Guest guest Posted March 9, 2005 Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 Dear Vaidun, Thanks very much for introducing yourself for the benefit of the group. You have an admirable background. I am happy to answer any question I am capable of, irrespective of who poses the question; the background does not matter. After all, the purpose of this interaction is to learn. Coming to the point, as I mentioned in my previous posting, the issue is the " day " . I find it difficult to agree with the proposition " 360*D2 = 365.2422*D3 will be correct " To me D2 == D3, so 360 * D2 < 365.25 *D3. Taking your Dasa periods: Sun starts on: 24 Sep 1954 Sun dasa lasts 6 Vimshottari years, with each year having 360 days (solar days). So the total number of solar days for Sun dasa = 6 * 360 = 2160 days. Adding 2160 days to 24 sep 1954, we get the start of next dasa, i.e., Moon starts on: 23 Aug 1960 Similarly for other dasas, and subperiods. I believe this is the calculation other programs apply since TW has shown there is near agreement among various software. As I mentioned earlier, if this approach is incorrect and proper proof is given, we will be happy to rectify our mistakes. After all, software should not produce erroneous results. Regards, Rangarajan P.S: After I uploaded our program, I noticed an error appearing in some cases in 360-day dasa calculation. I hope to upload the corrcted version in a day or two. , " Vaidun Vidyadhar " <vvidya@o...> wrote: > Dear Mr Rangarajan, > > Thank you for your email below. I am very happy to interact with the author > of KPAstro2.0. At the outset I must say your program looks and works quite > well. > > I know your background but you know nothing about me. I was introduced to > KP in 1987 when I was living and working in Madras. I didn't know then that > KP was a little different from traditional vedic astrology. Anyway, I did > read all of Prof KSK's Readers. I also did the course under Mr Hariharan in > 1988. I am an ex Group Captain from the Indian Air Force, an ex fighter > pilot. Mathematics has been my strong point. I am telling you all this > because I don't want you to think you are interacting with a half-baked nit > wit. > > Now coming to the point you have raised, you have said: > > " It is not clear to me how you say that " day " as used in Vimshottari > context is different in value from the " day " in solar year. In your view, > 360 * vimshottari_day == 365.25 * solar_day > What is the source that supports this claim? " > > I have not said " that " day " as used in the Vimshotdhari context is different > in value from the " day " in solar year. " What I did say was a " day " in the > 360 days per year calendar is different from a " day " in the Real Time, > 365.25 days per year calendar. AVimshotdhari year is the same as a solar > year. A Vimshotdhari day is the same as a solar day. There is no > difference. However, one day in the 365.25 days per year calendar is not > the same as one day in the 360 days per year calendar. THAT is the crux of > the problem. > > You said: > > " Suppose we exaggerate this a little bit and propose that Vimshottari > year had only 200 days, will the above equality still hold good? " > > The Vimshotdhari year is same as the solar year. There is no difference. > The Vimshotdhari dasa cycle takes 120 solar years to complete. One > Vimshotdhari year is same as the solar year. One Vimshotdhari day is same > as one solar day. However, one CAN take a solar year and divide it into any > number of equal parts. We could divide it by 200 (as you say), or 360 or > 365.2422. If we do this we will get three different units. Let us call > these units D1, D2 amd D3. > Then, > > 200*D1 = 360*D2 = 365.2422*D3 will be correct. > > D3 is one solar day which is = 24 hours. The length of D2 and D3 will be > different. > > The dates shown in the Green Table of the Excel file that I sent you were > not derived from MY own method of calculations. I have followed the steps > and instructions given by Prof KSK in his Readers on how to draw up a > dasa/bhukti/anthras chart. Mr Raichur had very kindly given his > calculations. He also follows Prof KSK's methodology. In the case of my > chart, the dates indicated by him for end of my Venus dasa and start of the > other dasas correspond to the dates calculated in the Green Table provided > by me. The dates shown in the Green Table belong to a 360 days per year > calendar. Please note that though I have used the 360 days per year > calendar, all dasas start on the same day of the month, viz. 27 Nov. But > more than that, the duration of each dasa corresponds exactly to the > stipulated length of each dasa in years as per the Vimshotdhari dasa cycle, > as shown below: > > Sun 6 years > Moon 10 years > Mars 7 years > Rahu 18 years > Jupiter 16 years > Saturn 19 years > Mercury 17 years > Ketu 7 years. > > I have answered your questions. Can I request you to kindly answer one of > mine please? > > My birth details are: > Date and time of birth: 20 June 1942, 1549 hours (Indian Standard Time, GMT > + 5:30) > Place of birth: Walajapet, Lat 12N56, Long 79E23 > In the case of my own chart, in KPAstro2.0, under the Settings Menu, > Vimshottari Dasa, when I select 360 days per year, the onset dates of the > various dasas is as follows: > > Sun: 24 Sep 1954 > Moon: 23 Aug 1960 > Mars: 02 Jul 1970 > Rahu: 26 May 1977 > Jupiter: 21 Feb 1995 > Saturn: 29 Nov 2010 > Mercury: 21 Aug 2029 > Ketu: 24 May 2046 > > From the above it can be seen that the duration of the various dasas is > significantly shorter than the stipulated number of years in the > Vimshotdhari dasa cycle. Prof KSK himself has stated at page 82 in his > First Reader that the number of years allocated to each planet are as shown > below: > > Sun 6 years > Moon 10 years > Mars 7 years > Rahu 18 years > Jupiter 16 years > Saturn 19 years > Mercury 17 years > Ketu 7 years. > Venus 20 years > > In your program, on what authority have you reduced the duration of each > dasa? > > I look forward to your response. > > Thanks. With best regards. > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > 1 / 94 Marius Street > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > Australia > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > _____ > > Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy [ranga@m...] > Tuesday, 8 March 2005 11:59 PM > > Re: Vimshottari Period > > > > Dear Vaidun, > It seems to me that the crux of the whole issue is the definition of > " day " . I quote from your earlier posting: > > " This is what most computer programmers, who are also astrologers, > have not understood. The length of a day in the Red Table is one > solar day, made up of 24 hours. But the length of a DAY in the Green > Table is not the same, it is slightly MORE than 24 hours. The length > of the year in the 365.25 days per year calendar and the length of the > year in the 360 days per year calendar is the SAME. If one divides > the SAME length by 365.25 in one case, and 360 in another case, it > will be appreciated that the resultant unit that one gets will not be > the same. The unit in the former is 24 hours while the unit in the > latter will be a little MORE than 24 hours. The confusion arises > because both units are referred to as a " day " . But in reality, one > unit is slightly shorter than the other, though both units are given > the same name of " day " . ... " > > It is not clear to me how you say that " day " as used in Vimshottari > context is different in value from the " day " in solar year. In your view, > 360 * vimshottari_day == 365.25 * solar_day > What is the source that supports this claim? > > Suppose we exaggerate this a little bit and propose that Vimshottari > year had only 200 days, will the above equality still hold good? > > I believe all the programs you have mentioned use the assumption that > " day " refers to solar day. At least mine does. > > I am sure all of us programmers (whether we know astrology or not) > follow certain principles when we program and we are definitely open > to correction. If we are wrong, we would certainly like to correct our > belief systems and the programs. In spite of our best efforts, though, > there will be calculation approximations because of the finiteness of > machine word, etc., but that should be acceptable. > > Rehards, > Rangarajan > > , " Vaidun Vidyadhar " <vvidya@o...> wrote: > > Dear List Members, > > > > Mr Raichur has very kindly pointed out that the difference between using > > 365.25 or 360 days per year comes to only 1 day. Prof KSK himself > said " the > > difference is negligible " . If one uses astrological tables and manually > > calculates the dasa periods as per the guidelines given in Prof KSK > Readers, > > as I have done in the Green Table, (in my earlier email attachment) the > > difference IS actually less than one day (19 hours and 38 minutes to be > > exact). > > > > On the other hand, I have before me four astrology programs which > have the > > facility to select 365.25 or 360 days per year. When I do this, I > find that > > the difference is NOT negligible. In my own chart, the onset of my > Saturn > > dasa is different by ONE YEAR, as shown below. > > > > Program 365.25 days/year 360 days/year > > Goravani Jyotish 26 Nov 2011 27 Nov 2010 > > Shri Jyoti Star 29 Nov 2011 27 Nov 2010 > > KPAstro2.0 27 Nov 2011 29 Nov 2010 > > Jyotish Tools 24 Nov 2011 25 Nov 2010 > > > > A few months ago when this subject was being discussed on this list a > > similar anomaly was seen in the program called " Fortune Discoverer " > being > > developed by Mr Rajasekaran. > > > > So we have FIVE astrology programs developed by five different > astrologers > > who obviously know what they are putting into their program. All five > > programs show that difference between using 365.25 or 360 days per > year is > > almost ONE YEAR while at para one above it is seen that the > difference is > > less than a day. How do you reconcile this GROSS anomaly? You can > try this > > on any chart. Take a period about 70 to 80 years after birth and > see the > > difference in onset of a major dasa when 365.25 or 360 days per year is > > selected. You will get similar results. > > > > My knowledge of astrology is only at the intermediate level, though > I have a > > fairly good understanding of the mathematics involved. With MY limited > > knowledge of astrology, if it was I who said that the difference between > > using 365.25 or 360 days per year is only one day, while the astrology > > programs show a difference of one year, I suppose my claim can be > dismissed > > as rubbish. But it was Mr RAICHUR who has said this. Mr Raichur, > as you > > all know is an expert on this subject, having contributed well known > > articles on this subject from time to time. He is a recognised > authority in > > astrology. HE has mathematically shown that the difference between > using > > 365.25 or 360 days per year, in my chart, is only one day. He has > gone as > > far as to say, " ultimately the difference in the 360/365.25 days > comes to > > only 1 day. So why should we break our heads over this small > variation? " > > > > But these five astrology programs show that the difference is ONE > YEAR. > > > > If Mr Raichur is correct then these five astrology programs are > wrong and > > vice versa. > > > > Can someone who has understood this point kindly take the trouble to > > explain. I will be very obliged. > > > > Thanks for your time. With regards. > > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > > 1 / 94 Marius Street > > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > > Australia > > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > anant raichur [anant_1608] > > Monday, 7 March 2005 11:15 PM > > > > RE: Re: Vimshottari Period > > > > > > Dear Vaidun > > > > Thanks for correcting my mistakes. > > > > However, ultimately the difference in the 360/365.25 days comes to > only 1 > > day > > > > as calculated by you. So why should we break our heads over this small > > > > variation ? > > > > good luck > > --- Vaidun Vidyadhar <vvidya@o...> wrote: > > > > > Dear Mr Raichur, > > > > > > Thank you for your email below. > > > > > > There is a small mathematical error in your calculation. You have > said: > > > > > > " 0.435*12 = 5. 34 months " > > > > > > It should be, 0.435*12 = 5.22 months and not 5.34 months as > stated above. > > > > > > > > > **************************************************************************** > > > ************* > > > > > > The full calculations using the 360 days per year is as follows: > > > > > > Venus dasa balance in degrees = 8:17:24 > > > > > > Venus dasa balance in years = 29844/48000*20 = 12.435 years (same > as your > > > calculations so far) > > > > > > 0.435*12 = 5.22 months > > > 0.22*30 = 6.6 days > > > 0.6*24 = 14.4 hours > > > 0.4*60 = 24 minutes > > > > > > So Venus dasa balance works out to 12 years, 5 months, 6 days, 14 > hours > > and > > > 24 minutes. > > > > > > Adding this to date and time of birth: 20 Jun 1942, 1549 hours we get > > > > > > Venus dasa ends on 27 Nov 1954 at 0613 hours. > > > > > > In the Green Table I have indicated 27 Nov 1954 and left out the " 0613 > > > hours " > > > > > > > > > **************************************************************************** > > > **** > > > > > > The full calculations using the 365.25 days per year is as follows: > > > > > > Venus dasa balance in years = 12.435 > > > 0.435*365 = 158.775 days (we need to multiply by 365 since the > year 1942 > > was > > > not a leap year) > > > 0.775*24 = 18.6 hours > > > 0.6*60 = 36 minutes > > > > > > So Venus dasa balance is: 12 years, 158 days, 18 hours, 36 minutes. > > > > > > Adding 12 years, 158 days, 18 hours, 36 minutes to birth date and > time of > > > 20th June, 1549 hours (on the real time calendar) we get: > > > > > > Venus dasa ends on: 26 Nov 1954 at 1025 hours. > > > > > > In the Red Table it is shown as 26 Nov 1954 and the 1025 hours has > been > > left > > > out. This is what the computer has calculated. > > > > > > > > > **************************************************************************** > > > ***************************** > > > > > > In the Blue Table, Venus dasa is shown to end on 22 Sep 1954. > This is not > > > MY calculation. This date was provided by the computer program when I > > > selected the 360 days per year option. I have clearly explained in my > > > earlier email addressed to TW as to HOW this error is happening. The > > dates > > > shown in the Blue Table are wrong. I have clearly explained WHY it is > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > **************************************************************************** > > > ************************************* > > > > > > Submitted for your comments on this please. > > > > > > Thanks. With best regards. > > > > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > > > 1 / 94 Marius Street > > > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > > > Australia > > > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > > > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > > > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > anant raichur [anant_1608] > > > Monday, 7 March 2005 6:36 PM > > > > > > RE: Re: Vimshottari Period > > > > > > > > > Dear Vidyadhar > > > > > > I append below the calculations of Dasa ending by using the 360 > and 365.25 > > > day > > > method. > > > > > > your comments on this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vaidun Vaaidyadhar > > > > > > Assuming the Moon,s postion as correct, the Balance of Dasa Of Ven is > > > > > > 8-17-24 deg,min,sec: This is 497.24 minutes of arc. > > > > > > Traditional or easy method of 360 days. > > > > > > This is converted into time : 497.24/800 * 20 (20yrs Dasa of Venus) > > > > > > This gives 12.435 Yrs. .435 yrs= .435*12 = 5. 34 months. .34 > months*30 > > > > > > =10,02 days. Say 10 days. So balance is 12yrs, 5months, 10days. > > > > > > Adding to Birth date we get 20+10=30days: 6+5=11 months: > 1942+12=1954 year > > > > > > so the Venus dasa ends on 30 Nov 1954 > > > > > > Sun dasa ends 6 ys later 30 Nov 1960 > > > > > > Moon dasa ends 10 yrs 30 Nov 1970 and so on > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > If we take 365.25 days, then we should take dasa of venus as > 365.25*20= > > > 7310.50 > > > dates > > > > > > So Balace of dasa will be 497.24/800 * 7310.5 = 4545.30 days > > > > > > 4545.3/365.25 = 12.44436 years > > > > > > this is 12 years 162 days. So adding 162 calender days to 20 jun > 1942, one > > > > > > > > gets 10 dys of JUN. 31 of july,31 of aug, 3o of Sep, 31 of oct,+30 > in Nov > > > > > > So date is 30 nov 1954. > > > > > > _________________________ > > > if however we take .435*365.25 we get 158.88 say 159 days. Thus > we lose 3 > > > days > > > > ------- > > > > > > --- Vaidun Vidyadhar <vvidya@o...> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Mr. Raichur, > > > > > > > > Thank you for your email below. > > > > > > > > My birth details were clearly stated in the Excel file. > However, I am > > > > reproducing this below: > > > > > > > > Vaidun K Vidyadhar > > > > Date and time of birth: 20 June 1942, 1549 hours (Indian > Standard Time, > > > GMT > > > > + 5:30) > > > > Place of birth: Walajapet, Lat 12N56, Long 79E23 > > > > Moon's longitude at birth: 138:22:36, 18:22:36 in Leo > > > > Venus dasa balance in degrees: 8:17:24 > > > > Venus dasa balance in years: 12.435 > > > > > > > > The dates shown in the Red and Blue tables in the Excel file are the > > exact > > > > dates derived from Goravani Gyotish 2.25 by selecting the 365 or 360 > > days > > > > per year option. If you have this program, you can try it out for > > > yourself. > > > > I have two other astrology programs which also have this > facility, Shri > > > > Jyoti Star and Jyotish Tools. The dates shown there are also quite > > close > > > > the ones shown in the Excel file. > > > > > > > > With best regards. > > > > > > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > > > > 1 / 94 Marius Street > > > > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > > > > Australia > > > > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > > > > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > > > > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > > > anant raichur [anant_1608] > > > > Sunday, 6 March 2005 6:06 PM > > > > > > > > RE: Re: Vimshottari Period > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Mr Vaidun Vidyadhar > > > > > > > > I cannot understand how the start of the Main Dasa varies by ONE > YEAR. > > > > > > > > If you send me your Birth Details, I will cast the chart and > indicate > > when > > > > your > > > > Saturn Dasa Starts > > > > > === message truncated === > > > > > > ===== > > --------- > > A.R.Raichur bombay > > anant_1608 > > raichuranant > > USE ONE OF THESE ADDRESS ES ONLY > > tel: 022-2506 2609 > > --------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Celebrate 's 10th Birthday! > > Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web > > http://birthday./netrospective/ > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2005 Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 Dear Rangarajan, You have said: Taking your Dasa periods:Sun starts on: 24 Sep 1954Sun dasa lasts 6 Vimshottari years, with each year having 360 days(solar days). So the total number of solar days for Sun dasa = 6 * 360 = 2160 days. Adding 2160 days to 24 sep 1954, we get the start of next dasa, i.e.,Moon starts on: 23 Aug 1960 Going by the methodology given by Prof KSK in his First Reader, chapter entitled "ERECTION OF HOROSCOPE", "SIXTH STEP" at page 144, my Venus dasa should end on 27 Nov 1954. He has used the 360 days per year calendar. In your SW, also using the 360 days per year selection, my Venus dasa ends on 24 Sep 1954. See page 86 of the First Reader where Prof KSK says, "After the balance of Moon dasa is over, 7 years of Mars dasa, 18 years of Rahu dasa, 16 years of Jupiter dasa, 19 years of Saturn dasa, etc, will follow one after the other in this order, as given above" In your SW, the duration of the various dasas do not correspond to the stipulated dasa periods stated in the Vimshotdhari dasa cycle, it is significantly shorter. You have said, "As I mentioned earlier, if this approach is incorrect and proper proofis given, we will be happy to rectify our mistakes." You have asked for proper proof. The two red paragraphs above referring to Prof KSK's First Reader is the proper proof. The other SWs that we have examined (other than Mr Raichur's SW) seem to be making the same mistake as you. Mr Raichur's SW also uses the 360 days per year calendar and in the chart generated by him on my date of birth, all dasas have the full, stipulated number of years in the Vimshotdhari dasa system. (Please see his email message sent to this list on 09 Mar 05). How is it that in your SW when we select the 360 days per year option the dasa periods fall short? Who has authorised you to reduce the number of years allocated to the various planets in Vimshotdhari dasa system? Among all the astrology program SW writers, Mr Raichur seems to be the only person who has understood and correctly implemented Prof KSK's methodology. If you are still not convinced, I can give you more proper proof, all taken from Prof KSK's Readers. Regards Vaidun Vidyadhar 1 / 94 Marius Street Tamworth, NSW 2340 Australia Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) Mobile: 0414 870 083 Email: vvidya Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy [ranga] Wednesday, 9 March 2005 11:37 PM Subject: Vimshottari Period - Clarification Dear Vaidun,Thanks very much for introducing yourself for the benefit of thegroup. You have an admirable background. I am happy to answer anyquestion I am capable of, irrespective of who poses the question; thebackground does not matter. After all, the purpose of this interactionis to learn.Coming to the point, as I mentioned in my previous posting, the issueis the "day". I find it difficult to agree with the proposition"360*D2 = 365.2422*D3 will be correct"To me D2 == D3, so 360 * D2 < 365.25 *D3.Taking your Dasa periods:Sun starts on: 24 Sep 1954Sun dasa lasts 6 Vimshottari years, with each year having 360 days(solar days). So the total number of solar days for Sun dasa = 6 * 360= 2160 days. Adding 2160 days to 24 sep 1954, we get the start of nextdasa, i.e.,Moon starts on: 23 Aug 1960Similarly for other dasas, and subperiods.I believe this is the calculation other programs apply since TW hasshown there is near agreement among various software.As I mentioned earlier, if this approach is incorrect and proper proofis given, we will be happy to rectify our mistakes.After all, software should not produce erroneous results.Regards,RangarajanP.S: After I uploaded our program, I noticed an error appearing insome cases in 360-day dasa calculation. I hope to upload the corrctedversion in a day or two. , "Vaidun Vidyadhar" <vvidya@o...> wrote:> Dear Mr Rangarajan,> > Thank you for your email below. I am very happy to interact withthe author> of KPAstro2.0. At the outset I must say your program looks andworks quite> well.> > I know your background but you know nothing about me. I wasintroduced to> KP in 1987 when I was living and working in Madras. I didn't knowthen that> KP was a little different from traditional vedic astrology. Anyway,I did> read all of Prof KSK's Readers. I also did the course under MrHariharan in> 1988. I am an ex Group Captain from the Indian Air Force, an ex fighter> pilot. Mathematics has been my strong point. I am telling you all this> because I don't want you to think you are interacting with ahalf-baked nit> wit. > > Now coming to the point you have raised, you have said:> > "It is not clear to me how you say that "day" as used in Vimshottari> context is different in value from the "day" in solar year. In yourview, > 360 * vimshottari_day == 365.25 * solar_day> What is the source that supports this claim?"> > I have not said "that "day" as used in the Vimshotdhari context isdifferent> in value from the "day" in solar year." What I did say was a "day"in the> 360 days per year calendar is different from a "day" in the Real Time,> 365.25 days per year calendar. AVimshotdhari year is the same asa solar> year. A Vimshotdhari day is the same as a solar day. There is no> difference. However, one day in the 365.25 days per year calendaris not> the same as one day in the 360 days per year calendar. THAT is thecrux of> the problem. > > You said:> > "Suppose we exaggerate this a little bit and propose that Vimshottari> year had only 200 days, will the above equality still hold good?"> > The Vimshotdhari year is same as the solar year. There is nodifference.> The Vimshotdhari dasa cycle takes 120 solar years to complete. One> Vimshotdhari year is same as the solar year. One Vimshotdhari dayis same> as one solar day. However, one CAN take a solar year and divide itinto any> number of equal parts. We could divide it by 200 (as you say), or360 or> 365.2422. If we do this we will get three different units. Let us call> these units D1, D2 amd D3. > Then, > > 200*D1 = 360*D2 = 365.2422*D3 will be correct.> > D3 is one solar day which is = 24 hours. The length of D2 and D3will be> different. > > The dates shown in the Green Table of the Excel file that I sent youwere> not derived from MY own method of calculations. I have followed thesteps> and instructions given by Prof KSK in his Readers on how to draw up a> dasa/bhukti/anthras chart. Mr Raichur had very kindly given his> calculations. He also follows Prof KSK's methodology. In the caseof my> chart, the dates indicated by him for end of my Venus dasa and startof the> other dasas correspond to the dates calculated in the Green Tableprovided> by me. The dates shown in the Green Table belong to a 360 days per year> calendar. Please note that though I have used the 360 days per year> calendar, all dasas start on the same day of the month, viz. 27 Nov.But> more than that, the duration of each dasa corresponds exactly to the> stipulated length of each dasa in years as per the Vimshotdhari dasacycle,> as shown below:> > Sun 6 years> Moon 10 years> Mars 7 years> Rahu 18 years> Jupiter 16 years> Saturn 19 years> Mercury 17 years> Ketu 7 years.> > I have answered your questions. Can I request you to kindly answerone of> mine please?> > My birth details are:> Date and time of birth: 20 June 1942, 1549 hours (Indian StandardTime, GMT> + 5:30) > Place of birth: Walajapet, Lat 12N56, Long 79E23 > In the case of my own chart, in KPAstro2.0, under the Settings Menu,> Vimshottari Dasa, when I select 360 days per year, the onset datesof the> various dasas is as follows:> > Sun: 24 Sep 1954> Moon: 23 Aug 1960> Mars: 02 Jul 1970> Rahu: 26 May 1977> Jupiter: 21 Feb 1995> Saturn: 29 Nov 2010> Mercury: 21 Aug 2029> Ketu: 24 May 2046> > From the above it can be seen that the duration of the various dasas is> significantly shorter than the stipulated number of years in the> Vimshotdhari dasa cycle. Prof KSK himself has stated at page 82 in his> First Reader that the number of years allocated to each planet areas shown> below:> > Sun 6 years> Moon 10 years> Mars 7 years> Rahu 18 years> Jupiter 16 years> Saturn 19 years> Mercury 17 years> Ketu 7 years.> Venus 20 years> > In your program, on what authority have you reduced the duration of each> dasa? > > I look forward to your response.> > Thanks. With best regards.> > Vaidun Vidyadhar > 1 / 94 Marius Street > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > Australia > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > _____ > > Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy [ranga@m...] > Tuesday, 8 March 2005 11:59 PM> > Re: Vimshottari Period> > > > Dear Vaidun,> It seems to me that the crux of the whole issue is the definition of> "day". I quote from your earlier posting:> > "This is what most computer programmers, who are also astrologers,> have not understood. The length of a day in the Red Table is one> solar day, made up of 24 hours. But the length of a DAY in the Green> Table is not the same, it is slightly MORE than 24 hours. The length> of the year in the 365.25 days per year calendar and the length of the> year in the 360 days per year calendar is the SAME. If one divides> the SAME length by 365.25 in one case, and 360 in another case, it> will be appreciated that the resultant unit that one gets will not be> the same. The unit in the former is 24 hours while the unit in the> latter will be a little MORE than 24 hours. The confusion arises> because both units are referred to as a "day". But in reality, one> unit is slightly shorter than the other, though both units are given> the same name of "day". ..."> > It is not clear to me how you say that "day" as used in Vimshottari> context is different in value from the "day" in solar year. In yourview, > 360 * vimshottari_day == 365.25 * solar_day> What is the source that supports this claim?> > Suppose we exaggerate this a little bit and propose that Vimshottari> year had only 200 days, will the above equality still hold good?> > I believe all the programs you have mentioned use the assumption that> "day" refers to solar day. At least mine does.> > I am sure all of us programmers (whether we know astrology or not)> follow certain principles when we program and we are definitely open> to correction. If we are wrong, we would certainly like to correct our> belief systems and the programs. In spite of our best efforts, though,> there will be calculation approximations because of the finiteness of> machine word, etc., but that should be acceptable.> > Rehards,> Rangarajan> > , "Vaidun Vidyadhar" <vvidya@o...>wrote:> > Dear List Members,> > > > Mr Raichur has very kindly pointed out that the difference betweenusing> > 365.25 or 360 days per year comes to only 1 day. Prof KSK himself> said "the> > difference is negligible". If one uses astrological tables andmanually> > calculates the dasa periods as per the guidelines given in Prof KSK> Readers,> > as I have done in the Green Table, (in my earlier emailattachment) the> > difference IS actually less than one day (19 hours and 38 minutesto be> > exact). > > > > On the other hand, I have before me four astrology programs which> have the> > facility to select 365.25 or 360 days per year. When I do this, I> find that> > the difference is NOT negligible. In my own chart, the onset of my> Saturn> > dasa is different by ONE YEAR, as shown below. > > > > Program 365.25 days/year 360 days/year> > Goravani Jyotish 26 Nov 2011 27 Nov 2010> > Shri Jyoti Star 29 Nov 2011 27 Nov 2010> > KPAstro2.0 27 Nov 2011 29 Nov 2010> > Jyotish Tools 24 Nov 2011 25 Nov 2010> > > > A few months ago when this subject was being discussed on this list a> > similar anomaly was seen in the program called "Fortune Discoverer"> being> > developed by Mr Rajasekaran. > > > > So we have FIVE astrology programs developed by five different> astrologers> > who obviously know what they are putting into their program. All five> > programs show that difference between using 365.25 or 360 days per> year is> > almost ONE YEAR while at para one above it is seen that the> difference is> > less than a day. How do you reconcile this GROSS anomaly? You can> try this> > on any chart. Take a period about 70 to 80 years after birth and> see the> > difference in onset of a major dasa when 365.25 or 360 days peryear is> > selected. You will get similar results. > > > > My knowledge of astrology is only at the intermediate level, though> I have a> > fairly good understanding of the mathematics involved. With MYlimited> > knowledge of astrology, if it was I who said that the differencebetween> > using 365.25 or 360 days per year is only one day, while the astrology> > programs show a difference of one year, I suppose my claim can be> dismissed> > as rubbish. But it was Mr RAICHUR who has said this. Mr Raichur,> as you> > all know is an expert on this subject, having contributed well known> > articles on this subject from time to time. He is a recognised> authority in> > astrology. HE has mathematically shown that the difference between> using> > 365.25 or 360 days per year, in my chart, is only one day. He has> gone as> > far as to say, "ultimately the difference in the 360/365.25 days> comes to> > only 1 day. So why should we break our heads over this small> variation?"> > > > But these five astrology programs show that the difference is ONE> YEAR. > > > > If Mr Raichur is correct then these five astrology programs are> wrong and> > vice versa. > > > > Can someone who has understood this point kindly take the trouble to> > explain. I will be very obliged.> > > > Thanks for your time. With regards.> > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > > 1 / 94 Marius Street > > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > > Australia > > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > anant raichur [anant_1608] > > Monday, 7 March 2005 11:15 PM> > > > RE: Re: Vimshottari Period> > > > > > Dear Vaidun> > > > Thanks for correcting my mistakes.