do in > Laboratery >here i agree with sri ash ,we shud follow deffenit set of > rules and then only we can prov or discard anything .And that was the > main agenda behind Ohm nama sivaya grp . > > > > we must identify some charts with max accuracy in birth time and with a > series of known events ,then we can test any theories or yr lenghts . > > > > but we must be open also .Like if some one wants venus always for > marriage or sani always for profession is simple dry statements . > > > > there is defenit set of rules prescribed by rishis who propogated this > astrology ,even i doubt wat was ayanamsas used by old savants or did > they use just drik ganita ( or wat they see frm geo centic view( i am > not sure abt this word ) ) ,or was there is any ayanamsa controversy b4 > . > > > > i find in prashna reethi some ayanamsa propoagted by kukaniyar but again > lack of much knowledge i could not digest it . > > > > also chadra ji ,smt .bhagavthi ji is a student only tho belong to astro > parampara ,so her statements are subjuct to change over a period of time > may be when she has more grasp in subjuct and she is max trying for it > also . > > > > I hope u both will understand each other . > > > > regrds sunil nair > > > > om shreem mahalaxmai namah . > > > , " chandra_hari18 " > <chandra_hari18@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Bhagavathi, > > > > I will be much grateful if you can make me understand as to what is > > research and what kind of research you have done in science? Please > > charter a scientific programme of research by which everyone can > propose > > pet theories and prove for themselves and then call it a science. > > > > chandra hari > > > > > > , > " bhagavathi_hariharan " > > bhagavathi_hariharan@ wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrahariji, > > > > > > Thanks for the compliment. I am already eyeing for the nobel in my > > > field- scientific research. I will surely consider Jyotisham also. > If > > > you do not know what research is I can surely help you understand > > > (with my research background), research is experimentation- good or > > > bad does not matter. Critics like you are the heart of research. > > > > > > If your intentions are " sarcastic " , then I would say all your > > > learnings have gone waste. Learn form Sreenadhji- he is a true > > > researcher, he cared to respond, see the efforts of Goelji, another > > > true researcher. I do not know how old you are, maybe I am not > > > learned like you but I definitely have superior thoughts than you, > to > > > respect others views. > > > > > > I suggest everyone, not to continue this thread- that would spoil > the > > > intentions of this discussion > > > > > > Sreenadhji, Rahu is also a natural significator of marriage, moon is > > > 2nd and 11th lord, dispositior is venus, Rahu in the constellation > of > > > moon. Moon in the constellation of Jupiter is very significant here > - > > > whichever works for you is fine. The said combination has been > > > working good for me. > > > > > > Regards > > > bhagavathi > > > > > > > > > --- In , " chandra_hari18 " > > > chandra_hari18@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > > > It is unfortunate that Jyotisha is not included by the Swiss > > > Academy as > > > > a topic for Nobel Prize. Had that been so, the first contender > would > > > > have been Gopal Goel and the second none other than Bhagavathi > > > > Hariharan. > > > > > > > > In some cases I am finding better results when year is 300 tithis > - > > > > ancient Roman year of 10 months > > > > > > > > In few other cases I am finding better results when year is > > > 360/371/372 > > > > > > > > In few others when the ayanamsa is 0 > > > > > > > > In few others when ayanamsa is Raman > > > > > > > > Research is flourishing and so we must write to Swiss Academy to > > > begin > > > > their award beginning with Gopal Goel and Bhagavathi Hariharan. > > > > > > > > chandra hari > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Sreenadh " > > > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear bhagavathi ji, > > > > > ==> > > > > > > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I > usually > > > use > > > > > > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008 > > > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu > > > > > > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that) > > > > > <== > > > > > Muhurta was at 11.30 AM. In the sequence you provided (i.e. > > > > > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu), why Mo? that too twice? Why Rahu? Why > Ve > > > is > > > > > missing? Mo is 11th lord placed in 2nd; Ra is planet placed in > > > 5th; > > > > But > > > > > the most important thing why Ve the marriage significator (owner > > > of > > > > 2nd > > > > > house as well) missing from the list? I don't feel that these > are > > > ok, > > > > > and do not think that, if the event was not known, you would be > > > able > > > > to > > > > > pin-point this event with this combination of Ayanamsa and Year > > > > length. > > > > > Note to Goel ji: Dear Goel ji, what are these " much better > > > results " ? > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > , > > > > " bhagavathi_hariharan " > > > > > bhagavathi_hariharan@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Sreenadhji, > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I > usually > > > use > > > > > > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008 > > > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu > > > > > > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that) > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > bhagavathi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Gopal Goel > > > > > > gkgoel1937@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > > > > L-57 sec. +365.2425 gives much better results. > > > > > > > This is my experience. > > > > > > > Regads, > > > > > > > G.K.GOEL > > > > > > > Ph: 09350311433 > > > > > > > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR > > > > > > > NEW DELHI-110 076 > > > > > > > INDIA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 1:30:39 PM > > > > > > > Re: Choice of year > length > > > > > > (Tabulation against event) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, > " Sreenadh " > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > > > > > > Sorry, I just noticed that I made one more typo in that mail > > > > > > related to the Dasa listing related to L+365.2425 days. There > > > fore I > > > > > > am posing the corrected mail again below - > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > Please check yourself before buying some arguments on face > > > > > > value, even if provided by Chandra hari ji. Here is the actual > > > > values > > > > > > for your reference. (DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: > Trivandrum, > > > > > > Kerala, India. Marriage date: 24 Feb 2008). The Vimsottari > Dasa- > > > > > > Antara upto 5 levels using JHora for various Ayanamsa and year > > > > length > > > > > > combinations are given below. > > > > > > > CH(L+44);365. 2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve Fails miserably > > > > > > > CH(L+44); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Ke- Ju-Ve Matches with the > event. > > > But > > > > > > none proposes this combination. > > > > > > > CH(L+46); 365.2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Sa- Sa-Ma Fails miserably.. > > > > > > > CH (L+46); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Me- Ve-Sa Matches with the > event; > > > > > > Perfect > > > > > > > L+365.2425 days Me -Ju-Sa-Su-Ma- Mo Almost there. But why > Su, > > > Ma > > > > > > and Mo? Where is Ve? > > > > > > > L+360 days Me-Ju-Ke-Mo- Ju-Sa Not satisfactory. Why Ke and > > > Mo? And > > > > > > why not Ve present? > > > > > > > From the above table it is clear that the opinion expressed > by > > > > > > Chandrahari that the event took place in Me-Ju-Sa is wrong if > > > we buy > > > > > > his argument on 44 more than Lahari and 365.2425 days. As per > > > the > > > > > > conditions 44 min more than Lahari and 365.2425 days, it would > > > be > > > > > > only " Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve which would fail as per every normal > > > logic > > > > > > for deriving the marriage timing. > > > > > > > As normal astrologers what would we expect, for something > like > > > > > > marriage to fulfill in a chart as per Vimsottari dasa? For me > > > the > > > > > > simple and straight rule would be - Involvement of 7th lord, > > > lagna > > > > > > lord and Venus. If it is a love marriage the 5th lord should > be > > > > > > involved. The involvement of 2nd lord, 11th lord, and any > > > planet in > > > > > > its own Sign are also possibilities, even though secondary. As > > > per > > > > > > this simple thumb rule, in the above chart, the planets I > would > > > > > > expect to involve are - Ju (7th lord), Me (Lagna lord), Ve > > > (marriage > > > > > > significator) , Sa (5th lord, since it is a love marriage). Mo > > > (the > > > > > > 11th lord) and Ke (planet placed in 11th) could be > > > possibilities but > > > > > > only secondary. And I find only 2 sets of data in the above > > > table > > > > > > that satisfies this condition, viz, > > > > > > > 1) CH (L+46); 360 days > > > > > > > 2) CH (L+44); 360 days. > > > > > > > The third choice L + 365.2425 is almost there upto > Paryantara > > > > > > level but not beyond that. I discard CH(L+44); 360 days due to > > > the > > > > > > following reasons - > > > > > > > 1) None is in support of such an argument > > > > > > > 2) This is almost an exception, a rare case. When we > consider > > > > > > numerous charts this usually does not seems to be as > convincing > > > as > > > > > > the other combination CH (L+46), 360 days. After contrasting > > > L+44 > > > > > > with L+46, I feel more comfortable with L+46 for all practical > > > > > > purposes. > > > > > > > Thus I resort to my last and usual choice - L+46; 360 days. > > > But > > > > > > I know that, the people who use L+44 with 360 days and L with > > > > > > 365.2425 days would also be " Almost there " . > > > > > > > Hope I am clear. > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > Love and regards, > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > Re: Choice of year length > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > > > > > > There is a typo in my previous mail; It is NOT 2 Feb 2008 > but > > > > > > instead 24th Feb 2008 as stated in previous mails. The table > of > > > > Dasa- > > > > > > Antara provided in my earlier mail is prepared for 24 Feb 2008 > > > it > > > > > > self and is correct. > > > > > > > Love and regards, > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, > " Sreenadh " > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Choice of year length > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > > > > > > Please verify it agin - especially the comparison of what > > > > > > Chandra hari is speaking about and what you are speaking > about. > > > > > > > * Please note that Chandra hari is speaking about