Fwd: condemning the bible of astrology - Mohan Jyotishi

[Guest guest]

vedic astrology , Mohan Jyotishi

<jyotishi231 wrote:

 

 

Dear Mr. Sreenadh,

It is a pleasure to see the logical reasoning behind

your presetation. It is the real way of an academic

discussion!

 

Now my answers:

I must make it very clear at the outset that these

discussions are to thrash out the points whether there

is predictive astrology in the Vedas or not, and it

has nothing to do with what Mohan or Sreenadh thinks!

Either there is predictive astrology in them or there

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

 

Now about BPHS:

I have all the three editions of BPHS avaialble in

Northern India viz the original Sitaram Jha edition,

the Nirnay Sagar Press Edition and the English

translation edition.

 

But before discussing their merits or demerits, let us

discuss Brihat Jatakam and Brihat Samhita first:

 

1. Varahamihira has not said anywhere that he is

following any Vedic system of predictions. This is a

point worth pondering over sicne every scholar in the

earlier ages harked to the Vedas for thier guidance

and enlightenment of a subject if the Vedas had any

thing to do with that subject.

 

2. Varahamihira has paid fulsome tributes to Yavanas

whom he himself calls mlechhas to the extent that he

wants them to be worshipped like Rishis! He is very

catagorical that " this (jyotish shastra of predictive

astrology as well as calculations) is established in

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

verse 1, he has listed his predecessor astrologers as

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

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

there was a glut of Greek astrologers prior to

Varahamihira and the meaning of this verse is clear

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

Parashara! It also means that Varahamihira is not

referring to Sage Parashara since Varahamihira should

have known that if Veda-Vyasa was supposed to have

existed in Dwapara Yuga, his father could not have

succeeded him after the advent of Greeks into India!

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

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

not make the verse start from Parashara and then

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

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

but on the other hand you pay tribute to him before

anybody else! It is thus clear that Varahamihira was

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

Parashara!

 

Thus it is possible that there might have been some

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

Parashara gotra or with Parashara sirname, but it

certainly could not have been the Sage Parashara, the

way Varahamihira has shown disrespect to him and

extolled Yavanas! Varahamihira has referred to quite

a few other astroloers also like Garga, Satyacharya,

Vishnugupta and Jeevsharma etc. but nobody is certain

as to what works they had compiled and how independent

of Greek influence they were.

 

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

of Bhatotpala, it means it was not a prominent work

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

astrologers as otherwise it certainly could not have

gone underground!

Bhatotpala also has made it very clear that Yavana

Jataka was avialable in his time!

 

4. The second most surprising question is that if

Parashari had been of sage Parashara and if there had

been predictive astrology in the same way it is being

presented these days in the name of Parashari,

Varahamihira would certainly not have referred to

Mesha, Vrisha etc. Rahsis by their Greek names like

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

Karupa, Tauksika, Akokara,Hrdroga,Antyabhya!

Similarly, Dreshkan, Panphar, Apoklima, kendra etc.

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

of astrology was prevailing at the time of

Varahamihira, why did he have to take recourse to all

these Greek words?

 

And as everybody knows, these very yogas and words

like apoklima etc. appear in almost all the versions

of Parashari available in the market today!

5. We find Vimshottari Dasha in all the versions of

BPHS and surprisingly it is conspicuous by its absence

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

ohter system of Dasha-bhuktis of Parashara having been

prevailing at his time. He has referred to Jivsharma

etc. for calculating Ayurdaya but nowehere to

Parashara!

 

Thus a question arises that if simple ways of

delineating results by Vimshottari or Ashtottari or

Yogini etc. had been enunciated by Parashara prior to

Varahamihira, why did the latter not take them as it

is and why did he have to give elaborate and

cumbersome calculatons for calculating the same?

 

It is clear from these facts that the BHPS we are

having today is not even a ghostly version of the

original " Parashari " .

 

6. Alberuni has devoted a lot of attention to Indian

astrology and astronomy but he has just made a passing

reference to Parashara's astrological work. Though

whenever Alberuni has referred to Sage parashara, he

has qualified his statment with words like " Parashara,

the father of Veda Vyasa " but in the case of

Parashara's book on astrology, he has not done

anything like that!

 

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

clubbed Parshara with " Gargi, Asit,Devala and several

others " which means that the astrologer Parashara did

not wield any respectful position as compared to

others. If it had been the sage Parashara who had

written Parashari, it could never been have that

disrpesct for him. Besides, in the Samhita,

Varahamihira appears to be referring to Parshara

Samhita, which was also available at Bhatotpala's

time.

 

8. This is what the English translator of current BPHS

has said on page 11:

" After scrutinizing critcally the four manuscripts

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

Devachandra Jha edition and Hindi translation of

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

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

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

without Sanskrit verses

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

chapters without Sanskrit slokas " .

It measn he also was not aware of any other edition

either on palm leaves or in any other form available

in any library.

Now that you say there is a manuscript available in

Sarsswati Library of Tamil Nadu, I suggest that those

interested in the real BPHS should approach that

library and have it published/printed without delay.

