Re modifying results, D1,D10,D24

[Guest guest]

I read your mails just now. I will briefly explain myself more clearly on

certain points in my previous mail. You had quite a few questions. When I

talked of a fragmented approach to the whole, or a mechanistic approach, I was

addressing your point on “an INDEPENDENT analysis of a D-10 or D-24 or even D-7

(children) being simply impossible” and also the DKP factors. I didn’t mean to

offend you and was addressing only those questions.

It was not in answer to your questions about charts where D-1, D-10 or even D-24

are identical. This question which you framed so brilliantly again in a later

email is a different point. For that I had very briefly given my answer

already. I will explain the same points more clearly here. Initially after a

few years of learning astrology, I found myself asking exactly the same

question. Those days in the evenings I used to assist a senior astrologer in

computing the charts and even doing prasnas for him. He religiously used the

divisional charts (he had studied with the late Sri Seshadri Iyer who

repopularised the divisional charts) which he insisted held the key to most

questions. But soon I found myself asking the same question as you. Over the

years I had been searching for an answer. I found two theories that came close.

1. Nadiamshas as used in the famous nadis.2. Krishnamurthi subs or even sub

subs.

Most nadi texts use the fine division called nadiamshas. A common division uses

150 such amshas. Again some nadis divide them into two halves, making the

patterns 300. In other words a person born with any ascendant could belong to

any of these 150 amshas or 300 ardha amshas. I tried to collect more on this.

After more than 10 years I still don’t have information on more than half of

them. B.V.Raman’s magazine dealt with a few in some issues under “As it strikes

me” by Agastya. Another rich source was the private collection of a pundit in

Varanasi. His father had an unbelievable collection which was taken by the

government after his death. But later the son went to the court and reclaimed

them back. Paul Brunton mentioned his name in a famous book of his.Anyway from

my limited experience on the nadis, I currently believe that the patterns are

roughly around 60-70% correct). When you find an amsha matching 60% and above

and if this amsha is around your ascendant degree, you could assume that that

is the exact amsha in which you were born. To see an example in print read

K.N.Rao’s ‘Planets and Children’ in which he has appended the readings for his

own amsha as given by B.V.Raman probably from the Dhruva nadi. This an example

of quite an accurate pattern. In my experience (which I again repeat is very

limited in the Nadi area) I have seen an accuracy of 60% generally. Even the

DKP factors(social and age backgrounds etc) find some mention in these amshas.

But in all honesty only a few are mentioned. Even those differ between

different texts sometimes. Though it could be argued that it is possible to

predict the DKP factors also it is only theoretical, atleast in the present

age. Again in all honesty I don’t think that the sages knew every bit of it.

That they were far superior to us in their understanding, is undeniable. But

that they were infallible, is another issue. Now coming to the issue of

studying the scientific basis and methodology of astrology, let us keep aside

the intuition side for a while and focus on the technique. Taking 150 amshas

only, on the average of two hours per ascendant (the latitude being constant),

we have a different amsha rising every 48 seconds. Taking the ardhaamshas, once

in 24 seconds. In other words the patterns are given roughly for every 24

seconds for a place like Mumbai (this changes according to the latitude).

Now coming to the issue of KP, it is a matter of personal choice. Common reasons

cited for discarding:1. It is new2. It uses some ideas from western astrology.

For a person with a scientific attitude both the reasons don’t stand. Though

Hindu astrology is very original, it is also true that it incorporated certain

points from the Greeks and Moslems. There is nothing wrong in taking truth

wherever it comes from. As for the point of KP being new, a careful study will

show that it is not really that new either. Most principles and reasoning

follow known principles of vedic astrology. The subs are also in the same

manner as the vimshottari dasha. It is only an extension. Of course like any

other human being Krishnamurthi is also not infallible. He is wrong in his

comments on ashtakavarga or even the rishis. His Paddhathi is his methodology,

what he selected from the vast ocean of astrological techniques. He is easier

and quite accurate in the methodology. His ruling planet theory is the best,

fastest way of giving dependable predictions that I have come across. Anyone

who tries his RP sincerely will agree on this point. It is easy, simple,

accurate and already exists in the minds of most astrologers though in a misty

form. It is a different matter altogether if one wants to use ONLY conventional

vedic methods or if one is searching for any scientific technique that works and

can be incorporated without changing the general framework. I am not saying that

the subs are the only answer or even that they answer everything. More research

may be required. But they answer SOME questions better. The Ruling planet

theory could be incorporated into any system of astrology (Indian or Western)

easily as a reliable method.I have had a very high success rate with ruling

planets as compared to other methods. Of course I can speak only for myself.

All this aside the fact remains that no astrologer (I am not talking of

psychics) can predict without reference to the DKP factors. Theoretically we

could say anything. Practically with the current level of knowledge it is not

possible to definitely predict the exact career even with a knowledge of the

DKP. But one can come reasonably around the field(s) in which one is involved

and the probable level of attainment. And there is nothing wrong in taking

useful information from any good source whether it is the chart or the client

herself. Dont doctors take a clinical case history, part of which covers what

is similiar to DKP?

