Accept the Direct Meaning!

Visvarupa1

As It Is and As You Like Him

Accept the Direct Meaning!

Third of a Three-Part Series

By Kailasa Candra dasa

“Modern scientific calculations are subject to one change after another, and therefore they are uncertain. We have to accept the calculations of the Vedic literature. These Vedic calculations are steady; the astronomical calculations made long ago and recorded in the Vedic literature are correct even now. Whether the Vedic calculations or modern ones are better may remain a mystery for others, but, as far as we are concerned, we accept the Vedic calculations to be correct.”            Srimad Bhagavatam, 5.22.8, purport

“Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura comments that mukhya-vritti (“the direct meaning”) is abhidha-vritti, or the meaning that one can understand immediately from the statements of dictionaries, whereas gauna-vritti (“the indirect meaning”) is a meaning that one imagines without consulting the dictionary. . . Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu recommends that one understand the Vedic literature in terms of abhidha-vritti, and the gauna-vritti He rejects. Sometimes, however, as a matter of necessity, the Vedic literature is described in terms of the lakshana-vritti or gauna-vritti, but one should not accept such explanations as permanent truths.”    Cc., Adi, 7.110, purport

All emphases added for your edification and realization

The followers of Sri Shankaracharya, an incarnation of Lord Shiva, have covered the real meaning of the Vedas, including a Vaishnava literature as well, with indirect explanations that are offensive, inappropriate, and not at all required. There is no genuine reason for these Mayavadi explanations of the Vedic sutras and literatures except to propound the false doctrine that the Vedic literature is not meant for the purpose of understanding that Lord Krishna is the Supreme Controller, the cause of all causes, and the goal of all Vedic and Vaishnava study.

Sri Bhagavan declares this Truth forthrightly in the Bhagavad-gita, where He says: sarvasya caham hridi sannivisto mattah smritir jnanam apohanam ca vedaish ca sarvair aham eva vedyo vedanta-krid veda-vid eva caham. He declares in this verse (Bg., 15.15) that by all the Vedas He only is to be known, that He is the compiler of the Vedanta, and the complete knower of the Vedas. All of these Vedic teachings and principles are here to help us understand this eternal relation with the Supreme Person, and the study of sidereal or Vedic astrology, an authorized vedanga, is meant for this best of purposes as well.

The Lord also says that He is the source of higher intelligence (prajna), the immediate next-door neighbor of the small, dependent spirit soul; He says that He is seated in everyone’s heart, providing remembrance along with that knowledge. However, when the bewildered living entity does not want to know Truth, or even to know the relative truths that have a relation to Truth, then the Lord reciprocates by remaining silent. In other words, He then becomes the source of the conditioned soul’s forgetfulness.

It seems these days that people want to forget; we find them everywhere in the Western culture, the playground of the vikarmis. However, we also, somewhat surprisingly, find them in the devotional community, and it seems that they particularly preponderate in the fringe sector known as the astrologers and their dupes. Many of these fellows make a pretty good living off the less intelligent section of devotees, who, on the whole, are quite bewildered about the science of sidereal astrology (even though they are supposed to be initiated brahmins). They want their charts, and the charts of their children, calculated and interpreted. As such, they naively accept anyone who has some so-called good reputation as a learned astrologer–never mind that he also advertises himself as a “New Age guru” or some such thing.

“Regarding your question about my birth, I was born September 1, 1896, Tuesday, at about 4:00 in the afternoon. My rasi is Mithuna.”
Letter to Jaya Krishna Thakur, Dec. 6, 1975

In this last installment, let us concisely summarize what has been brought out in the previous sections of the series. We have pointed out that Prabhupada said that his Moon was in the sign of Gemini (Mithuna) as per the above-cited passage from the letter to Jaya Krishna Thakur. We have mentioned that there was no reasonable explanation for Prabhupada to want to mislead the Thakur in responding to his (J. K. Thakur’s) question. We have stipulated that all of the popular ayanamshas (“standard” ayanamshas) in vogue today, employing the modern method of calculating sidereal positions for the planets via Western ephemerides, place Prabhupada’s Moon in the previous sign, Taurus. We mentioned the principle that all Western astronomers create their ephemerides based upon somewhat complicated and varied, but, nevertheless, set formulas. We have pointed out that Prabhupada’s lagna (ascendant) was certainly Capricorn, and that any and all those who insist it is Sagittarius are whistling Dixie.

