Talk:Dasha (astrology)

Astrology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

better sourcing needed

This article is an important reference for the main article, Jyotisa. It is in need of better sourcing, preferably from classic authors. I would like to begin to do this. I hope there may be others with more experience with the 'rishis' who will help. Otherwise, the sources may be largely modern and Western works which are careful to follow classic guidelines. NaySay (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of days

The claim that 360 days is the length of the year for Vimshottari Mahadasa is patently wrong. The VAST number of astrologers use 365.25 days per/year. And what was the need to remove the external link I provided, it was a long scholarly article dedicated to this very topic. I am adding the external link again, please do not remove it unless you can provide a good reason why a highly respected scholar on the topic should not be linked to. van Lustig (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Rele's opinion of how many days in a tear and replaced with an actual quote from a classic text Phala Dipikavan Lustig (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Rele's opinion wrong, and why is the self-published alternative you give correct? Granted, I've not investigated this much, but the impression I'm getting is that the first is giving the historical context, and the latter seems to be an attempt to fit current Dasha as practiced with current scientific knowledge without regard to history. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree van Lustig. The "self published" alternative if you actually read it, was originally published in the Astrological Magazine -- from the website "This appeared in October & November, 2000 edition of The Astrological Magazine, Bangalore, India. This article discusses the controversy as to how long a year should be in the calculation of Vimshottari and other Mahadasas." So it is not self published. And it is mostly a quote from Mantreshvara's Phala Dipika. Rele is just a modern author who is speculating. You will find plenty such speculators, should all of them be listened to? Whereas Matreshvara who is extensively quoted is an actual authority on the subject. The latter's opinion far outweighs the former. BTW do you know anything about the subject? It requires background knowledge to adjudicate sources to determine which have epistemic value. In this case Mantreshvara trumps Rele any day. There is no comparison. Mantreshvara's Phala Dipika is considered one of the 5 main classics of Jyotish whereas Rele is not. Rele wrote some small book that no one takes notice of and will be completely forgotten. While Mantreshvara is closely studied even after 1000 years. Somebody writes some small pamphlet and you give it equal billing with Mantreshvara??49.206.11.236 (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IronGargoyle immediately reversed my edits. You guys win. You know nothing of the subject but want to write on it. I wasted my time trying to improve a wikipedia article. Should have known better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.11.236 (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "the self-published alternative" you refer to is Shyamasundara Dasa, a highly respected scholar of Vedic Astrology. His is a website read by astrology teachers. You could say he is an astrologer's astrologer.49.206.11.236 (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a highly respected scholar of Vedic Astrology... Says who? --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You already admitted that you have not investigated the subject, hence you don't know who the experts are. Interesting that people with little or no knowledge on a subject want to make the entries. What could go wrong?van Lustig (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rele is hopelessly out of date

According to Rele -- 'There are many kinds of Dasha systems, Parashara mentions forty-two of them, but of these only two are in vogue, namely, "Vimshottari" and "Ashtottari".'

Rele was written in 1970, since then there has been a huge revival and interest in other Dasha systems, in particular, the various Jaimini Dasha systems such as Manduka, Chara, and so on. Plus interest in Yogini and Kalachakra Dasha.

I suggest that references to Rele be removed and more up-to-date information be used instead. van Lustig (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]