Critique on Nadi Navamsa Research of Pt Rath

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Someone sent me a link to Pt Sanjay Rath's multimedia presentation on " Nadi

Navamsa " and asked for my comments. You can access the presentation at:

 

http://www.sohamsa.com/dbc/nadinavamsha/

 

I will share my critique on it.

 

* * *

 

Definition

 

Chandra Kala Nadi verse 5753 in book 3 defines navamsa as follows: " In Ar, Le

and Sg, start from Ar. In Cp, Ta and Vi, start from Cp. In Li, Aq and Ge, start

from Li. In Cn, Sc and Pi, start from Cn. "

 

There is absolutely no indication in the verse of going anti-zodiacally in any

of the above cases and only the start sign is mentioned. So, by default, it must

mean we start from the given sign and go zodiacally. This is just the regular

Parasara navamsa! In other words, the nadi verse quoted by Pt Rath merely

defines Parasara's navamsa. In fact, Santhanam's translation interprets it the

same way, i.e. consistent with Parasara's navamsa!

 

Now, Pt Rath says that you go anti-zodiacally for even signs because they have

female energy. That is not mentioned by Nadi. That is his own extrapolation.

Moreover, this sequence is quite oddly constructed:

 

Ar Ta Ge Cn Le Vi Li Sc Sg : Cp Sg Sc Li Vi Le Cn Ge Ta : Li Sc Sg Cp Aq Pi Ar

Ta Ge : Cn Ge Ta Ar Pi Aq Cp Sg Sc : Ar Ta Ge ...

 

* * *

 

Badly Structured

 

Unlike other navamsa variations (and various other divisional charts for that

matter), the distribution across the twelve signs is *unequal* in Pt Rath's

" Nadi Navamsa " mapping:

 

Ar - 9 times, Ta - 12 times, Ge - 12 times, Cn - 9 times,

Le - 6 times, Vi - 6 times, Li - 9 times, Sc - 12 times,

Sg - 12 times, Cp - 9 times, Aq - 6 times, Pi - 6 times

 

In other words, some signs come more than some other signs in this chart. In all

the divisional charts defined by rishis and classics, we see all signs getting

equal coverage overall. In D-9 sequence, all signs appear 9 times; in D-10

sequence, all signs appear 10 times; and so on. Pt Rath's D-9 sequence is

illogical.

 

If navamsas go from Ar to Sg in Ar and they pretty much cover the same signs

backwards in Ta, what is the need to go just one sign up to Cp and then start

coming backwards? What is the jump from Ta to Li? Krishna Mishra Navamsa also

has jumps in it, but it is better structured with logical jumps in such a way

that all signs get equal coverage overall.

 

The chart invented by Pt Rath is essentially a badly structured chart that is

NOT granted by any classic. Pt Rath seems to have come up with it, in order to

solve a mystery that simply does not exist in my view. It is structurally very

weak and illogical and not in the same league as the other charts we have seen

before.

 

* * *

 

Motivation

 

The whole research is motivated by a verse in Chandra Kala Nadi. Verse 2115 in

book 1 can litereally be translated as: " if Sun is in debilitated amsa and

Taurus, the second dasa will give thread ceremony. "

 

Pt Rath notes that a planet in Taurus cannot be in Libra navamsa and comes up

with a new navamsa chart calculation to allow that. However, there are several

possible interpretations of the verse without having to design a new chart:

 

(1) Amsa does not mean navamsa, but a different divisional chart (e.g.

dwadasamsa, vimsamsa etc).

(2) The verse means that Sun in Li amsa and Sun in Ta amsa, give thread ceremony

in the 2nd dasa. In other words, Sun has to be in a Venusian amsa. This is

certainly a tenable interpretation.

(3) Kalachakra navamsa, which can be derived from the Kalachakra dasa tables

given by Parasara, allows Li navamsa in Ta! As you go across the zodiac from Ar

to Pi and take 9 navamsas in each, the 12x9=108 navamsas go as Ar, Ta, ..., Aq,

Pi; Sc, Li, ..., Cp, Sg; Ar, Ta, ..., Aq, Pi; Sc, Li, ..., Cp, Sg; and so on.

Thre nakshatras give navamsas (3x4=12) in the savya chakra (zodiacal cycle) and

three nakshatras give navamsas in apasavya chakra (anto-zodiacal cycle) and so

on. This way, navamsas in Ta will be Cp, Aq, Pi, Sc, Li, Vi, Cn, Le, Ge. So Li

navamsa comes in Ta!

