Guest guest Posted May 15, 2008 Report Share Posted May 15, 2008 Dear Sreenadh, When a native is come for consultation , some of the main events are verified and only then assessment on future course of action is predicted.. Â As you are aware I ACCESS THE NATIVITY with the help of Varga chart and chitrapakchha Ayanamsa + year of 365.23 days. My article on ' Concept Of Vargottama 'is already available with you in which number of nativities are discussed in detail. Regards, Â Â G.K.GOEL Ph: 09350311433 Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR NEW DELHI-110 076 INDIA Sreenadh <sreesog Thursday, 15 May, 2008 12:08:13 PM Re: Choice of year length and Ayanamsa Dear bhagavathi ji, ==> > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I usually use > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008 Mer/jup/moon/ moon/rahu > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that) <== Muhurta was at 11.30 AM. In the sequence you provided (i.e. Mer/jup/moon/ moon/rahu) , why Mo? that too twice? Why Rahu? Why Ve is missing? Mo is 11th lord placed in 2nd; Ra is planet placed in 5th; But the most important thing why Ve the marriage significator (owner of 2nd house as well) missing from the list? I don't feel that these are ok, and do not think that, if the event was not known, you would be able to pin-point this event with this combination of Ayanamsa and Year length. Note to Goel ji: Dear Goel ji, what are these " much better results " ? Regards, Sreenadh ancient_indian_ astrology, " bhagavathi_ hariharan " <bhagavathi_ hariharan@ ...> wrote: > > Namaste Sreenadhji, > > Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I usually use > this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008 Mer/jup/moon/ moon/rahu > (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that) > > Regards, > > bhagavathi > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Gopal Goel > gkgoel1937@ wrote: > > > > Dear Friends, > > L-57 sec.. +365.2425 gives much better results. > > This is my experience. > > Regads, > > G.K.GOEL > > Ph: 09350311433 > > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR > > NEW DELHI-110 076 > > INDIA > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@ > > ancient_indian_ astrology > > Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 1:30:39 PM > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Choice of year length > (Tabulation against event) > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Sreenadh " > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > Sorry, I just noticed that I made one more typo in that mail > related to the Dasa listing related to L+365.2425 days. There fore I > am posing the corrected mail again below - > > ==> > > Please check yourself before buying some arguments on face > value, even if provided by Chandra hari ji. Here is the actual values > for your reference. (DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, > Kerala, India. Marriage date: 24 Feb 2008). The Vimsottari Dasa- > Antara upto 5 levels using JHora for various Ayanamsa and year length > combinations are given below. > > CH(L+44);365. 2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve Fails miserably > > CH(L+44); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Ke- Ju-Ve Matches with the event. But > none proposes this combination. > > CH(L+46); 365.2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Sa- Sa-Ma Fails miserably.. > > CH (L+46); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Me- Ve-Sa Matches with the event; > Perfect > > L+365.2425 days Me -Ju-Sa-Su-Ma- Mo Almost there. But why Su, Ma > and Mo? Where is Ve? > > L+360 days Me-Ju-Ke-Mo- Ju-Sa Not satisfactory. Why Ke and Mo? And > why not Ve present? > > From the above table it is clear that the opinion expressed by > Chandrahari that the event took place in Me-Ju-Sa is wrong if we buy > his argument on 44 more than Lahari and 365.2425 days. As per the > conditions 44 min more than Lahari and 365.2425 days, it would be > only " Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve which would fail as per every normal logic > for deriving the marriage timing. > > As normal astrologers what would we expect, for something like > marriage to fulfill in a chart as per Vimsottari dasa? For me the > simple and straight rule would be - Involvement of 7th lord, lagna > lord and Venus. If it is a love marriage the 5th lord should be > involved. The involvement of 2nd lord, 11th lord, and any planet in > its own Sign are also possibilities, even though secondary. As per > this simple thumb rule, in the above chart, the planets I would > expect to involve are - Ju (7th lord), Me (Lagna lord), Ve (marriage > significator) , Sa (5th lord, since it is a love marriage). Mo (the > 11th lord) and Ke (planet placed in 11th) could be possibilities but > only secondary. And I find only 2 sets of data in the above table > that satisfies this condition, viz, > > 1) CH (L+46); 360 days > > 2) CH (L+44); 360 days. > > The third choice L + 365.2425 is almost there upto Paryantara > level but not beyond that. I discard CH(L+44); 360 days due to the > following reasons - > > 1) None is in support of such an argument > > 2) This is almost an exception, a rare case. When we consider > numerous charts this usually does not seems to be as convincing as > the other combination CH (L+46), 360 days. After contrasting L+44 > with L+46, I feel more comfortable with L+46 for all practical > purposes. > > Thus I resort to my last and usual choice - L+46; 360 days. But > I know that, the people who use L+44 with 360 days and L with > 365.2425 days would also be " Almost there " . > > Hope I am clear. > > <== > > Love and regards, > > Sreenadh > > Re: Choice of year length > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > There is a typo in my previous mail; It is NOT 2 Feb 2008 but > instead 24th Feb 2008 as stated in previous mails. The table of Dasa- > Antara provided in my earlier mail is prepared for 24 Feb 2008 it > self and is correct. > > Love and regards, > > Sreenadh > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Sreenadh " > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > Re: Choice of year length > > > > Dear Neelam ji, > > Please verify it agin - especially the comparison of what > Chandra hari is speaking about and what you are speaking about. > > * Please note that Chandra hari is speaking about L+44 along > with 365.2425 days and NOT ABOUT Lahari + 365.2425 days; and you are > speaking about Lahari + 365.25 days (Of course you are true that with > Lahari+365.25 we will get Me-Ju-Sa. But that is NOT the issue here > and that will not solve the problem - since the argument is, whether > to use 365.2425 or 360 days along with CHANDRAHARI AYANAMSA) > > * DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, Kerala. Marriage > date: 2 Feb 2008. Year length: 365.2425 days (and NOT 365.25 days). > Use the latest version of JHora. (It could be a JHora bug/correction > as well) > > * Consider the Dasa from Moon only (and NOT from Lagna sputa) > > * Go up to the 5th level (and not just upto 3rd level) to ensure > that Unintended planets are not involved. (When you go upto 5th > level, you can easly see that L+365.2425 day combination too fails) > > Conclusion: Only L+46 along with 360 days savana year holds good. > > Love and regards, > > Sreenadh > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " neelam gupta " > > > neelamgupta07@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji, > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > > > With PL 7.1, lahiri ayanamsha, 365.25 days I am getting Mer-Ju- > sa-ve > > > as the > > > > dasha sequence from 12 Feb -5 mar. > > > > This to me is showing an absolute possibility for marriage that > > > happened on > > > > 24-feb. > > > > Hence I said so. Reasons already given in my mail. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > Neelam > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Go to > http://in..promos. / groups/bestofyah oo/ > > > Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Go to http://in.promos./groups/bestof/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2008 Report Share Posted May 15, 2008 Dear Sreenadh, When a native is come for consultation , some of the main events are verified and only then assessment on future course of action is predicted.. As you are aware I ACCESS THE NATIVITY with the help of Varga chart and chitrapakchha Ayanamsa + year of 365.23 days. My article on ' Concept Of Vargottama 'is already available with you in which number of nativities are discussed in detail. Regards, G.K.GOELPh: 09350311433Add: L-409, SARITA VIHARNEW DELHI-110 076INDIA Sreenadh <sreesog Sent: Thursday, 15 May, 2008 12:08:13 PM Re: Choice of year length and Ayanamsa Dear bhagavathi ji,==>> Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I usually use> this.. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008 Mer/jup/moon/ moon/rahu> (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that)<==Muhurta was at 11.30 AM. In the sequence you provided (i.e.Mer/jup/moon/ moon/rahu) , why Mo? that too twice? Why Rahu? Why Ve ismissing? Mo is 11th lord placed in 2nd; Ra is planet placed in 5th; Butthe most important thing why Ve the marriage significator (owner of 2ndhouse as well) missing from the list? I don't feel that these are ok,and do not think that, if the event was not known, you would be able topin-point this event with this combination of Ayanamsa and Year length.Note to Goel ji: Dear Goel ji, what are these "much better results"? :)Regards,Sreenadhancient_indian_ astrology, "bhagavathi_ hariharan"<bhagavathi_ hariharan@ ...> wrote:>> Namaste Sreenadhji,>> Could you also check with L+ 360 tithis (lunar year), I usually use> this. With this chart I get on 24 Feb, 2008 Mer/jup/moon/ moon/rahu> (if muhurtha was after 9.08.am or mars, earlier than that)>> Regards,>> bhagavathi>>>> ancient_indian_ astrology, Gopal Goel> gkgoel1937@ wrote:> >> > Dear Friends,> > L-57 sec. +365.2425 gives much better results.> > This is my experience.