Vedic understanding is best assimilated by revelation, as a Vaishnava receives his or her highest realizations by way of revealed truth; that is our path. We have revealed that any ayanamsha used today is a shortcut guesstimate for each sidereal planetary placement, and that deducting the ayanamsha is not the way in which the nirayan positions are actually calculated–in terms of the Vedic formulas revealed and commented upon in the siddhantas. We have, most essentially, established that the way to make these shortcut calculations—particularly the sidereal Moon—is to first calibrate his placement, as per a modern or post-modern time-place-and-date, to an ayanamsha that had also previously placed Prabhupada’s Moon in Gemini (obviously, at the very beginning of the sign) around 4:00 p.m. on his day of birth in Calcutta.

We have told you that not all the planets will have the exact same ayanamsha (although they will have very similar ones). This is because ayanamsha is no more than a shortcut replacement for the siddhantic formulas for each planet (such complicated formulas presented perfectly by His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada in his translation and commentary on the Surya-siddhanta).

In this final installment, let us now explain this point in a little more detail, along with an example to illustrate the principle. Suppose you have a decent and relatively accurate sidereal program (software), and it affords you the User Defined option. As such, you work to find an ayanamsha that places Prabhupada’s Moon in Gemini. You select a time around 4 p.m. according to the above-mentioned parameters (revealed in the letter), and you come up with your ayanamsha for the middle of 1896.

Your software, according to your personally programmed definitions, now renders all sidereal placements for future years according to that chosen ayanamsha. So, you do a chart wherein it is found that the native, a Scorpio lagna, has Candra-mangala Yoga in Pisces in the fifth. Mars will be a benefic here, and the yoga is very good, especially since the Moon is the lord of the ninth. Both of these planets are in an amicable sign. Your program says that the Moon is at sixteen degrees and forty-eight minutes of sidereal arc, in Pisces. You can be very confident of this placement, because the Moon is the planet you used to calibrate your ayanamsha.

Your program puts Mars in Pisces at twenty-eight degrees, sixteen minutes of sidereal arc. There could be some variance however, because, although this will certainly be close to his position, he could very well be at twenty-seven degrees, fifty-eight minutes of the sign, i.e., eighteen minutes of sidereal arc back. This same principle applies for all planets, although they will not necessarily be all back of the positions that your software assigns to them; some of them might be a little bit forward in the sign.

We have previously pointed out that Prabhupada’s divine horoscope, with all planets functioning at their highest octaves, was not under the laws of karma. Nevertheless, we have specified how his lagna (being Capricorn) and his Moon (being in Gemini) made total and complete sense from all experienced perspectives. We have stated unequivocally that it is a better chart than his having his Moon (allegedly) exalted in the fifth, that the actual chart (Moon in Gemini) showed how he was protected from enemies, and that Moon in the fifth was not borne out by the facts of his life connected to fifth house portfolio. We have stated with complete confidence, backed by astrological jnana and vijnana, that a Capricorn ascendant with Moon in Gemini was the best possible chart of the three being currently pushed, superior to the Sagg ascendant (which is ludicrous) and superior to Moon in Mula-trikona in Vrishabha.

Most importantly, we have emphasized that putting the Moon in Gemini in the birthchart of His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada is based upon deductive logic, based upon accepting the mukhya-vritti from his letter. Simply put, there is no room for any indirect or figurative interpretation here. Similarly, any and all “disciples” who believe that Prabhupada did not really know what he was talking about when he dictated this letter are engaged, perhaps unwittingly, in gurv-aparadha. Of course, there has been no dearth of gurv-aparadha since Prabhupada’s disappearance (which took place under strange and nefarious circumstances, indicating ati-papam of the most unthinkable variety!). Neo-Mutt is the most malignant personification of gurv-aparadha, and all of its leading adherents should be understood as guru-tyagi, as traitors to the transcendental line of their original initiation.

So much for the concise summary. If you wish to consult either of the previous two installments, hyperlinks for this purpose have been provided at the end of this article.

Now, let us proceed to the anecdotal equivalent of the rawest of an already raw nerve. There are lessons to be learned from this. For example, a whole movement has sprung up—anti-Vedic and anti-Vaishnava to the core—based upon ultra-indirect evidence (although it hardly even qualifies as evidence) in a document not even dictated or formulated by His Divine Grace. It was composed by one of his leading secretaries, now dead, who had a vested interest in its coldplay.

That fellow also may very well be integrally implicated in the abovementioned ati-papam gurv-aparadha. Prabhupada, in a very sick and emaciated condition, simply put his signature to this document; it is highly doubtful that he analyzed it with any intense scrutiny in doing so. Both the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON,” and the rittviks make a big thing of this legal document, although it is actually near the very bottom of important translations, commentaries, treatises, letters, and/or legal documents created by Srila Prabhupada. It was mostly formed in order to protect the properties, especially in India, from takeover attempts (by two obvious sources). It was a flawed document, and this was admitted by “ISKCON” leaders later, when the rittviks made it the centerpiece of their concoction.

Of course, we are referring to the Will. Why do we bring up the Will? Because all kinds of pseudo-devotional misconceptions and crap have been able to thrive and prosper as a result of both its overemphasis and motivated misunderstandings. Most unfortunately, the devotees at this time in Kali Yuga are especially prone to this kind of nescience, and some weak, anecdotal evidence is being pushed now which supposedly proves that Prabhupada was a Sagittarius ascendant with Moon in Taurus.

Without naming names, here is the scuttlebutt—and, just like the Will, it is made the fulcrum of “proof” and blown way out of proportion. Supposedly five different charts (with five different predictions for time of death) were proffered by five different astrologers. These charts were said to have a total of three different lagnas (how mind-boggling that is!). Now, only one of them had a Sagg lagna with Moon in Taurus. So, as per the scuttlebutt from the ever-unreliable devotee grapevine, when these five were showed to Prabhupada (by a sannyasi there at that time; no longer sannyasa, of course), he (Prabhupada) pointed to the one with the Sagg lagna and said that was the real chart. Then, as the story goes, the sannyasi went to a devi dasi (who was more or less the secretary for that yatra) and told her to specially demarcate the chart Prabhupada had selected. Many years later, these five charts were unearthed from a storage locker, and, lo and behold, Prabhupada had arranged to tell all of his best astrologers just where his lagna and planets were actually situated. Such a convenient fable.

There are all kinds of problems here. I have never met the devi dasi in this tale, but I knew the former sannyasi quite well. I know, at that time, his knowledge of astronomy or astrology was practically nil. I also know from practical experience that he could very well have been mistaken in his part of this whole alleged transaction—if he took part in it at all. And then we have the transaction between the nyasi and the devi dasi; plenty of chance for something to have gone astray here, as well. We have the unearthing of the manuscripts at a later date: All kinds of opportunity for Maya to have entered into the mix in so many different ways! In other words, this anecdotal evidence is not at all steady or firm; to put it another way, as long as it is accepted via mukhya-vritti, the letter to Jaya Krishna Thakur is very specific. The anecdote has all the makings of being (like the Will) blown out of proportion by various interests.

Leave the gun; take the canolee. Leave the charts; take the letter.

However, taking a further stroll down memory lane, why not consider how an entirely different destiny could have played out? What am I referring to here? Well, could not Prabhupada have–in the middle of 1975 when the whole varnashrama-dharma fervor was in full swing–ordered a section of his initiated brahmins to become skilled, sidereal astrologers? He did not do so, of course, but such an order could have been given at that time. It does not require some kind of parallel universe thinking in order to know that this order, had it been given, would have created an astrology department in his ISKCON Society. Is there any potential evidence for this?

Prabhupada: I have read that your program, what is that: College of Vedic Science?

Bahulasva: Yes.

Prabhupada: So, what is the actual program?

Bahulasva: That was not completed, Prabhupada. That’s just a description of the courses. . . That was simply an explanation of what courses would be given, and how they would be structured.

Prabhupada: That’s nice.

Morning walk in Los Angeles, June 23, 1975.

How could there have been a College of Vedic Science without the inclusion of the most important universal (yet limited) Vedic teaching, the vedanga known as Vedic or sidereal astrology? Such would have been incomprehensible, but that’s just what went down. That’s just the dull-witted path that the Bhaktivedanta Institute chose to take, although your author, directly and personally, petitioned its leader in Atlanta (in the spring of 1978) to include sidereal astrology as part of its program. Your author’s request was unceremoniously rebuffed, because, according to the leader of this Institute, it was only meant to influence the mundane, Western scientists and professors. The College of Vedic Science would have been meant for more than that, but it never got off the ground. Instead, PDI took off on the West Coast—and what disastrous results that brought to the ISKCON’s reputation (with its second version of Magic Alex!).

However, theoretically, His Divine Grace could have instituted a program of sidereal astrology in his movement. Now, would anybody have been astute enough to have secured the commentary (from the British Library) of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta? Would any devotee have been a competent enough mathematician to have perfectly deciphered the ahargana, the cycles, the epicycles, etc., specified there? Would any of the members (brahmins) of the College—in the event that no one could chop through the thicket of placing planets according to Surya-siddhanta—have brought up the matter of the ayanamsha? On this, we can answer unequivocally: Certainly!

Now, as these newly-authorized brahmin-Vaishnavas went about establishing the means to compute astronomical positions (in the heady days well before personal computers and software), do you think that one of them, hearing about the abovementioned letter from someone who had been privy to it, would have brought up the topic of Prabhupada’s Moon being in Gemini? Very probably; almost certainly.

If you have followed this so far, then read on, attentively. We were in the movement at that time, and we knew how things like this went down. You are not reading the rant of an inexperienced man here; things were institutionalized in those days in a very different way then currently. The stress back in the day was always on authority and against any and all mental speculation. If Prabhupada had authorized a College of Vedic Science, and if it (a virtual certainty) included a Department of Sidereal Astrology, then the imprimatur of this ISKCON College would have been required for anyone to compile or analyze charts—and even that may not have been permitted in the first months.

If the letter to Jaya Krishna Thakur had been made open to the light of day–and if the brahminically-oriented students in charge of that College were researching to come to a consensus about the ayanamsha (a slam dunk)–an ayanamsha similar to your author’s would have been institutionalized in ISKCON. It would have been done so as per the authoritative letter, on the basis of the placement of Moon in Gemini by Prabhupada (in the letter) around 4:00 p.m. in Calcutta on Sept., 1, 1896. You can take this one to the bank prabhus, because it’s money!

And if it had been so institutionalized, what about Lahiri? None of the ISKCON astrologers would have given rat spit about him or his ayanamsha. Ditto, Raman. Ditto Ojha. Ditto Krishnamurti. Ditto Yukteshvara. Ditto Fagan. And anything connected to tropical placements, planets, lordships, and interpretations would have been considered veritable poison. The devotees back in 1966-1977 did not care about the prevailing opinion of any renowned scholar, any culture, any other cult, any other religion—and most especially they did not care about the opinions of Gaudiya Mutt.