This will give every reader/astrologer a chance to see

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

carbon dating etc. of that manuscript has been done,

but being a seeker after truth and facts, I would

request you personally to approach the concerned

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

service not only to astrologers but even to

non-astrologer scholars since we must ferret out the

facts as early as possible.

Dhanyavad.

Mohan Jyotishi

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

posting.

 

> vedic astrology , " Sreenadh "

> <sreelid> wrote:

>

> Dear Mohan,

> It is right that Bhattolpala says that he heard

> about Parasara

> Hora and Parasara Samhita but never seen it. But

> Bhattolpala had

> Parasara Samhita with him! Just because Bhattolpala

> hadn't seen the

> text, should we conclude that Parasara Hora was

> non-existent at that

> time?

>

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

> saw Parasara Hora.

> 2) Statement 2: Parasara Hora could be

> non-existent at that time.

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

> Parasara

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

> about the text

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

> Your argument rests on a single premise, and then

> tries to

> generalize that " As Bhattolpala hadn't seen Parasara

> Hora then that

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

> logical error!! Please

> try to see the fact.]

>

> Acharya Balabhadra of 10th Centuary and Kikulangara

> (The scholar

> who wrote Hridyapadha vyakhya of Varahahora.

> Hridyapadha amply

> quotes from Rishi Horas) qotes many slokas from

> Parasara Hora, and

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

> you see that

> this text was available in India even from ancient

> times?! If you

> are not convinced about the existence of manuscript

> and palm leaf

> scripts of BPH in Indian libraries, go to Sarswathi

> Mahal library of

> Tamilnadu, where 2 copies of the palm leaf

> manuscript is still

> available. I can provide you the catalog number all

> the other

> relevant details. It might be possible that there is

> many 'prekshiptha slokas' in BPH available to us

> today, and that the

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

> BPH was a non-

> existent text or that none of the slokas are

> original. From the

> ancient reference (By Balabhadra and Kikulangara) it

> is pretty clear

> that the BPH available today contains most of the

> slokas qoted by

> these uncorrepted scholers.

> As far as the question 'Whether nirayana astrology

> Vedic/Non-

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

> subject, which

> was written as an answer to Koul.

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> vedic astrology , Mohan

> Jyotishi

> <jyotishi231> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Mr. Surya Rao,

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

> he

> > was translating/compiling the original " Brihat

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

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

> > original Parashari, especially when no Parshari

> ever

> > existed!

> >

> > The comments of English translator of " Parashari "

> on

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

> This

> > is what he has says:

> > " After scrutinizing the four manuscripts, I have

> for

> > reasons of more credibility chosen the Sanskrit

> > version rendered by Sitaram Jha "

> > This statement of English translator itself is

> > self-contradictory since he has not given any

> proofs

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

> > credible than other editions! Similarly, if the

> > English translator had so much of faith in Sitaram

> Jha

> > he should have followed SuryaSidhanta

> calculatkions,

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

> that

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

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

> former

> > could write his most " mafnificent masterpiece " of

> > " Vedic astrology " according to Lahiri Ayanamsha.

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

> sift

> > grain from the cdhaff!

> >

> > Similarly, if there had been any original

> Parashari,

> > there would not have been different

> versions---none

> > agreeing with the other! Besides, different

> > Ayanamshas could not have been correct for one and

> the

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

> different

> > Ayanamsha much to the chagrin of real Parashara

> who

> > has not referred to any ayanamsha ghost even

> > inadvertantly in his Vishnu Purana! In other

> words,

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

> > Parashari it should have been based on a Sayana

> > Rashichakra and not on the so called Surya

> Sidhanta or

> > Lahiri or Ramana or Grihalaghava Rashichakras!

> That

> > is another proof of the ignorance of these

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

> >

> > Venkateshwar Press, Mumbai, edition/version of

> " Brihat

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

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

> by

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

> AD.

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

> > reasoning that the so called original Parashari

> was

> > not available anywhere since he had not been able

> to

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

> of

> > his best efforts!

> >

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

> Parashari

> > though that work refers to every prominent work on

> > astronomy and astrology like Brihat Jataka, Brihat

> > Samhita, Khandkhadyaka etc. etc.

> >

> > I have also an off line communication from a

> gentleman

> > that none of the libraries in the world contain

> any

> > manuscript of " Briohat Parashara Horashastram " .

> It

> > means it is just an imaginary work!

> >

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

> it

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

> > astrology " and I hope that those confusions would

> be

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

> not

> > claiming to be a predictive astrologer, though I

> have

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

> now

> > if " Vedic Jyotishis " call some predictive

> astrology as

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

> is

> > no astrology in the Vedas, since as clarified

> already,

> > Vedanga Jotisha is not a work of predictive

> astrology

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

> > Mangal,Budha etc. etc.

> >

> > THE MOST CONVINCING ARGUMENT THAT NO PARASHARI WAS

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

> V.

