Guest guest Posted October 9, 2007 Report Share Posted October 9, 2007 Dear Mr.Sandeeo The results of The Sun being in Thulaam (Libra) never needs to be bad always. If the sun attains neecha bhanga the results will turn out to be good through the inherent nature of the planet.If not the planet gains the strength that way, and if the position is such that both Sun and Venus being debilitated and not perfectly attaing neechabanga, it would generate fresh fillip with a Rajayoga which will boost the energy of the native so as to rise like a phinix. There is every possibility of Mercury being conjuncted with either Venus or Sun. If Mercury is with Sun there will be an exchage taking place between Mercury and Venus ie. The PARIVARDHANA which may produce excellent results if Mercury happens to be a benefactor from moon rasi. The other way too in the event of Mercury stands abide by the Sun in Lagna it may effect some remarkable changes to stabilize the the strength of Sun being as a bonafide 9th lord being in Lagna. Likewise so many other factors to be taken in to account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 Thanks a lot!Even I read few things about it. But there are few more conjuctions and aspects in the horoscope that I want to get clear so I bring this topic under discussion. Tula (Libra) is the lagnaIn the first house itself following planets are placed....Sun, Mercury, Mars and Rahu.As Sun the lord of 11th house....thats lead to neechabhanga. Is this true?What would be the results of mercury as its being the lord of house 9th and 12th. And both of this houses are un-aspected and strong. Also the lord of lagna (Venus) is in 2nd house along with moon. And aspected by Jupiter ® situated in 8th house.As we see there is parivatana yoga in the native's horoscope. Viz lord of first (Venus) is in second and lord of second (Mars) is in first. What kind of this combination will do? Also the moon in second (Scorpion) is again deliberated but aspected by Jupiter. Still is it forming GajaKeshri Yoga?RegardsSandeepOn 10/10/07, ganeganex <ganeganex wrote: Dear Mr.Sandeeo The results of The Sun being in Thulaam (Libra) never needs to be bad always. If the sun attains neecha bhanga the results will turn out to be good through the inherent nature of the planet.If not the planet gains the strength that way, and if the position is such that both Sun and Venus being debilitated and not perfectly attaing neechabanga, it would generate fresh fillip with a Rajayoga which will boost the energy of the native so as to rise like a phinix. There is every possibility of Mercury being conjuncted with either Venus or Sun. If Mercury is with Sun there will be an exchage taking place between Mercury and Venus ie. The PARIVARDHANA which may produce excellent results if Mercury happens to be a benefactor from moon rasi. The other way too in the event of Mercury stands abide by the Sun in Lagna it may effect some remarkable changes to stabilize the the strength of Sun being as a bonafide 9th lord being in Lagna. Likewise so many other factors to be taken in to account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Dear Manoj ji, First of all thanks for a beautiful mail, and bringing in a controversial subject to light. While I was reading through the mail, expressing beautiful and sincere opinions and doubts, I was wondering whether I should get involved and respond to it or not. But when the mail reached the last paras you made it clear and there remained no way I could escape from this thread. Possibly you (and now me) has tapped on top of the pandora's box and now there is no escape from a controversy and a very heated discussion and argumentation it seems. So let me too express my opinions. I will try to make it as brief as possible. In ancient india many schcol of astrological thoughts were popular just like the numerous schools of philosophy. The most popular and important of them where - * Arsha School of Astrolgy - Sages like Skanda, Daksha, Vasishta, Kousika Viswamitra, Sounaka, Soma, Suray where the acharyas of this oldest and most ancient system. * Jain School of astrology - Sages like Garga, Vriddha Garga, Gargi, Rishi putra etc were the acharyas of this system. Just like normal astrology, this branch gave must importance to Nimittas as well, and is considered the originators of a systematic approach to Nimitta. * Yavana School of Astrology - Possibly this is the school of Gujaraji Zorashtrian astrology. Sages like Yavanacharya and scholars like Sphujidhwaja, Meenaraja, Srutakeerti etc the acharyas of this system. This system is of later origin. * Vedic Astrology - Mainly this is a branch of stellar astrology. The system and approach followed by them were not much centered on signs but instead on Tithi, Nakshtras, Luni-Solar months and Muhuratas. This is an old system - clear reconstruction of this school of though is yet to happen. They must be the originators of a systematic approach to Muhurta. These being the basic schools of thoughts let us analyze the other schools of thoughts popular now a days - * Parasara school of astrology - Parasara school is an off-shoot of Arsha school of astrology. But the currently available Santanam compilation of BPHS that is an amalgam of Parashari and Jaimini methods DOES NOT accurately depict the true Parasari school of astrology. If we chip away all the new concepts mentioned in Jaimini sutra and its commentaries from Santanam BPHS, then we may get a glimpse of the old Parashari system. It is a mix of Ancient arsha shool of thought + some excellent dasa systems like Kalachakra dasa, Vimsottari etc. Ancient arsha school was depended on dasa like Moola dasa, Pinda dasa etc alone and the innovation by Parashari Dasa systems was a great one. Parashara must be the originator of a systematic approach to Dasa systems. Certainly currently available quotes that are attributed to Parasara are not that old, and NOT written by parasara; but the concepts and teachings inherent in them point to the original teacher the ancient parasara of BC 1400. This we should accept and appreciate. Because this only is true for other schools as well. For example - the currently available garga quotes may not be written by the ancient sage garga of BC 1100, the skanda words may not be by skanda and so on. i.e. When the language and script changed, some one must have modified the literature (the words and meter) and kept the content to suit the changing times. Thus the school of thought remains the same, the concept remains the same - but the language changes. Interpolations would be usually minimum in such cases due to the high respect towards original sage, the originator of the tradition and school of astrology. This sincerity and respect towards the school of thought got lost only after 16th, 17th century when too much interpolations started appearing on the scene - most possibly due to the unavailability of ancient scripts especially in places were the old texts were unavailable but the believers were present. Jaimini sutra is an example of such a text. * Jaimini School of astrology - Actually poor sage Jaimni is in no way connected with this system. This system originated somewhere around the borders of Andha and Orissa in or around 15th to 20th century and now became popular and got interpolated even to the modern version of BPHS - the Santanam compilation of the amalgum of Parashara and Jaimini systems; Santanam's amalgamation of the North Indian, Orissa and Andha astrology. Most of the methods presented this text Jaimini Sutra are all secondary techniques similar to as available in Prashna texts, which indicate its later origin. The text itself seems to be the result of crooked intentional to 'make-up a text and attribute an ancient sage', so as to compile the local (Andhra+Orissa) astrology into a single text and give it an aura of being an old system. Who ever started this act, purposefully selecting the Sutra style, succeeded in it - and thus we have a Jaimini Sutra today, having the root of all controversies, making the Parashara system impure, causing confusion to many. I am not saying that Jaimni system is not good. Actually IT IS good, just like any local astrological tradition (like Prahna marga), that finds it original roots in Arsha school and its base concepts itself and then innovate using secondary techniques. But when someone forgets the roots (the base), secondary techniques becomes useless. That is why Jaimini system always needs the help of Parashari, remains to be some what of a commentary of BPHS amended with secondary techniques. But the Parashari system can stand alone, become clean and pure if willingly wipe off the secondary Jaimini techniques. Jaimini system can stand taking the help of - either Parasara, or Arsha, or Garga or Yavana. It does not make much difference to the secondary Jaimni approach which primary base it depend upon. Since the primary base covers much common ground (whether it be Arsha, Parasara, Garga or Yavana) it will not make much difference. Anyway, the Andhra Jaimini system should appreciated for its innovation and blamed for its non-sincere mystifying about its origin and truth. This is my personal opinion. * Lal Kitab astrology - This is another branch of Arsha school of astrology. This system originated in Himachal pradesh. The original Sanskrit quotes related to this system is no more available; but the system is unique, systematic and beautiful. It is still in tune with ancient system even though many innovations are present. Too much importance to remedies are destroying this system and it is high time that Lal kitab astrology is freed from remedies and upayas and brought back to the original systematic approach towards natal horoscopy and basic chart reading techniques. Traditional astrologers has much to learn from lal kitab astrologer and vice versa - about ancient astrology; its techniques and approach. * Ramala school of astrology (astrology of dice) - This system is an off-shoot of Jain school of astrology. At the end let us come to the question Manoj ji asks -//> So after a really circular route, I think the pivotal question becomes, is BPHS as it stands today, really "Ancient Indian Astrology"? // My answer would be that - * BPHS as it stands today is NOT really 'Ancient Indian Astrology' (actually this answer is inherent in Manoj ji's question itself and is clearly his opinion as well). But we should not forget that true Parashari alone (i.e. if it shreds of all Jaimini secondary techniques) would be a true representative of ancient indian astrology. There fore it is better to clarify our statement and say that - Parashari school of astrology is ancient indian astrology; but the Santanam BPHS is no more a true representative of original Parashari school of astrology. Current BPHS is not ancient indian astrology, but an amalgam of medieval andhra orissa astrology with some quotes from ancient parashari school of astrology. //Is it fair to use that as an argument to state that Parashari + Jaimini principles, used in an integrated approach, has classical sanction?// No - they don't. Actually it is clear that Manoj ji also has the same opinion. Or better, that would be the sincere opinion of any one with research attitude, probing into this subject and similar questions. But let us not forget that "Truth is not always pleasant"; so would be the above expressed opinions. Therefore definitely this should cause a controversy to start - I believe. The numerous followers and ardent believers of current BPHS and current Jaimini sutra is not going leave us. So enjoy! Love and regards,Sreenadh , Manoj Chandran <chandran_manoj wrote:>> Dear Manoj (Mouji) Ji,> >  Here is the problem. It is very difficult to objectively validate the efficacy of one particular theory, especially if it is used in an integrated approach (Parashari + Jaimini). If the practising astrologers are also intelligent and strong in the Parashari principles, they will get the predictions correct any way. So that does not prove that their Jamini principles are accurate, does it? This is why I dont see how these things can be categorically proven, one way or the other. I think it is up to each of us to evaluate each system and adopt whichever passes our practical tests.> > I also feel (my humble pesonal opinion) that those that argue that these two principles should not be mixed together may have a valid point. Jyotish was always an orally transmitted system. If this system was truly an integrated approach, why aren't there more oral traditions with such integrated approach? Why aren't there more classics supporting this integrated approach? Was Parashara really the author of the BPHS as it is currently published, or is the current version a compilation effort from various sources and when that effort was done, different systems were mixed together?> So when some one says, "Parashara says this so it must be true (regarding the integrated system)", then what they are really saying is "The author of BPHS says this, so it must be true". Is the author of BPHS really Parashara?> > Ofcourse I am neither a sanskrit scholar nor an accomplished astrologer but that does not prevent me from having a probing mind and ask these questions. However, if some one says " Look, I dont care if Parashara really authored this or not, I tried these two different techniques together, I experimented with it, it works, I like it, so leave me alone", then I am fine with that too. Experimentation is good as long as we declare it is an experiment and it is a novel approach, but not really an "ancient approach".> > So after a really circular route, I think the pivotal question becomes, is BPHS as it stands today, really "Ancient Indian Astrology"? Is it fair to use that as an argument to state that Parashari + Jaimini principles, used in an integrated approach, has classical sanction?> > May be Sreenadh Ji and others throw some light on this?>  > Regards,>  -Manoj>  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Respected Sreenadh ji, I appreciate the article from core of my heart. You are really historian for Ancient Indian Astrology. Love and regards--- On Sat, 7/18/09, Sreenadh <sreesog wrote: Sreenadh <sreesog Re: Ancient Indian Astrology Date: Saturday, July 18, 2009, 11:57 AM Dear Manoj ji, First of all thanks for a beautiful mail, and bringing in a controversial subject to light. While I was reading through the mail, expressing beautiful and sincere opinions and doubts, I was wondering whether I should get involved and respond to it or not. But when the mail reached the last paras you made it clear and there remained no way I could escape from this thread. Possibly you (and now me) has tapped on top of the pandora's box and now there is no escape from a controversy and a very heated discussion and argumentation it seems. So let me too express my opinions. I will try to make it as brief as possible. In ancient india many schcol of astrological thoughts were popular just like the numerous schools of philosophy. The most popular and important of them where - * Arsha School of Astrolgy - Sages like Skanda, Daksha, Vasishta, Kousika Viswamitra, Sounaka, Soma, Suray where the acharyas of this oldest and most ancient system. * Jain School of astrology - Sages like Garga, Vriddha Garga, Gargi, Rishi putra etc were the acharyas of this system. Just like normal astrology, this branch gave must importance to Nimittas as well, and is considered the originators of a systematic approach to Nimitta. * Yavana School of Astrology - Possibly this is the school of Gujaraji Zorashtrian astrology. Sages like Yavanacharya and scholars like Sphujidhwaja, Meenaraja, Srutakeerti etc the acharyas of this system. This system is of later origin. * Vedic Astrology - Mainly this is a branch of stellar astrology. The system and approach followed by them were not much centered on signs but instead on Tithi, Nakshtras, Luni-Solar months and Muhuratas. This is an old system - clear reconstruction of this school of though is yet to happen. They must be the originators of a systematic approach to Muhurta. These being the basic schools of thoughts let us analyze the other schools of thoughts popular now a days - * Parasara school of astrology - Parasara school is an off-shoot of Arsha school of astrology. But the currently available Santanam compilation of BPHS that is an amalgam of Parashari and Jaimini methods DOES NOT accurately depict the true Parasari school of astrology. If we chip away all the new concepts mentioned in Jaimini sutra and its commentaries from Santanam BPHS, then we may get a glimpse of the old Parashari system. It is a mix of Ancient arsha shool of thought + some excellent dasa systems like Kalachakra dasa, Vimsottari etc. Ancient arsha school was depended on dasa like Moola dasa, Pinda dasa etc alone and the innovation by Parashari Dasa systems was a great one. Parashara must be the originator of a systematic approach to Dasa systems. Certainly currently available quotes that are attributed to Parasara are not that old, and NOT written by parasara; but the concepts and teachings inherent in them point to the original teacher the ancient parasara of BC 1400. This we should accept and appreciate. Because this only is true for other schools as well. For example - the currently available garga quotes may not be written by the ancient sage garga of BC 1100, the skanda words may not be by skanda and so on. i.e. When the language and script changed, some one must have modified the literature (the words and meter) and kept the content to suit the changing times. Thus the school of thought remains the same, the concept remains the same - but the language changes. Interpolations would be usually minimum in such cases due to the high respect towards original sage, the originator of the tradition and school of astrology. This sincerity and respect towards the school of thought got lost only after 16th, 17th century when too much interpolations started appearing on the scene - most possibly due to the unavailability of ancient scripts especially in places were the old texts were unavailable but the believers were present. Jaimini sutra is an example of such a text. * Jaimini School of astrology - Actually poor sage Jaimni is in no way connected with this system. This system originated somewhere around the borders of Andha and Orissa in or around 15th to 20th century and now became popular and got interpolated even to the modern version of BPHS - the Santanam compilation of the amalgum of Parashara and Jaimini systems; Santanam's amalgamation of the North Indian, Orissa and Andha astrology. Most of the methods presented this text Jaimini Sutra are all secondary techniques similar to as available in Prashna texts, which indicate its later origin. The text itself seems to be the result of crooked intentional to 'make-up a text and attribute an ancient sage', so as to compile the local (Andhra+Orissa) astrology into a single text and give it an aura of being an old system. Who ever started this act, purposefully selecting the Sutra style, succeeded in it - and thus we have a Jaimini Sutra today, having the root of all controversies, making the Parashara system impure, causing confusion to many. I am not saying that Jaimni system is not good. Actually IT IS good, just like any local astrological tradition (like Prahna marga), that finds it original roots in Arsha school and its base concepts itself and then innovate using secondary techniques. But when someone forgets the roots (the base), secondary techniques becomes useless. That is why Jaimini system always needs the help of Parashari, remains to be some what of a commentary of BPHS amended with secondary techniques. But the Parashari system can stand alone, become clean and pure if willingly wipe off the secondary Jaimini techniques. Jaimini system can stand taking the help of - either Parasara, or Arsha, or Garga or Yavana. It does not make much difference to the secondary Jaimni approach which primary base it depend upon. Since the primary base covers much common ground (whether it be Arsha, Parasara, Garga or Yavana) it will not make much difference. Anyway, the Andhra Jaimini system should appreciated for its innovation and blamed for its non-sincere mystifying about its origin and truth. This is my personal opinion. * Lal Kitab astrology - This is another branch of Arsha school of astrology. This system originated in Himachal pradesh. The original Sanskrit quotes related to this system is no more available; but the system is unique, systematic and beautiful. It is still in tune with ancient system even though many innovations are present. Too much importance to remedies are destroying this system and it is high time that Lal kitab astrology is freed from remedies and upayas and brought back to the original systematic approach towards natal horoscopy and basic chart reading techniques. Traditional astrologers has much to learn from lal kitab astrologer and vice versa - about ancient astrology; its techniques and approach. * Ramala school of astrology (astrology of dice) - This system is an off-shoot of Jain school of astrology. At the end let us come to the question Manoj ji asks -//> So after a really circular route, I think the pivotal question becomes, is BPHS as it stands today, really "Ancient Indian Astrology"? // My answer would be that - * BPHS as it stands today is NOT really 'Ancient Indian Astrology' (actually this answer is inherent in Manoj ji's question itself and is clearly his opinion as well). But we should not forget that true Parashari alone (i.e. if it shreds of all Jaimini secondary techniques) would be a true representative of ancient indian astrology. There fore it is better to clarify our statement and say that - Parashari school of astrology is ancient indian astrology; but the Santanam BPHS is no more a true representative of original Parashari school of astrology. Current BPHS is not ancient indian astrology, but an amalgam of medieval andhra orissa astrology with some quotes from ancient parashari school of astrology. //Is it fair to use that as an argument to state that Parashari + Jaimini principles, used in an integrated approach, has classical sanction?// No - they don't. Actually it is clear that Manoj ji also has the same opinion. Or better, that would be the sincere opinion of any one with research attitude, probing into this subject and similar questions. But let us not forget that "Truth is not always pleasant"; so would be the above expressed opinions. Therefore definitely this should cause a controversy to start - I believe. The numerous followers and ardent believers of current BPHS and current Jaimini sutra is not going leave us. So enjoy! Love and regards,Sreenadh , Manoj Chandran <chandran_manoj wrote:>> Dear Manoj (Mouji) Ji,> >  Here is the problem. It is very difficult to objectively validate the efficacy of one particular theory, especially if it is used in an integrated approach (Parashari + Jaimini). If the practising astrologers are also intelligent and strong in the Parashari principles, they will get the predictions correct any way. So that does not prove that their Jamini principles are accurate, does it? This is why I dont see how these things can be categorically proven, one way or the other. I think it is up to each of us to evaluate each system and adopt whichever passes our practical tests.> > I also feel (my humble pesonal opinion) that those that argue that these two principles should not be mixed together may have a valid point. Jyotish was always an orally transmitted system. If this system was truly an integrated approach, why aren't there more oral traditions with such integrated approach? Why aren't there more classics supporting this integrated approach? Was Parashara really the author of the BPHS as it is currently published, or is the current version a compilation effort from various sources and when that effort was done, different systems were mixed together?> So when some one says, "Parashara says this so it must be true (regarding the integrated system)", then what they are really saying is "The author of BPHS says this, so it must be true". Is the author of BPHS really Parashara?> > Ofcourse I am neither a sanskrit scholar nor an accomplished astrologer but that does not prevent me from having a probing mind and ask these questions. However, if some one says " Look, I dont care if Parashara really authored this or not, I tried these two different techniques together, I experimented with it, it works, I like it, so leave me alone", then I am fine with that too. Experimentation is good as long as we declare it is an experiment and it is a novel approach, but not really an "ancient approach".> > So after a really circular route, I think the pivotal question becomes, is BPHS as it stands today, really "Ancient Indian Astrology"? Is it fair to use that as an argument to state that Parashari + Jaimini principles, used in an integrated approach, has classical sanction?> > May be Sreenadh Ji and others throw some light on this?>  > Regards,>  -Manoj>  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Thanks. , " S.C. Kursija " <sckursija wrote: > > Respected Sreenadh ji, > I appreciate the article from core of my heart. You are really historian for Ancient Indian Astrology. > Love and regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Pranams,Mr.Sreenadhji,Great ! what a threshing commentaries on Indian Astrology in a net shell ! It simply tasted like swallowing "Pazhani Panchamirtham" ! Sir,Your segregation of available ancient,medieval and modern astrological work seems marvelous ;but I hope your detailed future write ups on the header explaining the your rational behind severally grouping of the scriptures would add more taste and throw more scientific light on your work and on the history of Indian Astrology !I thank Mr. Manoj ji, the desert king! who stood the reason to tap the beautiful write of Mr.Sreenadh ji, the deciduous woodland monarch!GOD BLESS BOTH TO PRESENT US MORE SUCH FUTURE TASTY SAMARAATHANA !! Regards / Dhananjayan--- On Sat, 18/7/09, Sreenadh <sreesog wrote:Sreenadh <sreesog Re: Ancient Indian Astrology Date: Saturday, 18 July, 2009, 11:57 AM Dear Manoj ji, First of all thanks for a beautiful mail, and bringing in a controversial subject to light. While I was reading through the mail, expressing beautiful and sincere opinions and doubts, I was wondering whether I should get involved and respond to it or not. But when the mail reached the last paras you made it clear and there remained no way I could escape from this thread. Possibly you (and now me) has tapped on top of the pandora's box and now there is no escape from a controversy and a very heated discussion and argumentation it seems. So let me too express my opinions. I will try to make it as brief as possible. In ancient india many schcol of astrological thoughts were popular just like the numerous schools of philosophy. The most popular and important of them where - * Arsha School of Astrolgy - Sages like Skanda, Daksha, Vasishta, Kousika Viswamitra, Sounaka, Soma, Suray where the acharyas of this oldest and most ancient system. * Jain School of astrology - Sages like Garga, Vriddha Garga, Gargi, Rishi putra etc were the acharyas of this system. Just like normal astrology, this branch gave must importance to Nimittas as well, and is considered the originators of a systematic approach to Nimitta. * Yavana School of Astrology - Possibly this is the school of Gujaraji Zorashtrian astrology. Sages like Yavanacharya and scholars like Sphujidhwaja, Meenaraja, Srutakeerti etc the acharyas of this system. This system is of later origin. * Vedic Astrology - Mainly this is a branch of stellar astrology. The system and approach followed by them were not much centered on signs but instead on Tithi, Nakshtras, Luni-Solar months and Muhuratas. This is an old system - clear reconstruction of this school of though is yet to happen. They must be the originators of a systematic approach to Muhurta. These being the basic schools of thoughts let us analyze the other schools of thoughts popular now a days - * Parasara school of astrology - Parasara school is an off-shoot of Arsha school of astrology. But the currently available Santanam compilation of BPHS that is an amalgam of Parashari and Jaimini methods DOES NOT accurately depict the true Parasari school of astrology. If we chip away all the new concepts mentioned in Jaimini sutra and its commentaries from Santanam BPHS, then we may get a glimpse of the old Parashari system. It is a mix of Ancient arsha shool of thought + some excellent dasa systems like Kalachakra dasa, Vimsottari etc. Ancient arsha school was depended on dasa like Moola dasa, Pinda dasa etc alone and the innovation by Parashari Dasa systems was a great one. Parashara must be the originator of a systematic approach to Dasa systems. Certainly currently available quotes that are attributed to Parasara are not that old, and NOT written by parasara; but the concepts and teachings inherent in them point to the original teacher the ancient parasara of BC 1400. This we should accept and appreciate. Because this only is true for other schools as well. For example - the currently available garga quotes may not be written by the ancient sage garga of BC 1100, the skanda words may not be by skanda and so on. i.e. When the language and script changed, some one must have modified the literature (the words and meter) and kept the content to suit the changing times. Thus the school of thought remains the same, the concept remains the same - but the language changes. Interpolations would be usually minimum in such cases due to the high respect towards original sage, the originator of the tradition and school of astrology. This sincerity and respect towards the school of thought got lost only after 16th, 17th century when too much interpolations started appearing on the scene - most possibly due to the unavailability of ancient scripts especially in places were the old texts were unavailable but the believers were present. Jaimini sutra is an example of such a text. * Jaimini School of astrology - Actually poor sage Jaimni is in no way connected with this system. This system originated somewhere around the borders of Andha and Orissa in or around 15th to 20th century and now became popular and got interpolated even to the modern version of BPHS - the Santanam compilation of the amalgum of Parashara and Jaimini systems; Santanam's amalgamation of the North Indian, Orissa and Andha astrology. Most of the methods presented this text Jaimini Sutra are all secondary techniques similar to as available in Prashna texts, which indicate its later origin. The text itself seems to be the result of crooked intentional to 'make-up a text and attribute an ancient sage', so as to compile the local (Andhra+Orissa) astrology into a single text and give it an aura of being an old system. Who ever started this act, purposefully selecting the Sutra style, succeeded in it - and thus we have a Jaimini Sutra today, having the root of all controversies, making the Parashara system impure, causing confusion to many. I am not saying that Jaimni system is not good. Actually IT IS good, just like any local astrological tradition (like Prahna marga), that finds it original roots in Arsha school and its base concepts itself and then innovate using secondary techniques. But when someone forgets the roots (the base), secondary techniques becomes useless. That is why Jaimini system always needs the help of Parashari, remains to be some what of a commentary of BPHS amended with secondary techniques.. But the Parashari system can stand alone, become clean and pure if willingly wipe off the secondary Jaimini techniques. Jaimini system can stand taking the help of - either Parasara, or Arsha, or Garga or Yavana. It does not make much difference to the secondary Jaimni approach which primary base it depend upon. Since the primary base covers much common ground (whether it be Arsha, Parasara, Garga or Yavana) it will not make much difference. Anyway, the Andhra Jaimini system should appreciated for its innovation and blamed for its non-sincere mystifying about its origin and truth. This is my personal opinion. * Lal Kitab astrology - This is another branch of Arsha school of astrology. This system originated in Himachal pradesh. The original Sanskrit quotes related to this system is no more available; but the system is unique, systematic and beautiful. It is still in tune with ancient system even though many innovations are present. Too much importance to remedies are destroying this system and it is high time that Lal kitab astrology is freed from remedies and upayas and brought back to the original systematic approach towards natal horoscopy and basic chart reading techniques. Traditional astrologers has much to learn from lal kitab astrologer and vice versa - about ancient astrology; its techniques and approach. * Ramala school of astrology (astrology of dice) - This system is an off-shoot of Jain school of astrology. At the end let us come to the question Manoj ji asks -//> So after a really circular route, I think the pivotal question becomes, is BPHS as it stands today, really "Ancient Indian Astrology"? // My answer would be that - * BPHS as it stands today is NOT really 'Ancient Indian Astrology' (actually this answer is inherent in Manoj ji's question itself and is clearly his opinion as well). But we should not forget that true Parashari alone (i.e.. if it shreds of all Jaimini secondary techniques) would be a true representative of ancient indian astrology. There fore it is better to clarify our statement and say that - Parashari school of astrology is ancient indian astrology; but the Santanam BPHS is no more a true representative of original Parashari school of astrology. Current BPHS is not ancient indian astrology, but an amalgam of medieval andhra orissa astrology with some quotes from ancient parashari school of astrology. //Is it fair to use that as an argument to state that Parashari + Jaimini principles, used in an integrated approach, has classical sanction?// No - they don't. Actually it is clear that Manoj ji also has the same opinion. Or better, that would be the sincere opinion of any one with research attitude, probing into this subject and similar questions. But let us not forget that "Truth is not always pleasant"; so would be the above expressed opinions. Therefore definitely this should cause a controversy to start - I believe. The numerous followers and ardent believers of current BPHS and current Jaimini sutra is not going leave us. So enjoy! Love and regards,Sreenadh ancient_indian_ astrology, Manoj Chandran <chandran_manoj@ ...> wrote:>> Dear Manoj (Mouji) Ji,> >  Here is the problem. It is very difficult to objectively validate the efficacy of one particular theory, especially if it is used in an integrated approach (Parashari + Jaimini). If the practising astrologers are also intelligent and strong in the Parashari principles, they will get the predictions correct any way. So that does not prove that their Jamini principles are accurate, does it? This is why I dont see how these things can be categorically proven, one way or the other. I think it is up to each of us to evaluate each system and adopt whichever passes our practical tests.> > I also feel (my humble pesonal opinion) that those that argue that these two principles should not be mixed together may have a valid point. Jyotish was always an orally transmitted system. If this system was truly an integrated approach, why aren't there more oral traditions with such integrated approach? Why aren't there more classics supporting this integrated approach? Was Parashara really the author of the BPHS as it is currently published, or is the current version a compilation effort from various sources and when that effort was done, different systems were mixed together?> So when some one says, "Parashara says this so it must be true (regarding the integrated system)", then what they are really saying is "The author of BPHS says this, so it must be true". Is the author of BPHS really Parashara?> > Ofcourse I am neither a sanskrit scholar nor an accomplished astrologer but that does not prevent me from having a probing mind and ask these questions. However, if some one says " Look, I dont care if Parashara really authored this or not, I tried these two different techniques together, I experimented with it, it works, I like it, so leave me alone", then I am fine with that too. Experimentation is good as long as we declare it is an experiment and it is a novel approach, but not really an "ancient approach".> > So after a really circular route, I think the pivotal question becomes, is BPHS as it stands today, really "Ancient Indian Astrology"? Is it fair to use that as an argument to state that Parashari + Jaimini principles, used in an integrated approach, has classical sanction?> > May be Sreenadh Ji and others throw some light on this?>  > Regards,>  -Manoj>  New Email addresses available on Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail. Hurry before someone else does! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Dear Sreenadh ji, Reading through your mail was like going through an "encyclopedia astrologie". Also it was like knowing the "Who's who" of astrology.Wow..Anita--- On Sat, 18/7/09, Sreenadh <sreesog wrote: Sreenadh <sreesog Re: Ancient Indian Astrology Date: Saturday, 18 July, 2009, 6:27 AM Dear Manoj ji, First of all thanks for a beautiful mail, and bringing in a controversial subject to light. While I was reading through the mail, expressing beautiful and sincere opinions and doubts, I was wondering whether I should get involved and respond to it or not. But when the mail reached the last paras you made it clear and there remained no way I could escape from this thread. Possibly you (and now me) has tapped on top of the pandora's box and now there is no escape from a controversy and a very heated discussion and argumentation it seems. So let me too express my opinions. I will try to make it as brief as possible. In ancient india many schcol of astrological thoughts were popular just like the numerous schools of philosophy. The most popular and important of them where - * Arsha School of Astrolgy - Sages like Skanda, Daksha, Vasishta, Kousika Viswamitra, Sounaka, Soma, Suray where the acharyas of this oldest and most ancient system. * Jain School of astrology - Sages like Garga, Vriddha Garga, Gargi, Rishi putra etc were the acharyas of this system. Just like normal astrology, this branch gave must importance to Nimittas as well, and is considered the originators of a systematic approach to Nimitta. * Yavana School of Astrology - Possibly this is the school of Gujaraji Zorashtrian astrology. Sages like Yavanacharya and scholars like Sphujidhwaja, Meenaraja, Srutakeerti etc the acharyas of this system. This system is of later origin. * Vedic Astrology - Mainly this is a branch of stellar astrology. The system and approach followed by them were not much centered on signs but instead on Tithi, Nakshtras, Luni-Solar months and Muhuratas. This is an old system - clear reconstruction of this school of though is yet to happen. They must be the originators of a systematic approach to Muhurta. These being the basic schools of thoughts let us analyze the other schools of thoughts popular now a days - * Parasara school of astrology - Parasara school is an off-shoot of Arsha school of astrology. But the currently available Santanam compilation of BPHS that is an amalgam of Parashari and Jaimini methods DOES NOT accurately depict the true Parasari school of astrology. If we chip away all the new concepts mentioned in Jaimini sutra and its commentaries from Santanam BPHS, then we may get a glimpse of the old Parashari system. It is a mix of Ancient arsha shool of thought + some excellent dasa systems like Kalachakra dasa, Vimsottari etc. Ancient arsha school was depended on dasa like Moola dasa, Pinda dasa etc alone and the innovation by Parashari Dasa systems was a great one. Parashara must be the originator of a systematic approach to Dasa systems. Certainly currently available quotes that are attributed to Parasara are not that old, and NOT written by parasara; but the concepts and teachings inherent in them point to the original teacher the ancient parasara of BC 1400. This we should accept and appreciate. Because this only is true for other schools as well. For example - the currently available garga quotes may not be written by the ancient sage garga of BC 1100, the skanda words may not be by skanda and so on. i.e. When the language and script changed, some one must have modified the literature (the words and meter) and kept the content to suit the changing times. Thus the school of thought remains the same, the concept remains the same - but the language changes. Interpolations would be usually minimum in such cases due to the high respect towards original sage, the originator of the tradition and school of astrology. This sincerity and respect towards the school of thought got lost only after 16th, 17th century when too much interpolations started appearing on the scene - most possibly due to the unavailability of ancient scripts especially in places were the old texts were unavailable but the believers were present. Jaimini sutra is an example of such a text. * Jaimini School of astrology - Actually poor sage Jaimni is in no way connected with this system. This system originated somewhere around the borders of Andha and Orissa in or around 15th to 20th century and now became popular and got interpolated even to the modern version of BPHS - the Santanam compilation of the amalgum of Parashara and Jaimini systems; Santanam's amalgamation of the North Indian, Orissa and Andha astrology. Most of the methods presented this text Jaimini Sutra are all secondary techniques similar to as available in Prashna texts, which indicate its later origin. The text itself seems to be the result of crooked intentional to 'make-up a text and attribute an ancient sage', so as to compile the local (Andhra+Orissa) astrology into a single text and give it an aura of being an old system. Who ever started this act, purposefully selecting the Sutra style, succeeded in it - and thus we have a Jaimini Sutra today, having the root of all controversies, making the Parashara system impure, causing confusion to many. I am not saying that Jaimni system is not good. Actually IT IS good, just like any local astrological tradition (like Prahna marga), that finds it original roots in Arsha school and its base concepts itself and then innovate using secondary techniques. But when someone forgets the roots (the base), secondary techniques becomes useless. That is why Jaimini system always needs the help of Parashari, remains to be some what of a commentary of BPHS amended with secondary techniques. But the Parashari system can stand alone, become clean and pure if willingly wipe off the secondary Jaimini techniques. Jaimini system can stand taking the help of - either Parasara, or Arsha, or Garga or Yavana. It does not make much difference to the secondary Jaimni approach which primary base it depend upon. Since the primary base covers much common ground (whether it be Arsha, Parasara, Garga or Yavana) it will not make much difference. Anyway, the Andhra Jaimini system should appreciated for its innovation and blamed for its non-sincere mystifying about its origin and truth. This is my personal opinion. * Lal Kitab astrology - This is another branch of Arsha school of astrology. This system originated in Himachal pradesh. The original Sanskrit quotes related to this system is no more available; but the system is unique, systematic and beautiful. It is still in tune with ancient system even though many innovations are present. Too much importance to remedies are destroying this system and it is high time that Lal kitab astrology is freed from remedies and upayas and brought back to the original systematic approach towards natal horoscopy and basic chart reading techniques. Traditional astrologers has much to learn from lal kitab astrologer and vice versa - about ancient astrology; its techniques and approach. * Ramala school of astrology (astrology of dice) - This system is an off-shoot of Jain school of astrology. At the end let us come to the question Manoj ji asks -//> So after a really circular route, I think the pivotal question becomes, is BPHS as it stands today, really "Ancient Indian Astrology"? // My answer would be that - * BPHS as it stands today is NOT really 'Ancient Indian Astrology' (actually this answer is inherent in Manoj ji's question itself and is clearly his opinion as well). But we should not forget that true Parashari alone (i.e. if it shreds of all Jaimini secondary techniques) would be a true representative of ancient indian astrology. There fore it is better to clarify our statement and say that - Parashari school of astrology is ancient indian astrology; but the Santanam BPHS is no more a true representative of original Parashari school of astrology. Current BPHS is not ancient indian astrology, but an amalgam of medieval andhra orissa astrology with some quotes from ancient parashari school of astrology. //Is it fair to use that as an argument to state that Parashari + Jaimini principles, used in an integrated approach, has classical sanction?// No - they don't. Actually it is clear that Manoj ji also has the same opinion. Or better, that would be the sincere opinion of any one with research attitude, probing into this subject and similar questions. But let us not forget that "Truth is not always pleasant"; so would be the above expressed opinions. Therefore definitely this should cause a controversy to start - I believe. The numerous followers and ardent believers of current BPHS and current Jaimini sutra is not going leave us. So enjoy! Love and regards,Sreenadh ancient_indian_ astrology, Manoj Chandran <chandran_manoj@ ...> wrote:>> Dear Manoj (Mouji) Ji,> >  Here is the problem. It is very difficult to objectively validate the efficacy of one particular theory, especially if it is used in an integrated approach (Parashari + Jaimini). If the practising astrologers are also intelligent and strong in the Parashari principles, they will get the predictions correct any way. So that does not prove that their Jamini principles are accurate, does it? This is why I dont see how these things can be categorically proven, one way or the other. I think it is up to each of us to evaluate each system and adopt whichever passes our practical tests.> > I also feel (my humble pesonal opinion) that those that argue that these two principles should not be mixed together may have a valid point. Jyotish was always an orally transmitted system. If this system was truly an integrated approach, why aren't there more oral traditions with such integrated approach? Why aren't there more classics supporting this integrated approach? Was Parashara really the author of the BPHS as it is currently published, or is the current version a compilation effort from various sources and when that effort was done, different systems were mixed together?> So when some one says, "Parashara says this so it must be true (regarding the integrated system)", then what they are really saying is "The author of BPHS says this, so it must be true". Is the author of BPHS really Parashara?> > Ofcourse I am neither a sanskrit scholar nor an accomplished astrologer but that does not prevent me from having a probing mind and ask these questions. However, if some one says " Look, I dont care if Parashara really authored this or not, I tried these two different techniques together, I experimented with it, it works, I like it, so leave me alone", then I am fine with that too. Experimentation is good as long as we declare it is an experiment and it is a novel approach, but not really an "ancient approach".> > So after a really circular route, I think the pivotal question becomes, is BPHS as it stands today, really "Ancient Indian Astrology"? Is it fair to use that as an argument to state that Parashari + Jaimini principles, used in an integrated approach, has classical sanction?> > May be Sreenadh Ji and others throw some light on this?>  > Regards,>  -Manoj>  Love Cricket? Check out live scores, photos, video highlights and more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Thank you very much Dear sreenadh ji for your educative and thought provoking post but definitely not for controversies!!!!........ regards, gopi. , "Sreenadh" <sreesog wrote:>> Dear Manoj ji,> First of all thanks for a beautiful mail, and bringing in a> controversial subject to light. While I was reading through the mail,> expressing beautiful and sincere opinions and doubts, I was wondering> whether I should get involved and respond to it or not. But when the> mail reached the last paras you made it clear and there remained no way> I could escape from this thread. Possibly you (and now me) has tapped on> top of the pandora's box and now there is no escape from a controversy> and a very heated discussion and argumentation it seems. > So let me too express my opinions. I will try to make it as brief as> possible.> > In ancient india many schcol of astrological thoughts were popular just> like the numerous schools of philosophy. The most popular and important> of them where -> * Arsha School of Astrolgy - Sages like Skanda, Daksha, Vasishta, > Kousika Viswamitra, Sounaka, Soma, Suray where the acharyas of this> oldest and most ancient system.> * Jain School of astrology - Sages like Garga, Vriddha Garga, Gargi,> Rishi putra etc were the acharyas of this system. Just like normal> astrology, this branch gave must importance to Nimittas as well, and is> considered the originators of a systematic approach to Nimitta.> * Yavana School of Astrology - Possibly this is the school of Gujaraji> Zorashtrian astrology. Sages like Yavanacharya and scholars like> Sphujidhwaja, Meenaraja, Srutakeerti etc the acharyas of this system.> This system is of later origin.> * Vedic Astrology - Mainly this is a branch of stellar astrology. The> system and approach followed by them were not much centered on signs but> instead on Tithi, Nakshtras, Luni-Solar months and Muhuratas. This is an> old system - clear reconstruction of this school of though is yet to> happen. They must be the originators of a systematic approach to> Muhurta.> > These being the basic schools of thoughts let us analyze the other> schools of thoughts popular now a days -> * Parasara school of astrology - Parasara school is an off-shoot of> Arsha school of astrology. But the currently available Santanam> compilation of BPHS that is an amalgam of Parashari and Jaimini methods> DOES NOT accurately depict the true Parasari school of astrology. If we> chip away all the new concepts mentioned in Jaimini sutra and its> commentaries from Santanam BPHS, then we may get a glimpse of the old> Parashari system. It is a mix of Ancient arsha shool of thought + some> excellent dasa systems like Kalachakra dasa, Vimsottari etc. Ancient> arsha school was depended on dasa like Moola dasa, Pinda dasa etc alone> and the innovation by Parashari Dasa systems was a great one. Parashara> must be the originator of a systematic approach to Dasa systems.> Certainly currently available quotes that are attributed to Parasara are> not that old, and NOT written by parasara; but the concepts and> teachings inherent in them point to the original teacher the ancient> parasara of BC 1400. This we should accept and appreciate. Because this> only is true for other schools as well. For example - the currently> available garga quotes may not be written by the ancient sage garga of> BC 1100, the skanda words may not be by skanda and so on. i.e. When the> language and script changed, some one must have modified the literature> (the words and meter) and kept the content to suit the changing times.> Thus the school of thought remains the same, the concept remains the> same - but the language changes. Interpolations would be usually> minimum in such cases due to the high respect towards original sage, the> originator of the tradition and school of astrology. This sincerity and> respect towards the school of thought got lost only after 16th, 17th> century when too much interpolations started appearing on the scene -> most possibly due to the unavailability of ancient scripts especially in> places were the old texts were unavailable but the believers were> present. Jaimini sutra is an example of such a text.> > * Jaimini School of astrology - Actually poor sage Jaimni is in no way> connected with this system. This system originated somewhere around the> borders of Andha and Orissa in or around 15th to 20th century and now> became popular and got interpolated even to the modern version of BPHS -> the Santanam compilation of the amalgum of Parashara and Jaimini> systems; Santanam's amalgamation of the North Indian, Orissa and Andha> astrology. Most of the methods presented this text Jaimini Sutra are all> secondary techniques similar to as available in Prashna texts, which> indicate its later origin. The text itself seems to be the result of > crooked intentional to 'make-up a text and attribute an ancient sage',> so as to compile the local (Andhra+Orissa) astrology into a single text> and give it an aura of being an old system. Who ever started this act,> purposefully selecting the Sutra style, succeeded in it - and thus we> have a Jaimini Sutra today, having the root of all controversies, making> the Parashara system impure, causing confusion to many. I am not saying> that Jaimni system is not good. Actually IT IS good, just like any local> astrological tradition (like Prahna marga), that finds it original roots> in Arsha school and its base concepts itself and then innovate using> secondary techniques. But when someone forgets the roots (the base),> secondary techniques becomes useless. That is why Jaimini system always> needs the help of Parashari, remains to be some what of a commentary of> BPHS amended with secondary techniques. But the Parashari system can> stand alone, become clean and pure if willingly wipe off the secondary> Jaimini techniques. Jaimini system can stand taking the help of - either> Parasara, or Arsha, or Garga or Yavana. It does not make much difference> to the secondary Jaimni approach which primary base it depend upon.> Since the primary base covers much common ground (whether it be Arsha,> Parasara, Garga or Yavana) it will not make much difference. Anyway, the> Andhra Jaimini system should appreciated for its innovation and blamed> for its non-sincere mystifying about its origin and truth. This is my> personal opinion.> * Lal Kitab astrology - This is another branch of Arsha school of> astrology. This system originated in Himachal pradesh. The original> Sanskrit quotes related to this system is no more available; but the> system is unique, systematic and beautiful. It is still in tune with> ancient system even though many innovations are present. Too much> importance to remedies are destroying this system and it is high time> that Lal kitab astrology is freed from remedies and upayas and brought> back to the original systematic approach towards natal horoscopy and> basic chart reading techniques. Traditional astrologers has much to> learn from lal kitab astrologer and vice versa - about ancient> astrology; its techniques and approach.> > * Ramala school of astrology (astrology of dice) - This system is an> off-shoot of Jain school of astrology.> > At the end let us come to the question Manoj ji asks -> //> So after a really circular route, I think the pivotal question> becomes, is BPHS as it stands today, really "Ancient Indian Astrology"?> //> My answer would be that -> * BPHS as it stands today is NOT really 'Ancient Indian Astrology'> (actually this answer is inherent in Manoj ji's question itself and is> clearly his opinion as well). But we should not forget that true> Parashari alone (i.e. if it shreds of all Jaimini secondary techniques)> would be a true representative of ancient indian astrology. There fore> it is better to clarify our statement and say that - Parashari school of> astrology is ancient indian astrology; but the Santanam BPHS is no more> a true representative of original Parashari school of astrology. Current> BPHS is not ancient indian astrology, but an amalgam of medieval andhra> orissa astrology with some quotes from ancient parashari school of> astrology.> //Is it fair to use that as an argument to state that Parashari +> Jaimini principles, used in an integrated approach, has classical> sanction?//> No - they don't. Actually it is clear that Manoj ji also has the same> opinion. Or better, that would be the sincere opinion of any one with> research attitude, probing into this subject and similar questions.> But let us not forget that "Truth is not always pleasant"; so would be> the above expressed opinions. Therefore definitely this should cause a> controversy to start - I believe. The numerous followers and ardent> believers of current BPHS and current Jaimini sutra is not going leave> us. So enjoy! > Love and regards,> Sreenadh> > , Manoj Chandran> chandran_manoj@ wrote:> >> > Dear Manoj (Mouji) Ji,> >> >  Here is the problem. It is very difficult to objectively validate> the efficacy of one particular theory, especially if it is used in an> integrated approach (Parashari + Jaimini). If the practising astrologers> are also intelligent and strong in the Parashari principles,Â> they will get the predictions correct any way. So that does not prove> that their Jamini principles are accurate, does it? This is why I dont> see how these things can be categorically proven, one way or theÂ> other. I think it is up to each of us to evaluate each systemÂ> and adopt whichever passes our practical tests.> >> > I also feel (my humble pesonal opinion) that those that argue that> these two principles should not be mixed together may have a valid> point. Jyotish was always an orally transmitted system. If this> system was truly an integrated approach, why aren't there more oral> traditions with such integrated approach? Why aren't there more classics> supporting this integrated approach? Was Parashara really the author> of the BPHS as it is currently published, or is the current> version a compilation effort from various sources and when that> effort was done, different systems were mixed together?> > So when some one says, "Parashara says this so it must be true> (regarding the integrated system)", then what they are really saying is> "The author of BPHS says this, so it must be true". Is the author of> BPHS really Parashara?> >> > Ofcourse I am neither a sanskrit scholar nor an accomplished> astrologer but that does not prevent me from having a probing mindÂ> and ask these questions. However, if some one says " Look, I dont care> if Parashara really authored this or not, I tried these two> different techniques together, I experimented with it, it works, I like> it, so leave me alone", then I am fine with that too. Experimentation is> good as long as we declare it is an experiment and it is a novel> approach, but not really an "ancient approach".> >> > So after a really circular route, I think the pivotal question> becomes, is BPHS as it stands today, really "Ancient Indian Astrology"?> Is it fair to use that as an argument to state that Parashari + Jaimini> principles, used in an integrated approach, has classical sanction?> >> > May be Sreenadh Ji and others throw some light on this?> > Â> > Regards,> >  -Manoj> > Â> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Dear Sreenadh Ji, What a wonderful delianation of this topic!!! You have also correctly concluded my implicit opinions as well. I have a lot of respect for innovative techniques and hope to learn some of them as time passes, but, with the right frame of mind, that these are addittive techniques resting on the time-tested, sound foundations of the traditional parashari system.. Regards, -Manoj Sreenadh <sreesog Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 11:27:36 PM Re: Ancient Indian Astrology Dear Manoj ji, First of all thanks for a beautiful mail, and bringing in a controversial subject to light. While I was reading through the mail, expressing beautiful and sincere opinions and doubts, I was wondering whether I should get involved and respond to it or not. But when the mail reached the last paras you made it clear and there remained no way I could escape from this thread. Possibly you (and now me) has tapped on top of the pandora's box and now there is no escape from a controversy and a very heated discussion and argumentation it seems. So let me too express my opinions. I will try to make it as brief as possible. In ancient india many schcol of astrological thoughts were popular just like the numerous schools of philosophy. The most popular and important of them where - * Arsha School of Astrolgy - Sages like Skanda, Daksha, Vasishta, Kousika Viswamitra, Sounaka, Soma, Suray where the acharyas of this oldest and most ancient system. * Jain School of astrology - Sages like Garga, Vriddha Garga, Gargi, Rishi putra etc were the acharyas of this system. Just like normal astrology, this branch gave must importance to Nimittas as well, and is considered the originators of a systematic approach to Nimitta. * Yavana School of Astrology - Possibly this is the school of Gujaraji Zorashtrian astrology. Sages like Yavanacharya and scholars like Sphujidhwaja, Meenaraja, Srutakeerti etc the acharyas of this system. This system is of later origin. * Vedic Astrology - Mainly this is a branch of stellar astrology. The system and approach followed by them were not much centered on signs but instead on Tithi, Nakshtras, Luni-Solar months and Muhuratas. This is an old system - clear reconstruction of this school of though is yet to happen. They must be the originators of a systematic approach to Muhurta. These being the basic schools of thoughts let us analyze the other schools of thoughts popular now a days - * Parasara school of astrology - Parasara school is an off-shoot of Arsha school of astrology. But the currently available Santanam compilation of BPHS that is an amalgam of Parashari and Jaimini methods DOES NOT accurately depict the true Parasari school of astrology. If we chip away all the new concepts mentioned in Jaimini sutra and its commentaries from Santanam BPHS, then we may get a glimpse of the old Parashari system. It is a mix of Ancient arsha shool of thought + some excellent dasa systems like Kalachakra dasa, Vimsottari etc. Ancient arsha school was depended on dasa like Moola dasa, Pinda dasa etc alone and the innovation by Parashari Dasa systems was a great one. Parashara must be the originator of a systematic approach to Dasa systems. Certainly currently available quotes that are attributed to Parasara are not that old, and NOT written by parasara; but the concepts and teachings inherent in them point to the original teacher the ancient parasara of BC 1400. This we should accept and appreciate. Because this only is true for other schools as well. For example - the currently available garga quotes may not be written by the ancient sage garga of BC 1100, the skanda words may not be by skanda and so on. i.e. When the language and script changed, some one must have modified the literature (the words and meter) and kept the content to suit the changing times. Thus the school of thought remains the same, the concept remains the same - but the language changes. Interpolations would be usually minimum in such cases due to the high respect towards original sage, the originator of the tradition and school of astrology. This sincerity and respect towards the school of thought got lost only after 16th, 17th century when too much interpolations started appearing on the scene - most possibly due to the unavailability of ancient scripts especially in places were the old texts were unavailable but the believers were present. Jaimini sutra is an example of such a text. * Jaimini School of astrology - Actually poor sage Jaimni is in no way connected with this system. This system originated somewhere around the borders of Andha and Orissa in or around 15th to 20th century and now became popular and got interpolated even to the modern version of BPHS - the Santanam compilation of the amalgum of Parashara and Jaimini systems; Santanam's amalgamation of the North Indian, Orissa and Andha astrology. Most of the methods presented this text Jaimini Sutra are all secondary techniques similar to as available in Prashna texts, which indicate its later origin. The text itself seems to be the result of crooked intentional to 'make-up a text and attribute an ancient sage', so as to compile the local (Andhra+Orissa) astrology into a single text and give it an aura of being an old system. Who ever started this act, purposefully selecting the Sutra style, succeeded in it - and thus we have a Jaimini Sutra today, having the root of all controversies, making the Parashara system impure, causing confusion to many. I am not saying that Jaimni system is not good. Actually IT IS good, just like any local astrological tradition (like Prahna marga), that finds it original roots in Arsha school and its base concepts itself and then innovate using secondary techniques. But when someone forgets the roots (the base), secondary techniques becomes useless. That is why Jaimini system always needs the help of Parashari, remains to be some what of a commentary of BPHS amended with secondary techniques. But the Parashari system can stand alone, become clean and pure if willingly wipe off the secondary Jaimini techniques. Jaimini system can stand taking the help of - either Parasara, or Arsha, or Garga or Yavana. It does not make much difference to the secondary Jaimni approach which primary base it depend upon. Since the primary base covers much common ground (whether it be Arsha, Parasara, Garga or Yavana) it will not make much difference. Anyway, the Andhra Jaimini system should appreciated for its innovation and blamed for its non-sincere mystifying about its origin and truth. This is my personal opinion. * Lal Kitab astrology - This is another branch of Arsha school of astrology. This system originated in Himachal pradesh. The original Sanskrit quotes related to this system is no more available; but the system is unique, systematic and beautiful. It is still in tune with ancient system even though many innovations are present. Too much importance to remedies are destroying this system and it is high time that Lal kitab astrology is freed from remedies and upayas and brought back to the original systematic approach towards natal horoscopy and basic chart reading techniques. Traditional astrologers has much to learn from lal kitab astrologer and vice versa - about ancient astrology; its techniques and approach. * Ramala school of astrology (astrology of dice) - This system is an off-shoot of Jain school of astrology. At the end let us come to the question Manoj ji asks -//> So after a really circular route, I think the pivotal question becomes, is BPHS as it stands today, really "Ancient Indian Astrology"? // My answer would be that - * BPHS as it stands today is NOT really 'Ancient Indian Astrology' (actually this answer is inherent in Manoj ji's question itself and is clearly his opinion as well). But we should not forget that true Parashari alone (i.e. if it shreds of all Jaimini secondary techniques) would be a true representative of ancient indian astrology. There fore it is better to clarify our statement and say that - Parashari school of astrology is ancient indian astrology; but the Santanam BPHS is no more a true representative of original Parashari school of astrology. Current BPHS is not ancient indian astrology, but an amalgam of medieval andhra orissa astrology with some quotes from ancient parashari school of astrology. //Is it fair to use that as an argument to state that Parashari + Jaimini principles, used in an integrated approach, has classical sanction?// No - they don't. Actually it is clear that Manoj ji also has the same opinion. Or better, that would be the sincere opinion of any one with research attitude, probing into this subject and similar questions. But let us not forget that "Truth is not always pleasant"; so would be the above expressed opinions. Therefore definitely this should cause a controversy to start - I believe. The numerous followers and ardent believers of current BPHS and current Jaimini sutra is not going leave us. So enjoy! Love and regards,Sreenadh ancient_indian_ astrology, Manoj Chandran <chandran_manoj@ ...> wrote:>> Dear Manoj (Mouji) Ji,> >  Here is the problem. It is very difficult to objectively validate the efficacy of one particular theory, especially if it is used in an integrated approach (Parashari + Jaimini). If the practising astrologers are also intelligent and strong in the Parashari principles, they will get the predictions correct any way. So that does not prove that their Jamini principles are accurate, does it? This is why I dont see how these things can be categorically proven, one way or the other. I think it is up to each of us to evaluate each system and adopt whichever passes our practical tests.> > I also feel (my humble pesonal opinion) that those that argue that these two principles should not be mixed together may have a valid point. Jyotish was always an orally transmitted system. If this system was truly an integrated approach, why aren't there more oral traditions with such integrated approach? Why aren't there more classics supporting this integrated approach? Was Parashara really the author of the BPHS as it is currently published, or is the current version a compilation effort from various sources and when that effort was done, different systems were mixed together?> So when some one says, "Parashara says this so it must be true (regarding the integrated system)", then what they are really saying is "The author of BPHS says this, so it must be true". Is the author of BPHS really Parashara?> > Ofcourse I am neither a sanskrit scholar nor an accomplished astrologer but that does not prevent me from having a probing mind and ask these questions. However, if some one says " Look, I dont care if Parashara really authored this or not, I tried these two different techniques together, I experimented with it, it works, I like it, so leave me alone", then I am fine with that too. Experimentation is good as long as we declare it is an experiment and it is a novel approach, but not really an "ancient approach".> > So after a really circular route, I think the pivotal question becomes, is BPHS as it stands today, really "Ancient Indian Astrology"? Is it fair to use that as an argument to state that Parashari + Jaimini principles, used in an integrated approach, has classical sanction?> > May be Sreenadh Ji and others throw some light on this?>  > Regards,>  -Manoj>  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Dear Dhananjayan Ji, I am only the "King" of questions, Sreenadh Ji, is the "King" of answers . Regards, -Manoj Dhananjayan Brahma <abhanaya Cc: sreesogSent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 3:13:25 AMRe: Re: Ancient Indian Astrology Pranams,Mr.Sreenadhji,Great ! what a threshing commentaries on Indian Astrology in a net shell ! It simply tasted like swallowing "Pazhani Panchamirtham" ! Sir,Your segregation of available ancient,medieval and modern astrological work seems marvelous ;but I hope your detailed future write ups on the header explaining the your rational behind severally grouping of the scriptures would add more taste and throw more scientific light on your work and on the history of Indian Astrology !I thank Mr. Manoj ji, the desert king! who stood the reason to tap the beautiful write of Mr.Sreenadh ji, the deciduous woodland monarch!GOD BLESS BOTH TO PRESENT US MORE SUCH FUTURE TASTY SAMARAATHANA !! Regards / Dhananjayan--- On Sat, 18/7/09, Sreenadh <sreesog > wrote: Sreenadh <sreesog >[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Ancient Indian Astrologyancient_indian_ astrologySaturday, 18 July, 2009, 11:57 AM Dear Manoj ji, First of all thanks for a beautiful mail, and bringing in a controversial subject to light. While I was reading through the mail, expressing beautiful and sincere opinions and doubts, I was wondering whether I should get involved and respond to it or not. But when the mail reached the last paras you made it clear and there remained no way I could escape from this thread. Possibly you (and now me) has tapped on top of the pandora's box and now there is no escape from a controversy and a very heated discussion and argumentation it seems. So let me too express my opinions. I will try to make it as brief as possible. In ancient india many schcol of astrological thoughts were popular just like the numerous schools of philosophy. The most popular and important of them where - * Arsha School of Astrolgy - Sages like Skanda, Daksha, Vasishta, Kousika Viswamitra, Sounaka, Soma, Suray where the acharyas of this oldest and most ancient system. * Jain School of astrology - Sages like Garga, Vriddha Garga, Gargi, Rishi putra etc were the acharyas of this system. Just like normal astrology, this branch gave must importance to Nimittas as well, and is considered the originators of a systematic approach to Nimitta. * Yavana School of Astrology - Possibly this is the school of Gujaraji Zorashtrian astrology. Sages like Yavanacharya and scholars like Sphujidhwaja, Meenaraja, Srutakeerti etc the acharyas of this system. This system is of later origin. * Vedic Astrology - Mainly this is a branch of stellar astrology. The system and approach followed by them were not much centered on signs but instead on Tithi, Nakshtras, Luni-Solar months and Muhuratas. This is an old system - clear reconstruction of this school of though is yet to happen. They must be the originators of a systematic approach to Muhurta. These being the basic schools of thoughts let us analyze the other schools of thoughts popular now a days - * Parasara school of astrology - Parasara school is an off-shoot of Arsha school of astrology. But the currently available Santanam compilation of BPHS that is an amalgam of Parashari and Jaimini methods DOES NOT accurately depict the true Parasari school of astrology. If we chip away all the new concepts mentioned in Jaimini sutra and its commentaries from Santanam BPHS, then we may get a glimpse of the old Parashari system. It is a mix of Ancient arsha shool of thought + some excellent dasa systems like Kalachakra dasa, Vimsottari etc. Ancient arsha school was depended on dasa like Moola dasa, Pinda dasa etc alone and the innovation by Parashari Dasa systems was a great one. Parashara must be the originator of a systematic approach to Dasa systems. Certainly currently available quotes that are attributed to Parasara are not that old, and NOT written by parasara; but the concepts and teachings inherent in them point to the original teacher the ancient parasara of BC 1400. This we should accept and appreciate. Because this only is true for other schools as well. For example - the