(4) There is an error in the manuscripts as Santhanam suspected.

 

Given different ways in which the verse can be explained, there is no real

motivation to come up with whole new calculations just to explain it.

 

* * *

 

Example - Abraham Lincoln

 

He died in Saturn-Saturn antardasa. Pt Rath questions how Saturn in navamsa

lagna could have killed him.

 

One wonders why he is seeing death from navamsa. He says death is an internal

thing and not an external thing. Because of his theory that internal things are

seen from nadi navamsa (i.e. his newly created chart) and external things are

seen from Pararsara navamsa and because he wants to justify death in Saturn dasa

based on nadi navamsa but not Parasara navamsa, he makes death into an internal

thing and not an external thing.

 

But death is internal *as well as* external. After all, it's not like the world

does not know it when one dies!!

 

Actually, forget navamsa, which is not really the chart of death. Take rasi

chart, the chart of physical body. It must surely show death. Saturn is lagna

lord in a quadrant. Why did he kill? It makes no sense.

 

Lincoln has two planets in lagna, while Moon is in an inimical sign in 12th.

Lagna is much stronger than Moon. Thus, Vimsottari dasa from lagna is far more

appropriate for him. Parasara never said dasas are only from Moon's star. They

can be from the star of Moon or lagna. Based on lagna Vimsottari, which is far

far more appropriate here, Mercury dasa started in 1965 February and he died 2

months later. Mercury is the 8th lord in lagna with 7th lord. He is a maraka

using classical rules of Parasara. So Lincoln died as soon as a classical maraka

dasa started.

 

Instead of making lagna lord of rasi chart (Saturn) a maraka simply because he

is in the 7th house in a newly constructed chart, let us stick to simple

principles and accept 8th lord in lagna with 7th lord (Mercury) as a maraka,

irrespective of navamsa.

 

* * *

 

Example - A.R. Rahman ( " Jai ho " composer)

 

Indian composer A.R. Rahman became popular in the Dwisaptati sama dasa of Mars

(1998-2007). Pt Rath asked why Mars made him so successful despite being in the

8th house in navamsa. He pointed out that Mars in 10th house in nadi navamsa and

said that explains his " siddhi " .

 

Questions arise: What does he mean by siddhi, which he says is " internal " and

hence seen in nadi navamsa? How does Pt Rath know that Rahman got this siddhi in

Mars dasa? If he is concluding it by externally looking at the quality of his

compositions or their success, isn't then this " siddhi " an external thing? Why

is it only internal? Why is this " siddhi " seen in navamsa and not siddhamsa

(D-24) or some other chart?

 

Moreover, he is composing as well in Mercury dasa (since 2007). In fact, his

international fame (e.g. Jai ho from " Slumdog Millionnaire " ) came in Mercury

dasa. Mercury is 8th lord in 7th in both Parasara navamsa and " nadi navamsa " .

Why does he continue to maintain " siddhi " , compose well and increase fame in

this dasa?

 

Now, let us simply address the basic question - why this success in Mars dasa?

 

Though Mars is in 8th in Parasara navamsa, he is lagna lord. Lagna lord in 8th

can give sudden rise. Navamsa is the chart of poorvapunya. Lagna lord is always

beneficial. So his poorvapunya gives him sudden and unexpected rise. In rasi,

Mars is the 6th lord in 8th with 12th lord. This is VRY and shows rising to

great heights after suffering. VRY does not necessarily show getting

" undeserved " success after someone dies as Pt Rath said in the presentation. It

shows rising to great and unexpected heights after suffering.

 

In any case, dasamsa is the real chart for this. In D-10, Mars is 10th and 5th

lord and a yogakaraka. He is in keertipada (A5). Though he is in 8th, yogakaraka

in 8th gives sudden fame and sudden rise.

 

Success in Mars dasa makes sense without resorting to nadi navamsa.

 

* * *

 

Example - Rabindranath Tagore

 

He questions how Jupiter can kill, because he is lagna lord in 12th in navamsa.

With his " nadi navamsa " , Jupiter is 2nd and 5th lord in 2nd. He says that

explains death in Jupiter-Jupiter dasa.

