Beginning of Pseudoscientific Research -Krishnamurthi Paddhati

[Guest guest]

Faux pas-1: Krishnamurthy Paddhati

 

Genesis of the controversial thesis

 

The first of my references where in I came across the names of R. Gopalakrishna Rao alias Meena and of Krishnamurthy was the serialized experiences of Dr. B. V. Raman almost a decade ago. In the years that followed I could not pay much attention to these authors due to my pre-occupation with the topics of ayanamśa and the harmonics (Varga-s) of Ra´si. During the early part of 1997 while looking for new avenues of research one of my colleagues providentially turned up with the necessary literature on the so-called `Krishnamurthy Paddhati'. The cumbersome divisions 'sub' and the 'sub-sub', the numerous `significators' or signifiers as well as the arbitrary value of ayanamśa that gave him "unbelievable precision" in predictions made me suspicious about his high claims. Very soon my studies brought to the fore of my mind the reality – the technique itself was unscientific and therefore invalid. In the course of my study I also came across certain other references to Meena as the originator of the stellar sub-divisions in some old issues of the Astrological Magazine. The excerpts given below threw me into confusion as regards publication of my inferences without looking into the original works of Sri R. Gopalakrishna Rao. My efforts to gain a Xerox copy finally succeeded due to the help rendered by Dr. T. S. Vasan by the end of June '97. I'm submitting this proof against the so-called `Kalamśa' after a complete and concrete examination of Meena's three parts of `Nadi Jyotisa'. As a matter of fact Meena's book does not even mention the philosophy of what has now come to be known as `Krishnamurthy Paddhati'. But it is possible that he had in his mind a fourth part….

 

For the sake of those readers who may not be conversant with the history of development of these stellar sub-divisions, the views of certain distinguished personalities are provided below:

 

· Sri H. R. Shankar in the January 1984 issue of Astrological Magazine

 

"…The most significant contribution of Meena to Stellar Astrology is his original idea of dividing the Naksatra into nine parts. Inspired by the tremendous significance the navamśa sub-division of signs had in the judgement of the horoscope, he experimented with division of a Naksatra into none divisions. The principles involved in the divisions of a major Da´sa into sub-divisions of Bhuktis as out-lined under the Vim´sottari system provided him with the tool for sub-division of Naksatras. The scale for division of Naksatra is 6/120, 10/120, 7/120, 18/120, 16/120, 19/120, 17/120, 7/120, and 20/120 parts. The Bhukti lords were respectively named as lords of the sub-divisions in the same sequence. Like clockwork the scheme followed a precise pattern. In A´svini Naksatra the first part lord is Ketu, much as the lord of the first bhukti is Ketu followed by Venus etc. This scheme of division was found useful for purposes of in-depth study, as in judging the effect of a planet, it now warranted to take into consideration the effect of the sign in which it was placed, that of sign lord, of Naksatra lord and the lord of sub-division of Naksatra also. Thus it helped in focusing the effect of a planet on specific areas under study. Having given expression to this novel discovery in his book Nadi Jyotisa he did not live to propagate its application…"

 

These words of Sri Shankar do contain a brief out-line of the important features of the so-called `Kalamśa'. Here in the invention of the technique being credited to Meena, a number of critical responses appeared subsequently in the Astrological Magazine from the followers of Krishnamurthy Paddhati:

 

· Shri Narayan Prasad of Pune, October 1984 issue of the Astrological Magazine

 

"… I checked up the whole of … this book. But no-where I found any mention about the use of the sub-division of Naksatra on Vimśottari scale in judging the effect of a Planet…."

 

· Shri B. N. Nayak of Puri, October 1984 issue of the Astrological Magazine

 

 

"…Writing in his preface to R. E. Manu's book the late Mr. Krishnamurthy says that in 1951 he found out the method of `Sub' and taught it to students for nearly ten years and from 1963 he propagated the "advanced stellar system…"

 

What Mr. Shankar elaborates in favor of "sub-division" of a Naksatra is only a reproduction from Krishnamurthy. Meena did not advocate or write anything in favor of Kalamśa division. Nowhere has he used the word that Kalamśa division is the sub-division of a Naksatra, which change the effect of planets placed in the `sub'. Krishnamurthy has applied this "Kalamsa" division into space divisions… So only after reading Krishnamurthy's system Mr. Shankar has been able to explain the truth behind `Sub-theory'…"

 

· Sri M. S. Sitharamiah, October 1984 issue of the Astrological Magazine

 

"…. Three volumes of Nadi Jyotisa published … not 30 years ago but far before it. I got interested in this system in 1946 … After Part III of his book was published I lost no time in meeting and paying my tributes to him as his disciple. I met him several times after that. At that time Mr. Rao told me that he was contemplating publication of the 4th part based on Kalamśa…."

 

Apart from these varying opinions regarding the originator, a notable comment appeared in the May' 84 issue of Astrological Magazine by Sri G. S. Shirali of Calcutta:

 

"…. It is however agreed that this theory is an effective tool to an astrologer to justify any event after it has taken place for it provides ample flexibility to extend the principles of astrology".

 

Shri Shirali has further quoted Dr. P. S. Sastry from December 1969 issue to suggest that – " the concept of stellar lordship is in itself faulty and is alien to Hindu astrology. It has been transplanted on the soil of traditional astrology by self-taught scholars due to misconceived interpretation of the classics."

 

From the three Parts of Meena's texts, I understand that:

 

(a) Perhaps, in the known history of astrology for the first time the stellar lordship has been extensively used in analyzing the Yogas and other effects.

 

(b) Meena has been experimenting with the divisional charts like `Drekkana' by linking it with the `gunas' and was trying to go deeper even in a non-classical way as is evident from his reference to "navamśa-dvada´samśa" in Part III.

 

© The fundamental principle that guided his research was progression from `Sthula' to `Suksma' and as such it is possible that he had been experimenting with the `Kalamśa' as well.

 

(d) Meena preferred Drk-Siddhanta Pa´ncanga rather than the Vakya-pa´ncanga used in Nadi works and as such his ayanamśa was roughly the same as that of Lahiri or Krishnamurthy.

 

(e) It is apparent from the above that the credit for splitting each Naksatra into uneven arcs proportionate to Vimśottari da´sa years must rest solely with Meena while development and popularization as a predictive technique can be ascribed to late Sri. Krishnamurthy. In fact controversy regarding credit arose out of the popularity gained by Meena's `Kalamśa' under the tutelage of Krishnamurthy.

 

With this background of ideas let us now focus our attention on to the method as well as relevance of the `sub' and `sub-sub' divisions in the context of classical astrology.

 

Method: Stellar sub-divisions of KP

 

The methodology can be best illustrated by taking the example of a particular Naksatra – (Say) A´svini:

 

· A´svini ® lord = Ketu ® dasa years = 7 for 800' of arc (00 to 13020')

 

Classical texts prescribe only the division of the seven years period into bhuktis or sub-periods of time in proportion to the nine da´sa years that constitute the frame of Vimśottari. The process is a division of time by time intended to make the da´sas a linear combination of the bhuktis and the bhuktis a linear combination of the antaras … so on. But KP defines `arc per year' in the diametrically opposite way as 800'/120 years = 6'40" per year. Each Naksatra accordingly is the sum of subs like:

 

· A´svini:

 

 

 

 

 

Div

 

Arc length

 

Lord

 

Limits

 

 

I

 

00046'40"

 

´Sikhi

 

00000'00"

 

00046'40"

 

 

II.

 

02013'20"

 

´Sukra

 

00046'40"

 

03000'00"

 

 

III

 

00040'00"

 

Surya

 

03000'00"

 

03040'00"

 

 

IV

 

01006'40"

 

Candra

 

03040'00"

 

04046'40"

 

 

V

 

00046'40"

 

Kuja

 

04046'40"

 

05033'20"

 

 

VI

 

02000'00"

 

Rahu

 

05033'20"

 

07033'20"

 

 

VII

 

01046'40"

 

Guru

 

07033'20"

 

09020'00"

 

 

VIII

 

02006'40"

 

´Sani

 

09020'00"

 

11026'40"

 

 

IX

 

01053'20"

 

Budha

 

11026'40"

 

13020'00"

The 27 Naksatras being divided into 9 divisions each, the total number of sub-divisions will be 243 only. But certain sub-divisions being across two signs KP's classification consider such divisions as two and hence the total number of subs is 252. The smallest sub is 40' of Surya while the biggest is 02013'20" of ´Sukra. KP proceeds further deep with the division process to create subsubs like:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lords of

Subsub

¯

 

Sub

 

Lords

of

 

Sub

 

 

Sun: 40'

 

Subsub

¯

 

Venus:

2013'20"

 

 

 

 

Sun

 

2'

 

Venus

 

22' 13".33

 

 

 

 

Moon

 

3' 20"

 

Sun

 

06' 40".00

 

 

 

 

Mars

 

2' 20"

 

Moon

 

11' 6".66

 

 

 

 

Rahu

 

6'

 

Mars

 

07' 46".66

 

 

 

 

Jupiter

 

5' 20"

 

Rahu

 

20'00".00

 

 

 

 

Saturn

 

6' 20"

 

Jupiter

 

17'46".66

 

 

 

 

Mercury

 

5' 40"

 

Saturn

 

21' 6".66

 

 

 

 

Ketu

 

2' 20"

 

Mercury

 

18'53".33

 

 

 

 

Venus

 

6' 40"

 

Ketu

 

07'46".66

 

 

 

These minor divisions correspond to the `antaras' or `chidrams' i.e. for example, Moon's longitudinal arc corresponding to Surya chidram is only 2' while for Sukra chidram it is 22' 13".33. As per KP the aforesaid minute divisions exercise critical influence over the astrological phenomena – including natal horoscopy as well as Prasna.

