KP foundations & Planets in Nakshatras

[Guest guest]

Aum Namah Shivaya!

 

Namaste,

 

During my initial studies of Jyotish, I came across KP, the same time

that I was taught Sri Seshadri Iyer's methodology by a student of

his. I tried the methodology and found it working well. But I found

it hard to accept the rationale going by the convention as I knew it

then. Sri Krishnamurthi doesn't tell us where he got his ideas

from.

When I asked Sri Krishnamurthi's sons about a few things, they

couldn't give any convincing answers. So inspite of it working

well

I chose not to go deeper because those days I wanted to follow only

what tradition sanctioned. Later I came across Jaimini paddhati. I

was quite happy to find an alternative approach. For a long time I

was not aware that there was a third way of doing Jyotish. Then came

a time when I was fascinated by the Nadis. I tried hard to get hold

of some reliable person or text. After many frustrating attempts, by

God's grace I came across pieces of information here and there.

When

I started assimilating what I learnt I was pleasantly surprised.

There was a third school of thought- the Nadi paddhati! For the first

time I found some rationale for certain unexplained things. In the

sixties and seventies some writers seemed to have done individual

researches into the methodology of various nadis and come up with

some useful ideas. I personally feel that there are atleast three

main approaches to Jyotish.

1. Parasara's

2. Jaimini's

3. Nadi paddhathi

 

So certain times what seems to be against convention could be

according to the nadi methodologies. I am still researching and do

not want to come up with anything till I complete my work. All I

would suggest is that one may be open to the idea of the existence of

an alternate approach. Of late I started realising that it may not be

right to reject a paddhati only because it is new. One of the reasons

I was not happy with KP in the beginning is that it uses the western

aspects too. But after being exposed to the western methods, I agree

that the western aspects work well too! Why that far? Don't we

use a

similar approach in Tajika? Doesn't it work well? I started

becoming

open to new things as long as the rationale was satisfactory and it

gave results. But let us not debate over a new issue (it will be time

consuming and hair-splitting). Instead I will address only the

questions on KP for the time being. But let me clarify that I AM NOT

A FOLLOWER OF KP IN THE STRICTEST SENSE because I don't accept

ALL

that he has taught, and also because I consider KP as ONLY A STRONG

WAVE IN JYOTISH AND THAT THE OCEAN OF JYOTISH IS MUCH MUCH MORE

VASTER AND DEEPER AND EVERY WAVE WILL HAVE TO RECEDE BACK INTO THE

OCEAN. But his followers consider ALL his words to be almost

infallible, they blindly argue that traditional astrology is

inferior! I differ here and feel that though KP is brilliant, he

cannot be taken seriously as far as his remarks on other areas of

Jyotish are concerned. Out of the infinite ocean of techniques every

astrologer has to evolve his methodology using techniques that appeal

and work for him. And KP is only Sri Krishnamurthi's methodology,

his

assimilation of some techniques of Jyotish, based on his

understanding. One cannot mistake a wave for the ocean. But since I

have studied KP seriously and also use it quite often (apart from

traditional), I will answer the questions.

 

 

>(1) Constellation subs are a fundamental part of KP system. These

>subs are based on Vimsottari dasa. What if a special nakshatra dasa

>(e.g. Panchottari dasa) is the most appropriate nakshatra dasa in a

>chart and gives better results than Vimsottari dasa? Are we going to

>find subs, nakshatra lords and sub-lords using that dasa? Why only

>Vimsottari dasa?

 

This is what I have always pointed out to people who attended my

classes. The principles of nakshatra dasas are different from the way

we judge rasi dasas. Likewise the principles of Vimsottari cannot be

borrowed into other nakshatra dasas. The division of the zodiac into

the 27 nakshatras and nine rulers, their order, etc is the basis of

the Vimsottari. The order of the dasas of various planets is in

accordance with the nakshatra division of the zodiac in Vimsottari.

For other dasas, the nakshatra principles cannot be the same. I have

even seen an astrologer using the nakshatras with Yogini dasa! The

Yogini dasa does not follow the same order or even list of planets.

