Does Krishnamurti Padhdhati Rest On a Mistake?

T.R. Raghunath, Ph.D.

In an aritcle designed for more advanced students of Jyotish, Dr. Raghunath challenges us to rethink some fundamental assumptions of Krishnamurtis famous system.

K.S. Krishnamurti (1908-72) claimed that he had developed a novel, powerful, and infallible system of astrology based on the 27 Nakshatras, their subdivisions, and their alleged planetary rulers. He gained a substantial reputation for making accurate predictions, including some sensational predictions about the times of arrival of delayed trains and flights, apparently based on his system. There has been a proliferation of articles claiming all sorts of successes in making judgments and predictions by using Krishnamurtis system. These articles give an impression of a system that has a very logical foundation and is capable of yielding infallible judgments and predictions. In this article, I want to show that this impression is very misleading and that there are serious problems which undermine the validity of the fundamental ideas and methods of Krishnamurtis system. Nakshatra Rulers One of the basic ideas of Krishnamurtis system is that the position of a planet in a Nakshatra determines its status in the chart to a much greater degree than its position in a rasi or sign. This is not an original idea in itself. There is an ancient system of Vedic astrology propounded by Satyacharya which classifies Nakshatras into seven categories, starting with the Nakshatra occupied by the Lagna or the Moon, such as Janma (birth star), Sampat (prosperity), Vipat (danger), etc. The status of a planet is then determined by examining the category of the Nakshatra in which it is located. According to another ancient Vedic method of judgment, a planets status in the chart is determined by the nature of the deity presiding over the Nakshatra occupied by a planet. What distinguishes Krishnamurtis system from these ancient Vedic systems is the fact that it rests on the belief that each of the 27 Nakshatras have planetary rulers and that the status of a planet in a chart is determined by the dispositor or ruler of the Nakshatra and, to a greater degree, by the ruler of the subdivision of the Nakshatra occupied by that planet. Some astrologers, notably R. Santhanam, have argued against the theory of planetary rulerships of Nakshatras. While I agree with some aspects of Santhanams insightful critique, I disagree with his claim that there are no references at all to planetary rulerships of Nakshatras in Vedic astrological texts. There are some later astrological works in Sanskrit, such as Jataka Parijata and Prasna Marga, which deploy the notion of planetary rulerships of Nakshatras. For example, the Jataka Parijata states, The time of marriage may also be determined in the same way in respect to the total of the figures for the ruler of stars occupied by the Moon and the lord of the 7th bhava. (Trans. V.S. Sastri, Adhyaya XIV, Sl. 27) If at a birth, the planet owning the asterism, or the navamsa, occupied by the Moon should aspect the latter or be in conjunction with it, the Kalachakra dasa of these planets will be fraught with the special effects to be mentioned. (Trans. V.S. Sastri, Adhyaya XVIII, Sl. 40) The Prasna Marga says, A son whose asterism happens to be owned by the lord of the 12th from the Chandra lagna in the fathers horoscope will cause sorrow to the father, or if the sons asterism happens to be ruled by the lord of the 6th from the fathers Janma Rasi, he will be an enemy to his father. (Trans. B.V. Raman, Chap. XVI, Sl. 66) A method of timing of events is mentioned in Prasna Marga (Chapter XIV, Sl. 88) which also employs the notion of planetary rulership of Nakshatras. According to this method, an event is also likely to occur in the constellation days of the planets or, in other words, during the days in which the Moon moves through the Nakshatras ruled by the planets who are the favorable significators of a bhava. However, it is noteworthy that early astrological texts such as the Yavana Jataka, Brihat Jataka, Saravali, Prasna Gnana, etc., do not contain any references to planetary rulership or ownership of Nakshatras. Santhanam is correct in pointing out that these classic texts uniformly use the concept of dasha lords in the context of the Nakshatras. They only mention planetary rulerships or ownerships in the context of the rasi and its various vargas or amsas (divisional charts) such as the drekkana, navamsa, etc. The proponents of the theory of planetary rulership of Nakshatras claim that Ketu is the ruler of Aswini, that Venus is the ruler of Bharani, and so on. It is clear that they have illicitly transformed the idea of the dasha lord into one of planetary rulership or ownership. But it is quite a quantum leap from the notion that Nakshatras have dasha lords to the idea that they not only rule rasis or signs, but also the Nakshatras themselves.

The objection that the proponents of planetary rulership of Nakshatras have illicitly transformed the original idea of dasha lords of Nakshatras is not the only one on the table. I would argue that given the fact that there are different dasha systems, each with a different list of dasha lords for the Nakshatras, the theory of planetary rulership of Nakshatras runs into more trouble. Since the enterprise of these advocates of planetary rulership of Nakshatras is based on the dasha system, Vimshottari in particular, the problem is to justify their selection of the Vimshottari dasha lords as the planetary rulers of Nakshatras. A Confusion of Dasha Lords If we illicitly transform the idea of the dasha lord into that of owner or ruler of the Nakshatra, we will end up with alternative planetery rulers or owners of the Nakshatras depending on the dasha system in use. The same Nakshatra will have different dasha lords, and hence, different planetary rulers or owners. This complicated situation is vastly different from the simplicity of the case of planetary rulership or ownership of the rasis. The same planet rules a particular sign regardless of whether it is the rasi chart or drekkana chart, or navamsa. An example will make the point clear. Consider the Nakshatra Aswini. Proponents of Stellar Astrology, such as R. Gopalakrishna Rao, Krishnamurti, etc., claim that Ketu is the planetary ruler or owner of Aswini. But this is based on an illicit transformation of the idea that Ketu is the dasha lord at birth, according to the Vimshottari system, for those born during the Moons transit in Aswini. According to the Ashtottari system, Rahu is the dasha lord at birth for those born during the Moons transit in Aswini. If a Stellar astrologer follows the Ashtottari system, then he or she must hold that Rahu is the ruler or owner of Aswini. For those Stellar astrologers following the Yogini dasha system, Mars is the ruler or owner of Aswini. This unacceptable situation in which different planets are the rulers or owners of the same Nakshatra is a direct consequence of illicitly transforming the dasha lord of a Nakshatra into the planetary ruler or owner of that Nakshatra. This situation is in conflict with our intuition that rulerships or ownerships of rasis or Nakshatras must be fixed or uniform. There is a stark contrast here with the simplicity of the idea of invariant planetary rulers or owners of rasis or signs. For instance, Mars is always the ruler of Aries, regardless of whether it is the rasi chart, or navamsa or dasamsa. The theory of planetary rulership or ownership of Nakshatras lacks this simplicity. Even in science, the simpler of two hypotheses is preferred. Therefore, in accordance with this criterion, we must reject the theory of planetary rulership of Nakshatras in favor of planetary ownership of rasis. As a consequence, we must also reject astrological systems such as Gopalakrishna Raos Nadi Astrolog and Krishnamurtis Padhdhati which are based on an illicit transformation of the asha lord into a planetary ruler of Nakshatras. This does not imply that we must not examine the position of planets in Nakshatras! The ancient Vedic methods of examining whether the Nakshatra occupied by a planet belongs to the Janma, Sampat, or Vipat category, and the nature of the Vedic deity ruling the Nakshatra in question have their importance and value undiminished by our rejection of contemporary Stellar astrology. Nakshatra Subdivisions Krishnamurti also claimed that his method of subdividing the Nakshatras into nine unequal parts, which is based on the subdivision of a dasha into nine unequal bhuktis, vastly improved the accuracy of astrological judgment and prediction. Indeed, the claim of infallibility, preposterous to more cautious astrologers, was made by Krishnamurti himself and his followers continue to make the claim despite numerous cases of failed predictions. Again, the idea of subdividing the Nakshatra into various parts is not new to Vedic astrology. Shil Ponde in his Hindu Astrology refers to some of the subdivisions of Nakshatras used in Vedic astrology. He refers to the subdivision of the Nakshatra into 4, 10, and 15 equal parts and mentions some of the readings for these parts. Unfortunately, he does not give sources for these subdivisions and the readings for them. Krishnamurti applies the temporal division of the dasha into nine unequal bhuktis to the zodiacal space composed of the 27 Nakshatras such that each Nakshatra has nine subdivisions of unequal extent. The extent of the Nakshatra subdivision ruled by a planet is determined by the proportion of years allotted to that planet in the Vimshottari system. This proportion is then taken from the extent of a Nakshatra in zodiacal space, namely, 13%20 or 800. The resulting figure constitutes the extent of the subdivision ruled by that planet in any Nakshatra. For example, the extent of the Suns subdivision or in any Nakshatra is determined by the proportion of its years in the Vimshottari system, viz., 6/120 or 1/120. Therefore, the extent of the Suns subdivision in any Nakshatra will be 800/20 or 0.40 of arc. The extent of the Nakshatra subdivisions ruled by the other planets can be calculated according to this formula.

Identical Charts of Differing Twins Krishnamurti argued that this scheme of Nakshatra subdivisions successfully explained the differences in the lives of twins whose births were separated by only a few minutes whereas traditional Vedic astrology failed to do so. He argued that the position of planets and houses in the signs were identical in the charts of twins, and, therefore, cannot be used to explain the differences in the lives of twins. We must search for an astrological factor which can change in the interval of a few minutes and thereby account for the differences between twins. Krishnamurti claimed that the cusp of the lagna and the other houses constituted this variable astrological factor which can help explain the differences between twins. He further argued that since the duration of the Nakshatra subdivisions lasts anywhere from two to nine minutes or so, the change in the Nakshatra subdivisions in which the cusps of the lagna and the other bhavas are located in the charts of the twins must be the decisive change which can explain astrologically the differences between them. This is certainly an interesting and original line of thinking, notwithstanding the difficulties which beset the idea of planetary rulers of Nakshatras and their subdivisions. The key idea here, which is of great importance to astrology, is the idea of a change in the cusp of the lagna and the other houses in the span of a few minutes. Now this idea is at the core of the system of Vedic astrology based on the Nadiamsas. This system of Vedic astrology considers the subtle changes in the cusp of the lagna which can occur in a very short interval of time and is equipped to explain the differences between twins. Krishnamurti was familiar with Nadiamsas. So he could not have missed the fact that it is based on a recognition of subtle changes in the Nadiamsa of the lagna in a very short interval of time. But he stated that the principles of delineation for these Nadiamsas are either obscure or lost, and that, therefore, the system is not easily accessible or applicable. However, Krishnamurti is wrong in claiming that traditional Vedic astrology cannot explain the differences between twins. Even if we grant his point about the obscurity or inaccessibility of Nadiamsa astrology, we can still use some of the other vargas to account for these differences. We have the Shastiamsa system in which a sign is divided into 60 equal parts. Each Shastiamsa extends for 0%30 of arc and lasts for two minutes or so. The differences in the Shastiamsas of the lagna and the cusps of the other houses between the charts of the twins whose births are separated by more than two minutes or so can certainly explain the differences between their personalities and lives. The Shastiamsa subdivisions which last only for two minutes or so have a definite edge over the Nakshatra subdivisions whose duration extends from two to nine minutes. The Shastiamsa is smaller in extent than the smallest Nakshatra subdivision whose extent is 0%40 of arc. Therefore, the Shastiamsa has a greater capacity to explain changes which occur in an interval of more than two minutes. Further, the Shastiamsa divisions do not face the problems which beset the idea of planetary rulership of Nakshatras and Nakshatra subdivisions. Overworked Sublords There are other problems facing Krishnamurtis system. One problem which has not been noticed by the votaries of the system, novice and expert alike, is that according to the scheme of 249 Nakshatra subdivisions, many parts of the zodiac separated by 180 degrees have the same sublords or lords of the Nakshatra subdivisions. For example, if the lagnas longitude is Cancer 6%00, then the 7th bhavas longitude will be Capricorn 6%00. Both the lagna and the 7th bhava will be in the Nakshatra subdivision of Mercury. Or, if the lagnas longitude is Aries 7%00, the 7th bhavas longitude will be Libra 7%00, and both points will be in the Nakshatra subdivision of Rahu. If the lagna is Gemini 11%00, the 7th cusp will be Sagittarius 11%00, and both bhavas will be in Saturns subdivision. This creates a problem for natal and horary astrology. According to Krishnamurti, the physical and mental characteristics of the marital partner are determined by the sublord of the 7th cusp, or the ruler of the Nakshatra subdivision in which the 7th cusp is located, and the characteristics of the native are determined by the sublord of the lagna cusp. But given his scheme of 249 Nakshatra subdivisions, the sublords of the lagna cusp and the 7th cusp will be identical in many instances. This implies that the physical and mental characteristics of the native and the marital partner will be identical. This is refuted by experience. There are many cases in which the sublords of the lagna cusp and the 7th cusp are identical, but the physical and mental characteristics of the marital partner are very different from those of the native. Consider also questions about lawsuits. The lagna signifies the querent and the opponent is signified by the 7th house. According to Krishnamurti Padhdhati, the chief significator of the querent, or the planet which indicates the