L+44 along > > > > > > with 365.2425 days and NOT ABOUT Lahari + 365.2425 days; and > > > you are > > > > > > speaking about Lahari + 365.25 days (Of course you are true > that > > > > with > > > > > > Lahari+365.25 we will get Me-Ju-Sa. But that is NOT the issue > > > here > > > > > > and that will not solve the problem - since the argument is, > > > whether > > > > > > to use 365.2425 or 360 days along with CHANDRAHARI AYANAMSA) > > > > > > > * DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, Kerala. > Marriage > > > > > > date: 2 Feb 2008. Year length: 365.2425 days (and NOT 365.25 > > > days). > > > > > > Use the latest version of JHora. (It could be a JHora > > > bug/correction > > > > > > as well) > > > > > > > * Consider the Dasa from Moon only (and NOT from Lagna > sputa) > > > > > > > * Go up to the 5th level (and not just upto 3rd level) to > > > ensure > > > > > > that Unintended planets are not involved. (When you go upto > 5th > > > > > > level, you can easly see that L+365.2425 day combination too > > > fails) > > > > > > > Conclusion: Only L+46 along with 360 days savana year holds > > > good. > > > > > > > Love and regards, > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, > " neelam > > > > gupta " > > > > > > > > neelamgupta07@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With PL 7.1, lahiri ayanamsha, 365.25 days I am getting > > > > Mer-Ju- > > > > > > sa-ve > > > > > > > > as the > > > > > > > > > dasha sequence from 12 Feb -5 mar. > > > > > > > > > This to me is showing an absolute possibility for > marriage > > > > that > > > > > > > > happened on > > > > > > > > > 24-feb. > > > > > > > > > Hence I said so. Reasons already given in my mail. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Neelam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Go to > > > > > > http://in.promos./groups/bestof/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2008 Report Share Posted May 15, 2008 Hare rama krishna dear madam bhagavathi ji This happens in net discussions ,other wise chandra hari ji is a learned person and done a thorough reserch in suryasidhantha and yogic and tantric principles governing the astrology principles ,even he says his moola /mooladhara ayanamsa is ayanamsa of natural rythm ,I will sent u some of his articles for u to read . why cant we together solv this mystery than argueing and extenting the real work . offcource within our available resources and time limits . i am reading ur BPHS translations in study grp ,its going well and good .It will also help u to get max grasp over subjuct . all the best to u regrds sunil nair om shreem mahalaxmai namah . , "bhagavathi_hariharan" <bhagavathi_hariharan wrote:>> Namaste Guruji,> > I understand your statement. You know very well about my level of > study. It was he who passed sarcastic statements instead of sharing > knowledge.> > I apologize to you> > bhagavathi > > > > > , "sunil nair" > astro_tellerkerala@ wrote:> >> > > > > > > > Hare rama krishna> > > > dear chandra ji and madam bhagavathi ji> > > > > > > > pls dont take personal level this issues each other .The main > problem> > in astrology is we cant proov any thing on table top like we do in> > Laboratery >here i agree with sri ash ,we shud follow deffenit set > of> > rules and then only we can prov or discard anything .And that was > the> > main agenda behind Ohm nama sivaya grp .> > > > > > > > we must identify some charts with max accuracy in birth time and > with a> > series of known events ,then we can test any theories or yr > lenghts .> > > > > > > > but we must be open also .Like if some one wants venus always for> > marriage or sani always for profession is simple dry statements .> > > > > > > > there is defenit set of rules prescribed by rishis who propogated > this> > astrology ,even i doubt wat was ayanamsas used by old savants or did> > they use just drik ganita ( or wat they see frm geo centic view( i > am> > not sure abt this word ) ) ,or was there is any ayanamsa > controversy b4> > .> > > > > > > > i find in prashna reethi some ayanamsa propoagted by kukaniyar but > again> > lack of much knowledge i could not digest it .> > > > > > > > also chadra ji ,smt .bhagavthi ji is a student only tho belong to > astro> > parampara ,so her statements are subjuct to change over a period of > time> > may be when she has more grasp in subjuct and she is max trying for > it> > also .> > > > > > > > I hope u both will understand each other .> > > > > > > > regrds sunil nair> > > > > > > > om shreem mahalaxmai namah .> > > > > > , "chandra_hari18"> > <chandra_hari18@> wrote:> > >> > >> > > Dear Bhagavathi,> > >> > > I will be much grateful if you can make me understand as to what > is> > > research and what kind of research you have done in science? > Please> > > charter a scientific programme of research by which everyone can> > propose> > > pet theories and prove for themselves and then call it a science.> > >> > > chandra hari> > >> > >> > > ,> > "bhagavathi_hariharan"> > > bhagavathi_hariharan@ wrote:> > > >> > > > Dear Chandrahariji,> > > >> > > > Thanks for the compliment. I am already eyeing for the nobel in > my> > > > field- scientific research. I will surely consider Jyotisham > also.> > If> > > > you do not know what research is I can surely help you > understand> > > > (with my research background), research is experimentation- > good or> > > > bad does not matter. Critics like you are the heart of research.> > > >> > > > If your intentions are "sarcastic", then I would say all your> > > > learnings have gone waste. Learn form Sreenadhji- he is a true> > > > researcher, he cared to respond, see the efforts of Goelji, > another> > > > true researcher. I do not know how old you are, maybe I am not> > > > learned like you but I definitely have superior thoughts than > you,> > to> > > > respect others views.> > > >> > > > I suggest everyone, not to continue this thread- that would > spoil> > the> > > > intentions of this discussion> > > >> > > > Sreenadhji, Rahu is also a natural significator of marriage, > moon is> > > > 2nd and 11th lord, dispositior is venus, Rahu in the > constellation> > of> > > > moon. Moon in the constellation of Jupiter is very significant > here> > -> > > > whichever works for you is fine. The said combination has been> > > > working good for me.> > > >> > > > Regards> > > > bhagavathi> > > >> > > >> > > > > , "chandra_hari18"> > > > chandra_hari18@ wrote:> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Dear Sreenadh,> > > > >> > > > > It is unfortunate that Jyotisha is not included by the Swiss> > > > Academy as> > > > > a topic for Nobel Prize. Had that been so, the first contender> > would> > > > > have been Gopal Goel and the second none other than Bhagavathi> > > > > Hariharan.> > > > >> > > > > In some cases I am finding better results when year is 300 > tithis> > -> > > > > ancient Roman year of 10 months> > > > >> > > > > In few other cases I am finding better results when year is> > > > 360/371/372> > > > >> > > > > In few others when the ayanamsa is 0> > > > >> > > > > In few others when ayanamsa is Raman> > > > >> > > > > Research is flourishing and so we must write to Swiss Academy > to> > > > begin> > > > > their award beginning with Gopal Goel and Bhagavathi > Hariharan.> > > > >> > > > > chandra hari> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > , "Sreenadh"> > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear bhagavathi ji,> > > > > > ==>> > > > > > > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I> > usually> > > > use> > > > > > > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008> > > > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu> > > > > > > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that)> > > > > > <==> > > > > > Muhurta was at 11.30 AM. In the sequence you provided (i.e.> > > > > > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu), why Mo? that too twice? Why Rahu? > Why> > Ve> > > > is> > > > > > missing? Mo is 11th lord placed in 2nd; Ra is planet placed > in> > > > 5th;> > > > > But> > > > > > the most important thing why Ve the marriage significator > (owner> > > > of> > > > > 2nd> > > > > > house as well) missing from the list? I don't feel that > these> > are> > > > ok,> > > > > > and do not think that, if the event was not known, you > would be> > > > able> > > > > to> > > > > > pin-point this event with this combination of Ayanamsa and > Year> > > > > length.> > > > > > Note to Goel ji: Dear Goel ji, what are these "much better> > > > results"?> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,> > > > > > Sreenadh> > > > > >> > > > > > ,> > > > > "bhagavathi_hariharan"> > > > > > bhagavathi_hariharan@ wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Namaste Sreenadhji,> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I> > usually> > > > use> > > > > > > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008> > > > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu> > > > > > > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that)> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Regards,> > > > > > >> > > > > > > bhagavathi> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > , Gopal > Goel> > > > > > > gkgoel1937@ wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dear Friends,> > > > > > > > L-57 sec. +365.2425 gives much better results.> > > > > > > > This is my experience.> > > > > > > > Regads,> > > > > > > > G.K.GOEL> > > > > > > > Ph: 09350311433> > > > > > > > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR> > > > > > > > NEW DELHI-110 076> > > > > > > > INDIA> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 1:30:39 PM> > > > > > > > Re: Choice of year> > length> > > > > > > (Tabulation against event)> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology,> > "Sreenadh"> > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji,> > > > > > > > Sorry, I just noticed that I made one more typo in that > mail> > > > > > > related to the Dasa listing related to L+365.2425 days. > There> > > > fore I> > > > > > > am posing the corrected mail again below -> > > > > > > > ==>> > > > > > > > Please check yourself before buying some arguments on > face> > > > > > > value, even if provided by Chandra hari ji. Here is the > actual> > > > > values> > > > > > > for your reference. (DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB:> > Trivandrum,> > > > > > > Kerala, India. Marriage date: 24 Feb 2008). The Vimsottari> > Dasa-> > > > > > > Antara upto 5 levels using JHora for various Ayanamsa and > year> > > > > length> > > > > > > combinations are given below.> > > > > > > > CH(L+44);365. 2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve Fails > miserably> > > > > > > > CH(L+44); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Ke- Ju-Ve Matches with the> > event.> > > > But> > > > > > > none proposes this combination.> > > > > > > > CH(L+46); 365.2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Sa- Sa-Ma Fails > miserably..> > > > > > > > CH (L+46); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Me- Ve-Sa Matches with the> > event;> > > > > > > Perfect> > > > > > > > L+365.2425 days Me -Ju-Sa-Su-Ma- Mo Almost there. But > why> > Su,> > > > Ma> > > > > > > and Mo? Where is Ve?