 

Contradictions Inherent in KP

 

The fundamental principle over which KP's citadel stands is the Vimśottari da´sa technique. We must remember here that the Vimśottari da´sa years is intended for the limited scope of application only, in projecting the horoscopic effects into the future. Da´sa-bhukti-antara influence prevails only for a specific interval of time – it is not an absolute zodiacal effect similar to those of Ra´si, Navamśa or Naksatra. KP's notions are all erroneous in this regard. For example, Moon by its placement at the beginning of Bharani generates a sequence of influence over the time beginning with Venus da´sa, own bhukti. The initial Venus-Venus influence is over the individual not over Moon. Moreover such influence is temporal. Zodiacal influence over Moon on the other hand depends on its ra´si, stellar and varga positions in the horoscope. Vimśottari is simply a technique meant for identifying the temporal influence (in sequence) emanating from a horoscope – not a design factor of the zodiac.

 

 

Apart from the aspect of zodiacal influence, KP was further wrong in adopting the proportion of Vimśottari da´sa years to divide the arc. The basic feature of Vimśottari is an un-even distribution of 120 years in 9 equal divisions of 800' each. Let us ask ourselves:

 

 

Why the naksatra divisions themselves are not in the proportion of Vimśottari da´sa years? More explicitly, why can't we define the Naksatras as: A´svini (00 – 70), Bharani (70 – 270), Pusya (840 –1030) etc? All added up gives 120 degrees just as 13020' ´ 9 = 1200. Rationale of the dasa years is beyond the wisdom of human beings (?) may be some yogic vision may reveal the secret at a future date. But we know for certain that the 7 years of Asvini is relevant only in the context of 800' Naksatras.

 

 

Thirdly, if we add up the allotted years corresponding to the naksatras of a ra´si we get: 28.5 (Aries) + 18.0 (Taurus) + 33.5 (Gemini) + 40.0 (Cancer) = 120. Why can't the ra´sis be created accordingly i.e. 280.5, 180, 330.5, 400 etc?

 

We all know it is impossible. We can't afford to violate the sanctity of the classical divisions of either 300 or 13020' or of the lesser ones.

 

 

Fourth aspect is the status of classical sources of planetary influence viz. Vargas or divisions ranging from 12', 00.5, 10, … 3020', 3045', 4017'…. 100,150 etc used for predictive purposes? Meena under no circumstances could have ignored these classical principles. If we incorporate the KP division into the classical frame, we will be left with a humbug.

 

 

Lastly, KP's use of un-equal house division is non-classical and cannot be admitted within the classical corridors of Hindu Astrology. Similar to ra´sis and naksatras of equal extent, the bhavas or houses are universal in character with 300 each. The different astronomical methods are irrelevant as astrology is based on the equal house division as can be understood from the equivalence of trikonas or triangular bhavas, professed in classical texts.

 

Navamśa illustrates the irrationality of Krishnamurthy Paddhati

 

As the term implies `navamśa' is the multiplication of longitudes (amśa) by nine: Navamśa = Ra´si ´ 9. Alternatively it is a division of the zodiac into 108 parts of 3020' each or ra´si into nine parts of 3020'. In other words, successive 400 (3 naksatras or 12 navamśas) get placed one over the other. But, What happens to the naksatra in the process?

 

Mathematically, navamśa is also the division of a naksatra into nine equal parts of 1028'53".3333 having lords in the sequence Ketu, Venus …Mercury irrespective of the stellar lord. i.e. 13020'´ 9 = 1200 and 1028'53".3333 ´ 9 = 13020'.

Lordships in every 1200 from zero, is in the order Ketu, Venus, Sun … Mercury. Navamśa as such places the Planets and Bhava longitudes under a different ra´si and stellar influence.

 

Ø What authority Krishnamurthy's subs do have to nullify these influences of classical origin?

Ø Why can't the naksatra sub-divisions be equal like ra´sis, naksatras and different vargas in conformity with the classical?

 

An un-equal arc division based on a misconceived interpretation of the Vimśottari technique cannot alter the classical influences of the 243 equal divisions of 1028'53".3333 that successively assume lordship of Ketu, Venus…. Mercury.

 

If someone intends to deride the significance of navamśa in favor of Krishnamurthy's Paddhati, please have a look at the figures (1) and (2).

 

Ø Fig.1 illustrates the role of navamśa as significator of marital life and associations in an equal house division. Navamśa being multiplication by 9 the three bhavas representing self viz. I, V and IX (triangular equivalence) becomes Lagna in navamśa while those of partner (polar opposite) III, VII and XI becomes the seventh house i.e. the navamśa Lagna and the seventh shall represent in toto the marital/association aspects.

Ø Fig.2 suggests the navamśas with reference to Lagna that influence the marital life viz. assembly of navamśas in a ra´si and in the 7th ra´si. For example: If Lagna is in the nth navamśa, in the navamśa chart n+12, n+24, n+36…. etc up to n+96 will influence the Lagna while n+6, n+18, n+30…up to n+102 will influence the 7th. Malefics placed in either of these can be detrimental to marital life, of course subject to the other relevant classical principles. Instead of KP sub-lords we must consider the stellar lord of navamśa-Lagna and the 7th house.

 

Note: (Sketch of the figures were attached when the paper was sent for publication in 1996 but was not published by any astrological magazine)

 

It is evident therefore that the stellar sub-divisions are nothing new to our divine science. They are purely classical, neither Meena nor Murthy can claim any credit on this account. Of course, they may compete for the dubious distinction of introducing a bogus hypothesis, to pollute the divine corridors of Vedic wisdom. In this race Krishnamurthy is the forerunner with the publicity and incredible claims. His `Paddhati' shall incur eternal disgrace only.

 

5. Alternative method of stellar division

 

We saw earlier that each `naksatra-navamśa' from 0o onwards is ruled by planets in the order `Ketu to Mercury' irrespective of the lord of that particular naksatra. Clue for an alternative method can be obtained from the traditional `Dvada´samśa'. If we follow the numerical multiplication process by which the navamśa is derived the twelve divisions of each ra´si begins from Aries and ends at Pisces. But as per the traditional definition, the Dvada´samśa division of a ra´si begins from the ra´si itself instead of from Mesa or Aries. In the context of naksatras, therefore the first navamśa division must be owned by its own lord and the subsequent ones by the order of stellar lordship or da´sas. Mathematically the process will be as follows:

 

The expired part by virtue of planetary occupation is to be multiplied by 9 and from the same, 13020' has to be subtracted successively to find the divisional location of the planet or Bhava. Each 13020' represents the divisions in the Ududa´sa-order beginning with the star-lord itself. This method is a far more logical and scientific one than the Krishnamurthy Paddhati. In KP to derive the sub-lord expired portion of the naksatra has to be multiplied by nine as mentioned above. But in the second step, instead of subtracting 13020' successively KP deducts the da´sa years one by one beginning from that of star-lord to arrive at the so called sub. Please note – the da´sa years are reduced from nine times the expired arc of a naksatra – It is just 1st standard arithmetic that from 50 mangoes 30 coconuts cannot be subtracted. We need not search for a better proof against the so-called Krishnamurthy Paddhati than this idiosyncrasy.

 

6. Appeal of KP among the Public

 

Obviously the question may turn up – If KP is so bogus what makes the people to follow the same?

 

The answer is straightforward. The fault lies in the people. We accept certain things to be right without having sufficient deliberations on its validity. If the case studies provided in KP-literature are true then I may doubt the astrology itself – It is better to take refuge in Ucchista Ganapati rather than devoting time for studying astrological literature. KP's claims are quite incredible – at the best they can be post-mortems. It is easy to realize that with 12 ra´sis, 27 naksatras, 252 subs and a minimum of 2268 subsubs coupled with Pra´sna, Weekday and Kalahora, the permutations available to him for justifying an event are infinite. Discussion on examples of KP will be a sheer waste of time and space. Students interested may workout the examples of KP with the different value of ayanam´sa I have proposed (50' greater than that of KP's ayanamśa) and using only the classical principles. In addition to the de-merits of KP we must remember that the small divisions have sanctity only if we have an ayanamśa that can be established as true. A reliable perfect method of birth-time rectification is another requirement.

 

Any Bhava in a horoscope must be getting influenced by a number of Planets. Moon's longitudinal arc corresponding to `antaras' is of the order of 2' (minimum) to 22' (maximum). So if we use two ayanam´sas differing by one or two degrees not only the `antaras' even the `bhuktis' corresponding to an event will be precedent ones and fortunately this also may be related to the event/bhava under reference. In fact no precise prediction is possible without true ayanamśa and a reliable rectification procedure. Because of these reasons KP's claims cannot be accepted as true. There can be some accidental successes, rest are simply aimed at befooling the Public. I'm sure that this article will be an eye-opener to many of the followers of KP.

 

7. Conclusion

 

Ø Udu-da´sa is simply a timing technique and the proportion of planetary da´sas derives its significance from the in-violable mathematical structure of the zodiac comprising of its Rasis, Naksatras, Vargas, degrees etc. Each da´sa is construed as a sum of the proportionate parts and here only the time gets divided by time.

 

Ø Application of this mathematical feature of a technique to modify the Zodiac itself will be like putting the cart before the horse. As such all the Krishnamurthy's stellar sub-divisions based on the "arc per year" are invalid creations that carry no sense in the classical corridors of astrology.

