condemning the bible of astrology - Mohan Jyotishi

October 26, 2005

Dear Mr. Surya Rao,

If Sita Ram Jha did not say anywhere himself that he

was translating/compiling the original "Brihat

Parashara Horashastra" how can we claim it on his

behalf that he had done so i.e. translated the

original Parashari, especially when no Parshari ever

existed!

The comments of English translator of "Parashari" on

page 11 are more revealing than any other proof! This

is what he has says:

"After scrutinizing the four manuscripts, I have for

reasons of more credibility chosen the Sanskrit

version rendered by Sitaram Jha"

This statement of English translator itself is

self-contradictory since he has not given any proofs

in support of his arguments as to how it is more

credible than other editions! Similarly, if the

English translator had so much of faith in Sitaram Jha

he should have followed SuryaSidhanta calculatkions,

since those are the ones followed by Jha, and not that

of N. C. Lahir! It means that Parshar Rishi was

waiting for N. C. Lahiri to be born so that the former

could write his most "mafnificent masterpiece" of

"Vedic astrology" according to Lahiri Ayanamsha.

Well, we must have at lest some common sense to sift

grain from the cdhaff!

Similarly, if there had been any original Parashari,

there would not have been different versions---none

agreeing with the other! Besides, different

Ayanamshas could not have been correct for one and the

same work, as every "Parshara" advocates a different

Ayanamsha much to the chagrin of real Parashara who

has not referred to any ayanamsha ghost even

inadvertantly in his Vishnu Purana! In other words,

if, much against all the proofs, there is any real

Parashari it should have been based on a Sayana

Rashichakra and not on the so called Surya Sidhanta or

Lahiri or Ramana or Grihalaghava Rashichakras! That

is another proof of the ignorance of these

"Parasharas" of the real works of real Parashara!

Venkateshwar Press, Mumbai, edition/version of "Brihat

Parashari" is much older than Sita Ram Jha's---by

about a hundred years and it has been referred to by

S. B. Dikshit in his "Bhaatiya Jyotish" in 1890 AD.

He has proved it there with all the logic and

reasoning that the so called original Parashari was

not available anywhere since he had not been able to

find it anywhere in any library or market in spite of

his best efforts!

Alberuni's India also does not refer to any Parashari

though that work refers to every prominent work on

astronomy and astrology like Brihat Jataka, Brihat

Samhita, Khandkhadyaka etc. etc.

I have also an off line communication from a gentleman

that none of the libraries in the world contain any

manuscript of "Briohat Parashara Horashastram". It

means it is just an imaginary work!

In my self-introduction on this forum, I have made it

very clear that I am highly confused about "Vedic

astrology" and I hope that those confusions would be

removed by "Vedic scholars" on this forum. I am not

claiming to be a predictive astrologer, though I have

this "jyotishi" sirname! Why should I change it now

if "Vedic Jyotishis" call some predictive astrology as

"Vedic astrology" in spite of the fact that there is

no astrology in the Vedas, since as clarified already,

Vedanga Jotisha is not a work of predictive astrology

as it does not even mention rashis or planets like

Mangal,Budha etc. etc.

THE MOST CONVINCING ARGUMENT THAT NO PARASHARI WAS

EVER AVAILABLE IS FROM THE FACT THAT LATE DR. B. V.

RAMAN HAD NOT REFERRED TO THIS WORK IN ANY OF HIS

ARTICLES, EDITORIALS OR WROKS --- AND HE WAS A VERY

PROLIFIC WRITER AND SUPPOSED TO BE THE "GREATEST VEDIC

ASTROLOGER OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY". HE CERTAINLY

MUST HAVE HAD HIS REASONS AND THE MAIN ONE WAS THAT HE

KNEW THAT THE REAL PARASHARA HAD NOT WRITTEN ANY

PARASHARI!

Besides, if he had at all referred to any such work

of Parashara, he would have been caught on the wrong

foot for following a so called nirayana rashichakra,

and that also with Ramana Ayanamsha, as against the

Tropical i.e. seasonal, i.e. sayana rashichakra

followed by the Vishnu Purana of Maharshi parashara!

Thus if we have chosen a "wrong bible" we are

ourselves to blame, instead of our "stars".

And that is that!

Dhanyavad

Mohan Jyotishi

> vedic astrology, Surya Rao

> <suryarao12> wrote:

>

> Dear Mohan Jyotishi,

>

> You have quite revolutionary outbursts on Parasara

> and the Vedic

> astrology. May be you are correct. But a doubt

> remains - you are a

> Jyotishi by name itself and how can you condemn the

> bible of Jyotishis

> Brihat Parasara Hora?

>

> What then is your reference for practising

> astrology? What is the

> astrology you practice?

>

> If Parasara work was not available to someone in 7th

> century or 8th

> century can it be not available to Sitaram Jha at a

> later time in some

> other place?