Ketu doesn't even get included. IT IS A GROSS ERROR TO USE THE

NAKSHATRAS INDISCRIMINATELY EVERYEHERE. Only the Vimsottari and its

variations work well with the nakshatras. Any other dasa (even if it

is a nakshatra dasa) where the order of planetary dasa is not the

same as the natural order of nakshatras in the zodiac, cannot borrow

the nakshatra applications in the same way. Coming to the actual

question, the further sub-division of nakshatras into subs is BASED

ON VIMSOTTARI AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR OTHER DASAS. But if one

wants to try new things, he may have to find the nakshatra lords and

subs using the relevant dasa. I haven't tried anything else

because I

had other things that interested me for my research in the limited

time that I have. I would rather prefer to study the original nadis

or their extracts in that time.

 

At the cost of repetition let me state that, the popular division of

the zodiac into 27 nakshatras and the order of the planetary rulers

of the nakshatras is APPLICABLE ONLY FOR THE VIMSHOTTARI AND ITS

VARIATIONS. Since most astrologers used the nakshatras, Vimsottari

was the popular one. BTW almost all texts and authors who stress on

the use of nakshatras use the Vimshottari alone. Doesn't that

make it

consistent and acceptable and also answer the question why only

Vimsottari?

 

 

>(2) In fact, sometimes people use nakshatras and subs in judging

>transits of all planets. In that case, why are we only taking subs

>w.r.t. Vimsottari dasa? If you tie the use of subs with dasa, then

>finding subs w.r.t. the dasa being used makes sense. If one uses

>subs to judge the results of dasas and antardasas in Vimsottari

>dasa, then tying the computation of subs to that dasa makes

>philosophical sense. But, if we are using subs in transits and not

>with any dasa, why should we use Vimsottari dasa formula in finding

>subs and not any other dasa? The whole framework is shaky if this

>question is not answered satisfactorily.

 

Though the answer is very simple, unless one has really studied and

used KP fully, one will not be able to answer this question. The

transits are done with a COMPOSITE APPROACH IN KP. While judging

transits, we don't take the planets just as they are. KP first

finds

out which houses each planet is a significator of, in the natal

chart, then uses them as the very same significators in transits.

Since the significators were judged using the Vimsottari dasa order

of nakshatras and subs, the same has to be used in transits too. In

other words a CONSISTENT *COMPOSITE APPROACH is used. The framework

would be shaky only if they used the planets as they are, without

using the SAME SIGNIFICATORS. That is why I insisted in an earlier

mail that while some astrologers say that we should predict when both

the dasa and transits indicate the same, there is no such thing in

KP. IN KP THE DASAS AND TRANSITS ALWAYS AGREE. They agree because the

same composite approach is used consistently. Even the Ruling Planets

when used for predictions, use the same subs for transits . And it is

acceptable because the same division of the zodiac into nakshatras

and subs is used in finding the ruling planets. It is all about being

CONSISTENT. That is why I feel that one should not MIX different

methodologies. They have to be done independently.

 

>(3) In the light of these fundamental issues, one questions

>comes to mind - is there anything anywhere in classics suggesting

>the subs as they are used by Meena and Krishnamoorthy? Or is there

>something in any tradition? Or is it just original research of a few

>people?

 

I am not aware of anything in the classics that I have come across.

It *could be and seems to be original research. But since we are

already used to the principle of the Macrocosm and microcosm being

built on the same inherent plan at all levels, it doesn't seem

illogical to believe in such a FURTHER division of the zodiac based

on the Vimsottari dasas/antardasas, especially if the results too

agree. After all aren't all divisions of the zodiac symbolic,

including the division into rasis and nakshatras? According to *me if

the rationale is good and based on some principles and philosophy, it

may be accepted *if it gives results as well.

 

(4) As for Sri KSK's birthdata, Narayan has given it already.

 

>"If Jupiter is in Libra, will the results of Venus be experienced in

>Jupiter dasa? Why not, if you use such logic with nakshatras?"

 

According to KP the nakshatras are more important than signs. The

sign lord is only the fourth in the order of priority. Even according

to Sri Seshadri Iyer, the nakshatra lord is the sukshma (subtle) lord

while the rasi lord is the sthoola (gross)lord. It again is a matter

of the methodology used. But the four determinants theory of

Satyacharya includes the rasi lord of the sign in which the original

determinant is posited. In fact this is the fourth determinant. So

the logic that you suggested is not totally unheard of either. As I

stated already, each astrologer assimilates *some techniques from the

ocean of Jyotish and weaves a meaningful methodology for himself. In

this process no one will be able to cover the whole ground. To keep

things simple they have to select what they feel is more important.

The success of the methodology depends on whether the astrologer has

covered most of the important angles in some form or the other. In

that respect Sri KSK seems to have done a fairly good job of giving a

full-fledged methodology. Of course this is *my opinion.

 

 

Best Regards,

Satya

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Satya,

 

Thank you for taking time to answer. Here are my replies.

 

I do not question the existence of (or need for) different

approaches. Jyotish is like an ocean. I was only pointing out what I

thought were some inconsistencies in the framework of KP.

 

> I personally feel that there are atleast three

> main approaches to Jyotish.

> 1. Parasara's

> 2. Jaimini's

> 3. Nadi paddhathi

 

I must respectfully diagree. What is today known as "Parasari

approach" is only a small part of Parasara's teachings. A lot of

things like bhava/graha arudha padas, sign aspects, argalas, chara

karakas, chara dasa and other rasi dasas, Brahma, Rudra and some

longevity methods have been made popular in the last century

as "Jaimini astrology". However, the undeniable fact is that ALL

these concepts were covered prominently by Parasara also in "Brihat

Parasara Hora Sastram" (BPHS). Anyone who read both BPHS and "Jaimini

Sutras" will agree that Jaimini was only refining the knowledge

taught by Parasara and most definitely not teaching a different

approach.

 

This is a very common misconception and an unfortunate one. Jaimini

and Parasara taught the same approach.

 

Once nadi texts are well-understood, it may be possible to put

everything under one uniform and logical framework. I must point out

that our understanding of nadis is very shaky at best.

 

> So certain times what seems to be against convention could be

> according to the nadi methodologies. I am still researching and do

> not want to come up with anything till I complete my work. All I

> would suggest is that one may be open to the idea of the existence

of

> an alternate approach. Of late I started realising that it may not

be

> right to reject a paddhati only because it is new.

 

If there are gaps in rishi prokta, i.e. revealed knowledge taught by

Sages, we try to improve our understanding and fill the gaps. But, if

there are gaps/inconsistencies in some knowledge that does not have

the sanction of any Sage, we must be more skeptical.

 

> One of the reasons

> I was not happy with KP in the beginning is that it uses the

western

> aspects too. But after being exposed to the western methods, I

agree

> that the western aspects work well too! Why that far? Don't we

> use a

> similar approach in Tajika? Doesn't it work well? I started

 

A lot of the basics of western astrology are related to the

rudimentary concepts taught by Manu. Tajaka system is closely linked

to a small part of Manu's teachings. Manu is as much of an authority

as Parasara and Jaimini.

 

> becoming

> open to new things as long as the rationale was satisfactory and it

> gave results. But let us not debate over a new issue (it will be

time

> consuming and hair-splitting). Instead I will address only the

> questions on KP for the time being.

 

Excellent. I appreciare tghat.

 

> But let me clarify that I AM NOT

> A FOLLOWER OF KP IN THE STRICTEST SENSE because I don't accept

> ALL

> that he has taught, and also because I consider KP as ONLY A STRONG

> WAVE IN JYOTISH AND THAT THE OCEAN OF JYOTISH IS MUCH MUCH MORE

> VASTER AND DEEPER AND EVERY WAVE WILL HAVE TO RECEDE BACK INTO THE

> OCEAN.

 

Fair enough.

 

> Ketu doesn't even get included. IT IS A GROSS ERROR TO USE THE

> NAKSHATRAS INDISCRIMINATELY EVERYEHERE. Only the Vimsottari and its

> variations work well with the nakshatras.

 

I do not completely agree. But, if this is your basic premise, then I

cannot question other things built based on it. So all my questions

become void under this premise.

 

But, in my view, nakshatras are not a sole of property of Vimsottari

dasas. Nakshatras exist on their own and lorded by various deities.

Vimsottari dasa is JUST ONE of many dasas in which each nakshatra is

assigned a planet as its lord. I cannot understand why it should

matter if Ketu (or even Rahu) gets included or not. Rahu and Ketu are

just shadows. What is they do not own a nakshatra physically?

 

In any case, because this is your basic assumption, I will not

question why only Vimsottari dasa formula is being used in sub

calculation.

 

> determinant is posited. In fact this is the fourth determinant. So

> the logic that you suggested is not totally unheard of either. As I

 

This is my problem. As we take a planet, its constellation lord and

planets in its constellation, we are just increasing the list of

ruling planets.

 

Anyway, let me pose one more question:

 

If we think that subs are very important, why not sub-subs? Why not

sub-sub-subs? I mean, why is "antardasa" the most important division?

Why not pratyantardasa or sookshma-antardasa?

 

In determining the most important ruling planet, KP uses nakshatras

and subs. He actually mentioned that subs are actually more

important. In that case, why doesn't he consider sub-subs even more

important?

 

See, if you have an approach where you use nakshatras in interpreting

dasas, subs in interpreting antardasas, sub-subs in interpreting

pratyantardasas and so on, it is a consistent approach (whether

sanctioned by sages or not, it is atleast self-consistent). But if

you use subs to determine the ruling planets for all purposes

(including the judgment of transits and horary charts), there is some

inconsistency. Why not sub-subs?

 

I see a lot of arbitrariness in KP (only Vimsottari dasa formula,

Placidus houses, prominence of subs - i.e. antardasas) and that makes

me nervous, especially because this seems to be somebody's original

research.

 

> stated already, each astrologer assimilates *some techniques from

the

> ocean of Jyotish and weaves a meaningful methodology for himself.

In

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Aum Namah Shivaya!

 

Namaste Sri Narasinmha,

 

Parasara seems to have been the first system builder. Jaimini seems

to have been the next. Inspite of the commonness shared by both (the

commonness shared is that both stand on the platform of Jyotish) that

as a system JAIMINI is UNIQUE, is undeniable. Some scholars like

Prof. P.S.Sastri feel that the main principles of Jaimini as they

appear in the now available BPHS are inserted. All this aside, I

agree that all the various schools can be brought under one head one

day. But astrologers will still have to pick what appeals or suits

them from the ocean of techniques and use their own methodologies

since it is impossible and not practical to do everything that one

knows on all charts. Anyway I will leave this aside. Coming to KP...

 

The idea of looking into the planets in the occupants' or lords'

nakshatra doesn't complicate by increasing the list of significators.

It actually adds the most important missing angle. You might have

come across the theory of "Jeeva and Sarira". I will quote only the

part that is relevant to our discussion from Sri P.V.R.Rayudu's

article on the same from his homepage. "Suppose a planet is in a

particular nakshatra. The lord of that nakshatra will be the the

jeeva (life) of that planet. If the planet Guru (Jupiter) is in the

nakshatra of Mangal (Mars), then Mangal will be the jeeva of Guru".

That the lord of the nakshatra is the LIFE of the planet, is quite

clear from this idea. This was very popular with some scholars in the

sixties and seventies. The rasi didn't get much prominence here. So

it is quite natural for a planet to give the results of its nakshatra

lord. So planets in the nakshatra of another planet in the 7th will

carry the function of 7th house related activities, as their Jeeva

(life). Sri KSK must have used a similar approach. In fact he calls

his approach *Stellar astrology. The whole focus is on the

nakshatras.

