Brief Account of Chandra Hari Ayanamsa - Rationale of Zodiac

sohamsa : Message: RE: Brief Account of Chandra Hari Ayanamsa - Rationale of Zodiac
From: Narasimha P.V.R. Rao [mailto:pvr@charter.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 10:56 AM
To: vedic-astrology@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Sanjay Rath
Subject: Re: Brief Account of Chandra Hari Ayanamsa - Rationale of Zodiac

Namaste friends,

Unfortunately, I don't have the time and energy to engage the supporters of Chandra Hari ayanamsa in a detailed debate. However, after having gone through all the material sent by Chandra Hari and his followers, I have a couple of things to say. Even if my advice helps one person, my purpose will be served. That is why I am speaking out.

Chandra Hari talks of Yogic breathing and what not. All that is fine, but it does not prove his ayanamsa. For example, zodiac has 21,600 minutes irrespective of where the zodiac starts. Thus, a long exposition on the significance of 21,600, breahting and Sun does not prove any ayanamsa.

Though he gives long-winding Yogic/Tantric discourses, a discering reader will find all of them irrelevant, as far as proving his ayanamsa is concerned. Though umpteen arguments are given by him, his proof finally boils down to JUST ONE AXIOM - Mooladhara chakram of Kala Purusha is in Moola nakshatram.

In my view, this crucial axiom of Chandra Hari does not stand a reasonable scrutiny. Mooladhara chakram is in the middle of the body and not in thighs or the 9th house. Kala purusha's lagna is at 0 deg Aries. The 240 deg point is the 9th house point. It is unacceptable to place Mooladhara chakram of Kala Purusha at 240 deg point. I cannot help but think that the fact that the nakshatra starting at that longitude is called Moola, i.e. similarity of names, must have misled Chandra Hari into placing Mooladhara chakram there!

There are fourteen worlds that Vedic scriptures talk about. In advaitic theory, they all exist within us. Normally in tradition, we take 7 upper worlds to be in the invisible half of the zodiac and 7 lower worlds to be in the visible half of the zodiac. The upper 7 worlds correspond to the 7 chakras from Mooladhara to Sahasrara. Mooladhara chakra corresponds to Bhoo Loka and should be in the house of desire, i.e. 7th house. Sahasrara chakra corresponds to Satya Loka and should be in the 1st house. Other chakras are in 1st-7th houses.

In my view, Mooladhara chakram of Kala Purusha is at 180 deg and Sahasrara chakram is at 0 deg. Thus, Lahiri (Chitrapaksha) ayanamsa is the ayanamsa that is based on fixing the Mooladhara chakram and not Chandra Hari's ayanamsa as claimed by him.

Even from the point of view of mapping houses to body parts, the 7th house corresponds to the vasti/basti (the sac that contains intestines and colon) area. That is where Mooladhara chakram is placed. If someone places Mooladhara chakram in the 8th house, I can atleast appreciate it (even though I will still disagree), as the 8th house is supposed to show private parts. Though Mooladhara chakram is not in private parts, it is atleast in their vicinity. But placing Mooladhara chakram in the 9th house is outright rejectable.

I am afraid Chandra Hari is biased because of the name of the nakshatra (Moola), convinced himself that that must be the Mooladhara chakram of Kala Purusha and then built his theory around that wrong assumption. Even the explanations of events given in his examples such as Tagore are totally unconvincing. Though he and his supporters claim that his explanations are simple and those of the Lahiri ayanamsa supporters are convolouted, I see it the other way around. For example, he thinks that lagna lord is a better candidate to take one abroad than the 12th lord, just because of placement in a watery sign. We all know which houses take one abroad and which houses keep one in motherland.

Unfortunately, every intelligent person who comes up with some theory or the other about a fundamental question of astrology, such as ayanamsa, will naturally attract a lot of followers. It is obvious that there are several strong followers of Chandra Hari ayanamsa on this list. They are quite aggressive in dismissing other people and sometimes they even ridicule the views of other schools in various matters. They seem to think that other people are using a wrong ayanamsa and hence whatever they do is based on wrong calculations and hence nonsense. They seem to have quite strong views on divisional charts etc too. We cannot change them.

But, FOR THOSE WHO CARE FOR MY VIEWS, I will give my final judgment after perusing all the material kindly sent to me by Chandra Hari and his followers. My judgment is that one is better off ignoring Chandra Hari ayanamsa. The correct ayanamsa is between Lahiri ayanamsa and Krishnamoorthy ayanamsa. In my judgment, Chandra Hari ayanamsa is way off.

Unfortunately, I do not have the time and energy to engage any supporters of Chandra Hari ayanamsa if they respond to my mail. I will have to ignore. The purpose of this mail is to guide those who want my guidance on this issue. Though I was sent some material by Chandra Hari's followers long back, I have waited till I read the literature and formed the final views.

May Jupiter's light shine on us,
Narasimha


~~ om sadâúiva gurave namah ~~
Dear Jyotisa
Please peruse this mail of Ch. PVR Narasimha Rao. I fully endorse this view point. I plan to spend time with Narasimha the coming year to work on the Ayanamsa and we will come out with a very fine answer. My findings are very similar that it is near the present Lahiri Ayanamsa.
With best wishes & warm regards,
Yours truly
Sanjay Rath