Some thoughts on BPHS and Jaimini Sutra

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

Below given is some of my thoughts about BPHS and Jaimini Sutra

======================================================

BPHS and Jaimini Sutra

-----------------------

The currently available BPHS is a text that deviates a lot from the

Ancient Indian System of Astrology as depicted in slokas available

from well known Rishi horas like – Skanda hora, Brihat Prajaptya

Vasishta Hora, Kausika Hora, Garga Hora, Saunaka Hora etc and the

medieval texts like Brihajjatataka, Sarvali etc. It is not even in

tune with the Yavana stream of astrology (a deviation of Ancient

Indian stream) as depicted in Yavana Jataka, Spujidhwaja Hora,

Meenaraja Hora etc and the medieval texts on the same stream like

Manasagari etc. The concepts such as Argala, Pada (Arudha pada, Bhava

pada, Upapada etc), Karakamsa (Atma karaka, Amatya karaka etc), Rasi

drishti are unique to BPHS, and Jaimini Sutra. The first impression of

anyone who reads BPHS and Jaimini sutra would be that –

• Both of them are incomplete texts

• Either Jaimini adopted Parasara system or Parasara adopted Jaimini

system.

Parasara is mentioned among the 18 Acharyas of astrology, but we can't

Jaimini anywhere in the many lists available! Even though many (above

mentioned) ancient and mediaeval texts mention Parasara, they not even

indicate or refer to the above unique concepts discussed in BPHS, as

if it was not there at all in the then available BPHS! The natural

question arises in our mind are –

• What is the period of Parasara and Jaimini? (When BPHS and Jaimini

sutra originated?)

• Where in India this system of prediction was practiced from the

ancient past?

• If these texts got modified when and where?

Available well written texts such as Bhattolpala vyakhya of Brihat

Samhita, and Adbhuta sagaraH of Vallalasena (A king of 12th century

AD) refers Parasara and both of them quotes extensively from Parasara

Samhita. Bhattolpala says, " It is said that Parasara has written texts

for all the 3 branches of astrology (such s Parasara Sidhanta,

Parasara Samhita and Parasara Hora). But I have seen only Parasara

Samhita and not Parasara Hora " . It is possible that even though BPHS

was not available to Bhattolpala the same existed at the other parts

of the country as evident from the many available rudimentary

manuscripts of the same in various manuscript libraries such as

Saraswati Mahal, Tanjavoor.

As per a sloka of Parasara Samhita quoted by both Bhattolpala and

Vallalasena about seasons and Ayana, in the period of Parasara

Uttarayana started from the beginning of Sravishta and Dakshinayana

started at the middle of Aslesha. This is possible only around the

period of BC 1400. Thus it is evident that BPHS originated around this

period. Thus it becomes clear that the Parasara who wrote Parasara

Sidhanta, Samhita and Hora is one different from the father of Vyasa

(the author of Mahabharata epic). Was it an original reference by

Parasara himself as per the observations he made or was he quoting

from somewhere? We don't know. If the currently available BPHS is as

old as BC 1400, how can we justify the absence of reference to

concepts that are unique to Parasara such as Argala, Rasi drishti,

Pada, Karakamsa etc in texts written up to the 6th century AD?! We

can't! This points to the fact that this age old text BPHS originated

around BC 1400 got corrupted due to the interpolations done possibly

many times between 1st to 10th century AD. How can we say so? What is

our evidence? Yes, we have some literary evidence for the same.

BPHS (ch 41 sloka 32 – santhanam edition) refers to " salivahana " , a

king who lived in the 1st century AD. (The salivahana became the king

and an era based on the start date of his rulership is still in use,

which starts from AD 72). If it was a prediction given by sage

Parasara who can visualize past-present-future; the reference would

have been to better known kings such as Chandra Gupta Mourya, Asoka,

or even to the British rule of India. But as we could easily guess,

this is not a prediction by sage Parasara, but the result of some

interpolation effort by some corrupted mind who lived in the period of

Salivahana or after that! Thus it is evident that corrupting the

original BPHS started possibly in 1st century AD itself.

