Krishna Mishra's Navamsa Verse (Critique on Nadi Navamsa..)

[Guest guest]

Thanks Narasimharao,

 

M. Imran

 

 

 

 

vedic astrology , Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr wrote:

>

> Namaste Souvik and others,

>

> > For those you are interested to read more, may refer to his articles in his

(Shanmukha's) blog.

> > http://sutramritam.blogspot.com/

> >

> > It is true that this is the same Navamsa referred to by Pt. Rath as " Nadi

Navamsa " .

>

> Absolutely. Though defined in slightly different language, both are identical.

The Krishna Mishra navamsa (or Jaimini navamsa) chart defined in the articles of

Shanmukha is absolutely *identical* to what Pt Rath introduced as " Nadi

navamsa " .

>

> * * *

>

> As I said, this is an asymmetric chart with different signs represented

unequally in it. Some signs appear 12 times, some 9 times and some 6 times,

instead of all signs appearing 9 times overall. THAT makes no sense whatsoever

and is quite illogical, irrespective of the caliber of the scholars who taught

it. It tells you something is amiss.

>

> * * *

>

> It is possible that Krishna Mishra's verse quoted by Shanmukha is

misunderstood. As a Sanskrit scholar, I can certainly see it meaning the

following, which is slightly different from how Shanmukha interpreted it. But

that slight difference in detail changes the complexion completely and makes it

logical.

>

> My independent interpretation of Krishna Mishra's verse is as follows:

>

> " The nine parts of a movable/fixed/dual sign are mapped to nine signs starting

from the 1st/9th/5th sign from it, respectively. The nine parts of the sign are

considered in zodiacal/anti-zodiacal order in odd/even signs, respectively. "

>

> This is subtly different from the standard interpretation that Shanmukha went

with, but note how it changtes the equation. The second Krishna Mishra verse

given by Shanmukha also says that amsas in even rasis are reckoned

anti-zodiacally, but it does not say the mapped signs are reckoned

anti-zodiacally. So my interpretation fits with both the verses.

>

> Let me show how this changes the mapping, using an example:

>

> The nine parts of Ar reckoned zodiacally go into the nine signs starting from

Ar, i.e. Ar, Ta, .., Sc, Sg.

>

> The nine parts of Ta reckoned anti-zodiacally within Ta go into the nine signs

starting from Cp, i.e. Cp, Aq, ..., Le, Vi. In other words, 26Ta40-30Ta00 goes

to Cp, 23Ta20-26Ta40 goes to Aq, 20Ta00-23Ta20 goes to Pi, ..., 3Ta20-6Ta40 goes

to Le and 0ta0-3Ta20 goes to Vi.

>

> Then the nine parts of Ge are reckoned zodiacally again and mapped to the nine

signs starting Li, i.e. Li, Sc, ..., Ta, Ge.

>

> The nine parts of Cn reckoned anti-zodiacally within Cn go into the nine signs

starting from Cn, i.e. Cn, Le, ..., Aq, Pi. In other words, 26Cn40-30TCn00 goes

to Cn, 23Cn20-26Cn40 goes to Le, 20Cn00-23Cn20 goes to Vi, ..., 3Cn20-6Cn40 goes

to Aq and 0Cn0-3Cn20 goes to Pi.

>

> And so on.

>

> * * *

>

> Such an interpretation of Krishna Mishra's Sanskrit verse is certainly

tenable. And, it does not *bias* the chart towards some signs like the standard

interpretation. All signs appear exactly 9 times in the list of 108 navamsas.

THAT would be logical.

>

> To find amsas in Ta in standard interpretation, we are starting from Cp and

going in reverse and mapping the nine parts of Ta (0Ta0-3Ta20, 3Ta20-6Ta40,

6ta40-10Ta0 etc) to Cp, Sg, Sc etc. It results in some signs repeated too many

times and some signs missing out.

>

> In my interpretation, the signs mapped to are Cp, Aq, Pi etc as in Pararsara's

navamsa, but the parts within the sign that are mapped to these signs are

reversed in order (26Ta40-30Ta0, 23Ta20-26Ta40, 20Ta0-23Ta20 etc).

>

> This small twist, which is perfectly tenable with Krishna Mishra's language,

makes things far more logical. You do not want a navamsa chart in which not all

signs appear 9 times in the list of 108 navamsas!

>

> * * *

>

> I wasn't sure why I felt compelled to write a critique on this topic. I just

followed my inner inspiration faithfully, even without understanding why that

action was required. NOW, I think I understand why I was inspired to get into

this. The inner inspiration now tells me that my dharma with topic is finally

fulfilled and I can move on...

>

> 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

>

>

> ---- Souvik Dutta <explore_vulcan wrote:

> > Dear PVNR=ji,

> >

> > Thanks for sharing.

> >

> > The young talent and the co-author of JHora from the last version, Shanmukha

has written a beautiful article on this Navamsa (aka Krishna Mishra Navamsa,

Jamini Navamsa by Sri Irangati Ranganacharya).

> >

> > Provided below are the links to his articles published in SA.

> >

> > http://www.scribd.com/doc/19874893/Jaimini-Navamsa-Part-1-NI

> > http://www.scribd.com/doc/19183735/30True-Jaimini-Navamsa-Revealed-2

> >

> > For those you are interested to read more, may refer to his articles in his

(Shanmukha's) blog.

> > http://sutramritam.blogspot.com/

> >

> > It is true that this is the same Navamsa referred to by Pt. Rath as " Nadi

Navamsa " .

> >

> > Regards

> >

> > Souvik

> >

> > jhora , Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Namaste,

> > >

> > > > 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.

> > > >

> > > > 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.

> > >

> > > I had in mind " Kaalachakra navamsa " , which has a few specific kinds of

jumps, but ended up mis-typing " Krishna Mishra Navamsa " . My apologies.

> > >

> > > In fact, the new navamsa chart christened by Pt Rath as " Nadi Navamsa " is

nothing but Krishna Mishra navamsa already available in Jagannatha Hora

software!

> > >

> > > BTW, my assertion about " all the divisional charts defined by rishis " has

two exceptions - hora chart that has only Cn and Le and trimsamsa chart that

skips Cn and Le. Even in those charts, all the signs *appearing* in the chart

have an equal probability. It is only in this new navamsa chart defined by Pt

Rath that some signs are more likely than others. For example, a planet is twice

as likely to be in Sg or Ge than in Vi or Pi.

> > >

> > > 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

> > >

> > >

> > > ---- Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr@> wrote:

> > > > 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

>