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

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

> VERY

> > PROLIFIC WRITER AND SUPPOSED TO BE THE " GREATEST

> VEDIC

> > ASTROLOGER OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY " . HE

> CERTAINLY

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

> THAT HE

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

vedic astrology , Surya Rao <suryarao12

wrote:

 

Dear Mohan Jyotishi,

 

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

think the dispute will be over. You are not a Jyotishi but still your

name is Mohan Jyotishi and so is Astrology Vedic. What is your

problem?

 

 

 

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

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

seeing we worship. We don't seek the ID of Gods also. Why to quarrel

over Vedic or Yavana.

 

 

 

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

worship Jupiter as Brhaspati. Then what is the difference you are

speaking?

 

 

 

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

AD 100 as Ptolemy. Some time back he might have been Parasara and

Garga and all that. He was Krishen Kaul in 1990 when Sri Kaul

contested all Panchanga makers to prove the truth of their Vedic

Panchangam.

 

 

 

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

like this - half sense and half nonsense. Why to go on kidding about

Vedic astrology?

 

 

 

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

If you know some astrology, here speak on that. Or else forget, Vedic

or Non Vedic.

 

 

 

Surya Rao

 

 

Mohan Jyotishi <jyotishi231 wrote:

 

Dear Mr. Sreenadh,

It is a pleasure to see the logical reasoning behind

your presetation. It is the real way of an academic

discussion!

 

Now my answers:

I must make it very clear at the outset that these

discussions are to thrash out the points whether there

is predictive astrology in the Vedas or not, and it

has nothing to do with what Mohan or Sreenadh thinks!

Either there is predictive astrology in them or there

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

 

Now about BPHS:

I have all the three editions of BPHS avaialble in

Northern India viz the original Sitaram Jha edition,

the Nirnay Sagar Press Edition and the English

translation edition.

 

But before discussing their merits or demerits, let us

discuss Brihat Jatakam and Brihat Samhita first:

 

1. Varahamihira has not said anywhere that he is

following any Vedic system of predictions. This is a

point worth pondering over sicne every scholar in the

earlier ages harked to the Vedas for thier guidance

and enlightenment of a subject if the Vedas had any

thing to do with that subject.

 

2. Varahamihira has paid fulsome tributes to Yavanas

whom he himself calls mlechhas to the extent that he

wants them to be worshipped like Rishis! He is very

catagorical that " this (jyotish shastra of predictive

astrology as well as calculations) is established in

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

verse 1, he has listed his predecessor astrologers as

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

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

there was a glut of Greek astrologers prior to

Varahamihira and the meaning of this verse is clear

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

Parashara! It also means that Varahamihira is not

referring to Sage Parashara since Varahamihira should

have known that if Veda-Vyasa was supposed to have

existed in Dwapara Yuga, his father could not have

succeeded him after the advent of Greeks into India!

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

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

not make the verse start from Parashara and then

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

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

but on the other hand you pay tribute to him before

anybody else! It is thus clear that Varahamihira was

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

Parashara!

 

Thus it is possible that there might have been some

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

Parashara gotra or with Parashara sirname, but it

certainly could not have been the Sage Parashara, the

way Varahamihira has shown disrespect to him and

extolled Yavanas! Varahamihira has referred to quite

a few other astroloers also like Garga, Satyacharya,

Vishnugupta and Jeevsharma etc. but nobody is certain

as to what works they had compiled and how independent

of Greek influence they were.

 

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

of Bhatotpala, it means it was not a prominent work

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

astrologers as otherwise it certainly could not have

gone underground!

Bhatotpala also has made it very clear that Yavana

Jataka was avialable in his time!

 

4. The second most surprising question is that if

Parashari had been of sage Parashara and if there had

been predictive astrology in the same way it is being

presented these days in the name of Parashari,

Varahamihira would certainly not have referred to

Mesha, Vrisha etc. Rahsis by their Greek names like

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

Karupa, Tauksika, Akokara,Hrdroga,Antyabhya!

Similarly, Dreshkan, Panphar, Apoklima, kendra etc.

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

of astrology was prevailing at the time of

Varahamihira, why did he have to take recourse to all

these Greek words?

 

And as everybody knows, these very yogas and words

like apoklima etc. appear in almost all the versions

of Parashari available in the market today!

5. We find Vimshottari Dasha in all the versions of

BPHS and surprisingly it is conspicuous by its absence

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

ohter system of Dasha-bhuktis of Parashara having been

prevailing at his time. He has referred to Jivsharma

etc. for calculating Ayurdaya but nowehere to

Parashara!

 

Thus a question arises that if simple ways of

delineating results by Vimshottari or Ashtottari or

Yogini etc. had been enunciated by Parashara prior to

Varahamihira, why did the latter not take them as it

is and why did he have to give elaborate and

cumbersome calculatons for calculating the same?

 

It is clear from these facts that the BHPS we are

having today is not even a ghostly version of the

original " Parashari " .

 

6. Alberuni has devoted a lot of attention to Indian

astrology and astronomy but he has just made a passing

reference to Parashara's astrological work. Though

whenever Alberuni has referred to Sage parashara, he

has qualified his statment with words like " Parashara,

the father of Veda Vyasa " but in the case of

Parashara's book on astrology, he has not done

anything like that!

