ASTROLOGICAL RESEARCH? The term research has nowadays become an obsession with the astrologer. Every Tom, Dick and Harry shamelessly makes high claims about their so-called research while advertising their services, in the books they publish and in the articles they write for the magazines. In the words of ri Bepin Behari: “...Presently, one finds that many 'astrologers' who have neither any schooling in research methodology nor the natural aptitude for it, and many of them do not even possess any sound knowledge of the basic principles of astrological science, are parading themselves as 'scientific astrologer', 'research guides' and denouncing everyone else as incompetent and even ignorant unfit to enter the portals of this occult Subject. I remember Karl Popper, the greatest Philosopher of modern times who revolutionized the concept regarding the validity of laws of Physical sciences, who impressed upon us while teaching research methodology at the London University that humility, apprehension of the magnitude of the enormous infinitude of the unknown, and the possibility of falsifiability (sic) of the arrived hypothesis are some of the essential ingredients of every serious enquiry...” Under the banner of research, perhaps we have in astrology the greatest of blunders and distortions as compared to any other field elsewhere. Among the various absurdities that we come across in astrology the so-called "Krishnamurthy Paddhati" undoubtedly ranks first with its most deceptive as well as distorted philosophy.
Faux pas-1: Krishnamurthy Paddhati 1. 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 ayan m a and the harmonics (Varga-s) of R i. 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 ayan m a 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 ‘K l m a’ after a complete and concrete examination of Meena’s three parts of ‘N di Jyotisa’. 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 Naksatra into nine parts. Inspired by the tremendous significance the nav m a sub-division of signs had in the judgement of the horoscope, he experimented with division of a Naksatra into none divisions. The principles involved in the divisions of a major Da a into sub-divisions of Bhuktis as out-lined under the Vim ottari system provided him with the tool for sub-division of Naksatras. The scale for division of Naksatra 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 vini Naksatra 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 Naksatra lord and the lord of sub-division of Naksatra 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 N di Jyotisa 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 socalled ‘K l m a’. 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 Naksatra on Vim ottari 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 Naksatra is only a reproduction from Krishnamurthy. Meena did not advocate or write anything in favor of K l m a division. Nowhere has he used the word that K l m a division is the sub-division of a Naksatra, 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 N di Jyotisa 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 K l m a….” 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 ‘Drekk na’ by linking it with the ‘gunas’ and was trying to go deeper even in a non-classical way as is evident from his reference to “nav m a-dv da m a” in Part III. (c) The fundamental principle that guided his research was progression from ‘Sth la’ to ‘S ksma’ and as such it is possible that he had been experimenting with the ‘K l m a’ as well. (d) Meena preferred Drk-Siddh nta Pa c ga rather than the V kya-pa c ga used in N di works and as such his ayan m a was roughly the same as that of Lahiri or Krishnamurthy. (e) It is apparent from the above that the credit for splitting each Naksatra into uneven arcs proportionate to Vim ottari da a 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 ‘K l m a’ 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. 2. Method: Stellar sub-divisions of KP The methodology can be best illustrated by taking the example of a particular Naksatra – (Say) A vini: •
A vini → 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 subperiods of time in proportion to the nine da a years that constitute the frame of Vim ottari. The process is a division of time by time intended to make the da as 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 Naksatra accordingly is the sum of subs like: •
A vini: Div Arc length Lord 0 I 00 46’40” ikhi II. 02013’20” ukra III 00040’00” S rya 0 IV 01 06’40” Candra V 00046’40” Kuja VI 02000’00” R hu VII 01046’40” Guru VIII 02006’40” ani IX 01053’20” Budha
Limits 00 00’00” 00046’40” 00046’40” 03000’00” 03000’00” 03040’00” 03040’00” 04046’40” 04046’40” 05033’20” 05033’20” 07033’20” 07033’20” 09020’00” 09020’00” 11026’40” 11026’40” 13020’00” 0