>

> surya rao

>

> Mohan Jyotishi <jyotishi231> wrote:

>

> Dear Mr. Karunaakaran Raghavan,

> "Vedic astrology" is actually a misnomer and a

> square

> peg in a round hole!

>

> The Vedas do not contain Rashis like Mesha, Vrisha

> etc. nor is there any mention of planets like

> Mangal,

> Budha, Shani etc.

>

> "Vedanga Jyotisha" is a treatise of thirteenth

> century

> BCE which gives the methods of calculating mean

> tithi,

> nakshatra, months and Uttarayana etc. Even that

> orignial indigenous work neither refers to Rashis

> nor

> to planets right from Budha to Rahu -- both

> inclusive!

> In other words, just the mention of Surya and

> Chandra

> is there, which means there was no predictive

> astrology even as late as thirteenth Centruy BCE ---

> Not to speak of the Vedic period of about 3000 BCE

> --

> in India. Obviusly, to call predictive astrology,

> and

> that also the so called nirayana predictive

> astrology.

> as "Vedic" or "Vedanga Jyotisha" is a square peg in

> a

> round hole, much against the very spriti of the

> Vedas

> and the Vedanga Jyotisha!

>

> Thus the very first Indian work of predictive

> astrology is Brihat Jatakam by Varahamihira and he

> has

> mentioned more Greek words like Kullera, Apoklima,

> Panaphara etc. etc. than Sanskrit in them.

>

> The English translation of "Brihat Parashara

> Horashastram" suppoed to have been written by

> Parashara Rishi also shows its indebtedness to the

> Greeks through Varahamihira, since it mentions

> Sunapha, Anapaha and Durdhura Yogas etc. etc. ---

> which could never be of Indian origin, much less

> Sanskrit origin. Evidently, Indian astrology is

> indebted to Greeks more than to any Hindu

> scriptures,

> much less to Parashara Rishi, whatever trumpets we

> may

> blow!

>

> "Ravana Samhita" is a "magnificent" example of such

> hocus pocus!

>

> As a matter of fact, predictive astrology is against

> the very spirit of Hindu scriptures since it is like

> going on a fishing expedition of peeping into future

> through astrology. That was actually a full time job

> of Babylon in about 4000 BCE, and just see for

> yourself the "magnificent" fate of that country for

> such a "glorious" pastime!

>

> I am sure you would not like India also to have a

> similar destiny!

>

> It maybe news to you that Sitaram Jha, the "creator"

> of "Brihat Parashara Hora Shastram", an English

> translation of which is doing the rounds these days,

> wanted the readers to follow Surya Sidhanta

> calculations/ayanamsha, since that was the Ayanamsha

> Mr. Jha had found giving correct results! Thus you

> have three ayanamshas being advocated by same

> "Parashara" -- The Mumbai edition follows

> Grahalaghava Ayanamsha; Sita Ram Jha follows Surya

> Sidhanta Ayanamsha whereas the English translator

> follows Lahiri Ayabnamsha! Ironically,all the

> jyotishis are finding correct results from all the

> three ayanamshas--nay even editions, though one

> edition does not agree with the other in any way!

> And

> as already seen, the original Parashara Rishi, in

> his

> original Vishnu Purana, did not even know anything

> about Ayanamshas since he has made it catagorically

> clear that Vasant Sampat and Mesha Sankrangti are

> synonyms and so ae Utarayana and Makar Sankranti

> etc.!

>

> Dhanyavad.

> Mohan Jyotishi

>

> > vedic astrology,

> KARUNAAKARAM

> > RAAGHAVAM

> > <munisevitham> wrote:

> >

> > NaNamaste

> > Thanks for your mail.My quest is to know :

> > >If the Sage Veda VyVyass a non bebelieverf

> > Astrology,

> > > that how come Indian Hindu Astrology could

> become

> > a

> > > VeVedaganga VeVedic Astrology ! ?

> > While my requests for above clarifications till

> > rests

> > with the list,you have given me an opopportunityo

> > learn that the author's name of BHBHPSs

> > debatable.Since BPBPHServes my purpose,I shelve

> the

> > question of who authored it[bHBHPSfor the time

> > being.

> >

> > --- MoMohanyJyotishijyjyotishi1> wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > Dear Mr. KaKarunaakaranaRaghavan

> > > How on earth did you get the idea that sage

> > PrPrashara> believed in astrology!