 

Ø Even in the non-classical sphere, if we hold even a bit of appreciation for scientific spirit and logic Krishnamurthy Paddhati cannot be admitted. The fact that Krishnamurthy adopted the Vimśottari da´sa technique in such a way as to undermine the stellar Zodiac of equal divisions (13o 20' each) itself is reflective of the depths of unscientific practices prevailing among astrologers.

 

Ø Those who are interested in research on stellar sub-divisions may follow either of the mathematically consistent approaches given. It is better if both can be tried on an experimental basis. I hope Astrology shall enter the 21st century devoid of the Himalayan misconceptions generated by Krishnamurthy Paddhati.

[Guest guest]

Respected KP Scholars,

 

This gentleman has been trying to bash KP and KP theories in an

astrology forum

 

His claims are not only false and incorrect, it insults the basic

understanding of KP.

 

This forum has many new members who are not even introduced to KP and

its tremendous predictive power compared to other systems.

 

I request scholars from this forum to set records right wrt his false

claims.

 

Please note I am not a moderator or a advertiser for this

group. Infact I have my own where I disucss astrology in

the sight of science

(a_quest_beyond_astrology).

 

My only intention is to get the facts out and I seek support from the

KP scholars in this forum.

 

Please help me by joining this group and defending KP with me.

 

You can leave the group at your wish...

 

Love,

 

a KP student

 

Souvik

, " Souvik Dutta "

<explore_vulcan wrote:

 

You astound me with your ignorance in KP.

252 Subs!! WOW, read the 3rd. reader of KP and then correct your

facts.

Also do you know the basics of the un-equal division of Vimshottari

Dasa?

Send this email to any one of the KP groups on the internet and see

how you are bashed..why post this on a general astrology forum if you

are so ridiculously confident on your baseless argument.

I can defy each and every argument you posted in this " know-all "

baseless email against KP but someone who doesn't know the basics of

KP doesn't even deserve this attention.

 

Stop fooling around about things you donot understand..

 

Souvik

, " chandra_hari18 "

<chandra_hari18@> wrote:

>

> Faux pas-1: Krishnamurthy Paddhati

> Genesis of the controversial thesis

>

>

> The first of my references where in I came across the names of R.

> Gopalakrishna Rao alias Meena and of Krishnamurthy was the

serialized

> experiences of Dr. B. V. Raman almost a decade ago. In the years

that

> followed I could not pay much attention to these authors due to my

> pre-occupation with the topics of ayanamśa and the

> harmonics (Varga-s) of Ra´si. During the early part of 1997 while

> looking for new avenues of research one of my colleagues

providentially

> turned up with the necessary literature on the so-called

> `Krishnamurthy Paddhati'. The cumbersome divisions 'sub' and the

> 'sub-sub', the numerous `significators' or signifiers as well as

> the arbitrary value of ayanamśa that gave him

> " unbelievable precision " in predictions made me suspicious about his

> high claims. Very soon my studies brought to the fore of my mind the

> reality – the technique itself was unscientific and therefore

> invalid. In the course of my study I also came across certain other

> references to Meena as the originator of the stellar sub-divisions

in

> some old issues of the Astrological Magazine. The excerpts given

below

> threw me into confusion as regards publication of my inferences

without

> looking into the original works of Sri R. Gopalakrishna Rao. My

efforts

> to gain a Xerox copy finally succeeded due to the help rendered by

Dr.

> T. S. Vasan by the end of June '97. I'm submitting this proof

> against the so-called `Kalamśa' after a

> complete and concrete examination of Meena's three parts of

> `Nadi Jyotisa'. As a matter of fact Meena's book

> does not even mention the philosophy of what has now come to be

known as

> `Krishnamurthy Paddhati'. But it is possible that he had in his

> mind a fourth part….

>

>

> For the sake of those readers who may not be conversant with the

history

> of development of these stellar sub-divisions, the views of certain

> distinguished personalities are provided below:

>

>

>

> · Sri H. R. Shankar in the January 1984 issue of

Astrological

> Magazine

>

>

>

> " …The most significant contribution of Meena to Stellar Astrology

> is his original idea of dividing the Naksatra into nine parts.

> Inspired by the tremendous significance the navamśa

> sub-division of signs had in the judgement of the horoscope, he

> experimented with division of a Naksatra into none divisions. The

> principles involved in the divisions of a major Da´sa into

> sub-divisions of Bhuktis as out-lined under the Vim´sottari system

> provided him with the tool for sub-division of Naksatras. The

> scale for division of Naksatra is 6/120, 10/120, 7/120, 18/120,

> 16/120, 19/120, 17/120, 7/120, and 20/120 parts. The Bhukti lords

were

> respectively named as lords of the sub-divisions in the same

sequence.

> Like clockwork the scheme followed a precise pattern. In A´svini

> Naksatra the first part lord is Ketu, much as the lord of the

> first bhukti is Ketu followed by Venus etc. This scheme of division

was

> found useful for purposes of in-depth study, as in judging the

effect of

> a planet, it now warranted to take into consideration the effect of

the

> sign in which it was placed, that of sign lord, of Naksatra lord

> and the lord of sub-division of Naksatra also. Thus it helped in

> focusing the effect of a planet on specific areas under study.

Having

> given expression to this novel discovery in his book Nadi

> Jyotisa he did not live to propagate its application… "

>

>

>

> These words of Sri Shankar do contain a brief out-line of the

important

> features of the so-called `Kalamśa'. Here in

> the invention of the technique being credited to Meena, a number of

> critical responses appeared subsequently in the Astrological

Magazine

> from the followers of Krishnamurthy Paddhati:

>

>

>

> · Shri Narayan Prasad of Pune, October 1984 issue of the

Astrological

> Magazine

>

>

>

> " … I checked up the whole of … this book. But no-where I found

> any mention about the use of the sub-division of Naksatra on

> Vimśottari scale in judging the effect of a Planet…. "

>

>

>

> · Shri B. N. Nayak of Puri, October 1984 issue of the Astrological

> Magazine

>

>

>

>

>

> " …Writing in his preface to R. E. Manu's book the late Mr.

> Krishnamurthy says that in 1951 he found out the method of `Sub'

> and taught it to students for nearly ten years and from 1963 he

> propagated the " advanced stellar system… "

>

>

>

> What Mr. Shankar elaborates in favor of " sub-division " of a

> Naksatra is only a reproduction from Krishnamurthy. Meena did not

> advocate or write anything in favor of Kalamśa

> division. Nowhere has he used the word that Kalamśa

> division is the sub-division of a Naksatra, which change the

> effect of planets placed in the `sub'. Krishnamurthy has applied

> this " Kalamsa " division into space divisions… So only after reading

> Krishnamurthy's system Mr. Shankar has been able to explain the

> truth behind `Sub-theory'… "

>

>

>

> · Sri M. S. Sitharamiah, October 1984 issue of the Astrological

> Magazine

>

>

>

> " …. Three volumes of Nadi Jyotisa published … not

> 30 years ago but far before it. I got interested in this system in

1946

> … After Part III of his book was published I lost no time in meeting

> and paying my tributes to him as his disciple. I met him several

times

> after that. At that time Mr. Rao told me that he was contemplating

> publication of the 4th part based on

> Kalamśa…. "

>

>

>

> Apart from these varying opinions regarding the originator, a

notable

> comment appeared in the May' 84 issue of Astrological Magazine by

> Sri G. S. Shirali of Calcutta:

>

>

>

> " …. It is however agreed that this theory is an effective tool to

> an astrologer to justify any event after it has taken place for it

> provides ample flexibility to extend the principles of astrology " .

>

>

>

> Shri Shirali has further quoted Dr. P. S. Sastry from December 1969

> issue to suggest that – " the concept of stellar lordship is in

> itself faulty and is alien to Hindu astrology. It has been

transplanted

> on the soil of traditional astrology by self-taught scholars due to

> misconceived interpretation of the classics. "

>

>

>

> From the three Parts of Meena's texts, I understand that:

>

>

>

> (a) Perhaps, in the known history of astrology for the first time

the

> stellar lordship has been extensively used in analyzing the Yogas

and

> other effects.

>

>

>

> (b) Meena has been experimenting with the divisional charts like

> `Drekkana' by linking it with the

> `gunas' and was trying to go deeper even in a

> non-classical way as is evident from his reference to

> " navamśa-dvada´samśa " in Part

> III.

>

>

>

> © The fundamental principle that guided his research was

progression

> from `Sthula' to `Suksma' and as such it

> is possible that he had been experimenting with the

> `Kalamśa' as well.

>

>

>

> (d) Meena preferred Drk-Siddhanta Pa´ncanga

> rather than the Vakya-pa´ncanga used in Nadi works

> and as such his ayanamśa was roughly the same as that of

> Lahiri or Krishnamurthy.

>

>

>

> (e) It is apparent from the above that the credit for splitting

each

> Naksatra into uneven arcs proportionate to Vimśottari

> da´sa years must rest solely with Meena while development and

> popularization as a predictive technique can be ascribed to late

Sri.

> Krishnamurthy. In fact controversy regarding credit arose out of the

> popularity gained by Meena's `Kalamśa'

> under the tutelage of Krishnamurthy.

>

>

>

> With this background of ideas let us now focus our attention on to

the

> method as well as relevance of the `sub' and `sub-sub'

> divisions in the context of classical astrology.

>

>

>

> Method: Stellar sub-divisions of KP

>

>

>

> The methodology can be best illustrated by taking the example of a

> particular Naksatra – (Say) A´svini:

>

>

>

> · A´svini ® lord = Ketu ® dasa years = 7 for

> 800' of arc (00 to 13020')

>

>

>

> Classical texts prescribe only the division of the seven years

period

> into bhuktis or sub-periods of time in proportion to the nine da´sa

> years that constitute the frame of Vimśottari. The process is a

> division of time by time intended to make the da´sas a linear

> combination of the bhuktis and the bhuktis a linear combination of

the

> antaras … so on. But KP defines `arc per year' in the

> diametrically opposite way as 800'/120 years = 6'40 " per

> year. Each Naksatra accordingly is the sum of subs like:

>

>

>

> · A´svini:

>

> Div

>

> Arc length

>

> Lord

> Limits

> I

>

> 00046'40 "

>

> ´Sikhi

>

> 00000'00 "

>

> 00046'40 "

>

> II.

>

> 02013'20 "

>

> ´Sukra

>

> 00046'40 "

>

> 03000'00 "

>

> III

>

> 00040'00 "

>

> Surya

>

> 03000'00 "

>

> 03040'00 "

>

> IV

>

> 01006'40 "

>

> Candra

>

> 03040'00 "

>

> 04046'40 "

>

> V

>

> 00046'40 "

>

> Kuja

>

> 04046'40 "

>

> 05033'20 "

>

> VI

>

> 02000'00 "

>

> Rahu

>

> 05033'20 "

>

> 07033'20 "

>

> VII

>

> 01046'40 "

>

> Guru

>

> 07033'20 "

>

> 09020'00 "

>

> VIII

>

> 02006'40 "

>

> ´Sani

>

> 09020'00 "

>

> 11026'40 "

>

> IX

>

> 01053'20 "

>

> Budha

>

> 11026'40 "

>

> 13020'00 "

> The 27 Naksatras being divided into 9 divisions each, the total

> number of sub-divisions will be 243 only. But certain sub-divisions

> being across two signs KP's classification consider such divisions

> as two and hence the total number of subs is 252. The smallest sub

is

> 40' of Surya while the biggest is 02013'20 " of

> ´Sukra. KP proceeds further deep with the division process to create

> subsubs like:

>

>

> Lords of

>

> Subsub

>

> ¯

>

> Sub

>

> Lords

>

> of

>

> Sub

>

> Sun: 40'

>

> Subsub

>

> ¯

>

> Venus:

>

> 2013'20 "

>

>

>

> Sun

>

> 2'

>

> Venus

>

> 22' 13 " .33

>

>

>

> Moon

>

> 3' 20 "

>

> Sun

>

> 06' 40 " .00

>

>

>

> Mars

>

> 2' 20 "

>

> Moon

>

> 11' 6 " .66

>

>

>

> Rahu

>

> 6'

>

> Mars

>

> 07' 46 " .66

>

>

>

> Jupiter

>

> 5' 20 "

>

> Rahu

>

> 20'00 " .00

>

>

>

> Saturn

>

> 6' 20 "

>

> Jupiter

>

> 17'46 " .66

>

>

>

> Mercury

>

> 5' 40 "

>

> Saturn

>

> 21' 6 " .66

>

>

>

> Ketu

>

> 2' 20 "

>

> Mercury

>

> 18'53 " .33

>

>

>

> Venus

>

> 6' 40 "

>

> Ketu

>

> 07'46 " .66

>

>

>

>

> These minor divisions correspond to the `antaras' or

> `chidrams' i.e. for example, Moon's longitudinal arc

> corresponding to Surya chidram is only 2' while for Sukra chidram it

> is 22' 13 " .33. As per KP the aforesaid minute divisions exercise

> critical influence over the astrological phenomena – including natal

> horoscopy as well as Prasna.

>

>

> Contradictions Inherent in KP

>

>

>

> The fundamental principle over which KP's citadel stands is the

> Vimśottari da´sa technique. We must remember here that the

> Vimśottari da´sa years is intended for the limited scope of

> application only, in projecting the horoscopic effects into the

future.

> Da´sa-bhukti-antara influence prevails only for a specific interval

> of time – it is not an absolute zodiacal effect similar to those of

> Ra´si, Navamśa or Naksatra. KP's notions

> are all erroneous in this regard. For example, Moon by its

placement at

> the beginning of Bharani generates a sequence of influence over

> the time beginning with Venus da´sa, own bhukti. The initial

> Venus-Venus influence is over the individual not over Moon. Moreover

> such influence is temporal. Zodiacal influence over Moon on the

other

> hand depends on its ra´si, stellar and varga positions in the

> horoscope. Vimśottari is simply a technique meant for

> identifying the temporal influence (in sequence) emanating from a

> horoscope – not a design factor of the zodiac.

>

>

>

> * Apart from the aspect of zodiacal influence, KP was further

wrong

> in adopting the proportion of Vimśottari da´sa years to

> divide the arc. The basic feature of Vimśottari is an un-even

> distribution of 120 years in 9 equal divisions of 800' each. Let us

> ask ourselves:

>

>

>

> * Why the naksatra divisions themselves are not in the

> proportion of Vimśottari da´sa years? More explicitly, why

> can't we define the Naksatras as: A´svini (00 – 70),

> Bharani (70 – 270), Pusya (840 –1030) etc? All

> added up gives 120 degrees just as 13020' ´ 9 = 1200. Rationale

> of the dasa years is beyond the wisdom of human beings (?) may be

some

> yogic vision may reveal the secret at a future date. But we know for

> certain that the 7 years of Asvini is relevant only in the context

of

> 800' Naksatras.

>

>

>

> * Thirdly, if we add up the allotted years corresponding to the

> naksatras of a ra´si we get: 28.5 (Aries) + 18.0 (Taurus) +

> 33.5 (Gemini) + 40.0 (Cancer) = 120. Why can't the ra´sis be

> created accordingly i.e. 280.5, 180, 330.5, 400 etc?

>

>

>

> We all know it is impossible. We can't afford to violate the

> sanctity of the classical divisions of either 300 or 13020' or of

> the lesser ones.

>

>

>

> * Fourth aspect is the status of classical sources of planetary

> influence viz. Vargas or divisions ranging from 12', 00.5, 10, …

> 3020', 3045', 4017'…. 100,150 etc used for predictive

> purposes? Meena under no circumstances could have ignored these

> classical principles. If we incorporate the KP division into the

> classical frame, we will be left with a humbug.

>

>

>

> * Lastly, KP's use of un-equal house division is non-classical

> and cannot be admitted within the classical corridors of Hindu

> Astrology. Similar to ra´sis and naksatras of equal extent,

> the bhavas or houses are universal in character with 300 each. The

> different astronomical methods are irrelevant as astrology is based

on

> the equal house division as can be understood from the equivalence

of

> trikonas or triangular bhavas, professed in classical texts.

>

>

>

> Navamśa illustrates the irrationality of Krishnamurthy

> Paddhati

>

>

>

> As the term implies `navamśa' is the

> multiplication of longitudes (amśa) by nine:

> Navamśa = Ra´si ´ 9. Alternatively it is a

> division of the zodiac into 108 parts of 3020' each or ra´si

> into nine parts of 3020'. In other words, successive 400 (3

> naksatras or 12 navamśas) get placed one over the

> other. But, What happens to the naksatra in the process?

>

>

>

> Mathematically, navamśa is also the division of a

> naksatra into nine equal parts of 1028'53 " .3333 having

> lords in the sequence Ketu, Venus …Mercury irrespective of the

> stellar lord. i.e. 13020'´ 9 = 1200 and 1028'53 " .3333

> ´ 9 = 13020'.

>

> Lordships in every 1200 from zero, is in the order Ketu, Venus, Sun

> … Mercury. Navamśa as such places the Planets and

> Bhava longitudes under a different ra´si and stellar

> influence.

>

>

>

> Ø What authority Krishnamurthy's subs do have to nullify

> these influences of classical origin?

>

> Ø Why can't the naksatra sub-divisions be equal like

> ra´sis, naksatras and different vargas in conformity with

> the classical?

>

>

>

> An un-equal arc division based on a misconceived interpretation of

the

> Vimśottari technique cannot alter the classical influences of

> the 243 equal divisions of 1028'53 " .3333 that successively

> assume lordship of Ketu, Venus…. Mercury.

>

>

>

> If someone intends to deride the significance of navamśa

> in favor of Krishnamurthy's Paddhati, please have a look at the

> figures (1) and (2).

>

>

>

> Ø Fig.1 illustrates the role of navamśa as

> significator of marital life and associations in an equal house

> division. Navamśa being multiplication by 9 the three

> bhavas representing self viz. I, V and IX (triangular equivalence)

> becomes Lagna in navamśa while those of partner (polar

> opposite) III, VII and XI becomes the seventh house i.e. the

> navamśa Lagna and the seventh shall represent in toto the

> marital/association aspects.

>

> Ø Fig.2 suggests the navamśas with reference to

> Lagna that influence the marital life viz. assembly of

> navamśas in a ra´si and in the 7th ra´si. For

> example: If Lagna is in the nth navamśa, in the

> navamśa chart n+12, n+24, n+36…. etc up to n+96 will

> influence the Lagna while n+6, n+18, n+30…up to n+102 will influence

> the 7th. Malefics placed in either of these can be detrimental to

> marital life, of course subject to the other relevant classical

> principles. Instead of KP sub-lords we must consider the stellar

lord of

> navamśa-Lagna and the 7th house.

>

>

>

> Note: (Sketch of the figures were attached when the paper was sent

for

> publication in 1996 but was not published by any astrological

magazine)

>

>

>

> It is evident therefore that the stellar sub-divisions are nothing

new

> to our divine science. They are purely classical, neither Meena nor

> Murthy can claim any credit on this account. Of course, they may

compete

> for the dubious distinction of introducing a bogus hypothesis, to

> pollute the divine corridors of Vedic wisdom. In this race

Krishnamurthy

> is the forerunner with the publicity and incredible claims. His

> `Paddhati' shall incur eternal disgrace only.

>

>

>

> 5. Alternative method of stellar division

>

>

>

> We saw earlier that each `naksatra-navamśa'

> from 0o onwards is ruled by planets in the order `Ketu to

> Mercury' irrespective of the lord of that particular

> naksatra. Clue for an alternative method can be obtained from the

> traditional `Dvada´samśa'. If we follow the

> numerical multiplication process by which the navamśa is

> derived the twelve divisions of each ra´si begins from Aries and

> ends at Pisces. But as per the traditional definition, the

> Dvada´samśa division of a ra´si begins from

> the ra´si itself instead of from Mesa or Aries. In the

> context of naksatras, therefore the first navamśa

> division must be owned by its own lord and the subsequent ones by

the

> order of stellar lordship or da´sas. Mathematically the process will

> be as follows:

>

>

>

> The expired part by virtue of planetary occupation is to be

multiplied

> by 9 and from the same, 13020' has to be subtracted successively to

> find the divisional location of the planet or Bhava. Each

> 13020' represents the divisions in the Ududa´sa-order

> beginning with the star-lord itself. This method is a far more

logical

> and scientific one than the Krishnamurthy Paddhati. In KP to derive

the

> sub-lord expired portion of the naksatra has to be multiplied by

> nine as mentioned above. But in the second step, instead of

subtracting

> 13020' successively KP deducts the da´sa years one by one

> beginning from that of star-lord to arrive at the so called sub.

Please

> note – the da´sa years are reduced from nine times the expired

> arc of a naksatra – It is just 1st standard arithmetic that

> from 50 mangoes 30 coconuts cannot be subtracted. We need not

search for

> a better proof against the so-called Krishnamurthy Paddhati than

this

> idiosyncrasy.

>

>

>

> 6. Appeal of KP among the Public

>

>

>

> Obviously the question may turn up – If KP is so bogus what makes

> the people to follow the same?

>

>

>

> The answer is straightforward. The fault lies in the people. We

accept

> certain things to be right without having sufficient deliberations

on

> its validity. If the case studies provided in KP-literature are true

> then I may doubt the astrology itself – It is better to take refuge

> in Ucchista Ganapati rather than devoting time for

> studying astrological literature. KP's claims are quite incredible –

> at the best they can be post-mortems. It is easy to realize that

with 12

> ra´sis, 27 naksatras, 252 subs and a minimum of 2268

> subsubs coupled with Pra´sna, Weekday and Kalahora, the

> permutations available to him for justifying an event are infinite.

> Discussion on examples of KP will be a sheer waste of time and

space.

> Students interested may workout the examples of KP with the

different

> value of ayanam´sa I have proposed (50' greater than that

> of KP's ayanamśa) and using only the classical

> principles. In addition to the de-merits of KP we must remember

that the

> small divisions have sanctity only if we have an ayanamśa

> that can be established as true. A reliable perfect method of birth-

time

> rectification is another requirement.

>

>

>

> Any Bhava in a horoscope must be getting influenced by a number of

> Planets. Moon's longitudinal arc corresponding to `antaras'

> is of the order of 2' (minimum) to 22' (maximum). So if we use

> two ayanam´sas differing by one or two degrees not only the

> `antaras' even the `bhuktis' corresponding to an event

> will be precedent ones and fortunately this also may be related to

the

> event/bhava under reference. In fact no precise prediction is

> possible without true ayanamśa and a reliable

> rectification procedure. Because of these reasons KP's claims cannot

> be accepted as true. There can be some accidental successes, rest

are

> simply aimed at befooling the Public. I'm sure that this article

> will be an eye-opener to many of the followers of KP.

>

>

>

> 7. Conclusion

>

>

>

> Ø Udu-da´sa is simply a timing technique

> and the proportion of planetary da´sas derives its significance from

> the in-violable mathematical structure of the zodiac comprising of

its

> Rasis, Naksatras, Vargas, degrees etc. Each da´sa is

> construed as a sum of the proportionate parts and here only the time

> gets divided by time.

>

>

>

> Ø Application of this mathematical feature of a

> technique to modify the Zodiac itself will be like putting the cart

> before the horse. As such all the Krishnamurthy's stellar

> sub-divisions based on the " arc per year " are invalid creations

> that carry no sense in the classical corridors of astrology.

>

>

>

> Ø Even in the non-classical sphere, if we hold even

> a bit of appreciation for scientific spirit and logic Krishnamurthy

> Paddhati cannot be admitted. The fact that Krishnamurthy adopted the

> Vimśottari da´sa technique in such a way as to undermine

> the stellar Zodiac of equal divisions (13o 20' each) itself is

> reflective of the depths of unscientific practices prevailing among

> astrologers.

>

>

>

> Ø Those who are interested in research on stellar

> sub-divisions may follow either of the mathematically consistent

> approaches given. It is better if both can be tried on an

experimental

> basis. I hope Astrology shall enter the 21st century devoid of the

> Himalayan misconceptions generated by Krishnamurthy Paddhati.

>

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

Dear members,

 

This is one of many numerous mails I received after

protesting against a baseless article written by a

member of this forum.

 

The attachment is uploaded in the group as kp.rar in the files

section (which

are image files of newspaper clippings)

 

Regards,

 

Souvik

 

> --- Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1 wrote:

>

> > Sat, 5 Apr 2008 10:48:23 +0530 (IST)

> > Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1

> > Fw: Rationale for Vimshottari Dasa...

> > Souvik Dutta <explore_vulcan

> >

> > Dear Souvik,

> > Am sending you the rationale of

> > Vimshottari Dasa...since long B.V.Raman and a

> group

> > of his die-hard followers seem to have

> consistently

> > refused to recognise the superiority of K.P.,as if

> > it is their mission in life to do so... !

> > Although this controversy of

> > Meena(alias Gopalkrishna) and KSK,had been SOLVED

> > LONG AGO in the Magazine Astrology & Athrishta by

> > KSK...people like this Shirali from Calcutta,does

> > not seem to have reconciled himself to the

> > superiority of K.P.,and use any stick to try and

> > beat K.P. with...This rationale on Vimshottari

> Dasa

> > should help silence such half-baked " pseudo

> > scientists " as you rightly call them...

> > With best wishes,

> > L.Y.Rao.

 

, " Souvik Dutta "

<explore_vulcan wrote:

>

> Fine then...for the sake of the group and members who yet hasn't

been

> introduced to KP more than for you (sorry, I can't help being

> anything but honest)

> The subs aren't 252. Thats ridiculous..infact the subs are exactly

> 27*9 = 243...what is different is the KP no. its between 1 to

> 249..the reason is when the Zodiac changes..even within the same

Sub-

> Lord and Sub-Sub-Lord, it is assigned a different KP No.

> Here's the link to a basic KP website:

> http://www.logy.com/ddkpnum.htm

> Anyone can see that no extra SubLord is added, just another number

to

> designate a change in the Zodiac sign.

> 22 AR MA SU RA 29.13.20

> 23 TA VE SU RA 00.00.00

> As indicated above, 22 is Aries and 23 is Taurus.

>

> Anyway, coming to your next ridiculous claim of how can un-equal

Vim

> Dasa be used for a system which uses equal divisions of Lunar

> mansions..the speed of the Moon in diff Nak's is diff..which forms

> the basis of diff Dasa periods..The Nak's are lunar mansions (like

> homes)..why on Earth would one make un-equal divisions of it? Even

> in " Vedic " Astrology you have special Lagnas which are nothing but

> mathemetical points..thus the Subs dont physically exist but are

> immaginary divisions of each constellation...

>

> You are a lot into astronomy rite? Then you would know the many

stars

> of varying distances make up a constellation...KP goes closest to

> this scientific fact...And why make so much of " fuss " about this

when

> in other systems in astrology you have " Divisional " charts based on

> similar " division of Zodiac " concept?

>

> Now, KP's division can go closest to Twin birth prediction which

> otherwise in " Vedic " systems one would have to refer to D-64 and

> higher..

>

> My hand's paining and moreover to be honest..I really don't feel

like

> writing more to you on this (have observing your insolent attitude

> for a while and I too am not a Satwick person )

>

> Here's the good link about KP:

> http://www.jupitersweb.com/kp_workshop.htm

>

> Also why dont go to a bookstore and buy the 6 KP readers and read

it

> yourself before being the " know-all " of the group..

>

> Also, I have posted your ridiculous mail on the following KP

> group..join it to discuss further on this subject..this forum

> discusses a broad range of subjects..lets discuss it where we can

go

> more into specifics..

>

> /

>

> Thanks n Tc

>

> Souvik

>

> , " chandra_hari18 "

> <chandra_hari18@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Dear friend,

> >

> > I have added the file in pdf to this group. I can post the word

file

> > also if you want to correct me. I shall be very much obliged if

> you can

> > prove your words. I will be happy to learn from you and correct

> myself.

> > This article on KP was written in 1997 or so and I have taken the

> > opinion of many authorities and till date no one came forward to

> explain

> > me as to how his division is correct. Don't talk hi-fi if you

lack

> > basic understanding of science and are unable to understand the

> blunder

> > committed by Krishnamurthy. Vimsottari years are for equal space

> > divisions and in Navamsa-nakshatra- lord ship, the 1/9 lordship

is

> based

> > on equal space divisions. Against such basic and most fundamental

> aspect

> > of Jyotisha if an eccentric division is created by dividing the

> space

> > with its own time values... nothing can be more blunderous!