The 27 Naksatras 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 S rya while the biggest is 02013’20” of ukra. KP proceeds further deep with the division process to create subsubs like: Lords Lords of Sub of Subsub Sun: Subsub ↓ 40’ ↓ Sun 2’ Venus Moon 3’ 20” Sun Mars 2’ 20” Moon Rahu 6’ Mars Jupiter 5’ 20” Rahu Saturn 6’ 20” Jupiter Mercury 5’ 40” Saturn Ketu 2’ 20” Mercury Venus 6’ 40” Ketu
Sub Venus: 2013’20” 22’ 13”.33 06’ 40”.00 11’ 6”.66 07’ 46”.66 20’00”.00 17’46”.66 21’ 6”.66 18’53”.33 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. 3. Contradictions Inherent in KP The fundamental principle over which KP’s citadel stands is the Vim ottari da a technique. We must remember here that the Vim ottari da a years is intended for the limited scope of application only, in projecting the horoscopic effects into the future. Da a-bhukti-antara influence prevails only for a specific interval of time – it is not an absolute zodiacal effect similar to those of R i, Nav m a or Naksatra. KP’s notions are all erroneous in this regard. For example, Moon by its placement at the beginning of Bharani generates a sequence of influence over the time beginning with Venus da a, 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 r i, stellar and varga positions in the
horoscope. Vim ottari 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 ottari da a years to divide the arc. The basic feature of Vim ottari is an un-even distribution of 120 years in 9 equal divisions of 800’ each. Let us ask ourselves: Why the naksatra divisions themselves are not in the proportion of Vim ottari da a years? More explicitly, why can’t we define the Naksatras as: A vini (00 – 70), Bharani (70 – 270), Pusya (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’ Naksatras. Thirdly, if we add up the allotted years corresponding to the naksatras of a r i we get: 28.5 (Aries) + 18.0 (Taurus) + 33.5 (Gemini) + 40.0 (Cancer) = 120. Why can’t the r is 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 r is and naksatras of equal extent, the bh vas 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 trikonas or triangular bh vas, professed in classical texts. 4. Nav m a illustrates the irrationality of Krishnamurthy Paddhati As the term implies ‘nav m a’ is the multiplication of longitudes (am a) by nine: Nav m a = R i × 9. Alternatively it is a division of the zodiac into 108 parts of 3020’ each or r i into nine parts of 3020’. In other words, successive 400 (3 naksatras or 12 nav m as) get placed one over the other. But, What happens to the naksatra in the process? Mathematically, nav m a is also the division of a naksatra 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. Nav m a as such places the Planets and Bh va longitudes under a different r i and stellar influence. What authority Krishnamurthy’s subs do have to nullify these influences of classical origin? Why can' t the naksatra sub-divisions be equal like r vargas in conformity with the classical?
is, naksatras and different
An un-equal arc division based on a misconceived interpretation of the Vim ottari 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 nav m a in favor of Krishnamurthy’s Paddhati, please have a look at the figures (1) and (2). Fig.1 illustrates the role of nav m a as significator of marital life and associations in an equal house division. Nav m a being multiplication by 9 the three bh vas representing self viz. I, V and IX (triangular equivalence) becomes Lagna in nav m a while those of partner (polar opposite) III, VII and XI becomes the seventh house i.e. the nav m a Lagna and the seventh shall represent in toto the marital/association aspects. Fig.2 suggests the nav m as with reference to Lagna that influence the marital life viz. assembly of nav m as in a r i and in the 7th r i. For example: If Lagna is in the nth nav m a, in the nav m a 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 nav m a-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 ‘naksatra-nav m a’ from 0o onwards is ruled by planets in the order ‘Ketu to Mercury’ irrespective of the lord of that particular naksatra. Clue for an alternative method can be obtained from the traditional ‘Dv da m a’. If we follow the numerical multiplication process by which the nav m a is derived the twelve divisions of each r i begins from Aries and ends at Pisces. But as per the traditional definition, the Dv da m a division of a r i begins from the r i itself instead of from Mesa or Aries. In the context of naksatras, therefore the first nav m a division must be owned by its own lord and the subsequent ones by the order of stellar lordship or da as. 