Srila Prabhupada's Horoscope
BY: HAMSAVATAR DAS
May 12, PECOS, NEW MEXICO, USA (SUN) — I read with some interest Kailasa Chandra's "definitive" article about Srila Prabhupada being a Makara (Capricorn) lagna. Actually this is no big revelation, as a great many of us who have been practicing jyotish for at least several decades or more have also come to this conclusion. I might add that Gopesh Kumar Ojha (now long deceased), who is the only Indian astrologer that I ever personally met that had done Prabhupada's horoscope before the 1970's, also said that Srila Prabhupada had a Makara lagna.
The only thing I take some issue with is the premise that Kailasa Chandra's use of a "user defined" ayanamsha, which allows coming to Mithuna rasi for Moon's placement, is definitive. Some astrologer may have said Srila Prabhupada's Moon was in Mithuna (Gemini) and this may have been on Prabhupada's birth horoscope from childhood, which gave rise to his statement in the letter quoted. (I will not pretend to know the answer to this, but unless evidence can be presented, such as a known learned jyotishi having said this, it cannot be accepted. If it can be presented, then it would open a great wealth of understanding to us all, which until now we have not had access to.)
However Srila Prabhupada, although fully understanding as a maha-bhagavata that the science of jyotish was a divine science of truth and knowledge, was not particularly in the habit of either consulting astrologers nor paying much attention to his horoscope. He was only fully immersed in His devotion to his Guru Naharaj and his mission in serving the Lord, and was above such considerations, great science though jyotish certainly is.
In any case, it seems ludicrous that Srila Prabhupada would be giving a statement consciously knowing that this would be in opposition to the mathematical calculations of almost any jyotish astrologer in previous or current times. Kailasa Chandra is quoting this as definitive in such a manner as if Srila Prabhupada were commenting on Bhagavad Gita. Someone who knows please correct me if I am wrong, but when Panditji Pradyumna used to calculate the transits of planets from the Moon's position and was relating astrological/astronomical observations to Srila Prabhupada in the time before his leaving the planet, the calculations were related from the perspective of a Taurus Moon.
Gopesh Kumar Ojha, likely using Lahiri ayanamsha (most commonly used by jyotishis), gave Srila Prabhupada a Taurus Moon. However, even using any of the other ayanamshas accepted by different astrologers, such as Yukteshwar, Bhasin, B.V Raman or Krishnamurti, the Moon would still have been in Taurus. In some schools the Moon is considered still exalted in the entire sign of Taurus, and in others only at the exact degree. (At least there are schools of thought on both, though.) In any case this is not worthy of argument, especially in this forum. Besides how can one argue a point if nobody but one person (the one propounding it) agrees and has the same conclusion? Well I suppose one can always argue anything, but certainly not with any supporting or authoritative examples from authorized literatures.
To say that Srila Prabhupada making a proclamation about his Moon rasi which thus
must be correct, and thus proving Kailiasa Chandra's "user defined" (meaning his own personal speculation unsupported by any astrological texts whatsoever) ayanamsha that seems to be the only one in the world giving Prabhupada a Gemini Moon, seems a bit arrogant and self congratulatory to me. (Also a bit "fanatical".) Pardon me for being in disagreement, but I have also been studying jyotish for 3 decades and so have many other godbrothers and others I know, and none of us (to my knowledge) have concluded a Gemini Moon, nor has any astrologer I ever heard of.
Although I also believe Capricorn to be Srila Prabhupada's lagna, those believing it was Sagittarius have sound reasons for such, as well. None of us are all knowing or all seeing,
nor are we receiving pure knowledge from within our hearts. As Srila Prabhupada once said "there are no perfect astrologers in the world today", and that was 35 years ago.
Does this signify Kailasa Chandra Prabhu's emergence as the next infallible one? If so, I hope he will accept my humble apologies for daring to post my insignificant observations to the contrary, and we will all be breathtakingly awaiting his next addition to the jyotish scriptures, which I assume will place such revelations amongst the classics of Sages Parashara and Jaimini.
I do not mean to offend, but thought it proper to also voice my humble opinion in response. I would also add that the words in the last paragraph of Kailasa Chandra's article seem very brash and indeed harsh. Why would any learned astrologer "have a fanatical hatred against the sign of Capricorn"? Nalinikantha Prabhu is one of the longest practicing astrologers coming from ISKCON, and although I know he definitively believes in the validity of Srila Prabhupada having a Sag lagna (having voiced this emphatically for as long as I have known him), he certainly does not hate anyone and in his heart of hearts is a humble devotee who tries his best to exhibit the qualities of a
Vaishnava. If Kailasa Chandra is referring to a different devotee with the same conviction, I would still doubt that such a harsh description would be accurate. It simply is illogical and an astrologer must be logical to begin with.
I am not looking for a response from Kailasa Chandra Prabhu particularly, as I don't see how it is really so relevant in the "greater scheme of things", but from the words in that last paragraph I will assume that opposition to his decrees and postulations is not generally well received.
Hamsavatar das
(Howard Beckman)
hamsa@vedicworld.org
