Nakshatra lords, Parasara, Jaimini and KP

July 16, 2001

Namaste Sri Satya,

You indicated that you'll be busy for a while. Please take your time to

reply to this. It is an interesting argument and I hope the list members are

enjoying this. I only intend to provoke some thought.

> As for your reference to "Nakshatras exist on their own and lorded by

> various deities", do we use the deities for any *predictive purpose

> really?

Yes, traditional pundits do use them. Sarvatobhadra chakra is a chart drawn

in the space of nakshatras. In interpreting it, tradition teaches us to use

the nakshatra lords (deities and not Vimsottari lords).

Moreover, a lot of nakshatra based rules have roots in these nakshatra

lords. Let me give an example from nakshatras recommended for muhurtas

(electional astrology).

Asresha, Jyeshtha and Revathi are all "ruled by" Mercury as per Vimsottari

dasa sequence. Though Revathi is recommended for the muhurtas of most tasks,

other two nakshatras are avoided. Why? If the same Mercury rules them, why

such a big difference? It is because Revathi is ruled by Pooshan, but

Jyeshtha is ruled by Nirriti and Asresha is ruled by Rahu. Because of

demonic rulerships, these nakshatras are avoided in muhurtas.

Ardra, Swathi and Satabhisha are all "ruled by" Rahu as per Vimsottari dasa

sequence. Though Ardra is avoided in most muhurtas, other two are considered

favorable nakshatras for most muhurtas. Swathi is ruled by Indra (leader of

gods) and Satabhisha is ruled by Varuna (a benefic deity worshipped before

many rituals). They are good nakshatras for most muhurtas. Ardra ruled by

Rudra (a fierce form of Shiva) is avoided in most muhurtas except the sacred

thread ceremony!

Anooradha is a very favorable nakshatra for all muhurtas, not because Saturn

is its "ruler" as per Vimsottari dasa sequence, but because it is ruled by

Indra. Pushyami is good for sacred thread ceremony, poojas, installation of

idols and activities related to children, because Pushyami is ruled by

Jupiter (I am not talking about Vimsottari rulership).

The ruling deities of nakshatras given by tradition are very important. In

fact, they are the most important rulerships.

> As far as I know, Parasara has ignored these deities and used

> only the planetary lords. My point about the nakshatras is - the

Parasara did not talk about any "lords" of nakshatras. He only taught the

dasa sequences for various nakshatras in the case of many dasas (including

Vimsottari dasa), but did NOT talk about Ketu being the "lord" of Aswini and

so on. If somebody is born in Aswini nakshatra, his Vimsottari dasa will

start from Ketu, his Dwi-Saptati sama dasa will start from Moon, his

Satabdika dasa will start from Moon and so on. Parasara did not teach that

Ketu (or Moon) is the "lord" of Aswini. This representation is only found in

works that came much much later.

> *The

> lordships of the same nakshatras IS DIFFERENT IN VARIOUS DASA

> SYSTEMS. In other words, Ketu is the lord of Aswini ONLY IN

> VIMSOTTARI. In Yogini Aswini is ruled by Mars (Bhramari). So the

> zodiac of nakshatras with the planets as rulers of different

> nakshatras as used in predictive astrology HAS to vary for each dasa

> system. But why is the lunar zodiac popular with Aswini being ruled

> by Ketu etc? It is evident that the rulership of nakshatras as

> popular is ONLY FOR VIMSOTTARI. In other words,

> Vimsottari rulerships became almost synonymous with the lunar zodiac.

But, the question I want everyone to ponder over is: Is this a misconception

or rishi-prokta (teaching of sages)?

> Parasara seems to have been the first system builder. Jaimini seems

> to have been the next. Inspite of the commonness shared by both (the

> commonness shared is that both stand on the platform of Jyotish) that

> as a system JAIMINI is UNIQUE, is undeniable.

What is so undeniably "unique" about this "system"? Please elaborate.

Dual lordship of Aquarius and Scorpio? Chara karakas? Arudha padas of

houses? Arudha padas of planets? Sign aspects? Argalas? Virodhargalas?

Special lagnas? Yogas based on chara karakatwas? Brahma? Rudra? Shoola dasa?

Chara dasa? Umpteen other rasi dasas? Karakamsa? Resolving dual lordship by

looking at the number of planets in conjunction? Results from karakamsa,

arudha lagna and upapada lagna? Results from Pranapada lagna? Method of 3

pairs for longevity?

All the above are typically considered today as "Jaimini system". However,

each one I mentioned above can be found in Parasara's BPHS. Certain things

are expanded by Jaimini, but it is most certainly not a "unique" system

different from Parasara's teachings.

> Some scholars like

> Prof. P.S.Sastri feel that the main principles of Jaimini as they

> appear in the now available BPHS are inserted.

(1) Can you tell me where Sri Sastri wrote this? (I haven't widely read

Sastri, though I have several of his books.)

(2) Even if he said this, one must realize that this is merely an unfounded

speculation, possibly aimed at upholding a misconception.

> As for why only subs and not subsubs and so on, some KP followers

> use subsubs too! But in the search for precision we have to draw a

> line somewhere, to be practical. Why only five levels in the

This is NOT A QUESTION OF PRECISION and drawing the line. OTOH, it is a

QUESTION OF ARBITRARINESS. I'll try to elaborate.

When we decide which planets are important for a particular matter, why

should we decide it based on antardasa?

If a division based on dasas (nakshatras) is used in judging dasas, a

division based on antardasas (subs) is used in judging antardasas, a

division based on pratyantardasas (sub-subs) is used in judging

pratyantardasas, then things are consistent. I will not ask you why you

stopped at pratyantardasas. It is a question of precision and we have to

draw a line somewhere. If one wants to take divisions based on sookshma

dasas too, one would take them and use them in judging sookshma dasas. The

framework has a uniform structure and there is no arbitrariness.

But that is not what we are talking about here. We are using a division

based on antardasas (subs) to judge the natal/horary chart and seeing

important planets for different houses. Krishnamoorthy used these ruling

planets with transits and with various levels of dasas. In fact, he used

subs to draw static conclusions about natal/horary charts.

For example (I opened a random page), see page 252/253 of "Horary Astrology:

Krishnamoorthy Paddhati: Advanced Stellar System". He analyzes business

partners in a prasna. The 7th cusp is in Rahu sub. Rahu is in Venus sub.

Because Venus is in direct motion, Krishnamoorthy concludes that the

partnership will continue. Now, if one were to give prominence to sub-sub

instead of sub, it can change the result completely. Why did he draw static

conclusion about a matter in the chart (continuation of a partnership) based

on sub (i.e. a division based on antardasas)?

NOW it becomes a question of arbitrariness, as opposed to precision. If one

takes lower divisions too and uses them, one gets different ruling planets

for interpreting natal/horary charts, transits, dasas and antardasas. Then,

stopping at antardasas is an arbitrary decision. I hope my point is clear.

This is a very simple point.

> Would you agree with some when they say that

> Jyotish itself is on shaky foundations if astrologers cannot agree on

> a 365 or 360 or 354 day year for the dasas, or that due to the non-

> uniformity of ayanamsha which affects the divisional charts?

Of course, I would agree. Hopefully, the next century will see progress in

Jyotish.

> Guess I have to stop now and get back to work. It is taking a lot of

> time and unfortunately I will be busy the coming weeks. I might catch

> up very less now for some time. With due respect, I beg to differ in

> a few things esp KP's strength and merit and why only Vimsottari.

>

> With Regards,

> Satya

There are several misconceptions regarding nakshatras. Unfortunately, some

savants corrupted things further. Some truths regarding divisional charts

and teachings of Parasara and Jaimini are getting popularized just now. As

per Sri Achyuta Dasa's prediction, there will be a renaissance in

traditional knowledge like Jyotisha from 2000 AD. Hopefully, dedicated

scholars like you will critically examine the teachings of modern savants,

probe deeper into the teachings of Sages and lead others into light. Please

continue to share with us your findings in nakshatras, nadis and other

associated topics.

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

---------------------

Narasimha P.V.R. Rao Tel: (781) 270-4997

3 Baron Park Lane #13 email: pvr

Burlington, MA 01803 email: pvr108

Homepage: http://www.vedicastrologer.org

Home address will change in July/Aug, 2001

---------------------

July 17, 2001

Aum Namah Shivaya!

Namaste Sri Narasimha,

Though I did not intend to come back so soon due to work load, the

sheer brilliance of your argument pulled me again. I will try to

answer your points below.

1. While your reminder of the Sarvatobhadra chakra is excellent,

your reference to Muhurta is not appropriate for the use of nakshatra

deities. My reference was clearly to PREDICTIVE astrology (Jataka).

The main purpose of astrology /astronomy in the vedic times was to

time the various rituals (sacrifices). This has remained quite intact

in Muhurta. So muhurta is very close even today to Vedanga Jyotisha.

But predictive astrology as practised later, seems to have come a

long way from the vedic roots. While we can only speculate about the

exact state of Jyotish before Parasara, from his time onwards, he

seems to have been the first and only comprehensive compiler or even

systematiser. It seems as if Parasara ignored the deities. Let us not

speculate that the present BPHS is incomplete and that he *may have

originally included them.

2. Now about whether Jaimini is unique or not. Instead of giving

my opinion I will quote the well known scholar Sri P.S.Sastri from

the preface to his "Jaimini Sutram" published by Ranjan.