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 Bh va. Each 13020’ represents the divisions in the Ududa a-order beginning with the starlord 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 naksatra has to be multiplied by nine as mentioned above. But in the second step, instead of subtracting 13020’ successively KP deducts the da a years one by one beginning from that of star-lord to arrive at the so called sub. Please note – the da a years are reduced from nine times the expired arc of a naksatra – 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 KPliterature are true then I may doubt the astrology itself – It is better to take refuge in Ucchista Ganapati 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 r is, 27 naksatras, 252 subs and a minimum of 2268 subsubs coupled with Pra na, Weekday and K lahora, 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 ayan m a I have proposed (50’ greater than that of KP’s ayan m a) 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 ayan m a that can be established as true. A reliable perfect method of birth-time rectification is another requirement. Any Bh va 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 ayan m as 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/bh va under reference. In fact no precise prediction is possible without true ayan m a 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 Udu-da a is simply a timing technique and the proportion of planetary da as derives its significance from the in-violable mathematical structure of the zodiac comprising of its Rasis, Naksatras, Vargas, degrees etc. Each da a is construed as a sum of the proportionate parts and here only the time gets divided by time. 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 subdivisions based on the “arc per year” are invalid creations that carry no sense in the classical corridors of astrology. 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 ottari da a 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. 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.
Faux Pas No.2 The Double Transit Theory Two series of articles have appeared in `The Astrological Magazine’ in 1985: •
The first series Three Stages of a Prediction by the Preceptor Sri KN. Rao was concluded in the August 1985 issue.
•
The second series Broad Timing of Marriage by a number of disciples appeared in the June 1986 issue.
Oral Traditional Secret The following description can be seen on page 631 of the Astrological Magazine, August 1985. "I was lucky that an old astrologer on his way to a pilgrimage spot had come to me to help him cast a horoscope and, in return, like a true Satwik Brahmin, he taught, he should give to me something as a parting gift. He repeatedly told me, “nothing in the world can happen unless Saturn and Jupiter plan it out. You cannot even produce a child without their blessing”. I hope I have proven the theory of the old pandit satisfactorily in this paper. But let me once again make it clear that my mother, who would outlined the whole theory for me because she herself learnt it from an old Andhra Brahmin of Masulipatnam more than 60 years ago, told me to work out for more details after casting the horoscope correctly and give predictions not merely on the transit of these planets but also on the basis of Saptamsa and Mahadasa, sub dasa, sub-sub-dasa and wherever necessary work even on the Sookshma dasa..." The theory in nutshell The theory can be applied on any bh va for predicting or timing the manifestation of the respective signification-like the birth of children from the fifth house or the event of marriage from the seventh house. The salient features of the theory are: •
Saturn is the primary approver of the heavenly administration.
To quote the disciples in the context of marriage i.e. VIIth house: "Saturn unites the bride and the bride groom. Saturn in consultation with Jupiter proposes how and when to tie the conjugal knot. So they influence both the bride and the bridegroom". Technique of prediction can be well understood from the IInd series of papers beginning with ' Broad Timing of Marriage-I' . Saturn should have aspected within one to two and a half years of a marriage: (a) Lagna or Lagna lord representing the marriageable bride or bridegroom. (b) The VIIth house or the VIIth lord, which represent the husband or wife. Saturn therefore must have covered one aspect each from (a) and (b) above, which means before anyone' s marriage Saturn should have aspected: (1) Lagna and the VIIth house or VIIth lord
(2) Lagna lord and the VIIth house or VIIth lord. (1) Role of Jupiter Apply the same principle as for Saturn to Jupiter’s transit but within a year generally, sometimes fifteen months. (2) Author’s claim "…At the end of each article in the summary and conclusions we will prove the Supra-Scientific Validity of Hindu astrology by establishing that the principles we have arrived at are applicable to more than 80% cases straight away. In physical sciences when 60% results are obtained it is accepted as valid research. In astrology when we attain much higher percentage we still are open to accusation, because no one tolerates a failed prediction..." Critical Examination of the Theory For illustrating the discrepancy let us consider the first example of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru in detail (A.M. June 1986 Page 483) (Marriage took place in February 1916 only even though in those days marriageable age was very low like say, 22-28 or even 18-25) Data of Ephemeris: Saturn (T)* (1) Moved into Gemini on 20 June 1914 (2) Became retrograde on 16 October 1914 (3) Became direct on 27 February 1915 (4) Became retrograde on 30 October 1915 (5) Became direct on 12 March 1916 [*(T)-means "in transit"] During first retrogression from 16.10.1914 Saturn (T) as well as, Jupiter (T) placed in Capricorn satisfied the conditions of the theory but marriage didn’t took place during the year that followed. Why? At the time of marriage, Saturn (T) was in Gemini and retrogression, which began on 30.10.1915, was used to explain the event. Also in the case of Jupiter, transit across Aquarius/ Pisces was used. So at the time of event, both Saturn and Jupiter in transit had to influence 8 out of 12 houses by occupation and aspects, to fulfill the conditions of the theory. Now consider the earlier period in which Saturn (T) was in Taurus. Data of Ephemeris: Saturn (T) (1) Moves into Taurus on 7 May 1912 (2) Retrograde on 17 Sept 1912 (3) Direct on 29 January 1913 (4) Retrograde on 02 October 1913 (5) Direct on 12 February 1914. From 7th may 1912, Saturn (T) occupying Taurus aspected the Lagna of groom and by virtue of retrogression aspected from Aries the seventh house during: (1) September 1912 to 29 January 1913 and (2) 2nd October 1913 to 12 February 1914.
During the period (1) of retrogression, Jupiter aspected both the Lagna and VIIth lord by moving from Scorpio to Sagittarius. Thus the above period or the one-year that followed was quite appropriate for marriage. But nothing happened. Why? During period (2) of retrogression, 2.10.1913 to 12.02.1914 Jupiter moved from Sagittarius to Capricorn and satisfied the conditions. But again, there was no marriage in the following year. From the above discussion it is apparent that in the case of Saturn (T), if we consider any span of 2.5 to 2 years or even less, (within which there will be obviously retrogression and probably transit also) for any possible occupancy of any two parameters at least one of them will fall under the influence of Saturn (T) in almost all cases. This is because during such a span of time Saturn (T) influences 8 out of 12 houses. In the case of Jupiter, similar is the situation, if we consider any span of one-year or even slightly less. Anomaly described above is visible in all examples and hence the hypothesis is not valid. Situation may differ slightly due to clustering. Other related points are: (1) The condition of marriageable age has no relevance. (2) The failure of the theory is implicit in the fact that it is not applicable to the horoscopes of twins. (3) Jupiter according to the authors sometimes takes 15 months to fulfill the conditions. This is due to clustering of factors and can be mathematically explained. It must be noted here that the average tenancy of Jupiter in a house is only 361 days. Authors have found this period, which is less than a year as insufficient for their theory. Requirement of 15 months emerged from the need for a transit of Jupiter into another sign or retrogression so that influence can be located over the preceding sign - in short for bringing in another four houses. The above points can be made clearer using the theory of probability. Mathematical analogy There are two sets of parameters (2 each) in our problem, signifying the bride and the groom. Mathematically the problem is distributions of 2 balls in 12 boxes out of which 8 are under the Saturn Saturnine influence i.e. say the 8 are marked. For simplicity, we will take the maximum occupancy of the significators in one box as one. • The probability that both the balls will falls in the 8 marked boxes =
8C2 .4Co 12 C2
=
28 66
-------------> (A)
With maximum occupancy as one two significators can form 66 configurations in 12 boxes out of which in 28 both significators will be under the influence of Saturn. • The probability of finding only one in the marked boxes =
2. 8C1. 4C1
=
32
----------------------------> (B)
12C2 66 In 32 out of 66 cases only one will be under the Saturn influence. • The probability of finding both the balls out of the 8 marked boxes. =
8Co. 4C2 12 C2
=
66 66
--------------------------> (C)
From results (A) and (b) the total probability of finding at least one of the significators in 8 houses influenced by Saturn =
32 + 28 66 66
= 60 66