> >

> > I don't care about bashing in any group. Anybody can bash

anyone.

> Reply

> > to the point on the file uploaded.

> >

> > chandra hari

> >

> >

> > , " Souvik Dutta "

> > <explore_vulcan@> wrote:

> > >

> > > You astound me with your ignorance in KP.

> > > 252 Subs!! WOW, read the 3rd. reader of KP and then correct your

> > > facts.

> > > Also do you know the basics of the un-equal division of

> Vimshottari

> > > Dasa?

> > > Send this email to any one of the KP groups on the internet and

> see

> > > how you are bashed..why post this on a general astrology forum

if

> you

> > > are so ridiculously confident on your baseless argument.

> > > I can defy each and every argument you posted in this " know-all "

> > > baseless email against KP but someone who doesn't know the

basics

> of

> > > KP doesn't even deserve this attention.

> > >

> > > Stop fooling around about things you donot understand..

> > >

> > > Souvik

> > > --- In

, " chandra_hari18 "

> > > chandra_hari18@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Faux pas-1: Krishnamurthy Paddhati

> > > > Genesis of the controversial thesis

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > The first of my references where in I came across the names

of

> R.

> > > > Gopalakrishna Rao alias Meena and of Krishnamurthy was the

> > > serialized

> > > > experiences of Dr. B. V. Raman almost a decade ago. In the

years

> > > that

> > > > followed I could not pay much attention to these authors due

to

> my

> > > > pre-occupation with the topics of ayanamśa and the

> > > > harmonics (Varga-s) of Ra´si. During the early part of 1997

> while

> > > > looking for new avenues of research one of my colleagues

> > > providentially

> > > > turned up with the necessary literature on the so-called

> > > > `Krishnamurthy Paddhati'. The cumbersome divisions 'sub' and

the

> > > > 'sub-sub', the numerous `significators' or signifiers as well

as

> > > > the arbitrary value of ayanamśa that gave him

> > > > " unbelievable precision " in predictions made me suspicious

> about his

> > > > high claims. Very soon my studies brought to the fore of my

> mind the

> > > > reality – the technique itself was unscientific and therefore

> > > > invalid. In the course of my study I also came across certain

> other

> > > > references to Meena as the originator of the stellar sub-

> divisions

> > > in

> > > > some old issues of the Astrological Magazine. The excerpts

given

> > > below

> > > > threw me into confusion as regards publication of my

inferences

> > > without

> > > > looking into the original works of Sri R. Gopalakrishna Rao.

My

> > > efforts

> > > > to gain a Xerox copy finally succeeded due to the help

rendered

> by

> > > Dr.

> > > > T. S. Vasan by the end of June '97. I'm submitting this proof

> > > > against the so-called `Kalamśa' after a

> > > > complete and concrete examination of Meena's three parts of

> > > > `Nadi Jyotisa'. As a matter of fact Meena's book

> > > > does not even mention the philosophy of what has now come to

be

> > > known as

> > > > `Krishnamurthy Paddhati'. But it is possible that he had in

his

> > > > mind a fourth part….

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > For the sake of those readers who may not be conversant with

the

> > > history

> > > > of development of these stellar sub-divisions, the views of

> certain

> > > > distinguished personalities are provided below:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > · Sri H. R. Shankar in the January 1984 issue of

> > > Astrological

> > > > Magazine

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > " …The most significant contribution of Meena to Stellar

> > Astrology

> > > > is his original idea of dividing the Naksatra into nine

> > parts.

> > > > Inspired by the tremendous significance the navamśa

> > > > sub-division of signs had in the judgement of the horoscope,

he

> > > > experimented with division of a Naksatra into none

divisions.

> > The

> > > > principles involved in the divisions of a major Da´sa into

> > > > sub-divisions of Bhuktis as out-lined under the Vim´sottari

> > system

> > > > provided him with the tool for sub-division of Naksatras.

The

> > > > scale for division of Naksatra is 6/120, 10/120, 7/120,

> > 18/120,

> > > > 16/120, 19/120, 17/120, 7/120, and 20/120 parts. The Bhukti

> lords

> > > were

> > > > respectively named as lords of the sub-divisions in the same

> > > sequence.

> > > > Like clockwork the scheme followed a precise pattern. In

A´svini

> > > > Naksatra the first part lord is Ketu, much as the lord of

the

> > > > first bhukti is Ketu followed by Venus etc. This scheme of

> division

> > > was

> > > > found useful for purposes of in-depth study, as in judging the

> > > effect of

> > > > a planet, it now warranted to take into consideration the

> effect of

> > > the

> > > > sign in which it was placed, that of sign lord, of Naksatra

> > lord

> > > > and the lord of sub-division of Naksatra also. Thus it

helped

> > in

> > > > focusing the effect of a planet on specific areas under study.

> > > Having

> > > > given expression to this novel discovery in his book Nadi

> > > > Jyotisa he did not live to propagate its application… "

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > These words of Sri Shankar do contain a brief out-line of the

> > > important

> > > > features of the so-called `Kalamśa'. Here in

> > > > the invention of the technique being credited to Meena, a

> number of

> > > > critical responses appeared subsequently in the Astrological

> > > Magazine

> > > > from the followers of Krishnamurthy Paddhati:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > · Shri Narayan Prasad of Pune, October 1984 issue of the

> > > Astrological

> > > > Magazine

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > " … I checked up the whole of … this book. But no-where I

> > found

> > > > any mention about the use of the sub-division of Naksatra

on

> > > > Vimśottari scale in judging the effect of a Planet…. "

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > · Shri B. N. Nayak of Puri, October 1984 issue of the

> > Astrological

> > > > Magazine

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > " …Writing in his preface to R. E. Manu's book the late Mr.

> > > > Krishnamurthy says that in 1951 he found out the method of

`Sub'

> > > > and taught it to students for nearly ten years and from 1963

he

> > > > propagated the " advanced stellar system… "

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > What Mr. Shankar elaborates in favor of " sub-division " of a

> > > > Naksatra is only a reproduction from Krishnamurthy. Meena

did

> > not

> > > > advocate or write anything in favor of Kalamśa

> > > > division. Nowhere has he used the word that Kalamśa

> > > > division is the sub-division of a Naksatra, which change

the

> > > > effect of planets placed in the `sub'. Krishnamurthy has

applied

> > > > this " Kalamsa " division into space divisions… So only after

> > reading

> > > > Krishnamurthy's system Mr. Shankar has been able to explain

the

> > > > truth behind `Sub-theory'… "

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > · Sri M. S. Sitharamiah, October 1984 issue of the

Astrological

> > > > Magazine

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > " …. Three volumes of Nadi Jyotisa published … not

> > > > 30 years ago but far before it. I got interested in this

system

> in

> > > 1946

> > > > … After Part III of his book was published I lost no time in

> > meeting

> > > > and paying my tributes to him as his disciple. I met him

several

> > > times

> > > > after that. At that time Mr. Rao told me that he was

> contemplating

> > > > publication of the 4th part based on

> > > > Kalamśa…. "

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Apart from these varying opinions regarding the originator, a

> > > notable

> > > > comment appeared in the May' 84 issue of Astrological

Magazine

> by

> > > > Sri G. S. Shirali of Calcutta:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > " …. It is however agreed that this theory is an effective tool

> > to

> > > > an astrologer to justify any event after it has taken place

for

> it

> > > > provides ample flexibility to extend the principles of

> astrology " .

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Shri Shirali has further quoted Dr. P. S. Sastry from

December

> 1969

> > > > issue to suggest that – " the concept of stellar lordship is

in

> > > > itself faulty and is alien to Hindu astrology. It has been

> > > transplanted

> > > > on the soil of traditional astrology by self-taught scholars

> due to

> > > > misconceived interpretation of the classics. "

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > From the three Parts of Meena's texts, I understand that:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > (a) Perhaps, in the known history of astrology for the first

> time

> > > the

> > > > stellar lordship has been extensively used in analyzing the

> Yogas

> > > and

> > > > other effects.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > (b) Meena has been experimenting with the divisional charts

like

> > > > `Drekkana' by linking it with the

> > > > `gunas' and was trying to go deeper even in a

> > > > non-classical way as is evident from his reference to

> > > > " navamśa-dvada´samśa " in Part

> > > > III.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > © The fundamental principle that guided his research was

> > > progression

> > > > from `Sthula' to `Suksma' and as such it

> > > > is possible that he had been experimenting with the

> > > > `Kalamśa' as well.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > (d) Meena preferred Drk-Siddhanta Pa´ncanga

> > > > rather than the Vakya-pa´ncanga used in Nadi works

> > > > and as such his ayanamśa was roughly the same as that of

> > > > Lahiri or Krishnamurthy.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > (e) It is apparent from the above that the credit for

splitting

> > > each

> > > > Naksatra into uneven arcs proportionate to

> > Vimśottari

> > > > da´sa years must rest solely with Meena while development and

> > > > popularization as a predictive technique can be ascribed to

late

> > > Sri.