> > > > > > > > L+360 days Me-Ju-Ke-Mo- Ju-Sa Not satisfactory. Why Ke > and> > > > Mo? And> > > > > > > why not Ve present?> > > > > > > > From the above table it is clear that the opinion > expressed> > by> > > > > > > Chandrahari that the event took place in Me-Ju-Sa is > wrong if> > > > we buy> > > > > > > his argument on 44 more than Lahari and 365.2425 days. As > per> > > > the> > > > > > > conditions 44 min more than Lahari and 365.2425 days, it > would> > > > be> > > > > > > only "Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve which would fail as per every > normal> > > > logic> > > > > > > for deriving the marriage timing.> > > > > > > > As normal astrologers what would we expect, for > something> > like> > > > > > > marriage to fulfill in a chart as per Vimsottari dasa? > For me> > > > the> > > > > > > simple and straight rule would be - Involvement of 7th > lord,> > > > lagna> > > > > > > lord and Venus. If it is a love marriage the 5th lord > should> > be> > > > > > > involved. The involvement of 2nd lord, 11th lord, and any> > > > planet in> > > > > > > its own Sign are also possibilities, even though > secondary. As> > > > per> > > > > > > this simple thumb rule, in the above chart, the planets I> > would> > > > > > > expect to involve are - Ju (7th lord), Me (Lagna lord), Ve> > > > (marriage> > > > > > > significator) , Sa (5th lord, since it is a love > marriage). Mo> > > > (the> > > > > > > 11th lord) and Ke (planet placed in 11th) could be> > > > possibilities but> > > > > > > only secondary. And I find only 2 sets of data in the > above> > > > table> > > > > > > that satisfies this condition, viz,> > > > > > > > 1) CH (L+46); 360 days> > > > > > > > 2) CH (L+44); 360 days.> > > > > > > > The third choice L + 365.2425 is almost there upto> > Paryantara> > > > > > > level but not beyond that. I discard CH(L+44); 360 days > due to> > > > the> > > > > > > following reasons -> > > > > > > > 1) None is in support of such an argument> > > > > > > > 2) This is almost an exception, a rare case. When we> > consider> > > > > > > numerous charts this usually does not seems to be as> > convincing> > > > as> > > > > > > the other combination CH (L+46), 360 days. After > contrasting> > > > L+44> > > > > > > with L+46, I feel more comfortable with L+46 for all > practical> > > > > > > purposes.> > > > > > > > Thus I resort to my last and usual choice - L+46; 360 > days.> > > > But> > > > > > > I know that, the people who use L+44 with 360 days and L > with> > > > > > > 365.2425 days would also be "Almost there". > > > > > > > > Hope I am clear.> > > > > > > > <==> > > > > > > > Love and regards,> > > > > > > > Sreenadh> > > > > > > > Re: Choice of year length> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji,> > > > > > > > There is a typo in my previous mail; It is NOT 2 Feb > 2008> > but> > > > > > > instead 24th Feb 2008 as stated in previous mails. The > table> > of> > > > > Dasa-> > > > > > > Antara provided in my earlier mail is prepared for 24 Feb > 2008> > > > it> > > > > > > self and is correct.> > > > > > > > Love and regards,> > > > > > > > Sreenadh> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology,> > "Sreenadh"> > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Re: Choice of year length> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji,> > > > > > > > Please verify it agin - especially the comparison of > what> > > > > > > Chandra hari is speaking about and what you are speaking> > about.> > > > > > > > * Please note that Chandra hari is speaking about L+44 > along> > > > > > > with 365.2425 days and NOT ABOUT Lahari + 365.2425 days; > and> > > > you are> > > > > > > speaking about Lahari + 365.25 days (Of course you are > true> > that> > > > > with> > > > > > > Lahari+365.25 we will get Me-Ju-Sa. But that is NOT the > issue> > > > here> > > > > > > and that will not solve the problem - since the argument > is,> > > > whether> > > > > > > to use 365.2425 or 360 days along with CHANDRAHARI > AYANAMSA)> > > > > > > > * DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, Kerala.> > Marriage> > > > > > > date: 2 Feb 2008. Year length: 365.2425 days (and NOT > 365.25> > > > days).> > > > > > > Use the latest version of JHora. (It could be a JHora> > > > bug/correction> > > > > > > as well)> > > > > > > > * Consider the Dasa from Moon only (and NOT from Lagna> > sputa)> > > > > > > > * Go up to the 5th level (and not just upto 3rd level) > to> > > > ensure> > > > > > > that Unintended planets are not involved. (When you go > upto> > 5th> > > > > > > level, you can easly see that L+365.2425 day combination > too> > > > fails)> > > > > > > > Conclusion: Only L+46 along with 360 days savana year > holds> > > > good.> > > > > > > > Love and regards,> > > > > > > > Sreenadh> > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology,> > "neelam> > > > > gupta"> > > > > > > > > neelamgupta07@ wrote:> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji,> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Namaste,> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > With PL 7.1, lahiri ayanamsha, 365.25 days I am > getting> > > > > Mer-Ju-> > > > > > > sa-ve> > > > > > > > > as the> > > > > > > > > > dasha sequence from 12 Feb -5 mar.> > > > > > > > > > This to me is showing an absolute possibility for> > marriage> > > > > that> > > > > > > > > happened on> > > > > > > > > > 24-feb.> > > > > > > > > > Hence I said so. Reasons already given in my mail.> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Regards> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Neelam> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Go to> > > > > > > http://in.promos./groups/bestof/> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2008 Report Share Posted May 16, 2008 Dear Mr. Ash, I have been saying that many times in the group, technique first, ayanamsa comes second. After a long time, find some one resonating on similar wavelength. If we have a good team, then we can take both topic simultaneously as we do case studies. Thanks Ash, for coming back active....keep posting..... With regards, Sreeram_Srinivas , " ashsam73 " <kas wrote: > > Dear Mr Goel, > > Sreenadh has justified it using his technique, you have justified > using your technique each using different ayanamsa? > > It is not a small thing, one is using Lahiri - 57 seconds, other is > using Lahiri + 40 with 360 days for year. > > IT just goes to show that anyone can justify anything? > > This mail is a nimita for me, as I just wrote about it in my previous > mail on the ABSOLUTE need to have proper technique FIRST before > venturing into verifying an ayanamsa. > > Verification CAN ONLY COME AFTER the Set of LAWS to test are FIXED and > agreed by everyone. > > I believe that everyone will agree with that. > > > Cheers !!! > Ash -> http://www.ashtro.ca > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2008 Report Share Posted May 16, 2008 Dear Bhagavathi, I wanted to know your pet theories in the other fields. There also do you say, I find it working and so it is true? If you were having the understanding of even basics of Jyotisha, you would not have written that the 360 tithis works for you. You guys are here on the net to chat without caring to read anything and so such pet theories are coming up in mind on the strength of one or two observations. You and other so called researchers here have never supplied any data to substantiate the same. I know that you are not alone and a brigade is spoiling Jyotisham with the chat wisdom and pet theories and only God can save Jyotisham now. chandra hari , " bhagavathi_hariharan " <bhagavathi_hariharan wrote: > > Chandrahariji, > > You couldn't have reached the XYZ's without knowing the ABC's. I have > read your writings before. I do not have to tell anyone about what > research I have done in science because I am still not famous. A true > scientist never talks about his work, he shows his work later to the > world. > > Just for you- an open question: > > Given the birth details of a person, how will you predict the exact > or atleast a closer date of a significant event say marriage. You are > only given the birth info.This is my scientific proposal > > Regards, > > bhagavathi > > > > , " chandra_hari18 " > chandra_hari18@ wrote: > > > > > > Dear Bhagavathi, > > > > I will be much grateful if you can make me understand as to what is > > research and what kind of research you have done in science? Please > > charter a scientific programme of research by which everyone can > propose > > pet theories and prove for themselves and then call it a science. > > > > chandra hari > > > > > > --- In > , " bhagavathi_hariharan " > > <bhagavathi_hariharan@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrahariji, > > > > > > Thanks for the compliment. I am already eyeing for the nobel in my > > > field- scientific research. I will surely consider Jyotisham > also. If > > > you do not know what research is I can surely help you understand > > > (with my research background), research is experimentation- good > or > > > bad does not matter. Critics like you are the heart of research. > > > > > > If your intentions are " sarcastic " , then I would say all your > > > learnings have gone waste. Learn form Sreenadhji- he is a true > > > researcher, he cared to respond, see the efforts of Goelji, > another > > > true researcher. I do not know how old you are, maybe I am not > > > learned like you but I definitely have superior thoughts than > you, to > > > respect others views. > > > > > > I suggest everyone, not to continue this thread- that would spoil > the > > > intentions of this discussion > > > > > > Sreenadhji, Rahu is also a natural significator of marriage, moon > is > > > 2nd and 11th lord, dispositior is venus, Rahu in the > constellation of > > > moon. Moon in the constellation of Jupiter is very significant > here - > > > whichever works for you is fine. The said combination has been > > > working good for me. > > > > > > Regards > > > bhagavathi > > > > > > > > > , " chandra_hari18 " > > > chandra_hari18@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > > > It is unfortunate that Jyotisha is not included by the Swiss > > > Academy as > > > > a topic for Nobel Prize. Had that been so, the first contender > would > > > > have been Gopal Goel and the second none other than Bhagavathi > > > > Hariharan. > > > > > > > > In some cases I am finding better results when year is 300 > tithis - > > > > ancient Roman year of 10 months > > > > > > > > In few other cases I am finding better results when year is > > > 360/371/372 > > > > > > > > In few others when the ayanamsa is 0 > > > > > > > > In few others when ayanamsa is Raman > > > > > > > > Research is flourishing and so we must write to Swiss Academy to > > > begin > > > > their award beginning with Gopal Goel and Bhagavathi Hariharan. > > > > > > > > chandra hari > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Sreenadh " > > > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear bhagavathi ji, > > > > > ==> > > > > > > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I > usually > > > use > > > > > > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008 > > > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu > > > > > > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that) > > > > > <== > > > > > Muhurta was at 11.30 AM. In the sequence you provided (i.e. > > > > > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu), why Mo? that too twice? Why Rahu? > Why Ve > > > is > > > > > missing? Mo is 11th lord placed in 2nd; Ra is planet placed in > > > 5th; > > > > But > > > > > the most important thing why Ve the marriage significator > (owner > > > of > > > > 2nd > > > > > house as well) missing from the list? I don't feel that these > are > > > ok, > > > > > and do not think that, if the event was not known, you would > be > > > able > > > > to > > > > > pin-point this event with this combination of Ayanamsa and > Year > > > > length. > > > > > Note to Goel ji: Dear Goel ji, what are these " much better > > > results " ? > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > , > > > > " bhagavathi_hariharan " > > > > > bhagavathi_hariharan@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Sreenadhji, > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I > usually > > > use > > > > > > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008 > > > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu > > > > > > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that) > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > bhagavathi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Gopal Goel > > > > > > gkgoel1937@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > > > > L-57 sec. +365.2425 gives much better results. > > > > > > > This is my experience. > > > > > > > Regads, > > > > > > > G.K.GOEL > > > > > > > Ph: 09350311433 > > > > > > > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR > > > > > > > NEW DELHI-110 076 > > > > > > > INDIA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 1:30:39 PM > > > > > > > Re: Choice of year > length > > > > > > (Tabulation against event) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology@ . > com, " Sreenadh " > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > > > > > > Sorry, I just noticed that I made one more typo in that > mail > > > > > > related to the Dasa listing related to L+365.2425 days. > There > > > fore I > > > > > > am posing the corrected mail again below - > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > Please check yourself before buying some arguments on face > > > > > > value, even if provided by Chandra hari ji. Here is the > actual > > > > values > > > > > > for your reference. (DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: > Trivandrum, > > > > > > Kerala, India. Marriage date: 24 Feb 2008). The Vimsottari > Dasa- > > > > > > Antara upto 5 levels using JHora for various Ayanamsa and > year > > > > length > > > > > > combinations are given below. > > > > > > > CH(L+44);365. 2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve Fails miserably > > > > > > > CH(L+44); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Ke- Ju-Ve Matches with the > event. > > > But > > > > > > none proposes this combination. > > > > > > > CH(L+46); 365.2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Sa- Sa-Ma Fails > miserably.. > > > > > > > CH (L+46); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Me- Ve-Sa Matches with the > event; > > > > > > Perfect > > > > > > > L+365.2425 days Me -Ju-Sa-Su-Ma- Mo Almost there. But why > Su, > > > Ma > > > > > > and Mo? Where is Ve? > > > > > > > L+360 days Me-Ju-Ke-Mo- Ju-Sa Not satisfactory. Why Ke and > > > Mo? And > > > > > > why not Ve present? > > > > > > > From the above table it is clear that the opinion > expressed by > > > > > > Chandrahari that the event took place in Me-Ju-Sa is wrong > if > > > we buy > > > > > > his argument on 44 more than Lahari and 365.2425 days. As > per > > > the > > > > > > conditions 44 min more than Lahari and 365.2425 days, it > would > > > be > > > > > > only " Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve which would fail as per every > normal > > > logic > > > > > > for deriving the marriage timing. > > > > > > > As normal astrologers what would we expect, for something > like > > > > > > marriage to fulfill in a chart as per Vimsottari dasa? For > me > > > the > > > > > > simple and straight rule would be - Involvement of 7th lord, > > > lagna > > > > > > lord and Venus. If it is a love marriage the 5th lord > should be > > > > > > involved. The involvement of 2nd lord, 11th lord, and any > > > planet in > > > > > > its own Sign are also possibilities, even though secondary. > As > > > per > > > > > > this simple thumb rule, in the above chart, the planets I > would > > > > > > expect to involve are - Ju (7th lord), Me (Lagna lord), Ve > > > (marriage > > > > > > significator) , Sa (5th lord, since it is a love marriage). > Mo > > > (the > > > > > > 11th lord) and Ke (planet placed in 11th) could be > > > possibilities but > > > > > > only secondary. And I find only 2 sets of data in the above > > > table > > > > > > that satisfies this condition, viz, > > > > > > > 1) CH (L+46); 360 days > > > > > > > 2) CH (L+44); 360 days. > > > > > > > The third choice L + 365.2425 is almost there upto > Paryantara > > > > > > level but not beyond that. I discard CH(L+44); 360 days due > to > > > the > > > > > > following reasons - > > > > > > > 1) None is in support of such an argument > > > > > > > 2) This is almost an exception, a rare case. When we > consider > > > > > > numerous charts this usually does not seems to be as > convincing > > > as > > > > > > the other combination CH (L+46), 360 days. After contrasting > > > L+44 > > > > > > with L+46, I feel more comfortable with L+46 for all > practical > > > > > > purposes. > > > > > > > Thus I resort to my last and usual choice - L+46; 360 > days. > > > But > > > > > > I know that, the people who use L+44 with 360 days and L > with > > > > > > 365.2425 days would also be " Almost there " . > > > > > > > Hope I am clear. > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > Love and regards, > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > Re: Choice of year length > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > > > > > > There is a typo in my previous mail; It is NOT 2 Feb 2008 > but > > > > > > instead 24th Feb 2008 as stated in previous mails. The > table of > > > > Dasa- > > > > > > Antara provided in my earlier mail is prepared for 24 Feb > 2008 > > > it > > > > > > self and is correct. > > > > > > > Love and regards, > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology@ . > com, " Sreenadh " > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Choice of year length > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > > > > > > Please verify it agin - especially the comparison of what > > > > > > Chandra hari is speaking about and what you are speaking > about. > > > > > > > * Please note that Chandra hari is speaking about L+44 > along > > > > > > with 365.2425 days and NOT ABOUT Lahari + 365.2425 days; and > > > you are > > > > > > speaking about Lahari + 365.25 days (Of course you are true > that > > > > with > > > > > > Lahari+365.25 we will get Me-Ju-Sa. But that is NOT the > issue > > > here > > > > > > and that will not solve the problem - since the argument is, > > > whether > > > > > > to use 365.2425 or 360 days along with CHANDRAHARI AYANAMSA) > > > > > > > * DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, Kerala. > Marriage > > > > > > date: 2 Feb 2008. Year length: 365.2425 days (and NOT 365.25 > > > days). > > > > > > Use the latest version of JHora. (It could be a JHora > > > bug/correction > > > > > > as well) > > > > > > > * Consider the Dasa from Moon only (and NOT from Lagna > sputa) > > > > > > > * Go up to the 5th level (and not just upto 3rd level) to > > > ensure > > > > > > that Unintended planets are not involved. (When you go upto > 5th > > > > > > level, you can easly see that L+365.2425 day combination too > > > fails) > > > > > > > Conclusion: Only L+46 along with 360 days savana year > holds > > > good. > > > > > > > Love and regards, > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology@ . > com, " neelam > > > > gupta " > > > > > > > > neelamgupta07@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With PL 7.1, lahiri ayanamsha, 365.25 days I am > getting > > > > Mer-Ju- > > > > > > sa-ve > > > > > > > > as the > > > > > > > > > dasha sequence from 12 Feb -5 mar. > > > > > > > > > This to me is showing an absolute possibility for > marriage > > > > that > > > > > > > > happened on > > > > > > > > > 24-feb. > > > > > > > > > Hence I said so. Reasons already given in my mail. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Neelam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Go to > > > > > > http://in.promos./groups/bestof/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2008 Report Share Posted May 16, 2008 Dear Bhagavathi ji, I hope you are aware of the fact that Chandrahari is a RESEARCH SCIENTIST. If you are share your field of Scientific research activity, that would a good bit of info for us all as well, because if anything related to that surfaces in our talks we can always asks and clarify the doubts from you. Dear Bhagavati ji and Chandrahari ji please continue your communications, keeping the mutual respect and regard.Love and regards,Sreenadh , "chandra_hari18" <chandra_hari18 wrote:>> > Dear Bhagavathi,> > I will be much grateful if you can make me understand as to what is> research and what kind of research you have done in science? Please> charter a scientific programme of research by which everyone can propose> pet theories and prove for themselves and then call it a science.> > chandra hari> > > , "bhagavathi_hariharan"> bhagavathi_hariharan@ wrote:> >> > Dear Chandrahariji,> >> > Thanks for the compliment. I am already eyeing for the nobel in my> > field- scientific research. I will surely consider Jyotisham also. If> > you do not know what research is I can surely help you understand> > (with my research background), research is experimentation- good or> > bad does not matter. Critics like you are the heart of research.> >> > If your intentions are "sarcastic", then I would say all your> > learnings have gone waste. Learn form Sreenadhji- he is a true> > researcher, he cared to respond, see the efforts of Goelji, another> > true researcher. I do not know how old you are, maybe I am not> > learned like you but I definitely have superior thoughts than you, to> > respect others views.> >> > I suggest everyone, not to continue this thread- that would spoil the> > intentions of this discussion> >> > Sreenadhji, Rahu is also a natural significator of marriage, moon is> > 2nd and 11th lord, dispositior is venus, Rahu in the constellation of> > moon. Moon in the constellation of Jupiter is very significant here -> > whichever works for you is fine. The said combination has been> > working good for me.