Guest guest Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 Dear All, On further contemplation, I have changed my opinion regarding including Lagnayu in pindayu calculations - and now understands that Skanda and Mihira were against including Lagnayu in Pindayu calculations - and so modified my previous article on the same and posting it again. The Lagnayu worksheet uploaded earlier in files section is modified and uploaded again. This time the corrected version. (But don't expect it to give realistic longevity in actual cases, since Pindayu itself is not accurate and a system that needs corrections, even though it itself is the oldest ayurdaya calculation system available to us). Pindayu article is pasted below -=============================== Pindayu Ayurdaya System - Written by Sreenadh OG Pindayu is a well favored ayurdaya calculation method approved and appreciated by many ancient sages. In Brihat Jataka Mihra states - Maya Yavana Manintha Saktipurvair Divasakaradishu valtsara pradishta Nava-tithi-vishaya-aswi-bhoota-rudra Dasa sahita dasa cha swa-tungabheshu (Brihat Jataka) [As per the scholars Maya, Yavana, Manintha and Parasara, the planets provide the following years of longevity when placed in their maximum degree of exaltation. Sun – 19 years; Moon-25 years; Mars-15 years; Mercury-12 years; Jupiter-15 years; Venus-21 years; Saturn-20 years] Is it a method self created and proposed by Maya etc? Or is it a method that finds its base in older and more authentic Rishis? Of course the ancient scholars – even though always tries to fill the logical gaps – never try to propose baseless arguments by their own, since astrology is an ancient advice that depends on purity and continuity of the traditional advice. (Jyotisham agama sasra – astrology is a truthful traditional advice that passes from generation to generation). Same is true in this case as well. May or Parasara is not inventing a new method, but is just elaborating a method that is given in the prime text of indian astrology – i.e. Skanda Hora, also known by the name Jyotishmati Upanishad. In ancient indian astrology the words of Skanda to Sage Brahma (the contents of Skanda hora) are so revered that, they are treated as gods own words; words that will always come true and uttered with utmost sincerity! It is believed that all searches to find the origin of Skanda hora is futile – since Skanda hora itself was the prime text of ancient Indian astrology. As old as god, shrouded in mystery, but shines by radiating the rays sincerity all around! Any way let us see what Skanda is saying on this longevity context. Here goes the quote – Athata Ayushaschintaisha mahan bharoyamagrataH Na vyavasthedametavadadya swaswati vidyate Apyayate krite njanatretayam pranamsamyamat Ayushmatyadibhistadva Ishtibhir dwapare yuge Na njanam na cha yogascha navadhyo vaidiko vidhiH Kalau tat parimasama iti kechid vipaschitaH Manvana iva tungaste Surya ekonavimsatim Paramayuranushnamsau saradaH panchavimsatim Bhaume panchadasa prahu sarado dwadasenduja Jeeve panchadasacharye daityanam panchavimsatim Mande vimsatimete cha naivamischanti tat sada Yavat krite na tavadvai tretayantadvichakshate Tretayam yavadetadvai tavanna dwapare yuge Dwapare yavadetadvai tavannaiva kalau yuge Evam yuge yuge tasya hrasam kinna vichakshate Etavattvam mato noonam na teshanchatra sasvatam Tasyayuraprasiddhantadekadha jyotisham sada Prasiddhamitametesham neecheshooccha dalam hi tat. (Skanda hora) [Now it is thoughts on longevity. When I told you that I will think about longevity, it is as if I have taken a heavy and difficult to fulfill responsibility. Because, longevity is never certain or fixed; it decreases always - with the advent of every yuga (such as Krita, Treta, Dwapara, Kali). During Krita yuga longevity increases due to enlightenment, in trata yuga due to yoga, in dwapara yuga due to yagjna (yaga and homa). In Kali yuga there is no value for enlightenment, yoga or yagjna – there is no chance of increasing longevity in any special way. Due to this even though it is difficult to determine longevity in krita-treta-dwapara, it won't be so in kali yuga. Thinking like this, as if they are going to correctly calculate the longevity, some sages propose different longevity periods for planets. (Actually even neither me nor they don't think that there is any such certainty or accuracy – even in kaliyuga longevity is not certain and we