> > >

> > > The Vishnu Purana, the only authentic work by

> > > MaMaharshi> PaParasharaoes not refer to any work

> > on

> > astrology by

> > > sage PaParashara On the other hand, it is full

> of

> > > astronomical discussions about RaRasichakrand

> the

> > > seasons but ironically, there is no mention of

> any

> > > so

> > > called ninirayanaaRashichakramuch less a

> LaLahirir

> > > RaRamanaaRashichakra All that he has done in the

> > > Vishnu Purana is discussed thoroughly the

> > phenomenon

> > > of seasons and declared MeMeshaaSankantis the

> day

> > of

> > > Spring Equinox -- mentioning specifically that

> > the

> > > day and night are equal on that date, and so on.

> > > What

> > > is all the more surprising is that in that work

> > viz.

> > > ViVishuurana, also, the nanakshatrahchakratarts

> > from

> > > KrKrittikajust like it started in the Vedas,

> > instead

> > > of from the so called AsAshviniivision, as is

> > > happening these days!

> > >

> > > Similarly, MaMakaraSankrantias been depicted as

> a

> > > synonym of the UtUttarayanathe shortest day of

> the

> > > year, dadakshinayanand KaKarkataSankantire one

> and

> > > the

> > > same thing i.e. the longest day of the year and

> > > Autumn

> > > Equinox (HeHemantaSampatand TuTulaaSankrantiave

> > been

> > > clubbed together making it very clear that there

> > is

> > > no

> > > other TuTulaaSankrantixcepting the one on which

>

=== message truncated ===

Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

October 27, 2005

Dear Mr. Sreenadh,

It is a pleasure to see the logical reasoning behind

your presetation. It is the real way of an academic

discussion!

Now my answers:

I must make it very clear at the outset that these

discussions are to thrash out the points whether there

is predictive astrology in the Vedas or not, and it

has nothing to do with what Mohan or Sreenadh thinks!

Either there is predictive astrology in them or there

is not---that is the point of discussion.

Now about BPHS:

I have all the three editions of BPHS avaialble in

Northern India viz the original Sitaram Jha edition,

the Nirnay Sagar Press Edition and the English

translation edition.

But before discussing their merits or demerits, let us

discuss Brihat Jatakam and Brihat Samhita first:

1. Varahamihira has not said anywhere that he is

following any Vedic system of predictions. This is a

point worth pondering over sicne every scholar in the

earlier ages harked to the Vedas for thier guidance

and enlightenment of a subject if the Vedas had any

thing to do with that subject.

2. Varahamihira has paid fulsome tributes to Yavanas

whom he himself calls mlechhas to the extent that he

wants them to be worshipped like Rishis! He is very

catagorical that "this (jyotish shastra of predictive

astrology as well as calculations) is established in

them (the Yavanas) thoroughly". in Chapter seven,

verse 1, he has listed his predecessor astrologers as

"Maya, Yavana, Manitha " then in the same verse he

says "Shakti Purvair". From this, it is evident that

there was a glut of Greek astrologers prior to

Varahamihira and the meaning of this verse is clear

that they were all predecessors to "Shakti" i.e.

Parashara! It also means that Varahamihira is not

referring to Sage Parashara since Varahamihira should

have known that if Veda-Vyasa was supposed to have

existed in Dwapara Yuga, his father could not have

succeeded him after the advent of Greeks into India!

Even if we take it as a "grammatical error" or an

"oversight" on the part of Varahamihira, why did he

not make the verse start from Parashara and then

extoll Maya, Yavana and Manitha and so on! You do not

list a person last of all if you have respect for him

but on the other hand you pay tribute to him before

anybody else! It is thus clear that Varahamihira was

more indebted to "Maya, Yavana and Manitha" than to

Parashara!

Thus it is possible that there might have been some

work by some "Shakti-Parashara" who could have been of

Parashara gotra or with Parashara sirname, but it

certainly could not have been the Sage Parashara, the

way Varahamihira has shown disrespect to him and

extolled Yavanas! Varahamihira has referred to quite

a few other astroloers also like Garga, Satyacharya,

Vishnugupta and Jeevsharma etc. but nobody is certain

as to what works they had compiled and how independent

of Greek influence they were.

3. If this "Parashari" was not available at the time

of Bhatotpala, it means it was not a prominent work

even at that time, much less the "bible" of

astrologers as otherwise it certainly could not have

gone underground!

Bhatotpala also has made it very clear that Yavana

Jataka was avialable in his time!

4. The second most surprising question is that if

Parashari had been of sage Parashara and if there had

been predictive astrology in the same way it is being

presented these days in the name of Parashari,

Varahamihira would certainly not have referred to

Mesha, Vrisha etc. Rahsis by their Greek names like

Kriya, Taburi,Jituma,Kulira,Leya, Pathona, Juka,

Karupa, Tauksika, Akokara,Hrdroga,Antyabhya!

Similarly, Dreshkan, Panphar, Apoklima, kendra etc.

etc. are all Greek words. Thus if any Indian system

of astrology was prevailing at the time of

Varahamihira, why did he have to take recourse to all

these Greek words?