> > Regads,> > G.K.GOEL> > Ph: 09350311433> > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR> > NEW DELHI-110 076> > INDIA> >> >> >> > > > Sreenadh sreesog@> > ancient_indian_ astrology> > Tuesday, 6 May, 2008 1:30:39 PM> > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Choice of year length> (Tabulation against event)> >> >> >> >> > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Sreenadh"> <sreesog@> wrote:> >> > Dear Neelam ji,> > Sorry, I just noticed that I made one more typo in that mail> related to the Dasa listing related to L+365.2425 days. There fore I> am posing the corrected mail again below -> > ==>> > Please check yourself before buying some arguments on face> value, even if provided by Chandra hari ji. Here is the actual values> for your reference. (DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum,> Kerala, India. Marriage date: 24 Feb 2008). The Vimsottari Dasa-> Antara upto 5 levels using JHora for various Ayanamsa and year length> combinations are given below.> > CH(L+44);365. 2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve Fails miserably> > CH(L+44); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Ke- Ju-Ve Matches with the event. But> none proposes this combination.> > CH(L+46); 365.2425 days Me-Ra-Su-Sa- Sa-Ma Fails miserably..> > CH (L+46); 360 days Me-Ju-Ju-Me- Ve-Sa Matches with the event;> Perfect> > L+365.2425 days Me -Ju-Sa-Su-Ma- Mo Almost there. But why Su, Ma> and Mo? Where is Ve?> > L+360 days Me-Ju-Ke-Mo- Ju-Sa Not satisfactory. Why Ke and Mo? And> why not Ve present?> > From the above table it is clear that the opinion expressed by> Chandrahari that the event took place in Me-Ju-Sa is wrong if we buy> his argument on 44 more than Lahari and 365.2425 days. As per the> conditions 44 min more than Lahari and 365.2425 days, it would be> only "Me-Ra-Su-Ke- Ra-Ve which would fail as per every normal logic> for deriving the marriage timing.> > As normal astrologers what would we expect, for something like> marriage to fulfill in a chart as per Vimsottari dasa? For me the> simple and straight rule would be - Involvement of 7th lord, lagna> lord and Venus. If it is a love marriage the 5th lord should be> involved. The involvement of 2nd lord, 11th lord, and any planet in> its own Sign are also possibilities, even though secondary. As per> this simple thumb rule, in the above chart, the planets I would> expect to involve are - Ju (7th lord), Me (Lagna lord), Ve (marriage> significator) , Sa (5th lord, since it is a love marriage). Mo (the> 11th lord) and Ke (planet placed in 11th) could be possibilities but> only secondary. And I find only 2 sets of data in the above table> that satisfies this condition, viz,> > 1) CH (L+46); 360 days> > 2) CH (L+44); 360 days.> > The third choice L + 365.2425 is almost there upto Paryantara> level but not beyond that. I discard CH(L+44); 360 days due to the> following reasons -> > 1) None is in support of such an argument> > 2) This is almost an exception, a rare case. When we consider> numerous charts this usually does not seems to be as convincing as> the other combination CH (L+46), 360 days. After contrasting L+44> with L+46, I feel more comfortable with L+46 for all practical> purposes.> > Thus I resort to my last and usual choice - L+46; 360 days. But> I know that, the people who use L+44 with 360 days and L with> 365.2425 days would also be "Almost there". > > Hope I am clear.> > <==> > Love and regards,> > Sreenadh> > Re: Choice of year length> >> > Dear Neelam ji,> > There is a typo in my previous mail; It is NOT 2 Feb 2008 but> instead 24th Feb 2008 as stated in previous mails. The table of Dasa-> Antara provided in my earlier mail is prepared for 24 Feb 2008 it> self and is correct.> > Love and regards,> > Sreenadh> >> > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Sreenadh"> <sreesog@> wrote:> >> > Re: Choice of year length> >> > Dear Neelam ji,> > Please verify it agin - especially the comparison of what> Chandra hari is speaking about and what you are speaking about.> > * Please note that Chandra hari is speaking about L+44 along> with 365.2425 days and NOT ABOUT Lahari + 365.2425 days; and you are> speaking about Lahari + 365.25 days (Of course you are true that with> Lahari+365.25 we will get Me-Ju-Sa. But that is NOT the issue here> and that will not solve the problem - since the argument is, whether> to use 365.2425 or 360 days along with CHANDRAHARI AYANAMSA)> > * DOB: 18 Nov 1971; 2.55 AM; POB: Trivandrum, Kerala. Marriage> date: 2 Feb 2008. Year length: 365.2425 days (and NOT 365.25 days).> Use the latest version of JHora. (It could be a JHora bug/correction> as well)> > * Consider the Dasa from Moon only (and NOT from Lagna sputa)> > * Go up to the 5th level (and not just upto 3rd level) to ensure> that Unintended planets are not involved. (When you go upto 5th> level, you can easly see that L+365.2425 day combination too fails)> > Conclusion: Only L+46 along with 360 days savana year holds good.> > Love and regards,> > Sreenadh> > > ancient_indian_ astrology@ .. com, "neelam gupta"> > > neelamgupta07@ wrote:> > > >> > > > Dear Sreenadh ji,> > > >> > > > Namaste,> > > >> > > > With PL 7.1, lahiri ayanamsha, 365.25 days I am getting Mer-Ju-> sa-ve> > > as the> > > > dasha sequence from 12 Feb -5 mar.> > > > This to me is showing an absolute possibility for marriage that> > > happened on> > > > 24-feb.> > > > Hence I said so. Reasons already given in my mail.> > > >> > > > Regards> > > >> > > > Neelam> > > >> > >> >> >> > Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Go to> http://in.promos.. / groups/bestofyah oo/> >> Explore your hobbies and interests. Click here to begin. 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.