The spiritual roots of astrology are undeniable as also the belief that one has

to approach astrology with a spiritual attitude. But as a science, it has its

techniques and methodologies too. I personally feel that it is useful not to

get caught in the so called philosophical or spiritual arguments while talking

of a technique. Otherwise one could easily get caught in an intellectual trap.

Astrology as a sadhana is altogether a different matter.What we most often

think of as "spiritual astrology" is one more mental trap.Astrological

principles on the other hand can be seperated from the interpretations as well

as cultural ingrowths. I realized this when I had to teach vedic astrology to

some westerners who initially had no inkling of Hinduism. Didnt the Greeks or

Arabs do astrology with a different backdrop? It is the interpretations that

require DKP. An independent analysis is difficult NOT because the CHART is

overridden by social conditions, but because the social conditions influence

the INTERPRETATION. The PRINCIPLES of Jyotish remain the same. But the

INTERPRETATIONS change according to the context. Every branch of human

knowledge has to adapt itself to the changes and needs of the times. But the

principles can be used anytime, anywhere. And ideally speaking astrology is one

irrespective of where it comes from, just as any other science. Haven't people

from all over the world contributed to modern medical science? All divisions

are theoretical, only to make understanding easier.

These of course are *my* opinions. They are not meant to offend anyone. It is

just a friendly exchange of ideas. If it helps someone, good. If it doesnt,

just ignore them. All the best.

Satya.

Get personalized email addresses from Mail - only $35 a year!http://personal.mail./

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dr. Chowdhary,

 

> I read your mails just now. I will briefly explain myself more

>clearly on certain points in my previous mail. You had quite a few

>questions. When I talked of a fragmented approach to the whole, or a

>mechanistic approach, I was addressing your point on "an

>INDEPENDENT analysis of a D-10 or D-24 or even D-7 (children) being

>simply impossible" and also the DKP factors. I didn't mean

to offend

>you and was addressing only those questions.

 

No offense taken. Having a "fragmented" or "mechanistic" approach

is not a crime, only a weakness!

 

Well, if you take my example:

 

Let us assume 500 babies were born in that time period.

 

All 500 share the same D-1 (except for special lagnas).

(Say) 50 share the same D-1 and D-9.

(Say) 7 of them share the same D-1, D-9, D-10 and D-24.

 

So, whether you like it or not, if we want to get to the lowest

resolution we can, we have to "independently" take the D-24 (in a

sense). Reason? They all share the same D-1, so blending that into

the analysis is only going to generalise your analysis, not make it

more specific.

 

>most questions. But soon I found myself asking the same question as

>you. Over the years I had been searching for an answer. I found two

>theories that came close.

> 1. Nadiamshas as used in the famous nadis.

 

Have you ever heard of anybody getting a good Nadi reading?

 

At the risk of saying something controversial, I will say this - I

have visited one "famous" Nadi reader in Madras. What he does is

no astrology at all. He merely asked 'greater than', 'lower than'

and 'true/false' questions. He was getting ready to piece together

my own replies into a "reading" for me, when I paid him, excused

myself and left!

 

I have also read Nadi readings for BV Raman and Mahatma Gandhi.

I have no idea how those readings were located, so I will not

comment.

 

> 2. Krishnamurthi subs or even sub subs.

 

I presume Krishnamurthi was not associated with Subway in any way

 

Seriously, I do not know what these mean - please elaborate if

possible.

 

> Now coming to the issue of KP, it is a matter of personal choice.

> Common reasons cited for discarding:

> 1. It is new

> 2. It uses some ideas from western astrology.

 

For some reason, I have never come across any KP books. It may

benefit a lot of people if you elaborate something as an

illustration, perhaps the Ruling Planet theory?

 

>Dont doctors take a clinical case history, part of which covers what

>is similiar to DKP?

 

With due respect, the "clinical case history" analogy is incorrect.

If you showed X-rays of 20 different people's knees', the qualified

doctor would be able to say which of them has a damaged knee *from

the X-ray*. He would not have to ask all of them whether they had

a fall recently, how hard he fell etc *I* would be able to

"guess" who has a damaged knee if I did enough questioning

 

My point is: should the DKP be the clinching factor?

 

> influence the INTERPRETATION. The PRINCIPLES of Jyotish remain the

>same. But the INTERPRETATIONS change according to the context. Every

 

The interpretation is a result of applying the principles correctly.

If DKP play an overwhelming role in the final interpretation, one

has to examine whether the principles of Jyotish are being applied,

or whether the principles of DKP are being applied?

 

Thank you for the detail about Nadiamsa and KP, hope to hear more.

 

I remain,

 

Mahalinga Iyer