And as everybody knows, these very yogas and words

like apoklima etc. appear in almost all the versions

of Parashari available in the market today!

5. We find Vimshottari Dasha in all the versions of

BPHS and surprisingly it is conspicuous by its absence

in Varahamihira's works! Nor has he referred to any

ohter system of Dasha-bhuktis of Parashara having been

prevailing at his time. He has referred to Jivsharma

etc. for calculating Ayurdaya but nowehere to

Parashara!

Thus a question arises that if simple ways of

delineating results by Vimshottari or Ashtottari or

Yogini etc. had been enunciated by Parashara prior to

Varahamihira, why did the latter not take them as it

is and why did he have to give elaborate and

cumbersome calculatons for calculating the same?

It is clear from these facts that the BHPS we are

having today is not even a ghostly version of the

original "Parashari".

6. Alberuni has devoted a lot of attention to Indian

astrology and astronomy but he has just made a passing

reference to Parashara's astrological work. Though

whenever Alberuni has referred to Sage parashara, he

has qualified his statment with words like "Parashara,

the father of Veda Vyasa" but in the case of

Parashara's book on astrology, he has not done

anything like that!

7. Varahamihira in his Brihat Samhita, chapter 11,has

clubbed Parshara with "Gargi, Asit,Devala and several

others" which means that the astrologer Parashara did

not wield any respectful position as compared to

others. If it had been the sage Parashara who had

written Parashari, it could never been have that

disrpesct for him. Besides, in the Samhita,

Varahamihira appears to be referring to Parshara

Samhita, which was also available at Bhatotpala's

time.

8. This is what the English translator of current BPHS

has said on page 11:

"After scrutinizing critcally the four manuscripts

(viz. Venkateshwara Press, 2 Sitaram Jha edition, 3

Devachandra Jha edition and Hindi translation of

Ganesha Datta"... Then on the same page he says,

"Other versions that I have come across are: 1. Tamil

translation by C.G. Rajan - for only 36 chapters,

without Sanskrit verses

2. English trnslation by N. N. K.Rao for only 25

chapters without Sanskrit slokas".

It measn he also was not aware of any other edition

either on palm leaves or in any other form available

in any library.

Now that you say there is a manuscript available in

Sarsswati Library of Tamil Nadu, I suggest that those

interested in the real BPHS should approach that

library and have it published/printed without delay.

This will give every reader/astrologer a chance to see

the oldest available BPHS. I donot know as to if any

carbon dating etc. of that manuscript has been done,

but being a seeker after truth and facts, I would

request you personally to approach the concerned

people/authorities to do so. It will be a great

service not only to astrologers but even to

non-astrologer scholars since we must ferret out the

facts as early as possible.

Dhanyavad.

Mohan Jyotishi

PS I am sorry I had mis-spelt your name in my earlier

posting.

> vedic astrology, "Sreenadh"

> <sreelid> wrote:

>

> Dear Mohan,

> It is right that Bhattolpala says that he heard

> about Parasara

> Hora and Parasara Samhita but never seen it. But

> Bhattolpala had

> Parasara Samhita with him! Just because Bhattolpala

> hadn't seen the

> text, should we conclude that Parasara Hora was

> non-existent at that

> time?

>

> [1) Statement 1: Bhattolpala (7th century) never

> saw Parasara Hora.

> 2) Statement 2: Parasara Hora could be

> non-existent at that time.

> 3) Wrong conclusion: Since Bhattolpala hadn't seen

> Parasara

> Hora, 'None' living in the same period heard or seen

> about the text

> and that the text was non-existent at that time.

> Your argument rests on a single premise, and then

> tries to

> generalize that "As Bhattolpala hadn't seen Parasara

> Hora then that

> text was non-extistent at that time." It is a

> logical error!! Please

> try to see the fact.]

>

> Acharya Balabhadra of 10th Centuary and Kikulangara

> (The scholar

> who wrote Hridyapadha vyakhya of Varahahora.

> Hridyapadha amply

> quotes from Rishi Horas) qotes many slokas from

> Parasara Hora, and

> most of them are available in present day BPH. Can't

> you see that

> this text was available in India even from ancient

> times?! If you

> are not convinced about the existence of manuscript

> and palm leaf

> scripts of BPH in Indian libraries, go to Sarswathi

> Mahal library of

> Tamilnadu, where 2 copies of the palm leaf

> manuscript is still

> available. I can provide you the catalog number all

> the other

> relevant details. It might be possible that there is

> many 'prekshiptha slokas' in BPH available to us

> today, and that the

> text is not in its original form. But don't say that

> BPH was a non-

> existent text or that none of the slokas are

> original. From the

> ancient reference (By Balabhadra and Kikulangara) it

> is pretty clear

> that the BPH available today contains most of the

> slokas qoted by

> these uncorrepted scholers.