The real followers of His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada, a mercy incarnation of Lord Caitanya, all wanted only the direct meaning of the Vaishnava literature and Vedic sciences. They considered indirect explanations generally offensive, inappropriate, and not at all required. They wanted real authority, and they wanted the mukhya-vritti in virtually all circumstances. They would have accepted the direct meaning of the letter, and no feverish mentality pushing some kind of socially-acceptable alternative would have been tolerated.

There is no good reason for these nonsense and uncertain explanations of the ayanamsha, except to propound the false doctrine that sidereal astrology is meant to fulfill the material desires and whims of society, friendship, and love—and to line the pockets of rascals who have jumped the gun—so that we can all get along. There is no permanent truth in the ayanamshas that place Prabhupada’s Moon in a sign where he said it was not. You may be very good at quickly reading yogas and all that jazz, but, as long as you do not accept the direct meaning of that letter to Jaya Krishna, then your system does not measure up to the standard that His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada expects of you.

OM TAT SAT

Further Considerations on Prabhupada’s Birthchart

THE SUPREME FORM OF TIME


Ganesh

9 comments

1 Amar Puri { 07.05.10 at 11:33 }

Thereafter, in 1918, Srila Prabhupada became married and soon started a family. Ra/Mo till 13 February 1918. Ra/Ma afterwards. The Moon, L7, and Mars, L4, are both marriage significators for Capricorn lagna indicated harmonious (workable) and understandable relationship. In Sagittarius lagna, the marriage is ruled by 8L most malefic exalted Moon occupied in 6 h, which indicated vulnerability and instability in the married life.

Please read more here ;
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/12-09/editorials5512.htm

As we understand from the Capricorn Lagna chart of Srila Prabhupada, 7L Moon having degree of 28.07 is considered old age. The first person who made Srila Prabhupada’s chart perhaps prepared his chart Moon in Mithun as per his manual calculation which is very possible.

But when we read Moon in 6h of Mithun, Gemini which indicated vulnerability and instability in the married life.

That is the question remains whether or not how much Srila Prabhupada’s married life was inharmonious and instable. Other than that there is no any big change even if accepting the Moon was in Mithune. That is my opinion. I must admit that I am not very expert in the Vedic Astrology.

Your servant…… Amar Puri.

2 Amar Puri { 02.28.11 at 12:56 }

Further, I am wondering why the author of this article is considering the birth time as 4.10pm whereas Srila Prabhupada says the birth time is 4.00 pm around i.e. there could be couple of minutes before or after 4.00 pm but not a that big difference in time. Perhaps, the author should shed more light on it.

Secondly, the author says that there are three planets i.e. Mars, Jupiter and Ketu are functional malefics in Srila Prabhupada chart. Again, I wonder why Mars the 4th Lord in this chart malefic. If it is malefic as the author says that then the powerful aspect of malefic Mars on to the 8L Sun would have destroyed the significations of the 8th house of Moksha. Isn’t it ?

These two points need to be clarified and would be much appreciated if the author gives more light in this area.

Thank you very much.

Hari BOL…… AGTSP.

Your servent…… Amar Puri.

