Guest guest Posted March 24, 2008 Report Share Posted March 24, 2008 Modification of Mrtyubhaga In the third of a series of articles entitled "There Lurks Fear" appeared in the October 1990 issue of the Astrological Magazine, we can find a table under the caption - 'Mrtyubhaga (Modified)'. The preceding comments of the author are quite relevant in the present context: "...let me now give Mr. K.N.Rao's modified Table of Mrtyubhaga-s. He has told me that it is based on his experience and if I felt the need to alter it I should do it boldly but with intellectual honesty. At the moment I'm using the Table as it is. The need to modify the degrees of Mrtyubhaga for planets arises because of the following facts: (a) No planets will be say exactly twenty degrees in Mesha (Aries) as for the Sun to be in M.B. It will be some minutes more or less. (b) Different ayanamsa-s are used by different astrologers... We have followed the ayanamsa of Lahiri, which has given us substantially correct results. © Birth time noted could be inaccurate. Some flexibility has to be introduced and the birth time corrected. ....Etc." Further under the sub-title "Scheme of Modification" we can see: "Mr.K.N.Rao admits that he has used some arbitrariness in the modification of the M.B. Table and he says he can be attacked by orthodox astrologer for this. But what he has found correct over a period of 20 years after testing them on hundreds of horoscopes I too have tested on nearly five hundreds of horoscopes in his data and marked them out myself as guided and directed by him. (a) In the case of the Moon, Mercury and Lagna add or deduct forty minutes and see whether a fatal event is explained. (b) In the case of the Sun, it should be around twenty minutes either way, plus or minus. © Saturn, Jupiter, Rahu and Ketu too have to be corrected upto fifteen minutes minimum either way. (d) Mandi as calculated by an expert can be modified like Jupiter at most. But Mandi is mostly calculated wrongly..." Response from the readers (1) In the January 1991 issue of the Astrological Magazine (Page 97/98), Sri.SS Gopalan wrote from Calcutta: "I find there is no change or modification in the Mrtyubhaga Table given by Ms. Meenakshi Raut (A.M., October 1990, Page 779) as claimed by her that it was the one modified by Mr. K.N.Rao What is quoted in Jatakaparijata, translated by Late.V.Subrahmanya Sastry has been tested by the authors all these years in their research and the result ha come out satisfactorily. In his notes also Pastry has quoted the M.B. of the Moon from Phaladeepika and Brihat Prajapatya. Instead of accepting so, a claim that a modification on the original texts has been done is really superfluous. So, the question of an attack by orthodox astrologers does not arise" This response of Mr.Gopalan raises a number of questions, the most important being on the intellectual honesty of the author and her preceptor! A mistake false claim- of this sort cannot happen inadvertently. In chapter, I have given the Mrtyubhaga-s as available in 'Kausika-hora' and almost all are the same as that of the so-called `Modified - Table'. (2) Further, the various articles, which appeared in this connection from Sri. K.N.Rao & Ms. M.Raut displayed ignorance of the fundamental aspects of the Zodiac. In this context, I myself did seek certain clarifications from the authors in the A.M. January 1991: "...the author justifies the need to modify the 'Mrtyubhaga-s' with an indigestible statement:"No planet will be, say, exactly twenty degrees in Mesha as for the Sun to be in M.B. It will be some minutes more or less". This Statement contradicts the classical meaning of 20th degree or bhaga as raging from 19° 00' to 20° 00'. What really does the author mean by mentioning 20 as Mrtyubhaga? Does she mean that 20°00' is the Mrtyubhaga? ...Does the Mrtyubhaga lie symmetrically around the given digits by say 30' i.e. 20° ± 30'? ...." From the description given by the author Mrtyubhaga-s appear as of variable extent rather than a degree of the Zodiac. This aspect was illustrated by me using the examples from the series: " In Part -I, the planets Saturn (09°02-Cancer), Venus (28°33'-Kumbha) and Moon (11°31' -Meena), get described as being in Mrtyubhaga. If the conventional meaning is opted for, Saturn is in the 10th degree of Cancer and is out of Mrtyubhaga while Venus and Moon are in '29th and 12th degrees of the respective signs', which are Mrtyubhaga-s. In the various examples given the author does not provide a consistent view. The above-referred confusion exists in the articles of Mr. KN. Rao also, which appeared in the July & August 1990 issues of the astrological magazine. Jupiter 04°15' in Virgo and Sun 08°01' in Leo are described as being in Mrtyubhaga. In his earlier article "Tragedy of a Prediction" (A.M. December 1984) Sun 5° 27' Cancer is mentioned as in Mrtyubhaga. If the conventional (classical) meaning is adopted for the digits, the above cases are mutually contradictory. He also describes Saturn of the 17th degree of Kanya and Amitab Bachan's Sun in the 25th degree of Kanya as in Mrtyubhaga..." The articles under reference display the ambiguity and confusion prevailing in the minds of the authors. They have failed to comprehend the crux of the problem. For example, in the case of Amitab Bachan, Lahiri's Sun =174° 25', i.e. 25th degree of Virgo and is hence out of the Mrtyubhaga. Confusion arises out of the ayanamsa, here. With the true ayanamsa Sun is only 173°41' and hence in the Mrtyubhaga. In the chart given on Page 197, February1990, Saturn the 5th lord is in Mrtyubhaga on using the true ayanamsa. Chart on page 198 does not have the relevant details to compute and verify the role of Mrtyubhaga. (3) My query as to - What really is the meaning of 20 i.e. any of the digit that signify the Mrtyubhaga? -was answered in the "most scholarly" way by AGASTYA, the columnist of A.M. on page 535 of the July issue: "Someone said what does a degree mean in the Table. Is it the entire stretch of 60 minutes? .... Does it mean19° to 20° or the exact 20°00' itself? That is a good question but when one says 20° it is not the same as 19° to 20° but means 20°00' to 20°59', I may be right or wrong but I think this is logical enough..." This is illustrative of the unfathomable depths of ignorance that prevails today on the astrological arena-even a columnist of the most premier journal of Astrology is unaware of the classical definition of the 'bhaga' (degree)! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 Dear Chandra Hari ji, > My query as to - What really is the meaning of 20 i.e. any of the digit that signify the Mrtyubhaga? As we both agree - I don't think there should be any confusion regarding the meaning of the statement 20 degree for any traditional astrologers - because the indian tradition of astrology is very clear on the same. As we both know from tradition - 20 degree clearly means 19.00 to 20.00 degree; and this is the meaning to be adhered to always. If someone lacks the understanding of this simple and straight traditional knowledge or goes against it out of ignorance (let it be KN Rao ji, BV Raman ji or anyone else), I will disagree with them for sure. Also I will adhere to the list of Mritubhaga degrees given in Hridyapadha by the great scholar Kaikulangara Ramavaryar as per the quote referenced from Kausika Hora. Love and regards,Sreenadh , "chandra_hari18" <chandra_hari18 wrote: Modification of Mrtyubhaga In the third of a series of articles entitled "There Lurks Fear" appeared in the October 1990 issue of the Astrological Magazine, we can find a table under the caption - 'Mrtyubhaga (Modified)'. The preceding comments of the author are quite relevant in the present context: "...let me now give Mr. K.N.Rao's modified Table of Mrtyubhaga-s. He has told me that it is based on his experience and if I felt the need to alter it I should do it boldly but with intellectual honesty. At the moment I'm using the Table as it is. The need to modify the degrees of Mrtyubhaga for planets arises because of the following facts: (a) No planets will be say exactly twenty degrees in Mesha (Aries) as for the Sun to be in M.B. It will be some minutes more or less. (b) Different ayanamsa-s are used by different astrologers... We have followed the ayanamsa of Lahiri, which has given us substantially correct results. © Birth time noted could be inaccurate. Some flexibility has to be introduced and the birth time corrected. ....Etc." Further under the sub-title "Scheme of Modification" we can see: "Mr.K.N.Rao admits that he has used some arbitrariness in the modification of the M.B. Table and he says he can be attacked by orthodox astrologer for this. But what he has found correct over a period of 20 years after testing them on hundreds of horoscopes I too have tested on nearly five hundreds of horoscopes in his data and marked them out myself as guided and directed by him. (a) In the case of the Moon, Mercury and Lagna add or deduct forty minutes and see whether a fatal event is explained. (b) In the case of the Sun, it should be around twenty minutes either way, plus or minus. © Saturn, Jupiter, Rahu and Ketu too have to be corrected upto fifteen minutes minimum either way. (d) Mandi as calculated by an expert can be modified like Jupiter at most. But Mandi is mostly calculated wrongly..." Response from the readers (1) In the January 1991 issue of the Astrological Magazine (Page 97/98), Sri.SS Gopalan wrote from Calcutta: "I find there is no change or modification in the Mrtyubhaga Table given by Ms. Meenakshi Raut (A.M., October 1990, Page 779) as claimed by her that it was the one modified by Mr. K.N.Rao What is quoted in Jatakaparijata, translated by Late.V.Subrahmanya Sastry has been tested by the authors all these years in their research and the result ha come out satisfactorily. In his notes also Pastry has quoted the M.B. of the Moon from Phaladeepika and Brihat Prajapatya. Instead of accepting so, a claim that a modification on the original texts has been done is really superfluous. So, the question of an attack by orthodox astrologers does not arise" This response of Mr.Gopalan raises a number of questions, the most important being on the intellectual honesty of the author and her preceptor! A mistake false claim- of this sort cannot happen inadvertently. In chapter, I have given the Mrtyubhaga-s as available in 'Kausika-hora' and almost all are the same as that of the so-called `Modified - Table'. (2) Further, the various articles, which appeared in this connection from Sri. K.N.Rao & Ms. M.Raut displayed ignorance of the fundamental aspects of the Zodiac. In this context, I myself did seek certain clarifications from the authors in the A.M. January 1991: "...the author justifies the need to modify the 'Mrtyubhaga-s' with an indigestible statement:"No planet will be, say, exactly twenty degrees in Mesha as for the Sun to be in M.B. It will be some minutes more or less". This Statement contradicts the classical meaning of 20th degree or bhaga as raging from 19? 00' to 20? 00'. What really does the author mean by mentioning 20 as Mrtyubhaga? Does she mean that 20?00' is the Mrtyubhaga? ...Does the Mrtyubhaga lie symmetrically around the given digits by say 30' i.e. 20? ? 30'? ...." From the description given by the author Mrtyubhaga-s appear as of variable extent rather than a degree of the Zodiac. This aspect was illustrated by me using the examples from the series: " In Part -I, the planets Saturn (09?02-Cancer), Venus (28?33'-Kumbha) and Moon (11?31' -Meena), get described as being in Mrtyubhaga. If the conventional meaning is opted for, Saturn is in the 10th degree of Cancer and is out of Mrtyubhaga while Venus and Moon are in '29th and 12th degrees of the respective signs', which are Mrtyubhaga-s. In the various examples given the author does not provide a consistent view. The above-referred confusion exists in the articles of Mr. KN. Rao also, which appeared in the July & August 1990 issues of the astrological magazine. Jupiter 04?15' in Virgo and Sun 08?01' in Leo are described as being in Mrtyubhaga. In his earlier article "Tragedy of a Prediction" (A.M. December 1984) Sun 5? 27' Cancer is mentioned as in Mrtyubhaga. If the conventional (classical) meaning is adopted for the digits, the above cases are mutually contradictory. He also describes Saturn of the 17th degree of Kanya and Amitab Bachan's Sun in the 25th degree of Kanya as in Mrtyubhaga..." The articles under reference display the ambiguity and confusion prevailing in the minds of the authors. They have failed to comprehend the crux of the problem. For example, in the case of Amitab Bachan, Lahiri's Sun =174? 25', i.e. 25th degree of Virgo and is hence out of the Mrtyubhaga. Confusion arises out of the ayanamsa, here. With the true ayanamsa Sun is only 173?41' and hence in the Mrtyubhaga. In the chart given on Page 197, February1990, Saturn the 5th lord is in Mrtyubhaga on using the true ayanamsa. Chart on page 198 does not have the relevant details to compute and verify the role of Mrtyubhaga. (3) My query as to - What really is the meaning of 20 i.e. any of the digit that signify the Mrtyubhaga? -was answered in the "most scholarly" way by AGASTYA, the columnist of A.M. on page 535 of the July issue: "Someone said what does a degree mean in the Table. Is it the entire stretch of 60 minutes? .... Does it mean19? to 20? or the exact 20?00' itself? That is a good question but when one says 20? it is not the same as 19? to 20? but means 20?00' to 20?59', I may be right or wrong but I think this is logical enough..." This is illustrative of the unfathomable depths of ignorance that prevails today on the astrological arena-even a columnist of the most premier journal of Astrology is unaware of the classical definition of the 'bhaga' (degree)! 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.