The Authenticity of the Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra — II

[Guest guest]

Dear All, The following article is from: http://www.astrologicalmagazine.com/Aug2009/brhat_parasara_hora_sastra_II.php Love and regards,Sreenadh======================The Authenticity of the Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra — II*

 

Obvious Anomalies

 

House Systems

In the modern Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra 5.20-24 we are taught

how to calculate the unequal house system commonly known as the Sripati

house system. However in Brihat Jataka 1.4 and Saravali 3.8 a different

house system is taught where rasi and bhava are synonymous. In this system which ever rasi the lagna appears is the 1st bhava, the next rasi

is the 2nd bhava, the next rasi the 3rd bhava etc. This is still followed by many traditional astrologers especially in the matter of Ashtamangala Prasna in Kerala. It is also the method used in Jaimini system. (Jaimini, 2006, p. ii) It is very obvious that this unequal house system was a much later interpolation into the modern Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra.

Remedial Measures

 

Chapters 88-97 of Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra appear to be interpolations. Why? The chapters deal with remedial measures for various problems. The remedial measures that are recommended include the

worship of various planets, nakshatra devas and other devas such as Siva and Varuna. This is completely contrary to what is known of the character and life of Parasara Muni who is known as a great devotee of Lord Krishna and His avataras.

 

 

Parasara was the father of an incarnation of Krishna (Vedavyasa) —Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.21. Maitreya states that Parasara learned the Srimad Bhagavatam from Sankhyayana and then he taught it to Maitreya — Srimad Bhagavatam 3.8.8-9. Parasara is also the speaker of the Visnu Purana. Both Srimad Bhagavatam and Visnu Purana are considered

Vaisnava texts. Strict Vaisnavas initiated into vaisnava mantras do not

worship anyone other than Lord Krishna or His avataras as explained by Lord Krishna in Bhagavada Gita 18.66

sarva-dharman parityajya

mam ekam saranam vraja

aham tvam sarva-papebhyo

moksayisyami ma sucah

 

"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I

shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear." This is explained in more detail by Srila Gopala Bhatta Gosvami in the introduction of his at Kriya Sara Dipika wherein he quotes various sastras to support his claim such as: "As a person desires to cross the ocean by holding the tail of a dog, similarly an unintelligent man desires to deliver himself from the material bondage by worshipping others, giving up Lord Hari." —Padma Purana.

 

These later interpolations also contradict what Parasara says in Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra (Chapter 2) wherein he describes the planets as being manifestations of different avataras of Lord Krishna (this section is consistent with the known teachings of Parasara). If he

understands the planets to be manifestations of Bhagavan Sri Krishna then it would be superfluous to take shelter elsewhere than at the lotus

feet of the Supreme Personality of God Sri Krishna. Hence to find several chapters in which we supposedly find Parasara Muni recommending practices totally at variance with his own teachings that he spoke in Srimad Bhagavatam and Visnu Purana naturally make us question their inclusion in any work he authored.

 

Absence of Jaimini

One thing that is obvious is the complete absence of any reference to Jaimini astrology in Brihat Jataka which covers chapters 6,

31-35 (and sprinkled in chapters 8, 9 , 41-42, and 44) in the modern Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra (Parasara, 1994). The absence of any reference to Jaimini's system of astrology in Brihat Jataka could mean one of the following:

Varaha Mihira did not think Jaimini astrology to be useful. Or, Jaimini's system was not found in the version of Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra available to Varaha Mihira and was a later interpolation. It

should also be noted that there is no mention of Jaimini system in the vast majority of the classical texts. The following texts on Jataka are Jaimini-free: Narada Purana, Yavana Jataka, Satyajataka (these three were before Varaha Mihira), Brihat Jataka, Hora Sara, Saravali, Brighu Sutra, Mana Sagari, Sarvartha Chintamani, Jataka Parijata, Phaladeepika,

Hora Ratnam, Jataka Sara Deepa, Shambu Hora Prakasha, Hora Makaranda, Bhavartha Ratnakara, Sanketa Nidhi and Jatakadesa Marga. It should also be noted that all the authors up to the time of Saravali lived before Bhattotapala and from an inspection of their works evidently had access to Parasara Hora and were much influenced by him and yet they have no trace of Jaimini in them.

 

The only texts that I could find that had any trace of Jaimini were Uttara Kalamrita 1.4.34-45 which has some elements of a simplified Jaimini. P.S. Sastri estimates that Uttara Kalamrita is a fairly modern

work written sometime after the 16th or 17th century AD (Kalidasa, 2005, p. iv). And Jataka Tattva (allegedly) authored in 1871 by Mahadeva

also uses some concepts of Jaimini such as atmakaraka -- Jataka Tattva 1.66 (Mahadeva, 1941).

What one notices about these two texts is that though Jaimini concepts such as arudha and atmakaraka are used the framework is that of

Parasara. Jaimini aspects are not used. It appears to be a blending of what the authors thought most useful in Jaimini added to Parasara in such a way as to not jar the axiomatic system of Parasara as would be the case if Jaimini aspects were also introduced. The best known commentary on Jaimini Sutras is that of Neelakantha who is estimated by my Jaimini guru, Sri Iranganti Rangacarya, to have flourished in the 17th century AD (Jaimini, 1995 p. i). We note that both Uttara Kalamrta and Jataka Tattva are contemporary or later than Neelakantha suggesting that he is their source on Jaimini in their works. This also strongly suggests that the chapters on Jaimini were inserted into the modern Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra sometime after Neelakantha (17th century AD)

by someone who was not an expert on Jaimini. We will comment why he was

not an expert later.

 

The fact that Jaimini astrology is absent in all ancient classical works and only made its appearance after the commentaries of Neelakantha in the 17th AD raises certain doubts about the Jaimini system. Neelakantha only had access to the first two chapters of Jaimini

with others missing suggests that the work is much older than Neelakantha since part of it is already lost. Whereas, there are the Vriddhakarikas, and Vanchhanathiyam as well as other lesser known commentators such as Krishna Misra (Phalaratnamala) and Somanatha Misra (Kalpalata ) who are considered earlier than Neelakantha but exactly how

much earlier is open to speculation .

 

 

Others such as Raghava Bhatta (Jataka Sara Sangraha) and Narasimha Suri (Sutrartha Prakasika) are also from 17th century. Whereas, works such as Jaimini Padyamritam, have not had their dates ascertained yet but seem to be no earlier than 18th century AD.

 

This suggests the following possible scenarios:

Jaimini system is perhaps at most 1000 years old if we are very liberal with the dates of the earliest commentators Vanchhanatha, Krishna Misra and Somanatha Misra. Therefore Jaimini sutras are not from

remote antiquity like the original (not modern) Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra.Jaimini Sutras are of the same antiquity as Parasara but it was not included in the original Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra. Rather it was hidden for a very long time until they were brought to public notice

by the commentary of Neelakantha in 17th century. It was not popular with later astrologers and hence never included in their redactions of astrological texts.

We do not consider option 3 likely since we see that soon after the

publication of Neelakantha's commentary on Jaimini Sutras the authors of Uttara Kalamrita and Jataka Tattva used elements of this system in their work. And other authors in last century before the modern "revival" of Jaimini have used Jaimini system of Ayurdaya (Ojha, 1972, pp.236-238).

 

Confusion created by "Jaimini" material in modern Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra

 

We previously mentioned that the Jaimini material inserted into the

modern Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra was done by someone who didn't properly understand Jaimini Sutras. We would now like to briefly take up

this subject. My guru for Jaimini Sutras, Sri Iranganti Rangacarya, translator and commentator of Jaimini Sutramritam with more than 40 years experience in Jaimini system, directly told me to strictly ignore whatever so-called Jaimini material is found in Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra because it will simply lead to confusion and contradictions. One example should suffice to see what quagmire that one can end up in. Argala as defined in the Jaimini School according to ancient commentaries can only be applied to a specific planet which has achieved

a certain status by virtue of very clear criteria. I list them in increasing order of importance (Jaimini, 1995 p.12):

A planet who aspects janma lagna.A planet who aspects both Janma lagna and its 7th house.The lord of the sign occupied by the Moon aspecting Janma lagna or Moon sign. He is called Kevala.The lord of the sign occupied by the Moon aspecting Janma lagna and Moon sign. He is called yogada.A planet aspecting janma lagna in rasi chart and navamsa lagna

in navamsa chart or drekkana Lagna in Derkanna chart. lso called yogada.A planet aspecting janma lagna in rasi chart and navamsa lagna

in navamsa chart and drekkana Lagna in drekkana chart. Also called yogada.

Rahu and Ketu can not be aspecting planets in this scheme. Aspects are strictly according to Jaimini system. In 1, 5 and 6 instead of janma

lagna it can 5th or 9th but it must be applied consistently, by that I mean it must not be mixed together such as 5th in rasi and 9th in navamsa. It has to be 5th or 9th in both.

 

Thus according to classical Jaimini School argala is only to be applied to what Iranganti Rangacarya calls the "aspecting planet." Whereas, in the socalled "Jaimini system" found in Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra, Argala is applied indiscriminately to all planets and houses alike. It would be beyond the scope of this article to go into further comparison between the actual Jaimini system and what is found in the modern Brihat

Parasara Hora Sastra. To mix the two is to simply court disaster. One very senior astrologer who had mixed the two sources confidentially told

me that he had been studying

Jaimini system for more than 20 years and found it full of contradictions and confusions, he lamented that: "I have wasted 20 years

of my life studying Jaimini."

What to speak of the confusion that arises if you mix the real Jaimini system with what is represented as Jaimini system in Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra even more confusion will arise if the student of Parasara system mixes in Jaimini methods indiscriminately. P.S. Sastri warns "If the student of Parasara's text is not careful, he will mix up the two systems and get himself in contradictions and confusions." (Jaimini, 2006, p. i)

 

 

Iranganti Rangacarya jokingly illustrated to me the effect of mixing Jaimini and Parasara. Once there was a Telegu speaking man who also knew

Sanskrit. A debate was going on. At one point the proper answer to a question was "horse." The man was so excited that when he answered the question he mixed up the Sanskrit word for horse "asva" with the Telegu word for horse "gurru" and his answer came out as "gasva" which was neither Telegu or Sanskrit and he lost the debate. So Iranganti Rangacarya told me this is the result of mixing Parasara and Jaimini. We

again note that those texts like Uttara Kalamrta and Jataka Tattva that

did try to blend the two system took a very conservative approach and only took from Jaimini (arudha and atmakaraka) what could be easily assimilated into Parasara system and nothing (like Jaimini aspects) that

would clearly contradict the tenets of Parasara.

 

We have only touched on the more obvious interpolations. There are more

but it is beyond the scope of this article to go into further detail. What is actually from the original Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra? (For this we have used the Sagar edition as the reference text.) This following is not an exhaustive treatment of the matter but only an introduction to further research. Hence, what follows will have to be adjusted and refined by more intense scrutiny.

 

 

The portions in the modern Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra that appear to be

from the original text are:

The opening chapters (1-2) dealing with the creation of the universe and the incarnations of Lord Krishna.The sections dealing with basic descriptions of the grahas, rasis, bhavas and shodasavargas; chapters 3, 4, 7, 8, 13-25The intricate mathematical analysis of planetary positions yielding

the diagnostic techniques of Shadbala, Vimshopaka, Ishta and Kashta, etc.; chapter 28-30.Various classes of Avasthas for determining the effect of the planets; chapter 47.The effects of each house lord in different houses; chapter 26.Yogakarakas; chapter 36 and marakas; chapter 46.Ayurdaya; chapter 45.

Astakavarga; chapters 68-74. — see my later comment on this topic.Udu dasa system (based on the nakshatras). Although Varaha Mihira and Kalyana Varma both espouse moola dasa rather than udu dasa this is not an issue since they confine themselves to only one dasa system while

Parasara gives many. Also we know that udu dasa system is older than Varaha Mihira because Satyacharya, whom Varaha Mihira admired and quoted

from extensively, used vimshottari mMahadasa and Prithuyasasha the son of Varaha Mihira though writing on Moola Dasa also includes a short chapter on udu dasa in Hora Sara. However, the rasi based dasa systems in Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra appear to be interpolations from Jaimini system.The section on Yogas; chapters 37-44 may have some original material from Parasara but there also seems to be additions, notably the

addition of Jaimini methods which bring into doubt the source of this material.

Is the modern Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra useless? Does the fact that there are interpolations in the modern Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra mean that it is useless? No it doesn't mean that at all. However, one must be

very careful to separate the interpolations from the real thing. Also there may be other techniques such as Sudarshan Chakra which may or may not be in the original Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra but may still be valuable, they just need to be tested but not accepted blindly.

 

There was a real Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra but we don't know exactly what it contained and can only guess and try to reconstruct its contents

by examining the works of later authors like Satyacharya, Yavanas, Varaha Mihira, Prithuyashas and Kalyana Varma who had actually seen it. Others like Venkatesa Dikshita author of Sarvartha Cintamani and Vaidyanatha Dikshita author of Jataka Parijata could also be useful. The

real Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra is either lost, covered by the accretion of foreign material not in the original or hidden somewhere in

some manuscript library.

 

There are millions of un-cataloged palm leaf manuscripts in India rotting in different venues. Once while I was driving in Tamil Nadu from

Sri Rangam to Tirukottiyur we stopped at one of the many almost deserted ancient temples. There I came across a rather large room under lock and key whose walls were made of thick wire mesh containing what looked like mounds of refuse. On closer inspection I was horrified to see that it was actually tens of thousands of palm leaf manuscripts lying loose and jumbled. Who knows what treasures were contained in that

mountain of palm leafs? But they were probably being eaten by various insects and rats. At least being under lock and key they were not being burnt in cooking fires. The point being that there are many such sites in India where treasures of ancient knowledge is lying neglected and rotting.

 

Pramana

One thing that must be carefully noted regarded the modern Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra and that is that it can not be used as a pramana (evidence) in any debate on techniques by citing it as an ancient authority. In 1987-88 when I was working with Matrix Software to create the first professional Vedic Astrological software I found that there was a difference in how Astakavarga was calculated in the modern Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra and Varaha Mihira's Brihat Jataka. I (wrongly) assumed that since the modern Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra was older than

Brihat Jataka then the values it gave for Astakavarga must be the original values for that system. Now I would take the views of Brihat Jataka as having precedence over modern Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra. The

same principle holds for any contradiction between modern Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra and actual ancient texts. If a contradiction exists then it is likely I would give more preference to the other text than to the modern Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra.

 

Conclusion

Today what passes for Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra is definitely not the original. There is an important core of material in it which seems to be

part of the original text. More work needs to be done by correlating what is found in earlier jyotish texts (before 1500 A.D.) with what is found in the modern Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra to ascertain what is authentic and what is interpolated. Jaimini system, unequal house divisions etc. were interpolated into the modern text. Great care must be used when using this text especially when quoting it as Pramana.

 

* The first part has appeared in the July 2009 issue of The Astrolgocial eMagazine

 

References List:

 

 

Jaimini. (1995). Jaimini Sutramritam A Classic in Vedic Astrology (I.Rangacarya, Trans. Second ed.). New Delhi: Sagar Publications.Jaimini. (2006). Jaimini Sutram (Complete) (P. S. Sastri, Trans. Revised ed.).

New Delhi: Ranjan Publications. Kalidasa. (2005). Uttara Kalamrta (P. S.

Sastri, Trans.). New Delhi: Ranjan

Publications. Kalyanraman, V. (2007). Indian Astrology an Appraisal (First ed.). Nagercoil,

India: CHB Publications. Mahadeva. Jataka Tattvam. Translated by Sastri.

Bangalore: Sastri, V.

Subramanya, 1941. Mihira, V. (1986). Brihat Jataka (B. S. Rao, Trans. Fifth ed.). Bangalore: IBH

Prakashana. Nambudiri, V. (1991). Prasna Marga (B. V. Raman, Trans. second ed. Vol. 1).

Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Ojha, G. K. (1972). Predictive Astrology of the Hindus. Gurgaon: Sri Gopesh Kumar Pratishthan. Parasara. (1984). Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra (R. Santhanam, Trans. First ed. Vol. 1). New Delhi: Ranjan Publications.Parasara. (1994). Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra (G. C. Sharma, Trans. First ed. Vol. 1). New Delhi: Sagar Publications.

 

 

Pingree. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Sanskrit and Other Indian Manuscripts of the Chandra Shum Shere Collection in the Bodleian Library

(Jyotihsastra, Part 1): Oxford University Press, 1984. Shastri, A. M. (1969). India as Seen in The Brihatsamhita of Varahamihira (First ed.). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

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