can not be sure). They assign – 19 years to Sun, 25 years to Moon, 15 years to Mars, 12 years to Mercury, 15 years to Jupiter, 21 years to Venus, 20 years to Saturn – when they are in exaltation. How longevity was in Krita, it is not so in Treta, and not so in Dwapara and not so in Kali – it decreases with every coming Yuga. How can we be certain that the from the beginning of the yuga to its end as well it will remain the same? It is not possible. So certainly in Kali yuga also longevity cannot be fixed, it is changing, ever decreasing. Even those who ascribe fixed years to Sun etc knew this. Therefore even they knew that longevity cannot be calculated with certainty. The only thing on which they all agrees is that "Longevity indicated by a planet in debilitation is just half as it is in exaltation", nothing else] Interesting! It is well evident that even though Skanda deals with the subject of longevity in his book Skanda Hora, even he is not of the opinion that longevity can be predicted with certainty. There could be many factors such as habits of the native, environment in which he live, good and bad deeds he do, blessings from deities and elders that can certainly influence his longevity. If even Skanda says that longevity cannot be calculated with exactness, who are we to argue that the calculated longevity – whether it be Pindayu, Amsayu or what ever – could in anyway `really' indicate the maximum longevity? Longevity calculation is just a tool that helps in approximation of longevity – that is the only thing that we can say. It is well evident that only 7 grahas – such as Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus and Saturn are considered in this system. Rahu and Ketu are mentioned neither in the Skanda hora quote nor in the Brihat Jataka quote. What the above quote mentions is the longevity provided by the planets when they are in their respective maximum degree of exaltation, which becomes half when they are in their respective maximum debilitation degrees as evident from the Skanda hora bit "neecheshooccha dalam hi tat" (Longevity indicated by a planet in debilitation is just half as it is in exaltation). Thus when placed in maximum degree of exaltation planets provide the following longevity periods – Sl. Planet Longevity (Years) 1 Sun 19 2 Moon 25 3 Mars 15 4 Mercury 12 5 Jupiter 15 6 Venus 21 7 Saturn 20 Total 127 Thus it is well evident that the total longevity indicated by Pindayu in general is 127 years; and in general it applies to people whose age is above 63.5 years only 127/5 = 62 years). i.e. If we consider this rule alone then, if all planets are in their respective maximum degree of exaltation then the longevity would be 127 years and if they are all in their maximum degree of debilitation then the longevity would be 63.5 years. Hum. Do not seem to be much intuitive if we consider rules mentioned upto this only. What we already learned from the Skanda hora bit "neecheshooccha dalam hi tat" (Longevity indicated by a planet in debilitation is just half as it is in exaltation), is clarified in the following Brihat Jataka quote – Neechetortham hrasati hi tayorandarasthenupato Hora tvamsapratimamapare rasitulyam vadanti (Brihat Jataka) [if the planets are in their respective maximum degree of debilitation then the longevity provided by them becomes half of what they can provide while in maximum exaltation degree. If they are somewhere in between, then the longevity provided by the planet would be proportionate to their respective position (between maximum degree of exaltation and maximum degree of debilitation). (Some are of the opinion that) Lagna gives longevity as indicated by Navamsa count of lagna, but some others (other sages) say that the longevity indicated by Lagna is in tune with the Sign count of Lagna (I don't agree to them both)] We get the following extra points from this quote – 1) The longevity provided by planets placed anywhere between their maximum degree of exaltation (provides full longevity) and maximum degree of debilitation (provides half longevity) should be calculated `proportionately' – i.e. by considering their distance from maximum degree of exaltation or debilitation. 