> > > > Krishnamurthy. In fact controversy regarding credit arose out

> of the

> > > > popularity gained by Meena's `Kalamśa'

> > > > under the tutelage of Krishnamurthy.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > With this background of ideas let us now focus our attention

on

> to

> > > the

> > > > method as well as relevance of the `sub' and `sub-sub'

> > > > divisions in the context of classical astrology.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Method: Stellar sub-divisions of KP

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > The methodology can be best illustrated by taking the example

> of a

> > > > particular Naksatra – (Say) A´svini:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > · A´svini ® lord = Ketu ® dasa years = 7 for

> > > > 800' of arc (00 to 13020')

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Classical texts prescribe only the division of the seven years

> > > period

> > > > into bhuktis or sub-periods of time in proportion to the nine

> > da´sa

> > > > years that constitute the frame of Vimśottari. The process

> > is a

> > > > division of time by time intended to make the da´sas a linear

> > > > combination of the bhuktis and the bhuktis a linear

combination

> of

> > > the

> > > > antaras … so on. But KP defines `arc per year' in the

> > > > diametrically opposite way as 800'/120 years = 6'40 " per

> > > > year. Each Naksatra accordingly is the sum of subs like:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > · A´svini:

> > > >

> > > > Div

> > > >

> > > > Arc length

> > > >

> > > > Lord

> > > > Limits

> > > > I

> > > >

> > > > 00046'40 "

> > > >

> > > > ´Sikhi

> > > >

> > > > 00000'00 "

> > > >

> > > > 00046'40 "

> > > >

> > > > II.

> > > >

> > > > 02013'20 "

> > > >

> > > > ´Sukra

> > > >

> > > > 00046'40 "

> > > >

> > > > 03000'00 "

> > > >

> > > > III

> > > >

> > > > 00040'00 "

> > > >

> > > > Surya

> > > >

> > > > 03000'00 "

> > > >

> > > > 03040'00 "

> > > >

> > > > IV

> > > >

> > > > 01006'40 "

> > > >

> > > > Candra

> > > >

> > > > 03040'00 "

> > > >

> > > > 04046'40 "

> > > >

> > > > V

> > > >

> > > > 00046'40 "

> > > >

> > > > Kuja

> > > >

> > > > 04046'40 "

> > > >

> > > > 05033'20 "

> > > >

> > > > VI

> > > >

> > > > 02000'00 "

> > > >

> > > > Rahu

> > > >

> > > > 05033'20 "

> > > >

> > > > 07033'20 "

> > > >

> > > > VII

> > > >

> > > > 01046'40 "

> > > >

> > > > Guru

> > > >

> > > > 07033'20 "

> > > >

> > > > 09020'00 "

> > > >

> > > > VIII

> > > >

> > > > 02006'40 "

> > > >

> > > > ´Sani

> > > >

> > > > 09020'00 "

> > > >

> > > > 11026'40 "

> > > >

> > > > IX

> > > >

> > > > 01053'20 "

> > > >

> > > > Budha

> > > >

> > > > 11026'40 "

> > > >

> > > > 13020'00 "

> > > > The 27 Naksatras being divided into 9 divisions each, the

> > total

> > > > number of sub-divisions will be 243 only. But certain sub-

> divisions

> > > > being across two signs KP's classification consider such

> divisions

> > > > as two and hence the total number of subs is 252. The

smallest

> sub

> > > is

> > > > 40' of Surya while the biggest is 02013'20 " of

> > > > ´Sukra. KP proceeds further deep with the division process to

> > create

> > > > subsubs like:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Lords of

> > > >

> > > > Subsub

> > > >

> > > > ¯

> > > >

> > > > Sub

> > > >

> > > > Lords

> > > >

> > > > of

> > > >

> > > > Sub

> > > >

> > > > Sun: 40'

> > > >

> > > > Subsub

> > > >

> > > > ¯

> > > >

> > > > Venus:

> > > >

> > > > 2013'20 "

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sun

> > > >

> > > > 2'

> > > >

> > > > Venus

> > > >

> > > > 22' 13 " .33

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Moon

> > > >

> > > > 3' 20 "

> > > >

> > > > Sun

> > > >

> > > > 06' 40 " .00

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Mars

> > > >

> > > > 2' 20 "

> > > >

> > > > Moon

> > > >

> > > > 11' 6 " .66

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Rahu

> > > >

> > > > 6'

> > > >

> > > > Mars

> > > >

> > > > 07' 46 " .66

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Jupiter

> > > >

> > > > 5' 20 "

> > > >

> > > > Rahu

> > > >

> > > > 20'00 " .00

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Saturn

> > > >

> > > > 6' 20 "

> > > >

> > > > Jupiter

> > > >

> > > > 17'46 " .66

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Mercury

> > > >

> > > > 5' 40 "

> > > >

> > > > Saturn

> > > >

> > > > 21' 6 " .66

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Ketu

> > > >

> > > > 2' 20 "

> > > >

> > > > Mercury

> > > >

> > > > 18'53 " .33

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Venus

> > > >

> > > > 6' 40 "

> > > >

> > > > Ketu

> > > >

> > > > 07'46 " .66

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > These minor divisions correspond to the `antaras' or

> > > > `chidrams' i.e. for example, Moon's longitudinal arc

> > > > corresponding to Surya chidram is only 2' while for Sukra

> chidram it

> > > > is 22' 13 " .33. As per KP the aforesaid minute divisions

exercise

> > > > critical influence over the astrological phenomena – including

> > natal

> > > > horoscopy as well as Prasna.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Contradictions Inherent in KP

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > The fundamental principle over which KP's citadel stands is

the

> > > > Vimśottari da´sa technique. We must remember here that

> > the

> > > > Vimśottari da´sa years is intended for the limited scope

> > of

> > > > application only, in projecting the horoscopic effects into

the

> > > future.

> > > > Da´sa-bhukti-antara influence prevails only for a specific

> > interval

> > > > of time – it is not an absolute zodiacal effect similar to

those

> > of

> > > > Ra´si, Navamśa or Naksatra. KP's notions

> > > > are all erroneous in this regard. For example, Moon by its

> > > placement at

> > > > the beginning of Bharani generates a sequence of influence

> > over

> > > > the time beginning with Venus da´sa, own bhukti. The initial

> > > > Venus-Venus influence is over the individual not over Moon.

> Moreover

> > > > such influence is temporal. Zodiacal influence over Moon on

the

> > > other

> > > > hand depends on its ra´si, stellar and varga positions in the

> > > > horoscope. Vimśottari is simply a technique meant for

> > > > identifying the temporal influence (in sequence) emanating

from

> a

> > > > horoscope – not a design factor of the zodiac.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > * Apart from the aspect of zodiacal influence, KP was further

> > > wrong

> > > > in adopting the proportion of Vimśottari da´sa years to

> > > > divide the arc. The basic feature of Vimśottari is an

> > un-even

> > > > distribution of 120 years in 9 equal divisions of 800' each.

> Let us

> > > > ask ourselves:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > * Why the naksatra divisions themselves are not in the

> > > > proportion of Vimśottari da´sa years? More explicitly,

> > why

> > > > can't we define the Naksatras as: A´svini (00 – 70),

> > > > Bharani (70 – 270), Pusya (840 –1030) etc? All

> > > > added up gives 120 degrees just as 13020' ´ 9 = 1200.

Rationale

> > > > of the dasa years is beyond the wisdom of human beings (?)

may

> be

> > > some

> > > > yogic vision may reveal the secret at a future date. But we

> know for

> > > > certain that the 7 years of Asvini is relevant only in the

> context

> > > of

> > > > 800' Naksatras.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > * Thirdly, if we add up the allotted years corresponding to

the

> > > > naksatras of a ra´si we get: 28.5 (Aries) + 18.0 (Taurus)

> > +

> > > > 33.5 (Gemini) + 40.0 (Cancer) = 120. Why can't the ra´sis be

> > > > created accordingly i.e. 280.5, 180, 330.5, 400 etc?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > We all know it is impossible. We can't afford to violate the

> > > > sanctity of the classical divisions of either 300 or 13020'

or

> of

> > > > the lesser ones.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > * Fourth aspect is the status of classical sources of

planetary

> > > > influence viz. Vargas or divisions ranging from 12', 00.5,

10, …

> > > > 3020', 3045', 4017'…. 100,150 etc used for predictive

> > > > purposes? Meena under no circumstances could have ignored

these

> > > > classical principles. If we incorporate the KP division into

the

> > > > classical frame, we will be left with a humbug.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > * Lastly, KP's use of un-equal house division is non-classical

> > > > and cannot be admitted within the classical corridors of Hindu

> > > > Astrology. Similar to ra´sis and naksatras of equal

> > extent,

> > > > the bhavas or houses are universal in character with 300

each.

> The

> > > > different astronomical methods are irrelevant as astrology is

> based

> > > on

> > > > the equal house division as can be understood from the

> equivalence

> > > of

> > > > trikonas or triangular bhavas, professed in classical

texts.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Navamśa illustrates the irrationality of Krishnamurthy

> > > > Paddhati

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > As the term implies `navamśa' is the

> > > > multiplication of longitudes (amśa) by nine:

> > > > Navamśa = Ra´si ´ 9. Alternatively it is a

> > > > division of the zodiac into 108 parts of 3020' each or ra´si

> > > > into nine parts of 3020'. In other words, successive 400 (3

> > > > naksatras or 12 navamśas) get placed one over the

> > > > other. But, What happens to the naksatra in the process?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Mathematically, navamśa is also the division of a

> > > > naksatra into nine equal parts of 1028'53 " .3333 having

> > > > lords in the sequence Ketu, Venus …Mercury irrespective of the

> > > > stellar lord. i.e. 13020'´ 9 = 1200 and 1028'53 " .3333

> > > > ´ 9 = 13020'.

