BPHS various editions

[Guest guest]

Dear All, The following write-up is from: ttp://jyotish-blog.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_archive.htmlLove and regards,Sreenadh=====================Tuesday, February 08, 2005 BPHS various varanasi editions By Shree KN Rao : Messages : Message 4009 of 4067 BPHS various varanasi editions By Shree KN Rao Let me add something to the very scholarly note of Sri Satya Prakash. Late J.N. Bhasin who woked in the Indian Defence Accounts was a Sanskrit scholar and he compared many of such Parashara texts and was firmly of the opinion that the Venkatesh Press version which was the first to come to out in Hindi was very authentic and dependable and also different in context. For instance, Mr Bhasin took the fifth, seventh and ninth aspects of Rahu invariably and supported it by referring to the Venkatesh Press edition. The Varanasi editions I have talked of are the same that have been mentioned here, by first Sitaram Jha, then Devichand Jha and then finally Ganesh Dutt Pathak. There was fourth one also by Achyutananda Jha. ( The correct spelling is JHA) There was a protracted litigation about copyright as after the death of Sitaram Jha the later editions by others were said to be plagiarisms. Interestingly if you do a comparative study of these editions you will find some differences in the contents of even of the Jaimini pieces. Out of the these three, Sitaram Jha, Devi Chand Jha and Ganesh Dutt , it is the last Ganesh Dutt whose understanding of the predictive elements of Parashara were said to be superior as he was the one person who instead of merely translating the Parashara text could have given some illuminating commentar as well. Out of these three, Ganesh Duttïž’s son carried on the fine interpretative tradition of his father in his translation (which becomes a very good commentary also in parts) of Jatak Tattwam of Mahadeva. But when it comes to a commentary on Jatak Tattwam the best one was by his son published from some city in Madhya Pradesh, perhaps Ratlam. Coming back to the Jhas of Varanasi do not forget that they were from Darbhanga in Bihar and were Maithili Brahmins who were encouraged by the Maharaja of Darbhanga to popularise astrology through the magnificent astrology wing he had during his time. In fact, during my Patna days, I saw many Jhas, the last of the suriving Darbhanga astrologers prepare horoscopes in details. What use they had made of Jaimini is not known to me but they invariably prepared in the horoscopes they cast, seven Karakas of Jaimini only and put Karakamsha in the birth chart and not in navamsha as Dr. Raman did. Later, I saw in the Jaipur and Rajasthan cast horoscopes als out seven karakas and Karakamsha put in the birth chart and all the karakas put in the nnavamsha and described as swamsha. Darbhanga was such an attractive centre of astrological education and the only in eastern India after Varanasi, that Hanuman Shastri the best known astrologer of Orissa in the seventies and eighties, studied here. When I met Hanuman Shastri in Jagannath Puri in 1985, he talked in beautiful Hindi and I asked him could he be so fluent in this language. He told me he had all that education in Darbhanga univesity where he did five year course in astrology as there were no such teaching centres in Orissa. It was the great vice chancellor, Madan Mohan Malviya that had succeeded in attracting such scholars from all over India including S.Radhakrishnan, later president of India, to Varanasi University. Before Sitaram Jha there was the famous Ram Yatan Ojha also from Darbhanga and later Gopesh Kumar Ojha etc. All these people spread all over north from Varanasi to Rajasthan. As far as I know out of all these only Sri Gopesh Kumar Jha could translate these works both into Hindi and English and had like those Jhas excellent Sanskrit scholarship. But if you come back to the comparison of the Parashara texts, there is a vast difference between Venkatesh press edition and the Varanasi editions. Again, among the Varanasi editions, the contents change here and there and the divisions of chapters are also different. Whether it was because of differences in the manuscripts they used or a clever rearrangement to avoid copyright complications is not known to me. K.N.Rao. Posted by Sanjay Prabhakaran at 9:09 AM BPHS various editions by Dr Satya Prakash Choudhary BPHS various editions by Dr Satya Prakash Choudhary I will give a quick history of BPHS in modern times (its published history), without going into other things. I don't know which *Varanasi* edition Sri K. N. Rao is referring to. It has to be either the second or third in my list. I will not refer to the English translations or other regional ones because most of these texts follow one or more of the following as these are among the first published ones in any language. 1. The earliest *published* edition of BPHS is 'BrihatParasaraHoraSaramsa' with Sridhara pandita's Sanskrit and Hindi commentary. Published by Venkateswara Steam Press, Bombay. (don't know its first publication date. I could procure a xerox copy of the second edition dated 1951) Subsequently three editions with Hindi commentary were published. 