Even medieval texts like " Sambhu Hora Prakash " refers to Parasara as a

modern author! Punja Rajacharya who was an astrologer lived in the

period of Sambhu raja dates Parasara Sidhanta as a text AFTER the

period of Soma Sidhanta, Brahma Sidhata, Surya sidhanta, Vasishta

Sidhata, Paulisa sidhanta and Lomasa sidhanta in order! Essentially it

indicates that Parasara Sidhanta originated possibly somewhere around

1st century AD, and the mention of Salivahana of 1st century AD could

be supportive to the same! But still giving preference to earlier

reference of seasons let us assume that it was just and interpolation

effort that happened at that time, even though we feel totally

doubtful about this text. The period of Parasara sidhanta is the

period of Parasara itself. If the Parasara who wrote Parasara

skandhtraya (Parasara sidhanta, Parasara Samhita and Parasara Hora) is

this modern, he is not at all the puranic fame Parasara but a modern

astrologer born in the

 

But till 5th or 6th century AD, BPHS must have maintained uncorrupted

credibility to an extend, as is evident from the fact that no texts

till that period refers to those unique concepts (such as Argala)

mentioned in BPHS anywhere. Thus it is clear that at least till 6th

century AD these concepts were not part of BPHS. It seems that it is

the origin of Jaimini sutra and the related prediction system that

started the full swing interpolation of BPHS. But what is the period

of Jaimini sutra, a text attributed to Sage Jaimini who finds no

mention in the Acharya list of Astrology? Is it an ancient text or a

medieval creation? It is cute to note that Jaimini sutra extensively

uses the KTPY number notation system originated around 4th century AD!

Vararuchi of 4th century is thought to be the originator of KTPY

number notation system. We find the same extensively used in Jaimini

Sutra! There is not even a single evidence for the use of KTPY

notation in any datable texts prior to 4th century AD. This clearly

shows that the text Jaimini Sutra is a text originated after 4th

century for sure, and possibly after 6th century AD (the period of

Varaha Mihira). No wonder this modern sage Jaimini to whom Jaimini

sutra is ascribed to finds no mention in the age old acharyas list of

astrology quoted by many including Panini and Mihira (No not even by

Parasara of BPHS himself).

If these new systems mentioned in BPHS and Jaimini sutra was available

on those days Mihira, Bhattolapa of 10th century must have mentioned

the same, or at least indicated the same somewhere. We fail to find a

reference of these systems even in Adbhuta SagaraH (16th century) and

Hora Sara of Balbhadra (17th century). Jaimini sutra must have been a

text that originated possibly somewhere between 6th and 15th century

AD, and when the same became popular, the people who followed the same

must have interpolated the Vridha karika slokas that refer to the same

in BPHS as well. But for sure we can confidently state that till 4th

century AD (the period at which KTPY notation system originated) no

Jaimini sutra was there, and BPHS was in its original state with out

any reference to methods such as Argala, Pada, Karakamsa etc. Now the

major question is –

• If this much interpolated how can we trust this text?

We should also not that even the astrologers who emphasis that they

follow BPHS, resort to the use of ancient system of indian astrology,

keeping aside all these Argala, Pada, Karakamsa etc when it comes to

actual prediction and result derivation! A thousand dasas and taking

any sign as Lagna (Arudha Lagna, Varnada Lagna, Prana Pada, Hora

Lagna, Ghati Lagna and what not!) become useless and they resort to

Vimsottari dasa and Natal Lagna for result derivation! Yes, Vimsottari

dasa system is a valuable contribution of sage Parasara, and the same

is true for the results predicted for the placement of house lords in

various houses. Note that these things are in tune with the ancient

indian astrological system, and possibly they must have been part of

the original BPHS itself, originated around BC 1400. The blame goes

not to sage Parasara but the culprits who corrupted this text with

their made up slokas in later years.

Further scrutiny and study of these texts may reveal better clarifying

information regarding the location of origin of Jaimini sutra and the

interpolated version of BPHS.

Note: The same is the story of sage Kaasyapa (the person born in

Kasyapa gotra ), who finds no mention among the 18 acharyas of

astrology. In an available quote from Kaasyapa samhita (quoted in

Adbhuta sagara), Kaasyapa says that " In the PAST the Uttarayana

started from Sravishta and Dakshinayana from the Middle of Aslesha.

But now it is not so " . This clearly indicates that he lived AFTER the

period when Uttarayana started at Sravishta, i.e., AFTER BC 1400, and

possibly many years later! These two sages seem to be of AD origin

than BC.

====================================================

Love,

Sreenadh