Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 >You are so very right Ash! I am using 360. But I thought Vimshottari >dasha is based on Lunar calendar, hence the 360. Isn't that correct?>Anyways, I will try to use 365.2524 and see.>>Thanks a lot,>Regards,>Manu Dear Manu, I dare to offer some explanation here regarding Vimshottari dasha. I hope it will be understandable. Actually, the contraversy of 360 vs 365 days per year has come into being because in this day and age those who are studying vedic astrology are doing so without being properly educated in vedic cultural traditions. From the study of Vedas and astronomical texts we find that the Sun is the basis for measuring the time. That the year is based on the seasons which is again based on the movement of the Sun. There are several types od years in vogue in vedic culture. The only reference to a 360 day year was used strictly for sacrificial purpuses, the soma-yajnas, it was not lunar or solar year, nor was it used for civil or astrological purposes. The vedic lunar calendar is actually Solar, because it is tied to the seasons which in turn are the Solar phenomena, thus the Lunar and Solar calendars measure the same lenght of time and do not diverge as a function of time as does 360 d/y in comparison with the 365 d/y. Confusion arose after the British introduced the Gregorian calendar into India, then Lunar tithis became mistakenly equated with Solar days and the Lunar year of 360 tithis became confused with the solar year of 360 days. Inspite of this confusion pre-British classics in Vedic astrology such as Phala Dipika clearly state that the year of Mahadasha calculation is 365 day year. Anyway, this explanation and letter can be quite long, so I'll stop here. Good reference would be "The astrological magazine", January 1974. p.93, by H.R. Shankar, learned scholar regarding this subject matter. All the best, Dadhi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 Dear Dadhi, Many thanks. It was very informative. I have updated my calculations and I am getting very close results now. Regards, Manu , " Dadhi " <denis@d...> wrote: > >You are so very right Ash! I am using 360. But I thought Vimshottari > >dasha is based on Lunar calendar, hence the 360. Isn't that correct? > >Anyways, I will try to use 365.2524 and see. > > > >Thanks a lot, > >Regards, > >Manu > > Dear Manu, I dare to offer some explanation here regarding Vimshottari dasha. I hope it will be understandable. > > Actually, the contraversy of 360 vs 365 days per year has come into being because in this day and age those who are studying vedic astrology are doing so without being properly educated in vedic cultural traditions. From the study of Vedas and astronomical texts we find that the Sun is the basis for measuring the time. That the year is based on the seasons which is again based on the movement of the Sun. There are several types od years in vogue in vedic culture. The only reference to a 360 day year was used strictly for sacrificial purpuses, the soma-yajnas, it was not lunar or solar year, nor was it used for civil or astrological purposes. > > The vedic lunar calendar is actually Solar, because it is tied to the seasons which in turn are the Solar phenomena, thus the Lunar and Solar calendars measure the same lenght of time and do not diverge as a function of time as does 360 d/y in comparison with the 365 d/y. > > Confusion arose after the British introduced the Gregorian calendar into India, then Lunar tithis became mistakenly equated with Solar days and the Lunar year of 360 tithis became confused with the solar year of 360 days. Inspite of this confusion pre-British classics in Vedic astrology such as Phala Dipika clearly state that the year of Mahadasha calculation is 365 day year. Anyway, this explanation and letter can be quite long, so I'll stop here. Good reference would be " The astrological magazine " , January 1974. p.93, by H.R. Shankar, learned scholar regarding this subject matter. > > All the best, > Dadhi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 Dear Dadhi, The whole of your letter except the salutation and signature appears to be taken from someone elses copyrighted work, either that or it is a very remarkable coincidence. What is your explanation? The orginal can be found on the last page of this article. I read through the whole thing last week and recognized the part you copied: http://www.shyamasundaradasa.com/Shyama_site/what_is_jyotish/how_long_year/how_long_year_1.htm or http://tinyurl.com/39yg7 This doesn't seem correct. Is it right to make someone elses work appear to be your own original thinking? Where I come from it is called plagerism. Scholars of a subject always give their sources not steal them. FM PS that site has some other interesting articles as well. Dadhi [denis]Tuesday, January 27, 2004 1:06 PM Subject: 360 - 365 >You are so very right Ash! I am using 360. But I thought Vimshottari >dasha is based on Lunar calendar, hence the 360. Isn't that correct?