> > > > However, ultimately the difference in the 360/365.25 days comes to> only 1> > day > > > > as calculated by you. So why should we break our heads over thissmall> > > > variation ?> > > > good luck> > --- Vaidun Vidyadhar <vvidya@o...> wrote:> > > > > Dear Mr Raichur,> > > > > > Thank you for your email below.> > > > > > There is a small mathematical error in your calculation. You have> said:> > > > > > "0.435*12 = 5. 34 months"> > > > > > It should be, 0.435*12 = 5.22 months and not 5.34 months as> stated above.> > > > > >> >>****************************************************************************> > > *************> > > > > > The full calculations using the 360 days per year is as follows:> > > > > > Venus dasa balance in degrees = 8:17:24> > > > > > Venus dasa balance in years = 29844/48000*20 = 12.435 years (same> as your> > > calculations so far)> > > > > > 0.435*12 = 5.22 months> > > 0.22*30 = 6.6 days> > > 0.6*24 = 14.4 hours> > > 0.4*60 = 24 minutes> > > > > > So Venus dasa balance works out to 12 years, 5 months, 6 days, 14> hours> > and> > > 24 minutes.> > > > > > Adding this to date and time of birth: 20 Jun 1942, 1549 hourswe get> > > > > > Venus dasa ends on 27 Nov 1954 at 0613 hours.> > > > > > In the Green Table I have indicated 27 Nov 1954 and left out the"0613> > > hours"> > > > > >> >>****************************************************************************> > > ****> > > > > > The full calculations using the 365.25 days per year is as follows:> > > > > > Venus dasa balance in years = 12.435 > > > 0.435*365 = 158.775 days (we need to multiply by 365 since the> year 1942> > was> > > not a leap year)> > > 0.775*24 = 18.6 hours> > > 0.6*60 = 36 minutes> > > > > > So Venus dasa balance is: 12 years, 158 days, 18 hours, 36 minutes.> > > > > > Adding 12 years, 158 days, 18 hours, 36 minutes to birth date and> time of> > > 20th June, 1549 hours (on the real time calendar) we get:> > > > > > Venus dasa ends on: 26 Nov 1954 at 1025 hours.> > > > > > In the Red Table it is shown as 26 Nov 1954 and the 1025 hours has> been> > left> > > out. This is what the computer has calculated.> > > > > >> >>****************************************************************************> > > *****************************> > > > > > In the Blue Table, Venus dasa is shown to end on 22 Sep 1954. > This is not> > > MY calculation. This date was provided by the computer programwhen I> > > selected the 360 days per year option. I have clearly explainedin my> > > earlier email addressed to TW as to HOW this error is happening.The> > dates> > > shown in the Blue Table are wrong. I have clearly explained WHYit is> > > wrong. > > > > > >> >>****************************************************************************> > > *************************************> > > > > > Submitted for your comments on this please.> > > > > > Thanks. With best regards.> > > > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > > > 1 / 94 Marius Street > > > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > > > Australia > > > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > > > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > > > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > anant raichur [anant_1608] > > > Monday, 7 March 2005 6:36 PM> > > > > > RE: Re: Vimshottari Period> > > > > > > > > Dear Vidyadhar> > > > > > I append below the calculations of Dasa ending by using the 360> and 365.25> > > day> > > method.> > > > > > your comments on this.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vaidun Vaaidyadhar> > > > > > Assuming the Moon,s postion as correct, the Balance of Dasa OfVen is> > > > > > 8-17-24 deg,min,sec: This is 497.24 minutes of arc.> > > > > > Traditional or easy method of 360 days.> > > > > > This is converted into time : 497.24/800 * 20 (20yrs Dasa of Venus)> > > > > > This gives 12.435 Yrs. .435 yrs= .435*12 = 5. 34 months. .34> months*30> > > > > > =10,02 days. Say 10 days. So balance is 12yrs, 5months, 10days.> > > > > > Adding to Birth date we get 20+10=30days: 6+5=11 months:> 1942+12=1954 year> > > > > > so the Venus dasa ends on 30 Nov 1954> > > > > > Sun dasa ends 6 ys later 30 Nov 1960 > > > > > > Moon dasa ends 10 yrs 30 Nov 1970 and so on> > > > > > ------------------------------> > > > > > If we take 365.25 days, then we should take dasa of venus as> 365.25*20=> > > 7310.50> > > dates> > > > > > So Balace of dasa will be 497.24/800 * 7310.5 = 4545.30 days > > > > > > 4545.3/365.25 = 12.44436 years > > > > > > this is 12 years 162 days. So adding 162 calender days to 20 jun> 1942, one> > > > > > > > gets 10 dys of JUN. 31 of july,31 of aug, 3o of Sep, 31 of oct,+30> in Nov> > > > > > So date is 30 nov 1954. > > > > > > _________________________> > > if however we take .435*365.25 we get 158.88 say 159 days. Thus> we lose 3> > > days> > >>------- > > > > > > --- Vaidun Vidyadhar <vvidya@o...> wrote:> > > > > > > Dear Mr. Raichur,> > > > > > > > Thank you for your email below. > > > > > > > > My birth details were clearly stated in the Excel file. > However, I am> > > > reproducing this below:> > > > > > > > Vaidun K Vidyadhar > > > > Date and time of birth: 20 June 1942, 1549 hours (Indian> Standard Time,> > > GMT> > > > + 5:30) > > > > Place of birth: Walajapet, Lat 12N56, Long 79E23 > > > > Moon's longitude at birth: 138:22:36, 18:22:36 in Leo > > > > Venus dasa balance in degrees: 8:17:24 > > > > Venus dasa balance in years: 12.435 > > > > > > > > The dates shown in the Red and Blue tables in the Excel fileare the> > exact> > > > dates derived from Goravani Gyotish 2.25 by selecting the 365or 360> > days> > > > per year option. If you have this program, you can try it out for> > > yourself.> > > > I have two other astrology programs which also have this> facility, Shri> > > > Jyoti Star and Jyotish Tools. The dates shown there are alsoquite> > close> > > > the ones shown in the Excel file.> > > > > > > > With best regards.> > > > > > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > > > > 1 / 94 Marius Street > > > > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > > > > Australia > > > > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > > > > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > > > > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > > > anant raichur [anant_1608] > > > > Sunday, 6 March 2005 6:06 PM> > > > > > > > RE: Re: Vimshottari Period> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Mr Vaidun Vidyadhar> > > > > > > > I cannot understand how the start of the Main Dasa varies by ONE> YEAR.> > > > > > > > If you send me your Birth Details, I will cast the chart and> indicate> > when> > > > your> > > > Saturn Dasa Starts> > > > > === message truncated ===> > > > > > =====> > --------- > > A.R.Raichur bombay> > anant_1608 > > raichuranant> > USE ONE OF THESE ADDRESS ES ONLY> > tel: 022-2506 2609 > > ---------> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Celebrate 's 10th Birthday! > > Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web > > http://birthday./netrospective/> > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2005 Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 Dear Senior Members : It is highly educational and interesting to read the comments of Sri. Vidyadhar in reply to Sri. Rangarajan . I tend to agree with Vidyadhar since I have gone thru all the K.S.K. readers and fully appreciate Mr. Vidyadhar's knowledge of the KP System. Would Sri.Raichur and other Senior members kindly comment ? Thank you . SRWVaidun Vidyadhar <vvidya wrote: Dear Rangarajan, You have said: Taking your Dasa periods:Sun starts on: 24 Sep 1954Sun dasa lasts 6 Vimshottari years, with each year having 360 days(solar days). So the total number of solar days for Sun dasa = 6 * 360 = 2160 days. Adding 2160 days to 24 sep 1954, we get the start of next dasa, i.e.,Moon starts on: 23 Aug 1960 Going by the methodology given by Prof KSK in his First Reader, chapter entitled "ERECTION OF HOROSCOPE", "SIXTH STEP" at page 144, my Venus dasa should end on 27 Nov 1954. He has used the 360 days per year calendar. In your SW, also using the 360 days per year selection, my Venus dasa ends on 24 Sep 1954. See page 86 of the First Reader where Prof KSK says, "After the balance of Moon dasa is over, 7 years of Mars dasa, 18 years of Rahu dasa, 16 years of Jupiter dasa, 19 years of Saturn dasa, etc, will follow one after the other in this order, as given above" In your SW, the duration of the various dasas do not correspond to the stipulated dasa periods stated in the Vimshotdhari dasa cycle, it is significantly shorter. You have said, "As I mentioned earlier, if this approach is incorrect and proper proofis given, we will be happy to rectify our mistakes." You have asked for proper proof. The two red paragraphs above referring to Prof KSK's First Reader is the proper proof. The other SWs that we have examined (other than Mr Raichur's SW) seem to be making the same mistake as you. Mr Raichur's SW also uses the 360 days per year calendar and in the chart generated by him on my date of birth, all dasas have the full, stipulated number of years in the Vimshotdhari dasa system. (Please see his email message sent to this list on 09 Mar 05). How is it that in your SW when we select the 360 days per year option the dasa periods fall short? Who has authorised you to reduce the number of years allocated to the various planets in Vimshotdhari dasa system? Among all the astrology program SW writers, Mr Raichur seems to be the only person who has understood and correctly implemented Prof KSK's methodology. If you are still not convinced, I can give you more proper proof, all taken from Prof KSK's Readers. Regards Vaidun Vidyadhar 1 / 94 Marius Street Tamworth, NSW 2340 Australia Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) Mobile: 0414 870 083 Email: vvidya Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy [ranga] Wednesday, 9 March 2005 11:37 PM Subject: Vimshottari Period - Clarification Dear Vaidun,Thanks very much for introducing yourself for the benefit of thegroup. You have an admirable background. I am happy to answer anyquestion I am capable of, irrespective of who poses the question; thebackground does not matter. After all, the purpose of this interactionis to learn.Coming to the point, as I mentioned in my previous posting, the issueis the "day". I find it difficult to agree with the proposition"360*D2 = 365.2422*D3 will be correct"To me D2 == D3, so 360 * D2 < 365.25 *D3.Taking your Dasa periods:Sun starts on: 24 Sep 1954Sun dasa lasts 6 Vimshottari years, with each year having 360 days(solar days). So the total number of solar days for Sun dasa = 6 * 360= 2160 days. Adding 2160 days to 24 sep 1954, we get the start of nextdasa, i.e.,Moon starts on: 23 Aug 1960Similarly for other dasas, and subperiods.I believe this is the calculation other programs apply since TW hasshown there is near agreement among various software.As I mentioned earlier, if this approach is incorrect and proper proofis given, we will be happy to rectify our mistakes.After all, software should not produce erroneous results.Regards,RangarajanP.S: After I uploaded our program, I noticed an error appearing insome cases in 360-day dasa calculation. I hope to upload the corrctedversion in a day or two. , "Vaidun Vidyadhar" <vvidya@o...> wrote:> Dear Mr Rangarajan,> > Thank you for your email below. I am very happy to interact withthe author> of KPAstro2.0. At the outset I must say your program looks andworks quite> well.> > I know your background but you know nothing about me. I wasintroduced to> KP in 1987 when I was living and working in Madras. I didn't knowthen that> KP was a little different from traditional vedic astrology. Anyway,I did> read all of Prof KSK's Readers. I also did the course under MrHariharan in> 1988. I am an ex Group Captain from the Indian Air Force, an ex fighter> pilot. Mathematics has been my strong point. I am telling you all this> because I don't want you to think you are interacting with ahalf-baked nit> wit. > > Now coming to the point you have raised, you have said:> > "It is not clear to me how you say that "day" as used in Vimshottari> context is different in value from the "day" in solar year. In yourview, > 360 * vimshottari_day == 365.25 * solar_day> What is the source that supports this claim?"> > I have not said "that "day" as used in the Vimshotdhari context isdifferent> in value from the "day" in solar year." What I did say was a "day"in the> 360 days per year calendar is different from a "day" in the Real Time,> 365.25 days per year calendar. AVimshotdhari year is the same asa solar> year. A Vimshotdhari day is the same as a solar day. There is no> difference. However, one day in the 365.25 days per year calendaris not> the same as one day in the 360 days per year calendar. THAT is thecrux of> the problem. > > You said:> > "Suppose we exaggerate this a little bit and propose that Vimshottari> year had only 200 days, will the above equality still hold good?"> > The Vimshotdhari year is same as the solar year. There is nodifference.> The Vimshotdhari dasa cycle takes 120 solar years to complete. One> Vimshotdhari year is same as the solar year. One Vimshotdhari dayis same> as one solar day. However, one CAN take a solar year and divide itinto any> number of equal parts. We could divide it by 200 (as you say), or360 or> 365.2422. If we do this we will get three different units. Let us call> these units D1, D2 amd D3. > Then, > > 200*D1 = 360*D2 = 365.2422*D3 will be correct.> > D3 is one solar day which is = 24 hours. The length of D2 and D3will be> different. > > The dates shown in the Green Table of the Excel file that I sent youwere> not derived from MY own method of calculations. I have followed thesteps> and instructions given by Prof KSK in his Readers on how to draw up a> dasa/bhukti/anthras chart. Mr Raichur had very kindly given his> calculations. He also follows Prof KSK's methodology. In the caseof my> chart, the dates indicated by him for end of my Venus dasa and startof the> other dasas correspond to the dates calculated in the Green Tableprovided> by me. The dates shown in the Green Table belong to a 360 days per year> calendar. Please note that though I have used the 360 days per year> calendar, all dasas start on the same day of the month, viz. 27 Nov.But> more than that, the duration of each dasa corresponds exactly to the> stipulated length of each dasa in years as per the Vimshotdhari dasacycle,> as shown below:> > Sun 6 years> Moon 10 years> Mars 7 years> Rahu 18 years> Jupiter 16 years> Saturn 19 years> Mercury 17 years> Ketu 7 years.> > I have answered your questions. Can I request you to kindly answerone of> mine please?> > My birth details are:> Date and time of birth: 20 June 1942, 1549 hours (Indian StandardTime, GMT> + 5:30) > Place of birth: Walajapet, Lat 12N56, Long 79E23 > In the case of my own chart, in KPAstro2.0, under the Settings Menu,> Vimshottari Dasa, when I select 360 days per year, the onset datesof the> various dasas is as follows:> > Sun: 24 Sep 1954> Moon: 23 Aug 1960> Mars: 02 Jul 1970> Rahu: 26 May 1977> Jupiter: 21 Feb 1995> Saturn: 29 Nov 2010> Mercury: 21 Aug 2029> Ketu: 24 May 2046> > From the above it can be seen that the duration of the various dasas is> significantly shorter than the stipulated number of years in the> Vimshotdhari dasa cycle. Prof KSK himself has stated at page 82 in his> First Reader that the number of years allocated to each planet areas shown> below:> > Sun 6 years> Moon 10 years> Mars 7 years> Rahu 18 years> Jupiter 16 years> Saturn 19 years> Mercury 17 years> Ketu 7 years.> Venus 20 years> > In your program, on what authority have you reduced the duration of each> dasa? > > I look forward to your response.> > Thanks. With best regards.> > Vaidun Vidyadhar > 1 / 94 Marius Street > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > Australia > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > _____ > > Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy [ranga@m...] > Tuesday, 8 March 2005 11:59 PM> > Re: Vimshottari Period> > > > Dear Vaidun,> It seems to me that the crux of the whole issue is the definition of> "day". I quote from your earlier posting:> > "This is what most computer programmers, who are also astrologers,> have not understood. The length of a day in the Red Table is one> solar day, made up of 24 hours. But the length of a DAY in the Green> Table is not the same, it is slightly MORE than 24 hours. The length> of the year in the 365.25 days per year calendar and the length of the> year in the 360 days per year calendar is the SAME. If one divides> the SAME length by 365.25 in one case, and 360 in another case, it> will be appreciated that the resultant unit that one gets will not be> the same. The unit in the former is 24 hours while the unit in the> latter will be a little MORE than 24 hours. The confusion arises> because both units are referred to as a "day". But in reality, one> unit is slightly shorter than the other, though both units are given> the same name of "day". ..."