fate of the querent, is the lord of the Nakshatra subdivision of the lagna cusp. The chief significator of the opponent is the lord of the Nakshatra subdivision of the 7th cusp. How can the astrologer make a judgment if the sublords of the lagna cusp and the 7th cusp are the same? Thus Krishnamurtis system of subdividing the rasi chakra into 249 Nakshatra subdivisions or leads us into quagmires of judgment and prediction. It is noteworthy that it is not possible for a Rasi and its 7th sign to be ruled by the same planet. Therefore, if we stick to rasis and their planetary rulers, we will not face the quandaries of Krishnamurti Padhdhati. Bhava Significators Krishnamurti also propounded a method of determining the significators of a bhava in order to judge whether the affairs of a bhava will fructify and to predict the time of fructification of the indications of a bhava. According to Krishnamurti, the significators of a bhava, the planets empowered to move the affairs signified by that bhava, are comprised of 1) the planets located in the Nakshatras ruled by the occupants of a bhava, 2) the planets occupying a bhava, 3) the planets located in the Nakshatras ruled by the owner of a bhava, 4) the planet owning a bhava, and 5) the planets conjoined with or aspected by the above. Rahu and Ketu must also be included as significators if they are in the signs of these planets, or conjoined with them, or aspected by them. In most cases, these criteria will result in the inclusion of many, if not almost all of the nine planets, as the significators of a bhava! But evidently the affairs signified by the bhava are only affected, for good or bad, during the periods of some planets. Krishnamurti offers some additional criteria for selecting from his long list of significators. The most important criterion refers to the status of the rulers of the Nakshatra subdivisions in which the significators are located. If the lord of the Nakshatra subdivision occupied by a putative significator of a bhava is also the significator of that bhava, or a complementary bhava, then that putative significator is a really favorable significator. If it is not a significator of that bhava, or is a significator of bhavas opposed to the bhava in question, then that putative significator is not truly a favorable significator. This criterion does not really solve the problem of selection. Since the original criteria for significators are broad enough to include almost all of the nine planets as the significators of a particular bhava, the problem resurfaces at the level of the lords of the Nakshatra subdivisions. How do we select the favorable significators if the lord of the Nakshatra subdivision is a significator of almost all the twelve bhavas? For example, let us assume that in a given chart Krishnamurtis criteria give us Saturn, Mars, Rahu, Jupiter, Venus, and Mercury as the significators of the 7th bhava. Let us also assume that we are trying to determine the time of marriage. We can successfully select from this list of putative significators of marriage only if each of these planets is not located in the Nakshatra subdivision of a planet which, in its turn, signifies almost all of the twelve bhavas. But given the fact that Krishnamurtis criteria for significatorship are numerous enough to include almost all of the nine planets as the siginificators of a bhava, we will not be able to successfully select from our list of the significators of the 7th bhava! Therefore, we cannot rely on his criteria in order to effectively determine whether the affairs signified by a bhava will prosper and to predict the time of fructification of the matters signified by a bhava. A similar problem affects many approaches of Vedic astrologers to astrological problems. The value of ones method or system is undermined by the unrestricted multiplication of rules or criteria. Krishnamurti here falls into the same predicament that he alleges to be an endemic problem for traditional Vedic astrology. Horary Ruling Planets A similar problem arises in the context of Krishnamurtis theory of ruling planets. According to Krishnamurti, the ruling planets at the moment of query concerning a problem will also be the ruling planets at the time of resolution of the problem. These ruling planets are 1) the lord of the Nakshatra in which the lagna is located at the moment of query, 2) the lord of the lagna at the moment of query, 3) the lord of the Nakshatra in which the Moon is located at the moment of query, 4) the lord of the Moons rasi or sign at the moment of query, and 5) the lord of the week day at the moment of query. It seems that the lords of the Nakshatra subdivisions in which the lagna and the Moon are located should also be included in the list of ruling planets of the moment of query. This would leave us with possibly seven planets as the rulers of the moment of query. If we include Rahu and Ketu, as Krishnamurti urges us to do, on the basis of their occupancy of the signs of the ruling planets, or conjunction, or aspect, then it is likely that we will have included all of the nine planets!

So the problem of selection raises its head again. Krishnamurti offers a puzzling criterion of selection based on retrogression. He asks us to eliminate planets occupying the Nakshatras of retrograde planets at the moment of query. Obviously, this criterion will not work if there are no planets in retrogression. Even if there are some planets in retrogression, Krishnamurtis view that only planets in the Nakshatras of retrograde planets must be excluded is problematic. For instance, what should we do if Saturn, as a ruling planet, occupies the Nakshatra of a retrograde Mars which, in its turn, occupies the Nakshatra of a direct Jupiter? The principle of transitivity (e.g., If a is taller than b, and b is taller than c, then a is taller than c.) requires us to consider that since retrograde Mars is in the Nakshatra of a direct planet, the alleged adverse effects of its own retrogression are cancelled, and that therefore, any alleged adverse effects arising from Saturns occupation of Marss Nakshatra would also get cancelled. This follows from the principle which affirms the primacy of the ruler of the Nakshatra in determining the status of a planet. There is also a problem with Krishnamurtis claim that retrograde planets indicate denial of the desires of the native only in the horary chart and not in the natal chart. He does not offer any reasons or evidence for this alleged disparity in the behavior of retrograde planets in the natal and horary charts. I would also add that in my experience with horary charts, planets in the Nakshatras of retrograde planets do not necessarily indicate denial of the wishes or desires of the native. Planetary Strength Another problem pertains to Krishnamurtis concept of planetary strength. In general, he does not pay sufficient attention to planetary strength, a serious flaw in his system. He follows Gopalakrishna Rao in holding that an exalted planet in the Nakshatra of a debilitated planet acts like a debilitated planet and that a debilitated planet in the Nakshatra of an exalted planet acts like an exalted planet. But surely there is more to planetary strength than exaltation and debilitation! Krishnamurti hastily rejects the traditional Vedic concept of planetary strength on the grounds that there are many cases in which exalted planets have given adverse results and debilitated planets have given beneficial results. This is a serious mistake because traditional Vedic astrology does not measure planetary strength merely in terms of a planets occupation of exaltation, debilitation, or own signs in the rasi chart! And I do not think that a careful Vedic astrologer will conclude that a planet will give beneficial results merely because it is exalted in the rasi chart! Circular Arguments I want to offer another line of argument against K.P., and, indeed, any system of astrology which relies on the theory of Nakshatra dispositors. The fundamental difficulty facing these systems which subscribe to the idea that a planets status is determined by its Nakshatra dispositor, or the ruler of the Nakshatra occupied by that planet, is that we are led to a puzzling regress or circularity in our astrological analysis. If the status of a planet (A) is determined by its Nakshatra dispositor (N), then what determines the status of that Nakshatra dispositor? Of course, the answer is that it is determined by the Nakshatra dispositor (N2) of (N). What then determines the status of (N2)? Of course, the Nakshatra dispositor of (N2), which will be (N3), and so on. We can stop this regress only in cases where a planet occupies its own Nakshatra. If two planets are in each others Nakshatras, then our astrological analysis suffers from circularity of reasoning. An example will make this problem clear. Consider a chart in which 1) Sun is in a Nakshatra ruled by Ketu, 2) Moon is in a Nakshatra ruled by Venus, 3) Mars is in a Nakshatra ruled by Rahu, 4) Mercury is in a Nakshatra ruled by Saturn, 5) Jupiter is in a Nakshatra ruled by Sun, 6) Venus is in a Nakshatra ruled by Moon, 7) Saturn is in a Nakshatra ruled by Mars, 8) Rahu is in a Nakshatra ruled by Jupiter, and 9) Ketu is in a Nakshatra ruled by Mercury. Let us start with the determination of the Suns status. This is determined by the Suns Nakshatra dispositor, Ketu. But then Ketus status is determined by