> > > >

> > > > Lordships in every 1200 from zero, is in the order Ketu,

Venus,

> Sun

> > > > … Mercury. Navamśa as such places the Planets and

> > > > Bhava longitudes under a different ra´si and stellar

> > > > influence.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Ø What authority Krishnamurthy's subs do have to nullify

> > > > these influences of classical origin?

> > > >

> > > > Ø Why can't the naksatra sub-divisions be equal like

> > > > ra´sis, naksatras and different vargas in conformity with

> > > > the classical?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > An un-equal arc division based on a misconceived

interpretation

> of

> > > the

> > > > Vimśottari technique cannot alter the classical influences

> > of

> > > > the 243 equal divisions of 1028'53 " .3333 that successively

> > > > assume lordship of Ketu, Venus…. Mercury.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > If someone intends to deride the significance of navamśa

> > > > in favor of Krishnamurthy's Paddhati, please have a look at

the

> > > > figures (1) and (2).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Ø Fig.1 illustrates the role of navamśa as

> > > > significator of marital life and associations in an equal

house

> > > > division. Navamśa being multiplication by 9 the three

> > > > bhavas representing self viz. I, V and IX (triangular

> equivalence)

> > > > becomes Lagna in navamśa while those of partner (polar

> > > > opposite) III, VII and XI becomes the seventh house i.e. the

> > > > navamśa Lagna and the seventh shall represent in toto the

> > > > marital/association aspects.

> > > >

> > > > Ø Fig.2 suggests the navamśas with reference to

> > > > Lagna that influence the marital life viz. assembly of

> > > > navamśas in a ra´si and in the 7th ra´si. For

> > > > example: If Lagna is in the nth navamśa, in the

> > > > navamśa chart n+12, n+24, n+36…. etc up to n+96 will

> > > > influence the Lagna while n+6, n+18, n+30…up to n+102 will

> > influence

> > > > the 7th. Malefics placed in either of these can be

detrimental

> to

> > > > marital life, of course subject to the other relevant

classical

> > > > principles. Instead of KP sub-lords we must consider the

stellar

> > > lord of

> > > > navamśa-Lagna and the 7th house.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Note: (Sketch of the figures were attached when the paper was

> sent

> > > for

> > > > publication in 1996 but was not published by any astrological

> > > magazine)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > It is evident therefore that the stellar sub-divisions are

> nothing

> > > new

> > > > to our divine science. They are purely classical, neither

Meena

> nor

> > > > Murthy can claim any credit on this account. Of course, they

may

> > > compete

> > > > for the dubious distinction of introducing a bogus

hypothesis,

> to

> > > > pollute the divine corridors of Vedic wisdom. In this race

> > > Krishnamurthy

> > > > is the forerunner with the publicity and incredible claims.

His

> > > > `Paddhati' shall incur eternal disgrace only.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 5. Alternative method of stellar division

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > We saw earlier that each `naksatra-navamśa'

> > > > from 0o onwards is ruled by planets in the order `Ketu to

> > > > Mercury' irrespective of the lord of that particular

> > > > naksatra. Clue for an alternative method can be obtained

from

> > the

> > > > traditional `Dvada´samśa'. If we follow the

> > > > numerical multiplication process by which the navamśa is

> > > > derived the twelve divisions of each ra´si begins from Aries

and

> > > > ends at Pisces. But as per the traditional definition, the

> > > > Dvada´samśa division of a ra´si begins from

> > > > the ra´si itself instead of from Mesa or Aries. In the

> > > > context of naksatras, therefore the first navamśa

> > > > division must be owned by its own lord and the subsequent

ones

> by

> > > the

> > > > order of stellar lordship or da´sas. Mathematically the

process

> > will

> > > > be as follows:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > The expired part by virtue of planetary occupation is to be

> > > multiplied

> > > > by 9 and from the same, 13020' has to be subtracted

> successively to

> > > > find the divisional location of the planet or Bhava. Each

> > > > 13020' represents the divisions in the Ududa´sa-order

> > > > beginning with the star-lord itself. This method is a far more

> > > logical

> > > > and scientific one than the Krishnamurthy Paddhati. In KP to

> derive

> > > the

> > > > sub-lord expired portion of the naksatra has to be

multiplied

> > by

> > > > nine as mentioned above. But in the second step, instead of

> > > subtracting

> > > > 13020' successively KP deducts the da´sa years one by one

> > > > beginning from that of star-lord to arrive at the so called

sub.

> > > Please

> > > > note – the da´sa years are reduced from nine times the

> > expired

> > > > arc of a naksatra – It is just 1st standard arithmetic

> > that

> > > > from 50 mangoes 30 coconuts cannot be subtracted. We need not

> > > search for

> > > > a better proof against the so-called Krishnamurthy Paddhati

than

> > > this

> > > > idiosyncrasy.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 6. Appeal of KP among the Public

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Obviously the question may turn up – If KP is so bogus what

> > makes

> > > > the people to follow the same?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > The answer is straightforward. The fault lies in the people.

We

> > > accept

> > > > certain things to be right without having sufficient

> deliberations

> > > on

> > > > its validity. If the case studies provided in KP-literature

are

> true

> > > > then I may doubt the astrology itself – It is better to take

> > refuge

> > > > in Ucchista Ganapati rather than devoting time

> > for

> > > > studying astrological literature. KP's claims are quite

> incredible

> > –

> > > > at the best they can be post-mortems. It is easy to realize

that

> > > with 12

> > > > ra´sis, 27 naksatras, 252 subs and a minimum of 2268

> > > > subsubs coupled with Pra´sna, Weekday and Kalahora, the

> > > > permutations available to him for justifying an event are

> infinite.

> > > > Discussion on examples of KP will be a sheer waste of time and

> > > space.

> > > > Students interested may workout the examples of KP with the

> > > different

> > > > value of ayanam´sa I have proposed (50' greater than that

> > > > of KP's ayanamśa) and using only the classical

> > > > principles. In addition to the de-merits of KP we must

remember

> > > that the

> > > > small divisions have sanctity only if we have an ayanamśa

> > > > that can be established as true. A reliable perfect method of

> birth-

> > > time

> > > > rectification is another requirement.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Any Bhava in a horoscope must be getting influenced by a

number

> of

> > > > Planets. Moon's longitudinal arc corresponding to `antaras'

> > > > is of the order of 2' (minimum) to 22' (maximum). So if we use

> > > > two ayanam´sas differing by one or two degrees not only the

> > > > `antaras' even the `bhuktis' corresponding to an event

> > > > will be precedent ones and fortunately this also may be

related

> to

> > > the

> > > > event/bhava under reference. In fact no precise prediction is

> > > > possible without true ayanamśa and a reliable

> > > > rectification procedure. Because of these reasons KP's claims

> cannot

> > > > be accepted as true. There can be some accidental successes,

> rest

> > > are

> > > > simply aimed at befooling the Public. I'm sure that this

article

> > > > will be an eye-opener to many of the followers of KP.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 7. Conclusion

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Ø Udu-da´sa is simply a timing technique

> > > > and the proportion of planetary da´sas derives its

significance

> > from

> > > > the in-violable mathematical structure of the zodiac

comprising

> of

> > > its

> > > > Rasis, Naksatras, Vargas, degrees etc. Each da´sa is

> > > > construed as a sum of the proportionate parts and here only

the

> time

> > > > gets divided by time.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Ø Application of this mathematical feature of a

> > > > technique to modify the Zodiac itself will be like putting

the

> cart

> > > > before the horse. As such all the Krishnamurthy's stellar

> > > > sub-divisions based on the " arc per year " are invalid

creations

> > > > that carry no sense in the classical corridors of astrology.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Ø Even in the non-classical sphere, if we hold even

> > > > a bit of appreciation for scientific spirit and logic

> Krishnamurthy

> > > > Paddhati cannot be admitted. The fact that Krishnamurthy

> adopted the

> > > > Vimśottari da´sa technique in such a way as to undermine

> > > > the stellar Zodiac of equal divisions (13o 20' each) itself is

> > > > reflective of the depths of unscientific practices prevailing

> among

> > > > astrologers.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Ø Those who are interested in research on stellar

> > > > sub-divisions may follow either of the mathematically

consistent

> > > > approaches given. It is better if both can be tried on an

> > > experimental

> > > > basis. I hope Astrology shall enter the 21st century devoid

of

> the

> > > > Himalayan misconceptions generated by Krishnamurthy Paddhati.

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste All

 

Prey why is Anyone thinking KP’s sub and sub/sub divisions are so

“illogical� If Vim Dasha is universally accepted then Sub is merely

representative of Bhukti-dasha whilst sub/sub is Anthra-dasha …….. These so

called “sub†divisions are nothing but the division of a Nakshatra into

parts representative of the Vim Dasha of 120 yrs into its sub parts ….

 

Table wise division of Nak

Ketu (7yrs) sub period – 0deg 46mins 40secs

Ven (20yrs) sub period – 2deg 13mins 20secs

Sun (6yrs) sub period – 0deg 40mins 00secs

Moon (10yrs) sub period – 1deg 6mins 40secs

Mars (7yrs) sub period – 0deg 46mins 40secs

Rahu (18yrs) sub period – 2deg 00mins 00secs

Jup (16yrs) sub period – 1deg 46mins 40secs

Sat (19rs) sub period – 2deg 6mins 40secs

Mer (17yrs) sub period – 1deg 53mins 20secs

 

As Souvik has mentioned don’t pre-judge anything without at least making the

effort to learn something about it first?

 

I hope from above Chandra Hari and everyone else within this group understands

the KP system better (?) ……..

 

Best regards …..

 

Jai Sita Ram

 

Ram