> > It is not clear to me how you say that "day" as used in Vimshottari> context is different in value from the "day" in solar year. In yourview, > 360 * vimshottari_day == 365.25 * solar_day> What is the source that supports this claim?> > Suppose we exaggerate this a little bit and propose that Vimshottari> year had only 200 days, will the above equality still hold good?> > I believe all the programs you have mentioned use the assumption that> "day" refers to solar day. At least mine does.> > I am sure all of us programmers (whether we know astrology or not)> follow certain principles when we program and we are definitely open> to correction. If we are wrong, we would certainly like to correct our> belief systems and the programs. In spite of our best efforts, though,> there will be calculation approximations because of the finiteness of> machine word, etc., but that should be acceptable.> > Rehards,> Rangarajan> > , "Vaidun Vidyadhar" <vvidya@o...>wrote:> > Dear List Members,> > > > Mr Raichur has very kindly pointed out that the difference betweenusing> > 365.25 or 360 days per year comes to only 1 day. Prof KSK himself> said "the> > difference is negligible". If one uses astrological tables andmanually> > calculates the dasa periods as per the guidelines given in Prof KSK> Readers,> > as I have done in the Green Table, (in my earlier emailattachment) the> > difference IS actually less than one day (19 hours and 38 minutesto be> > exact). > > > > On the other hand, I have before me four astrology programs which> have the> > facility to select 365.25 or 360 days per year. When I do this, I> find that> > the difference is NOT negligible. In my own chart, the onset of my> Saturn> > dasa is different by ONE YEAR, as shown below. > > > > Program 365.25 days/year 360 days/year> > Goravani Jyotish 26 Nov 2011 27 Nov 2010> > Shri Jyoti Star 29 Nov 2011 27 Nov 2010> > KPAstro2.0 27 Nov 2011 29 Nov 2010> > Jyotish Tools 24 Nov 2011 25 Nov 2010> > > > A few months ago when this subject was being discussed on this list a> > similar anomaly was seen in the program called "Fortune Discoverer"> being> > developed by Mr Rajasekaran. > > > > So we have FIVE astrology programs developed by five different> astrologers> > who obviously know what they are putting into their program. All five> > programs show that difference between using 365.25 or 360 days per> year is> > almost ONE YEAR while at para one above it is seen that the> difference is> > less than a day. How do you reconcile this GROSS anomaly? You can> try this> > on any chart. Take a period about 70 to 80 years after birth and> see the> > difference in onset of a major dasa when 365.25 or 360 days peryear is> > selected. You will get similar results. > > > > My knowledge of astrology is only at the intermediate level, though> I have a> > fairly good understanding of the mathematics involved. With MYlimited> > knowledge of astrology, if it was I who said that the differencebetween> > using 365.25 or 360 days per year is only one day, while the astrology> > programs show a difference of one year, I suppose my claim can be> dismissed> > as rubbish. But it was Mr RAICHUR who has said this. Mr Raichur,> as you> > all know is an expert on this subject, having contributed well known> > articles on this subject from time to time. He is a recognised> authority in> > astrology. HE has mathematically shown that the difference between> using> > 365.25 or 360 days per year, in my chart, is only one day. He has> gone as> > far as to say, "ultimately the difference in the 360/365.25 days> comes to> > only 1 day. So why should we break our heads over this small> variation?"> > > > But these five astrology programs show that the difference is ONE> YEAR. > > > > If Mr Raichur is correct then these five astrology programs are> wrong and> > vice versa. > > > > Can someone who has understood this point kindly take the trouble to> > explain. I will be very obliged.> > > > Thanks for your time. With regards.> > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > > 1 / 94 Marius Street > > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > > Australia > > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > anant raichur [anant_1608] > > Monday, 7 March 2005 11:15 PM> > > > RE: Re: Vimshottari Period> > > > > > Dear Vaidun> > > > Thanks for correcting my mistakes.> > > > However, ultimately the difference in the 360/365.25 days comes to> only 1> > day > > > > as calculated by you. So why should we break our heads over thissmall> > > > variation ?> > > > good luck> > --- Vaidun Vidyadhar <vvidya@o...> wrote:> > > > > Dear Mr Raichur,> > > > > > Thank you for your email below.> > > > > > There is a small mathematical error in your calculation. You have> said:> > > > > > "0.435*12 = 5. 34 months"> > > > > > It should be, 0.435*12 = 5.22 months and not 5.34 months as> stated above.> > > > > >> >>****************************************************************************> > > *************> > > > > > The full calculations using the 360 days per year is as follows:> > > > > > Venus dasa balance in degrees = 8:17:24> > > > > > Venus dasa balance in years = 29844/48000*20 = 12.435 years (same> as your> > > calculations so far)> > > > > > 0.435*12 = 5.22 months> > > 0.22*30 = 6.6 days> > > 0.6*24 = 14.4 hours> > > 0.4*60 = 24 minutes> > > > > > So Venus dasa balance works out to 12 years, 5 months, 6 days, 14> hours> > and> > > 24 minutes.> > > > > > Adding this to date and time of birth: 20 Jun 1942, 1549 hourswe get> > > > > > Venus dasa ends on 27 Nov 1954 at 0613 hours.> > > > > > In the Green Table I have indicated 27 Nov 1954 and left out the"0613> > > hours"> > > > > >> >>****************************************************************************> > > ****> > > > > > The full calculations using the 365.25 days per year is as follows:> > > > > > Venus dasa balance in years = 12.435 > > > 0.435*365 = 158.775 days (we need to multiply by 365 since the> year 1942> > was> > > not a leap year)> > > 0.775*24 = 18.6 hours> > > 0.6*60 = 36 minutes> > > > > > So Venus dasa balance is: 12 years, 158 days, 18 hours, 36 minutes.> > > > > > Adding 12 years, 158 days, 18 hours, 36 minutes to birth date and> time of> > > 20th June, 1549 hours (on the real time calendar) we get:> > > > > > Venus dasa ends on: 26 Nov 1954 at 1025 hours.> > > > > > In the Red Table it is shown as 26 Nov 1954 and the 1025 hours has> been> > left> > > out. This is what the computer has calculated.> > > > > >> >>****************************************************************************> > > *****************************> > > > > > In the Blue Table, Venus dasa is shown to end on 22 Sep 1954. > This is not> > > MY calculation. This date was provided by the computer programwhen I> > > selected the 360 days per year option. I have clearly explainedin my> > > earlier email addressed to TW as to HOW this error is happening.The> > dates> > > shown in the Blue Table are wrong. I have clearly explained WHYit is> > > wrong. > > > > > >> >>****************************************************************************> > > *************************************> > > > > > Submitted for your comments on this please.> > > > > > Thanks. With best regards.> > > > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > > > 1 / 94 Marius Street > > > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > > > Australia > > > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > > > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > > > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > anant raichur [anant_1608] > > > Monday, 7 March 2005 6:36 PM> > > > > > RE: Re: Vimshottari Period> > > > > > > > > Dear Vidyadhar> > > > > > I append below the calculations of Dasa ending by using the 360> and 365.25> > > day> > > method.> > > > > > your comments on this.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vaidun Vaaidyadhar> > > > > > Assuming the Moon,s postion as correct, the Balance of Dasa OfVen is> > > > > > 8-17-24 deg,min,sec: This is 497.24 minutes of arc.> > > > > > Traditional or easy method of 360 days.> > > > > > This is converted into time : 497.24/800 * 20 (20yrs Dasa of Venus)> > > > > > This gives 12.435 Yrs. .435 yrs= .435*12 = 5. 34 months. .34> months*30> > > > > > =10,02 days. Say 10 days. So balance is 12yrs, 5months, 10days.> > > > > > Adding to Birth date we get 20+10=30days: 6+5=11 months:> 1942+12=1954 year> > > > > > so the Venus dasa ends on 30 Nov 1954> > > > > > Sun dasa ends 6 ys later 30 Nov 1960 > > > > > > Moon dasa ends 10 yrs 30 Nov 1970 and so on> > > > > > ------------------------------> > > > > > If we take 365.25 days, then we should take dasa of venus as> 365.25*20=> > > 7310.50> > > dates> > > > > > So Balace of dasa will be 497.24/800 * 7310.5 = 4545.30 days > > > > > > 4545.3/365.25 = 12.44436 years > > > > > > this is 12 years 162 days. So adding 162 calender days to 20 jun> 1942, one> > > > > > > > gets 10 dys of JUN. 31 of july,31 of aug, 3o of Sep, 31 of oct,+30> in Nov> > > > > > So date is 30 nov 1954. > > > > > > _________________________> > > if however we take .435*365.25 we get 158.88 say 159 days. Thus> we lose 3> > > days> > >>------- > > > > > > --- Vaidun Vidyadhar <vvidya@o...> wrote:> > > > > > > Dear Mr. Raichur,> > > > > > > > Thank you for your email below. > > > > > > > > My birth details were clearly stated in the Excel file. > However, I am> > > > reproducing this below:> > > > > > > > Vaidun K Vidyadhar > > > > Date and time of birth: 20 June 1942, 1549 hours (Indian> Standard Time,> > > GMT> > > > + 5:30) > > > > Place of birth: Walajapet, Lat 12N56, Long 79E23 > > > > Moon's longitude at birth: 138:22:36, 18:22:36 in Leo > > > > Venus dasa balance in degrees: 8:17:24 > > > > Venus dasa balance in years: 12.435 > > > > > > > > The dates shown in the Red and Blue tables in the Excel fileare the> > exact> > > > dates derived from Goravani Gyotish 2.25 by selecting the 365or 360> > days> > > > per year option. If you have this program, you can try it out for> > > yourself.> > > > I have two other astrology programs which also have this> facility, Shri> > > > Jyoti Star and Jyotish Tools. The dates shown there are alsoquite> > close> > > > the ones shown in the Excel file.> > > > > > > > With best regards.> > > > > > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > > > > 1 / 94 Marius Street > > > > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > > > > Australia > > > > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > > > > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > > > > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > > > anant raichur [anant_1608] > > > > Sunday, 6 March 2005 6:06 PM> > > > > > > > RE: Re: Vimshottari Period> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Mr Vaidun Vidyadhar> > > > > > > > I cannot understand how the start of the Main Dasa varies by ONE> YEAR.> > > > > > > > If you send me your Birth Details, I will cast the chart and> indicate> > when> > > > your> > > > Saturn Dasa Starts> > > > > === message truncated ===> > > > > > =====> > --------- > > A.R.Raichur bombay> > anant_1608 > > raichuranant> > USE ONE OF THESE ADDRESS ES ONLY> > tel: 022-2506 2609 > > ---------> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Celebrate 's 10th Birthday! > > Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web > > http://birthday./netrospective/> > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Dear Vaidun, You have asked: " How is it that in your SW when we select the 360 days per year option the dasa periods fall short? Who has authorised you to reduce the number of years allocated to the various planets in Vimshotdhari dasa system? " I maintain that I have NOT reduced the duration of Sun dasa from 6 years. All I am saying is when 6 years is translated to number days for the purpose of calculating an ending date (assuming 360 days per year), it becomes 2160 days. Let me think through this. Thanks for raising an intriguing question. Regards, Rangarajan , " Vaidun Vidyadhar " <vvidya@o...> wrote: > Dear Rangarajan, > > You have said: > > Taking your Dasa periods: > Sun starts on: 24 Sep 1954 > > Sun dasa lasts 6 Vimshottari years, with each year having 360 days > (solar days). So the total number of solar days for Sun dasa = 6 * 360 = > 2160 days. > Adding 2160 days to 24 sep 1954, we get the start of next dasa, i.e., > Moon starts on: 23 Aug 1960 > > Going by the methodology given by Prof KSK in his First Reader, chapter > entitled " ERECTION OF HOROSCOPE " , " SIXTH STEP " at page 144, my Venus dasa > should end on 27 Nov 1954. He has used the 360 days per year calendar. In > your SW, also using the 360 days per year selection, my Venus dasa ends on > 24 Sep 1954. > > See page 86 of the First Reader where Prof KSK says, " After the balance of > Moon dasa is over, 7 years of Mars dasa, 18 years of Rahu dasa, 16 years of > Jupiter dasa, 19 years of Saturn dasa, etc, will follow one after the other > in this order, as given above " > > In your SW, the duration of the various dasas do not correspond to the > stipulated dasa periods stated in the Vimshotdhari dasa cycle, it is > significantly shorter. > > You have said, > > " As I mentioned earlier, if this approach is incorrect and proper proof > is given, we will be happy to rectify our mistakes. " > > You have asked for proper proof. The two red paragraphs above referring to > Prof KSK's First Reader is the proper proof. The other SWs that we have > examined (other than Mr Raichur's SW) seem to be making the same mistake as > you. Mr Raichur's SW also uses the 360 days per year calendar and in the > chart generated by him on my date of birth, all dasas have the full, > stipulated number of years in the Vimshotdhari dasa system. (Please see his > email message sent to this list on 09 Mar 05). How is it that in your SW > when we select the 360 days per year option the dasa periods fall short? > Who has authorised you to reduce the number of years allocated to the > various planets in Vimshotdhari dasa system? > > Among all the astrology program SW writers, Mr Raichur seems to be the only > person who has understood and correctly implemented Prof KSK's methodology. > > If you are still not convinced, I can give you more proper proof, all taken > from Prof KSK's Readers. > > Regards > > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > 1 / 94 Marius Street > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > Australia > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > _____ > > Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy [ranga@m...] > Wednesday, 9 March 2005 11:37 PM > > Vimshottari Period - Clarification > > > > Dear Vaidun, > Thanks very much for introducing yourself for the benefit of the > group. You have an admirable background. I am happy to answer any > question I am capable of, irrespective of who poses the question; the > background does not matter. After all, the purpose of this interaction > is to learn. > > Coming to the point, as I mentioned in my previous posting, the issue > is the " day " . I find it difficult to agree with the proposition > " 360*D2 = 365.2422*D3 will be correct " > To me D2 == D3, so 360 * D2 < 365.25 *D3. > > Taking your Dasa periods: > Sun starts on: 24 Sep 1954 > > Sun dasa lasts 6 Vimshottari years, with each year having 360 days > (solar days). So the total number of solar days for Sun dasa = 6 * 360 > = 2160 days. Adding 2160 days to 24 sep 1954, we get the start of next > dasa, i.e., > Moon starts on: 23 Aug 1960 > > Similarly for other dasas, and subperiods. > > I believe this is the calculation other programs apply since TW has > shown there is near agreement among various software. > > As I mentioned earlier, if this approach is incorrect and proper proof > is given, we will be happy to rectify our mistakes. > > After all, software should not produce erroneous results. > > Regards, > Rangarajan > P.S: After I uploaded our program, I noticed an error appearing in > some cases in 360-day dasa calculation. I hope to upload the corrcted > version in a day or two. > > , " Vaidun Vidyadhar " <vvidya@o...