> >> > Regards> > bhagavathi> >> >> > , "chandra_hari18"> > chandra_hari18@ wrote:> > >> > >> > > Dear Sreenadh,> > >> > > It is unfortunate that Jyotisha is not included by the Swiss> > Academy as> > > a topic for Nobel Prize. Had that been so, the first contender would> > > have been Gopal Goel and the second none other than Bhagavathi> > > Hariharan.> > >> > > In some cases I am finding better results when year is 300 tithis -> > > ancient Roman year of 10 months> > >> > > In few other cases I am finding better results when year is> > 360/371/372> > >> > > In few others when the ayanamsa is 0> > >> > > In few others when ayanamsa is Raman> > >> > > Research is flourishing and so we must write to Swiss Academy to> > begin> > > their award beginning with Gopal Goel and Bhagavathi Hariharan.> > >> > > chandra hari> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > , "Sreenadh"> > > <sreesog@> wrote:> > > >> > > >> > > > Dear bhagavathi ji,> > > > ==>> > > > > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I usually> > use> > > > > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008> > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu> > > > > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that)> > > > <==> > > > Muhurta was at 11.30 AM. In the sequence you provided (i.e.> > > > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu), why Mo? that too twice? Why Rahu? Why Ve> > is> > > > missing? Mo is 11th lord placed in 2nd; Ra is planet placed in> > 5th;> > > But> > > > the most important thing why Ve the marriage significator (owner> > of> > > 2nd> > > > house as well) missing from the list? I don't feel that these are> > ok,> > > > and do not think that, if the event was not known, you would be> > able> > > to> > > > pin-point this event with this combination of Ayanamsa and Year> > > length.> > > > Note to Goel ji: Dear Goel ji, what are these "much better> > results"?> > > > > > > Regards,> > > > Sreenadh> > > >> > > > ,> > > "bhagavathi_hariharan"> > > > bhagavathi_hariharan@ wrote:> > > > >> > > > > Namaste Sreenadhji,> > > > >> > > > > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I usually> > use> > > > > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008> > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu> > > > > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that)> > > > >> > > > > Regards,> > > > >> > > > > bhagavathi> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > , Gopal Goel> > > > > gkgoel1937@ wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear Friends,> > > > > > L-57 sec. +365.2425 gives much better results.> > > > > > This is my experience.> > > > > > Regads,> > > > > > G.K.GOEL> > > > > > Ph: 09350311433> > > > > > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR> > > > > > NEW DELHI-110 076> > > > > > INDIA> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@> > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 1:30:39 PM> > > > > > Re: Choice of year length> > > > > (Tabulation against event)> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Sreenadh"> > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear Neelam ji,> > > > > > Sorry, I just noticed that I made one more typo in that mail> > > > > related to the Dasa listing related to L+365.2425 days. There> > fore I> > > > > am posing the corrected mail again below -> > > > > > ==>> > > > > > Please check yourself before buying some arguments on face> > > > > value, even if provided by Chandra hari ji. Here is the actual> > > values> > > > > for your reference. (DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum,> > > > > Kerala, India. Marriage date: 24 Feb 2008). The Vimsottari Dasa-> > > > > Antara upto 5 levels using JHora for various Ayanamsa and year> > > length> > > > > combinations are given below.> > > > > > CH(L+44);365. 2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve Fails miserably> > > > > > CH(L+44); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Ke- Ju-Ve Matches with the event.> > But> > > > > none proposes this combination.> > > > > > CH(L+46); 365.2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Sa- Sa-Ma Fails miserably..> > > > > > CH (L+46); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Me- Ve-Sa Matches with the event;> > > > > Perfect> > > > > > L+365.2425 days Me -Ju-Sa-Su-Ma- Mo Almost there. But why Su,> > Ma> > > > > and Mo? Where is Ve?> > > > > > L+360 days Me-Ju-Ke-Mo- Ju-Sa Not satisfactory. Why Ke and> > Mo? And> > > > > why not Ve present?> > > > > > From the above table it is clear that the opinion expressed by> > > > > Chandrahari that the event took place in Me-Ju-Sa is wrong if> > we buy> > > > > his argument on 44 more than Lahari and 365.2425 days. As per> > the> > > > > conditions 44 min more than Lahari and 365.2425 days, it would> > be> > > > > only "Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve which would fail as per every normal> > logic> > > > > for deriving the marriage timing.> > > > > > As normal astrologers what would we expect, for something like> > > > > marriage to fulfill in a chart as per Vimsottari dasa? For me> > the> > > > > simple and straight rule would be - Involvement of 7th lord,> > lagna> > > > > lord and Venus. If it is a love marriage the 5th lord should be> > > > > involved. The involvement of 2nd lord, 11th lord, and any> > planet in> > > > > its own Sign are also possibilities, even though secondary. As> > per> > > > > this simple thumb rule, in the above chart, the planets I would> > > > > expect to involve are - Ju (7th lord), Me (Lagna lord), Ve> > (marriage> > > > > significator) , Sa (5th lord, since it is a love marriage). Mo> > (the> > > > > 11th lord) and Ke (planet placed in 11th) could be> > possibilities but> > > > > only secondary. And I find only 2 sets of data in the above> > table> > > > > that satisfies this condition, viz,> > > > > > 1) CH (L+46); 360 days> > > > > > 2) CH (L+44); 360 days.> > > > > > The third choice L + 365.2425 is almost there upto Paryantara> > > > > level but not beyond that. I discard CH(L+44); 360 days due to> > the> > > > > following reasons -> > > > > > 1) None is in support of such an argument> > > > > > 2) This is almost an exception, a rare case. When we consider> > > > > numerous charts this usually does not seems to be as convincing> > as> > > > > the other combination CH (L+46), 360 days. After contrasting> > L+44> > > > > with L+46, I feel more comfortable with L+46 for all practical> > > > > purposes.> > > > > > Thus I resort to my last and usual choice - L+46; 360 days.> > But> > > > > I know that, the people who use L+44 with 360 days and L with> > > > > 365.2425 days would also be "Almost there". > > > > > > Hope I am clear.> > > > > > <==> > > > > > Love and regards,> > > > > > Sreenadh> > > > > > Re: Choice of year length> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear Neelam ji,> > > > > > There is a typo in my previous mail; It is NOT 2 Feb 2008 but> > > > > instead 24th Feb 2008 as stated in previous mails. The table of> > > Dasa-> > > > > Antara provided in my earlier mail is prepared for 24 Feb 2008> > it> > > > > self and is correct.> > > > > > Love and regards,> > > > > > Sreenadh> > > > > >> > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Sreenadh"> > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Re: Choice of year length> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear Neelam ji,> > > > > > Please verify it agin - especially the comparison of what> > > > > Chandra hari is speaking about and what you are speaking about.> > > > > > * Please note that Chandra hari is speaking about L+44 along> > > > > with 365.2425 days and NOT ABOUT Lahari + 365.2425 days; and> > you are> > > > > speaking about Lahari + 365.25 days (Of course you are true that> > > with> > > > > Lahari+365.25 we will get Me-Ju-Sa. But that is NOT the issue> > here> > > > > and that will not solve the problem - since the argument is,> > whether> > > > > to use 365.2425 or 360 days along with CHANDRAHARI AYANAMSA)> > > > > > * DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, Kerala. Marriage> > > > > date: 2 Feb 2008. Year length: 365.2425 days (and NOT 365.25> > days).> > > > > Use the latest version of JHora. (It could be a JHora> > bug/correction> > > > > as well)> > > > > > * Consider the Dasa from Moon only (and NOT from Lagna sputa)> > > > > > * Go up to the 5th level (and not just upto 3rd level) to> > ensure> > > > > that Unintended planets are not involved. (When you go upto 5th> > > > > level, you can easly see that L+365.2425 day combination too> > fails)> > > > > > Conclusion: Only L+46 along with 360 days savana year holds> > good.> > > > > > Love and regards,> > > > > > Sreenadh> > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "neelam> > > gupta"> > > > > > > neelamgupta07@ wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji,> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Namaste,> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > With PL 7.1, lahiri ayanamsha, 365.25 days I am getting> > > Mer-Ju-> > > > > sa-ve> > > > > > > as the> > > > > > > > dasha sequence from 12 Feb -5 mar.> > > > > > > > This to me is showing an absolute possibility for marriage> > > that> > > > > > > happened on> > > > > > > > 24-feb.> > > > > > > > Hence I said so. Reasons already given in my mail.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Regards> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Neelam> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Go to> > > > > http://in.promos./groups/bestof/> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2008 Report Share Posted May 16, 2008 Dear Bhagavati ji, There is no "Gurujis" in this group. Sunil ji is the moderator and our knowledgeable friend in this group. Love and regards,Sreenadh , "bhagavathi_hariharan" <bhagavathi_hariharan wrote:>> Namaste Guruji,> > I understand your statement. You know very well about my level of > study. It was he who passed sarcastic statements instead of sharing > knowledge.> > I apologize to you> > bhagavathi > > > > > , "sunil nair" > astro_tellerkerala@ wrote:> >> > > > > > > > Hare rama krishna> > > > dear chandra ji and madam bhagavathi ji> > > > > > > > pls dont take personal level this issues each other .The main > problem> > in astrology is we cant proov any thing on table top like we do in> > Laboratery >here i agree with sri ash ,we shud follow deffenit set > of> > rules and then only we can prov or discard anything .And that was > the> > main agenda behind Ohm nama sivaya grp .> > > > > > > > we must identify some charts with max accuracy in birth time and > with a> > series of known events ,then we can test any theories or yr > lenghts .> > > > > > > > but we must be open also .Like if some one wants venus always for> > marriage or sani always for profession is simple dry statements .> > > > > > > > there is defenit set of rules prescribed by rishis who propogated > this> > astrology ,even i doubt wat was ayanamsas used by old savants or did> > they use just drik ganita ( or wat they see frm geo centic view( i > am> > not sure abt this word ) ) ,or was there is any ayanamsa > controversy b4> > .