 

As for why only subs and not subsubs and so on, some KP followers

use subsubs too! But in the search for precision we have to draw a

line somewhere, to be practical. Why only five levels in the

Vimsottari, why not ten? For most purposes practically the sublord

suffices. The subsublord *could be used sparingly. Using the sookshma

is quite good enough already. While doing a chart reading, I normally

study till there only (dasa/bhukti/sukshma). Likewise the

rasi/nakshatra/sub will suffice generally. One can spend 80% of one's

time searching for 20% points or spend 20% time searching for 80%

points. In the limited time that we have, to be practical we have to

choose the most important techniques that we are conversant with,

weave a methodology and do the best we can. In that regard KP is

quite good. As for the foundations of KP being shaky, I have tried to

answer your questions on why subs in transits? This question, if not

answered satisfactorily, would have made it shaky. But as I said, the

approach in transits is COMPOSITE. I don't see any reason why the

foundations are shaky. Would you agree with some when they say that

Jyotish itself is on shaky foundations if astrologers cannot agree on

a 365 or 360 or 354 day year for the dasas, or that due to the non-

uniformity of ayanamsha which affects the divisional charts?

 

As for your reference to "Nakshatras exist on their own and lorded by

various deities", do we use the deities for any *predictive purpose

really? As far as I know, Parasara has ignored these deities and used

only the planetary lords. My point about the nakshatras is - the

theory of Ketu for Aswini, followed by Venus for Bharani etc suits

the Vimsottari. The lordships of these nakshatras is the same in

Vimsottari. The very order of the dasas is the same. But in other

dasas like Yogini, it cannot be the same. How do we find the dasa

balance in any dasa? By calculating the longitude of the Moon, then

seeing in which nakshatra it falls, we decide the dasa lord whose

balance operates at birth. Isn't the calculation similar for all

nakshatra dasas? But what is DIFFERENT is that for the same longitude

of the Moon we take different dasa lords, in different dasas. *The

lordships of the same nakshatras IS DIFFERENT IN VARIOUS DASA

SYSTEMS. In other words, Ketu is the lord of Aswini ONLY IN

VIMSOTTARI. In Yogini Aswini is ruled by Mars (Bhramari). So the

zodiac of nakshatras with the planets as rulers of different

nakshatras as used in predictive astrology HAS to vary for each dasa

system. But why is the lunar zodiac popular with Aswini being ruled

by Ketu etc? It is evident that the rulership of nakshatras as

popular is ONLY FOR VIMSOTTARI. In other words,

Vimsottari rulerships became almost synonymous with the lunar zodiac.

I was trying to point out as an answer to why only Vimsottari, that

why the rulerships of nakshatras are popular only wrt Vimsottari. In

yogini ardra belongs to Moon (Mangala) and Punarvasu to Sun

(Pingala). But do we use any other rulerships based on other dasas

while describing the lunar zodiac? Many authors like Satyacharya

describe the nakshatra principles based on the Vimsottari pattern

only. The popular idea of seeing Janma, Sampat, Vipat, nakshatras etc

is not applicable in other dasa like the Yogini where only 8 lords

exist, while the theory of janma, sampat,vipat, etc works on a 9

lords dasa like vimsottari. Many such points come into focus while

using nakshatras. I was not referring to the shadowy nature of Ketu

when I said that Ketu is not even included in Yogini.

 

Guess I have to stop now and get back to work. It is taking a lot of

time and unfortunately I will be busy the coming weeks. I might catch

up very less now for some time. With due respect, I beg to differ in

a few things esp KP's strength and merit and why only Vimsottari.

 

With Regards,

Satya

[Guest guest]

JAYA JAGANNATHA!

 

Dear Sri Satya,

 

Namaste.

 

I personally feel that there are atleast three

> main approaches to Jyotish.

> 1. Parasara's

> 2. Jaimini's

> 3. Nadi paddhathi

 

The distinction between Parashara and Bhrigu is acceptable. The forst

represents the knowledge received from Bhagavan by Brihaspati (Jupiter, the

Guru of the demigods) while the second represents the knowledge received by

Sukracharya (Venus, the Guru of demons). Therefore even if they are two

sides of the same coin, there are some differences of approach.

 

But please tell me, what difference do you "feel" or maybe see between the

system of Parashara and Jaimini? After having studied and lectured upon BPHS

and going through UPSJ a few times, I have found that they are identical,

and Jaimini just elaborates on a few principles given in general by

Parashara. It is natural to identify the two chools, as Jaimini was the

disciple of Vyasa, who was the son of Parashara, so the Parampara goes from

parashara to Jaimini, and therefore it was appropriate for him to comment on

his predecessor's work.

 

Yours,

 

Gauranga Das Vedic Astrologer

<gauranga

Phone: +36-309-140-839

Jyotish Remedies:

WWW.BRIHASPATI.NET

 

 

 

 

 

_______

 

Get your free @ address at

[Guest guest]

I am taking the liberty to share my thoughts.

 

(1) In the exchange between Narasimha and Satya it becomes clear that we

cannot conclusively deduct whether the Jaimini stuff was inserted into BPHS

'TRANSLATIONS' or not.

 

(2) Moreover what the people (masses atleast) read and see today are

translations. I am not even sure if there are any authentic original

scripts around. In any case there would have been only one to begin with.

Even this one, it is now presented was complied perhaps after Parashara

Muni himself. So right away, the information is atleast 2nd if not 3rd or

more hand down. If this someone came after Parashara and Jaimini why is it

inconceivable to think that this person would try to amalgamate the two

systems. It is quite a natural process; students of future always benefit

from the wisdom of past saints/scholars.

 

(3) Even if Parmapara is passed on from Guru to Shishya why is it

inconceivable that Shishya can refine a theory; again another natural

process.

 

(4) In light of Parmapara, Shishyas have always paid respect to the Gurus.

Especially during those ancient times, when Parashara and Jaimini Rishis

lived on this earth, I find it hard to digest that Jaimini Rishi himself

would not have credited Parashara Muni before expanding on his work.....

(Who knows he may have done so but the stuff probably got deleted from the

present day translations; so; it just goes to prove that everything that we

read in today's widely available translations is not gospel.)

 

(4) Why are we taking cycles to debate something we cannot conclusively

prove either way. How does crediting these principles to one Rishi or two

affect our current status of learning and moving forward??

 

Best Regards,

 

SA

 

 

"Gauranga Das" <gauranga on 07/18/2001 11:14:47 AM

 

Please respond to vedic astrology

 

<vedic astrology>

cc:

Re: [vedic astrology] Re: KP foundations & Planets in Nakshatras

 

 

JAYA JAGANNATHA!

 

Dear Sri Satya,

 

Namaste.

 

I personally feel that there are atleast three

> main approaches to Jyotish.

> 1. Parasara's

> 2. Jaimini's

> 3. Nadi paddhathi

 

The distinction between Parashara and Bhrigu is acceptable. The forst

represents the knowledge received from Bhagavan by Brihaspati (Jupiter, the

Guru of the demigods) while the second represents the knowledge received by

Sukracharya (Venus, the Guru of demons). Therefore even if they are two

sides of the same coin, there are some differences of approach.

 

But please tell me, what difference do you "feel" or maybe see between the

system of Parashara and Jaimini? After having studied and lectured upon

BPHS

and going through UPSJ a few times, I have found that they are identical,

and Jaimini just elaborates on a few principles given in general by

Parashara. It is natural to identify the two chools, as Jaimini was the

disciple of Vyasa, who was the son of Parashara, so the Parampara goes from

parashara to Jaimini, and therefore it was appropriate for him to comment

on

his predecessor's work.

 

Yours,

 

Gauranga Das Vedic Astrologer

<gauranga

Phone: +36-309-140-839

Jyotish Remedies:

WWW.BRIHASPATI.NET

 

 

 

 

 

_______

 

Get your free @ address at

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your use of is subject to

[Guest guest]

Dear Sanjiv,

 

> (4) Why are we taking cycles to debate something we cannot

conclusively

> prove either way. How does crediting these principles to one Rishi

or two

> affect our current status of learning and moving forward??

 

The issue is not just which Rishi gets credit. There is a bigger

issue here. Sri P.S. Sastri was quoted by Satya as cautionuing that a

student not "careful" enough may "mix up" the two "systems". OTOH, if

you recognize the fact that Parasara taught most components of the so-

called "Jaimini system", you will realize that there is just one

system in which each concept has its own purpose and there is no

question of "mixing up".

 

So this issue is very important and not just academic.

 

> (1) In the exchange between Narasimha and Satya it becomes clear

that we

> cannot conclusively deduct whether the Jaimini stuff was inserted

into BPHS

> 'TRANSLATIONS' or not.

 

You are changing the topic. The issue is NOT whether "Jaimini stuff"

was inserted into BPHS "translations". The issue is about a lot of

chapters and a lot of individual verses being inserted into the

*original Sanskrit version* of BPHS.

 

There is nothing conclusive in Vedic astrology, but Sastry's view

quoted by Satya does not even merit a discussion, unless some strong

evidence is presented. It is just a wild imagination as things stand

today.

 

Because he has a preconceived notion that there are 2 systems

(Parasari and Jaimini), the similarity between BPHS and Jaimini

Sutras convinced him that a lot of BPHS text was "inserted". It is a

case of starting by assuming what one wants to prove.

 

> (2) Moreover what the people (masses atleast) read and see today are

> translations. I am not even sure if there are any authentic

original

> scripts around. In any case there would have been only one to

begin with.

 

BPHS verses were collected with intensive effort by scholars who went

to many traditional families. The chapters questioned by Sastri are

found in many versions, showing that, if they were inserted, they

were inserted long back.

 

> (3) Even if Parmapara is passed on from Guru to Shishya why is it

> inconceivable that Shishya can refine a theory; again another

natural

> process.

 

Refining a theory is one thing and massive forgery of a massive

classic is quite another.

 

The verses of Parasara may indeed have gone through some refinement

and some verses may have been lost, but suggesting that someone

inserted half of the text into it later shows unfamiliarity with (and

disrespect for) the way knowledge was preserved in ancient India.

 

> (4) In light of Parmapara, Shishyas have always paid respect to the

Gurus.

> Especially during those ancient times, when Parashara and Jaimini

Rishis

> lived on this earth, I find it hard to digest that Jaimini Rishi

himself

> would not have credited Parashara Muni before expanding on his

work.....

 

This is no argument at all. None of the texts of Parasara and Jaimini

credit anyone other than Brahma, Shiva etc. You cannot expect either

Maharshi to "credit" the other.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Aum Namah Shivaya!

 

Namaste Sri Narasimha, Sri Gauranga and Sri Sanjiv,

 

Looks like the quotation of Sri Sastrigaru is messing up quite a few

things! Let me say that one has to be very very cautious

while "accepting" such views of any scholar however great he may be.

Personally I wouldn't like to conclude anything from Sri Sastri's

views. As for the different approaches to Jyotish , my reference was

to as they later came to be. I have already stated (in another mail)

that all the so called schools can be put under the common head of

Parasari and to me the classification serves only a purpose of

convenience and ease and that in reality, Jyotish itself has its

foundations in Parasara's teachings. But in regular usage, it is

common to refer to the schools of Parasara and Jaimini seperately as

Parasara matham and Jaimini matham in a discussion. Most scholars in

India SPEAK or REFER to them the same way. As for Prof Sastri's

views, *he would know *if he had any real reasons other than just a

prejudice. I do not know Sri Sastri personally. That is why I wanted

to know what Sri Madhura Krishnamurthy sastry garu would say because

as a great scholar and friend of Sri P.S.Sastri garu, he might have

debated/discussed with Sri.P.S.Sastri on this issue. From his own

writings, it seems that Sri Madhura *may not hold the same view as

Prof.Sastri. As far as I know Sri Madhura garu is a very noted

scholar treated as an authority in both.

 

Regarding any books in Telugu by Sri Madhura garu, he has written

many valuable books in Telugu. His four volume books on Vastu are

recognised by the Telugu University as prescribed texts for the study

of Vastu and are the best in the subject that I have ever read. Most

other modern books are corrupted by half or wrong understanding while

his books on vastu are very pure from a sastric point of view. He has

written a commentary to BPHS in 3 volumes in Telugu. He has also

written (on)other books like Daivagna Vallabha, Bhavartha Ratnakara,

Satayoga Manjari. He and his son are also running a Telugu Jyotish

monthly. Some of his articles were translated into English by

Prof.Sastri for Sri B.V.Raman's magazine. As for his exact address, I

have to ask my father who knows him. But I remember it as Jyotisha

Vignana Kendramu, Seethampeta, Rajahmundry. I can confirm other

details once I reach India.

 

Best regards,

Satya