FW: Enigma or Confusion?

December 6, 2009

Dear All, The following is from a write-up of Rohini Ranjan present at: http://www.boloji.com/astro/00351.htmLove and regards,Sreenadh==================================Enigma or Confusion? Jyotish has also had its confusion (according to some) and its rich cultural framework (according to others) which has included ancient Vedic, Arabic, some say also Babylonian (Hand et al) and perhaps other influences, some undoubtedly brought in during the many invasions that have fenestrated and arguably (according to Hindu scholars) enriched India's cultural and religious mosaic over the centuries recent.

Lately, time and again, I hear about some factions in Jyotish trying to utilize MMY's approach of simplifying things and creating "PURE" Jyotish. And, this has lead to the thinking that somehow there are distinct STREAMS of rules in Jyotish: The biggest black and white divide in the already beautifully integrated and already optimally functional Jyotish being the systems attributed to Parashara and Jaimini!

Parashara and Jaimini were perhaps two ancient Rishis whose actual eras are not known as also their mutual order of succession! Brihat Parasara Hora Shastra and Upadesha Sutram (also known as Jaimini Sutras, the title chosen by Sastri and earlier translators) are the two main bodies of work in Jyotish, the former written in straight forward Sanskrit language (as used in Satya Yuga perhaps?) whereas the latter is written in the Katapayadi style which utilizes a degree of encryption as it has been noted and characterized by contemporary students of Jyotish.

Interestingly, neither Parashara not Jaimini mention one another. Parashara does mention other Rishis and ancient seers so it was not as if he had any issues with mentioning earlier Sages. I do not believe, to the best of my recollection, if Jaimini attributed or mentioned any of his predecessors. Not that attribution was an absolute requirement or norm lest someone misinterpret the last statement.

Parashara's system includes rashis, nakshatras and is a fairly nicely organized body of fundamentals that have enabled many to learn and successfully practice astrology. Jamini's system is a distinct and very rashi based sub-set and utilizes special karkas and has certainly an inimitable flavour as well as being very effective and useful in a pragmatic sense, similar to the system described by Parashara! Now, here lies the crunch! In BPHS, Parashara's Magnum opus, Jaimini's rashi, chara, pada system is included and does not seem like something that was "grafted" even though some would insist that it was so and publicly state so!

BPHS is a body of knowledge that is known to be available in several versions (all of which contain the "Jaimini" system though not attributed to any Jaimini or similar sounding Rishi). An obvious example of this would be the two popular translations by Santhanam and Sharma. Sharma's version has more chapters and information and some would argue that Santhanam was working with a `culled' or sanitized version while others would insist that Sharma's version had material inserted into the original BPHS! Who really knows (or cares!)? Well some apparently do, it seems because recently I was informed by someone that there is a Jyotish group that has strong views about the black and white in Jyotish (an exploratory visit confirmed this!). Part of their welcome message includes the following paraphrased thinking:

~*~

Parashara and Jaimini are two distinct systems even if the divide between them is not always clear. Some have attributed to Prof. P. S. Sastri, author of Jaimini Sutram (English translation), as having stated that much of what we now know of Jaimini System has been inserted into BPHS and mixing up the two systems will lead to confusion in the minds of the `student' .

~*~

Speaking of Prof. Sastri, he is known to be a jyotish scholar of gigantic proportions even extolled by none other than the illustrious iconoclast, the revered Shri KN Rao who wrote the foreword to Sastri's UttarKalamrita. Uttarkalamrita, written by a South Indian named Kalidasa (quoting Sastri) tried in places in his text to `imply' that he belonged to the court of Vikramaditya. Sastri states that the author or Uttarkalamrita was not really the Great Kalidasa who penned the great Indian love story and other poems. Anyway, Uttarkalamrita has some very unusual and unique rules and information about Jyotish not found elsewhere and obviously of a much recent vintage than Parashara and Jaimini, he included both systems in his writings. Whether he attributed both by names, I am not sure. Sincere students and researchers may wish to delve deeper.

What surprises and amazes me is this tendency on part of certain "jyotishis" to separate Parashara from Jaimini for reasons of "purity"! I can understand why individuals will want to distance Jyotish away from the Arabic-Tajic system or features of the Krishnamurthy Paddhati (which uses distinctly different western Placidus cusps at the beginning of a house, very non-traditional) or the magical-tantrik horary systems and so on, but separating Parashara and Jaimini reveals or perhaps *creates* an interesting anomaly, a puzzling display of schizophrenic behaviour of the planets!

It is almost like saying that in a chart of a male born on 12 January 1917, at 07:18 AM, IST, Jabalpur, Madhya Bharat, India the sun could only wear his Parashari hat of being the 8th lord placed in the 12th house (Vipareeta Raja Yoga, exemplified by a non-Brahmin rising to the ranks of a World Class Religious Leader of unmatched achievements in the spiritual field) while not also fulfilling the so called Jaimini role of Atmakaraka placed in the 12th house of Moksha and renounciation, willingly giving up worldly bonds and bindings while placed with rahu (darakaraka representing those one comes in contact with and influences -- other cultures and nations far away from one's birth land) and venus the gnatikaraka and the dragon of luxuries and worldliness that shall always cloud the individual by association if not by proven infractions. Gnatikaraka has the flavour of enemies and one or more individuals who have venus (and rahu) prominent in their charts will be at loggerheads with the individual. But let us not go there at this time!

I personally think that such divisive and discriminatory mentalities that motivate some astrologers in positions of power and influence to introduce doubts that try to separate roles of the same planet into this or that portfolios and "never shall the twain meet" attitudes are unfortunately destructive at the worst and misleading at the very least. As in religion, Jyotish which had been heavily influenced by religious fervour, and for no good or useful reason, shall see such separatism and will create confusion and misrepresentation.

On a positive note, it is almost ironical that this in essence will make sure that Jyotish remains preserved and does not fall in the wrong hands, something that Varahamihira agonized over a lot (Attributes of an astrologer, etc.)! I have always firmly believed that Jyotish (or anything like it that has survived so long despite many ferocious attempts to bull-doze it!) has a built-in self-protecting mechanism. It will always be judged by the outcome. And the outcome simply is: Does it predict and help in the field or not? If it does not, due to a variety of reasons, then it will surely find its place in the mausoleum of history! I just hope that it does not turn out to be a premature death! That would be a shame and a big loss. But then again, weren't the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Tibetan Book of Dead lost for a long time but just couldn't remain lost forever! The Lord, as some *devotees* would say, moves in mysterious ways!!

March 9, 2008==================================

December 7, 2009

An excellent article Sreenadh Ji,

I loved reading it.

Regards

Santhosh