> As far as the question 'Whether nirayana astrology

> Vedic/Non-

> vedic?' please see my previous detailed mail on the

> subject, which

> was written as an answer to Koul.

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> vedic astrology, Mohan

> Jyotishi

> <jyotishi231> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Mr. Surya Rao,

> > If Sita Ram Jha did not say anywhere himself that

> he

> > was translating/compiling the original "Brihat

> > Parashara Horashastra" how can we claim it on his

> > behalf that he had done so i.e. translated the

> > original Parashari, especially when no Parshari

> ever

> > existed!

> >

> > The comments of English translator of "Parashari"

> on

> > page 11 are more revealing than any other proof!

> This

> > is what he has says:

> > "After scrutinizing the four manuscripts, I have

> for

> > reasons of more credibility chosen the Sanskrit

> > version rendered by Sitaram Jha"

> > This statement of English translator itself is

> > self-contradictory since he has not given any

> proofs

> > in support of his arguments as to how it is more

> > credible than other editions! Similarly, if the

> > English translator had so much of faith in Sitaram

> Jha

> > he should have followed SuryaSidhanta

> calculatkions,

> > since those are the ones followed by Jha, and not

> that

> > of N. C. Lahir! It means that Parshar Rishi was

> > waiting for N. C. Lahiri to be born so that the

> former

> > could write his most "mafnificent masterpiece" of

> > "Vedic astrology" according to Lahiri Ayanamsha.

> > Well, we must have at lest some common sense to

> sift

> > grain from the cdhaff!

> >

> > Similarly, if there had been any original

> Parashari,

> > there would not have been different

> versions---none

> > agreeing with the other! Besides, different

> > Ayanamshas could not have been correct for one and

> the

> > same work, as every "Parshara" advocates a

> different

> > Ayanamsha much to the chagrin of real Parashara

> who

> > has not referred to any ayanamsha ghost even

> > inadvertantly in his Vishnu Purana! In other

> words,

> > if, much against all the proofs, there is any real

> > Parashari it should have been based on a Sayana

> > Rashichakra and not on the so called Surya

> Sidhanta or

> > Lahiri or Ramana or Grihalaghava Rashichakras!

> That

> > is another proof of the ignorance of these

> > "Parasharas" of the real works of real Parashara!

> >

> > Venkateshwar Press, Mumbai, edition/version of

> "Brihat

> > Parashari" is much older than Sita Ram Jha's---by

> > about a hundred years and it has been referred to

> by

> > S. B. Dikshit in his "Bhaatiya Jyotish" in 1890

> AD.

> > He has proved it there with all the logic and

> > reasoning that the so called original Parashari

> was

> > not available anywhere since he had not been able

> to

> > find it anywhere in any library or market in spite

> of

> > his best efforts!

> >

> > Alberuni's India also does not refer to any

> Parashari

> > though that work refers to every prominent work on

> > astronomy and astrology like Brihat Jataka, Brihat

> > Samhita, Khandkhadyaka etc. etc.

> >

> > I have also an off line communication from a

> gentleman

> > that none of the libraries in the world contain

> any

> > manuscript of "Briohat Parashara Horashastram".

> It

> > means it is just an imaginary work!

> >

> > In my self-introduction on this forum, I have made

> it

> > very clear that I am highly confused about "Vedic

> > astrology" and I hope that those confusions would

> be

> > removed by "Vedic scholars" on this forum. I am

> not

> > claiming to be a predictive astrologer, though I

> have

> > this "jyotishi" sirname! Why should I change it

> now

> > if "Vedic Jyotishis" call some predictive

> astrology as

> > "Vedic astrology" in spite of the fact that there

> is

> > no astrology in the Vedas, since as clarified

> already,

> > Vedanga Jotisha is not a work of predictive

> astrology

> > as it does not even mention rashis or planets like

> > Mangal,Budha etc. etc.

> >

> > THE MOST CONVINCING ARGUMENT THAT NO PARASHARI WAS

> > EVER AVAILABLE IS FROM THE FACT THAT LATE DR. B.

> V.

> > RAMAN HAD NOT REFERRED TO THIS WORK IN ANY OF HIS

> > ARTICLES, EDITORIALS OR WROKS --- AND HE WAS A

> VERY

> > PROLIFIC WRITER AND SUPPOSED TO BE THE "GREATEST

> VEDIC

> > ASTROLOGER OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY". HE

> CERTAINLY

> > MUST HAVE HAD HIS REASONS AND THE MAIN ONE WAS

> THAT HE

>

=== message truncated ===

October 27, 2005

but even if we know about tomorrow how much we can change it and should we

keep on changing it till death hit

my point is it is logical to believe that astrological prediction posible but

we should be satisfied that it indicate the direction the individual take in this present life

just like siddartha life was predicted he will be great sage.

ramMohan Jyotishi <jyotishi231 > wrote:

Dear Mr. Sreenadh,It is a pleasure to see the logical reasoning behindyour

presetation. It is the real way of an academicdiscussion!Now my answers:I must

make it very clear at the outset that thesediscussions are to thrash out the

points whether thereis predictive astrology in the Vedas or not, and ithas

nothing to do with what Mohan or Sreenadh thinks! Either there is predictive

astrology in them or thereis not---that is the point of discussion.Now about

BPHS:I have all the three editions of BPHS avaialble inNorthern India viz the

original Sitaram Jha edition,the Nirnay Sagar Press Edition and the

Englishtranslation edition.But before discussing their merits or demerits, let

usdiscuss Brihat Jatakam and Brihat Samhita first:1. Varahamihira has not

said anywhere that he

isfollowing any Vedic system of predictions. This is apoint worth pondering

over sicne every scholar in theearlier ages harked to the Vedas for thier

guidanceand enlightenment of a subject if the Vedas had anything to do with

that subject.2. Varahamihira has paid fulsome tributes to Yavanaswhom he

himself calls mlechhas to the extent that hewants them to be worshipped like

Rishis! He is verycatagorical that "this (jyotish shastra of

predictiveastrology as well as calculations) is established inthem (the

Yavanas) thoroughly". in Chapter seven,verse 1, he has listed his predecessor

astrologers as"Maya, Yavana, Manitha " then in the same verse hesays "Shakti

Purvair". From this, it is evident thatthere was a glut of Greek astrologers

prior toVarahamihira and the meaning of this verse is clearthat they were all

predecessors to "Shakti" i.e.Parashara! It also means that

Varahamihira is notreferring to Sage Parashara since Varahamihira shouldhave

known that if Veda-Vyasa was supposed to haveexisted in Dwapara Yuga, his

father could not havesucceeded him after the advent of Greeks into India! Even

if we take it as a "grammatical error" or an"oversight" on the part of

Varahamihira, why did henot make the verse start from Parashara and thenextoll

Maya, Yavana and Manitha and so on! You do notlist a person last of all if you

have respect for himbut on the other hand you pay tribute to him beforeanybody

else! It is thus clear that Varahamihira wasmore indebted to "Maya, Yavana and

Manitha" than toParashara!Thus it is possible that there might have been

somework by some "Shakti-Parashara" who could have been ofParashara gotra or

with Parashara sirname, but itcertainly could not have been the Sage Parashara,

theway Varahamihira has shown disrespect to him andextolled

Yavanas! Varahamihira has referred to quitea few other astroloers also like

Garga, Satyacharya,Vishnugupta and Jeevsharma etc. but nobody is certainas to

what works they had compiled and how independentof Greek influence they were.3.

If this "Parashari" was not available at the timeof Bhatotpala, it means it was

not a prominent workeven at that time, much less the "bible" ofastrologers as

otherwise it certainly could not havegone underground!Bhatotpala also has made

it very clear that YavanaJataka was avialable in his time!4. The second most

surprising question is that ifParashari had been of sage Parashara and if there

hadbeen predictive astrology in the same way it is beingpresented these days in

the name of Parashari,Varahamihira would certainly not have referred toMesha,

Vrisha etc. Rahsis by their Greek names likeKriya, Taburi,Jituma,Kulira,Leya,

Pathona, Juka,Karupa, Tauksika,

Akokara,Hrdroga,Antyabhya!Similarly, Dreshkan, Panphar, Apoklima, kendra

etc.etc. are all Greek words. Thus if any Indian systemof astrology was

prevailing at the time ofVarahamihira, why did he have to take recourse to

allthese Greek words?And as everybody knows, these very yogas and wordslike

apoklima etc. appear in almost all the versionsof Parashari available in the

market today!5. We find Vimshottari Dasha in all the versions ofBPHS and

surprisingly it is conspicuous by its absencein Varahamihira's works! Nor has

he referred to anyohter system of Dasha-bhuktis of Parashara having

beenprevailing at his time. He has referred to Jivsharmaetc. for calculating

Ayurdaya but nowehere toParashara!Thus a question arises that if simple ways

ofdelineating results by Vimshottari or Ashtottari orYogini etc. had been

enunciated by Parashara prior toVarahamihira, why did the latter not

take them as itis and why did he have to give elaborate andcumbersome

calculatons for calculating the same?It is clear from these facts that the BHPS

we arehaving today is not even a ghostly version of theoriginal "Parashari".6.

Alberuni has devoted a lot of attention to Indianastrology and astronomy but he

has just made a passingreference to Parashara's astrological work.

Thoughwhenever Alberuni has referred to Sage parashara, hehas qualified his

statment with words like "Parashara,the father of Veda Vyasa" but in the case

ofParashara's book on astrology, he has not doneanything like that! 7.

Varahamihira in his Brihat Samhita, chapter 11,hasclubbed Parshara with "Gargi,

Asit,Devala and severalothers" which means that the astrologer Parashara didnot

wield any respectful position as compared toothers. If it had been the sage

Parashara who hadwritten Parashari, it

could never been have thatdisrpesct for him. Besides, in the

Samhita,Varahamihira appears to be referring to ParsharaSamhita, which was also

available at Bhatotpala'stime.8. This is what the English translator of current

BPHShas said on page 11:"After scrutinizing critcally the four manuscripts(viz.

Venkateshwara Press, 2 Sitaram Jha edition, 3Devachandra Jha edition and Hindi

translation ofGanesha Datta"... Then on the same page he says, "Other versions

that I have come across are: 1. Tamiltranslation by C.G. Rajan - for only 36

chapters,without Sanskrit verses2. English trnslation by N. N. K.Rao for only

25chapters without Sanskrit slokas". It measn he also was not aware of any

other editioneither on palm leaves or in any other form availablein any

library.Now that you say there is a manuscript available inSarsswati Library of

Tamil Nadu, I suggest that thoseinterested in the

real BPHS should approach thatlibrary and have it published/printed without

delay. This will give every reader/astrologer a chance to seethe oldest

available BPHS. I donot know as to if anycarbon dating etc. of that manuscript

has been done,but being a seeker after truth and facts, I wouldrequest you

personally to approach the concernedpeople/authorities to do so. It will be a

greatservice not only to astrologers but even tonon-astrologer scholars since

we must ferret out thefacts as early as possible. Dhanyavad.Mohan JyotishiPS I

am sorry I had mis-spelt your name in my earlierposting.> --- In

vedic astrology, "Sreenadh"> <sreelid> wrote:> > Dear

Mohan,> It is right that Bhattolpala says that he heard> about Parasara> Hora

and Parasara Samhita but never seen it. But> Bhattolpala had> Parasara Samhita

with

him! Just because Bhattolpala> hadn't seen the> text, should we conclude that

Parasara Hora was> non-existent at that> time?> > [1) Statement 1: Bhattolpala

(7th century) never> saw Parasara Hora.> 2) Statement 2: Parasara Hora could

be> non-existent at that time.> 3) Wrong conclusion: Since Bhattolpala hadn't

seen> Parasara> Hora, 'None' living in the same period heard or seen> about the

text> and that the text was non-existent at that time.> Your argument rests

on a single premise, and then> tries to> generalize that "As Bhattolpala hadn't

seen Parasara> Hora then that> text was non-extistent at that time." It is a>

logical error!! Please> try to see the fact.]> > Acharya Balabhadra of 10th

Centuary and Kikulangara> (The scholar> who wrote Hridyapadha vyakhya of

Varahahora.> Hridyapadha amply> quotes from Rishi Horas) qotes many slokas from>

Parasara Hora, and> most of them are available in present day BPH. Can't> you

see that> this text was available in India even from ancient> times?! If you>

are not convinced about the existence of manuscript> and palm leaf> scripts of

BPH in Indian libraries, go to Sarswathi> Mahal library of> Tamilnadu, where 2

copies of the palm leaf> manuscript is still> available. I can provide you the

catalog number all> the other> relevant details. It might be possible that

there is> many 'prekshiptha slokas' in BPH available to us> today, and that

the> text is not in its original form. But don't say that> BPH was a non->

existent text or that none of the slokas are> original. From the> ancient

reference (By Balabhadra and Kikulangara) it> is pretty

clear> that the BPH available today contains most of the> slokas qoted by> these

uncorrepted scholers.> As far as the question 'Whether nirayana astrology>

Vedic/Non-> vedic?' please see my previous detailed mail on the> subject,

which> was written as an answer to Koul.> Love,> Sreenadh> > --- In

vedic astrology, Mohan> Jyotishi> <jyotishi231> wrote:> >>

>> >> > Dear Mr. Surya Rao,> > If Sita Ram Jha did not say anywhere himself

that> he> > was translating/compiling the original "Brihat> > Parashara

Horashastra" how can we claim it on his> > behalf that he had done so i.e.