2) As per Mihira The longevity provided by Laganamsaka should not be considered; but some others are of the opinion that longevity provided by the Lagna should be considered. (Yet others add them together and take the average by dividing the sum by two). There should not be any conflict of opinion about the first point of `considering proportion' to derive longevity provided by planet placed anywhere, since the same is inherent in the prime Skanda hora and Brihat Jataka quotes itself. What Brihat Jataka states on the same is well supported by Skanda hora quotes such as – Ubhayorandarasthasya grahasya parivatsaraH Atha jneyonupatena neha bharo vipaschitam (Skanda Hora) [if the planet is between them (i.e. maximum degree of exaltation and maximum degree of debilitation) then the longevity provided by the planet should be derived considering `proportion' – it is not at all difficult (there is no complexity involved in this)] We agree with the same, and there is total agreement between all texts on the same. Now coming to the second point, the meaning of the said Brihat Jataka quote could get misinterpreted if the Skanda hora opinion about the same is not known. When correctly understood, Brihat Jataka clearly states that, longevity indicated Lagnamsaka SHOULD NOT be considered and added with the total longevity. Skanda hora also expresses the same opinion through the following words. "athaike lagnamamsena" [some consider lagnamsaka as well (for longevity calculations)]; and "rasinetyapare viduH" [some others states that lagna as well should be considered (for longevity calculations)]. It is clearly evident that both there are NOT the opinion of Skanda hora. Thus clearly Skanda is of the opinion that, "Longevity as given by Lagna or Lagnaksaka SHOULD NOT be considered in Pindayu calculations". Mihira is just reflecting this very same opinion in Brihat Jataka. If someone thinks that, Mihira was in support of considering Lagnamsakayu during Pindayu calculations, then please answer the following natural questions that may arise - 1) When proportional distance from exaltation and debilitation is considered for longevity determination of planets, how can we consider Lagna or lagnamsaka at all (since they have neither exaltation nor debilitation)? It does not sound logical especially considering the fact that even the other grahas Rahu and Ketu are not considered. 2) Even if required that Lagna should be considered, why it is lagnamsaka and not lagna. Why not the average of longevity as told by Skanda hora, Sounaka hora and many other texts? These doubts are clearly logical and cannot be brushed aside. As per my current understanding, the clear answer to the first question is that – Just like Skanda, Mihira too DOES NOT support considering Longevity indicated by Lagna or Lagnamsaka in Pindayu calculations. Another point is that, if we don't consider Lagna or Lagnamsaka in Pindayu calculations then, the result derived by the calculations will not be realistic at all. Thus definitely Sknada and Mihira were right in asking us NOT TO use Lagnayu – they were all good practical scholars. Now coming to the second question, if we plan to consider lagna or lagnamsaka, then what? Should we consider lagna or lagnamsaka? Under what condition? As clarified earlier while discussing Amsayu calculations, the traditional advice is to add the Lagnayu and Lagnamsakayu always and divide by two, as followed by ancient texts like Brihat prajaptya in quotes such as – "Veeryanyitaya bhamsena rasina cha samam vidu" [(even when) lagnamsaka is strong take the average (longevity) as indicated by lagnamsaka and lagna]. Thus we have the following two conclusions based on the above discussion – In Pindhayu calculations only the 7 planets – Su, Mo, Ma, Me, Ju, Ve, Sa – are considered, and NOT Ra, Ke and Lagna.Lagnayu should also be considered. In this case always consider the average of longevity indicated by langamsaka and lagna. Thus it seems that our basic rules for this Ayurdasa are clear. Brihat Jataka goes on describe that the following deductions (harana) should be applied to the result arrived at. 1) Satru Kshetra hrana (deduction for placement in enemy house) 2) Moudhya harana (deduction for combustion) 3) Drisyartha harana (deduction for being in visible half) 4) Amsayu harana (deduction for major malefic in lagna) Since we have discussed the same in detail while dealing with Amsayur dasa (Navamsaka based Ayurdaya) calculation earlier itself, I won't go into the details of the same here. They remain the same here as well and equally applicable – ditto the same way. Bharana (addition of longevity) rules are