> wrote: > > Dear Mr Rangarajan, > > > > Thank you for your email below. I am very happy to interact with > the author > > of KPAstro2.0. At the outset I must say your program looks and > works quite > > well. > > > > I know your background but you know nothing about me. I was > introduced to > > KP in 1987 when I was living and working in Madras. I didn't know > then that > > KP was a little different from traditional vedic astrology. Anyway, > I did > > read all of Prof KSK's Readers. I also did the course under Mr > Hariharan in > > 1988. I am an ex Group Captain from the Indian Air Force, an ex fighter > > pilot. Mathematics has been my strong point. I am telling you all this > > because I don't want you to think you are interacting with a > half-baked nit > > wit. > > > > Now coming to the point you have raised, you have said: > > > > " It is not clear to me how you say that " day " as used in Vimshottari > > context is different in value from the " day " in solar year. In your > view, > > 360 * vimshottari_day == 365.25 * solar_day > > What is the source that supports this claim? " > > > > I have not said " that " day " as used in the Vimshotdhari context is > different > > in value from the " day " in solar year. " What I did say was a " day " > in the > > 360 days per year calendar is different from a " day " in the Real Time, > > 365.25 days per year calendar. AVimshotdhari year is the same as > a solar > > year. A Vimshotdhari day is the same as a solar day. There is no > > difference. However, one day in the 365.25 days per year calendar > is not > > the same as one day in the 360 days per year calendar. THAT is the > crux of > > the problem. > > > > You said: > > > > " Suppose we exaggerate this a little bit and propose that Vimshottari > > year had only 200 days, will the above equality still hold good? " > > > > The Vimshotdhari year is same as the solar year. There is no > difference. > > The Vimshotdhari dasa cycle takes 120 solar years to complete. One > > Vimshotdhari year is same as the solar year. One Vimshotdhari day > is same > > as one solar day. However, one CAN take a solar year and divide it > into any > > number of equal parts. We could divide it by 200 (as you say), or > 360 or > > 365.2422. If we do this we will get three different units. Let us call > > these units D1, D2 amd D3. > > Then, > > > > 200*D1 = 360*D2 = 365.2422*D3 will be correct. > > > > D3 is one solar day which is = 24 hours. The length of D2 and D3 > will be > > different. > > > > The dates shown in the Green Table of the Excel file that I sent you > were > > not derived from MY own method of calculations. I have followed the > steps > > and instructions given by Prof KSK in his Readers on how to draw up a > > dasa/bhukti/anthras chart. Mr Raichur had very kindly given his > > calculations. He also follows Prof KSK's methodology. In the case > of my > > chart, the dates indicated by him for end of my Venus dasa and start > of the > > other dasas correspond to the dates calculated in the Green Table > provided > > by me. The dates shown in the Green Table belong to a 360 days per year > > calendar. Please note that though I have used the 360 days per year > > calendar, all dasas start on the same day of the month, viz. 27 Nov. > But > > more than that, the duration of each dasa corresponds exactly to the > > stipulated length of each dasa in years as per the Vimshotdhari dasa > cycle, > > as shown below: > > > > Sun 6 years > > Moon 10 years > > Mars 7 years > > Rahu 18 years > > Jupiter 16 years > > Saturn 19 years > > Mercury 17 years > > Ketu 7 years. > > > > I have answered your questions. Can I request you to kindly answer > one of > > mine please? > > > > My birth details are: > > Date and time of birth: 20 June 1942, 1549 hours (Indian Standard > Time, GMT > > + 5:30) > > Place of birth: Walajapet, Lat 12N56, Long 79E23 > > In the case of my own chart, in KPAstro2.0, under the Settings Menu, > > Vimshottari Dasa, when I select 360 days per year, the onset dates > of the > > various dasas is as follows: > > > > Sun: 24 Sep 1954 > > Moon: 23 Aug 1960 > > Mars: 02 Jul 1970 > > Rahu: 26 May 1977 > > Jupiter: 21 Feb 1995 > > Saturn: 29 Nov 2010 > > Mercury: 21 Aug 2029 > > Ketu: 24 May 2046 > > > > From the above it can be seen that the duration of the various dasas is > > significantly shorter than the stipulated number of years in the > > Vimshotdhari dasa cycle. Prof KSK himself has stated at page 82 in his > > First Reader that the number of years allocated to each planet are > as shown > > below: > > > > Sun 6 years > > Moon 10 years > > Mars 7 years > > Rahu 18 years > > Jupiter 16 years > > Saturn 19 years > > Mercury 17 years > > Ketu 7 years. > > Venus 20 years > > > > In your program, on what authority have you reduced the duration of each > > dasa? > > > > I look forward to your response. > > > > Thanks. With best regards. > > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > > 1 / 94 Marius Street > > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > > Australia > > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy [ranga@m...] > > Tuesday, 8 March 2005 11:59 PM > > > > Re: Vimshottari Period > > > > > > > > Dear Vaidun, > > It seems to me that the crux of the whole issue is the definition of > > " day " . I quote from your earlier posting: > > > > " This is what most computer programmers, who are also astrologers, > > have not understood. The length of a day in the Red Table is one > > solar day, made up of 24 hours. But the length of a DAY in the Green > > Table is not the same, it is slightly MORE than 24 hours. The length > > of the year in the 365.25 days per year calendar and the length of the > > year in the 360 days per year calendar is the SAME. If one divides > > the SAME length by 365.25 in one case, and 360 in another case, it > > will be appreciated that the resultant unit that one gets will not be > > the same. The unit in the former is 24 hours while the unit in the > > latter will be a little MORE than 24 hours. The confusion arises > > because both units are referred to as a " day " . But in reality, one > > unit is slightly shorter than the other, though both units are given > > the same name of " day " . ... " > > > > It is not clear to me how you say that " day " as used in Vimshottari > > context is different in value from the " day " in solar year. In your > view, > > 360 * vimshottari_day == 365.25 * solar_day > > What is the source that supports this claim? > > > > Suppose we exaggerate this a little bit and propose that Vimshottari > > year had only 200 days, will the above equality still hold good? > > > > I believe all the programs you have mentioned use the assumption that > > " day " refers to solar day. At least mine does. > > > > I am sure all of us programmers (whether we know astrology or not) > > follow certain principles when we program and we are definitely open > > to correction. If we are wrong, we would certainly like to correct our > > belief systems and the programs. In spite of our best efforts, though, > > there will be calculation approximations because of the finiteness of > > machine word, etc., but that should be acceptable. > > > > Rehards, > > Rangarajan > > > > , " Vaidun Vidyadhar " <vvidya@o...> > wrote: > > > Dear List Members, > > > > > > Mr Raichur has very kindly pointed out that the difference between > using > > > 365.25 or 360 days per year comes to only 1 day. Prof KSK himself > > said " the > > > difference is negligible " . If one uses astrological tables and > manually > > > calculates the dasa periods as per the guidelines given in Prof KSK > > Readers, > > > as I have done in the Green Table, (in my earlier email > attachment) the > > > difference IS actually less than one day (19 hours and 38 minutes > to be > > > exact). > > > > > > On the other hand, I have before me four astrology programs which > > have the > > > facility to select 365.25 or 360 days per year. When I do this, I > > find that > > > the difference is NOT negligible. In my own chart, the onset of my > > Saturn > > > dasa is different by ONE YEAR, as shown below. > > > > > > Program 365.25 days/year 360 days/year > > > Goravani Jyotish 26 Nov 2011 27 Nov 2010 > > > Shri Jyoti Star 29 Nov 2011 27 Nov 2010 > > > KPAstro2.0 27 Nov 2011 29 Nov 2010 > > > Jyotish Tools 24 Nov 2011 25 Nov 2010 > > > > > > A few months ago when this subject was being discussed on this list a > > > similar anomaly was seen in the program called " Fortune Discoverer " > > being > > > developed by Mr Rajasekaran. > > > > > > So we have FIVE astrology programs developed by five different > > astrologers > > > who obviously know what they are putting into their program. All five > > > programs show that difference between using 365.25 or 360 days per > > year is > > > almost ONE YEAR while at para one above it is seen that the > > difference is > > > less than a day. How do you reconcile this GROSS anomaly? You can > > try this > > > on any chart. Take a period about 70 to 80 years after birth and > > see the > > > difference in onset of a major dasa when 365.25 or 360 days per > year is > > > selected. You will get similar results. > > > > > > My knowledge of astrology is only at the intermediate level, though > > I have a > > > fairly good understanding of the mathematics involved. With MY > limited > > > knowledge of astrology, if it was I who said that the difference > between > > > using 365.25 or 360 days per year is only one day, while the astrology > > > programs show a difference of one year, I suppose my claim can be > > dismissed > > > as rubbish. But it was Mr RAICHUR who has said this. Mr Raichur, > > as you > > > all know is an expert on this subject, having contributed well known > > > articles on this subject from time to time. He is a recognised > > authority in > > > astrology. HE has mathematically shown that the difference between > > using > > > 365.25 or 360 days per year, in my chart, is only one day. He has > > gone as > > > far as to say, " ultimately the difference in the 360/365.25 days > > comes to > > > only 1 day. So why should we break our heads over this small > > variation? " > > > > > > But these five astrology programs show that the difference is ONE > > YEAR. > > > > > > If Mr Raichur is correct then these five astrology programs are > > wrong and > > > vice versa. > > > > > > Can someone who has understood this point kindly take the trouble to > > > explain. I will be very obliged. > > > > > > Thanks for your time. With regards. > > > > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > > > 1 / 94 Marius Street > > > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > > > Australia > > > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > > > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > > > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > anant raichur [anant_1608] > > > Monday, 7 March 2005 11:15 PM > > > > > > RE: Re: Vimshottari Period > > > > > > > > > Dear Vaidun > > > > > > Thanks for correcting my mistakes. > > > > > > However, ultimately the difference in the 360/365.25 days comes to > > only 1 > > > day > > > > > > as calculated by you. So why should we break our heads over this > small > > > > > > variation ? > > > > > > good luck > > > --- Vaidun Vidyadhar <vvidya@o...> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Mr Raichur, > > > > > > > > Thank you for your email below. > > > > > > > > There is a small mathematical error in your calculation. You have > > said: > > > > > > > > " 0.435*12 = 5. 34 months " > > > > > > > > It should be, 0.435*12 = 5.22 months and not 5.34 months as > > stated above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **************************************************************************** > > > > ************* > > > > > > > > The full calculations using the 360 days per year is as follows: > > > > > > > > Venus dasa balance in degrees = 8:17:24 > > > > > > > > Venus dasa balance in years = 29844/48000*20 = 12.435 years (same > > as your > > > > calculations so far) > > > > > > > > 0.435*12 = 5.22 months > > > > 0.22*30 = 6.6 days > > > > 0.6*24 = 14.4 hours > > > > 0.4*60 = 24 minutes > > > > > > > > So Venus dasa balance works out to 12 years, 5 months, 6 days, 14 > > hours > > > and > > > > 24 minutes. > > > > > > > > Adding this to date and time of birth: 20 Jun 1942, 1549 hours > we get > > > > > > > > Venus dasa ends on 27 Nov 1954 at 0613 hours. > > > > > > > > In the Green Table I have indicated 27 Nov 1954 and left out the > " 0613 > > > > hours " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **************************************************************************** > > > > **** > > > > > > > > The full calculations using the 365.25 days per year is as follows: > > > > > > > > Venus dasa balance in years = 12.435 > > > > 0.435*365 = 158.775 days (we need to multiply by 365 since the > > year 1942 > > > was > > > > not a leap year) > > > > 0.775*24 = 18.6 hours > > > > 0.6*60 = 36 minutes > > > > > > > > So Venus dasa balance is: 12 years, 158 days, 18 hours, 36 minutes. > > > > > > > > Adding 12 years, 158 days, 18 hours, 36 minutes to birth date and > > time of > > > > 20th June, 1549 hours (on the real time calendar) we get: > > > > > > > > Venus dasa ends on: 26 Nov 1954 at 1025 hours. > > > > > > > > In the Red Table it is shown as 26 Nov 1954 and the 1025 hours has > > been > > > left > > > > out. This is what the computer has calculated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **************************************************************************** > > > > ***************************** > > > > > > > > In the Blue Table, Venus dasa is shown to end on 22 Sep 1954. > > This is not > > > > MY calculation. This date was provided by the computer program > when I > > > > selected the 360 days per year option. I have clearly explained > in my > > > > earlier email addressed to TW as to HOW this error is happening. > The > > > dates > > > > shown in the Blue Table are wrong. I have clearly explained WHY > it is > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **************************************************************************** > > > > ************************************* > > > > > > > > Submitted for your comments on this please. > > > > > > > > Thanks. With best regards. > > > > > > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > > > > 1 / 94 Marius Street > > > > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > > > > Australia > > > > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > > > > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > > > > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > > > anant raichur [anant_1608] > > > > Monday, 7 March 2005 6:36 PM > > > > > > > > RE: Re: Vimshottari Period > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vidyadhar > > > > > > > > I append below the calculations of Dasa ending by using the 360 > > and 365.25 > > > > day > > > > method. > > > > > > > > your comments on this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vaidun Vaaidyadhar > > > > > > > > Assuming the Moon,s postion as correct, the Balance of Dasa Of > Ven is > > > > > > > > 8-17-24 deg,min,sec: This is 497.24 minutes of arc. > > > > > > > > Traditional or easy method of 360 days. > > > > > > > > This is converted into time : 497.24/800 * 20 (20yrs Dasa of Venus) > > > > > > > > This gives 12.435 Yrs. .435 yrs= .435*12 = 5. 34 months. .34 > > months*30 > > > > > > > > =10,02 days. Say 10 days. So balance is 12yrs, 5months, 10days. > > > > > > > > Adding to Birth date we get 20+10=30days: 6+5=11 months: > > 1942+12=1954 year > > > > > > > > so the Venus dasa ends on 30 Nov 1954 > > > > > > > > Sun dasa ends 6 ys later 30 Nov 1960 > > > > > > > > Moon dasa ends 10 yrs 30 Nov 1970 and so on > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > If we take 365.25 days, then we should take dasa of venus as > > 365.25*20= > > > > 7310.50 > > > > dates > > > > > > > > So Balace of dasa will be 497.24/800 * 7310.5 = 4545.30 days > > > > > > > > 4545.3/365.25 = 12.44436 years > > > > > > > > this is 12 years 162 days. So adding 162 calender days to 20 jun > > 1942, one > > > > > > > > > > > gets 10 dys of JUN. 31 of july,31 of aug, 3o of Sep, 31 of oct,+30 > > in Nov > > > > > > > > So date is 30 nov 1954. > > > > > > > > _________________________ > > > > if however we take .435*365.25 we get 158.88 say 159 days. Thus > > we lose 3 > > > > days > > > > > > > ------- > > > > > > > > --- Vaidun Vidyadhar <vvidya@o...