Choice of year length and Ayanamsa (Marriage Time)

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavati ji, What I remember is the current quiz that is happening in our other group i.e. Ohm_Namah_Sivaya; a blind chart exersise to predict the period/date of death BASED ON NATAL CHART ALONE. Since people with a scientific approach and better (as well as) holistic approach (as required by Astrology) - I are already in paths you imagine. Instead of proposels put yourself into practice - I will supply a set of data - predict the date of marriage yourself based the Natal chart. Once your reading appears in the group, I propose others also to participate in the same exersise. Of course idols and mere argumenation does not hold any water in real practical experiments; also never assume that one can consistently be the best always. I would suggest to give it a try yourself - let us see whether these people will understand us or not. Love and regards,Sreenadh , "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> > > > > > > , "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/> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >>