pankajdubey wrote: Laghu parashari is a must.
chapter 19
http://jyotishvidya.com/HTMLobj-9415/Ma ... eplka_.pdf

pankajdubey... when you say laghu parashari is a must - you are referring to a copy of the book, right?? dr. charak recently came out with an interpretation of this book.. i enjoyed reading it.. he gave some interesting insights on the dasas and strength of yogas which caught my attention... stuff like having a saturn rule both the 8th and 9th - gemini ascendant - takes away from the value of any yoga (and dasa as a consequence) with saturn in it.. stuff like that...

thanks for the link to a copy of Phaladeeplka.. i have yet to read that...

Martin Gansten wrote: (18 January)

The subdivision of nakṣatras into unequal parts corresponding to Viṃśottarī subperiods is a fairly recent development, or at least not mentioned in any textual sources that I am aware of prior to the 20th century. The first author I know of who mentioned them was 'Meena' (R. Gopalakrishna Row), in this book. The system was then picked up and developed by K.S. Krishnamurti, who was sometimes criticized for not acknowledging his source.

After some Internet searching I found a facsimile copy of Row's three books, nicely printed at a very reasonable price. (www.gyan books.com) These books (in one bound copy) are surprisingly well written and easy to read: Nadi Jyothisha or The stellar System of Astrology (1954 original date).

From what I've read so far Row/Meena stays with the basic nakshatras and house lords. He apparently uses only whole sign houses, and in his many illustrations shows how emphasizing such placements as exaltations or planets in debility can actually give incorrect readings compared to planets in nakshatras, their rulers and how they relate to houses. In many ways his examples and explanations make more sense and are more clear than sources of the Krishnamurti system in print today.

So apparently the concept of subdividing the nakshatras into unequal parts corresponding to Viṃśottarī sub-periods is original with K.S. Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti also added Placidus house cusps which seem unworkable to me. Then S. P. Khullar took the concept further by subdividing the sub-divisions which Krishnamurti used.

No doubt, these nakshatra systems of Row, K.S. Krishnamurti and S.P. Khullar are thoroughly Indian with only nods given to the zodiac as planetary lords of the 12 houses.

I had a quick browse through Meena's/Row's books but couldn't find the subdivisions used for interpretation either (though there are tables of the 'Dasa Bhukthi Degrees' at the beginning of vol. 3). That is annoying, because I know that he did mention the idea somewhere (and I'm pretty sure he called it 'Kalamsa'). Not only do I recall seing it myself (back in the '90s), but I remember reading indignant letters from readers (or at least one letter) in old issues of B.V. Raman's Astrological Magazine, complaining that Krishnamurti had taken the idea from Meena without acknowledging it. I don't think those are all false memories, but locating the sources after several decades would require time that I can't spare at present.

Meena's ideas seem to have developed gradually. During my browse just now I was reminded that he occasionally put emphasis on the quarters of a nakṣatra, so that if a malefic is present in the 2nd quarter, the 2nd quarter of the corresponding daś?? would give evil results. This seems a possible halfway stage towards the ninefold subdivision.

Martin Gansten wrote:

Meena's ideas seem to have developed gradually. During my browse just now I was reminded that he occasionally put emphasis on the quarters of a nakṣatra, so that if a malefic is present in the 2nd quarter, the 2nd quarter of the corresponding daś?? would give evil results. This seems a possible halfway stage towards the ninefold subdivision.

Since the nakshatra quarters are actually the navamsas, Meena is still using harmonic divisions of the zodiac. Sub-dividing the nakshatras as Krishnamurti does is based on a different mathematical principle, so it would be interesting if Meena was actually the source of this division that Krishnamurti copied. Apparently Meena never developed that idea in practice, however? What Meena, Krishnamurti and S.P. Khullar are all looking for is a way to determine the many differences in the lives of people born at the same time with similar looking birth charts. So they are digging into the 'nadi' concept from India's tradition.

As far sd I know, Meena never developed the idea to the extent that Krishnamurti did, no. I'm not 100% sure about the nakṣatra quarters originating as ninth-parts of the 12 signs, though; it could be the other way round (I haven't tried to research this). But yes, the unequal subdivision by Viṃśottarī proportions is a different principle. As for the n?????īs, though, they really are subdivisions of the signs rather than of the nakṣatras (assuming that we are talking about the 150 n?????īs in a sign). Someone even argued, possibly correctly, that they represented a superimposition of all the 16 vargas on each other.

Martin Gansten wrote:

I'm not 100% sure about the nakṣatra quarters originating as ninth-parts of the 12 signs, though; it could be the other way round (I haven't tried to research this).

I always assumed they were separate, and someone put them together since four navamsas fit nicely into one nakṣatra.

But yes, the unequal subdivision by Viṃśottarī proportions is a different principle. As for the n?????īs, though, they really are subdivisions of the signs rather than of the nakṣatras (assuming that we are talking about the 150 n?????īs in a sign).

Yes, the 150 division is zodiac based. The way that Krishnamurti uses the nakṣatras and their sub-divisions may relate specifically only to timing for events whereas the various varga divisions are supposed to relate to the innate characteristics and life of the person.

Martin, I can see why you have basically defaulted to the more precise mathematical procedures used in the west as India's astrology is more linked to the mystical with no history of foundation principles which are the basis of accepted doctrine. An example are the planetary lords assigned to the Viṃśottarī so-called nakṣatras which these days are actually just a system of 27 equal sized lunar mansions.

Someone even argued, possibly correctly, that they represented a superimposition of all the 16 vargas on each other.

I remember reading that as well, don't remember where.

I looked it up: the 16-varga connection was made by Surendra K. Bhagat in his 1990 book Golden Key to Unfold Nadi Granthas.

Krishnamurti and his students were very much concerned with timing (again using methods that were at least partly outlined by Meena, such as daś?? and bhukti rulers transiting through appropriate nakṣatras), but they did use the 'subs' for delineation purposes as well. In one of the KP Readers there is a list of all 249 of them, relating them to things like character traits, illnesses and professions.

I wouldn't exactly say I've defaulted to western procedures, though of course I see what you mean. To me, horoscopic astrology is one great tradition with many regional variants, but those variants mostly aren't mutually exclusive (with the exception, since medieval times, of the choice of zodiac) and have influenced each other repeatedly. I'm happy to use whatever works consistently and precisely. For instance, I'd be delighted to find someone who could convincingly demonstrate how to use the 16 vargas to differentiate between twin births, and would eagerly learn his/her method. But it would have to be a prospective demonstration, not one made from perfect hindsight.