i.e. in 60 out of the possible 66 cases, more than 90%. This is the result that the authors have got using the collected data. Same is the case with Jupiter (T). This analysis is applicable to the 2 each significators of both the bride as well as groom. Relative placement of Saturn (T) and Jupiter (T) as well as clustering of significators can influence the result to some extent. In some clustered cases, the relative placement of Jupiter (T) and Saturn (T) compensate for clustering. Also when we collect samples randomly, we do not collect one each of all possible configurations. Configurations represented by (A) and (B) collected in plenty can take the result to 100%. In a set of randomly collected data the influence of cases represented by (c) will be quite negligible. Against the above scientific analysis and observations, it will be interesting to note the conclusions of the authors on page484 of the June issue: ' ' ...(c) We are prepared to accept any challenge from anyone in an open technical debate to demonstrate the near-infallibility of our research. (d) Our percentage in 27 months is 97.5% success, soaring beyond the theory of probability. (e) If only a period of nine months is taken, even then we do not fall below 80%. (f) We shall use 100 horoscopes in this paper though we have tested our research on more than a thousand by now..." From the analysis given using the probability theory it is evident that the above hypothesis of "Double-transit" may appear true in all horoscopes for all times if we use two or more than two significators. As such the empirical substantiation on 1000 horoscopes is nothing but a deceptive outcome of the awry research. With this kind of reports it is better not to claim any 'supra - scientific'validity for Hindu astrology. The students of astrology can have a very valuable lesson from the series of papers under reference: Hi-fi language, challenging tones & quotations from old Pandits need not reflect the Scientific Content. The above discussion can be applied to the article ' Close timing of Marriage-III'(December 1986 issue of A.M.) to disprove the same. All the four rules given on page 931 lose its validity.
Faux Pas-3: Modification of Mrtyubh ga In the third of a series of articles entitled "There Lurks Fear" appeared in the October 1990 issue of the Astrological Magazine, we can find a table under the caption - ' Mrtyubh ga (Modified)' . The preceding comments of the author are quite relevant in the present context: "...let me now give Mr. K.N.Rao’s modified Table of Mrtyubhaga-s. He has told me that it is based on his experience and if I felt the need to alter it I should do it boldly but with intellectual honesty. At the moment I’m using the Table as it is. The need to modify the degrees of Mrtyubhaga for planets arises because of the following facts: a) No planets will be say exactly twenty degrees in Mesha (Aries) as for the Sun to be in M.B. It will be some minutes more or less. b) Different ayanamsa-s are used by different astrologers... We have followed the ayanamsa of Lahiri, which has given us substantially correct results. c) Birth time noted could be inaccurate. Some flexibility has to be introduced and the birth time corrected…...etc." Further under the sub-title "Scheme of Modification" we can see: "Mr.K.N.Rao admits that he has used some arbitrariness in the modification of the M.B. Table and he says he can be attacked by orthodox astrologer for this. But what he has found correct over a period of 20 years after testing them on hundreds of horoscopes I too have tested on nearly five hundreds of horoscopes in his data and marked them out myself as guided and directed by him. a) In the case of the Moon, Mercury and Lagna add or deduct forty minutes and see whether a fatal event is explained. b) In the case of the Sun, it should be around twenty minutes either way, plus or minus. c) Saturn, Jupiter, R hu and Ketu too have to be corrected up to fifteen minutes minimum either way. d) M ndi as calculated by an expert can be modified like Jupiter at most. But M ndi is mostly calculated wrongly..." Response from the readers 1. In the January 1991 issue of the Astrological Magazine (Page 97/98), Sri.S.S Gopalan wrote from Calcutta: "I find there is no change or modification in the Mrtyubhaga Table given by Ms. Meenakshi Raut (A.M., October 1990, Page 779) as claimed by her that it was the one modified by Mr.K.N.Rao What is quoted in Jatakaparijata, translated by late. V.Subrahmanya Sastry has been tested by the authors all these years in their research and the result ha come out satisfactorily. In his notes also Sastry has quoted the M.B. of the Moon from Phaladeepika and Brihat Prajapatya. Instead of accepting so, a claim that a modification on the original texts has been done is really superfluous. So, the question of an attack by orthodox astrologers does not arise" This response of Mr.Gopalan raises a number of questions, the most important being on the intellectual honesty of the author and her preceptor! A mistake false claim- of this sort cannot happen inadvertently. In chapter, I have given the Mrtyubhaga-s as available in ' Kausikahora'and almost all are the same as that of the so-called ‘Modified - Table’.