not applicable to Pindayu. A very important point that should be mentioned is that canceling Lagnayu if there any malefic in Lagna DOES NOT apply to Pindayu at all, but the same is applicable to Amsayu as Satyacharya and Brihat Jataka clearly state. If you forget to understand and consider this very important point, Pindayu method will fail to provide realistic longevity values. Playing with Pindayu based longevity calculation for various horoscopes gives me the feeling that, even though the oldest method available for longevity calculation, it is not even as much as efficient as Amsayu method. No wonder Mihira felt like saying "Bahusamyam samupaiti satya vakyam" (The words of satyacharya – about Amsayuradaya – is more accurate). In many example cases the Pindayu I got was much higher (usually more than 10 years or so) from the actual longevity experienced. I have the following suggestions – Since Skanda tells us that Longevity years ascribed to planets in Pindayu calculations is not fixed/permanent in all yugas we seems to have some freedom to modify these base years and try to arrive a logical conclusion – and thus correct Pindayu system.Since Skanda and Mihira clearly warns the use of Lagnayu in Pindayu calculations as evident from their ascribing this to `other' sages, we SHOULD NOT consider Lagnayu in Pindayu calculations at all. Further, even if someone plans to consider Lagnayu then too he should better consider the average of Lagnayu and Lagnamsakayu and then even if there is a malefic in Lagna lagnayu SHOULD NOT be dropped. (Since dropping lagnayu is a rule specific to Satyacharya proposed Navamsaka dasa alone). Hope this document will help at least some of you. == 0 == ===============================Love and regards,Sreenadh , "sreesog" <sreesog wrote:>> Dear All, > Please ignore the Pindayu worksheet uploaded by me. It contains some calculation errors. I will upload the corrected sheet later.> Regards,> Sreenadh> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 Dear All, * While using the Pindayu worksheet provided by me DON'T input the lagna sputa (to indicate this, I have used gray colored cells in that worksheet for Lagna sputa with 0 as default value).Considering the longevity indicated by planets ALONE will give a longevity that would be usually higher (at least 7+ years) than the actual longevity experienced. * BUT, if you want to experiment with the 'others' opinion as well (other than Skanda) then input the Laga longitude as well, and the worksheet will consider Lagnayu also in longevity calculations and will display the result accordingly. The unrealistic (7+ to 10+ years EXTRA) longevity provided by this method, prompts us to contemplate some corrections for this method and experiment with the same. * Even if all planets are in debilitation, and even if all Harana (deductions) apply completely, then too a native will get 7+ years longevity as per this method! That means that under any condition this method DOES NOT apply to natives died prior to 7 years. There is a 7 years extra longevity inherent in the max longevity of 127 years proposed by Pindayu (compared to the standard use of 120 years). This prompts us to ask - Since even skanda states that longevity years indicated by planets decrease gradually with the advent of Yugas, is it necessory to change the longevity years of planets and experiment with the same to arrive at a realistic value? * If the values provided by Pindayu is unrealistic, why still then too, Skanda, Daksha, Sounaka, Parasara, Maya, Mihira etc considered Pindayu as authentic? Is it just because of its 'oldestness' alone? Possibly it is so. This prompts us to think that, this oldest and 'once most accurate' (in some ancient period) method needs to be corrected and made realistic again by adjusting the longevity years given to the planets (This is the only major way of correcting this method I could visualize). * If we trust Skanda and other ancient sages and scholars upto Mihira, then certainly we SHOULD NOT consider Lagnayu or Lagnamsakayu in Pindayu calculations. That makes the unrealistic (7+ years more than actual) results given by Pindayu method more unrealistic (extending the difference usually to 10+ years). Hope some of you - who experiment with Pindayu and the worksheet provided - will find this information useful. Love and regards, Sreenadh 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.