Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 "It is technically possible that all of us are wrong, but it seems to me that that is highly improbable." All of you are WRONG. All of you have not UNDERSTOOD the subject. Mr Raichur is the ONLY one who has understood correctly. Thank God we have him in our midst. 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 8:02 PM Subject: Re: Vimshottari Period - Clarification 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 6.1Moon start: 4th Sept 2051, end: 13th July 20612) AstroWorksMoon start: 28th June 2025, end: 7th May 20353) Shri Jyothi StarMoon Start: 5th July 1977, end: 14th May 1987All 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 hi all group members first of all i have to introduce my self. i am a Civil engineer and a software developer. two years ago i heared about KP and i see it very accurate. before this i did not have intrest in astrology and astrologers too. now i am a astrologer of KP. i learned this from my guruji Mr. R.N.Chaturvedi who is 75 yrs of age and has his more than 40 yrs of KP experience.i started predictions in 10 days with his grace. He has meet mr. k.s.k personally and also attended so many seminars of him. now i am also developing a software based on KP. regarding this discussion i go with mr.raichur. he is correct and i am also following the same. i would like to be the part of all future discussions. regards Dushyant Gautam ______________________ India Matrimony: Find your life partner online Go to: http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony 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, and members. Let it be clear that the Dasa Year is a Solar Year (Calender Year). the 360/365.25 days comes only when we are considering the fractions of this Solar Year for fixing the date of ending of the Dasa/Bhukti periods. good luck. --- Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy <ranga 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 > === 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 I do not wish to comment on the Other Soft Wares. Ask shree Kuppu Ganpathy, one of the most experienced K.P. Astrologer, and get his opinion on thid Subject. Good Luck --- Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy <ranga wrote: > > > 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: > === 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 Mr Sridhaeran, Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate it. It is good to know there are others also out there who can see the light. With regards. Vaidun Vidyadhar 1 / 94 Marius Street Tamworth, NSW 2340 Australia Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) Mobile: 0414 870 083 Email: vvidya B Sridhaeran [raichur_m] Thursday, 10 March 2005 9:09 AM Subject: RE: Vimshottari Period - Clarification 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 11, 2005 Report Share Posted March 11, 2005 Dear Rangarajan, You have said, "It is technically possible that all of us are wrong, but it seems to me that that is highly improbable." I wouldn't lay too much stock on that. It wasn't too long ago that 99% of the scientific community (not the general population, mind you, but the scientific community) of that time thought that the world is flat and if you go too far, you will fall off the edge. The 1% who thought otherwise would have been the laughing stock if they had voiced their opinion. Some of the 1% were even burnt at the stake for promoting witchcraft. This didn't happen too long ago. There is a saying, "You can only lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." Similarly, one can only explain in as many different ways as possible, but one cannot make the other UNDERSTAND. The actual process of understanding has to come from within. As a flying instructor, when I try to explain some intricate aspect of aerodynamics to my students , some don't understand, no matter how I put it across. One can pour a bucket of water into a cup, but the cup can only hold, just the one cup of water. 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 8:02 PM Subject: Re: Vimshottari Period - Clarification 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 6.1Moon start: 4th Sept 2051, end: 13th July 20612) AstroWorksMoon start: 28th June 2025, end: 7th May 20353) Shri Jyothi StarMoon Start: 5th July 1977, end: 14th May 1987All 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 11, 2005 Report Share Posted March 11, 2005 Dear Mr.Vidyadhar( and All Members), You Have Reflected The Same Lines What My mind Is Having... " There is a saying, " You can only lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. " Similarly, one can only explain in as many different ways as possible, but one cannot make the other UNDERSTAND. The actual process of understanding has to come from within. As a flying instructor, when I try to explain some intricate aspect of aerodynamics to my students , some don't understand, no matter how I put it across. One can pour a bucket of water into a cup, but the cup can only hold, just the one cup of water. " My Humble Request Is Please Try Out Practically To Know The Result... Indvidual Worship Should Be Avoided... Blind Following Is Not Necessary... Any One Is Not Above Of All... So Preaching By Some One Is Not Important... The Days To Be Used For Dhasa Calculation Is Solar Days Or Mean Sidereal Days ... Savana Year Or Souramana Year All Are To Tested Only By One's Own Expriments Only... It Is Not Necessary To Follow A Person Blindly... Saying He Has Followed This So Iam Follwing It... So Please Do The Expriments, Tests Of Your Own ... Come Out With Statistics... Regards, S.N.Rajasekaran , " Vaidun Vidyadhar " <vvidya@o...> wrote: > Dear Rangarajan, > > You have said, > > " It is technically possible that all of us are wrong, but it seems to me > that that is highly improbable. " > > I wouldn't lay too much stock on that. It wasn't too long ago that 99% of > the scientific community (not the general population, mind you, but the > scientific community) of that time thought that the world is flat and if you > go too far, you will fall off the edge. The 1% who thought otherwise would > have been the laughing stock if they had voiced their opinion. Some of the > 1% were even burnt at the stake for promoting witchcraft. This didn't > happen too long ago. > > There is a saying, " You can only lead a horse to water, but you can't make > it drink. " Similarly, one can only explain in as many different ways as > possible, but one cannot make the other UNDERSTAND. The actual process of > understanding has to come from within. > > As a flying instructor, when I try to explain some intricate aspect of > aerodynamics to my students , some don't understand, no matter how I put it > across. One can pour a bucket of water into a cup, but the cup can only > hold, just the one cup of water. > > 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...] > Thursday, 10 March 2005 8:02 PM > > Re: Vimshottari Period - Clarification > > > > 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...
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.