2. Further, the various articles, which appeared in this connection from Sri. K.N.Rao & Ms. M.Raut displayed ignorance of the fundamental aspects of the Zodiac. In this context, I myself did seek certain clarifications from the authors in the A.M. January 1991: "...the author justifies the need to modify the 'Mrtyubh gas' with an indigestible statement:"No planet will be, say, exactly twenty degrees in Mesa as for the Sun to be in M.B. It will be some minutes more or less". This Statement contradicts the classical meaning of 20th degree or bh ga as raging from 19000' to 20000'. What really does the author mean by mentioning 20 as Mrtyubh ga? Does she mean that 20000' is the Mrtyubh ga? ...Does the Mrtyubh ga lie symmetrically around the given digits by say 30’ i.e. 200 ± 30'? ...." From the description given by the author Mrtyubh gas appear as of variable extent rather than a degree of the Zodiac. This aspect was illustrated by me using the examples from the series: In Part -I, the planets Saturn (09°02-Cancer), Venus (28°33' -Kumbha) and Moon (11°31'-Meena), get described as being in Mrtyubhaga. If the conventional meaning is opted for, Saturn is in the 10th degree of Cancer and is out of Mrtyubhaga while Venus and Moon are in ' 29th and 12th degrees of the respective signs' , which are Mrtyubhaga-s. In the various examples given the author does not provide a consistent view. The above-referred confusion exists in the articles of Mr. KN. Rao also, which appeared in the July & August 1990 issues of the astrological magazine. Jupiter 04015'in Virgo and Sun 08001'in Leo are described as being in Mrtyubhaga. In his earlier article "Tragedy of a Prediction" (A.M. December 1984) Sun 05027'Cancer is mentioned as in Mrtyubh ga. If the conventional (classical) meaning is adopted for the digits, the above cases are mutually contradictory. He also describes Saturn of the 17th degree of Kany and Amitab Bachan’s Sun in the 25th degree of Kany as in Mrtyubh ga" The articles under reference display the ambiguity and confusion prevailing in the minds of the authors. They have failed to comprehend the crux of the problem. For example, in the case of Amitab Bachan, Lahiri' s Sun =174025' , i.e. 25th degree of Virgo and is hence out of the Mrtyubh ga. Confusion arises out of the ayan m a here. With the true ayan m a Sun is only 173041'and hence in the Mrtyubh ga. In the chart given on Page 197, February1990, Saturn the 5th lord is in Mrtyubhaga on using the true ayanamsa. Chart on page 198 does not have the relevant details to compute and verify the role of Mrtyubhaga. 3. My query as to - What really is the meaning of 20 i.e. any of the digit that signify the Mrtyubhaga? -was answered in the most un-scholarly way by AGASTYA, the columnist of A.M. on page 535 of the July issue: "Someone said what does a degree mean in the Table. Is it the entire stretch of 60 minutes? .... Does it mean190 to 200 or the exact 20000' itself? That is a good question but when one says 200 it is not the same as 190 to 200 but means 20000' to 20059', I may be right or wrong but I think this is logical enough..." This is illustrative of the unfathomable depths of ignorance that prevails today on the astrological arena -even a columnist of the most premier journal of Astrology is unaware of the classical definition of the 'bh ga'(degree)!
K. Chandra Hari chandrahari81@yahoo.com