Fwd: What is Argala? (Parasara/Jaimini System) - Rashi Drishti Doubt - 1

[Guest guest]

, " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote:

 

Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

 

==>

> I think it has been mentioned by the early acharyas of Kashi

> Vishwavidyalaya, who compiled the original shlokas of the BPHS,

> that the manuscripts that they based BPHS on were not

> titled " Brihad Paraashara Hora Shastra " .

<==

Ok. With enough supporting evidence it could, also extend the info

that BPHS could be neither original nor complete. But for sure it a

very useful, authentic, valuable, resource, that depict the system

followed by Parasara school.

 

==>

> The conjecture of Parashara who gave the current text

> being of 1400 b.c. must remain a conjecture as the text mentions

> that Yudhishthira is having a certain yoga and enumerates others

> who had similar yogas in the text indicating him being alive at the

> time of Mahabharata. Mahabharata ends with death of Lord Krishna or

> soon after that which is around 3102 B. C. If this is not

> acceptable then the contents of the texts must have been collection

> of myriad granthas and nothing more.

<==

* Presents of a certain yoga in Yudhishtira's horasope in BPHS.

* indicating him being alive at the time of Mahabharata.

That is new knowledge to me - please provide the chapter number and

sloka number; I will refer to BPHS to have a better idea about the

same.

 

==>

> If this is not

> acceptable then the contents of the texts must have been collection

> of myriad granthas and nothing more.

<==

There is a better chance for the same; but even when fragmented the

bits and pieces of the ancient knowledge available through such texts

should be valued very much. Remember that the ancient epics speaks

and quotes slokas from " Agneya Purana " and what we have today

is " Agni Purana " and " Vahni Purana " and many slokas of " Agneya

Purana " quoted by other Puranas are missing in both of them. It could

be the case with many other texts - even astrological classics like

BPHS.

==>

> If you could quote the shloka in Paraashari that gives the

> date of the text and it having been written by Parashara I would be

> obliged much. The edition which gives those shlokas may also be

> quoted, so that checking them will be easy.

<==

Please refer to the previous mail - I said that " Parasara Samhita "

(not BPHS) provides us with a sloka that helps us in determining the

date of Parasara. The sloka is quoted by Bhattolpala in the

commentary of Brihat Samhita. I have written a detailed write up on

the same in vedic astrology group long time back, If you do a search

there you will get it for sure. (As time permits I too will try to

locate it, to save my self from re-writing it again)

Of course Jaimini Sutras are in Sutra form - but not sutras that

completely satisfies the definition of Sutras. My argument was that

it is because, Jaimini sutra was not an original work but rather an

teaching/abbreviation effort of unique concepts discussed by Parasara.

 

==>

> That is why I said let us agree to disagree.

<==

Dear Chandrashekhar ji, agreement or disagreement shouldn't be a pre-

condition; but a natural result. And we are always free to agree,

disagree, or agree to diagree - if not friendship what can give us

that freedom.

Love,

Sreenadh

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadh,

>

> I think it has been mentioned by the early acharyas of Kashi

> Vishwavidyalaya, who compiled the original shlokas of the BPHS,

that the

> manuscripts that they based BPHS on were not titled " Brihad

Paraashara

> Hora Shastra " . The conjecture of Parashara who gave the current

text

> being of 1400 b.c. must remain a conjecture as the text mentions

that

> Yudhishthira is having a certain yoga and enumerates others who had

> similar yogas in the text indicating him being alive at the time of

> Mahabharata. Mahabharata ends with death of Lord Krishna or soon

after

> that which is around 3102 B. C. If this is not acceptable then the

> contents of the texts must have been collection of myriad granthas

and

> nothing more. If you could quote the shloka in Paraashari that

gives the

> date of the text and it having been written by Parashara I would be

> obliged much. The edition which gives those shlokas may also be

quoted,

> so that checking them will be easy.

>

> The definition of sutras given by you is right. But the clarity is

for

> ones who are well versed in that science and not for everyone, as

> guarding the divine knowledge was the reason sutras have brevity.

So I

> do not think any Sanskrit scholar ( I am not one) would declare

them

> anything but sutras. I have sought opinion of the learned in that

> language and their uniform opinion is that they are sutras.

>

> That is why I said let us agree to disagree.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

>

> Sreenadh wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > It is not Parashara of Mahabharata (the father of Vyasa) who wrote

> > Parasara Hora. But a Parasara who lived around BC 1400 wrote

Parasara

> > Sidhanta, Parasara Hora and Parasara Samhita, as the proof for the

> > same is provided by an availabe sloka of Parasara Samhita.

> > BPHS definitely mentions the names of Parasara and Mitreya, and

> > since the book is as told by Parasara and that is why the name

Brihat

> > Parasara Hora Sastra is attributed to it.

> > Coming to Jaimini sutra, the text does not even fulfill the prime

> > condition for a Sutra text. As per the definition-

> > " Alpaksharam Aasannigdtham Sutram Sutravido vidu "

> > [A sutra should contain less number of characters and the meaning

of

> > the sutra should be crystal clear]

> > Even though the sutras in Jaimini sutra contains less number of

> > characters, they does not satisfy the second condition the meaning

> > should be unambiguous and crystal clear.

> > Look at any other sutra text - such as Brigu Sutra in Astrology,

> > Sutras of Patanjali in grammar, Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, Chanakya

> > Sutra etc - you will see the great difference between their

approach

> > and presentation and the mere 'Abbreviation effort' of Jaimini.

> >

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > >

> > > Carrying the logic further what proof is there that the

Parashara who

> > > was father of Vyasa wrote the BPHS? Nobody wrote books in those

days

> > > they were memorized and carried by word of mouth. Even BPHS

does not

> > > mention that being its name.

> > >

> > > I think there is a bit of difference between sutras and

shlokas. I do

> > > not think there is any evidence that suggests that it is

> > presentation of

> > > concepts of Parashara in abbreviated manner. Could you point to

those

> > > sutras that do this?

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > I have another question - what proof is there to say that the

book

> > > > is written by sage Jaimini? The book does not even mention

the auther,

> > > > then what to say about his guru?

> > > > The book 'Jaimini Sutra' is written by a student of some

teacher

> > > > (let us positively hope that it is Jaimini), and collects and

presents

> > > > the advice given by the teacher, as indicated by the first

sutra of

> > > > the text itself. One more thing - where in the book it is

mentioned

> > > > that the name of the book is 'Jaimini Sutra'?

> > > > But the internal proof - the slokas, the terminology, concepts

> > > > described etc - clearly tells us that it an effort to present

the

> > > > concepts presented by Parasara in an abriviated manner. This

being the

> > > > situation, I too would agree to disagree...

> > > > P.S: I am uploading my thoughts on some of the intial slokas

of

> > > > Jaimini sutra, and the link is provided in the next post.

> > > > Love,

> > > > Sreenadh

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > >

> > > > > I could have agreed to the contention had Jaimini mentioned

> > somewhere

> > > > > about Parashara having been his Guru, as was the practice

in ancient

> > > > > sages. Even Parashara tells his having given the knowledge

> > received by

> > > > > Shaunaka who got it through Garga who in turn received it

through

> > > > > Narada. But then I am an obstinate old person who was

taught to base

> > > > his

> > > > > judgement of the ancient astrological texts, on both

Pramana and

> > tarka.

> > > > >

> > > > > So let us agree to disagree on this.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > > > 1)Even though Jaimini sutra provides a special set of

> > principles as

> > > > > > compared to the available (printed) BPHS, there are many

> > slokas that

> > > > > > supports the same, as available from commentaries of

Jaimini sutra

> > > > > > and virdha karikas.

> > > > > > There are many slokas of Parasara available, about many

such

> > > > > > concepts that are not present in the printed BPHS, but

present in

> > > > > > various commentaries of Jaimini sutra.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 2) It is not the simple study of Argala concept alone that

> > helps us

> > > > > > in reaching the conclusion that " Jaimini sutra is a guide

and

> > > > > > extension of BPHS, that tries to teach Parasara's

concepts " , but

> > > > > > rather-

> > > > > > * the study of the whole book and its approach

> > > > > > * comparison of concepts and words used within it

> > > > > > * the methodology of presentation followed in the book

> > > > > > and many more.

> > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > But if the two are giving different sets of principles,

as

> > > > > > indicated by

> > > > > > > you in another mail, then how do you verify the

veracity of the

> > > > > > sutras.

> > > > > > > Anyway, I still do not find enough evidence to think

that

> > Parashara

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > Anargala and Jaimini is Argala. Only Lord Shiva is

Anargala

> > and we

> > > > > > do

> > > > > > > not have access to him.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > I think the interpretation of Jaimini sutras become

far more

> > > > > > easier

> > > > > > > > if we find the bolt and the key.

> > > > > > > > * The Bolt is: Jaimini sutra is not an independent

text,

> > it is a

> > > > > > > > guide to BPHS concepts, extending them a bit.

> > > > > > > > * The Key is: Refer to BPHS first always for clarity,

and

> > then try

> > > > > > > > unlocking Jaimini sutra with the same.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > P.S: May be BPHS is Anargala and Jaimini sutra is the

> > Argala. )

> > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will find

> > that the

> > > > > > signs

> > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means

side of

> > the body

> > > > > > > > and the

> > > > > > > > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the signs

to their

> > > > > > side.

> > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult.

However

> > there are

> > > > > > > > Vriddha

> > > > > > > > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal clear.

> > Parashara

> > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > uses

> > > > > > > > > the same terminology but goes on th explain that the

> > adjacent

> > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi

aspect is

> > > > > > > > clarified

> > > > > > > > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his

> > commentary on

> > > > > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas

> > occupying the

> > > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > It is really informative to read your recent

> > historical write

> > > > > > up's

> > > > > > > > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

> > > > > > Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > > > > > > > you very much.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental

doubt

> > > > > > regarding

> > > > > > > > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri

Surya

> > Narain

> > > > > > Rao.

> > > > > > > > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs

aspect

> > each

> > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha.

Excepting.the next

> > > > > > > > zodiacal

> > > > > > > > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat.

Those

> > planets

> > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets

found

> > in such

> > > > > > > > houses.

> > > > > > > > > > Respected translator makes the following HONEST

> > statement -

> > > > > > ''The

> > > > > > > > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in

their

> > FRONT. I

> > > > > > DO

> > > > > > > > NOT

> > > > > > > > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word

> > FRONT''.Then he

> > > > > > says

> > > > > > > > > > commentators observe - Mesha has

Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > > > > > > > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%

40>, " Sreenadh "

> > <sreesog@>

> > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion

about

> > the same?

> > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any

> > contradictions

> > > > > > > > between

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini?

What

> > is your

> > > > > > > > > > opinion?

> > > > > > > > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -----------------

--------

> > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

> > Release Date:

> > > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ---------------------

----

> > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

Release Date:

> > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >