Guest guest Posted January 29, 2004 Report Share Posted January 29, 2004 HI Margarita, I beg to differ on some of the points raised... Plagarism is a scourge of the literay field and the very least one can do if posting a piece taken from elsewhere is to accredit the sourse. That is professionalism and an an astrologer should be no different. ! Just my view. Reg K. Ajith _ This report is solely for information and general circulation only and may not be published, circulated, reproduced or distributed in whole or in part to any other person without our written consent. This report should not be construed as an offer or solicitation for the subscription, purchase or sale of the securities mentioned herein. Whilst we have taken all reasonable care to ensure that the information contained in this publication is not untrue or misleading at the time of publication, we cannot guarantee its accuracy or completeness, and you should not act on it without first independently verifying its contents. Any opinion or estimate contained in this report is subject to change without notice. We have not given any consideration to and we have not made any investigation of the investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs of the recipient or any class of persons, and accordingly, no warranty whatsoever is given and no liability whatsoever is accepted for any loss arising whether directly or indirectly as a result of the recipient or any class of persons acting on such information or opinion or estimate. OCBC Securities Pte Ltd and its related and affiliated corporations together with their respective directors and officers may have or take positions in the securities mentioned in this report and may also perform or seek to perform broking and other investment or securities-related services for the corporations whose securities are mentioned in this report as well as other parties generally. Privileged/Confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my company shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. margarita lettens <dmlettens@sky cc: net.be> Re: 360 - 365 29/01/04 17:05 Please respond to astrologyandti mingevents 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...
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.