"The author of these Sutras is Maharshi Jaimini. This author is

different from the other great sage Jaimini, the author of the Purva

Mimansa Sutras in twelve chapters. He is also different from the

Jaimini of the Brahmana-section of the Samhita, and from the others

appearing in Maha-Bharata and the Puranas. The author of these

astrological aphorisms appears to be a later author who was

acquainted with the mantras -benign and malic; and he was well aware

of the four ashramas of Hindu society . The main principles outlined

in these Aphorisms appear in the now available text of Parasara,

Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra. Chapters seven to eleven, Chapters 24 to

27, and a part of the thirty-fifth Chapter present the system of

Jaimini. These portions appear to be inserted into Parasara's text

either by Parasara himself or by some other later writer. This is

clear from a comparison of the principles outlined by Jaimini with

those appearing in the other Chapters of Parasara's text. If the

student of Parasara's text is not careful, he will mix up the two

systems and get himself in contradictions and confusions. Jaimini

himself clearly stated that what he has not touched upon is to be

taken from the texts of other great masters, provided the principles

given in these texts do not run contrary to what he had laid down.

This makes the present translator hold that Jaimini's Aphorisms are

contemporaneous with or later than Parasara's text. Jaimini's system

is a unique one."

------Quotation ends

With so many differences of opinion it is hard to tell anything. If

we go by his words, Jaimini becomes unique. But if we ignore the

opinion of scholars like Sri Sastri, still one thing is clear. The

first greatest contribution to astrology as a system was by Parasara.

Without him there is no Jyoitish. Authors like Satyacharya (who is

revered as a sage who expounded the Dhruva's school), VarahaMihira

and others developed their methodologies based on the irrefutable

truths given by Parasara. Even Jaimini expects us to take from other

masters what he has not touched upon. In that sense everything is

Parasari because the foundations of Jyotish are in Parasara's work.

But that it evolved into different schools later is a different

story. Even if it is accepted that all schools come under the head of

Parasara, isn't it true that in practise we refer to various

approaches separately for simpler understanding? While teaching

aspects do you just state the graha, rasi, tajika aspects all in one

with no distinction? Wouldn't it be confusing for the student? All

classifications are for our understanding. Anyway to me it is fine

whether one classifies the approaches or just chooses to state

everything as one, as long as nothing is neglected. BTW I do not

understand what Sri Sastri aims to achieve by upholding a

misconception. You wrote, "Even if he said this, one must realize

that this is merely an unfounded speculation, possibly aimed at

upholding a misconception". To me it looks just like a matter of

difference of opinions.

3. Getting back to KP where we started, here are a few points.

· While I am willing to agree with your statement that some

savants have corrupted further, I cannot agree wrt to KP. The results

are astoundingly accurate. I do not say that KP gives anything more

than traditional. But it gives the same results in a shorter and

simpler manner. Sri KSK is wrong in his opinions in some places. But

his methodology is good.

· As for why only the sublord, I should have written in a

clearer way. While everything else is important, it is the sublord

who holds the key to some very important things? Reasonably speaking,

it is the sublord who changes in the case of twin births in a

perceptible manner. In 3 or even 5 minutes sometimes the ASC sublord

may remain the same. But other cuspal sublords will change. Twins

might have half their cuspal sublords the same depending on how much

they share (parents, siblings, childhood etc). But the cusps relevant

to the things which are different between them will change. It is

similar to how some divisional charts change in a minute while many

remain the same. The subsub lord is not important or practically

feasible to rely on. It is the extent to which practically it is

usable. If I take the subsublord of a house cusp and see which houses

he is a significator of, at the rasi,nakshatra and sub level, I will

end up with the whole lot of them.

· As for Prasna, the basis of most oracles which try to

interpret the moment, is in the Universal Intelligence that connects

all minds. Depending on the method used, the results will

automatically come, if the astrologer is tuned to it. Some

astrologers take the rising ascendant for the Prasna chart. Some fix

it based on 108 numbers. Some fix it by 249 numbers. Yet all will get

the right answers through their own methods, since the Universal

Intelligence makes it possible for the person to do the prasna at the

correct time that can indicate the results, and bringing a number

from the mind of the client that suits the particular method. So it

IS POSSIBLE TO DRAW STATIC CONCLUSIONS FROM THE SUB IN A PRASNA,

because the sub is based on the number given, and the number given

will come through the mind of the person in a way that suits the

particular methodology. In Prasna it is all about genuineness of the

query and being tuned to that particular method. I have never been

100% confident while predicting the sex of the unborn child using

conventional astrological methods. But I used the I Ching 29 times so

far to predict the sex of the unborn child. Everytime I came correct.

I think that anything is possible in Prasna if one is tuned to the

method and if the query is genuine.

While studying all the other dasas is useful in predicting and very

essential for academic purposes, it is still possible to do excellent

work with just the Vimshottari and Shodasottari dasas and cover all

charts. It all depends on what one is used to and how good one is

with the methodology being used. So using Vimsottari alone with a

full-fledged methodology KP still gives very good results. My request

to you is that you should try KP with an open mind for 3 months,

after first studying it seriously for two months. Then if you still

have questions on the validity of KP, I will agree with you. I myself

had left it in between due to my own reasons. But I took it up again

only to realise that it is really very good. Of course I am open to

changing my opinions in other areas of Jyotish if someone brilliant

like you succeeds in convincing me. But with KP, having tasted the

pudding, I know that it WORKS.

Best Regards,

Satya

July 17, 2001