On Sri Krishnna's Chart and Kali Yuga (to Dhira Krsna)

[Guest guest]

Namaste DhiraKrsna,

 

You know that I ran a computerized search for Sri Krishna's chart based on

"two planets taking part in a raja yoga should be in Devalokamsa" condition.

I wrote on the chart I found in the inaugural issue of "Jyotish Digest".

 

There was another chart I got that I haven't yet mentioned publicly. I

suppressed this chart because I had to use a special hora chart taught by

Pt. Rath in his book "Jaimini Maharishi's Upadesa Sutras" to get both the

planets involved in raja yoga into Devalokamsa (To Sanjay: Several hora

charts you taught satisfied this condition!). With the standard Cn-Le hora

chart, only one planet in raja yoga was in Devalokamsa.

 

This chart had Krishna Ashtami, Vajra yoga, Balava karana, Rohini nakshatra,

Monday. Exalted Moon was rising at midnight in Taurus and lagna lord Venus

and 9th/10th lord Saturn were in Libra giving a raja yoga. Venus was in

Brahmalokamsa (8/10) and Saturn was in Devalokamsa (7/10). In addition, AK

was in Simhasanamsa in own sign in a quadrant.

 

This chart had 3 planets in exaltation and 4 planets in own signs (out of 9

planets). Dasamsa is also very impressive with 6 out of 9 planets in own

signs. When I put Moon and Jupiter in navamsa lagna, giving Gaja-Kesari yoga

in navamsa lagna, then all planets fell in excellent Sayanadi avasthas. Sun

and Mars were in NrityaLipsa avastha (eager to dance) and all other planets

(including Rahu and Ketu) were in Prakasana avastha (lustrous state). Other

avasthas are also good for most planets.

 

When I first looked at this chart, I was very impressed with it, but

debilitated Jupiter (though retrograde and hence with neecha bhanga) in the

9th house did not seem to fit well. Sanjay, could retrograde Jupiter be

debilitated in Sri Krishna's chart? Can we rule out the chart just on that

basis?

 

This chart belongs to around 1800 BC (I will suppress the exact data for a

while) and this somewhat matches with the timeframe mentioned in the quote

you gave from Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur.

 

BTW, Sanjay wrote that Sri Achyuta Dasa mentioned that a 1200 year sub-cycle

within Kali Yuga starts in 2000 AD and that another sub-cycle ran from 800

AD to 2000 AD. Now, it means that, according to Sri Achyuta, Kali Yuga

started in 400 BC 1600 BC or 2800 BC or 4000 BC etc (it has to be a multiple

of 1200 years away from 800 AD). It cannot be 3102 BC or whatever is

accepted normally, if Achyuta is correct. Sanjay, did Achyuta mentioned

anywhere when Kali Yuga started in his view?

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

 

> Dear Anilkumar,

>

> Hare Rama Krsna.

>

> Yes, you are right concerning my date.

>

> Just a few days ago I happened to read this. Please let me know what you

> think?

>

> While many scholars have given their varied opinions, here is a quote from

> the "Sri Krsna-samhita", a book written by our acarya Srila Bhaktivinode

> Thakur.

>

> from Introduction pp. 27-29:

> "Now we must determine when the Battle of Kuruksetra took place. Maharaja

> Pariksit was born just after the battle. From the birth of Pariksit up to

> the coronation of Nandivardhana (the fifth of the Pradyotana kings) was

> 1,115 years (Bhag. 12.2.26). Conningham Sahib and others say that the word

> nandabhiseka in this previous footnote verse from the Srimad-Bhagavatam

> refers to the first of the nine Nandas. But although the respected

> Sridhara Swami also accepts this, he says the number is irrelevant.

> Therefore we fearlessly accept this Nanda as Nandivardhana. Moreover, in

> the Ninth Canto of the Srimad-Bhagavatam it is stated that 20 kings from

> the dynasty of Brhadratha, beginning from Marjari up to Ripunjaya, would

> rule for 1,000 years. The names of those 20 kings are also given in the

> Twelfth Canto of the Srimad-Bhagavatam. Then, after five Pradyotana kings

> rule for 138 years and ten Sisunaga kings rule for 360 years, the nine

> Nandas will rule for 100 years. So if we refer to the first of the nine

> Nandas, it will be about 1,500 years; but if we deduct the 23 years of

> Nandivardhana's rule, then we have the correct figure of 1,115 years.

> Again, in the Srimad-Bhagavatam it is stated that during the reign of King

> Pariksit the constellation of the seven rsis took shelter in the naksatra

> called Magha. When this constellation of the seven rsis crosses the

> naksatras beginning with Magha through Jyaistha, then the age of Kali will

> be 1,200 years old. ...... After his rule, during the reign of the other

> Nandas, Kali became extemely prominent. This is also confirmed by

> practical observation. After the fifth generation, Ajatasatru became the

> king. During his reign, Sakyasimha preached Buddhism, in the form of

> knowledge of self-realization devoid of a conception of the Infallible

> (God). The Nandas were like cowherd men and were envious of eternal

> religious principles. Asokavardhana even widely propagated Buddhism.

> Gradually various castes like Sundhas ruled the kingdom and created many

> obstacles in the path of religion. The total duration to the end of the

> nine Nandas' rule was 1,598 years. Canakya Pandita killed the last of the

> Nandas and gave the kingdom to the kings of the Maurya dynasty. According

> to some opinions, King Dasaratha, and according to others, Candragupta was

> the first king of the Maurya dynasty. During the time of Candragupta,

> people from Greece visited India first with Alexander and later with

> Seleucus. According to the opinions of Greek literature, the great

> dynasties from Simhala, and the Buddhist history of Brahma-desa,

> Candragupta took the throne 215 years before Christ. From this calculation

> it may be understood that the Battle of Kuruksetra took place 3,791 years

> ago from today. Dr. Bentley Sahib calculated the position of the stars

> mentioned in the Mahabharata and decided that the battle of Kuruksetra

> took place 1,824 years before Christ. When we compare his calculation with

> mine there is a difference of 89 years. So either Bentley Sahib made a

> mistake or the 1,000 years duration of the Barhadratha's rule was an

> approximation that we have to deduct 89 years from. The future swanlike

> scholars can determine the correct figures after further research."

>

> Here today is meant with the year 1879 of our present calendar, since

> Bhaktivinode Thakur refers to this date elsewhere in his book, and he

> wrote his book in 1888.

>

> Your sishya,

> Dhira Krsna dasa