2. Sri Sitaram Jhoo's Hindi commentary ('Brihat Parasara Hora') published by Master Kheladilal & Sons, Varanasi (published 1946) 3. Sri Devachandra Jhoo's Hindi commentary ('Brihat Parasara Hora') published by Chowkamba Vidya Bhavan, Varanasi 4. Sri Ganesadatta Pathak's Hindi commentary published by Thakur Prasad Pustak Bhandar. These four are generally the main editions used by scholars in comparing various editions. Of these Sridhara's and Ganesadatta's versions are nearly similar while the other two are similar in meaning, though there are differences in the words used here and there. Number of chapters in various editions: While Sridhara Pandita's edition refers to 100 chapters (80 in Poorvabhaga and 20 in Uttarabhaga) in the chapter 'Adhyayana krama' (70th chapter in this edition) , the actual text itself has only 51+20= 71. The Sitaram Jhoo edition has 91 chapters while Devachandra Jhoo edition has 98 chapters. It goes without saying that the order of chapters as well as content to some extent, differ in these various editions. Discounting the differences in words as long as the meaning/content remains similar, I could say that Devachandra Jhoo edition has three additional chapters. a. Grahadisadhanadhyaya b. Sutikadhyaya c. Prasnadhyaya The above three figure as chapters 4,9 and 84 in this edition. The 'Avatarakathanadhyaya' is not part of both Sridharapandita's and Ganesadatta's editions as also quite a few chapters. As you know, this chapter deals with the ten avatars of Lord Vishnu and the grahas. Good news is that the so called Jaimini topics are part of all four editions. Either Jaimini principles were already integrated into Parasara's texts or they have always been part and parcel of what goes by Parasara's name (I know that Narasimha strongly supports the latter case). Unless an older version of the BPHS surfaces and this version doesn't have the so called Jaimini topics, the ground for the latter contention (that Jaimini is part of Parasara) shall remain reasonably strong. Inspite of the other differences, one thing might be possible (my own speculation). The versions with 71 and 60 chapters are largely similar in their contents and could perhaps be based on *older* versions. The other two versions might have more interpolations/alterations. This apart, all four could (in all probability) probably be surviving traditions of BPHS with alterations. One thing seems to be sure. There definetely is NO way of concluding anything as Parasara's own words in HIS own language as all editions have differences in language (words) at times. I am deliberately refraining from writing more so as to avoid unnecessary controversies. I am not against a scholarly debate on this topic, but recognize the limitations of a group like this. All debate/discussion can occur only between individuals who have gone through all the editions and also have a good idea of the historical rise and fal of various religious, cultural and intellectual movements in Indian history as one can infer these indirectly in the language used. For instance what does the Pancaratra agama leaning of the author(s) (in certain chapters) suggest? That these versions are post-pancaratra agama rise? What are the possible inferences of certain Greek terms in the texts such as Kendra, Panaphara, Apoklima, Sunapha, Anaphara, Dauradhura, Kemadruma suggest? (esp against the background that it is hard to find the Sanskrit root for some of these words!)Quite a few possibilities exist here. Either the surviving versions are all altered after the Yavanas exerted their influence on Hindu Jataka? Or does one have to take this to even older times? Did Parasara write anything at all? Or did Parasara's teachings survive through successions of disciples who compiled the BPHS after considerable time gaps? And has this original version been changed over a period of time and hence none of the contents can be used for QUOTING Parasara's opinion? It is good to explore various possibilities as long as one remains intellectually honest and is willing to give up favourite prejudices. This is the hardest one to overcome as personal prejudices (religious, regional, intellectual,etc) can work both consciously and unconsciously at an emotional level. Perhaps it is good to take the ESSENCE of the text and not everything literally. Afterall we are not dealing with the Veda Samhita or Sruti. We are dealing with sastra. Though there are knowledgeable people/scholars here, this list is certainly not the place to have a major discussion/debate as there are people at all levels. Regards, Satya Prakash Post-script: Isn't it amusing when people quote a verse from Parasara giving the chapter and sloka to support themselves (as if only one edition/version existed)? Which edition are they referring to? Most often it is the English translation published by either Ranjan or Sagar. And then how many are aware that the two parts of Ranjan publications BPHS in English have been translated by two different people? The first part has been translated by Sri Santhanam and the second one by one Gowri Shankar Kapoor (which I think has been lifted from an earlier edition in Hindi). The Sagar publications edition in English has been translated by Sri Girish Chandra Sarma =====================