>Anyways, I will try to use 365.2524 and see.>>Thanks a lot,>Regards,>Manu Dear Manu, I dare to offer some explanation here regarding Vimshottari dasha. I hope it will be understandable. Actually, the contraversy of 360 vs 365 days per year has come into being because in this day and age those who are studying vedic astrology are doing so without being properly educated in vedic cultural traditions. From the study of Vedas and astronomical texts we find that the Sun is the basis for measuring the time. That the year is based on the seasons which is again based on the movement of the Sun. There are several types od years in vogue in vedic culture. The only reference to a 360 day year was used strictly for sacrificial purpuses, the soma-yajnas, it was not lunar or solar year, nor was it used for civil or astrological purposes. The vedic lunar calendar is actually Solar, because it is tied to the seasons which in turn are the Solar phenomena, thus the Lunar and Solar calendars measure the same lenght of time and do not diverge as a function of time as does 360 d/y in comparison with the 365 d/y. Confusion arose after the British introduced the Gregorian calendar into India, then Lunar tithis became mistakenly equated with Solar days and the Lunar year of 360 tithis became confused with the solar year of 360 days. Inspite of this confusion pre-British classics in Vedic astrology such as Phala Dipika clearly state that the year of Mahadasha calculation is 365 day year. Anyway, this explanation and letter can be quite long, so I'll stop here. Good reference would be "The astrological magazine", January 1974. p.93, by H.R. Shankar, learned scholar regarding this subject matter. All the best, Dadhi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2004 Report Share Posted January 29, 2004 Dear Fabius, Yhis is the first message you ost on this list and it's to accuse somebody of plagiaris. As a moderator I wanted to point out the following Please sent such messages as a personal mail because the topic has nothing to do with our astrological research Secondly, i wanted to point out that we all are plagiating because we all use terxts and knowledge coming from sombody else. The mail Dadhi has sent to the list on the lenght of vimshotarri dashi can hardly be qualified as a " stealing " . So please, don't start any argument here. We all went on well together, so don't make a mess please. Best regards Margarita Fabius Maximus wrote: >Dear Dadhi, > >The whole of your letter except the salutation and signature appears to be taken >from someone elses copyrighted work, either that or it is a very remarkable >coincidence. What is your explanation? The orginal can be found on the last page >of this article. I read through the whole thing last week and recognized the >part you copied: > >http://www.shyamasundaradasa.com/Shyama_site/what_is_jyotish/how_long_year/how_\ l >ong_year_1.htm > >or > >http://tinyurl.com/39yg7 > >This doesn't seem correct. Is it right to make someone elses work appear to be >your own original thinking? Where I come from it is called plagerism. Scholars >of a subject always give their sources not steal them. > >FM > >PS that site has some other interesting articles as well. > > Dadhi [denis] > Tuesday, January 27, 2004 1:06 PM > > 360 - 365 > > > >You are so very right Ash! I am using 360. But I thought Vimshottari > >dasha is based on Lunar calendar, hence the 360. Isn't that correct? > >Anyways, I will try to use 365.2524 and see. > > > >Thanks a lot, > >Regards, > >Manu > > Dear Manu, I dare to offer some explanation here regarding Vimshottari dasha. >I hope it will be understandable. > > Actually, the contraversy of 360 vs 365 days per year has come into being >because in this day and age those who are studying vedic astrology are doing so >without being properly educated in vedic cultural traditions. From the study of >Vedas and astronomical texts we find that the Sun is the basis for measuring the >time. That the year is based on the seasons which is again based on the movement >of the Sun. There are several types od years in vogue in vedic culture. The only >reference to a 360 day year was used strictly for sacrificial purpuses, the >soma-yajnas, it was not lunar or solar year, nor was it used for civil or >astrological purposes. > > The vedic lunar calendar is actually Solar, because it is tied to the seasons >which in turn are the Solar phenomena, thus the Lunar and Solar calendars >measure the same lenght of time and do not diverge as a function of time as does >360 d/y in comparison with the 365 d/y. > > Confusion arose after the British introduced the Gregorian calendar into >India, then Lunar tithis became mistakenly equated with Solar days and the Lunar >year of 360 tithis became confused with the solar year of 360 days. Inspite of >this confusion pre-British classics in Vedic astrology such as Phala Dipika >clearly state that the year of Mahadasha calculation is 365 day year. Anyway, >this explanation and letter can be quite long, so I'll stop here. Good reference >would be " The astrological magazine " , January 1974. p.93, by H.R. Shankar, >learned scholar regarding this subject matter. > > All the best, > Dadhi > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2004 Report Share Posted January 29, 2004 Dear Margarita, > > margarita lettens [dmlettens] > Thursday, January 29, 2004 4:05 AM > > Re: 360 - 365 > > > Dear Fabius, > Yhis is the first message you ost on this list I have been lurking for some time. > and it's to accuse > somebody of plagiaris. Sorry if bringing notice of this is a cause of offense. I was just reading several texts by KN Rao where he especially criticized that modern astrologers always try to take credit for themselves and seldom credit the work of others. > As a moderator I wanted to point out the following > Please sent such messages as a personal mail because the topic has > nothing to do with our astrological research ok > Secondly, i wanted to point out that we all are plagiating because we > all use terxts and knowledge coming from sombody else. It is only plagerizing if we fail to credit the source, which is a sign of ingratitude. It is common practice in other disciplines to credit other's work even when researching. > The mail Dadhi has sent to the list on the lenght of vimshotarri dashi > can hardly be qualified as a " stealing " . That, of course, would be for the author (Shyamasundara Dasa) of the text to decide. Perhaps you should ask him and let us know what he thinks. > So please, don't start any > argument here. We all went on well together, so don't make a mess please. I can apreciate that and will follow your guideline to contact the person directly in the future. FM > Best regards > Margarita > > Fabius Maximus wrote: > > >Dear Dadhi, > > > >The whole of your letter except the salutation and signature > appears to be taken > >from someone elses copyrighted work, either that or it is a very > remarkable > >coincidence. What is your explanation? The orginal can be found > on the last page > >of this article. I read through the whole thing last week and > recognized the > >part you copied: > > > >http://www.shyamasundaradasa.com/Shyama_site/what_is_jyotish/how_ > long_year/how_l > >ong_year_1.htm > > > >or > > > >http://tinyurl.com/39yg7 > > > >This doesn't seem correct. Is it right to make someone elses > work appear to be > >your own original thinking? Where I come from it is called > plagerism. Scholars > >of a subject always give their sources not steal them. > > > >FM > > > >PS that site has some other interesting articles as well. > > > > Dadhi [denis] > > Tuesday, January 27, 2004 1:06 PM > > > > 360 - 365 > > > > > > >You are so very right Ash! I am using 360. But I thought Vimshottari > > >dasha is based on Lunar calendar, hence the 360. Isn't that correct? > > >Anyways, I will try to use 365.2524 and see. > > > > > >Thanks a lot, > > >Regards, > > >Manu > > > > Dear Manu, I dare to offer some explanation here regarding > Vimshottari dasha. > >I hope it will be understandable. > > > > Actually, the contraversy of 360 vs 365 days per year has come > into being > >because in this day and age those who are studying vedic > astrology are doing so > >without being properly educated in vedic cultural traditions. > From the study of > >Vedas and astronomical texts we find that the Sun is the basis > for measuring the > >time. That the year is based on the seasons which is again based > on the movement > >of the Sun. There are several types od years in vogue in vedic > culture. The only > >reference to a 360 day year was used strictly for sacrificial > purpuses, the > >soma-yajnas, it was not lunar or solar year, nor was it used for civil or > >astrological purposes. > > > > The vedic lunar calendar is actually Solar, because it is tied > to the seasons > >which in turn are the Solar phenomena, thus the Lunar and Solar calendars > >measure the same lenght of time and do not diverge as a function > of time as does > >360 d/y in comparison with the 365 d/y. > > > > Confusion arose after the British introduced the Gregorian > calendar into > >India, then Lunar tithis became mistakenly equated with Solar > days and the Lunar > >year of 360 tithis became confused with the solar year of 360 > days. Inspite of > >this confusion pre-British classics in Vedic astrology such as > Phala Dipika > >clearly state that the year of Mahadasha calculation is 365 day > year. Anyway, > >this explanation and letter can be quite long, so I'll stop > here. Good reference > >would be " The astrological magazine " , January 1974. p.93, by > H.R. Shankar, > >learned scholar regarding this subject matter. > > > > All the best, > > Dadhi > > > > > >-------------------------------- > ------------- > > 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.