its Nakshatra dispositor, Mercury. But again Mercurys status is determined by Saturn. However, Saturns status is determined by its Nakshatra dispositor, Mars. The status of Mars is determined by its Nakshatra dispositor, Rahu. Rahus status is determined by Jupiter. Jupiters status is determined by its Nakshatra dispositor, the Sun! But we wanted to determine the Suns status in the first place! We are back to square one! We cannot determine the Suns status unless we determine Jupiters status, but we cannot determine Jupiters status unless we determine the Suns status. Our analysis becomes circular and leads nowhere! Notice also that the Moon and Venus are in each others Nakshatras. In order to determine the status of Venus, we have to know the status of Moon, the Nakshatra dispositor of Venus, but we cannot determine the status of the

Moon unless we know the status of Venus, its Nakshatra dispositor! Thus we have another circularity in our analysis. I would also like to point out that these problems beset not only the idea that the status of a planet is primarily determined by its Nakshatra ruler or dispositor, but also the idea that the status of a planet is primarily determined by the ruler or dispositor of the sign in which it is located. Clarity of Language and Logic I have another line of argument to show that the theory of Nakshatra rulership is untenable. The dasha and bhukti at the time of birth is calculated on the basis of the Moons position in a Nakshatra. When Stellar astrologers say that the Moon is in the Nakshatra of Ketu at the time of birth of a person, they actually mean that Ketu is the dasha lord at the time of birth of that person and nothing more. Now I think that the dasha lord, and perhaps the bhukti lord, at the time of birth of a person can influence that persons personality and general trends of life. So this truncated reference to the dasha lord at the time of birth on the basis of the Moons position, has predictive value. But this value disappears when we bring in other planets and talk in a grandiose way about the rulers of the Nakshatras occupied by them. This is because a statement such as "Saturn is in the Nakshatra of Mars" only means that if we consider Saturn, instead of the Moon, to determine the dasha lord at birth, then, in the Vimshottari system, by virtue of Saturns position in Mrigasira, Chitra, or Dhanishta. But this has no predictive value according to the conventions of Vedic astrology. Nothing can be said about Saturns status in the chart on the basis of the fact that Saturns position at birth implies the dasha of Mars at birth. Thus the reference to the Nakshatra lords of the planets has no predictive value because it is only a truncated reference to the dasha lords at birth determined by reference to the positions of those planets in the Nakshatras. In conclusion, then, I think tall claims that do not stand the test of critical scrutiny are being made on behalf of Krishnamurti Padhdhati, such as that it can successfully explain differences between twins whereas traditional Vedic astrology cannot, or that its methods are more logical than those of traditional Vedic astrology and lead to better, if not infallible, judgments and predictions, etc. I think I have shown that these claims are not valid and that some of its basic ideas and methods face intractable difficulties. There are compelling reasons to reject Krishnamurti Padhdhati and other similar versions of "Stellar Astrology." By comparison, the framework of traditional Vedic astrology, although it is not complete or perfect, is on quite secure logical and empirical foundations. We certainly do not need to subscribe to any system that has been illegitimately derived from it! Copyright T. R. Raghunath, 1998. All rights reserved. Dr. Raghunath was trained as a philosopher in India and Canada. He now teaches at both the high school and college levels. His current research interests include the philosophical and empirical basis of Vedic astrology and the development of a new system of astrological judgment and prediction. Dr. Raghunath can be reached at Traghunath@aol.com if you have any questions or comments. NOTE: Readers who agree or disagree with Dr. Raghunaths position are invited to express their own research findings in the next issue of the ACVA Journal. The Editor