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Mr. Raichur, > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your email below. > > > > > > > > > > My birth details were clearly stated in the Excel file. > > However, I am > > > > > reproducing this below: > > > > > > > > > > Vaidun K Vidyadhar > > > > > Date and time of birth: 20 June 1942, 1549 hours (Indian > > Standard Time, > > > > GMT > > > > > + 5:30) > > > > > Place of birth: Walajapet, Lat 12N56, Long 79E23 > > > > > Moon's longitude at birth: 138:22:36, 18:22:36 in Leo > > > > > Venus dasa balance in degrees: 8:17:24 > > > > > Venus dasa balance in years: 12.435 > > > > > > > > > > The dates shown in the Red and Blue tables in the Excel file > are the > > > exact > > > > > dates derived from Goravani Gyotish 2.25 by selecting the 365 > or 360 > > > days > > > > > per year option. If you have this program, you can try it out for > > > > yourself. > > > > > I have two other astrology programs which also have this > > facility, Shri > > > > > Jyoti Star and Jyotish Tools. The dates shown there are also > quite > > > close > > > > > the ones shown in the Excel file. > > > > > > > > > > With best regards. > > > > > > > > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > > > > > 1 / 94 Marius Street > > > > > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > > > > > Australia > > > > > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > > > > > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > > > > > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > > > > > anant raichur [anant_1608] > > > > > Sunday, 6 March 2005 6:06 PM > > > > > > > > > > RE: Re: Vimshottari Period > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Mr Vaidun Vidyadhar > > > > > > > > > > I cannot understand how the start of the Main Dasa varies by ONE > > YEAR. > > > > > > > > > > If you send me your Birth Details, I will cast the chart and > > indicate > > > when > > > > > your > > > > > Saturn Dasa Starts > > > > > > > === message truncated === > > > > > > > > > ===== > > > --------- > > > A.R.Raichur bombay > > > anant_1608 > > > raichuranant > > > USE ONE OF THESE ADDRESS ES ONLY > > > tel: 022-2506 2609 > > > --------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Celebrate 's 10th Birthday! > > > Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web > > > http://birthday./netrospective/ > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Dear Friends Which is the Basic UNIT of the Dasas of the Vimsottari System? IS it the YEAR or the DAY. IF it is the YEAR, then the There are two types of Years. THE SOLAR YEAR and the SIDERIAL YEAR. KSK has, I beleve, stated that we should use the SOLAR YEARS. The year being the Return of the SUN to the same star in heavens. IF this is accepted the 365.25 or 360 days controversy relates to the Division of this Solar Year into number of equal parts called days. IF DAY is accepted as the BASIC UNIT then the Dashasa should have been expressed in number of DAYS, not years. I am unable to agree to sun's Dasa of 6years being 6*360= 2160 days. Good luck --- Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy <ranga wrote: > > > Dear Vaidun, > Thanks very much for introducing yourself for the benefit of the > group. You have an admirable background. I am happy to answer any > question I am capable of, irrespective of who poses the question; the > background does not matter. After all, the purpose of this interaction > is to learn. > > Coming to the point, as I mentioned in my previous posting, the issue > is the " day " . I find it difficult to agree with the proposition > " 360*D2 = 365.2422*D3 will be correct " > To me D2 == D3, so 360 * D2 < 365.25 *D3. > > Taking your Dasa periods: > Sun starts on: 24 Sep 1954 > > Sun dasa lasts 6 Vimshottari years, with each year having 360 days > (solar days). So the total number of solar days for Sun dasa = 6 * 360 > = 2160 days. Adding 2160 days to 24 sep 1954, we get the start of next > dasa, i.e., > Moon starts on: 23 Aug 1960 > > Similarly for other dasas, and subperiods. > > I believe this is the calculation other programs apply since TW has > shown there is near agreement among various software. > > As I mentioned earlier, if this approach is incorrect and proper proof > is given, we will be happy to rectify our mistakes. > > After all, software should not produce erroneous results. > > Regards, > Rangarajan > P.S: After I uploaded our program, I noticed an error appearing in > some cases in 360-day dasa calculation. I hope to upload the corrcted > version in a day or two. > > , " Vaidun Vidyadhar " <vvidya@o...> wrote: > > Dear Mr Rangarajan, > > > > Thank you for your email below. I am very happy to interact with > the author > > of KPAstro2.0. At the outset I must say your program looks and > works quite > > well. > > > > I know your background but you know nothing about me. I was > introduced to > > KP in 1987 when I was living and working in Madras. I didn't know > then that > > KP was a little different from traditional vedic astrology. Anyway, > I did > > read all of Prof KSK's Readers. I also did the course under Mr > Hariharan in > > 1988. I am an ex Group Captain from the Indian Air Force, an ex fighter > > pilot. Mathematics has been my strong point. I am telling you all this > > because I don't want you to think you are interacting with a > half-baked nit > > wit. > > > > Now coming to the point you have raised, you have said: > > > > " It is not clear to me how you say that " day " as used in Vimshottari > > context is different in value from the " day " in solar year. In your > view, > > 360 * vimshottari_day == 365.25 * solar_day > > What is the source that supports this claim? " > > > > I have not said " that " day " as used in the Vimshotdhari context is > different > > in value from the " day " in solar year. " What I did say was a " day " > in the > > 360 days per year calendar is different from a " day " in the Real Time, > > 365.25 days per year calendar. AVimshotdhari year is the same as > a solar > > year. A Vimshotdhari day is the same as a solar day. There is no > > difference. However, one day in the 365.25 days per year calendar > is not > > the same as one day in the 360 days per year calendar. THAT is the > crux of > > the problem. > > > > You said: > > > > " Suppose we exaggerate this a little bit and propose that Vimshottari > > year had only 200 days, will the above equality still hold good? " > > > > The Vimshotdhari year is same as the solar year. There is no > difference. > > The Vimshotdhari dasa cycle takes 120 solar years to complete. One > > Vimshotdhari year is same as the solar year. One Vimshotdhari day > is same > > as one solar day. However, one CAN take a solar year and divide it > into any > > number of equal parts. We could divide it by 200 (as you say), or > 360 or > > 365.2422. If we do this we will get three different units. Let us call > > these units D1, D2 amd D3. > > Then, > > > > 200*D1 = 360*D2 = 365.2422*D3 will be correct. > > > > D3 is one solar day which is = 24 hours. The length of D2 and D3 > will be > > different. > > > > The dates shown in the Green Table of the Excel file that I sent you > were > > not derived from MY own method of calculations. I have followed the > steps > > and instructions given by Prof KSK in his Readers on how to draw up a > > dasa/bhukti/anthras chart. Mr Raichur had very kindly given his > > calculations. He also follows Prof KSK's methodology. In the case > of my > > chart, the dates indicated by him for end of my Venus dasa and start > of the > > other dasas correspond to the dates calculated in the Green Table > provided > > by me. The dates shown in the Green Table belong to a 360 days per year > > calendar. Please note that though I have used the 360 days per year > > calendar, all dasas start on the same day of the month, viz. 27 Nov. > But > > more than that, the duration of each dasa corresponds exactly to the > > stipulated length of each dasa in years as per the Vimshotdhari dasa > cycle, > > as shown below: > > > > Sun 6 years > > Moon 10 years > > Mars 7 years > > Rahu 18 years > > Jupiter 16 years > > Saturn 19 years > > Mercury 17 years > > Ketu 7 years. > > > > I have answered your questions. Can I request you to kindly answer > one of > > mine please? > > > > My birth details are: > > Date and time of birth: 20 June 1942, 1549 hours (Indian Standard > Time, GMT > > + 5:30) > > Place of birth: Walajapet, Lat 12N56, Long 79E23 > > In the case of my own chart, in KPAstro2.0, under the Settings Menu, > > Vimshottari Dasa, when I select 360 days per year, the onset dates > of the > > various dasas is as follows: > > > > Sun: 24 Sep 1954 > > Moon: 23 Aug 1960 > > Mars: 02 Jul 1970 > > Rahu: 26 May 1977 > > Jupiter: 21 Feb 1995 > > Saturn: 29 Nov 2010 > > Mercury: 21 Aug 2029 > > Ketu: 24 May 2046 > > > > From the above it can be seen that the duration of the various dasas is > > significantly shorter than the stipulated number of years in the > > Vimshotdhari dasa cycle. Prof KSK himself has stated at page 82 in his > > First Reader that the number of years allocated to each planet are > as shown > > below: > > > > Sun 6 years > > Moon 10 years > > Mars 7 years > > Rahu 18 years > > Jupiter 16 years > > Saturn 19 years > > Mercury 17 years > > Ketu 7 years. > > Venus 20 years > > > > In your program, on what authority have you reduced the duration of each > > dasa? > > > > I look forward to your response. > > > > Thanks. With best regards. > > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > > 1 / 94 Marius Street > > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > > Australia > > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy [ranga@m...] > > Tuesday, 8 March 2005 11:59 PM > > > === message truncated === --------- A.R.Raichur bombay anant_1608 raichuranant USE ONE OF THESE ADDRESS ES ONLY tel: 022-2506 2609 --------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Dear Shri.Raichur, Thanks for your comments. Assume that Moon Dasa for a native starts on Jan 1, 2000. Suppose it ends on Jan 1, 2010 with 360 days/year option, the number of elapsed (solar) days is more than 3600. With 365.25 days/year option, this end date is expected. How, then, does the difference between the two options manifest? It must influence some calculation, right? Regards, Rangarajan , anant raichur <anant_1608> wrote: > Dear Friends > > Which is the Basic UNIT of the Dasas of the Vimsottari System? > > IS it the YEAR or the DAY. > > IF it is the YEAR, then the There are two types of Years. THE SOLAR > > YEAR and the SIDERIAL YEAR. > > KSK has, I beleve, stated that we should use the SOLAR YEARS. The year being > > the Return of the SUN to the same star in heavens. > > IF this is accepted the 365.25 or 360 days controversy relates to the Division > of this Solar Year into number of equal parts called days. > > IF DAY is accepted as the BASIC UNIT then the Dashasa should have been > > expressed in number of DAYS, not years. > > I am unable to agree to sun's Dasa of 6years being 6*360= 2160 days. > > Good luck > --- Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy <ranga@m...> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Vaidun, > > Thanks very much for introducing yourself for the benefit of the > > group. You have an admirable background. I am happy to answer any > > question I am capable of, irrespective of who poses the question; the > > background does not matter. After all, the purpose of this interaction > > is to learn. > > > > Coming to the point, as I mentioned in my previous posting, the issue > > is the " day " . I find it difficult to agree with the proposition > > " 360*D2 = 365.2422*D3 will be correct " > > To me D2 == D3, so 360 * D2 < 365.25 *D3. > > > > Taking your Dasa periods: > > Sun starts on: 24 Sep 1954 > > > > Sun dasa lasts 6 Vimshottari years, with each year having 360 days > > (solar days). So the total number of solar days for Sun dasa = 6 * 360 > > = 2160 days. Adding 2160 days to 24 sep 1954, we get the start of next > > dasa, i.e., > > Moon starts on: 23 Aug 1960 > > > > Similarly for other dasas, and subperiods. > > > > I believe this is the calculation other programs apply since TW has > > shown there is near agreement among various software. > > > > As I mentioned earlier, if this approach is incorrect and proper proof > > is given, we will be happy to rectify our mistakes. > > > > After all, software should not produce erroneous results. > > > > Regards, > > Rangarajan > > P.S: After I uploaded our program, I noticed an error appearing in > > some cases in 360-day dasa calculation. I hope to upload the corrcted > > version in a day or two. > > > > , " Vaidun Vidyadhar " <vvidya@o...> wrote: > > > Dear Mr Rangarajan, > > > > > > Thank you for your email below. I am very happy to interact with > > the author > > > of KPAstro2.0. At the outset I must say your program looks and > > works quite > > > well. > > > > > > I know your background but you know nothing about me. I was > > introduced to > > > KP in 1987 when I was living and working in Madras. I didn't know > > then that > > > KP was a little different from traditional vedic astrology. Anyway, > > I did > > > read all of Prof KSK's Readers. I also did the course under Mr > > Hariharan in > > > 1988. I am an ex Group Captain from the Indian Air Force, an ex fighter > > > pilot. Mathematics has been my strong point. I am telling you all this > > > because I don't want you to think you are interacting with a > > half-baked nit > > > wit. > > > > > > Now coming to the point you have raised, you have said: > > > > > > " It is not clear to me how you say that " day " as used in Vimshottari > > > context is different in value from the " day " in solar year. In your > > view, > > > 360 * vimshottari_day == 365.25 * solar_day > > > What is the source that supports this claim? " > > > > > > I have not said " that " day " as used in the Vimshotdhari context is > > different > > > in value from the " day " in solar year. " What I did say was a " day " > > in the > > > 360 days per year calendar is different from a " day " in the Real Time, > > > 365.25 days per year calendar. AVimshotdhari year is the same as > > a solar > > > year. A Vimshotdhari day is the same as a solar day. There is no > > > difference. However, one day in the 365.25 days per year calendar > > is not > > > the same as one day in the 360 days per year calendar. THAT is the > > crux of > > > the problem. > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > " Suppose we exaggerate this a little bit and propose that Vimshottari > > > year had only 200 days, will the above equality still hold good? " > > > > > > The Vimshotdhari year is same as the solar year. There is no > > difference. > > > The Vimshotdhari dasa cycle takes 120 solar years to complete. One > > > Vimshotdhari year is same as the solar year. One Vimshotdhari day > > is same > > > as one solar day. However, one CAN take a solar year and divide it > > into any > > > number of equal parts. We could divide it by 200 (as you say), or > > 360 or > > > 365.2422. If we do this we will get three different units. Let us call > > > these units D1, D2 amd D3. > > > Then, > > > > > > 200*D1 = 360*D2 = 365.2422*D3 will be correct. > > > > > > D3 is one solar day which is = 24 hours. The length of D2 and D3 > > will be > > > different. > > > > > > The dates shown in the Green Table of the Excel file that I sent you > > were > > > not derived from MY own method of calculations. I have followed the > > steps > > > and instructions given by Prof KSK in his Readers on how to draw up a > > > dasa/bhukti/anthras chart. Mr Raichur had very kindly given his > > > calculations. He also follows Prof KSK's methodology. In the case > > of my > > > chart, the dates indicated by him for end of my Venus dasa and start > > of the > > > other dasas correspond to the dates calculated in the Green Table > > provided > > > by me. The dates shown in the Green Table belong to a 360 days per year > > > calendar. Please note that though I have used the 360 days per year > > > calendar, all dasas start on the same day of the month, viz. 27 Nov. > > But > > > more than that, the duration of each dasa corresponds exactly to the > > > stipulated