 

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

clubbed Parshara with " Gargi, Asit,Devala and several

others " which means that the astrologer Parashara did

not wield any respectful position as compared to

others. If it had been the sage Parashara who had

written Parashari, it could never been have that

disrpesct for him. Besides, in the Samhita,

Varahamihira appears to be referring to Parshara

Samhita, which was also available at Bhatotpala's

time.

 

8. This is what the English translator of current BPHS

has said on page 11:

" After scrutinizing critcally the four manuscripts

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

Devachandra Jha edition and Hindi translation of

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

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

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

without Sanskrit verses

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

chapters without Sanskrit slokas " .

It measn he also was not aware of any other edition

either on palm leaves or in any other form available

in any library.

Now that you say there is a manuscript available in

Sarsswati Library of Tamil Nadu, I suggest that those

interested in the real BPHS should approach that

library and have it published/printed without delay.

This will give every reader/astrologer a chance to see

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

carbon dating etc. of that manuscript has been done,

but being a seeker after truth and facts, I would

request you personally to approach the concerned

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

service not only to astrologers but even to

non-astrologer scholars since we must ferret out the

facts as early as possible.

Dhanyavad.

Mohan Jyotishi

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

posting.

 

> vedic astrology , " Sreenadh "

> <sreelid> wrote:

>

> Dear Mohan,

> It is right that Bhattolpala says that he heard

> about Parasara

> Hora and Parasara Samhita but never seen it. But

> Bhattolpala had

> Parasara Samhita with him! Just because Bhattolpala

> hadn't seen the

> text, should we conclude that Parasara Hora was

> non-existent at that

> time?

>

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

> saw Parasara Hora.

> 2) Statement 2: Parasara Hora could be

> non-existent at that time.

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

> Parasara

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

> about the text

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

> Your argument rests on a single premise, and then

> tries to

> generalize that " As Bhattolpala hadn't seen Parasara

> Hora then that

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

> logical error!! Please

> try to see the fact.]

>

> Acharya Balabhadra of 10th Centuary and Kikulangara

> (The scholar

> who wrote Hridyapadha vyakhya of Varahahora.

> Hridyapadha amply

> quotes from Rishi Horas) qotes many slokas from

> Parasara Hora, and

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

> you see that

> this text was available in India even from ancient

> times?! If you

> are not convinced about the existence of manuscript

> and palm leaf

> scripts of BPH in Indian libraries, go to Sarswathi

> Mahal library of

> Tamilnadu, where 2 copies of the palm leaf

> manuscript is still

> available. I can provide you the catalog number all

> the other

> relevant details. It might be possible that there is

> many 'prekshiptha slokas' in BPH available to us

> today, and that the

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

> BPH was a non-

> existent text or that none of the slokas are

> original. From the

> ancient reference (By Balabhadra and Kikulangara) it

> is pretty clear

> that the BPH available today contains most of the

> slokas qoted by

> these uncorrepted scholers.

> As far as the question 'Whether nirayana astrology

> Vedic/Non-

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

> subject, which

> was written as an answer to Koul.

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> vedic astrology , Mohan

> Jyotishi

> <jyotishi231> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Mr. Surya Rao,

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

> he

> > was translating/compiling the original " Brihat

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

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

> > original Parashari, especially when no Parshari

> ever

> > existed!

> >

> > The comments of English translator of " Parashari "

> on

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

> This

> > is what he has says:

> > " After scrutinizing the four manuscripts, I have

> for

> > reasons of more credibility chosen the Sanskrit

> > version rendered by Sitaram Jha "

> > This statement of English translator itself is

> > self-contradictory since he has not given any

> proofs

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

> > credible than other editions! Similarly, if the

> > English translator had so much of faith in Sitaram

> Jha

> > he should have followed SuryaSidhanta

> calculatkions,

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

> that

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

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

> former

> > could write his most " mafnificent masterpiece " of

> > " Vedic astrology " according to Lahiri Ayanamsha.

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

> sift

> > grain from the cdhaff!

> >

> > Similarly, if there had been any original

> Parashari,

> > there would not have been different

> versions---none

> > agreeing with the other! Besides, different

> > Ayanamshas could not have been correct for one and

> the

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

> different

> > Ayanamsha much to the chagrin of real Parashara

> who

> > has not referred to any ayanamsha ghost even

> > inadvertantly in his Vishnu Purana! In other

> words,

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

> > Parashari it should have been based on a Sayana

> > Rashichakra and not on the so called Surya

> Sidhanta or

> > Lahiri or Ramana or Grihalaghava Rashichakras!

> That

> > is another proof of the ignorance of these

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

> >

> > Venkateshwar Press, Mumbai, edition/version of

> " Brihat

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

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

> by

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

> AD.

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

> > reasoning that the so called original Parashari

> was

> > not available anywhere since he had not been able

> to

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

> of

> > his best efforts!

> >

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

> Parashari

> > though that work refers to every prominent work on

> > astronomy and astrology like Brihat Jataka, Brihat

> > Samhita, Khandkhadyaka etc. etc.

> >

> > I have also an off line communication from a

> gentleman

> > that none of the libraries in the world contain

> any

> > manuscript of " Briohat Parashara Horashastram " .

> It

> > means it is just an imaginary work!

> >

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

> it

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

> > astrology " and I hope that those confusions would

> be

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

> not

> > claiming to be a predictive astrologer, though I

> have

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

> now

> > if " Vedic Jyotishis " call some predictive

> astrology as

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

> is

> > no astrology in the Vedas, since as clarified

> already,

> > Vedanga Jotisha is not a work of predictive

> astrology

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

> > Mangal,Budha etc. etc.

> >

> > THE MOST CONVINCING ARGUMENT THAT NO PARASHARI WAS

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

> V.

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

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

> VERY

> > PROLIFIC WRITER AND SUPPOSED TO BE THE " GREATEST

> VEDIC

> > ASTROLOGER OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY " . HE

> CERTAINLY

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

> THAT HE

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

vedic astrology , " Sreenadh " <sreelid

wrote:

 

Dear Mohan ji,

You should start learning little Sanskrit at first!

" Shakti Purvair " , refers to the one whose poorva (father) is Sakti,

i.e Parasara. Meaning Parasara is the son of the Rishi named Sakti.

It has nothing to do with arguments such as -they were all

predecessors to " Shakti " - and the like. Varahamihira was just

referring to some main acharyas he followed, that is all to it. Sakti

is not the name of Parasara, but his father's.

In your words:

>If this " Parashari " was not available at the time

>of Bhatotpala, it means it was not a prominent work

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

>astrologers as otherwise it certainly could not have

>gone underground!

I told you once! Just because one person (Bhattolpala)has not seen

BPHS please don't conclude that BPHS was not present at that time.

But

rather as Bhattolpala had heard about BPHS we should conclude that

BPHS was known to Battolpala as well. Do you want to say that if you

had not seen something, that thing is non existent in the world?! It

is absurd!! (Please correct this logical error and avoid this

argument

based on Bhattolpala)

Again in your words:

>Bhatotpala also has made it very clear that Yavana

>Jataka was avialable in his time!

Yes, what is wrong in it? Battolpala lived in 7th century and the

Yevan system of astrology was present here at least from 250 BC.

Several texts of Yavana stream of astrology is well known such as:

Yavana Jathakam, Spujidhwaja Hora, Meenaraja Hora (Vridha yevana hora

), Manindha Hora, Sruthakeerthi Hora and the last of them being

Manasagari Padhathi. As is well known Sruthakeerthi was a Hindu king

and Haragi (author of Manasagari) was a Brahmin!! Does the word

Yevana

means 'Greek' or not is question under discussion and research. We

should better take it just to mean a particular thought stream in

astrology.

In your words:

>if there had been predictive astrology in the

>same way it is being

>presented these days in the name of Parashari,

>Varahamihira would certainly not have referred to

>Mesha, Vrisha etc. Rahsis by their Greek names like

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

>Karupa, Tauksika, Akokara,Hrdroga,Antyabhya!

Why? Those names are there in use from the time of Sphujidhwaja,

Meena raja, Manindha etc (Yevana stream) who lived before

Varahamihira

of 6th century. Then what is wrong in the fact that Mihira mentioned

the rasi names used by them as well?

In your words:

>Thus if any Indian system

>of astrology was prevailing at the time of

>Varahamihira, why did he have to take recourse to all

>these Greek words?

Because Mihira respected even these people (Spujidhwaja/Manidha etc)

like Rishis of Arsha Kula (Skanda-Vasishta-Kousika etc)and Garga Kula

(Garga-Gargi-Gargya etc).

In your words:

>And as everybody knows, these very yogas and words

>like apoklima etc. appear in almost all the versions

>of Parashari available in the market today!

There are 2 possibilities. 1) As available today BPHS is a corrupted

text, with slokas added later. 2) One Yevanacharya referred and

respected by Parasara (of 1400 AD) and Kasaypa lived prior to that

period, and this fellow has nothing to do with the Greek invasion,

which started with Alaxandar (of 250 BC). It is also possible that

all

the acharyas who followed the system put forward by original

Yevanacharya (may be non-greek) was later came to be known as

Yevanacharyas. People like me don't like to jump into conclusions on

such issues before sufficient evidence comes up.

In your words:

>We find Vimshottari Dasha in all the versions of

>BPHS and surprisingly it is conspicuous by its absence

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

>ohter system of Dasha-bhuktis of Parashara having been

>prevailing at his time. He has referred to Jivsharma

>etc. for calculating Ayurdaya but nowehere to

>Parashara!

There are hundreds (if not thousands) of subjects Varahamihira left

due to the simple fact that he want to abbreviate the most important

issues into 543 slokas. That is why texts like Saravali originated.

Kalyana varma clearly says that Varaha hora is not enough to deal

with

many subjects like Desa, Gochara etc and that is why he is writing

that book. I can't see any fault in that.

In your words:

>Thus a question arises that if simple ways of

>delineating results by Vimshottari or Ashtottari or

>Yogini etc. had been enunciated by Parashara prior to

>Varahamihira, why did the latter not take them as it

>is and why did he have to give elaborate and

>cumbersome calculatons for calculating the same?

Because Mihira was dealing with Ayurdaya desas (Pinda desa, Moola

desa, Jeevasarmeeya desa etc for calculating life span of a person)

and not with predictive desa systems that are related to daily life.

In your words:

>Varahamihira in his Brihat Samhita, chapter 11,has

>clubbed Parshara with " Gargi, Asit,Devala and several

>others " which means that the astrologer Parashara did

>not wield any respectful position as compared to

>others.

How could he be when texts written by Vasishta, Deksha, Kousika,

Brihaspasthi, Garga, Maya, Manidha, Sruthakeerthi, Vishnu gupta

(Chanekya), Asitha, Geevasarma etc were popular at that time? It is

said that Vasishta hora contained 16,000 slokas and that Kousika hora

(Viswamithra hora)contained 32,000 slokas. Can you compare BPHS with

such texts? You will do the same if you lived in that time!

In your words:

>Now that you say there is a manuscript available in

>Sarsswati Library of Tamil Nadu, I suggest that those

>interested in the real BPHS should approach that

>library and have it published/printed without delay.

>This will give every reader/astrologer a chance to see

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

>carbon dating etc. of that manuscript has been done,

>but being a seeker after truth and facts, I would

>request you personally to approach the concerned

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

>service not only to astrologers but even to

>non-astrologer scholars since we must ferret out the

>facts as early as possible.

I am also in the same situation like you, when considering the

details of date and antiquity of the palm leaf manuscript available

in

Saraswathi Mahal library, Tamilnadu. " I would request you personally

to approach the concerned people/authorities to do so. " I will try my

best. But at the same time you should know that I am poor astrologer

living in Kerala striving for his daily bread. I don't have the

wealthy background to go for big researches. :) Just joking (but

bit

truth in it). I am not a scholar with degrees and a settled financial

background. But just a poor seeker after truth. I have supplied the

Catalog number etc in my previous mail.

Love,

Sreenadh

 

vedic astrology , Mohan Jyotishi <jyotishi231@y

....> wrote:

>

>

> Dear Mr. Sreenadh,

> It is a pleasure to see the logical reasoning behind

> your presetation. It is the real way of an academic

> discussion!

>

> Now my answers:

> I must make it very clear at the outset that these

> discussions are to thrash out the points whether there

> is predictive astrology in the Vedas or not, and it

> has nothing to do with what Mohan or Sreenadh thinks!

> Either there is predictive astrology in them or there

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

>

> Now about BPHS:

> I have all the three editions of BPHS avaialble in

> Northern India viz the original Sitaram Jha edition,

> the Nirnay Sagar Press Edition and the English

> translation edition.

>

> But before discussing their merits or demerits, let us

> discuss Brihat Jatakam and Brihat Samhita first:

>

> 1. Varahamihira has not said anywhere that he is

> following any Vedic system of predictions. This is a

> point worth pondering over sicne every scholar in the

> earlier ages harked to the Vedas for thier guidance

> and enlightenment of a subject if the Vedas had any

> thing to do with that subject.

>

> 2. Varahamihira has paid fulsome tributes to Yavanas

> whom he himself calls mlechhas to the extent that he

> wants them to be worshipped like Rishis! He is very

> catagorical that " this (jyotish shastra of predictive

> astrology as well as calculations) is established in

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

> verse 1, he has listed his predecessor astrologers as

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

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

> there was a glut of Greek astrologers prior to

> Varahamihira and the meaning of this verse is clear

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

> Parashara! It also means that Varahamihira is not

> referring to Sage Parashara since Varahamihira should

> have known that if Veda-Vyasa was supposed to have

> existed in Dwapara Yuga, his father could not have

> succeeded him after the advent of Greeks into India!

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

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

> not make the verse start from Parashara and then

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

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

> but on the other hand you pay tribute to him before

> anybody else! It is thus clear that Varahamihira was

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

> Parashara!

>

> Thus it is possible that there might have been some

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

> Parashara gotra or with Parashara sirname, but it

> certainly could not have been the Sage Parashara, the

> way Varahamihira has shown disrespect to him and

> extolled Yavanas! Varahamihira has referred to quite

> a few other astroloers also like Garga, Satyacharya,

> Vishnugupta and Jeevsharma etc. but nobody is certain

> as to what works they had compiled and how independent

> of Greek influence they were.

>

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

> of Bhatotpala, it means it was not a prominent work

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

> astrologers as otherwise it certainly could not have

> gone underground!

> Bhatotpala also has made it very clear that Yavana

> Jataka was avialable in his time!

>

> 4. The second most surprising question is that if

> Parashari had been of sage Parashara and if there had

> been predictive astrology in the same way it is being

> presented these days in the name of Parashari,

> Varahamihira would certainly not have referred to

> Mesha, Vrisha etc. Rahsis by their Greek names like

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

> Karupa, Tauksika, Akokara,Hrdroga,Antyabhya!

