Integration and Differentiation

[Guest guest]

Om Gurave Namah

Namaste all, I was away during the weekend and did not read any mails. But it

looks like this "X system vs Y system" talk has reached another level

altogether. Certain important basics have to be stressed again, so that

confusion in the minds of readers is not compounded further.

(1) Though it is true that Parasara was mentioned as one of the eighteen

authorities (pravartakas) of JyotisSaastra, nowhere is it mentioned that these

eighteen authorities taught eighteen "different" kinds of "systems".

 

In fact, Parasara's son Vyasa is also one of the eighteen authorities mentioned

in Sastras. He did not start his own "system" after all.

 

If somebody suggests that Surya, Garga, Narada, Vyasa, Vasishtha, Atri,

Kashyapa, Manu etc had their own "systems", rather than simply teaching their

perspectives on the same single system that "JyotisSastra" is, the burden of

proof lies squarely on them.

 

(2) Coming back to "Parsara vs Jaimini", please note that Jaimini is not one of

the 18 pravartakas. He is a great maharshi who threw further light on

Parasara's teachings. Pitting "his system" opposite "Parasara's system", while

overly restricting Parasara's system to a smaaaaall subset of Parasara's own

teachings is meaningless and leads to many confusions. This bad habit has to

end.

 

(3) Chandrashekhar ji's point on not mixing up sign aspects and planetary

aspects is valid. However, the issue at the heart is not that of mixing up

"systems", but that of mixing up parameters within the same system. I will

elaborate.

 

If somebody suggests that sign aspects are not part of Pararsara's system, it is

a laughable suggestion. I say it because Parasara himself taught sign aspects

and taught them before teaching any other kind of aspects. Unfortunately, some

people are stubborn and they create an artificial "Parasari system" with a

small subset of Parasara's teachings. Their "Parasari system" is simply their

own system and not exactly Parasara's system.

 

So it is crystal-clear that both sign aspects and planetary aspects are part of

the system taught by Parasara.

 

However, they clearly do not represent the same thing. If so, Parasara would not

define both. So they have their own unique meanings (which, BTW, was brought out

clearly many times on this list and in the books by Pt. Rath and my book too).

We need to differentiate them and not mix them up or use them in a confused (or

opportunistic) way. The same thing holds for many other parameters. For example,

houses, their bhava arudhas, house lords and their graha arudhas are four

totally different parameters. Each has its own unique meaning. We should not

mix them up. They were all used by Parasara and hence part of "Parasara's

system".

 

Thus, saying that houses/house lords are used in one system (say, so-called

"Parasari system") and their bhava/graha arudhas are used in another system

(say, so-called "Jaimini system") is as wrong as mixing them up and using them

interchangably.

 

The only correct approach is to recognize that they are all part of Parasara's

system (and hence part of Jaimini's system) and to learn their correct

differentiation.

 

Integration and differentiation go hand in hand. As we integrate multiple

concepts and parameters, we need to clearly differentiate between them. If I

use A3 to show the books written by me in one case and 3rd house in another

case, it is clearly illogical. If I use the 3rd house to see my communucation

skills and A3 to see the actual material/tangible artefacts of my communication

skills (e.g. my books/articles), it is more logical. Consistency is the key. By

carefully going thru the classics and the secrets from the tradition, we can

come to the correct conclusions. That will lead to a renaissance in

JyotisSaastra.

 

But, partitioning concepts and parameters in the name of Sages (like Parasara vs

Jaimini), instead of differentiating their clear meanings, and using them

interchangably in two sets of rules/concepts (as in "Parasari system and

Jaimini system") is not going to do anything for a renaissance in

JyotisSaastra.

 

(4) Open-mindedness is good, but let us not stretch it too far to include "true

nodes" etc. That kind of open-mindedness is like vaayu tattva. It leads to no

consolidation of any knowledge.

 

It is too late and I have to sleep. More later, possibly...

 

In case I stay away from the lists in the next 10 days, let me wish right now:

Have a merry Christmas and a happy new year!

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,Narasimha > Hare Rama Krishna> > Dear

Chandrasekhar Ji,> > Your longish mails are very informative. Pls keep writing

longish ones. At the end of the last mail you were saying it became too long. It

was a good mail. Now your clarification is still better.> > i also feel that

people using True nodes & using different ayanamsas are sticking to their own

basics ( if i may say so!).> > From what you said, can we speculate that the

other Rishis whose works are lost were using different 'systems'. What could

be the root of all this?> > Many thanks and best regards> viswanadham