length of each dasa in years as per the Vimshotdhari dasa > > cycle, > > > as shown below: > > > > > > Sun 6 years > > > Moon 10 years > > > Mars 7 years > > > Rahu 18 years > > > Jupiter 16 years > > > Saturn 19 years > > > Mercury 17 years > > > Ketu 7 years. > > > > > > I have answered your questions. Can I request you to kindly answer > > one of > > > mine please? > > > > > > My birth details are: > > > Date and time of birth: 20 June 1942, 1549 hours (Indian Standard > > Time, GMT > > > + 5:30) > > > Place of birth: Walajapet, Lat 12N56, Long 79E23 > > > In the case of my own chart, in KPAstro2.0, under the Settings Menu, > > > Vimshottari Dasa, when I select 360 days per year, the onset dates > > of the > > > various dasas is as follows: > > > > > > Sun: 24 Sep 1954 > > > Moon: 23 Aug 1960 > > > Mars: 02 Jul 1970 > > > Rahu: 26 May 1977 > > > Jupiter: 21 Feb 1995 > > > Saturn: 29 Nov 2010 > > > Mercury: 21 Aug 2029 > > > Ketu: 24 May 2046 > > > > > > From the above it can be seen that the duration of the various dasas is > > > significantly shorter than the stipulated number of years in the > > > Vimshotdhari dasa cycle. Prof KSK himself has stated at page 82 in his > > > First Reader that the number of years allocated to each planet are > > as shown > > > below: > > > > > > Sun 6 years > > > Moon 10 years > > > Mars 7 years > > > Rahu 18 years > > > Jupiter 16 years > > > Saturn 19 years > > > Mercury 17 years > > > Ketu 7 years. > > > Venus 20 years > > > > > > In your program, on what authority have you reduced the duration of each > > > dasa? > > > > > > I look forward to your response. > > > > > > Thanks. With best regards. > > > > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > > > 1 / 94 Marius Street > > > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > > > Australia > > > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > > > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > > > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy [ranga@m...] > > > Tuesday, 8 March 2005 11:59 PM > > > > > > === message truncated === > > > --------- > A.R.Raichur bombay > anant_1608 > raichuranant > USE ONE OF THESE ADDRESS ES ONLY > tel: 022-2506 2609 > --------- > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Dear Shri.Raichur, I checked with three other programs that I have to see how they have implemented this point. All the three examples given below are for Moon dasa (for different natives) with 1 year = 360 days option. 1) Parashara Light 6.1 Moon start: 4th Sept 2051, end: 13th July 2061 2) AstroWorks Moon start: 28th June 2025, end: 7th May 2035 3) Shri Jyothi Star Moon Start: 5th July 1977, end: 14th May 1987 All three have calculated based on the formula I had mentioned, that is, duration in days = Dasa years * 360. In these examples, all work out to 3600 days exact. Tin Win had earlier cited examples from other programs such as JHora Lite, etc. It is interesting that all these software work similarly. It is technically possible that all of us are wrong, but it seems to me that that is highly improbable. Regards, Rangarajan , " Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy " <ranga@m...> wrote: > > Dear Shri.Raichur, > Thanks for your comments. > > Assume that Moon Dasa for a native starts on Jan 1, 2000. Suppose it > ends on Jan 1, 2010 with 360 days/year option, the number of elapsed > (solar) days is more than 3600. With 365.25 days/year option, this > end date is expected. How, then, does the difference between the two > options manifest? It must influence some calculation, right? > > Regards, > Rangarajan > > , anant raichur <anant_1608> > wrote: > > Dear Friends > > > > Which is the Basic UNIT of the Dasas of the Vimsottari System? > > > > IS it the YEAR or the DAY. > > > > IF it is the YEAR, then the There are two types of Years. THE SOLAR > > > > YEAR and the SIDERIAL YEAR. > > > > KSK has, I beleve, stated that we should use the SOLAR YEARS. The > year being > > > > the Return of the SUN to the same star in heavens. > > > > IF this is accepted the 365.25 or 360 days controversy relates to > the Division > > of this Solar Year into number of equal parts called days. > > > > IF DAY is accepted as the BASIC UNIT then the Dashasa should have > been > > > > expressed in number of DAYS, not years. > > > > I am unable to agree to sun's Dasa of 6years being 6*360= 2160 > days. > > > > Good luck > > --- Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy <ranga@m...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vaidun, > > > Thanks very much for introducing yourself for the benefit of the > > > group. You have an admirable background. I am happy to answer any > > > question I am capable of, irrespective of who poses the > question; the > > > background does not matter. After all, the purpose of this > interaction > > > is to learn. > > > > > > Coming to the point, as I mentioned in my previous posting, the > issue > > > is the " day " . I find it difficult to agree with the proposition > > > " 360*D2 = 365.2422*D3 will be correct " > > > To me D2 == D3, so 360 * D2 < 365.25 *D3. > > > > > > Taking your Dasa periods: > > > Sun starts on: 24 Sep 1954 > > > > > > Sun dasa lasts 6 Vimshottari years, with each year having 360 > days > > > (solar days). So the total number of solar days for Sun dasa = 6 > * 360 > > > = 2160 days. Adding 2160 days to 24 sep 1954, we get the start > of next > > > dasa, i.e., > > > Moon starts on: 23 Aug 1960 > > > > > > Similarly for other dasas, and subperiods. > > > > > > I believe this is the calculation other programs apply since TW > has > > > shown there is near agreement among various software. > > > > > > As I mentioned earlier, if this approach is incorrect and proper > proof > > > is given, we will be happy to rectify our mistakes. > > > > > > After all, software should not produce erroneous results. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Rangarajan > > > P.S: After I uploaded our program, I noticed an error appearing > in > > > some cases in 360-day dasa calculation. I hope to upload the > corrcted > > > version in a day or two. > > > > > > , " Vaidun Vidyadhar " > <vvidya@o...> wrote: > > > > Dear Mr Rangarajan, > > > > > > > > Thank you for your email below. I am very happy to interact > with > > > the author > > > > of KPAstro2.0. At the outset I must say your program looks > and > > > works quite > > > > well. > > > > > > > > I know your background but you know nothing about me. I was > > > introduced to > > > > KP in 1987 when I was living and working in Madras. I didn't > know > > > then that > > > > KP was a little different from traditional vedic astrology. > Anyway, > > > I did > > > > read all of Prof KSK's Readers. I also did the course under Mr > > > Hariharan in > > > > 1988. I am an ex Group Captain from the Indian Air Force, an > ex fighter > > > > pilot. Mathematics has been my strong point. I am telling > you all this > > > > because I don't want you to think you are interacting with a > > > half-baked nit > > > > wit. > > > > > > > > Now coming to the point you have raised, you have said: > > > > > > > > " It is not clear to me how you say that " day " as used in > Vimshottari > > > > context is different in value from the " day " in solar year. In > your > > > view, > > > > 360 * vimshottari_day == 365.25 * solar_day > > > > What is the source that supports this claim? " > > > > > > > > I have not said " that " day " as used in the Vimshotdhari > context is > > > different > > > > in value from the " day " in solar year. " What I did say was > a " day " > > > in the > > > > 360 days per year calendar is different from a " day " in the > Real Time, > > > > 365.25 days per year calendar. AVimshotdhari year is the > same as > > > a solar > > > > year. A Vimshotdhari day is the same as a solar day. There > is no > > > > difference. However, one day in the 365.25 days per year > calendar > > > is not > > > > the same as one day in the 360 days per year calendar. THAT > is the > > > crux of > > > > the problem. > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > " Suppose we exaggerate this a little bit and propose that > Vimshottari > > > > year had only 200 days, will the above equality still hold > good? " > > > > > > > > The Vimshotdhari year is same as the solar year. There is no > > > difference. > > > > The Vimshotdhari dasa cycle takes 120 solar years to > complete. One > > > > Vimshotdhari year is same as the solar year. One Vimshotdhari > day > > > is same > > > > as one solar day. However, one CAN take a solar year and > divide it > > > into any > > > > number of equal parts. We could divide it by 200 (as you > say), or > > > 360 or > > > > 365.2422. If we do this we will get three different units. > Let us call > > > > these units D1, D2 amd D3. > > > > Then, > > > > > > > > 200*D1 = 360*D2 = 365.2422*D3 will be correct. > > > > > > > > D3 is one solar day which is = 24 hours. The length of D2 and > D3 > > > will be > > > > different. > > > > > > > > The dates shown in the Green Table of the Excel file that I > sent you > > > were > > > > not derived from MY own method of calculations. I have > followed the > > > steps > > > > and instructions given by Prof KSK in his Readers on how to > draw up a > > > > dasa/bhukti/anthras chart. Mr Raichur had very kindly given > his > > > > calculations. He also follows Prof KSK's methodology. In > the case > > > of my > > > > chart, the dates indicated by him for end of my Venus dasa and > start > > > of the > > > > other dasas correspond to the dates calculated in the Green > Table > > > provided > > > > by me. The dates shown in the Green Table belong to a 360 > days per year > > > > calendar. Please note that though I have used the 360 days > per year > > > > calendar, all dasas start on the same day of the month, viz. > 27 Nov. > > > But > > > > more than that, the duration of each dasa corresponds exactly > to the > > > > stipulated length of each dasa in years as per the > Vimshotdhari dasa > > > cycle, > > > > as shown below: > > > > > > > > Sun 6 years > > > > Moon 10 years > > > > Mars 7 years > > > > Rahu 18 years > > > > Jupiter 16 years > > > > Saturn 19 years > > > > Mercury 17 years > > > > Ketu 7 years. > > > > > > > > I have answered your questions. Can I request you to kindly > answer > > > one of > > > > mine please? > > > > > > > > My birth details are: > > > > Date and time of birth: 20 June 1942, 1549 hours (Indian > Standard > > > Time, GMT > > > > + 5:30) > > > > Place of birth: Walajapet, Lat 12N56, Long 79E23 > > > > In the case of my own chart, in KPAstro2.0, under the Settings > Menu, > > > > Vimshottari Dasa, when I select 360 days per year, the onset > dates > > > of the > > > > various dasas is as follows: > > > > > > > > Sun: 24 Sep 1954 > > > > Moon: 23 Aug 1960 > > > > Mars: 02 Jul 1970 > > > > Rahu: 26 May 1977 > > > > Jupiter: 21 Feb 1995 > > > > Saturn: 29 Nov 2010 > > > > Mercury: 21 Aug 2029 > > > > Ketu: 24 May 2046 > > > > > > > > From the above it can be seen that the duration of the various > dasas is > > > > significantly shorter than the stipulated number of years in > the > > > > Vimshotdhari dasa cycle. Prof KSK himself has stated at page > 82 in his > > > > First Reader that the number of years allocated to each planet > are > > > as shown > > > > below: > > > > > > > > Sun 6 years > > > > Moon 10 years > > > > Mars 7 years > > > > Rahu 18 years > > > > Jupiter 16 years > > > > Saturn 19 years > > > > Mercury 17 years > > > > Ketu 7 years. > > > > Venus 20 years > > > > > > > > In your program, on what authority have you reduced the > duration of each > > > > dasa? > > > > > > > > I look forward to your response. > > > > > > > > Thanks. With best regards. > > > > > > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > > > > 1 / 94 Marius Street > > > > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > > > > Australia > > > > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > > > > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > > > > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > > > Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy [ranga@m...] > > > > Tuesday, 8 March 2005 11:59 PM > > > > > > > > > === message truncated === > > > > > > --------- > > A.R.Raichur bombay > > anant_1608 > > raichuranant > > USE ONE OF THESE ADDRESS ES ONLY > > tel: 022-2506 2609 > > --------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Dear Rangarajan, Sorry to butt in. I am sure Mr Raichur will give you an apt answer. May I be permitted to say something? The answer that you seek is already there with you. Look at the Excel file I sent you. Moon dasa has been expanded to show the various bhuktis. The Red Table dates are derived from the computer using the 365.25 option. The start and end dates of each bhukti shown there will be the CORRECT dates. The dates in the Green Table have been derived using the "Astrological Tables of All, Ready Reckoner". For instance, when I check the Table it shows that the duration of Moon bhukti as being 10 months. Moon dasa, Moon bhukti will start when Sun dasa ends which is on 27 Nov 1960. So I add 10 months to 27 Nov 1960 (in the 360 DAYS PER YEAR CALENDAR) to get 27 Sep 1960. So on and so forth. But remember one year in the Green Table is the SAME as one year in the Red Table. There is no difference. Also the dates shown in the Green Table may be slightly different from the dates shown in the Red Table because in a 360 days per year calendar, all 12 months have 30 days, which is not the case in the Real Time calendar. However, the error can NEVER more than 2 days. In your earlier message you had asked for "proper proof". Somethings cannot be "proved". For instance, I won't be able to tell you where, in which Reader Prok KSK said D1*200 = D2*360 = D3*365.2422. In fact, he has never written such a line anywhere. But this is my UNDERSTANDING. You and I have read the SAME readers and notes, done the same astrology course, yet our understanding of the subject is different. Fortunately for me, MY understanding is same as Mr. Raichur's understanding of the subject. I saw fortunate because if Vaidun Vidyadhar is the only person to make such a statement while FIVE astrology programs written by FIVE different astrologers say something else, I will be dismissed out of hand. Who is Vaidun Vidyadhar? Never heard of him. What is the purpose and origin of the 360 days per year? It is an invention of the astrologer to make calculating the various dates in the dasa/bhukti/anthras chart easier, nothing more. Now that we have a computer program which can make these calculations instantly, there is no need for Astrological Tables. There is no need for the Green Table. In your program, there is no need at all to have the option for 360 days per year. It is no longer required. You can dispense with it. The problem now is, some astrologers FIRMLY believe that the Vimshotdhari year is 360 solar days long and because of such belief the duration of the various dasas is reduced from the stipulated figures. Prof KSK knew he had no authority to reduce the length of the dasa years. He knew he couldn't meddle with it. But the astrology program writers, who are themselves astrologers, have no such qualms. Have you ever drawn up a dasa/bhukti/anthras chart manually, using an Astrological Table? If you have, you will realise how time consuming it is to work out the dasa balance at birth and then draw up the dasa/bhukti/anthras chart manually. Something that the computer program does in less than a second will take SEVERAL minutes to do manually. More after I hear from you. Regards Vaidun Vidyadhar 1 / 94 Marius Street Tamworth, NSW 2340 Australia Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) Mobile: 0414 870 083 Email: vvidya Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy [ranga] Thursday, 10 March 2005 6:21 PM Subject: Re: Vimshottari Period - Clarification Dear Shri.Raichur,Thanks for your comments.Assume that Moon Dasa for a native starts on Jan 1, 2000. Suppose it ends on Jan 1, 2010 with 360 days/year option, the number of elapsed (solar) days is more than 3600. With 365.25 days/year option, this end date is expected. How, then, does the difference between the two options manifest? It must influence some calculation, right?Regards,Rangarajan , anant raichur <anant_1608> wrote:> Dear Friends> > Which is the Basic UNIT of the Dasas of the Vimsottari System?> > IS it the YEAR or the DAY.