 

However, death cannot be justified just based on navamsa. Rasi chart must show

it. Jupiter is the lagna lord exalted in 5th. How can his dasa and antardasa

give death? Obviously, he is using a wrong dasa to see death.

 

Pt Rath used Dwisaptati sama dasa for Rahman and not Vimsottari. So he does use

conditional dasas when they are applicable? Why doesn't he then use Sataabdika

dasa here, as lagna is in vargottama??

 

If we use Lagna Sataabdika dasa for vargottama lagna, we see that Saturn-Venus

antardasa killed him. Saturn is a malefic in an inimical sign aspecting 8th

house and 3rd house, while Venus is the 8th lord in 2nd and aspecting 8th. This

fits Parasara's criteria for marakatwa very well.

 

Let us not ignore the true marakas associated with the 8th house and convert

lagna lord of rasi chart exalted in the 5th house into a maraka, simply because

he is in the 2nd house in a new chart.

 

Even wife's death is clear. Jupiter is the 7th lord from the arudha pada of 7th

lord and his Sataabdika dasa killed wife. Antardasa was that of Sun, who is a

malefic in 3rd with Rahu.

 

As for his Nobel prize, Mars-Saturn gave it as per lagna Sataabdika dasa. In

D-10, Mars is yogakaraka in 11th aspecting 5th. Saturn is 7th lord with 5th lord

Jupiter and exchanges results. So both the planets are associated with 5th. If

we do not insist on seeing the events from navamsa and use the correct chart

(D-10), it makes good sense. In any case, Pt Rath did not really have any

convincing logic using nadi navamsa.

 

* * *

 

Nadi navamsa, Nadis and Chakras

 

Simply because he " sees " a mystery in a " nadi " text and " solves " it by defining

a new chart, he seems to jump to the conclusion that this chart shows internal

" nadis and chakras " and death. He never justifies why this chart should show

" nadis and chakras " , though he makes that assertion several times.

 

* * *

 

Internal vs External

 

After saying that Parasara navamsa shows external things and nadi navamsa shows

internal things, he shows how Parasara navamsa does not explain Knighthood and

Nobel prize in Tagore's chart and how nadi navamsa shows it. He explains it

saying " you get recognition for what *you* do and not what somebody else does "

and thus makes recognition into an internal thing. This blurs the distinction

between internal and external. On one hand, he says " manifestation of the entire

external world is from Parasara's navamsa " and yet says Knighthood and Nobel

cannot be seen in it because they are internal siddhis and nadi navamsa shows

them better.

 

To put it bluntly, he is all over the place and really offers no clarity on what

constitutes internal things and what constitutes external things, what should be

seen in which navamsa chart.

 

Even his assertion that apamrityu is not death but death like suffering and his

effort to divide mrityu and apamrityu as internal and external things and

separate them out into the 2 charts is illogical. Apamrityu can mean either

death like suffering or an unnatural death. Whether someone had an apamrityu or

mrityu, it is an internal *and* external event. World sees it, it affects how

one interacts with the world and it affects one internally. The effort to these

classify things into internal vs external things is illogical.

 

When trying to see Tagore's external recognition in nadi navamsa, because Pt

Rath somehow considers it an " internal " event, he explains why the antardasa of

Venus - 12th lord in 12th - gave the recognition, saying that the recognition

was " from abroad " . He then goes on to say, " from now onwards remember that 12th

house is not bad. It can give recognition " . The 12th lord in 12th is a good

combination, but nowhere did rishis say that it gives recognition! With this

kind of logic, anything can be justified. Contrast this explanation with what I

gave above based on D-10 and Sataabdika dasa!

 

* * *

 

Pt Rath is all over the place and inconsistent in his characterization of

internal vs external (his idea of things to be seen in Parasara's navamsa vs his

navamsa). He theorizes a lot in a very inconsistent fashion. Above all, the

chart constructed by him has some signs occurring too often and some signs

occurring less often. It is structurally very weak and does not pass a sanity

check of constructional stability. Such a structurally weak chart that is not

sanctioned by any classic can almost be ruled out from being genuine.

 

In my view, one has a higher chance of arriving at some genuine knowledge, if

one sticks to calculations given by a rishi and tries to figure out the purpose

of those calculations.

 

Best regards,

Narasimha

 

Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam

Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana

Spirituality:

Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

Jyotish writings: JyotishWritings

Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org