currently available garga quotes may not be written by the ancient sage garga of BC 1100, the skanda words may not be by skanda and so on. i.e. When the language and script changed, some one must have modified the literature (the words and meter) and kept the content to suit the changing times. Thus the school of thought remains the same, the concept remains the same - but the language changes. Interpolations would be usually minimum in such cases due to the high respect towards original sage, the originator of the tradition and school of astrology. This sincerity and respect towards the school of thought got lost only after 16th, 17th century when too much interpolations started appearing on the scene - most possibly due to the unavailability of ancient scripts especially in places were the old texts were unavailable but the believers were present. Jaimini sutra is an example of such a text. * Jaimini School of astrology - Actually poor sage Jaimni is in no way connected with this system. This system originated somewhere around the borders of Andha and Orissa in or around 15th to 20th century and now became popular and got interpolated even to the modern version of BPHS - the Santanam compilation of the amalgum of Parashara and Jaimini systems; Santanam's amalgamation of the North Indian, Orissa and Andha astrology. Most of the methods presented this text Jaimini Sutra are all secondary techniques similar to as available in Prashna texts, which indicate its later origin. The text itself seems to be the result of crooked intentional to 'make-up a text and attribute an ancient sage', so as to compile the local (Andhra+Orissa) astrology into a single text and give it an aura of being an old system. Who ever started this act, purposefully selecting the Sutra style, succeeded in it - and thus we have a Jaimini Sutra today, having the root of all controversies, making the Parashara system impure, causing confusion to many. I am not saying that Jaimni system is not good. Actually IT IS good, just like any local astrological tradition (like Prahna marga), that finds it original roots in Arsha school and its base concepts itself and then innovate using secondary techniques. But when someone forgets the roots (the base), secondary techniques becomes useless. That is why Jaimini system always needs the help of Parashari, remains to be some what of a commentary of BPHS amended with secondary techniques.. But the Parashari system can stand alone, become clean and pure if willingly wipe off the secondary Jaimini techniques. Jaimini system can stand taking the help of - either Parasara, or Arsha, or Garga or Yavana. It does not make much difference to the secondary Jaimni approach which primary base it depend upon. Since the primary base covers much common ground (whether it be Arsha, Parasara, Garga or Yavana) it will not make much difference. Anyway, the Andhra Jaimini system should appreciated for its innovation and blamed for its non-sincere mystifying about its origin and truth. This is my personal opinion. * Lal Kitab astrology - This is another branch of Arsha school of astrology. This system originated in Himachal pradesh. The original Sanskrit quotes related to this system is no more available; but the system is unique, systematic and beautiful. It is still in tune with ancient system even though many innovations are present. Too much importance to remedies are destroying this system and it is high time that Lal kitab astrology is freed from remedies and upayas and brought back to the original systematic approach towards natal horoscopy and basic chart reading techniques. Traditional astrologers has much to learn from lal kitab astrologer and vice versa - about ancient astrology; its techniques and approach. * Ramala school of astrology (astrology of dice) - This system is an off-shoot of Jain school of astrology. At the end let us come to the question Manoj ji asks -//> So after a really circular route, I think the pivotal question becomes, is BPHS as it stands today, really "Ancient Indian Astrology"? // My answer would be that - * BPHS as it stands today is NOT really 'Ancient Indian Astrology' (actually this answer is inherent in Manoj ji's question itself and is clearly his opinion as well). But we should not forget that true Parashari alone (i.e.. if it shreds of all Jaimini secondary techniques) would be a true representative of ancient indian astrology. There fore it is better to clarify our statement and say that - Parashari school of astrology is ancient indian astrology; but the Santanam BPHS is no more a true representative of original Parashari school of astrology. Current BPHS is not ancient indian astrology, but an amalgam of medieval andhra orissa astrology with some quotes from ancient parashari school of astrology. //Is it fair to use that as an argument to state that Parashari + Jaimini principles, used in an integrated approach, has classical sanction?// No - they don't. Actually it is clear that Manoj ji also has the same opinion. Or better, that would be the sincere opinion of any one with research attitude, probing into this subject and similar questions. But let us not forget that "Truth is not always pleasant"; so would be the above expressed opinions. Therefore definitely this should cause a controversy to start - I believe. The numerous followers and ardent believers of current BPHS and current Jaimini sutra is not going leave us. So enjoy! Love and regards,Sreenadh ancient_indian_ astrology, Manoj Chandran <chandran_manoj@ ...> wrote:>> Dear Manoj (Mouji) Ji,> >  Here is the problem. It is very difficult to objectively validate the efficacy of one particular theory, especially if it is used in an integrated approach (Parashari + Jaimini). If the practising astrologers are also intelligent and strong in the Parashari principles, they will get the predictions correct any way. So that does not prove that their Jamini principles are accurate, does it? This is why I dont see how these things can be categorically proven, one way or the other. I think it is up to each of us to evaluate each system and adopt whichever passes our practical tests.> > I also feel (my humble pesonal opinion) that those that argue that these two principles should not be mixed together may have a valid point. Jyotish was always an orally transmitted system. If this system was truly an integrated approach, why aren't there more oral traditions with such integrated approach? Why aren't there more classics supporting this integrated approach? Was Parashara really the author of the BPHS as it is currently published, or is the current version a compilation effort from various sources and when that effort was done, different systems were mixed together?> So when some one says, "Parashara says this so it must be true (regarding the integrated system)", then what they are really saying is "The author of BPHS says this, so it must be true". Is the author of BPHS really Parashara?> > Ofcourse I am neither a sanskrit scholar nor an accomplished astrologer but that does not prevent me from having a probing mind and ask these questions. However, if some one says " Look, I dont care if Parashara really authored this or not, I tried these two different techniques together, I experimented with it, it works, I like it, so leave me alone", then I am fine with that too. Experimentation is good as long as we declare it is an experiment and it is a novel approach, but not really an "ancient approach".> > So after a really circular route, I think the pivotal question becomes, is BPHS as it stands today, really "Ancient Indian Astrology"? Is it fair to use that as an argument to state that Parashari + Jaimini principles, used in an integrated approach, has classical sanction?> > May be Sreenadh Ji and others throw some light on this?>  > Regards,>  -Manoj>  New Email addresses available on Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail..Hurry before someone else does! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Dear Dhananjayan ji, //I hope your detailed future write ups on the header explaining the your rational behind severally grouping of the scriptures would add more taste and throw more scientific light on your work and on the history of Indian Astrology// Download the below mentioned articles collection by me, and in it you will find some detailed exposition of various schools of astrology such as Arsha, Jain, Yavana etc. URL: Sreenadh%20OG/Astro_Book.pdf //> I thank Mr. Manoj ji, the desert king! who stood the reason to tap the beautiful write of Mr.Sreenadh ji, the deciduous woodland monarch!// Wow! What a language! "Deciduous woodland monarch!" I will have to consult the dictionary - ==================== Deciduous------------ Falling off or shed at a specific season or stage of growth: deciduous antlers; deciduous leaves; deciduous teeth. Shedding or losing foliage at the end of the growing season: deciduous trees. Not lasting; ephemeral. That which will be shed. Pertaining specifically to the first dentition of humans or animals. Preferred term is primary.Descriptive of trees or shrubs, usually of temperate climates, that shed their leaves annually; characteristic of most hardwoods and a few softwoods. Wood land--------------A tract of land dominated by trees but often containing shrubs and other vegetation as well. An area covered with trees and shrubs.Monarch----------- One who reigns over a state or territory, usually for life and by hereditary right, especially: A sole and absolute ruler. A sovereign, such as a king or empress, often with constitutionally limited authority: a constitutional monarch. One that commands or rules: "I am monarch of all I survey" (William Cowper). One that surpasses others in power or preeminence: "Mont Blanc is the monarch of the mountains" (Byron). A monarch butterfly.A king, queen, or emperor. Also: A large North American butterfly.==================== Thus comes the phrase - "Deciduous woodland monarch". So -Deciduous : Means I am a seasonal phenomena; I am at the end of my growing season, and is shedding foliage (leaves). It would have been better if what is being shed are ripe fruits - ripe mangoes. Anyway I am not going to last long, and would be shed in near future! Woodland: I am in an woodland! Why? Is it because I am meditative? Or are you pointing to my uncut corners, the rough outfit? Monarch: A king who rule with the power of fist! One who does not value democracy! You consider me as a monarch in this group! May be a natural conclusion you draw from my sharp and critical behavior. So in short I am a "woodland monarch (forest king)" who would be which would be shed (cut and made to fall down, since ripe).And who stood the reason to achieve the same? The brave one, the hero- the follower? As per Dhananjay ji's story it is the "Desert king"; an phrase qualifying Manoj chandran ji. Let us again go by the dictionary - ================Desert-------- A barren or desolate area, especially: A dry, often sandy region of little rainfall, extreme temperatures, and sparse vegetation. A region of permanent cold that is largely or entirely devoid of life. An apparently lifeless area of water. An empty or forsaken place; a wasteland: a cultural desert.Archaic. A wild, uncultivated, and uninhabited region.King----- A male sovereign. One that is supreme or preeminent in a particular group, category, or sphere.================ So Manoj ji is "Desert King" (King of barren lands; king of a region of little rainfall) I am "Woodland Monarch" (Forest king; king of a region of much rainfall) Which are these areas you are pointing to?! Rightly I am the woodland Monarch from Kerala, the land of trees. Which is the native place of Manoj ji? It would be interesting to know that. At times words can comprehend more meaning than we intend them to be, and prophetically point to truths. Dhananjayan ji I loved those phrases and love this "Desert King", and equally appreciate him along with you. It is always good to have good and brave kings around, but why you want to shed me so fast? I have just started growing only. Ha..Ha.. Enjoy! Anyway, beautiful said, Dhananjay ji, I bow to your command over English.Love and hugs to you both,Sreenadh , Dhananjayan Brahma <abhanaya wrote:>> Pranams,> > Mr.Sreenadhji,> > Great ! what a threshing commentaries on Indian Astrology in a net shell ! It simply tasted like swallowing "Pazhani Panchamirtham" ! Sir,Your segregation of available ancient,medieval and modern astrological work seems marvelous ;but I hope your detailed future write ups on the header explaining the your rational behind severally grouping of the scriptures would add more taste and throw more scientific light on your work and on the history of Indian Astrology !> > I thank Mr. Manoj ji, the desert king! who stood the reason to tap the beautiful write of Mr.Sreenadh ji, the deciduous woodland monarch!> GOD BLESS BOTH TO PRESENT US MORE SUCH FUTURE TASTY SAMARAATHANA !! > > Regards / Dhananjayan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Dear Manoj ji and Sreenadh ji, Yes, Everytime some ONE asks a question, ALL learn. Many people are inhibited when it comes to asking questions for fear of appearing dumb. We are not afraid to ask , are we? Regards, Anita--- On Sat, 18/7/09, Manoj Chandran <chandran_manoj wrote: Manoj Chandran <chandran_manojRe: Re: Ancient Indian Astrology Date: Saturday, 18 July, 2009, 11:21 AM Dear Dhananjayan Ji, I am only the "King" of questions, Sreenadh Ji, is the "King" of answers . Regards, -Manoj Dhananjayan Brahma <abhanaya >ancient_indian_ astrologyCc: sreesog Saturday, July 18, 2009 3:13:25 AMRe: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Ancient Indian Astrology Pranams,Mr.Sreenadhji,Great ! what a threshing commentaries on Indian Astrology in a net shell ! It simply tasted like swallowing "Pazhani Panchamirtham" ! Sir,Your segregation of available ancient,medieval and modern astrological work seems marvelous ;but I hope your detailed future write ups on the header explaining the your rational behind severally grouping of the scriptures would add more taste and throw more scientific light on your work and on the history of Indian Astrology !I thank Mr. Manoj ji, the desert king! who stood the reason to tap the beautiful write of Mr.Sreenadh ji, the deciduous woodland monarch!GOD BLESS BOTH TO PRESENT US MORE SUCH FUTURE TASTY SAMARAATHANA !! Regards / Dhananjayan--- On Sat, 18/7/09, Sreenadh <sreesog > wrote: Sreenadh <sreesog >[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Ancient Indian Astrologyancient_indian_ astrologySaturday, 18 July, 2009, 11:57 AM Dear Manoj ji, First of all thanks for a beautiful mail, and bringing in a controversial subject to light. While I was reading through the mail, expressing beautiful and sincere opinions and doubts, I was wondering whether I should get involved and respond to it or not. But when the mail reached the last paras you made it clear and there remained no way I could escape from this thread. Possibly you (and now me) has tapped on top of the pandora's box and now there is no escape from a controversy and a very heated discussion and argumentation it seems. So let me too express my opinions. I will try to make it as brief as possible. In ancient india many schcol of astrological thoughts were popular just like the numerous schools of philosophy. The most popular and important of them where - * Arsha School of Astrolgy - Sages like Skanda, Daksha, Vasishta, Kousika Viswamitra, Sounaka, Soma, Suray where the acharyas of this oldest and most ancient system. * Jain School of astrology - Sages like Garga, Vriddha Garga, Gargi, Rishi putra etc were the acharyas of this system. Just like normal astrology, this branch gave must importance to Nimittas as well, and is considered the originators of a systematic approach to Nimitta. * Yavana School of Astrology - Possibly this is the school of Gujaraji Zorashtrian astrology. Sages like Yavanacharya and scholars like Sphujidhwaja, Meenaraja, Srutakeerti etc the acharyas of this system. This system is of later origin. * Vedic Astrology - Mainly this is a branch of stellar astrology. The system and approach followed by them were not much centered on signs but instead on Tithi, Nakshtras, Luni-Solar months and Muhuratas. This is an old system - clear reconstruction of this school of though is yet to happen. They must be the originators of a systematic approach to Muhurta. These being the basic schools of thoughts let us analyze the other schools of thoughts popular now a days - * Parasara school of astrology - Parasara school is an off-shoot of Arsha school of astrology. But the currently available Santanam compilation of BPHS that is an amalgam of Parashari and Jaimini methods DOES NOT accurately depict the true Parasari school of astrology. If we chip away all the new concepts mentioned in Jaimini sutra and its commentaries from Santanam BPHS, then we may get a glimpse of the old Parashari system. It is a mix of Ancient arsha shool of thought + some excellent dasa systems like Kalachakra dasa, Vimsottari etc. Ancient arsha school was depended on dasa like Moola dasa, Pinda dasa etc alone and the innovation by Parashari Dasa systems was a great one. Parashara must be the originator of a systematic approach to Dasa systems. Certainly currently available quotes that are attributed to Parasara are not that old, and NOT written by parasara; but the concepts and teachings inherent in them point to the original teacher the ancient parasara of BC 1400. This we should accept and appreciate. Because this only is true for other schools as well. For example - the currently available garga quotes may not be written by the ancient sage garga of BC 1100, the skanda words may not be by skanda and so on. i.e. When the language and script changed, some one must have modified the literature (the words and meter) and kept the content to suit the changing times. Thus the school of thought remains the same, the concept remains the same - but the language changes. Interpolations would be usually minimum in such cases due to the high respect towards original sage, the originator of the tradition and school of astrology. This sincerity and respect towards the school of thought got lost only after 16th, 17th century when too much interpolations started appearing on the scene - most possibly due to the unavailability of ancient scripts especially in places were the old texts were unavailable but the believers were present. Jaimini sutra is an example of such a text. * Jaimini School of astrology - Actually poor sage Jaimni is in no way connected with this system. This system originated somewhere around the borders of Andha and Orissa in or around 15th to 20th century and now became popular and got interpolated even to the modern version of BPHS - the Santanam compilation of the amalgum of Parashara and Jaimini systems; Santanam's amalgamation of the North Indian, Orissa and Andha astrology. Most of the methods presented this text Jaimini Sutra are all secondary techniques similar to as available in Prashna texts, which indicate its later origin. The text itself seems to be the result of crooked intentional to 'make-up a text and attribute an ancient sage', so as to compile the local (Andhra+Orissa) astrology into a single text and give it an aura of being an old system. Who ever started this act, purposefully selecting the Sutra style, succeeded in it - and thus we have a Jaimini Sutra today, having the root of all controversies, making the Parashara system impure, causing confusion to many. I am not saying that Jaimni system is not good. Actually IT IS good, just like any local astrological tradition (like Prahna marga), that finds it original roots in Arsha school and its base concepts itself and then innovate using secondary techniques. But when someone forgets the roots (the base), secondary techniques becomes useless. That is why Jaimini system always needs the help of Parashari, remains to be some what of a commentary of BPHS amended with secondary techniques.. But the Parashari system can stand alone, become clean and pure if willingly wipe off the secondary Jaimini techniques. Jaimini system can stand taking the help of - either Parasara, or Arsha, or Garga or Yavana. It does not make much difference to the secondary Jaimni approach which primary base it depend upon. Since the primary base covers much common ground (whether it be Arsha, Parasara, Garga or Yavana) it will not make much difference. Anyway, the Andhra Jaimini system should appreciated for its innovation and blamed for its non-sincere mystifying about its origin and truth. This is my personal opinion. * Lal Kitab astrology - This is another branch of Arsha school of astrology. This system originated in Himachal pradesh. The original Sanskrit quotes related to this system is no more available; but the system is unique, systematic and beautiful. It is still in tune with ancient system even though many innovations are present. Too much importance to remedies are destroying this system and it is high time that Lal kitab astrology is freed from remedies and upayas and brought back to the original systematic approach towards natal horoscopy and basic chart reading techniques. Traditional astrologers has much to learn from lal kitab astrologer and vice versa - about ancient astrology; its techniques and approach. * Ramala school of astrology (astrology of dice) - This system is an off-shoot of Jain school of astrology. At the end let us come to the question Manoj ji asks -//> So after a really circular route, I think the pivotal question becomes, is BPHS as it stands today, really "Ancient Indian Astrology"? // My answer would be that - * BPHS as it stands today is NOT really 'Ancient Indian Astrology' (actually this answer is inherent in Manoj ji's question itself and is clearly his opinion as well). But we should not forget that true Parashari alone (i.e.. if it shreds of all Jaimini secondary techniques) would be a true representative of ancient indian astrology. There fore it is better to clarify our statement and say that - Parashari school of astrology is ancient indian astrology; but the Santanam BPHS is no more a true representative of original Parashari school of astrology. Current BPHS is not ancient indian astrology, but an amalgam of medieval andhra orissa astrology with some quotes from ancient parashari school of astrology. //Is it fair to use that as an argument to state that Parashari + Jaimini principles, used in an integrated approach, has classical sanction?// No - they don't. Actually it is clear that Manoj ji also has the same opinion. Or better, that would be the sincere opinion of any one with research attitude, probing into this subject and similar questions. But let us not forget that "Truth is not always pleasant"; so would be the above expressed opinions. Therefore definitely this should cause a controversy to start - I believe. The numerous followers and ardent believers of current BPHS and current Jaimini sutra is not going leave us. So enjoy! Love and regards,Sreenadh ancient_indian_ astrology, Manoj Chandran <chandran_manoj@ ...> wrote:>> Dear Manoj (Mouji) Ji,> >  Here is the problem. It is very difficult to objectively validate the efficacy of one particular theory, especially if it is used in an integrated approach (Parashari + Jaimini). If the practising astrologers are also intelligent and strong in the Parashari principles, they will get the predictions correct any way. So that does not prove that their Jamini principles are accurate, does it? This is why I dont see how these things can be categorically proven, one way or the other. I think it is up to each of us to evaluate each system and adopt whichever passes our practical tests.> > I also feel (my humble pesonal opinion) that those that argue that these two principles should not be mixed together may have a valid point. Jyotish was always an orally transmitted system. If this system was truly an integrated approach, why aren't there more oral traditions with such integrated approach? Why aren't there more classics supporting this integrated approach? Was Parashara really the author of the BPHS as it is currently published, or is the current version a compilation effort from various sources and when that effort was done, different systems were mixed together?> So when some one says, "Parashara says this so it must be true (regarding the integrated system)", then what they are really saying is "The author of BPHS says this, so it must be true". Is the author of BPHS really Parashara?> > Ofcourse I am neither a sanskrit scholar nor an accomplished astrologer but that does not prevent me from having a probing mind and ask these questions. However, if some one says " Look, I dont care if Parashara really authored this or not, I tried these two different techniques together, I experimented with it, it works, I like it, so leave me alone", then I am fine with that too. Experimentation is good as long as we declare it is an experiment and it is a novel approach, but not really an "ancient approach".> > So after a really circular route, I think the pivotal question becomes, is BPHS as it stands today, really "Ancient Indian Astrology"? Is it fair to use that as an argument to state that Parashari + Jaimini principles, used in an integrated approach, has classical sanction?> > May be Sreenadh Ji and others throw some light on this?>  > Regards,>  -Manoj>  New Email addresses available on Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail. .Hurry before someone else does! Looking for local information? Find it on Local Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Dear Anita Ji, You are right. I believe the only "dumb" question, is that one which was never asked. Regards, -Manoj Anita R <ash.rsh55 Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 4:59:51 AMRe: Re: Ancient Indian Astrology Dear Manoj ji and Sreenadh ji, Yes, Everytime some ONE asks a question, ALL learn. Many people are inhibited when it comes to asking questions for fear of appearing dumb. We are not afraid to ask , are we? Regards, Anita--- On Sat, 18/7/09, Manoj Chandran <chandran_manoj@ > wrote: Manoj Chandran <chandran_manoj@ >Re: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Ancient Indian Astrologyancient_indian_ astrologySaturday, 18 July, 2009, 11:21 AM Dear Dhananjayan Ji, I am only the "King" of questions, Sreenadh Ji, is the "King" of answers . Regards, -Manoj Dhananjayan Brahma <abhanaya >ancient_indian_ astrologyCc: sreesog Saturday, July 18, 2009 3:13:25 AMRe: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Ancient Indian Astrology Pranams,Mr.Sreenadhji,Great ! what a threshing commentaries on Indian Astrology in a net shell ! It simply tasted like swallowing "Pazhani Panchamirtham" ! Sir,Your segregation of available ancient,medieval and modern astrological work seems marvelous ;but I hope your detailed future write ups on the header explaining the your rational behind severally grouping of the scriptures would add more taste and throw more scientific light on your work and on the history of Indian Astrology !I thank Mr. Manoj ji, the desert king! who stood the reason to tap the beautiful write of Mr.Sreenadh ji, the deciduous woodland monarch!GOD BLESS BOTH TO PRESENT US MORE SUCH FUTURE TASTY SAMARAATHANA !! Regards / Dhananjayan--- On Sat, 18/7/09, Sreenadh <sreesog > wrote: Sreenadh <sreesog >[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Ancient Indian Astrologyancient_indian_ astrologySaturday, 18 July, 2009, 11:57 AM Dear Manoj ji, First of all thanks for a beautiful mail, and bringing in a controversial subject to light. While I was reading through the mail, expressing beautiful and sincere opinions and doubts, I was wondering whether I should get involved and respond to it or not. But when the mail reached the last paras you made it clear and there remained no way I could escape from this thread. Possibly you (and now me) has tapped on top of the pandora's box and now there is no escape from a controversy and a very heated discussion and argumentation it seems. So let me too express my opinions. I will try to make it as brief as possible. In ancient india many schcol of astrological thoughts were popular just like the numerous schools of philosophy. The most popular and important of them where - * Arsha School of Astrolgy - Sages like Skanda, Daksha, Vasishta, Kousika Viswamitra, Sounaka, Soma, Suray where the acharyas of this oldest and most ancient system. * Jain School of astrology - Sages like Garga, Vriddha Garga, Gargi, Rishi putra etc were the acharyas of this system. Just like normal astrology, this branch gave must importance to Nimittas as well, and is considered the originators of a systematic approach to Nimitta. * Yavana School of Astrology - Possibly this is the school of Gujaraji Zorashtrian astrology. Sages like Yavanacharya and scholars like Sphujidhwaja, Meenaraja, Srutakeerti etc the acharyas of this system. This system is of later origin. * Vedic Astrology - Mainly this is a branch of stellar astrology. The system and approach followed by them were not much centered on signs but instead on Tithi, Nakshtras, Luni-Solar months and Muhuratas. This is an old system - clear reconstruction of this school of though is yet to happen. They must be the originators of a systematic approach to Muhurta. These being the basic schools of thoughts let us analyze the other schools of thoughts popular now a days - * Parasara school of astrology - Parasara school is an off-shoot of Arsha school of astrology. But the currently available Santanam compilation of BPHS that is an amalgam of Parashari and Jaimini methods DOES NOT accurately depict the true Parasari school of astrology. If we chip away all the new concepts mentioned in Jaimini sutra and its commentaries from Santanam BPHS, then we may get a glimpse of the old Parashari system. It is a mix of Ancient arsha shool of thought + some excellent dasa systems like Kalachakra dasa, Vimsottari etc. Ancient arsha school was depended on dasa like Moola dasa, Pinda dasa etc alone and the innovation by Parashari Dasa systems was a great one. Parashara must be the originator of a systematic approach to Dasa systems. Certainly currently available quotes that are attributed to Parasara are not that old, and NOT written by parasara; but the concepts and teachings inherent in them point to the original teacher the ancient parasara of BC 1400. This we should accept and appreciate. Because this only is true for other schools as well. For example - the currently available garga quotes may not be written by the ancient sage garga of BC 1100, the skanda words may not be by skanda and so on. i.e. When the language and script changed, some one must have modified the literature (the words and meter) and kept the content to suit the changing times. Thus the school of thought remains the same, the concept remains the same - but the language changes. Interpolations would be usually minimum in such cases due to the high respect towards original sage, the originator of the tradition and school of astrology. This sincerity and respect towards the school of thought got lost only after 16th, 17th century when too much interpolations started appearing on the scene - most possibly due to the unavailability of ancient scripts especially in places were the old texts were unavailable but the believers were present. Jaimini sutra is an example of such a text. * Jaimini School of astrology - Actually poor sage Jaimni is in no way connected with this system. This system originated somewhere around the borders of Andha and Orissa in or around 15th to 20th century and now became popular and got interpolated even to the modern version of BPHS - the Santanam compilation of the amalgum of Parashara and Jaimini systems; Santanam's amalgamation of the North Indian, Orissa and Andha astrology. Most of the methods presented this text Jaimini Sutra are all secondary techniques similar to as available in Prashna texts, which indicate its later origin. The text itself seems to be the result of crooked intentional to 'make-up a text and attribute an ancient sage', so as to compile the local (Andhra+Orissa) astrology into a single text and give it an aura of being an old system. Who ever started this act, purposefully selecting the Sutra style, succeeded in it - and thus we have a Jaimini Sutra today, having the root of all controversies, making the Parashara system impure, causing confusion to many. I am not saying that Jaimni system is not good. Actually IT IS good, just like any local astrological tradition (like Prahna marga), that finds it original roots in Arsha school and its base concepts itself and then innovate using secondary techniques. But when someone forgets the roots (the base), secondary techniques becomes useless. That is why Jaimini system always needs the help of Parashari, remains to be some what of a commentary of BPHS amended with secondary techniques.. But the Parashari system can stand alone, become clean and pure if willingly wipe off the secondary Jaimini techniques. Jaimini system can stand taking the help of - either Parasara, or Arsha, or Garga or Yavana. It does not make much difference to the secondary Jaimni approach which primary base it depend upon. Since the primary base covers much common ground (whether it be Arsha, Parasara, Garga or Yavana) it will not make much difference. Anyway, the Andhra Jaimini system should appreciated for its innovation and blamed for its non-sincere mystifying about its origin and truth. This is my personal opinion. * Lal Kitab astrology - This is another branch of Arsha school of astrology. This system originated in Himachal pradesh. The original Sanskrit quotes related to this system is no more available; but the system is unique, systematic and beautiful. It is still in tune with ancient system even though many innovations are present. Too much importance to remedies are destroying this system and it is high time that Lal kitab astrology is freed from remedies and upayas and brought back to the original systematic approach towards natal horoscopy and basic chart reading techniques. Traditional astrologers has much to learn from lal kitab astrologer and vice versa - about ancient astrology; its techniques and approach. * Ramala school of astrology (astrology of dice) - This system is an off-shoot of Jain school of astrology. At the end let us come to the question Manoj ji asks -//> So after a really circular route, I think the pivotal question becomes, is BPHS as it stands today, really "Ancient Indian Astrology"? // My answer would be that - * BPHS as it stands today is NOT really 'Ancient Indian Astrology' (actually this answer is inherent in Manoj ji's question itself and is clearly his opinion as well). But we should not forget that true Parashari alone (i.e.. if it shreds of all Jaimini secondary techniques) would be a true representative of ancient indian astrology. There fore it is better to clarify our statement and say that - Parashari school of astrology is ancient indian astrology; but the Santanam BPHS is no more a true representative of original Parashari school of astrology. Current BPHS is not ancient indian astrology, but an amalgam of medieval andhra orissa astrology with some quotes from ancient parashari school of astrology. //Is it fair to use that as an argument to state that Parashari + Jaimini principles, used in an integrated approach, has classical sanction?// No - they don't. Actually it is clear that Manoj ji also has the same opinion. Or better, that would be the sincere opinion of any one with research attitude, probing into this subject and similar questions. But let us not forget that "Truth is not always pleasant"; so would be the above expressed opinions. Therefore definitely this should cause a controversy to start - I believe. The numerous followers and ardent believers of current BPHS and current Jaimini sutra is not going leave us. So enjoy! Love and regards,Sreenadh ancient_indian_ astrology, Manoj Chandran <chandran_manoj@ ...> wrote:>> Dear Manoj (Mouji) Ji,> >  Here is the problem. It is very difficult to objectively validate the efficacy of one particular theory, especially if it is used in an integrated approach (Parashari + Jaimini). If the practising astrologers are also intelligent and strong in the Parashari principles, they will get the predictions correct any way. So that does not prove that their Jamini principles are accurate, does it? This is why I dont see how these things can be categorically proven, one way or the other. I think it is up to each of us to evaluate each system and adopt whichever passes our practical tests.> > I also feel (my humble pesonal opinion) that those that argue that these two principles should not be mixed together may have a valid point. Jyotish was always an orally transmitted system. If this system was truly an integrated approach, why aren't there more oral traditions with such integrated approach? Why aren't there more classics supporting this integrated approach? Was Parashara really the author of the BPHS as it is currently published, or is the current version a compilation effort from various sources and when that effort was done, different systems were mixed together?> So when some one says, "Parashara says this so it must be true (regarding the integrated system)", then what they are really saying is "The author of BPHS says this, so it must be true". Is the author of BPHS really Parashara?> > Ofcourse I am neither a sanskrit scholar nor an accomplished astrologer but that does not prevent me from having a probing mind and ask these questions. However, if some one says " Look, I dont care if Parashara really authored this or not, I tried these two different techniques together, I experimented with it, it works, I like it, so leave me alone", then I am fine with that too. Experimentation is good as long as we declare it is an experiment and it is a novel approach, but not really an "ancient approach".> > So after a really circular route, I think the pivotal question becomes, is BPHS as it stands today, really "Ancient Indian Astrology"? Is it fair to use that as an argument to state that Parashari + Jaimini principles, used in an integrated approach, has classical sanction?> > May be Sreenadh Ji and others throw some light on this?>  > Regards,>  -Manoj>  New Email addresses available on Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail. .Hurry before someone else does! Looking for local information? Find it on Local Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Dear Manoj ji, // I believe the only "dumb" question, is that one which was never asked. // Well said! For those who are yet to get it, the definition of the word "dumb" is given below -==> Lacking the power of speech. Used of animals and inanimate objects.Often Offensive. Incapable of using speech; mute. Used of humans. See Usage Note at mute. Temporarily speechless, as with shock or fear: I was dumb with disbelief. Unwilling to speak; taciturn. Not expressed or articulated in sounds or words: dumb resentment.Nautical. Not self-propelling. Conspicuously unintelligent; stupid: dumb officials; a dumb decision. Unintentional; haphazard: dumb luck.To make silent or dumb.<==Love and regards,Sreenadh , Manoj Chandran <chandran_manoj wrote:>> Dear Anita Ji,> > You are right. I believe the only "dumb" question, is that one which was never asked. > > Regards,> -Manoj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Dear Sreenadh ji, Indeed it is very knowledgeable mail which can be expect from you ,it is very useful for references of most of sages and their contribution if the field of Astrology, Thanks for the informative mail. M.S.Bohra , " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote: > > Dear Manoj ji, > First of all thanks for a beautiful mail, and bringing in a > controversial subject to light. While I was reading through the mail, > expressing beautiful and sincere opinions and doubts, I was wondering > whether I should get involved and respond to it or not. But when the > mail reached the last paras you made it clear and there remained no way > I could escape from this thread. Possibly you (and now me) has tapped on > top of the pandora's box and now there is no escape from a controversy > and a very heated discussion and argumentation it seems. > So let me too express my opinions. I will try to make it as brief as > possible. > > In ancient india many schcol of astrological thoughts were popular just > like the numerous schools of philosophy. The most popular and important > of them where - > * Arsha School of Astrolgy - Sages like Skanda, Daksha, Vasishta, > Kousika Viswamitra, Sounaka, Soma, Suray where the acharyas of this > oldest and most ancient system. > * Jain School of astrology - Sages like Garga, Vriddha Garga, Gargi, > Rishi putra etc were the acharyas of this system. Just like normal > astrology, this branch gave must importance to Nimittas as well, and is > considered the originators of a systematic approach to Nimitta. > * Yavana School of Astrology - Possibly this is the school of Gujaraji > Zorashtrian astrology. Sages like Yavanacharya and scholars like > Sphujidhwaja, Meenaraja, Srutakeerti etc the acharyas of this system. > This system is of later origin. > * Vedic Astrology - Mainly this is a branch of stellar astrology. The > system and approach followed by them were not much centered on signs but > instead on Tithi, Nakshtras, Luni-Solar months and Muhuratas. This is an > old system - clear reconstruction of this school of though is yet to > happen. They must be the originators of a systematic approach to > Muhurta. > > These being the basic schools of thoughts let us analyze the other > schools of thoughts popular now a days - > * Parasara school of astrology - Parasara school is an off-shoot of > Arsha school of astrology. But the currently available Santanam > compilation of BPHS that is an amalgam of Parashari and Jaimini methods > DOES NOT accurately depict the true Parasari school of astrology. If we > chip away all the new concepts mentioned in Jaimini sutra and its > commentaries from Santanam BPHS, then we may get a glimpse of the old > Parashari system. It is a mix of Ancient arsha shool of thought + some > excellent dasa systems like Kalachakra dasa, Vimsottari etc. Ancient > arsha school was depended on dasa like Moola dasa, Pinda dasa etc alone > and the innovation by Parashari Dasa systems was a great one. Parashara > must be the originator of a systematic approach to Dasa systems. > Certainly currently available quotes that are attributed to Parasara are > not that old, and NOT written by parasara; but the concepts and > teachings inherent in them point to the original teacher the ancient > parasara of BC 1400. This we should accept and appreciate. Because this > only is true for other schools as well. For example - the currently > available garga quotes may not be written by the ancient sage garga of > BC 1100, the skanda words may not be by skanda and so on. i.e. When the > language and script changed, some one must have modified the literature > (the words and meter) and kept the content to suit the changing times. > Thus the school of thought remains the same, the concept remains the > same - but the language changes. Interpolations would be usually > minimum in such cases due to the high respect towards original sage, the > originator of the tradition and school of astrology. This sincerity and > respect towards the school of thought got lost only after 16th, 17th > century when too much interpolations started appearing on the scene - > most possibly due to the unavailability of ancient scripts especially in > places were the old texts were unavailable but the believers were > present. Jaimini sutra is an example of such a text. > > * Jaimini School of astrology - Actually poor sage Jaimni is in no way > connected with this system. This system originated somewhere around the > borders of Andha and Orissa in or around 15th to 20th century and now > became popular and got interpolated even to the modern version of BPHS - > the Santanam compilation of the amalgum of Parashara and Jaimini > systems; Santanam's amalgamation of the North Indian, Orissa and Andha > astrology. Most of the methods presented this text Jaimini Sutra are all > secondary techniques similar to as available in Prashna texts, which > indicate its later origin. The text itself seems to be the result of > crooked intentional to 'make-up a text and attribute an ancient sage', > so as to compile the local (Andhra+Orissa) astrology into a single text > and give it an aura of being an old system. Who ever started this act, > purposefully selecting the Sutra style, succeeded in it - and thus we > have a Jaimini Sutra today, having the root of all controversies, making > the Parashara system impure, causing confusion to many. I am not saying > that Jaimni system is not good. Actually IT IS good, just like any local > astrological tradition (like Prahna marga), that finds it original roots > in Arsha school and its base concepts itself and then innovate using > secondary techniques. But when someone forgets the roots (the base), > secondary techniques becomes useless. That is why Jaimini system always > needs the help of Parashari, remains to be some what of a commentary of > BPHS amended with secondary techniques. But the Parashari system can > stand alone, become clean and pure if willingly wipe off the secondary > Jaimini techniques. Jaimini system can stand taking the help of - either > Parasara, or Arsha, or Garga or Yavana. It does not make much difference > to the secondary Jaimni approach which primary base it depend upon. > Since the primary base covers much common ground (whether it be Arsha, > Parasara, Garga or Yavana) it will not make much difference. Anyway, the > Andhra Jaimini system should appreciated for its innovation and blamed > for its non-sincere mystifying about its origin and truth. This is my > personal opinion. > * Lal Kitab astrology - This is another branch of Arsha school of > astrology. This system originated in Himachal pradesh. The original > Sanskrit quotes related to this system is no more available; but the > system is unique, systematic and beautiful. It is still in tune with > ancient system even though many innovations are present. Too much > importance to remedies are destroying this system and it is high time > that Lal kitab astrology is freed from remedies and upayas and brought > back to the original systematic approach towards natal horoscopy and > basic chart reading techniques. Traditional astrologers has much to > learn from lal kitab astrologer and vice versa - about ancient > astrology; its techniques and approach. > > * Ramala school of astrology (astrology of dice) - This system is an > off-shoot of Jain school of astrology. > > At the end let us come to the question Manoj ji asks - > //> So after a really circular route, I think the pivotal question > becomes, is BPHS as it stands today, really " Ancient Indian Astrology " ? > // > My answer would be that - > * BPHS as it stands today is NOT really 'Ancient Indian Astrology' > (actually this answer is inherent in Manoj ji's question itself and is > clearly his opinion as well). But we should not forget that true > Parashari alone (i.e. if it shreds of all Jaimini secondary techniques) > would be a true representative of ancient indian astrology. There fore > it is better to clarify our statement and say that - Parashari school of > astrology is ancient indian astrology; but the Santanam BPHS is no more > a true representative of original Parashari school of astrology. Current > BPHS is not ancient indian astrology, but an amalgam of medieval andhra > orissa astrology with some quotes from ancient parashari school of > astrology. > //Is it fair to use that as an argument to state that Parashari + > Jaimini principles, used in an integrated approach, has classical > sanction?// > No - they don't. Actually it is clear that Manoj ji also has the same > opinion. Or better, that would be the sincere opinion of any one with > research attitude, probing into this subject and similar questions. > But let us not forget that " Truth is not always pleasant " ; so would be > the above expressed opinions. Therefore definitely this should cause a > controversy to start - I believe. The numerous followers and ardent > believers of current BPHS and current Jaimini sutra is not going leave > us. So enjoy! > Love and regards, > Sreenadh > > , Manoj Chandran > <chandran_manoj@> wrote: > > > > Dear Manoj (Mouji) Ji, > > > >  Here is the problem. It is very difficult to objectively validate > the efficacy of one particular theory, especially if it is used in an > integrated approach (Parashari + Jaimini). If the practising astrologers > are also intelligent and strong in the Parashari principles, > they will get the predictions correct any way. So that does not prove > that their Jamini principles are accurate, does it? This is why I dont > see how these things can be categorically proven, one way or the > other. I think it is up to each of us to evaluate each system > and adopt whichever passes our practical tests. > > > > I also feel (my humble pesonal opinion) that those that argue that > these two principles should not be mixed together may have a valid > point. Jyotish was always an orally transmitted system. If this > system was truly an integrated approach, why aren't there more oral > traditions with such integrated approach? Why aren't there more classics > supporting this integrated approach? Was Parashara really the author > of the BPHS as it is currently published, or is the current > version a compilation effort from various sources and when that > effort was done, different systems were mixed together? > > So when some one says, " Parashara says this so it must be true > (regarding the integrated system) " , then what they are really saying is > " The author of BPHS says this, so it must be true " . Is the author of > BPHS really Parashara? > > > > Ofcourse I am neither a sanskrit scholar nor an accomplished > astrologer but that does not prevent me from having a probing mind > and ask these questions. However, if some one says " Look, I dont care > if Parashara really authored this or not, I tried these two > different techniques together, I experimented with it, it works, I like > it, so leave me alone " , then I am fine with that too. Experimentation is > good as long as we declare it is an experiment and it is a novel > approach, but not really an " ancient approach " . > > > > So after a really circular route, I think the pivotal question > becomes, is BPHS as it stands today, really " Ancient Indian Astrology " ? > Is it fair to use that as an argument to state that Parashari + Jaimini > principles, used in an integrated approach, has classical sanction? > > > > May be Sreenadh Ji and others throw some light on this? > >  > > Regards, > >  -Manoj > >  > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Pranams,Mr.Sreenadh ji,Nothing sarcastic, "Deciduous" meaning stage of growth in processes .Regards/Dhananjayan--- On Sat, 18/7/09, Sreenadh <sreesog wrote:Sreenadh <sreesog Re: Ancient Indian Astrology Date: Saturday, 18 July, 2009, 4:53 PM Dear Dhananjayan ji, //I hope your detailed future write ups on the header explaining the your rational behind severally grouping of the scriptures would add more taste and throw more scientific light on your work and on the history of Indian Astrology// Download the below mentioned articles collection by me, and in it you will find some detailed exposition of various schools of astrology such as Arsha, Jain, Yavana etc. URL: http://groups. / group/ancient_ indian_astrology Sreenadh% 20OG/Astro_ Book.pdf //> I thank Mr. Manoj ji, the desert king! who stood the reason to tap the beautiful write of Mr.Sreenadh ji, the deciduous woodland monarch!// Wow! What a language! "Deciduous woodland monarch!" I will have to consult the dictionary - ============ ======== Deciduous------------ Falling off or shed at a specific season or stage of growth: deciduous antlers; deciduous leaves; deciduous teeth.. Shedding or losing foliage at the end of the growing season: deciduous trees. Not lasting; ephemeral. That which will be shed. Pertaining specifically to the first dentition of humans or animals. Preferred term is primary.Descriptive of trees or shrubs, usually of temperate climates, that shed their leaves annually; characteristic of most hardwoods and a few softwoods. Wood land------------ --A tract of land dominated by trees but often containing shrubs and other vegetation as well. An area covered with trees and shrubs.Monarch----------- One who reigns over a state or territory, usually for life and by hereditary right, especially: A sole and absolute ruler. A sovereign, such as a king or empress, often with constitutionally limited authority: a constitutional monarch. One that commands or rules: "I am monarch of all I survey" (William Cowper). One that surpasses others in power or preeminence: "Mont Blanc is the monarch of the mountains" (Byron). A monarch butterfly.A king, queen, or emperor. Also: A large North American butterfly.============ ======== Thus comes the phrase - "Deciduous woodland monarch". So -Deciduous : Means I am a seasonal phenomena; I am at the end of my growing season, and is shedding foliage (leaves). It would have been better if what is being shed are ripe fruits - ripe mangoes. Anyway I am not going to last long, and would be shed in near future! Woodland: I am in an woodland! Why? Is it because I am meditative? Or are you pointing to my uncut corners, the rough outfit? Monarch: A king who rule with the power of fist! One who does not value democracy! You consider me as a monarch in this group! May be a natural conclusion you draw from my sharp and critical behavior. So in short I am a "woodland monarch (forest king)" who would be which would be shed (cut and made to fall down, since ripe).And who stood the reason to achieve the same? The brave one, the hero- the follower? As per Dhananjay ji's story it is the "Desert king"; an phrase qualifying Manoj chandran ji. Let us again go by the dictionary - ============ ====Desert-------- A barren or desolate area, especially: A dry, often sandy region of little rainfall, extreme temperatures, and sparse vegetation. A region of permanent cold that is largely or entirely devoid of life. An apparently lifeless area of water. An empty or forsaken place; a wasteland: a cultural desert.Archaic. A wild, uncultivated, and uninhabited region.King----- A male sovereign. One that is supreme or preeminent in a particular group, category, or sphere.============ ==== So Manoj ji is "Desert King" (King of barren lands; king of a region of little rainfall) I am "Woodland Monarch" (Forest king; king of a region of much rainfall) Which are these areas you are pointing to?! Rightly I am the woodland Monarch from Kerala, the land of trees. Which is the native place of Manoj ji? It would be interesting to know that. At times words can comprehend more meaning than we intend them to be, and prophetically point to truths. Dhananjayan ji I loved those phrases and love this "Desert King", and equally appreciate him along with you. It is always good to have good and brave kings around, but why you want to shed me so fast? I have just started growing only. Ha..Ha.. Enjoy! Anyway, beautiful said, Dhananjay ji, I bow to your command over English.Love and hugs to you both,Sreenadh ancient_indian_ astrology, Dhananjayan Brahma <abhanaya wrote:>> Pranams,> > Mr.Sreenadhji,> > Great ! what a threshing commentaries on Indian Astrology in a net shell ! It simply tasted like swallowing "Pazhani Panchamirtham" ! Sir,Your segregation of available ancient,medieval and modern astrological work seems marvelous ;but I hope your detailed future write ups on the header explaining the your rational behind severally grouping of the scriptures would add more taste and throw more scientific light on your work and on the history of Indian Astrology !> > I thank Mr. Manoj ji, the desert king! who stood the reason to tap the beautiful write of Mr.Sreenadh ji, the deciduous woodland monarch!> GOD BLESS BOTH TO PRESENT US MORE SUCH FUTURE TASTY SAMARAATHANA !! > > Regards / Dhananjayan New Email addresses available on Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail. Hurry before someone else does! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Dear Manoj ji,As you wish so he pleases !Regards/Dhananjayan--- On Sat, 18/7/09, Manoj Chandran <chandran_manoj wrote:Manoj Chandran <chandran_manojRe: Re: Ancient Indian Astrology Date: Saturday, 18 July, 2009, 4:51 PM Dear Dhananjayan Ji, I am only the "King" of questions, Sreenadh Ji, is the "King" of answers . Regards, -Manoj Dhananjayan Brahma <abhanaya >ancient_indian_ astrologyCc: sreesog Saturday, July 18, 2009 3:13:25 AMRe: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Ancient Indian Astrology Pranams,Mr.Sreenadhji,Great ! what a threshing commentaries on Indian Astrology in a net shell ! It simply tasted like swallowing "Pazhani Panchamirtham" ! Sir,Your segregation of available ancient,medieval and modern astrological work seems marvelous ;but I hope your detailed future write ups on the header explaining the your rational behind severally grouping of the scriptures would add more taste and throw more scientific light on your work and on the history of Indian Astrology !I thank Mr. Manoj ji, the desert king! who stood the reason to tap the beautiful write of Mr.Sreenadh ji, the deciduous woodland monarch!GOD BLESS BOTH TO PRESENT US MORE SUCH FUTURE TASTY SAMARAATHANA !! Regards / Dhananjayan--- On Sat, 18/7/09, Sreenadh <sreesog > wrote: Sreenadh <sreesog >[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Ancient Indian Astrologyancient_indian_ astrologySaturday, 18 July, 2009, 11:57 AM Dear Manoj ji, First of all thanks for a beautiful mail, and bringing in a controversial subject to light. While I was reading through the mail, expressing beautiful and sincere opinions and doubts, I was wondering whether I should get involved and respond to it or not. But when the mail reached the last paras you made it clear and there remained no way I could escape from this thread. Possibly you (and now me) has tapped on top of the pandora's box and now there is no escape from a controversy and a very heated discussion and argumentation it seems. So let me too express my opinions. I will try to make it as brief as possible. In ancient india many schcol of astrological thoughts were popular just like the numerous schools of philosophy. The most popular and important of them where - * Arsha School of Astrolgy - Sages like Skanda, Daksha, Vasishta, Kousika Viswamitra, Sounaka, Soma, Suray where the acharyas of this oldest and most ancient system. * Jain School of astrology - Sages like Garga, Vriddha Garga, Gargi, Rishi putra etc were the acharyas of this system. Just like normal astrology, this branch gave must importance to Nimittas as well, and is considered the originators of a systematic approach to Nimitta. * Yavana School of Astrology - Possibly this is the school of Gujaraji Zorashtrian astrology. Sages like Yavanacharya and scholars like Sphujidhwaja, Meenaraja, Srutakeerti etc the acharyas of this system. This system is of later origin. * Vedic Astrology - Mainly this is a branch of stellar astrology. The system and approach followed by them were not much centered on signs but instead on Tithi, Nakshtras, Luni-Solar months and Muhuratas. This is an old system - clear reconstruction of this school of though is yet to happen. They must be the originators of a systematic approach to Muhurta. These being the basic schools of thoughts let us analyze the other schools of thoughts popular now a days - * Parasara school of astrology - Parasara school is an off-shoot of Arsha school of astrology. But the currently available Santanam compilation of BPHS that is an amalgam of Parashari and Jaimini methods DOES NOT accurately depict the true Parasari school of astrology. If we chip away all the new concepts mentioned in Jaimini sutra and its commentaries from Santanam BPHS, then we may get a glimpse of the old Parashari system. It is a mix of Ancient arsha shool of thought + some excellent dasa systems like Kalachakra dasa, Vimsottari etc. Ancient arsha school was depended on dasa like Moola dasa, Pinda dasa etc alone and the innovation by Parashari Dasa systems was a great one. Parashara must be the originator of a systematic approach to Dasa systems. Certainly currently available quotes that are attributed to Parasara are not that old, and NOT written by parasara; but the concepts and teachings inherent in them point to the original teacher the ancient parasara of BC 1400. This we should accept and appreciate. Because this only is true for other schools as well. For example - the currently available garga quotes may not be written by the ancient sage garga of BC 1100, the skanda words may not be by skanda and so on. i.e. When the language and script changed, some one must have modified the literature (the words and meter) and kept the content to suit the changing times. Thus the school of thought remains the same, the concept remains the same - but the language changes. Interpolations would be usually minimum in such cases due to the high respect towards original sage, the originator of the tradition and school of astrology. This sincerity and respect towards the school of thought got lost only after 16th, 17th century when too much interpolations started appearing on the scene - most possibly due to the unavailability of ancient scripts especially in places were the old texts were unavailable but the believers were present. Jaimini sutra is an example of such a text. * Jaimini School of astrology - Actually poor sage Jaimni is in no way connected with this system. This system originated somewhere around the borders of Andha and Orissa in or around 15th to 20th century and now became popular and got interpolated even to the modern version of BPHS - the Santanam compilation of the amalgum of Parashara and Jaimini systems; Santanam's amalgamation of the North Indian, Orissa and Andha astrology. Most of the methods presented this text Jaimini Sutra are all secondary techniques similar to as available in Prashna texts, which indicate its later origin. The text itself seems to be the result of crooked intentional to 'make-up a text and attribute an ancient sage', so as to compile the local (Andhra+Orissa) astrology into a single text and give it an aura of being an old system. Who ever started this act, purposefully selecting the Sutra style, succeeded in it - and thus we have a Jaimini Sutra today, having the root of all controversies, making the Parashara system impure, causing confusion to many. I am not saying that Jaimni system is not good. Actually IT IS good, just like any local astrological tradition (like Prahna marga), that finds it original roots in Arsha school and its base concepts itself and then innovate using secondary techniques. But when someone forgets the roots (the base), secondary techniques becomes useless. That is why Jaimini system always needs the help of Parashari, remains to be some what of a commentary of BPHS amended with secondary techniques.. But the Parashari system can stand alone, become clean and pure if willingly wipe off the secondary Jaimini techniques. Jaimini system can stand taking the help of - either Parasara, or Arsha, or Garga or Yavana. It does not make much difference to the secondary Jaimni approach which primary base it depend upon. Since the primary base covers much common ground (whether it be Arsha, Parasara, Garga or Yavana) it will not make much difference. Anyway, the Andhra Jaimini system should appreciated for its innovation and blamed for its non-sincere mystifying about its origin and truth. This is my personal opinion. * Lal Kitab astrology - This is another branch of Arsha school of astrology. This system originated in Himachal pradesh. The original Sanskrit quotes related to this system is no more available; but the system is unique, systematic and beautiful. It is still in tune with ancient system even though many innovations are present. Too much importance to remedies are destroying this system and it is high time that Lal kitab astrology is freed from remedies and upayas and brought back to the original systematic approach towards natal horoscopy and basic chart reading techniques. Traditional astrologers has much to learn from lal kitab astrologer and vice versa - about ancient astrology; its techniques and approach. * Ramala school of astrology (astrology of dice) - This system is an off-shoot of Jain school of astrology. At the end let us come to the question Manoj ji asks -//> So after a really circular route, I think the pivotal question becomes, is BPHS as it stands today, really "Ancient Indian Astrology"? // My answer would be that - * BPHS as it stands today is NOT really 'Ancient Indian Astrology' (actually this answer is inherent in Manoj ji's question itself and is clearly his opinion as well). But we should not forget that true Parashari alone (i.e... if it shreds of all Jaimini secondary techniques) would be a true representative of ancient indian astrology. There fore it is better to clarify our statement and say that - Parashari school of astrology is ancient indian astrology; but the Santanam BPHS is no more a true representative of original Parashari school of astrology. Current BPHS is not ancient indian astrology, but an amalgam of medieval andhra orissa astrology with some quotes from ancient parashari school of astrology. //Is it fair to use that as an argument to state that Parashari + Jaimini principles, used in an integrated approach, has classical sanction?// No - they don't. Actually it is clear that Manoj ji also has the same opinion. Or better, that would be the sincere opinion of any one with research attitude, probing into this subject and similar questions. But let us not forget that "Truth is not always pleasant"; so would be the above expressed opinions. Therefore definitely this should cause a controversy to start - I believe. The numerous followers and ardent believers of current BPHS and current Jaimini sutra is not going leave us. So enjoy! Love and regards,Sreenadh ancient_indian_ astrology, Manoj Chandran <chandran_manoj@ ...> wrote:>> Dear Manoj (Mouji) Ji,> >  Here is the problem. It is very difficult to objectively validate the efficacy of one particular theory, especially if it is used in an integrated approach (Parashari + Jaimini). If the practising astrologers are also intelligent and strong in the Parashari principles, they will get the predictions correct any way. So that does not prove that their Jamini principles are accurate, does it? This is why I dont see how these things can be categorically proven, one way or the other. I think it is up to each of us to evaluate each system and adopt whichever passes our practical tests.> > I also feel (my humble pesonal opinion) that those that argue that these two principles should not be mixed together may have a valid point. Jyotish was always an orally transmitted system. If this system was truly an integrated approach, why aren't there more oral traditions with such integrated approach? Why aren't there more classics supporting this integrated approach? Was Parashara really the author of the BPHS as it is currently published, or is the current version a compilation effort from various sources and when that effort was done, different systems were mixed together?> So when some one says, "Parashara says this so it must be true (regarding the integrated system)", then what they are really saying is "The author of BPHS says this, so it must be true". Is the author of BPHS really Parashara?> > Ofcourse I am neither a sanskrit scholar nor an accomplished astrologer but that does not prevent me from having a probing mind and ask these questions. However, if some one says " Look, I dont care if Parashara really authored this or not, I tried these two different techniques together, I experimented with it, it works, I like it, so leave me alone", then I am fine with that too. Experimentation is good as long as we declare it is an experiment and it is a novel approach, but not really an "ancient approach".> > So after a really circular route, I think the pivotal question becomes, is BPHS as it stands today, really "Ancient Indian Astrology"? Is it fair to use that as an argument to state that Parashari + Jaimini principles, used in an integrated approach, has classical sanction?> > May be Sreenadh Ji and others throw some light on this?>  > Regards,>  -Manoj>  New Email addresses available on Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail. .Hurry before someone else does! New Email names for you! Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail. Hurry before someone else does! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Dear Dhananjayan ji, Nothing serious. I was just appreciating your mail. Let us move on. :)Love and hugs,Sreenadh , Dhananjayan Brahma <abhanaya wrote:>> Pranams,> Mr.Sreenadh ji,> > Nothing sarcastic, "Deciduous" meaning stage of growth in processes .> > Regards/Dhananjayan> > > --- On Sat, 18/7/09, Sreenadh sreesog wrote:> > Sreenadh sreesog Re: Ancient Indian Astrology> > Saturday, 18 July, 2009, 4:53 PM> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhananjayan ji,> //I hope your detailed future write ups on the header explaining the your> rational behind severally grouping of the scriptures would add more> taste and throw more scientific light on your work and on the history> of Indian Astrology//> Download the below mentioned articles collection by me, and in it you will find some detailed exposition of various schools of astrology such as Arsha, Jain, Yavana etc. URL: http://groups. / group/ancient_ indian_astrology Sreenadh% 20OG/Astro_ Book.pdf> > //> I thank Mr. Manoj ji, the desert king! who stood the reason to tap> the beautiful write of Mr.Sreenadh ji, the deciduous woodland monarch!//> Wow! What a language! "Deciduous woodland monarch!" I will have to consult the dictionary - > ============ ========> Deciduous> ------------> > Falling off or shed at a specific season or stage of growth: deciduous antlers; deciduous leaves; deciduous teeth. Shedding or losing foliage at the end of the growing season: deciduous trees. Not lasting; ephemeral.> That which will be shed. Pertaining specifically to the first dentition of humans or animals. Preferred term is primary.> Descriptive of trees or shrubs, usually of temperate climates, that> shed their leaves annually; characteristic of most hardwoods and a few> softwoods.> > > Wood land> ------------ --> A tract of land dominated by trees but often containing shrubs and other vegetation as well. An area covered with trees and shrubs.> > Monarch> -----------> One who reigns over a state or territory, usually for life and by hereditary right, especially: A sole and absolute ruler. A sovereign, such as a king or empress, often with constitutionally limited authority: a constitutional monarch. One that commands or rules: "I am monarch of all I survey" (William Cowper). One that surpasses others in power or preeminence: "Mont Blanc is the monarch of the mountains" (Byron). A monarch butterfly.A king, queen, or emperor. Also: A large North American butterfly.> ============ ========> > Thus comes the phrase - "Deciduous woodland monarch". So -> Deciduous : Means I am a seasonal phenomena; I am at the end of my growing season, and is shedding foliage (leaves). It would have been better if what is being shed are ripe fruits - ripe mangoes. Anyway I am not going to last long, and would be shed in near future! > Woodland: I am in an woodland! Why? Is it because I am meditative? Or are you pointing to my uncut corners, the rough outfit? > Monarch: A king who rule with the power of fist! One who does not value democracy! You consider me as a monarch in this group! May be a natural conclusion you draw from my sharp and critical behavior. > > So in short I am a "woodland monarch (forest king)" who would be which would be shed (cut and made to fall down, since ripe).> > And who stood the reason to achieve the same? The brave one, the hero- the follower? As per Dhananjay ji's story it is the "Desert king"; an phrase qualifying Manoj chandran ji. Let us again go by the dictionary - > ============ ====> Desert> --------> A barren or desolate area, especially: A dry, often sandy region of little rainfall, extreme temperatures, and sparse vegetation. A region of permanent cold that is largely or entirely devoid of life. An apparently lifeless area of water. An empty or forsaken place; a wasteland: a cultural desert.Archaic. A wild, uncultivated, and uninhabited region.King> -----> A male sovereign. One that is supreme or preeminent in a particular group, category, or sphere.============ ==== > > So Manoj ji is "Desert King" (King of barren lands; king of a region of little rainfall)> I am "Woodland Monarch" (Forest king; king of a region of much rainfall) > > Which are these areas you are pointing to?! Rightly I am the woodland Monarch from Kerala, the land of trees. Which is the native place of Manoj ji? It would be interesting to know that. At times words can comprehend more meaning than we intend them to be, and prophetically point to truths. > > Dhananjayan ji I loved those phrases and love this "Desert King", and equally appreciate him along with you. It is always good to have good and brave kings around, but why you want to shed me so fast? I have just started growing only. Ha..Ha.. Enjoy! Anyway, beautiful said, Dhananjay ji, I bow to your command over English.> Love and hugs to you both,> Sreenadh > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Dhananjayan Brahma abhanaya@ wrote:> >> > Pranams,> > > > Mr.Sreenadhji,> > > > Great ! what a threshing commentaries on Indian Astrology in a net shell ! It simply tasted like swallowing "Pazhani Panchamirtham" ! Sir,Your segregation of available ancient,medieval and modern astrological work seems marvelous ;but I hope your detailed future write ups on the header explaining the your rational behind severally grouping of the scriptures would add more taste and throw more scientific light on your work and on the history of Indian Astrology !> > > > I thank Mr. Manoj ji, the desert king! who stood the reason to tap the beautiful write of Mr.Sreenadh ji, the deciduous woodland monarch!> > GOD BLESS BOTH TO PRESENT US MORE SUCH FUTURE TASTY SAMARAATHANA !! > > > > Regards / Dhananjayan> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get your preferred Email name!> Now you can @ymail.com and @rocketmail.com. > http://mail.promotions./newdomains/aa/> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Thanks. , "msbohra62" <msbohra62 wrote:>> Dear Sreenadh ji,> > Indeed it is very knowledgeable mail which can be expect from you ,it is very useful for references of most of sages and their contribution if the field of Astrology,> > Thanks for the informative mail.> > M.S.Bohra 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.