3 Kailasa Candra das { 03.01.11 at 07:32 }

For a Capricorn lagna, Mars, a generic malefic—the second-most malefic planet (of the major planets) only behind Saturn in this category—is lord of the eleventh. The lord of the eleventh is malefic. Obviously, all planets, as long as they are not combust or debilitated, are good in the eleventh. However, the lord of the eleventh is a malefic; this is basic benefic/malefic sidereal astrology. Mars’ generic status is not transformed to benefic simply because he is the lord of a quadrant for Makara lagna.
Concerning the birth time, as noted by the enquirer who has posted this message (herein being answered), Prabhupada said in the letter to Jaya Krishna Thakur that he was born “around” 4:00 p.m. It is doubtful that, in Nineteenth Century Bengal, birth certificates—if there were even such things for the Hindus—listed exact time of birth. Even in America, as late as 1957, a progressive state such as New Jersey did not include the birth time on the certificate.
So, no one can know his exact time of birth. If someone says, “It must be four p.m.,” that very well could be a bit inaccurate, in terms of exact time. However, anything within fifteen minutes on either side of 4:00 p.m. certainly qualifies within the parameters of “around 4:00 p.m.” So, I have selected 4:10 p.m. What is wrong there? I am not deviating or committing gurv-aparadha by doing so. There is a chance that I am exactly right; indeed, as much of a chance as someone guessing that the birth (first breath) was exactly at four o’clock right on the button. We simply cannot know, unless Prabhupada or the Paramesvara chooses to reveal it.
What we can know, however, is that his birth time was not at 3:25 p.m. on that date, because 3:25 p.m. does not qualify as being “around” four o’clock in the afternoon. It is around 3:30 p.m., not four. And 3:25 p.m. (depending upon the ayanamsha being employed) is when Sagittarius ended and Capricorn became the ascendant for Calcutta. So, those Sajj lagna speculators are the ones who should be doubted, not someone who selects 4:10 p.m. as the possible time of birth—well within the parameters of common sense and the statement of the guru himself. KCd.

4 Amar Puri { 03.02.11 at 17:20 }

Thank you for your comments, Kailash Prabhu.

There are two things that requires the explaination which was not touched by your comments which are as follows ;

1. If Mars is ineed most Malefic as you claimed, then the powerful aspect of the MMP Mars on to the 8th Lord Sun would have definately ruined the signification of of its Lord Sun and in this case Srila Prabhupada would have not been considered as the Commander-in-Chief executing the way he did so successfully.

2. Rahu also cast his aspect to the 7th Lord Moon in 6th house activating both health issue for Srila Prabhupada and his spouse besides the stressful maritel relationship besides the defeat from the public arguments in his preaching work which would have been a set back to Srila Prabhupada.

That is why the time as you considered as 4.10 pm. is not suitable for Srila Prabhupada based on his success in his mission.

Therefore, the more suitable and adjustable TOB. for Srila
Prabhupada is 4.03 pm.

Look forward to hear further from you. Please accept my obeisances.

Hari BOL… YS….. Amar Puri.

5 Kailasa Candra das { 03.03.11 at 10:28 }

The birth time you have herein advocated, viz., 4:03 p.m., is certainly quite feasible and well within the range. Your detailed (and, perhaps, a bit convoluted) explanation as to why it must be that time will be beyond the sidereal intelligence and/or experience of most of our readers. However, although this is the case, I shall leave this post (of yours) up on the site.
That does not, however, mean that I thoroughly agree with it. I don’t. For example, I put virtually no stock in the aspect powers of Rahu and Ketu. The influence of those aspects is, from my perspective, minor (befitting an upagraha) in comparison to the influence—either positive or negative—of the seven major planets. So, the consequences you attribute to the aspect of Rahu are not given much credence by me—if they are given any credence at all.
Of course, it appears (here in this post) that you are now at least accepting the possibility that benefic Moon is actually situated in the sixth of Prabhupada’s chart (“My rashi is Mithuna”). If so, that would certainly be a step in the right direction for you and all those who consider your interpretations. Would a difference of seven minutes negatively impact the power of the aspect (so-called important aspect) of Rahu by all that much? Provisionally, I am willing to entertain the idea, but the proposition appears a bit dubious.
As far as the “Commander-in-Chief” concept is concerned, that is neither my vision nor understanding of His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada. My conception of him is shaktyavesha-avatar, sampradaya-acharya, jagad-guru (beyond this, actually), prema-siddha, and prematura-bhakta of the highest order—not as a commander of some kind of an army. Mars’ malefic aspect on the eighth house (Leo) certainly hurts it, granted. However, Sun being there in his own house, there is still going to be significant strength, despite that aspect. I have noticed in your writings that you place a preponderance of emphasis on aspects. I do not. I consider almost all aspects to be less influential than planets in signs, especially if in exaltation or their own houses. Actually, Jupiter’s presence in the eighth hurts it more than the aspect of Mars does; that is my sidereal opinion.
If I should accept your 4:03 p.m. birth time proposal—and a very big if that is—then I would accordingly adjust my ayanamsha, which, for all those employing it (every siderealist in the West) is only an estimate for planetary placement. Why? Because whatever ayansamsha is employed, it must put Prabhupada’s Moon in Gemini (“My rashi is Mithuna”). That is, it must do so if you accept Prabhupada’s statement here as absolute and authoritative.
Kindly note the irony. You argue that Prabhupada’s authority could not have been negatively impacted by Mars to such an extent, but notice how so many today—and, to a lesser degree, while he was physically manifest—disregarded that very authority (guror avajna). I know of one of his big leaders who said, “He had so many ideas!” I shall not name him, but I know this quote is genuine. Similarly, I know of another who said that he “f—ed up” after making an important decision (this was another so-called big leader; indeed, arguably the biggest at the time). So, concerning that malefic aspect from Mars—we were no stranger to its affects.
And we are especially no stranger to it now, e.g., the book changes (a direct affront to his authority), as well as the so-called Lilamrita. His absolute authority is now being challenged in a big way every day; it was also challenged (somewhat covertly, not as prominently or regularly) while he was physically with us as well. Mars, which is in the house of his disciples, seemed to play out in a manner that his disciples challenge(d) his authority.
In closing, we do not want to turn this website into an astrological forum; that is not its purpose. I appreciate your comments, even if they are in the form of challenges. I may adjust my ayanamsha a bit (shorten it), and, then again, I may not. The amount that it would be shortened (to accommodate a difference of seven minutes of clock time) is not very much at all; it would not affect my sidereal chart nor any of the ones that I have constructed and interpreted for others. It would be an extremely minor adjustment, but first I would have to be convinced to make it. At this point, your presentation is not convincing, although I certainly do acknowledge the astro-logic of it.
As far as that goes, in Western constructions, its astro-logic for compatibility charts is indeed quite logical—but entirely wrong nevertheless. Kindly do not take any of this as a personal affront to your good self. You are free to contact me via e-mail, if you should so choose. Simply request that address from Bhakta Ernest, who manages our returntosquareone.com site. I obviously have yours, and, if memory serves, you already have mine anyway. KCd.

6 Amar Puri { 03.08.11 at 14:37 }

Kailash Prabhu, HK. AGTSP. PAMHO.

The Dharma and Moksha sphere are very very powerful in Srila Prabhupada’s Capricorn rising chart. That is why he is the shaktyavesha-avatar.

The 4th Lord Mars occupies in 5th house of disciples etc. casting a very positive powerful aspect on 8th Lord Sun very strong unafflicted / unafflicting (though most funtional malefic ) indicates strongly a greatest Spiritual personality besides well placed other benefic planets.

The differences of opinion as indicated by you are due to the fact that there is an afflication of Rahu to the Moon because Moon in very infancy occupies in the 6th house of disputes.

That is my Astro – Logic opinion based on the application of an analytical approach to the Vedic Astrology.

Hope the above meets you well.

Hari BOL….. YS…. Amar Puri.

7 Kailasa Candra das { 03.09.11 at 07:30 }

Sri Sri Guru-Gauranga jayatah. Hare Krishna. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Sri Amar Puri, I now see that we are in much closer agreement, far more than we are not. Obviously, the ninth is exceptional in Prabhupada’s chart (as per Makara lagna), and there is a raja-yoga connected to the twelfth, produced by full aspects of Saturn (lord of a trine, the lagna) and Mars (lord of a quadrant) on the bhava itself.
I also notice in this most recent commentary that you place Moon in the sixth. Outstanding analysis! About a year ago, I think I remember reading something you apparently posted (on the online rag) indicating another viewpoint, but this lunar placement and analysis is the right one (“My rashi is Mithuna”).
In all the sidereal texts I have ever read concerning this science, it is stated that the lord of the eleventh is a malefic. In one obvious way, that does not make any sense, as the planets are almost always so good there. It is a material bhava, of course, but it also doesn’t make any sense that, when the Moon is waxing, if he is lord of a quadrant, he becomes a malefic (although a benefic if waning). Nevertheless, that is the universally accepted dictum concerning the rules governing benefics and malefic.
As such, I cannot accept the idea that Mars is a benefic in Prabhupada’s horoscope. The results testify otherwise: Some of his leading secretaries (fifth house, certainly) were involved in various nefarious activities connected to him, and his own sons did not join him in his movement–nor were most of them all that favorable to him. Fifth appears afflicted to me. True, he made a large number of disciples, but that can be explained by the lord of the fifth receiving neecha-bhanga in a conjunction–a raja-yoga–with a powerful benefic (generically friendly to him) in exaltation. So, bhava strength of the fifth via its lord is obvious, but Mars afflicted the house. As mentioned in my three-part series, Prabhupada is not to be judged as being under the law of karma in any way in terms of any astro-analysis. KCd.

8 Amar Puri { 03.09.11 at 08:16 }

Kailash Prabhu, HK. AGTSP. PAMHO.

In the Capricorn rising sign, Planets Sun and Jupiter becomes funtional malefics besides Rahu and Ketu.

Sun occupies in his own house along with Divine Planet Jupiter with Ketu. Jupiter and Ketu conjunts. That is why it mars the material significations of Jupiter such as to why Srila Prabhupada children (sons) did not follow the father despite the fact that Mars occupy the 5th house of children. So, Mars is not funtional malefics rather it is very benefic. I am also Capricorn born and my Mars is also occupy in 5th house in my chart. Well that is beside the point.

Regarding Neecha Bangha Yoga, since this Yoga forms in the 9th house, the Spiritual significations fortify by the presence of the Guru represented by Venus. This is the only place of 9th house where Venus gives Spirituality. Furthermore, 2nd Lord very strong Saturn exalted shows further detachment from the material world enhancing Spirituality indicating that Srila Prabhupada would handle very easily all types of material set back in his life without any deviations because of the presenece of the strong Saturn. So all these indicates that Srila Prabhupada is indeed Maha Bhagvata.

As you said that in the event Mars becomes funtional malefic, the whole out look of the chart becomes grim which does not reflect Srila Prabhupada at all.

Hope it meets satisfactoryly, Prabhu.

All Glories to Srila Prabhupada Ki Jaya.

YS………. Amar Puri.

9 Kailasa Candra das { 03.10.11 at 13:38 }

Mars being a malefic does not spoil the whole chart; he spoils the fifth and his dhristi on the eighth hurts that house as well. His full aspect on the eleventh, his own sign, strengthens the eleventh considerably. His full aspect on the twelfth, combined with Saturn’s full aspect there, creates a raja-yoga (by aspect) on the twelfth–so it is also helpful.
Perhaps you are projecting your own misconception of your fifth house, because you have the same conjunction. I do not know; it is a supposition, but projection is not at all uncommon in even learned human beings. In conclusion then, we are now almost entirely in agreement: Capricorn lagna for His Divine Grace, Moon in Gemini in the sixth, and a very great chart befitting a Vaishnava shaktyavesh-avatar empowered with bhakti-shakti.
As I mentioned previously, we shall not turn this website into an astrological forum. Your intelligent comments are all appreciated greatly, and we shall allow them to remain posted indefinitely. However, this format and forum–in terms of further postings (by anyone) on Prabhupada’s chart is now closed. Thank you for your fine contributions to this discussion. KCd.