> > IF it is the YEAR, then the There are two types of Years. THE SOLAR> > YEAR and the SIDERIAL YEAR. > > KSK has, I beleve, stated that we should use the SOLAR YEARS. The year being> > the Return of the SUN to the same star in heavens. > > IF this is accepted the 365.25 or 360 days controversy relates to the Division> of this Solar Year into number of equal parts called days.> > IF DAY is accepted as the BASIC UNIT then the Dashasa should have been > > expressed in number of DAYS, not years.> > I am unable to agree to sun's Dasa of 6years being 6*360= 2160 days.> > Good luck> --- Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy <ranga@m...> wrote:> > > > > > > Dear Vaidun,> > Thanks very much for introducing yourself for the benefit of the> > group. You have an admirable background. I am happy to answer any> > question I am capable of, irrespective of who poses the question; the> > background does not matter. After all, the purpose of this interaction> > is to learn.> > > > Coming to the point, as I mentioned in my previous posting, the issue> > is the "day". I find it difficult to agree with the proposition> > "360*D2 = 365.2422*D3 will be correct"> > To me D2 == D3, so 360 * D2 < 365.25 *D3.> > > > Taking your Dasa periods:> > Sun starts on: 24 Sep 1954> > > > Sun dasa lasts 6 Vimshottari years, with each year having 360 days> > (solar days). So the total number of solar days for Sun dasa = 6 * 360> > = 2160 days. Adding 2160 days to 24 sep 1954, we get the start of next> > dasa, i.e.,> > Moon starts on: 23 Aug 1960> > > > Similarly for other dasas, and subperiods.> > > > I believe this is the calculation other programs apply since TW has> > shown there is near agreement among various software.> > > > As I mentioned earlier, if this approach is incorrect and proper proof> > is given, we will be happy to rectify our mistakes.> > > > After all, software should not produce erroneous results.> > > > Regards,> > Rangarajan> > P.S: After I uploaded our program, I noticed an error appearing in> > some cases in 360-day dasa calculation. I hope to upload the corrcted> > version in a day or two.> > > > , "Vaidun Vidyadhar" <vvidya@o...> wrote:> > > Dear Mr Rangarajan,> > > > > > Thank you for your email below. I am very happy to interact with> > the author> > > of KPAstro2.0. At the outset I must say your program looks and> > works quite> > > well.> > > > > > I know your background but you know nothing about me. I was> > introduced to> > > KP in 1987 when I was living and working in Madras. I didn't know> > then that> > > KP was a little different from traditional vedic astrology. Anyway,> > I did> > > read all of Prof KSK's Readers. I also did the course under Mr> > Hariharan in> > > 1988. I am an ex Group Captain from the Indian Air Force, an ex fighter> > > pilot. Mathematics has been my strong point. I am telling you all this> > > because I don't want you to think you are interacting with a> > half-baked nit> > > wit. > > > > > > Now coming to the point you have raised, you have said:> > > > > > "It is not clear to me how you say that "day" as used in Vimshottari> > > context is different in value from the "day" in solar year. In your> > view, > > > 360 * vimshottari_day == 365.25 * solar_day> > > What is the source that supports this claim?"> > > > > > I have not said "that "day" as used in the Vimshotdhari context is> > different> > > in value from the "day" in solar year." What I did say was a "day"> > in the> > > 360 days per year calendar is different from a "day" in the Real Time,> > > 365.25 days per year calendar. AVimshotdhari year is the same as> > a solar> > > year. A Vimshotdhari day is the same as a solar day. There is no> > > difference. However, one day in the 365.25 days per year calendar> > is not> > > the same as one day in the 360 days per year calendar. THAT is the> > crux of> > > the problem. > > > > > > You said:> > > > > > "Suppose we exaggerate this a little bit and propose that Vimshottari> > > year had only 200 days, will the above equality still hold good?"> > > > > > The Vimshotdhari year is same as the solar year. There is no> > difference.> > > The Vimshotdhari dasa cycle takes 120 solar years to complete. One> > > Vimshotdhari year is same as the solar year. One Vimshotdhari day> > is same> > > as one solar day. However, one CAN take a solar year and divide it> > into any> > > number of equal parts. We could divide it by 200 (as you say), or> > 360 or> > > 365.2422. If we do this we will get three different units. Let us call> > > these units D1, D2 amd D3. > > > Then, > > > > > > 200*D1 = 360*D2 = 365.2422*D3 will be correct.> > > > > > D3 is one solar day which is = 24 hours. The length of D2 and D3> > will be> > > different. > > > > > > The dates shown in the Green Table of the Excel file that I sent you> > were> > > not derived from MY own method of calculations. I have followed the> > steps> > > and instructions given by Prof KSK in his Readers on how to draw up a> > > dasa/bhukti/anthras chart. Mr Raichur had very kindly given his> > > calculations. He also follows Prof KSK's methodology. In the case> > of my> > > chart, the dates indicated by him for end of my Venus dasa and start> > of the> > > other dasas correspond to the dates calculated in the Green Table> > provided> > > by me. The dates shown in the Green Table belong to a 360 days per year> > > calendar. Please note that though I have used the 360 days per year> > > calendar, all dasas start on the same day of the month, viz. 27 Nov.> > But> > > more than that, the duration of each dasa corresponds exactly to the> > > stipulated length of each dasa in years as per the Vimshotdhari dasa> > cycle,> > > as shown below:> > > > > > Sun 6 years> > > Moon 10 years> > > Mars 7 years> > > Rahu 18 years> > > Jupiter 16 years> > > Saturn 19 years> > > Mercury 17 years> > > Ketu 7 years.> > > > > > I have answered your questions. Can I request you to kindly answer> > one of> > > mine please?> > > > > > My birth details are:> > > Date and time of birth: 20 June 1942, 1549 hours (Indian Standard> > Time, GMT> > > + 5:30) > > > Place of birth: Walajapet, Lat 12N56, Long 79E23 > > > In the case of my own chart, in KPAstro2.0, under the Settings Menu,> > > Vimshottari Dasa, when I select 360 days per year, the onset dates> > of the> > > various dasas is as follows:> > > > > > Sun: 24 Sep 1954> > > Moon: 23 Aug 1960> > > Mars: 02 Jul 1970> > > Rahu: 26 May 1977> > > Jupiter: 21 Feb 1995> > > Saturn: 29 Nov 2010> > > Mercury: 21 Aug 2029> > > Ketu: 24 May 2046> > > > > > From the above it can be seen that the duration of the various dasas is> > > significantly shorter than the stipulated number of years in the> > > Vimshotdhari dasa cycle. Prof KSK himself has stated at page 82 in his> > > First Reader that the number of years allocated to each planet are> > as shown> > > below:> > > > > > Sun 6 years> > > Moon 10 years> > > Mars 7 years> > > Rahu 18 years> > > Jupiter 16 years> > > Saturn 19 years> > > Mercury 17 years> > > Ketu 7 years.> > > Venus 20 years> > > > > > In your program, on what authority have you reduced the duration of each> > > dasa? > > > > > > I look forward to your response.> > > > > > Thanks. With best regards.> > > > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > > > 1 / 94 Marius Street > > > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > > > Australia > > > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > > > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > > > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy [ranga@m...] > > > Tuesday, 8 March 2005 11:59 PM> > > > > > === message truncated ===> > > --------- > A.R.Raichur bombay> anant_1608 > raichuranant> USE ONE OF THESE ADDRESS ES ONLY> tel: 022-2506 2609 > ---------> > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 dear friends, A good debate is going on here. I would like to add my experience here. 1]About 6-7 years ago we were mostly using manual charts for calculations. There we were getting dates of starting a dasa at the same day. That used 365 days a year calculations. 2]The software programmes of famous astroexpert.com [now closed] also used 365 days year and all the dasas starting on the same day of the year. 3]Now, I am using a KP software of: http://astraura.franklandhosting.com/Home This also gives dasa days starting on the same calender date. That means 365 days a year. InderVohra , anant raichur <anant_1608> wrote: > Dear Friends > > Which is the Basic UNIT of the Dasas of the Vimsottari System? > > IS it the YEAR or the DAY. > > IF it is the YEAR, then the There are two types of Years. THE SOLAR > > YEAR and the SIDERIAL YEAR. > > KSK has, I beleve, stated that we should use the SOLAR YEARS. The year being > > the Return of the SUN to the same star in heavens. > > IF this is accepted the 365.25 or 360 days controversy relates to the Division > of this Solar Year into number of equal parts called days. > > IF DAY is accepted as the BASIC UNIT then the Dashasa should have been > > expressed in number of DAYS, not years. > > I am unable to agree to sun's Dasa of 6years being 6*360= 2160 days. > > Good luck > --- Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy <ranga@m...> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Vaidun, > > Thanks very much for introducing yourself for the benefit of the > > group. You have an admirable background. I am happy to answer any > > question I am capable of, irrespective of who poses the question; the > > background does not matter. After all, the purpose of this interaction > > is to learn. > > > > Coming to the point, as I mentioned in my previous posting, the issue > > is the " day " . I find it difficult to agree with the proposition > > " 360*D2 = 365.2422*D3 will be correct " > > To me D2 == D3, so 360 * D2 < 365.25 *D3. > > > > Taking your Dasa periods: > > Sun starts on: 24 Sep 1954 > > > > Sun dasa lasts 6 Vimshottari years, with each year having 360 days > > (solar days). So the total number of solar days for Sun dasa = 6 * 360 > > = 2160 days. Adding 2160 days to 24 sep 1954, we get the start of next > > dasa, i.e., > > Moon starts on: 23 Aug 1960 > > > > Similarly for other dasas, and subperiods. > > > > I believe this is the calculation other programs apply since TW has > > shown there is near agreement among various software. > > > > As I mentioned earlier, if this approach is incorrect and proper proof > > is given, we will be happy to rectify our mistakes. > > > > After all, software should not produce erroneous results. > > > > Regards, > > Rangarajan > > P.S: After I uploaded our program, I noticed an error appearing in > > some cases in 360-day dasa calculation. I hope to upload the corrcted > > version in a day or two. > > > > , " Vaidun Vidyadhar " <vvidya@o...> wrote: > > > Dear Mr Rangarajan, > > > > > > Thank you for your email below. I am very happy to interact with > > the author > > > of KPAstro2.0. At the outset I must say your program looks and > > works quite > > > well. > > > > > > I know your background but you know nothing about me. I was > > introduced to > > > KP in 1987 when I was living and working in Madras. I didn't know > > then that > > > KP was a little different from traditional vedic astrology. Anyway, > > I did > > > read all of Prof KSK's Readers. I also did the course under Mr > > Hariharan in > > > 1988. I am an ex Group Captain from the Indian Air Force, an ex fighter > > > pilot. Mathematics has been my strong point. I am telling you all this > > > because I don't want you to think you are interacting with a > > half-baked nit > > > wit. > > > > > > Now coming to the point you have raised, you have said: > > > > > > " It is not clear to me how you say that " day " as used in Vimshottari > > > context is different in value from the " day " in solar year. In your > > view, > > > 360 * vimshottari_day == 365.25 * solar_day > > > What is the source that supports this claim? " > > > > > > I have not said " that " day " as used in the Vimshotdhari context is > > different > > > in value from the " day " in solar year. " What I did say was a " day " > > in the > > > 360 days per year calendar is different from a " day " in the Real Time, > > > 365.25 days per year calendar. AVimshotdhari year is the same as > > a solar > > > year. A Vimshotdhari day is the same as a solar day. There is no > > > difference. However, one day in the 365.25 days per year calendar > > is not > > > the same as one day in the 360 days per year calendar. THAT is the > > crux of > > > the problem. > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > " Suppose we exaggerate this a little bit and propose that Vimshottari > > > year had only 200 days, will the above equality still hold good? " > > > > > > The Vimshotdhari year is same as the solar year. There is no > > difference. > > > The Vimshotdhari dasa cycle takes 120 solar years to complete. One > > > Vimshotdhari year is same as the solar year. One Vimshotdhari day > > is same > > > as one solar day. However, one CAN take a solar year and divide it > > into any > > > number of equal parts. We could divide it by 200 (as you say), or > > 360 or > > > 365.2422. If we do this we will get three different units. Let us call > > > these units D1, D2 amd D3. > > > Then, > > > > > > 200*D1 = 360*D2 = 365.2422*D3 will be correct. > > > > > > D3 is one solar day which is = 24 hours. The length of D2 and D3 > > will be > > > different. > > > > > > The dates shown in the Green Table of the Excel file that I sent you > > were > > > not derived from MY own method of calculations. I have followed the > > steps > > > and instructions given by Prof KSK in his Readers on how to draw up a > > > dasa/bhukti/anthras chart. Mr Raichur had very kindly given his > > > calculations. He also follows Prof KSK's methodology. In the case > > of my > > > chart, the dates indicated by him for end of my Venus dasa and start > > of the > > > other dasas correspond to the dates calculated in the Green Table > > provided > > > by me. The dates shown in the Green Table belong to a 360 days per year > > > calendar. Please note that though I have used the 360 days per year > > > calendar, all dasas start on the same day of the month, viz. 27 Nov. > > But > > > more than that, the duration of each dasa corresponds exactly to the > > > stipulated length of each dasa in years as per the Vimshotdhari dasa > > cycle, > > > as shown below: > > > > > > Sun 6 years > > > Moon 10 years > > > Mars 7 years > > > Rahu 18 years > > > Jupiter 16 years > > > Saturn 19 years > > > Mercury 17 years > > > Ketu 7 years. > > > > > > I have answered your questions. Can I request you to kindly answer > > one of > > > mine please? > > > > > > My birth details are: > > > Date and time of birth: 20 June 1942, 1549 hours (Indian Standard > > Time, GMT > > > + 5:30) > > > Place of birth: Walajapet, Lat 12N56, Long 79E23 > > > In the case of my own chart, in KPAstro2.0, under the Settings Menu, > > > Vimshottari Dasa, when I select 360 days per year, the onset dates > > of the > > > various dasas is as follows: > > > > > > Sun: 24 Sep 1954 > > > Moon: 23 Aug 1960 > > > Mars: 02 Jul 1970 > > > Rahu: 26 May 1977 > > > Jupiter: 21 Feb 1995 > > > Saturn: 29 Nov 2010 > > > Mercury: 21 Aug 2029 > > > Ketu: 24 May 2046 > > > > > > From the above it can be seen that the duration of the various dasas is > > > significantly shorter than the stipulated number of years in the > > > Vimshotdhari dasa cycle. Prof KSK himself has stated at page 82 in his > > > First Reader that the number of years allocated to each planet are > > as shown > > > below: > > > > > > Sun 6 years > > > Moon 10 years > > > Mars 7 years > > > Rahu 18 years > > > Jupiter 16 years > > > Saturn 19 years > > > Mercury 17 years > > > Ketu 7 years. > > > Venus 20 years > > > > > > In your program, on what authority have you reduced the duration of each > > > dasa? > > > > > > I look forward to your response. > > > > > > Thanks. With best regards. > > > > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > > > 1 / 94 Marius Street > > > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > > > Australia > > > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > > > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > > > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy [ranga@m...] > > > Tuesday, 8 March 2005 11:59 PM > > > > > > === message truncated === > > > --------- > A.R.Raichur bombay > anant_1608 > raichuranant > USE ONE OF THESE ADDRESS ES ONLY > tel: 022-2506 2609 > --------- > > > > > 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.