> > > > > > > > i find in prashna reethi some ayanamsa propoagted by kukaniyar but > again> > lack of much knowledge i could not digest it .> > > > > > > > also chadra ji ,smt .bhagavthi ji is a student only tho belong to > astro> > parampara ,so her statements are subjuct to change over a period of > time> > may be when she has more grasp in subjuct and she is max trying for > it> > also .> > > > > > > > I hope u both will understand each other .> > > > > > > > regrds sunil nair> > > > > > > > om shreem mahalaxmai namah .> > > > > > , "chandra_hari18"> > <chandra_hari18@> wrote:> > >> > >> > > Dear Bhagavathi,> > >> > > I will be much grateful if you can make me understand as to what > is> > > research and what kind of research you have done in science? > Please> > > charter a scientific programme of research by which everyone can> > propose> > > pet theories and prove for themselves and then call it a science.> > >> > > chandra hari> > >> > >> > > ,> > "bhagavathi_hariharan"> > > bhagavathi_hariharan@ wrote:> > > >> > > > Dear Chandrahariji,> > > >> > > > Thanks for the compliment. I am already eyeing for the nobel in > my> > > > field- scientific research. I will surely consider Jyotisham > also.> > If> > > > you do not know what research is I can surely help you > understand> > > > (with my research background), research is experimentation- > good or> > > > bad does not matter. Critics like you are the heart of research.> > > >> > > > If your intentions are "sarcastic", then I would say all your> > > > learnings have gone waste. Learn form Sreenadhji- he is a true> > > > researcher, he cared to respond, see the efforts of Goelji, > another> > > > true researcher. I do not know how old you are, maybe I am not> > > > learned like you but I definitely have superior thoughts than > you,> > to> > > > respect others views.> > > >> > > > I suggest everyone, not to continue this thread- that would > spoil> > the> > > > intentions of this discussion> > > >> > > > Sreenadhji, Rahu is also a natural significator of marriage, > moon is> > > > 2nd and 11th lord, dispositior is venus, Rahu in the > constellation> > of> > > > moon. Moon in the constellation of Jupiter is very significant > here> > -> > > > whichever works for you is fine. The said combination has been> > > > working good for me.> > > >> > > > Regards> > > > bhagavathi> > > >> > > >> > > > > , "chandra_hari18"> > > > chandra_hari18@ wrote:> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Dear Sreenadh,> > > > >> > > > > It is unfortunate that Jyotisha is not included by the Swiss> > > > Academy as> > > > > a topic for Nobel Prize. Had that been so, the first contender> > would> > > > > have been Gopal Goel and the second none other than Bhagavathi> > > > > Hariharan.> > > > >> > > > > In some cases I am finding better results when year is 300 > tithis> > -> > > > > ancient Roman year of 10 months> > > > >> > > > > In few other cases I am finding better results when year is> > > > 360/371/372> > > > >> > > > > In few others when the ayanamsa is 0> > > > >> > > > > In few others when ayanamsa is Raman> > > > >> > > > > Research is flourishing and so we must write to Swiss Academy > to> > > > begin> > > > > their award beginning with Gopal Goel and Bhagavathi > Hariharan.> > > > >> > > > > chandra hari> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > , "Sreenadh"> > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear bhagavathi ji,> > > > > > ==>> > > > > > > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I> > usually> > > > use> > > > > > > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008> > > > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu> > > > > > > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that)> > > > > > <==> > > > > > Muhurta was at 11.30 AM. In the sequence you provided (i.e.> > > > > > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu), why Mo? that too twice? Why Rahu? > Why> > Ve> > > > is> > > > > > missing? Mo is 11th lord placed in 2nd; Ra is planet placed > in> > > > 5th;> > > > > But> > > > > > the most important thing why Ve the marriage significator > (owner> > > > of> > > > > 2nd> > > > > > house as well) missing from the list? I don't feel that > these> > are> > > > ok,> > > > > > and do not think that, if the event was not known, you > would be> > > > able> > > > > to> > > > > > pin-point this event with this combination of Ayanamsa and > Year> > > > > length.> > > > > > Note to Goel ji: Dear Goel ji, what are these "much better> > > > results"?> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,> > > > > > Sreenadh> > > > > >> > > > > > ,> > > > > "bhagavathi_hariharan"> > > > > > bhagavathi_hariharan@ wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Namaste Sreenadhji,> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I> > usually> > > > use> > > > > > > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008> > > > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu> > > > > > > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that)> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Regards,> > > > > > >> > > > > > > bhagavathi> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > , Gopal > Goel> > > > > > > gkgoel1937@ wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dear Friends,> > > > > > > > L-57 sec. +365.2425 gives much better results.> > > > > > > > This is my experience.> > > > > > > > Regads,> > > > > > > > G.K.GOEL> > > > > > > > Ph: 09350311433> > > > > > > > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR> > > > > > > > NEW DELHI-110 076> > > > > > > > INDIA> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 1:30:39 PM> > > > > > > > Re: Choice of year> > length> > > > > > > (Tabulation against event)> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology,> > "Sreenadh"> > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji,> > > > > > > > Sorry, I just noticed that I made one more typo in that > mail> > > > > > > related to the Dasa listing related to L+365.2425 days. > There> > > > fore I> > > > > > > am posing the corrected mail again below -> > > > > > > > ==>> > > > > > > > Please check yourself before buying some arguments on > face> > > > > > > value, even if provided by Chandra hari ji. Here is the > actual> > > > > values> > > > > > > for your reference. (DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB:> > Trivandrum,> > > > > > > Kerala, India. Marriage date: 24 Feb 2008). The Vimsottari> > Dasa-> > > > > > > Antara upto 5 levels using JHora for various Ayanamsa and > year> > > > > length> > > > > > > combinations are given below.> > > > > > > > CH(L+44);365. 2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve Fails > miserably> > > > > > > > CH(L+44); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Ke- Ju-Ve Matches with the> > event.> > > > But> > > > > > > none proposes this combination.> > > > > > > > CH(L+46); 365.2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Sa- Sa-Ma Fails > miserably..> > > > > > > > CH (L+46); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Me- Ve-Sa Matches with the> > event;> > > > > > > Perfect> > > > > > > > L+365.2425 days Me -Ju-Sa-Su-Ma- Mo Almost there. But > why> > Su,> > > > Ma> > > > > > > and Mo? Where is Ve?> > > > > > > > L+360 days Me-Ju-Ke-Mo- Ju-Sa Not satisfactory. Why Ke > and> > > > Mo? And> > > > > > > why not Ve present?> > > > > > > > From the above table it is clear that the opinion > expressed> > by> > > > > > > Chandrahari that the event took place in Me-Ju-Sa is > wrong if> > > > we buy> > > > > > > his argument on 44 more than Lahari and 365.2425 days. As > per> > > > the> > > > > > > conditions 44 min more than Lahari and 365.2425 days, it > would> > > > be> > > > > > > only "Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve which would fail as per every > normal> > > > logic> > > > > > > for deriving the marriage timing.> > > > > > > > As normal astrologers what would we expect, for > something> > like> > > > > > > marriage to fulfill in a chart as per Vimsottari dasa? > For me> > > > the> > > > > > > simple and straight rule would be - Involvement of 7th > lord,> > > > lagna> > > > > > > lord and Venus. If it is a love marriage the 5th lord > should> > be> > > > > > > involved. The involvement of 2nd lord, 11th lord, and any> > > > planet in> > > > > > > its own Sign are also possibilities, even though > secondary. As> > > > per> > > > > > > this simple thumb rule, in the above chart, the planets I> > would> > > > > > > expect to involve are - Ju (7th lord), Me (Lagna lord), Ve> > > > (marriage> > > > > > > significator) , Sa (5th lord, since it is a love > marriage). Mo> > > > (the> > > > > > > 11th lord) and Ke (planet placed in 11th) could be> > > > possibilities but> > > > > > > only secondary. And I find only 2 sets of data in the > above> > > > table> > > > > > > that satisfies this condition, viz,> > > > > > > > 1) CH (L+46); 360 days> > > > > > > > 2) CH (L+44); 360 days.> > > > > > > > The third choice L + 365.2425 is almost there upto> > Paryantara> > > > > > > level but not beyond that. I discard CH(L+44); 360 days > due to> > > > the> > > > > > > following reasons -> > > > > > > > 1) None is in support of such an argument> > > > > > > > 2) This is almost an exception, a rare case. When we> > consider> > > > > > > numerous charts this usually does not seems to be as> > convincing> > > > as> > > > > > > the other combination CH (L+46), 360 days. After > contrasting> > > > L+44> > > > > > > with L+46, I feel more comfortable with L+46 for all > practical> > > > > > > purposes.> > > > > > > > Thus I resort to my last and usual choice - L+46; 360 > days.> > > > But> > > > > > > I know that, the people who use L+44 with 360 days and L > with> > > > > > > 365.2425 days would also be "Almost there". > > > > > > > > Hope I am clear.> > > > > > > > <==> > > > > > > > Love and regards,> > > > > > > > Sreenadh> > > > > > > > Re: Choice of year length> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji,> > > > > > > > There is a typo in my previous mail; It is NOT 2 Feb > 2008> > but> > > > > > > instead 24th Feb 2008 as stated in previous mails. The > table> > of> > > > > Dasa-> > > > > > > Antara provided in my earlier mail is prepared for 24 Feb > 2008> > > > it> > > > > > > self and is correct.> > > > > > > > Love and regards,> > > > > > > > Sreenadh> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology,> > "Sreenadh"> > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Re: Choice of year length> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji,> > > > > > > > Please verify it agin - especially the comparison of > what> > > > > > > Chandra hari is speaking about and what you are speaking> > about.> > > > > > > > * Please note that Chandra hari is speaking about L+44 > along> > > > > > > with 365.2425 days and NOT ABOUT Lahari + 365.2425 days; > and> > > > you are> > > > > > > speaking about Lahari + 365.25 days (Of course you are > true> > that> > > > > with> > > > > > > Lahari+365.25 we will get Me-Ju-Sa. But that is NOT the > issue> > > > here> > > > > > > and that will not solve the problem - since the argument > is,> > > > whether> > > > > > > to use 365.2425 or 360 days along with CHANDRAHARI > AYANAMSA)> > > > > > > > * DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, Kerala.> > Marriage> > > > > > > date: 2 Feb 2008. Year length: 365.2425 days (and NOT > 365.25> > > > days).> > > > > > > Use the latest version of JHora. (It could be a JHora> > > > bug/correction> > > > > > > as well)> > > > > > > > * Consider the Dasa from Moon only (and NOT from Lagna> > sputa)> > > > > > > > * Go up to the 5th level (and not just upto 3rd level) > to> > > > ensure> > > > > > > that Unintended planets are not involved. (When you go > upto> > 5th> > > > > > > level, you can easly see that L+365.2425 day combination > too> > > > fails)> > > > > > > > Conclusion: Only L+46 along with 360 days savana year > holds> > > > good.> > > > > > > > Love and regards,> > > > > > > > Sreenadh> > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology,> > "neelam> > > > > gupta"> > > > > > > > > neelamgupta07@ wrote:> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji,> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Namaste,> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > With PL 7.1, lahiri ayanamsha, 365.25 days I am > getting> > > > > Mer-Ju-> > > > > > > sa-ve> > > > > > > > > as the> > > > > > > > > > dasha sequence from 12 Feb -5 mar.> > > > > > > > > > This to me is showing an absolute possibility for> > marriage> > > > > that> > > > > > > > > happened on> > > > > > > > > > 24-feb.> > > > > > > > > > Hence I said so. Reasons already given in my mail.> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Regards> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Neelam> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Go to> > > > > > > http://in.promos./groups/bestof/> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2008 Report Share Posted May 16, 2008 Dear Ash ji, I second Srinivas ji.Love and regards,Sreenadh , "sreeram srinivas" <sreeram64 wrote:>> > Dear Mr. Ash,> > I have been saying that many times in the group, technique first,> ayanamsa comes second. After a long time, find some one resonating on> similar wavelength.> > If we have a good team, then we can take both topic simultaneously as we> do case studies.> > Thanks Ash, for coming back active....keep posting.....> > With regards,> > Sreeram_Srinivas> > > , "ashsam73" kas@> wrote:> >> > Dear Mr Goel,> >> > Sreenadh has justified it using his technique, you have justified> > using your technique each using different ayanamsa?> >> > It is not a small thing, one is using Lahiri - 57 seconds, other is> > using Lahiri + 40 with 360 days for year.> >> > IT just goes to show that anyone can justify anything?> >> > This mail is a nimita for me, as I just wrote about it in my previous> > mail on the ABSOLUTE need to have proper technique FIRST before> > venturing into verifying an ayanamsa.> >> > Verification CAN ONLY COME AFTER the Set of LAWS to test are FIXED and> > agreed by everyone.> >> > I believe that everyone will agree with that.> >> >> > Cheers !!!> > Ash -> http://www.ashtro.ca> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2008 Report Share Posted May 16, 2008 Dear Sreenadhji, I am used to calling Sunilji as Guruji- that is why. So I continue to look upon him that way instead of moderator. bhagavathi , " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote: > > Dear Bhagavati ji, > There is no " Gurujis " in this group. [] Sunil ji is the > moderator and our knowledgeable friend in this group. > Love and regards, > Sreenadh > > --- In , " bhagavathi_hariharan " > <bhagavathi_hariharan@> wrote: > > > > Namaste Guruji, > > > > I understand your statement. You know very well about my level of > > study. It was he who passed sarcastic statements instead of sharing > > knowledge. > > > > I apologize to you > > > > bhagavathi > > > > > > > > > > , " sunil nair " > > astro_tellerkerala@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hare rama krishna > > > > > > dear chandra ji and madam bhagavathi ji > > > > > > > > > > > > pls dont take personal level this issues each other .The main > > problem > > > in astrology is we cant proov any thing on table top like we do in > > > Laboratery >here i agree with sri ash ,we shud follow deffenit set > > of > > > rules and then only we can prov or discard anything .And that was > > the > > > main agenda behind Ohm nama sivaya grp . > > > > > > > > > > > > we must identify some charts with max accuracy in birth time and > > with a > > > series of known events ,then we can test any theories or yr > > lenghts . > > > > > > > > > > > > but we must be open also .Like if some one wants venus always for > > > marriage or sani always for profession is simple dry statements . > > > > > > > > > > > > there is defenit set of rules prescribed by rishis who propogated > > this > > > astrology ,even i doubt wat was ayanamsas used by old savants or did > > > they use just drik ganita ( or wat they see frm geo centic view ( i > > am > > > not sure abt this word ) ) ,or was there is any ayanamsa > > controversy b4 > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > i find in prashna reethi some ayanamsa propoagted by kukaniyar but > > again > > > lack of much knowledge i could not digest it . > > > > > > > > > > > > also chadra ji ,smt .bhagavthi ji is a student only tho belong to > > astro > > > parampara ,so her statements are subjuct to change over a period of > > time > > > may be when she has more grasp in subjuct and she is max trying for > > it > > > also . > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope u both will understand each other . > > > > > > > > > > > > regrds sunil nair > > > > > > > > > > > > om shreem mahalaxmai namah . > > > > > > > > > --- In , " chandra_hari18 " > > > <chandra_hari18@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhagavathi, > > > > > > > > I will be much grateful if you can make me understand as to what > > is > > > > research and what kind of research you have done in science? > > Please > > > > charter a scientific programme of research by which everyone can > > > propose > > > > pet theories and prove for themselves and then call it a science. > > > > > > > > chandra hari > > > > > > > > > > > > , > > > " bhagavathi_hariharan " > > > > bhagavathi_hariharan@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrahariji, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the compliment. I am already eyeing for the nobel in > > my > > > > > field- scientific research. I will surely consider Jyotisham > > also. > > > If > > > > > you do not know what research is I can surely help you > > understand > > > > > (with my research background), research is experimentation- > > good or > > > > > bad does not matter. Critics like you are the heart of research. > > > > > > > > > > If your intentions are " sarcastic " , then I would say all your > > > > > learnings have gone waste. Learn form Sreenadhji- he is a true > > > > > researcher, he cared to respond, see the efforts of Goelji, > > another > > > > > true researcher. I do not know how old you are, maybe I am not > > > > > learned like you but I definitely have superior thoughts than > > you, > > > to > > > > > respect others views. > > > > > > > > > > I suggest everyone, not to continue this thread- that would > > spoil > > > the > > > > > intentions of this discussion > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadhji, Rahu is also a natural significator of marriage, > > moon is > > > > > 2nd and 11th lord, dispositior is venus, Rahu in the > > constellation > > > of > > > > > moon. Moon in the constellation of Jupiter is very significant > > here > > > - > > > > > whichever works for you is fine. The said combination has been > > > > > working good for me. > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > bhagavathi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > , " chandra_hari18 " > > > > > chandra_hari18@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > > > > > > > > > It is unfortunate that Jyotisha is not included by the Swiss > > > > > Academy as > > > > > > a topic for Nobel Prize. Had that been so, the first contender > > > would > > > > > > have been Gopal Goel and the second none other than Bhagavathi > > > > > > Hariharan. > > > > > > > > > > > > In some cases I am finding better results when year is 300 > > tithis > > > - > > > > > > ancient Roman year of 10 months > > > > > > > > > > > > In few other cases I am finding better results when year is > > > > > 360/371/372 > > > > > > > > > > > > In few others when the ayanamsa is 0 > > > > > > > > > > > > In few others when ayanamsa is Raman > > > > > > > > > > > > Research is flourishing and so we must write to Swiss Academy > > to > > > > > begin > > > > > > their award beginning with Gopal Goel and Bhagavathi > > Hariharan. > > > > > > > > > > > > chandra hari > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , " Sreenadh " > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear bhagavathi ji, > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I > > > usually > > > > > use > > > > > > > > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008 > > > > > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu > > > > > > > > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that) > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > Muhurta was at 11.30 AM. In the sequence you provided (i.e. > > > > > > > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu), why Mo? that too twice? Why Rahu? > > Why > > > Ve > > > > > is > > > > > > > missing? Mo is 11th lord placed in 2nd; Ra is planet placed > > in > > > > > 5th; > > > > > > But > > > > > > > the most important thing why Ve the marriage significator > > (owner > > > > > of > > > > > > 2nd > > > > > > > house as well) missing from the list? I don't feel that > > these > > > are > > > > > ok, > > > > > > > and do not think that, if the event was not known, you > > would be > > > > > able > > > > > > to > > > > > > > pin-point this event with this combination of Ayanamsa and > > Year > > > > > > length. > > > > > > > Note to Goel ji: Dear Goel ji, what are these " much better > > > > > results " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , > > > > > > " bhagavathi_hariharan " > > > > > > > bhagavathi_hariharan@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Sreenadhji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I > > > usually > > > > > use > > > > > > > > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008 > > > > > Mer/jup/moon/moon/rahu > > > > > > > > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhagavathi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Gopal > > Goel > > > > > > > > gkgoel1937@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > > > > > > L-57 sec. +365.2425 gives much better results. > > > > > > > > > This is my experience. > > > > > > > > > Regads, > > > > > > > > > G.K.GOEL > > > > > > > > > Ph: 09350311433 > > > > > > > > > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR > > > > > > > > > NEW DELHI-110 076 > > > > > > > > > INDIA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 1:30:39 PM > > > > > > > > > Re: Choice of year > > > length > > > > > > > > (Tabulation against event) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, > > > " Sreenadh " > > > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I just noticed that I made one more typo in that > > mail > > > > > > > > related to the Dasa listing related to L+365.2425 days. > > There > > > > > fore I > > > > > > > > am posing the corrected mail again below - > > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > > > > > Please check yourself before buying some arguments on > > face > > > > > > > > value, even if provided by Chandra hari ji. Here is the > > actual > > > > > > values > > > > > > > > for your reference. (DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: > > > Trivandrum, > > > > > > > > Kerala, India. Marriage date: 24 Feb 2008). The Vimsottari > > > Dasa- > > > > > > > > Antara upto 5 levels using JHora for various Ayanamsa and > > year > > > > > > length > > > > > > > > combinations are given below. > > > > > > > > > CH(L+44);365. 2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve Fails > > miserably > > > > > > > > > CH(L+44); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Ke- Ju-Ve Matches with the > > > event. > > > > > But > > > > > > > > none proposes this combination. > > > > > > > > > CH(L+46); 365.2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Sa- Sa-Ma Fails > > miserably.. > > > > > > > > > CH (L+46); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Me- Ve-Sa Matches with the > > > event; > > > > > > > > Perfect > > > > > > > > > L+365.2425 days Me -Ju-Sa-Su-Ma- Mo Almost there. But > > why > > > Su, > > > > > Ma > > > > > > > > and Mo? Where is Ve? > > > > > > > > > L+360 days Me-Ju-Ke-Mo- Ju-Sa Not satisfactory. Why Ke > > and > > > > > Mo? And > > > > > > > > why not Ve present? > > > > > > > > > From the above table it is clear that the opinion > > expressed > > > by > > > > > > > > Chandrahari that the event took place in Me-Ju-Sa is > > wrong if > > > > > we buy > > > > > > > > his argument on 44 more than Lahari and 365.2425 days. As > > per > > > > > the > > > > > > > > conditions 44 min more than Lahari and 365.2425 days, it > > would > > > > > be > > > > > > > > only " Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve which would fail as per every > > normal > > > > > logic > > > > > > > > for deriving the marriage timing. > > > > > > > > > As normal astrologers what would we expect, for > > something > > > like > > > > > > > > marriage to fulfill in a chart as per Vimsottari dasa? > > For me > > > > > the > > > > > > > > simple and straight rule would be - Involvement of 7th > > lord, > > > > > lagna > > > > > > > > lord and Venus. If it is a love marriage the 5th lord > > should > > > be > > > > > > > > involved. The involvement of 2nd lord, 11th lord, and any > > > > > planet in > > > > > > > > its own Sign are also possibilities, even though > > secondary. As > > > > > per > > > > > > > > this simple thumb rule, in the above chart, the planets I > > > would > > > > > > > > expect to involve are - Ju (7th lord), Me (Lagna lord), Ve > > > > > (marriage > > > > > > > > significator) , Sa (5th lord, since it is a love > > marriage). Mo > > > > > (the > > > > > > > > 11th lord) and Ke (planet placed in 11th) could be > > > > > possibilities but > > > > > > > > only secondary. And I find only 2 sets of data in the > > above > > > > > table > > > > > > > > that satisfies this condition, viz, > > > > > > > > > 1) CH (L+46); 360 days > > > > > > > > > 2) CH (L+44); 360 days. > > > > > > > > > The third choice L + 365.2425 is almost there upto > > > Paryantara > > > > > > > > level but not beyond that. I discard CH(L+44); 360 days > > due to > > > > > the > > > > > > > > following reasons - > > > > > > > > > 1) None is in support of such an argument > > > > > > > > > 2) This is almost an exception, a rare case. When we > > > consider > > > > > > > > numerous charts this usually does not seems to be as > > > convincing > > > > > as > > > > > > > > the other combination CH (L+46), 360 days. After > > contrasting > > > > > L+44 > > > > > > > > with L+46, I feel more comfortable with L+46 for all > > practical > > > > > > > > purposes. > > > > > > > > > Thus I resort to my last and usual choice - L+46; 360 > > days. > > > > > But > > > > > > > > I know that, the people who use L+44 with 360 days and L > > with > > > > > > > > 365.2425 days would also be " Almost there " . > > > > > > > > > Hope I am clear. > > > > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > > > Love and regards, > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > Re: Choice of year length > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > > > > > > > > There is a typo in my previous mail; It is NOT 2 Feb > > 2008 > > > but > > > > > > > > instead 24th Feb 2008 as stated in previous mails. The > > table > > > of > > > > > > Dasa- > > > > > > > > Antara provided in my earlier mail is prepared for 24 Feb > > 2008 > > > > > it > > > > > > > > self and is correct. > > > > > > > > > Love and regards, > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, > > > " Sreenadh " > > > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Choice of year length > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > > > > > > > > Please verify it agin - especially the comparison of > > what > > > > > > > > Chandra hari is speaking about and what you are speaking > > > about. > > > > > > > > > * Please note that Chandra hari is speaking about L+44 > > along > > > > > > > > with 365.2425 days and NOT ABOUT Lahari + 365.2425 days; > > and > > > > > you are > > > > > > > > speaking about Lahari + 365.25 days (Of course you are > > true > > > that > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > Lahari+365.25 we will get Me-Ju-Sa. But that is NOT the > > issue > > > > > here > > > > > > > > and that will not solve the problem - since the argument > > is, > > > > > whether > > > > > > > > to use 365.2425 or 360 days along with CHANDRAHARI > > AYANAMSA) > > > > > > > > > * DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, Kerala. > > > Marriage > > > > > > > > date: 2 Feb 2008. Year length: 365.2425 days (and NOT > > 365.25 > > > > > days). > > > > > > > > Use the latest version of JHora. (It could be a JHora > > > > > bug/correction > > > > > > > > as well) > > > > > > > > > * Consider the Dasa from Moon only (and NOT from Lagna > > > sputa) > > > > > > > > > * Go up to the 5th level (and not just upto 3rd level) > > to > > > > > ensure > > > > > > > > that Unintended planets are not involved. (When you go > > upto > > > 5th > > > > > > > > level, you can easly see that L+365.2425 day combination > > too > > > > > fails) > > > > > > > > > Conclusion: Only L+46 along with 360 days savana year > > holds > > > > > good. > > > > > > > > > Love and regards, > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology@ . com, > > > " neelam > > > > > > gupta " > > > > > > > > > > neelamgupta07@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With PL 7.1, lahiri ayanamsha, 365.25 days I am > > getting > > > > > > Mer-Ju- > > > > > > > > sa-ve > > > > > > > > > > as the > > > > > > > > > > > dasha sequence from 12 Feb -5 mar. > > > > > > > > > > > This to me is showing an absolute possibility for > > > marriage > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > happened on > > > > > > > > > > > 24-feb. > > > > > > > > > > > Hence I said so. Reasons already given in my mail. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Neelam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Go to > > > > > > > > http://in.promos./groups/bestof/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2008 Report Share Posted May 16, 2008 Dear Mr. Sreeram, Isn't that common sense? Doing thing the other way would be like putting the cart before the horse and I thought that was a given. What u want to venture, the frame work to test, for that already been brought forward to this world and that is KAS. Again what I am saying is common sense which is that If the rules of the game are fixed, then testing would become easy. Now, the big and practical question that befalls upon us is " are we willing to understand what this Ash keeps saying are the " fixed rules " ? The other way is equally welcome where, someone can list the specific rules that can be repeatable in all the charts and that would " fix the rule of the game " I hope u get my drift Sreeram. Who will bell the cat lol.... :-) Cheers !!! Ash -> http://www.ashtro.ca , " sreeram srinivas " <sreeram64 wrote: > > > Dear Mr. Ash, > > I have been saying that many times in the group, technique first, > ayanamsa comes second. After a long time, find some one resonating on > similar wavelength. > > If we have a good team, then we can take both topic simultaneously as we > do case studies. > > Thanks Ash, for coming back active....keep posting..... > > With regards, > > Sreeram_Srinivas > > > , " ashsam73 " <kas@> > wrote: > > > > Dear Mr Goel, > > > > Sreenadh has justified it using his technique, you have justified > > using your technique each using different ayanamsa? > > > > It is not a small thing, one is using Lahiri - 57 seconds, other is > > using Lahiri + 40 with 360 days for year. > > > > IT just goes to show that anyone can justify anything? > > > > This mail is a nimita for me, as I just wrote about it in my previous > > mail on the ABSOLUTE need to have proper technique FIRST before > > venturing into verifying an ayanamsa. > > > > Verification CAN ONLY COME AFTER the Set of LAWS to test are FIXED and > > agreed by everyone. > > > > I believe that everyone will agree with that. > > > > > > Cheers !!! > > Ash -> http://www.ashtro.ca > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2008 Report Share Posted May 17, 2008 dear sunil nairji sorry for intervening into this heated discussion. I fully agree with u that Sri Chandra Hari is a great learned and well informed gentleman in astrology but it doesnt qualify him to pass sarcastic remarks against other members if they come out with their approach in astrology. As Mrs.Bhagawathi has said that all his education goes waste if he cannot control his anger or outburst. He will be an authority on the subject but when it comes to prediction he couldnt come anywhere near to vijayadas pradeep or madhu nair while predicting on the blind chart given by Neelamji. so prediction is an art which has nothing to do with accumulation of thereotical knowledge. I am sure ur aware abt Sri Avtar Kishen kaul who is trying his best to debase astrology, rasis and ayanamsa in Hindu calendar reform society and his claim that present panchagam is absurd and he even adds adjectives against Surya siddhantha,,Varahamihra. Any one who is refuting his claim he shows similair outburst. So it is high time Sri Chandra Hari shows restraint in his language. I declare that i have not even scratched the periphery of astrology and am nothing compared to the knowledge of Sri chandra hari. good wishes, k.gopu 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.