Guest guest Posted March 25, 2010 Report Share Posted March 25, 2010 Thanks for your write-up, Vinay-ji. The older edition Venkateshwar Press (Shastri) BPHS is available for online reading at the Digital Library of India (DLI). Link: http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/scripts/FullindexDefault.htm?path1=/data1/upload/00\ 10/147 & first=1 & last=357 & barcode=1990030155390 Note: this requires a TIF/TIFF reader. Alternatiff works. Justin vedic astrology , " VJha " <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Members, > > BPHS is the most comprehensive and reliable textbook of Vedic Phalita > Jyotisha (only fragments of Jaimini's book have survived). But few users > know that almost all the popular editions of BPHS are based on some > spurious version published by Sitaram Jha, a professor at Sampoornanand > Sanskrit University (then a college). He procured a manuscript from Pt > Jeevanath Jha via Pt Kashinath Jha and added some portions related to > Samhitaa which are actually not a part of Horashaastra, thus inflating > the book to 97 chapters. Some later editors added some more kmaginary > chapters. > > The editorial of earliest of all these editions(ie, by sitaram Jha, 1946 > AD) includes a virulent attack on a Bombay Edition by Shri Venkateshwar > Press of Khemraaj Ji, which is one of the most authentic sources of > ancient books. Later, Venkateshwar Edition answered these charges with > convincing proofs, which Sitaram Jha never answered. Yet, all later > editions of BPHS continued the tradition started by Sitaram Jha and > published spurious chapters, just to show that their edition includes > more chapters !! > > Still, Sitaram Jha's edition contains only 4001 verses in its 97 > chapters, while Venkateshwar Edition contains 5781 verses in 71 > chapters. The latter lacks many chapters which are not part of > Horaashaastra. Sitaram Jha acknowledged that he added these non-Hora > chapters in BPHS. Yet all later editors joined this rat race of > inflating BPHS by adding newly invented chapters. > > I request interested members to compare Venkateshwar Edition with other > editions before reaching at any firm comclusion. Nearly half of 5781 > verses of Venkateshwar Edition were deleted by Sitaram Jha and the > latter introduced a large number of verses from unnamed sources which > are part of Samhitaa and not of Horashaastra acoording to himself. > > Presently, I am residing in the guest house of Sampoornanand Sanskrit > University and I am also teaching the sudents at its Jyotisha classes (I > do not take any salary) as long as I reside in Kashi. I am discussing > this issue with all notable Jyotishis of Kashi and I am also consulting > manuscript collections in variopus universities. It will take some time > before we arrive at any firm conclusion. > > BPHS was known to ancient astrologers, but was available to only a few > of them, just because of lack of printing press & c. > > Editions by GC Sharma, Santhanam and internet version (from Maharshi > Mahesh Yogi university library) are based on Sitaram Jha's edition. > Hindi commentaries from Chowkhambha (by Devachandra Jha) and Thakur > Prasad (by GD Pathak) differ in a large nuimber of cases. Venkateshwar > Edition contains 1780 additional verses which need to be examined. > > I hope members will help me in collecting all editions and manuscripts > in the project of a new critical edition of BPHS. > > -Vinay Jha > ==================== === > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2010 Report Share Posted March 25, 2010 Members, BPHS is the most comprehensive and reliable textbook of Vedic Phalita Jyotisha (only fragments of Jaimini's book have survived). But few users know that almost all the popular editions of BPHS are based on some spurious version published by Sitaram Jha, a professor at Sampoornanand Sanskrit University (then a college). He procured a manuscript from Pt Jeevanath Jha via Pt Kashinath Jha and added some portions related to Samhitaa which are actually not a part of Horashaastra, thus inflating the book to 97 chapters. Some later editors added some more kmaginary chapters. The editorial of earliest of all these editions(ie, by sitaram Jha, 1946 AD) includes a virulent attack on a Bombay Edition by Shri Venkateshwar Press of Khemraaj Ji, which is one of the most authentic sources of ancient books. Later, Venkateshwar Edition answered these charges with convincing proofs, which Sitaram Jha never answered. Yet, all later editions of BPHS continued the tradition started by Sitaram Jha and published spurious chapters, just to show that their edition includes more chapters !! Still, Sitaram Jha's edition contains only 4001 verses in its 97 chapters, while Venkateshwar Edition contains 5781 verses in 71 chapters. The latter lacks many chapters which are not part of Horaashaastra. Sitaram Jha acknowledged that he added these non-Hora chapters in BPHS. Yet all later editors joined this rat race of inflating BPHS by adding newly invented chapters. I request interested members to compare Venkateshwar Edition with other editions before reaching at any firm comclusion. Nearly half of 5781 verses of Venkateshwar Edition were deleted by Sitaram Jha and the latter introduced a large number of verses from unnamed sources which are part of Samhitaa and not of Horashaastra acoording to himself. Presently, I am residing in the guest house of Sampoornanand Sanskrit University and I am also teaching the sudents at its Jyotisha classes (I do not take any salary) as long as I reside in Kashi. I am discussing this issue with all notable Jyotishis of Kashi and I am also consulting manuscript collections in variopus universities. It will take some time before we arrive at any firm conclusion. BPHS was known to ancient astrologers, but was available to only a few of them, just because of lack of printing press & c. Editions by GC Sharma, Santhanam and internet version (from Maharshi Mahesh Yogi university library) are based on Sitaram Jha's edition. Hindi commentaries from Chowkhambha (by Devachandra Jha and another by padmanabha Sharma) and Thakur Prasad (by GD Pathak) differ in a large nuimber of cases. Venkateshwar Edition contains 1780 additional verses which need to be examined. I hope members will help me in collecting all editions and manuscripts in the project of a new critical edition of BPHS. -Vinay Jha ==================== === Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2010 Report Share Posted March 25, 2010 This older Venkateshwar edition of BPHS can be procured from any retailer of Khemraj Shrikrishnadas, or from following email ID: khemraj -VJ ============= == vedic astrology , " badc00kie " <badc00kie wrote: > > > Thanks for your write-up, Vinay-ji. > > The older edition Venkateshwar Press (Shastri) BPHS is available for online reading at the Digital Library of India (DLI). > > Link: > http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/scripts/FullindexDefault.htm?path1=/data1/upload/00\ 10/147 & first=1 & last=357 & barcode=1990030155390 > > Note: this requires a TIF/TIFF reader. Alternatiff works. > > Justin > > vedic astrology , " VJha " <vinayjhaa16@> wrote: > > > > Members, > > > > BPHS is the most comprehensive and reliable textbook of Vedic Phalita > > Jyotisha (only fragments of Jaimini's book have survived). But few users > > know that almost all the popular editions of BPHS are based on some > > spurious version published by Sitaram Jha, a professor at Sampoornanand > > Sanskrit University (then a college). He procured a manuscript from Pt > > Jeevanath Jha via Pt Kashinath Jha and added some portions related to > > Samhitaa which are actually not a part of Horashaastra, thus inflating > > the book to 97 chapters. Some later editors added some more kmaginary > > chapters. > > > > The editorial of earliest of all these editions(ie, by sitaram Jha, 1946 > > AD) includes a virulent attack on a Bombay Edition by Shri Venkateshwar > > Press of Khemraaj Ji, which is one of the most authentic sources of > > ancient books. Later, Venkateshwar Edition answered these charges with > > convincing proofs, which Sitaram Jha never answered. Yet, all later > > editions of BPHS continued the tradition started by Sitaram Jha and > > published spurious chapters, just to show that their edition includes > > more chapters !! > > > > Still, Sitaram Jha's edition contains only 4001 verses in its 97 > > chapters, while Venkateshwar Edition contains 5781 verses in 71 > > chapters. The latter lacks many chapters which are not part of > > Horaashaastra. Sitaram Jha acknowledged that he added these non-Hora > > chapters in BPHS. Yet all later editors joined this rat race of > > inflating BPHS by adding newly invented chapters. > > > > I request interested members to compare Venkateshwar Edition with other > > editions before reaching at any firm comclusion. Nearly half of 5781 > > verses of Venkateshwar Edition were deleted by Sitaram Jha and the > > latter introduced a large number of verses from unnamed sources which > > are part of Samhitaa and not of Horashaastra acoording to himself. > > > > Presently, I am residing in the guest house of Sampoornanand Sanskrit > > University and I am also teaching the sudents at its Jyotisha classes (I > > do not take any salary) as long as I reside in Kashi. I am discussing > > this issue with all notable Jyotishis of Kashi and I am also consulting > > manuscript collections in variopus universities. It will take some time > > before we arrive at any firm conclusion. > > > > BPHS was known to ancient astrologers, but was available to only a few > > of them, just because of lack of printing press & c. > > > > Editions by GC Sharma, Santhanam and internet version (from Maharshi > > Mahesh Yogi university library) are based on Sitaram Jha's edition. > > Hindi commentaries from Chowkhambha (by Devachandra Jha) and Thakur > > Prasad (by GD Pathak) differ in a large nuimber of cases. Venkateshwar > > Edition contains 1780 additional verses which need to be examined. > > > > I hope members will help me in collecting all editions and manuscripts > > in the project of a new critical edition of BPHS. > > > > -Vinay Jha > > ==================== === > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2010 Report Share Posted March 25, 2010 Dear Jha Saheb, It is amazing to see that for so many decades (near 100 years?) that these various editions have been in existence and use and referred to by professional jyotishis and jyotish teachers, and yet such obvious differences have not been identified and commented upon until very recently! Mind boggling!! One wonders if a similar confusion or 'htoch-potch_ness' plagues the other so called 'scriptures' in jyotish etc as well! Probably the less 'exposed' literature that did not show up in the 'market-place' too openly may end up being the only relatively nascent and virginal form of scriptural texts, in the final analysis! Ah there is such PEACE even in the thoughts about Kashi and such intense nostalgia... Regards, Rohiniranjan vedic astrology , " VJha " <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Members, > > BPHS is the most comprehensive and reliable textbook of Vedic Phalita > Jyotisha (only fragments of Jaimini's book have survived). But few users > know that almost all the popular editions of BPHS are based on some > spurious version published by Sitaram Jha, a professor at Sampoornanand > Sanskrit University (then a college). He procured a manuscript from Pt > Jeevanath Jha via Pt Kashinath Jha and added some portions related to > Samhitaa which are actually not a part of Horashaastra, thus inflating > the book to 97 chapters. Some later editors added some more kmaginary > chapters. > > The editorial of earliest of all these editions(ie, by sitaram Jha, 1946 > AD) includes a virulent attack on a Bombay Edition by Shri Venkateshwar > Press of Khemraaj Ji, which is one of the most authentic sources of > ancient books. Later, Venkateshwar Edition answered these charges with > convincing proofs, which Sitaram Jha never answered. Yet, all later > editions of BPHS continued the tradition started by Sitaram Jha and > published spurious chapters, just to show that their edition includes > more chapters !! > > Still, Sitaram Jha's edition contains only 4001 verses in its 97 > chapters, while Venkateshwar Edition contains 5781 verses in 71 > chapters. The latter lacks many chapters which are not part of > Horaashaastra. Sitaram Jha acknowledged that he added these non-Hora > chapters in BPHS. Yet all later editors joined this rat race of > inflating BPHS by adding newly invented chapters. > > I request interested members to compare Venkateshwar Edition with other > editions before reaching at any firm comclusion. Nearly half of 5781 > verses of Venkateshwar Edition were deleted by Sitaram Jha and the > latter introduced a large number of verses from unnamed sources which > are part of Samhitaa and not of Horashaastra acoording to himself. > > Presently, I am residing in the guest house of Sampoornanand Sanskrit > University and I am also teaching the sudents at its Jyotisha classes (I > do not take any salary) as long as I reside in Kashi. I am discussing > this issue with all notable Jyotishis of Kashi and I am also consulting > manuscript collections in variopus universities. It will take some time > before we arrive at any firm conclusion. > > BPHS was known to ancient astrologers, but was available to only a few > of them, just because of lack of printing press & c. > > Editions by GC Sharma, Santhanam and internet version (from Maharshi > Mahesh Yogi university library) are based on Sitaram Jha's edition. > Hindi commentaries from Chowkhambha (by Devachandra Jha) and Thakur > Prasad (by GD Pathak) differ in a large nuimber of cases. Venkateshwar > Edition contains 1780 additional verses which need to be examined. > > I hope members will help me in collecting all editions and manuscripts > in the project of a new critical edition of BPHS. > > -Vinay Jha > ==================== === > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2010 Report Share Posted March 25, 2010 Dear Rohini: In the field of Chinese metaphysics, there is a spurious " classic " full of errors, about the method known as Zi Wei, which has been around for a thousand years or more. Yet to this day the book is sold and relied upon as the foundation for that method. Once these flawed works enter the mainstream, they are difficult to get rid of, since they gain their adherents. Jacques --- On Thu, 25/3/10, rohinicrystal <jyotish_vani wrote: rohinicrystal <jyotish_vani [vedic astrology] Re: BPHS : Which Edition is Reliable ? vedic astrology Received: Thursday, 25 March, 2010, 2:59 PM Â Dear Jha Saheb, It is amazing to see that for so many decades (near 100 years?) that these various editions have been in existence and use and referred to by professional jyotishis and jyotish teachers, and yet such obvious differences have not been identified and commented upon until very recently! Mind boggling!! One wonders if a similar confusion or 'htoch-potch_ ness' plagues the other so called 'scriptures' in jyotish etc as well! Probably the less 'exposed' literature that did not show up in the 'market-place' too openly may end up being the only relatively nascent and virginal form of scriptural texts, in the final analysis! Ah there is such PEACE even in the thoughts about Kashi and such intense nostalgia... Regards, Rohiniranjan vedic astrology, " VJha " <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Members, > > BPHS is the most comprehensive and reliable textbook of Vedic Phalita > Jyotisha (only fragments of Jaimini's book have survived). But few users > know that almost all the popular editions of BPHS are based on some > spurious version published by Sitaram Jha, a professor at Sampoornanand > Sanskrit University (then a college). He procured a manuscript from Pt > Jeevanath Jha via Pt Kashinath Jha and added some portions related to > Samhitaa which are actually not a part of Horashaastra, thus inflating > the book to 97 chapters. Some later editors added some more kmaginary > chapters. > > The editorial of earliest of all these editions(ie, by sitaram Jha, 1946 > AD) includes a virulent attack on a Bombay Edition by Shri Venkateshwar > Press of Khemraaj Ji, which is one of the most authentic sources of > ancient books. Later, Venkateshwar Edition answered these charges with > convincing proofs, which Sitaram Jha never answered. Yet, all later > editions of BPHS continued the tradition started by Sitaram Jha and > published spurious chapters, just to show that their edition includes > more chapters !! > > Still, Sitaram Jha's edition contains only 4001 verses in its 97 > chapters, while Venkateshwar Edition contains 5781 verses in 71 > chapters. The latter lacks many chapters which are not part of > Horaashaastra. Sitaram Jha acknowledged that he added these non-Hora > chapters in BPHS. Yet all later editors joined this rat race of > inflating BPHS by adding newly invented chapters. > > I request interested members to compare Venkateshwar Edition with other > editions before reaching at any firm comclusion. Nearly half of 5781 > verses of Venkateshwar Edition were deleted by Sitaram Jha and the > latter introduced a large number of verses from unnamed sources which > are part of Samhitaa and not of Horashaastra acoording to himself. > > Presently, I am residing in the guest house of Sampoornanand Sanskrit > University and I am also teaching the sudents at its Jyotisha classes (I > do not take any salary) as long as I reside in Kashi. I am discussing > this issue with all notable Jyotishis of Kashi and I am also consulting > manuscript collections in variopus universities. It will take some time > before we arrive at any firm conclusion. > > BPHS was known to ancient astrologers, but was available to only a few > of them, just because of lack of printing press & c. > > Editions by GC Sharma, Santhanam and internet version (from Maharshi > Mahesh Yogi university library) are based on Sitaram Jha's edition. > Hindi commentaries from Chowkhambha (by Devachandra Jha) and Thakur > Prasad (by GD Pathak) differ in a large nuimber of cases. Venkateshwar > Edition contains 1780 additional verses which need to be examined. > > I hope members will help me in collecting all editions and manuscripts > in the project of a new critical edition of BPHS. > > -Vinay Jha > ============ ======== === > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2010 Report Share Posted March 25, 2010 Dear Jacques, Are you implying that the adherents are flawed and not " sticking " to or 'searching for' the verity (as opposed to VARIETY)? ;-) Rohiniranjan vedic astrology , Jacques Le Vangie <mojavecowboy wrote: > > Dear Rohini: > > In the field of Chinese metaphysics, there is a spurious " classic " full of errors, about the method known as Zi Wei, which has been around for a thousand years or more. Yet to this day the book is sold and relied upon as the foundation for that method. > > Once these flawed works enter the mainstream, they are difficult to get rid of, since they gain their adherents. > > Jacques > > --- On Thu, 25/3/10, rohinicrystal <jyotish_vani wrote: > > rohinicrystal <jyotish_vani > [vedic astrology] Re: BPHS : Which Edition is Reliable ? > vedic astrology > Received: Thursday, 25 March, 2010, 2:59 PM > Â > > > Dear Jha Saheb, > > > > It is amazing to see that for so many decades (near 100 years?) that these various editions have been in existence and use and referred to by professional jyotishis and jyotish teachers, and yet such obvious differences have not been identified and commented upon until very recently! Mind boggling!! > > > > One wonders if a similar confusion or 'htoch-potch_ ness' plagues the other so called 'scriptures' in jyotish etc as well! Probably the less 'exposed' literature that did not show up in the 'market-place' too openly may end up being the only relatively nascent and virginal form of scriptural texts, in the final analysis! > > > > Ah there is such PEACE even in the thoughts about Kashi and such intense nostalgia... > > > > Regards, > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > vedic astrology, " VJha " <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Members, > > > > > > BPHS is the most comprehensive and reliable textbook of Vedic Phalita > > > Jyotisha (only fragments of Jaimini's book have survived). But few users > > > know that almost all the popular editions of BPHS are based on some > > > spurious version published by Sitaram Jha, a professor at Sampoornanand > > > Sanskrit University (then a college). He procured a manuscript from Pt > > > Jeevanath Jha via Pt Kashinath Jha and added some portions related to > > > Samhitaa which are actually not a part of Horashaastra, thus inflating > > > the book to 97 chapters. Some later editors added some more kmaginary > > > chapters. > > > > > > The editorial of earliest of all these editions(ie, by sitaram Jha, 1946 > > > AD) includes a virulent attack on a Bombay Edition by Shri Venkateshwar > > > Press of Khemraaj Ji, which is one of the most authentic sources of > > > ancient books. Later, Venkateshwar Edition answered these charges with > > > convincing proofs, which Sitaram Jha never answered. Yet, all later > > > editions of BPHS continued the tradition started by Sitaram Jha and > > > published spurious chapters, just to show that their edition includes > > > more chapters !! > > > > > > Still, Sitaram Jha's edition contains only 4001 verses in its 97 > > > chapters, while Venkateshwar Edition contains 5781 verses in 71 > > > chapters. The latter lacks many chapters which are not part of > > > Horaashaastra. Sitaram Jha acknowledged that he added these non-Hora > > > chapters in BPHS. Yet all later editors joined this rat race of > > > inflating BPHS by adding newly invented chapters. > > > > > > I request interested members to compare Venkateshwar Edition with other > > > editions before reaching at any firm comclusion. Nearly half of 5781 > > > verses of Venkateshwar Edition were deleted by Sitaram Jha and the > > > latter introduced a large number of verses from unnamed sources which > > > are part of Samhitaa and not of Horashaastra acoording to himself. > > > > > > Presently, I am residing in the guest house of Sampoornanand Sanskrit > > > University and I am also teaching the sudents at its Jyotisha classes (I > > > do not take any salary) as long as I reside in Kashi. I am discussing > > > this issue with all notable Jyotishis of Kashi and I am also consulting > > > manuscript collections in variopus universities. It will take some time > > > before we arrive at any firm conclusion. > > > > > > BPHS was known to ancient astrologers, but was available to only a few > > > of them, just because of lack of printing press & c. > > > > > > Editions by GC Sharma, Santhanam and internet version (from Maharshi > > > Mahesh Yogi university library) are based on Sitaram Jha's edition. > > > Hindi commentaries from Chowkhambha (by Devachandra Jha) and Thakur > > > Prasad (by GD Pathak) differ in a large nuimber of cases. Venkateshwar > > > Edition contains 1780 additional verses which need to be examined. > > > > > > I hope members will help me in collecting all editions and manuscripts > > > in the project of a new critical edition of BPHS. > > > > > > -Vinay Jha > > > ============ ======== === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2010 Report Share Posted March 25, 2010 The seriousness of these editors can be guessed from following instances : Mr R. Santhanam mentioned following editions known to him in 1984 (I am quoting him): <<<<< (1)Sri Venkatateswara Press, Bombay, partly rendered in Hindi.For a majority of slokas, one can find Sanskrit commentary only. (2) Hindi translation by Sitaram Jha. (Master Khelari Lal, Varanasi edition). (3)Hindi translation by Devachandra Jha. (Chowkambha edition). (4)Hindi translation by Ganesha Datta Pathak. (Thakur Prasad edition). After scrutinizing critically the four manuscripts, I have for reasons of more credibility chosen the Sanskrit version rendered by Sitaram Jha. The Chowkambha version is almost the same as that of Khelari Lal's. Other versions that I have come across are : (1) Tamil translation by C. G. Rajan -- for only 36 chapters, without Sanskrit verses. (2) English translation by N. N. Rao for only 25 chapters without Sanskrit slokas. >>>>> Mr R. Santhanam did not consult the most detailed Tamil version titled Poorva-paaraasharee and Uttara-paaraasharee which contain Sanskrit verses too, just because the title was not " BPHS " . I have not been able to procure Uttara-paaraasharee so far, but Poorva-paaraasharee seems to be the Tamil version of BPHS. The adjective " Brihat " was added to BPHS after Madhya and Laghu Paaraashari texts were broken away from BPHS. There are slokas in Laghu Paaraashari which are absent in BPHS but are very important. Does it mean Sage Parashara wrote more than one Hora texts ?? No, his Hora text was divided later. Shri Venkateshwara Press edition contains Sanskrit slokas which say there were 100 chapters in the original version, 80 in first part and 20 in second, with 11000 verses in first part only. Nearly half of these verses have been lost, perhaps permanently. But some of them are found in abridged versions like Laghu Paaraashari. Shri Venkateshwara Press edition contains 5781 verses, while entire BPHS should contain perhaps 13-14 thousand verses (number of verses in original second part is unknown). Mr R. Santhanam wrongly asserts " The Chowkambha version is almost the same as that of Khelari Lal's " . There are serious differences in a large number of verses, right from the initial chapters. Moreover, the Chowkambha version contains one extra chapter which Mr Santhanam failed to see and could not include in his own version. Why ? The Tahkur Prasad version also contains many unique verses which Mr Santhanam knowingly or unknowingly ignored. Scrutinizing Mr Santhanam's version and comparing it with other versions available to him has led me to conclude that he did not even read other versions. It was perhaps because he thought Pt Sitaram Jha was a professor at a Sanskrit university of Varanasi and was therefore more reliable. Mr Santhanam says " Sri Venkatateswara Press, Bombay, partly rendered in Hindi.For a majority of slokas, one can find Sanskrit commentary only. " But Sri Venkatateswara Press edition with me is completely rendered in Hindi and contains 1780 more verses than in Sitaram Jha's version. The latter includes many spurious chapters not fit for inclusion in a Hora text. Hence, the actual number of Hora verses in Sri Venkatateswara Press edition which are absent in Sitaram Jha's edition are about three thousand, ie nearly 50% !! Here is another example of seriousness of Mr Santhanam : The verse about Mercury's AD during Sun's MD says : <<<<< 52-53 ½ Marriage, offering of oblations, charity, performance of religious rites, name and fame, becoming famous by assuming another name, good food, becoming happy, like Indra, by acquiring wealth, robes and ornaments will be the effects, if Budh is in an auspicious Bhava, like a Trikon etc. from the Lord of the Dasha. 54-57. Body distress, disturbance of peace of mind, distress to wife and children, will be the evil effects in the Antar Dasha of Budh, if he is in the 6th, the 8th, or the 12th from the Lord of the Dasha (Budh cannot be in the 6th, or the 8th from Sürya). >>>>> Shri Venkatashwara Press edition says in its editorial that these verses are spurious because Mercury can never be in Trikona or in 6th or 8th from Surya. Mr Santhanam noticed this anomaly in the second verse and added " Budh cannot be in the 6th, or the 8th from Sürya " , but failed to see similar anomaly in first verse and could not add 'Budh cannot be in Trikona from Sürya'. Shri Venkatashwara Press edition has cited many examples from Sitaram Jha's edition which prove the errors of Pt Sitaram Jha. Pt Sitaram Jha used to abuse dead scholars like Pt Sudhakar Dwivedi on flimsy grounds, but did not know that his own crimes will be unearthed by coming generations. The editorial b y Pt Sitaram Jha says that he " corrected " a large number of verses in the manuscript and added many " parts " from unnamed sources, including " topics related to Samhitaa (and not Jaataka) " . In spite of such a candid acknowledgement by Pt Sitaram Jha, why editors like Mr Santhanam, Mr Girish Chand Sharma and Mr Padmanaabha Sharma assume that the additions made by Pt Sitaram Jha are genuine ??? Pt Sitaram Jha never claimed that the additions made by him were part of BPHS, he accepted that these chapters were " added " by him and also accepted that many chapters added by him were not even part of Jaataka and were related to Samhitaa. Then, why Pt Sitaram Jha added these chapters ?? Because his publisher wanted to sell this edition at any cost. Shri Venkatashwara Press edition had only 71 chapters, although the original verses said there were 100 chapters originally " Horaa-shataadhyaayee sarva-paapa-pranaashinee " . Adding more chapters would have inflated the book from 5781 verses in Shri Venkatashwara Press edition to about 7000 verses, which the publishers were unwilling to publish (Pt Sitaram Jha accepts the difficulties in publishing due to " paucity of paper " ). Therefore, he deleted nearly half of verses from Shri Venkatashwara Press edition , changed the language (but not the content) of a large number of remaining verses, added 28 new chapters with subjects mostly related to Samhitaa and not Horaa, and introduced many verses to substantiate his personal views about Jyotisha which were neither parts of Hora nor present in any edition of BPHS. Such editorship is crime and must be exposed. The spurious verses cited above about Budh's AD in Surya's MD (similar errors in Shukra's AD in Surya's MD) show that the composer of these verses was either a fool or in a hurry to compose new verses. These foolish verses were absent in any published or unpublished version and are simply inventions of Pt Sitaram Jha. Unfortunatley, editions by Mr Santhanam, Mr Girish Chand Sharma and Mr Padmanaabha Sharma are reproducing these spurious verses in the name of Sage Parashara. Mr Santhanam wrongly said that he scrutinized all texts available to him : he did not even read the editorials of Pt Sitaram Jha or of Shri Venkatashwara Press edition which discussed these aspurious verses in detail. Mr Girish Chand Sharma boasted in his editorial that he read " all the published material on the subject (including " various mythological and allied scriptures includinh yoga tantra etc " ) " . Thus, this omniscient editor recreated 100 chapters known to Sage Parashara !!! The fact is we cannot reproduce even half of original BPHS, unless and until some hidden genuine manuscripts are unearthed. The adjective " Brihat " is itself spurious. Sage Parashara did not write three treatises on Hora titled Brihat, Madhya and Laghu. Such divisions are later inventions by us. We, therefore must recombine them to form the original Paraashara-Horaa-shaastra (PHS instead of BPHS), or " Paaraasharee Horaa " if we use the traditional term for this book. Then, Horaa portions from various existing editions should be used to complete the available chapters, and leave the remaining lost chapters to the posterity for further research. Inventing lost portions is a crime. I want to bring out a critical edition of PHS in three parts : (1) Sanskrit text, including all variants in footnotes, and also including verses from Madhya and Laghu Parashari where they should appear, (2) Hindi ttranslation, and (3) English translation. Vested interests in publishing business as well as in astrological " business " have already targeted me for mindless attacks. All available verses of Parashara's Hora can be classed into five categories : (1) verses with no controversy, (2) verses differing in language in various editions but having same meaning, (3) unique verses found in one edition only but appearing to be genuine, (4) spurious verses (5) verses not related to Horaa (ie, added by enthusiasts). I do not know whether I will be able to accomplish this task because of my other preoccupations. -Vinay Jha ====================== ====== vedic astrology , " rohinicrystal " <jyotish_vani wrote: > > Dear Jha Saheb, > > It is amazing to see that for so many decades (near 100 years?) that these various editions have been in existence and use and referred to by professional jyotishis and jyotish teachers, and yet such obvious differences have not been identified and commented upon until very recently! Mind boggling!! > > One wonders if a similar confusion or 'htoch-potch_ness' plagues the other so called 'scriptures' in jyotish etc as well! Probably the less 'exposed' literature that did not show up in the 'market-place' too openly may end up being the only relatively nascent and virginal form of scriptural texts, in the final analysis! > > Ah there is such PEACE even in the thoughts about Kashi and such intense nostalgia... > > Regards, > > Rohiniranjan > > vedic astrology , " VJha " vinayjhaa16@ wrote: > > > > Members, > > > > BPHS is the most comprehensive and reliable textbook of Vedic Phalita > > Jyotisha (only fragments of Jaimini's book have survived). But few users > > know that almost all the popular editions of BPHS are based on some > > spurious version published by Sitaram Jha, a professor at Sampoornanand > > Sanskrit University (then a college). He procured a manuscript from Pt > > Jeevanath Jha via Pt Kashinath Jha and added some portions related to > > Samhitaa which are actually not a part of Horashaastra, thus inflating > > the book to 97 chapters. Some later editors added some more kmaginary > > chapters. > > > > The editorial of earliest of all these editions(ie, by sitaram Jha, 1946 > > AD) includes a virulent attack on a Bombay Edition by Shri Venkateshwar > > Press of Khemraaj Ji, which is one of the most authentic sources of > > ancient books. Later, Venkateshwar Edition answered these charges with > > convincing proofs, which Sitaram Jha never answered. Yet, all later > > editions of BPHS continued the tradition started by Sitaram Jha and > > published spurious chapters, just to show that their edition includes > > more chapters !! > > > > Still, Sitaram Jha's edition contains only 4001 verses in its 97 > > chapters, while Venkateshwar Edition contains 5781 verses in 71 > > chapters. The latter lacks many chapters which are not part of > > Horaashaastra. Sitaram Jha acknowledged that he added these non-Hora > > chapters in BPHS. Yet all later editors joined this rat race of > > inflating BPHS by adding newly invented chapters. > > > > I request interested members to compare Venkateshwar Edition with other > > editions before reaching at any firm comclusion. Nearly half of 5781 > > verses of Venkateshwar Edition were deleted by Sitaram Jha and the > > latter introduced a large number of verses from unnamed sources which > > are part of Samhitaa and not of Horashaastra acoording to himself. > > > > Presently, I am residing in the guest house of Sampoornanand Sanskrit > > University and I am also teaching the sudents at its Jyotisha classes (I > > do not take any salary) as long as I reside in Kashi. I am discussing > > this issue with all notable Jyotishis of Kashi and I am also consulting > > manuscript collections in variopus universities. It will take some time > > before we arrive at any firm conclusion. > > > > BPHS was known to ancient astrologers, but was available to only a few > > of them, just because of lack of printing press & c. > > > > Editions by GC Sharma, Santhanam and internet version (from Maharshi > > Mahesh Yogi university library) are based on Sitaram Jha's edition. > > Hindi commentaries from Chowkhambha (by Devachandra Jha) and Thakur > > Prasad (by GD Pathak) differ in a large nuimber of cases. Venkateshwar > > Edition contains 1780 additional verses which need to be examined. > > > > I hope members will help me in collecting all editions and manuscripts > > in the project of a new critical edition of BPHS. > > > > -Vinay Jha > > ==================== === > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2010 Report Share Posted March 25, 2010 Yes Da, most of the adherents are ruled by habits of mind which cannot be changed without tapasyaa. The situation is not hopeless in the case of BPHS because as far as fundamentals of Horaa are concerned there are few differences among various editions. The controversy is limited mostly to details and not to fundamentals. -VJ ============================== === vedic astrology , " rohinicrystal " <jyotish_vani wrote: > > Dear Jacques, > > Are you implying that the adherents are flawed and not " sticking " to or 'searching for' the verity (as opposed to VARIETY)? ;-) > > Rohiniranjan > > > vedic astrology , Jacques Le Vangie <mojavecowboy@> wrote: > > > > Dear Rohini: > > > > In the field of Chinese metaphysics, there is a spurious " classic " full of errors, about the method known as Zi Wei, which has been around for a thousand years or more. Yet to this day the book is sold and relied upon as the foundation for that method. > > > > Once these flawed works enter the mainstream, they are difficult to get rid of, since they gain their adherents. > > > > Jacques > > > > --- On Thu, 25/3/10, rohinicrystal <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > rohinicrystal <jyotish_vani@> > > [vedic astrology] Re: BPHS : Which Edition is Reliable ? > > vedic astrology > > Received: Thursday, 25 March, 2010, 2:59 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Â > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Jha Saheb, > > > > > > > > It is amazing to see that for so many decades (near 100 years?) that these various editions have been in existence and use and referred to by professional jyotishis and jyotish teachers, and yet such obvious differences have not been identified and commented upon until very recently! Mind boggling!! > > > > > > > > One wonders if a similar confusion or 'htoch-potch_ ness' plagues the other so called 'scriptures' in jyotish etc as well! Probably the less 'exposed' literature that did not show up in the 'market-place' too openly may end up being the only relatively nascent and virginal form of scriptural texts, in the final analysis! > > > > > > > > Ah there is such PEACE even in the thoughts about Kashi and such intense nostalgia... > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > vedic astrology, " VJha " <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Members, > > > > > > > > > > BPHS is the most comprehensive and reliable textbook of Vedic Phalita > > > > > Jyotisha (only fragments of Jaimini's book have survived). But few users > > > > > know that almost all the popular editions of BPHS are based on some > > > > > spurious version published by Sitaram Jha, a professor at Sampoornanand > > > > > Sanskrit University (then a college). He procured a manuscript from Pt > > > > > Jeevanath Jha via Pt Kashinath Jha and added some portions related to > > > > > Samhitaa which are actually not a part of Horashaastra, thus inflating > > > > > the book to 97 chapters. Some later editors added some more kmaginary > > > > > chapters. > > > > > > > > > > The editorial of earliest of all these editions(ie, by sitaram Jha, 1946 > > > > > AD) includes a virulent attack on a Bombay Edition by Shri Venkateshwar > > > > > Press of Khemraaj Ji, which is one of the most authentic sources of > > > > > ancient books. Later, Venkateshwar Edition answered these charges with > > > > > convincing proofs, which Sitaram Jha never answered. Yet, all later > > > > > editions of BPHS continued the tradition started by Sitaram Jha and > > > > > published spurious chapters, just to show that their edition includes > > > > > more chapters !! > > > > > > > > > > Still, Sitaram Jha's edition contains only 4001 verses in its 97 > > > > > chapters, while Venkateshwar Edition contains 5781 verses in 71 > > > > > chapters. The latter lacks many chapters which are not part of > > > > > Horaashaastra. Sitaram Jha acknowledged that he added these non-Hora > > > > > chapters in BPHS. Yet all later editors joined this rat race of > > > > > inflating BPHS by adding newly invented chapters. > > > > > > > > > > I request interested members to compare Venkateshwar Edition with other > > > > > editions before reaching at any firm comclusion. Nearly half of 5781 > > > > > verses of Venkateshwar Edition were deleted by Sitaram Jha and the > > > > > latter introduced a large number of verses from unnamed sources which > > > > > are part of Samhitaa and not of Horashaastra acoording to himself. > > > > > > > > > > Presently, I am residing in the guest house of Sampoornanand Sanskrit > > > > > University and I am also teaching the sudents at its Jyotisha classes (I > > > > > do not take any salary) as long as I reside in Kashi. I am discussing > > > > > this issue with all notable Jyotishis of Kashi and I am also consulting > > > > > manuscript collections in variopus universities. It will take some time > > > > > before we arrive at any firm conclusion. > > > > > > > > > > BPHS was known to ancient astrologers, but was available to only a few > > > > > of them, just because of lack of printing press & c. > > > > > > > > > > Editions by GC Sharma, Santhanam and internet version (from Maharshi > > > > > Mahesh Yogi university library) are based on Sitaram Jha's edition. > > > > > Hindi commentaries from Chowkhambha (by Devachandra Jha) and Thakur > > > > > Prasad (by GD Pathak) differ in a large nuimber of cases. Venkateshwar > > > > > Edition contains 1780 additional verses which need to be examined. > > > > > > > > > > I hope members will help me in collecting all editions and manuscripts > > > > > in the project of a new critical edition of BPHS. > > > > > > > > > > -Vinay Jha > > > > > ============ ======== === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2010 Report Share Posted March 25, 2010 Dear Rohini: Many of the adherents don't know, since the original is in Chinese and they only know English. But the controversy goes back for centuries. Jacques --- On Thu, 25/3/10, rohinicrystal <jyotish_vani wrote: rohinicrystal <jyotish_vani [vedic astrology] Re: BPHS : Which Edition is Reliable ? vedic astrology Received: Thursday, 25 March, 2010, 6:44 PM  Dear Jacques, Are you implying that the adherents are flawed and not " sticking " to or 'searching for' the verity (as opposed to VARIETY)? ;-) Rohiniranjan vedic astrology, Jacques Le Vangie <mojavecowboy@ ...> wrote: > > Dear Rohini: > > In the field of Chinese metaphysics, there is a spurious " classic " full of errors, about the method known as Zi Wei, which has been around for a thousand years or more. Yet to this day the book is sold and relied upon as the foundation for that method. > > Once these flawed works enter the mainstream, they are difficult to get rid of, since they gain their adherents. > > Jacques > > --- On Thu, 25/3/10, rohinicrystal <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > rohinicrystal <jyotish_vani@ ...> > [vedic astrology] Re: BPHS : Which Edition is Reliable ? > vedic astrology > Received: Thursday, 25 March, 2010, 2:59 PM > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > Dear Jha Saheb, > > > > It is amazing to see that for so many decades (near 100 years?) that these various editions have been in existence and use and referred to by professional jyotishis and jyotish teachers, and yet such obvious differences have not been identified and commented upon until very recently! Mind boggling!! > > > > One wonders if a similar confusion or 'htoch-potch_ ness' plagues the other so called 'scriptures' in jyotish etc as well! Probably the less 'exposed' literature that did not show up in the 'market-place' too openly may end up being the only relatively nascent and virginal form of scriptural texts, in the final analysis! > > > > Ah there is such PEACE even in the thoughts about Kashi and such intense nostalgia... > > > > Regards, > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > vedic astrology, " VJha " <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Members, > > > > > > BPHS is the most comprehensive and reliable textbook of Vedic Phalita > > > Jyotisha (only fragments of Jaimini's book have survived). But few users > > > know that almost all the popular editions of BPHS are based on some > > > spurious version published by Sitaram Jha, a professor at Sampoornanand > > > Sanskrit University (then a college). He procured a manuscript from Pt > > > Jeevanath Jha via Pt Kashinath Jha and added some portions related to > > > Samhitaa which are actually not a part of Horashaastra, thus inflating > > > the book to 97 chapters. Some later editors added some more kmaginary > > > chapters. > > > > > > The editorial of earliest of all these editions(ie, by sitaram Jha, 1946 > > > AD) includes a virulent attack on a Bombay Edition by Shri Venkateshwar > > > Press of Khemraaj Ji, which is one of the most authentic sources of > > > ancient books. Later, Venkateshwar Edition answered these charges with > > > convincing proofs, which Sitaram Jha never answered. Yet, all later > > > editions of BPHS continued the tradition started by Sitaram Jha and > > > published spurious chapters, just to show that their edition includes > > > more chapters !! > > > > > > Still, Sitaram Jha's edition contains only 4001 verses in its 97 > > > chapters, while Venkateshwar Edition contains 5781 verses in 71 > > > chapters. The latter lacks many chapters which are not part of > > > Horaashaastra. Sitaram Jha acknowledged that he added these non-Hora > > > chapters in BPHS. Yet all later editors joined this rat race of > > > inflating BPHS by adding newly invented chapters. > > > > > > I request interested members to compare Venkateshwar Edition with other > > > editions before reaching at any firm comclusion. Nearly half of 5781 > > > verses of Venkateshwar Edition were deleted by Sitaram Jha and the > > > latter introduced a large number of verses from unnamed sources which > > > are part of Samhitaa and not of Horashaastra acoording to himself. > > > > > > Presently, I am residing in the guest house of Sampoornanand Sanskrit > > > University and I am also teaching the sudents at its Jyotisha classes (I > > > do not take any salary) as long as I reside in Kashi. I am discussing > > > this issue with all notable Jyotishis of Kashi and I am also consulting > > > manuscript collections in variopus universities. It will take some time > > > before we arrive at any firm conclusion. > > > > > > BPHS was known to ancient astrologers, but was available to only a few > > > of them, just because of lack of printing press & c. > > > > > > Editions by GC Sharma, Santhanam and internet version (from Maharshi > > > Mahesh Yogi university library) are based on Sitaram Jha's edition. > > > Hindi commentaries from Chowkhambha (by Devachandra Jha) and Thakur > > > Prasad (by GD Pathak) differ in a large nuimber of cases. Venkateshwar > > > Edition contains 1780 additional verses which need to be examined. > > > > > > I hope members will help me in collecting all editions and manuscripts > > > in the project of a new critical edition of BPHS. > > > > > > -Vinay Jha > > > ============ ======== === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2010 Report Share Posted March 26, 2010 That, to say the least, sounds like a very 'sticky' situation, Jacques/Jack! Good luck!! Rohiniranjan vedic astrology , Jacques Le Vangie <mojavecowboy wrote: > > Dear Rohini: > > Many of the adherents don't know, since the original is in Chinese and they only know English. But the controversy goes back for centuries. > > Jacques > > --- On Thu, 25/3/10, rohinicrystal <jyotish_vani wrote: > > rohinicrystal <jyotish_vani > [vedic astrology] Re: BPHS : Which Edition is Reliable ? > vedic astrology > Received: Thursday, 25 March, 2010, 6:44 PM >  > > > Dear Jacques, > > > > Are you implying that the adherents are flawed and not " sticking " to or 'searching for' the verity (as opposed to VARIETY)? ;-) > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > vedic astrology, Jacques Le Vangie <mojavecowboy@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Rohini: > > > > > > In the field of Chinese metaphysics, there is a spurious " classic " full of errors, about the method known as Zi Wei, which has been around for a thousand years or more. Yet to this day the book is sold and relied upon as the foundation for that method. > > > > > > Once these flawed works enter the mainstream, they are difficult to get rid of, since they gain their adherents. > > > > > > Jacques > > > > > > --- On Thu, 25/3/10, rohinicrystal <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > rohinicrystal <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > [vedic astrology] Re: BPHS : Which Edition is Reliable ? > > > vedic astrology > > > Received: Thursday, 25 March, 2010, 2:59 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Jha Saheb, > > > > > > > > > > > > It is amazing to see that for so many decades (near 100 years?) that these various editions have been in existence and use and referred to by professional jyotishis and jyotish teachers, and yet such obvious differences have not been identified and commented upon until very recently! Mind boggling!! > > > > > > > > > > > > One wonders if a similar confusion or 'htoch-potch_ ness' plagues the other so called 'scriptures' in jyotish etc as well! Probably the less 'exposed' literature that did not show up in the 'market-place' too openly may end up being the only relatively nascent and virginal form of scriptural texts, in the final analysis! > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah there is such PEACE even in the thoughts about Kashi and such intense nostalgia... > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > vedic astrology, " VJha " <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Members, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS is the most comprehensive and reliable textbook of Vedic Phalita > > > > > > > Jyotisha (only fragments of Jaimini's book have survived). But few users > > > > > > > know that almost all the popular editions of BPHS are based on some > > > > > > > spurious version published by Sitaram Jha, a professor at Sampoornanand > > > > > > > Sanskrit University (then a college). He procured a manuscript from Pt > > > > > > > Jeevanath Jha via Pt Kashinath Jha and added some portions related to > > > > > > > Samhitaa which are actually not a part of Horashaastra, thus inflating > > > > > > > the book to 97 chapters. Some later editors added some more kmaginary > > > > > > > chapters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The editorial of earliest of all these editions(ie, by sitaram Jha, 1946 > > > > > > > AD) includes a virulent attack on a Bombay Edition by Shri Venkateshwar > > > > > > > Press of Khemraaj Ji, which is one of the most authentic sources of > > > > > > > ancient books. Later, Venkateshwar Edition answered these charges with > > > > > > > convincing proofs, which Sitaram Jha never answered. Yet, all later > > > > > > > editions of BPHS continued the tradition started by Sitaram Jha and > > > > > > > published spurious chapters, just to show that their edition includes > > > > > > > more chapters !! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Still, Sitaram Jha's edition contains only 4001 verses in its 97 > > > > > > > chapters, while Venkateshwar Edition contains 5781 verses in 71 > > > > > > > chapters. The latter lacks many chapters which are not part of > > > > > > > Horaashaastra. Sitaram Jha acknowledged that he added these non-Hora > > > > > > > chapters in BPHS. Yet all later editors joined this rat race of > > > > > > > inflating BPHS by adding newly invented chapters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I request interested members to compare Venkateshwar Edition with other > > > > > > > editions before reaching at any firm comclusion. Nearly half of 5781 > > > > > > > verses of Venkateshwar Edition were deleted by Sitaram Jha and the > > > > > > > latter introduced a large number of verses from unnamed sources which > > > > > > > are part of Samhitaa and not of Horashaastra acoording to himself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Presently, I am residing in the guest house of Sampoornanand Sanskrit > > > > > > > University and I am also teaching the sudents at its Jyotisha classes (I > > > > > > > do not take any salary) as long as I reside in Kashi. I am discussing > > > > > > > this issue with all notable Jyotishis of Kashi and I am also consulting > > > > > > > manuscript collections in variopus universities. It will take some time > > > > > > > before we arrive at any firm conclusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS was known to ancient astrologers, but was available to only a few > > > > > > > of them, just because of lack of printing press & c. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Editions by GC Sharma, Santhanam and internet version (from Maharshi > > > > > > > Mahesh Yogi university library) are based on Sitaram Jha's edition. > > > > > > > Hindi commentaries from Chowkhambha (by Devachandra Jha) and Thakur > > > > > > > Prasad (by GD Pathak) differ in a large nuimber of cases. Venkateshwar > > > > > > > Edition contains 1780 additional verses which need to be examined. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope members will help me in collecting all editions and manuscripts > > > > > > > in the project of a new critical edition of BPHS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Vinay Jha > > > > > > > ============ ======== === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2010 Report Share Posted March 27, 2010 To All, It is noteworthy that ancient and mediaeval Sanskrit scholars did not write any commentory (bhaashya) on BPHS ; it was because no one dares to explain the full logic behind Sage Parashara's sayings. Only a Rishi can do so. We can attempt only partially. Translators were needed only in our age, when Sanskrit went out of vogue even among a lot of Indian astrologers. Among all editors and translators of BPHS, Pt Tarachandra Shastri (and his son), Pt Sitaram Jha, Pt Devachandra Jha, Ganeshdatt Pathak and Padmanabha Sharma were reputed teachers and learned scholars of Sanskrit language. The original Khemraj edition by Pt Tarachandra Shastri had many loopholes which irritated Pt Sitaram Jha. When Pt Sitaram Jha found some real or imaginary fault in any scholar, he could not control his anger and foul language. Even Pt Sudhakar Dwivedi could not escape Pt Sitaram Jha's ire. In spite of all his erudition, Pt Sitaram Jha had no respect for other scholars and had a habit of throwing the baby with bathtub. Such an egotist person cannot edit or translate another's work properly. The unpardonable crime of Pt Sitaram Jha was that he added a large number of verses and even chapters into BPHS, which he acknowledges in his preface, without even mentioning which portions were original and which were added by him. He said that (1) he added some parts related to Samhitaa (ie, not a part of Horaa), (2) he " corrected " many verses in the manuscript which did not suit his tastes, and (3) added some unspecified portions from some unspecified sources. This type of behaviour with an ancient text is simply unpardonable and is a sign of lack of proper education and training in this field. Moreover, it is dishonesty. Deliberate distortion of an ancient text for any reason is a crime. Pt Sitaram Jha was a good scholar of Sanskrit, and one of the unspecified souces of his additions into BPHS was his own inventiveness. This type of unruly treatment of ancient Puranas, Mahabharata, etc is well known. Such pandits did not know that instead of performing Rishi-yajna, they were destroying the works of Rishis and were incurring sins. Pt Devachandra Jha was better than Pt Sitaram Jha. Pt Devachandra Jha " corrected " many verses according to rules of Sanskrit grammar and prosody which were illegible in the manuscripts. But unlike Pt Sitaram Jha, Pt Devachandra Jha did not tamper with the original unless the original was illegible. Moreover, Pt Devachandra Jha travelled a lot to procure a lot of manuscripts, while Pt Sitaram Jha relied on a single manuscript and did not try to unearth others. None of the editors of BPHS made any strenuous effort to procure as many manuscripts as possible, excepting Pt Devachandra Jha. English translators had no interest in consulting any manuscript at all. It does not mean Pt Devachandra Jha was above board. He blindly accepted the additional chapters introduced by Pt Sitaram Jha, because he was under a pressure to produce 100 chapters through any means. But Pt Devachandra Jha did not accept Pt Sitaram Jha's whimsical " corrections " or additions in those chapters which were legible and clear in manuscripts. Pt Ganeshadatt Pathak did the same. Pt Devachandra Jha and Pt Ganeshadatt Pathak must be thanked for their efforts. The Khemraj edition cannot be accepted blindly. The only proper method is to prepare a text based on all available original material, indicating their sources. My guess is that BPHS had nearly 13000 or more verses originally (11000 in initial 80 chapters, and unspecified number of verses in remaining 20 chapters), and however hard we try we cannot recover even half of these original verses, unless some unknown manuscripts are unearthed. In the preface of this forthcoming edition of BPHS, I will request / warn all publishers not to add imaginary verses into BPHS without concrete evidences, otherwise I will sue them in proper courts of law. -Vinay Jha ============ ========= ======== ===== , " VJha " <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Members, > > BPHS is the most comprehensive and reliable textbook of Vedic Phalita Jyotisha (only fragments of Jaimini's book have survived). But few users know that almost all the popular editions of BPHS are based on some spurious version published by Sitaram Jha, a professor at Sampoornanand Sanskrit University (then a college). He procured a manuscript from Pt Jeevanath Jha via Pt Kashinath Jha and added some portions related to Samhitaa which are actually not a part of Horashaastra, thus inflating the book to 97 chapters. Some later editors added some more kmaginary chapters. > > The editorial of earliest of all these editions(ie, by sitaram Jha, 1946 AD) includes a virulent attack on a Bombay Edition by Shri Venkateshwar Press of Khemraaj Ji, which is one of the most authentic sources of ancient books. Later, Venkateshwar Edition answered these charges with convincing proofs, which Sitaram Jha never answered. Yet, all later editions of BPHS continued the tradition started by Sitaram Jha and published spurious chapters, just to show that their edition includes more chapters !! > > Still, Sitaram Jha's edition contains only 4001 verses in its 97 chapters, while Venkateshwar Edition contains 5781 verses in 71 chapters. The latter lacks many chapters which are not part of Horaashaastra. Sitaram Jha acknowledged that he added these non-Hora chapters in BPHS. Yet all later editors joined this rat race of inflating BPHS by adding newly invented chapters. > > I request interested members to compare Venkateshwar Edition with other editions before reaching at any firm comclusion. Nearly half of 5781 verses of Venkateshwar Edition were deleted by Sitaram Jha and the latter introduced a large number of verses from unnamed sources which are part of Samhitaa and not of Horashaastra acoording to himself. > > Presently, I am residing in the guest house of Sampoornanand Sanskrit University and I am also teaching the sudents at its Jyotisha classes (I do not take any salary) as long as I reside in Kashi. I am discussing this issue with all notable Jyotishis of Kashi and I am also consulting manuscript collections in variopus universities. It will take some time before we arrive at any firm conclusion. > > BPHS was known to ancient astrologers, but was available to only a few of them, just because of lack of printing press & c. > > Editions by GC Sharma, Santhanam and internet version (from Maharshi Mahesh Yogi university library) are based on Sitaram Jha's edition. Hindi commentaries from Chowkhambha (by Devachandra Jha and another by padmanabha Sharma) and Thakur Prasad (by GD Pathak) differ in a large nuimber of cases. Venkateshwar Edition contains 1780 additional verses which need to be examined. > > I hope members will help me in collecting all editions and manuscripts in the project of a new critical edition of BPHS. > > -Vinay Jha > ==================== === > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2010 Report Share Posted March 28, 2010 I think, and I certainly do not speak for everyone, what we have now in terms of BPHS and other classics are sufficient to keep our modern noses to the grindstone for a few lifetimes, even if we do astrology full-time. Lot of people forget that and begin to focus on the negatives and inexplicables and thereby tend to throw the baby out with the bath-water! Hindi has a interesting expression for this 'meen-mekh nikalnaa' for those who are over-analytical and over critical (too anal in psychological terms). I wonder why aries and pisces were chosen out of the 12 rashis for that descriptive label! Evolution of culture is so vividly expressed in the evolution of its language! I hope I come back in my next lifetime as a linguist! Fascinating domain! RR_, , " VJha " <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > To All, > > It is noteworthy that ancient and mediaeval Sanskrit scholars did not write any commentory (bhaashya) on BPHS ; it was because no one dares to explain the full logic behind Sage Parashara's sayings. Only a Rishi can do so. We can attempt only partially. Translators were needed only in our age, when Sanskrit went out of vogue even among a lot of Indian astrologers. > > Among all editors and translators of BPHS, Pt Tarachandra Shastri (and his son), Pt Sitaram Jha, Pt Devachandra Jha, Ganeshdatt Pathak and Padmanabha Sharma were reputed teachers and learned scholars of Sanskrit language. The original Khemraj edition by Pt Tarachandra Shastri had many loopholes which irritated Pt Sitaram Jha. When Pt Sitaram Jha found some real or imaginary fault in any scholar, he could not control his anger and foul language. Even Pt Sudhakar Dwivedi could not escape Pt Sitaram Jha's ire. In spite of all his erudition, Pt Sitaram Jha had no respect for other scholars and had a habit of throwing the baby with bathtub. Such an egotist person cannot edit or translate another's work properly. The unpardonable crime of Pt Sitaram Jha was that he added a large number of verses and even chapters into BPHS, which he acknowledges in his preface, without even mentioning which portions were original and which were added by him. He said that > (1) he added some parts related to Samhitaa (ie, not a part of Horaa), (2) he " corrected " many verses in the manuscript which did not suit his tastes, and (3) added some unspecified portions from some unspecified sources. > > This type of behaviour with an ancient text is simply unpardonable and is a sign of lack of proper education and training in this field. Moreover, it is dishonesty. Deliberate distortion of an ancient text for any reason is a crime. Pt Sitaram Jha was a good scholar of Sanskrit, and one of the unspecified souces of his additions into BPHS was his own inventiveness. This type of unruly treatment of ancient Puranas, Mahabharata, etc is well known. Such pandits did not know that instead of performing Rishi-yajna, they were destroying the works of Rishis and were incurring sins. > > Pt Devachandra Jha was better than Pt Sitaram Jha. Pt Devachandra Jha " corrected " many verses according to rules of Sanskrit grammar and prosody which were illegible in the manuscripts. But unlike Pt Sitaram Jha, Pt Devachandra Jha did not tamper with the original unless the original was illegible. Moreover, Pt Devachandra Jha travelled a lot to procure a lot of manuscripts, while Pt Sitaram Jha relied on a single manuscript and did not try to unearth others. None of the editors of BPHS made any strenuous effort to procure as many manuscripts as possible, excepting Pt Devachandra Jha. English translators had no interest in consulting any manuscript at all. > > It does not mean Pt Devachandra Jha was above board. He blindly accepted the additional chapters introduced by Pt Sitaram Jha, because he was under a pressure to produce 100 chapters through any means. But Pt Devachandra Jha did not accept Pt Sitaram Jha's whimsical " corrections " or additions in those chapters which were legible and clear in manuscripts. Pt Ganeshadatt Pathak did the same. Pt Devachandra Jha and Pt Ganeshadatt Pathak must be thanked for their efforts. The Khemraj edition cannot be accepted blindly. > > The only proper method is to prepare a text based on all available original material, indicating their sources. My guess is that BPHS had nearly 13000 or more verses originally (11000 in initial 80 chapters, and unspecified number of verses in remaining 20 chapters), and however hard we try we cannot recover even half of these original verses, unless some unknown manuscripts are unearthed. > > In the preface of this forthcoming edition of BPHS, I will request / warn all publishers not to add imaginary verses into BPHS without concrete evidences, otherwise I will sue them in proper courts of law. > > -Vinay Jha > ============ ========= ======== ===== > , " VJha " <vinayjhaa16@> wrote: > > > > Members, > > > > BPHS is the most comprehensive and reliable textbook of Vedic Phalita Jyotisha (only fragments of Jaimini's book have survived). But few users know that almost all the popular editions of BPHS are based on some spurious version published by Sitaram Jha, a professor at Sampoornanand Sanskrit University (then a college). He procured a manuscript from Pt Jeevanath Jha via Pt Kashinath Jha and added some portions related to Samhitaa which are actually not a part of Horashaastra, thus inflating the book to 97 chapters. Some later editors added some more kmaginary chapters. > > > > The editorial of earliest of all these editions(ie, by sitaram Jha, 1946 AD) includes a virulent attack on a Bombay Edition by Shri Venkateshwar Press of Khemraaj Ji, which is one of the most authentic sources of ancient books. Later, Venkateshwar Edition answered these charges with convincing proofs, which Sitaram Jha never answered. Yet, all later editions of BPHS continued the tradition started by Sitaram Jha and published spurious chapters, just to show that their edition includes more chapters !! > > > > Still, Sitaram Jha's edition contains only 4001 verses in its 97 chapters, while Venkateshwar Edition contains 5781 verses in 71 chapters. The latter lacks many chapters which are not part of Horaashaastra. Sitaram Jha acknowledged that he added these non-Hora chapters in BPHS. Yet all later editors joined this rat race of inflating BPHS by adding newly invented chapters. > > > > I request interested members to compare Venkateshwar Edition with other editions before reaching at any firm comclusion. Nearly half of 5781 verses of Venkateshwar Edition were deleted by Sitaram Jha and the latter introduced a large number of verses from unnamed sources which are part of Samhitaa and not of Horashaastra acoording to himself. > > > > Presently, I am residing in the guest house of Sampoornanand Sanskrit University and I am also teaching the sudents at its Jyotisha classes (I do not take any salary) as long as I reside in Kashi. I am discussing this issue with all notable Jyotishis of Kashi and I am also consulting manuscript collections in variopus universities. It will take some time before we arrive at any firm conclusion. > > > > BPHS was known to ancient astrologers, but was available to only a few of them, just because of lack of printing press & c. > > > > Editions by GC Sharma, Santhanam and internet version (from Maharshi Mahesh Yogi university library) are based on Sitaram Jha's edition. Hindi commentaries from Chowkhambha (by Devachandra Jha and another by padmanabha Sharma) and Thakur Prasad (by GD Pathak) differ in a large nuimber of cases. Venkateshwar Edition contains 1780 additional verses which need to be examined. > > > > I hope members will help me in collecting all editions and manuscripts in the project of a new critical edition of BPHS. > > > > -Vinay Jha > > ==================== === > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2010 Report Share Posted March 28, 2010 Rohini Da, I want to collect all verses of various editions of BPHS in a single edition, indicating the sources so that readers will be able to decide which variant is better. -VJ ========================= === , " rohinicrystal " <jyotish_vani wrote: > > I think, and I certainly do not speak for everyone, what we have now in terms of BPHS and other classics are sufficient to keep our modern noses to the grindstone for a few lifetimes, even if we do astrology full-time. > > Lot of people forget that and begin to focus on the negatives and inexplicables and thereby tend to throw the baby out with the bath-water! > > Hindi has a interesting expression for this 'meen-mekh nikalnaa' for those who are over-analytical and over critical (too anal in psychological terms). I wonder why aries and pisces were chosen out of the 12 rashis for that descriptive label! > > Evolution of culture is so vividly expressed in the evolution of its language! I hope I come back in my next lifetime as a linguist! Fascinating domain! > > RR_, > > , " VJha " <vinayjhaa16@> wrote: > > > > To All, > > > > It is noteworthy that ancient and mediaeval Sanskrit scholars did not write any commentory (bhaashya) on BPHS ; it was because no one dares to explain the full logic behind Sage Parashara's sayings. Only a Rishi can do so. We can attempt only partially. Translators were needed only in our age, when Sanskrit went out of vogue even among a lot of Indian astrologers. > > > > Among all editors and translators of BPHS, Pt Tarachandra Shastri (and his son), Pt Sitaram Jha, Pt Devachandra Jha, Ganeshdatt Pathak and Padmanabha Sharma were reputed teachers and learned scholars of Sanskrit language. The original Khemraj edition by Pt Tarachandra Shastri had many loopholes which irritated Pt Sitaram Jha. When Pt Sitaram Jha found some real or imaginary fault in any scholar, he could not control his anger and foul language. Even Pt Sudhakar Dwivedi could not escape Pt Sitaram Jha's ire. In spite of all his erudition, Pt Sitaram Jha had no respect for other scholars and had a habit of throwing the baby with bathtub. Such an egotist person cannot edit or translate another's work properly. The unpardonable crime of Pt Sitaram Jha was that he added a large number of verses and even chapters into BPHS, which he acknowledges in his preface, without even mentioning which portions were original and which were added by him. He said that > > (1) he added some parts related to Samhitaa (ie, not a part of Horaa), (2) he " corrected " many verses in the manuscript which did not suit his tastes, and (3) added some unspecified portions from some unspecified sources. > > > > This type of behaviour with an ancient text is simply unpardonable and is a sign of lack of proper education and training in this field. Moreover, it is dishonesty. Deliberate distortion of an ancient text for any reason is a crime. Pt Sitaram Jha was a good scholar of Sanskrit, and one of the unspecified souces of his additions into BPHS was his own inventiveness. This type of unruly treatment of ancient Puranas, Mahabharata, etc is well known. Such pandits did not know that instead of performing Rishi-yajna, they were destroying the works of Rishis and were incurring sins. > > > > Pt Devachandra Jha was better than Pt Sitaram Jha. Pt Devachandra Jha " corrected " many verses according to rules of Sanskrit grammar and prosody which were illegible in the manuscripts. But unlike Pt Sitaram Jha, Pt Devachandra Jha did not tamper with the original unless the original was illegible. Moreover, Pt Devachandra Jha travelled a lot to procure a lot of manuscripts, while Pt Sitaram Jha relied on a single manuscript and did not try to unearth others. None of the editors of BPHS made any strenuous effort to procure as many manuscripts as possible, excepting Pt Devachandra Jha. English translators had no interest in consulting any manuscript at all. > > > > It does not mean Pt Devachandra Jha was above board. He blindly accepted the additional chapters introduced by Pt Sitaram Jha, because he was under a pressure to produce 100 chapters through any means. But Pt Devachandra Jha did not accept Pt Sitaram Jha's whimsical " corrections " or additions in those chapters which were legible and clear in manuscripts. Pt Ganeshadatt Pathak did the same. Pt Devachandra Jha and Pt Ganeshadatt Pathak must be thanked for their efforts. The Khemraj edition cannot be accepted blindly. > > > > The only proper method is to prepare a text based on all available original material, indicating their sources. My guess is that BPHS had nearly 13000 or more verses originally (11000 in initial 80 chapters, and unspecified number of verses in remaining 20 chapters), and however hard we try we cannot recover even half of these original verses, unless some unknown manuscripts are unearthed. > > > > In the preface of this forthcoming edition of BPHS, I will request / warn all publishers not to add imaginary verses into BPHS without concrete evidences, otherwise I will sue them in proper courts of law. > > > > -Vinay Jha > > ============ ========= ======== ===== > > , " VJha " <vinayjhaa16@> wrote: > > > > > > Members, > > > > > > BPHS is the most comprehensive and reliable textbook of Vedic Phalita Jyotisha (only fragments of Jaimini's book have survived). But few users know that almost all the popular editions of BPHS are based on some spurious version published by Sitaram Jha, a professor at Sampoornanand Sanskrit University (then a college). He procured a manuscript from Pt Jeevanath Jha via Pt Kashinath Jha and added some portions related to Samhitaa which are actually not a part of Horashaastra, thus inflating the book to 97 chapters. Some later editors added some more kmaginary chapters. > > > > > > The editorial of earliest of all these editions(ie, by sitaram Jha, 1946 AD) includes a virulent attack on a Bombay Edition by Shri Venkateshwar Press of Khemraaj Ji, which is one of the most authentic sources of ancient books. Later, Venkateshwar Edition answered these charges with convincing proofs, which Sitaram Jha never answered. Yet, all later editions of BPHS continued the tradition started by Sitaram Jha and published spurious chapters, just to show that their edition includes more chapters !! > > > > > > Still, Sitaram Jha's edition contains only 4001 verses in its 97 chapters, while Venkateshwar Edition contains 5781 verses in 71 chapters. The latter lacks many chapters which are not part of Horaashaastra. Sitaram Jha acknowledged that he added these non-Hora chapters in BPHS. Yet all later editors joined this rat race of inflating BPHS by adding newly invented chapters. > > > > > > I request interested members to compare Venkateshwar Edition with other editions before reaching at any firm comclusion. Nearly half of 5781 verses of Venkateshwar Edition were deleted by Sitaram Jha and the latter introduced a large number of verses from unnamed sources which are part of Samhitaa and not of Horashaastra acoording to himself. > > > > > > Presently, I am residing in the guest house of Sampoornanand Sanskrit University and I am also teaching the sudents at its Jyotisha classes (I do not take any salary) as long as I reside in Kashi. I am discussing this issue with all notable Jyotishis of Kashi and I am also consulting manuscript collections in variopus universities. It will take some time before we arrive at any firm conclusion. > > > > > > BPHS was known to ancient astrologers, but was available to only a few of them, just because of lack of printing press & c. > > > > > > Editions by GC Sharma, Santhanam and internet version (from Maharshi Mahesh Yogi university library) are based on Sitaram Jha's edition. Hindi commentaries from Chowkhambha (by Devachandra Jha and another by padmanabha Sharma) and Thakur Prasad (by GD Pathak) differ in a large nuimber of cases. Venkateshwar Edition contains 1780 additional verses which need to be examined. > > > > > > I hope members will help me in collecting all editions and manuscripts in the project of a new critical edition of BPHS. > > > > > > -Vinay Jha > > > ==================== === > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.