> Similarly, Dreshkan, Panphar, Apoklima, kendra etc.

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

> of astrology was prevailing at the time of

> Varahamihira, why did he have to take recourse to all

> these Greek words?

>

> And as everybody knows, these very yogas and words

> like apoklima etc. appear in almost all the versions

> of Parashari available in the market today!

> 5. We find Vimshottari Dasha in all the versions of

> BPHS and surprisingly it is conspicuous by its absence

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

> ohter system of Dasha-bhuktis of Parashara having been

> prevailing at his time. He has referred to Jivsharma

> etc. for calculating Ayurdaya but nowehere to

> Parashara!

>

> Thus a question arises that if simple ways of

> delineating results by Vimshottari or Ashtottari or

> Yogini etc. had been enunciated by Parashara prior to

> Varahamihira, why did the latter not take them as it

> is and why did he have to give elaborate and

> cumbersome calculatons for calculating the same?

>

> It is clear from these facts that the BHPS we are

> having today is not even a ghostly version of the

> original " Parashari " .

>

> 6. Alberuni has devoted a lot of attention to Indian

> astrology and astronomy but he has just made a passing

> reference to Parashara's astrological work. Though

> whenever Alberuni has referred to Sage parashara, he

> has qualified his statment with words like " Parashara,

> the father of Veda Vyasa " but in the case of

> Parashara's book on astrology, he has not done

> anything like that!

>

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

> clubbed Parshara with " Gargi, Asit,Devala and several

> others " which means that the astrologer Parashara did

> not wield any respectful position as compared to

> others. If it had been the sage Parashara who had

> written Parashari, it could never been have that

> disrpesct for him. Besides, in the Samhita,

> Varahamihira appears to be referring to Parshara

> Samhita, which was also available at Bhatotpala's

> time.

>

> 8. This is what the English translator of current BPHS

> has said on page 11:

> " After scrutinizing critcally the four manuscripts

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

> Devachandra Jha edition and Hindi translation of

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

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

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

> without Sanskrit verses

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

> chapters without Sanskrit slokas " .

> It measn he also was not aware of any other edition

> either on palm leaves or in any other form available

> in any library.

> Now that you say there is a manuscript available in

> Sarsswati Library of Tamil Nadu, I suggest that those

> interested in the real BPHS should approach that

> library and have it published/printed without delay.

> This will give every reader/astrologer a chance to see

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

> carbon dating etc. of that manuscript has been done,

> but being a seeker after truth and facts, I would

> request you personally to approach the concerned

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

> service not only to astrologers but even to

> non-astrologer scholars since we must ferret out the

> facts as early as possible.

> Dhanyavad.

> Mohan Jyotishi

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

> posting.

>

> > vedic astrology , " Sreenadh "

> > <sreelid> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Mohan,

> > It is right that Bhattolpala says that he heard

> > about Parasara

> > Hora and Parasara Samhita but never seen it. But

> > Bhattolpala had

> > Parasara Samhita with him! Just because Bhattolpala

> > hadn't seen the

> > text, should we conclude that Parasara Hora was

> > non-existent at that

> > time?

> >

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

> > saw Parasara Hora.

> > 2) Statement 2: Parasara Hora could be

> > non-existent at that time.

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

> > Parasara

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

> > about the text

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

> > Your argument rests on a single premise, and then

> > tries to

> > generalize that " As Bhattolpala hadn't seen Parasara

> > Hora then that

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

> > logical error!! Please

> > try to see the fact.]

> >

> > Acharya Balabhadra of 10th Centuary and Kikulangara

> > (The scholar

> > who wrote Hridyapadha vyakhya of Varahahora.

> > Hridyapadha amply

> > quotes from Rishi Horas) qotes many slokas from

> > Parasara Hora, and

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

> > you see that

> > this text was available in India even from ancient

> > times?! If you

> > are not convinced about the existence of manuscript

> > and palm leaf

> > scripts of BPH in Indian libraries, go to Sarswathi

> > Mahal library of

> > Tamilnadu, where 2 copies of the palm leaf

> > manuscript is still

> > available. I can provide you the catalog number all

> > the other

> > relevant details. It might be possible that there is

> > many 'prekshiptha slokas' in BPH available to us

> > today, and that the

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

> > BPH was a non-

> > existent text or that none of the slokas are

> > original. From the

> > ancient reference (By Balabhadra and Kikulangara) it

> > is pretty clear

> > that the BPH available today contains most of the

> > slokas qoted by

> > these uncorrepted scholers.

> > As far as the question 'Whether nirayana astrology

> > Vedic/Non-

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

> > subject, which

> > was written as an answer to Koul.

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> > vedic astrology , Mohan

> > Jyotishi

> > <jyotishi231> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Mr. Surya Rao,

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

> > he

> > > was translating/compiling the original " Brihat

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

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

> > > original Parashari, especially when no Parshari

> > ever

> > > existed!

> > >

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

> > on

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

> > This

> > > is what he has says:

> > > " After scrutinizing the four manuscripts, I have

> > for

> > > reasons of more credibility chosen the Sanskrit

> > > version rendered by Sitaram Jha "

> > > This statement of English translator itself is

> > > self-contradictory since he has not given any

> > proofs

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

> > > credible than other editions! Similarly, if the

> > > English translator had so much of faith in Sitaram

> > Jha

> > > he should have followed SuryaSidhanta

> > calculatkions,

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

> > that

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

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

> > former

> > > could write his most " mafnificent masterpiece " of

> > > " Vedic astrology " according to Lahiri Ayanamsha.

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

> > sift

> > > grain from the cdhaff!

> > >

> > > Similarly, if there had been any original

> > Parashari,

> > > there would not have been different

> > versions---none

> > > agreeing with the other! Besides, different

> > > Ayanamshas could not have been correct for one and

> > the

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

> > different

> > > Ayanamsha much to the chagrin of real Parashara

> > who

> > > has not referred to any ayanamsha ghost even

> > > inadvertantly in his Vishnu Purana! In other

> > words,

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

> > > Parashari it should have been based on a Sayana

> > > Rashichakra and not on the so called Surya

> > Sidhanta or

> > > Lahiri or Ramana or Grihalaghava Rashichakras!

> > That

> > > is another proof of the ignorance of these

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

> > >

> > > Venkateshwar Press, Mumbai, edition/version of

> > " Brihat

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

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

> > by

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

> > AD.

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

> > > reasoning that the so called original Parashari

> > was

> > > not available anywhere since he had not been able

> > to

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

> > of

> > > his best efforts!

> > >

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

> > Parashari

> > > though that work refers to every prominent work on

> > > astronomy and astrology like Brihat Jataka, Brihat

> > > Samhita, Khandkhadyaka etc. etc.

> > >

> > > I have also an off line communication from a

> > gentleman

> > > that none of the libraries in the world contain

> > any

> > > manuscript of " Briohat Parashara Horashastram " .

> > It

> > > means it is just an imaginary work!

> > >

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

> > it

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

> > > astrology " and I hope that those confusions would

> > be

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

> > not

> > > claiming to be a predictive astrologer, though I

> > have

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

> > now

> > > if " Vedic Jyotishis " call some predictive

> > astrology as

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

> > is

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

> > already,

> > > Vedanga Jotisha is not a work of predictive

> > astrology

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

> > > Mangal,Budha etc. etc.

> > >

> > > THE MOST CONVINCING ARGUMENT THAT NO PARASHARI WAS

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

> > V.

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

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

> > VERY

> > > PROLIFIC WRITER AND SUPPOSED TO BE THE " GREATEST

> > VEDIC

> > > ASTROLOGER OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY " . HE

> > CERTAINLY

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

> > THAT HE

> >

> === message truncated ===

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

vedic astrology , " Sreenadh " <sreelid

wrote:

 

Dear Menon,

You are right in pointing out this fact. The Yevana stream of

astrological thought has a great Guru-Sishya parampara and should be

respected. They include-

1. Yevaneswara (Considerd as Rishi)

2. Spujidhwaja Yevana (An Indian King of Gujarath)

3. Meena Raja Yevana (Also known as Vridha yevana - Gujarath king?)

4. Sritha Keerthi (A Hindu King)

5. Haraji (Who wrote the Manasagari Jathaka padhathi - A Gujarathi

Brahmin)

Most probably the family lost caste and that is why they are

mentioned as 'Mlescha' by many. But of course we should admit that

they have some connection out side India, which is indicted by the

words they used, and also due to the fact that the people lived out

side India were known as 'Mlescha' at the time of Manusmrithi. The

name of Yevanewara who lived prior to Alaxandar was included in the

18

Rishis (by Parasara, Kasyapa and many others) who are the founders of

the great astrological wisdom.

Love,

Sreenadh

 

 

" Kochu Menon " <kochu1@>

Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:51 am

RE: [vedic astrology] Re: condemning the bible of astrology -

 

Mohan Jyotishi kochu1tz

Offline

Send Email

 

is this that simple?? I wonder

 

Satyaacharya speaks of yavana in the sloka -

 

na kumbha lagnam shubhamaaha satya

 

naa nyadhaaH yavannaH vadanti

 

and in Varaha Hora

 

Mihira says referring to drekkana swaroopas

 

iti yavanopadishtam; iti yavanairudaahridam

 

IMHO these references are to

 

Sphoorjjitadhwaja Yavanaraja and his descendants and not to Greeks.

 

This great King of Gujarat wrote Yavana Jataka, vruddha yavana jataka

etc. Till a copy was found in Nepal Maharaja's library, the books

were

deemed lost. It was published by Harvard U. The publisher claimed it

is " Greek Astrology " on the basis of the author's name being Yavana

Raja. The introduction in the original text mentions his lineage and

that he is a King in present day Gujarat.

 

Later there are indications that the family lost caste - that maybe

the reason for referring to this lineage as Mlecha.

 

I am not an expert. These are random thoughts.

 

--- End forwarded message ---