translated the> > original Parashari, especially when no Parshari> ever> >

existed!> >> > The comments of English translator of "Parashari">

on> > page 11 are more revealing than any other proof! > This> > is what he has

says:> > "After scrutinizing the four manuscripts, I have> for> > reasons of

more credibility chosen the Sanskrit> > version rendered by Sitaram Jha"> >

This statement of English translator itself is> > self-contradictory since he

has not given any> proofs> > in support of his arguments as to how it is more>

> credible than other editions! Similarly, if the> > English translator had so

much of faith in Sitaram> Jha> > he should have followed SuryaSidhanta>

calculatkions,> > since those are the ones followed by Jha, and not> that> > of

N. C. Lahir! It means that Parshar Rishi was> > waiting for N. C. Lahiri to be

born so that the> former> > could write his most "mafnificent masterpiece" of>

> "Vedic astrology" according to Lahiri Ayanamsha.> > Well, we must have at lest

some common sense to> sift> > grain from the cdhaff!> >> > Similarly, if there

had been any original> Parashari,> > there would not have been different>

versions---none> > agreeing with the other! Besides, different> > Ayanamshas

could not have been correct for one and> the> > same work, as every "Parshara"

advocates a> different> > Ayanamsha much to the chagrin of real Parashara> who>

> has not referred to any ayanamsha ghost even> > inadvertantly in his Vishnu

Purana! In other> words,> > if, much against all the proofs, there is any

real> > Parashari it should have been based on a Sayana> > Rashichakra and not

on the so called Surya> Sidhanta or> > Lahiri or Ramana or Grihalaghava

Rashichakras! > That> > is another proof of the ignorance of these> >

"Parasharas" of the real works of real Parashara!> >> > Venkateshwar Press,

Mumbai, edition/version of> "Brihat> > Parashari" is much older than Sita Ram

Jha's---by> > about a hundred years and it has been referred to> by> > S. B.

Dikshit in his "Bhaatiya Jyotish" in 1890> AD.> > He has proved it there with

all the logic and> > reasoning that the so called original Parashari> was> >

not available anywhere since he had not been able> to> > find it anywhere in

any library or market in spite> of> > his best efforts!> >> > Alberuni's India

also does not refer to any> Parashari> > though that work refers to every

prominent work on> > astronomy and astrology like Brihat Jataka, Brihat> >

Samhita,

Khandkhadyaka etc. etc.> >> > I have also an off line communication from a>

gentleman> > that none of the libraries in the world contain> any> > manuscript

of "Briohat Parashara Horashastram". > It> > means it is just an imaginary

work!> >> > In my self-introduction on this forum, I have made> it> > very

clear that I am highly confused about "Vedic> > astrology" and I hope that

those confusions would> be> > removed by "Vedic scholars" on this forum. I am>

not> > claiming to be a predictive astrologer, though I> have> > this "jyotishi"

sirname! Why should I change it> now> > if "Vedic Jyotishis" call some

predictive> astrology as> > "Vedic astrology" in spite of the fact that there>

is> > no astrology in the Vedas, since as clarified>

already,> > Vedanga Jotisha is not a work of predictive> astrology> > as it does

not even mention rashis or planets like> > Mangal,Budha etc. etc.> >> > THE MOST

CONVINCING ARGUMENT THAT NO PARASHARI WAS> > EVER AVAILABLE IS FROM THE FACT

THAT LATE DR. B.> V.> > RAMAN HAD NOT REFERRED TO THIS WORK IN ANY OF HIS> >

ARTICLES, EDITORIALS OR WROKS --- AND HE WAS A> VERY> > PROLIFIC WRITER AND

SUPPOSED TO BE THE "GREATEST> VEDIC> > ASTROLOGER OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY".

HE> CERTAINLY> > MUST HAVE HAD HIS REASONS AND THE MAIN ONE WAS> THAT HE> ===

message truncated ===Do You

?

html banner|**| -->Archives: vedic astrologyGroup

info: vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE:

Blank mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's

light shine on us .......|| Om Tat Sat || Sarvam Sri Krishnaarpanamastu

||

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

October 27, 2005

Vedic Astrology is as much Vedic as Mohan Jyotishi is Jyotishi. Now I think the

dispute will be over. You are not a Jyotishi but still your name is Mohan

Jyotishi and so is Astrology Vedic. What is your problem?

Name is immaterial - how it suits one? - that is more important. Many people

worship Gods - may be you also. Have you seen him? Without seeing we worship.

We don't seek the ID of Gods also. Why to quarrel over Vedic or Yavana.

Yavanas and Aryas are brothers. They worship Zeus, Jupiter. We too worship

Jupiter as Brhaspati. Then what is the difference you are speaking?

Varahamihira was amongst us in AD 600 and he was amongst Yavanas in AD 100 as

Ptolemy. Some time back he might have been Parasara and Garga and all that. He

was Krishen Kaul in 1990 when Sri Kaul contested all Panchanga makers to prove

the truth of their Vedic Panchangam.

You may be some other Parasara - who knows? This world was always like this -

half sense and half nonsense. Why to go on kidding about Vedic astrology?

What is India? What is Earth? What you and me? Debate can be endless. If you

know some astrology, here speak on that. Or else forget, Vedic or Non Vedic.

Surya Rao

Mohan Jyotishi <jyotishi231 > wrote: