What is Argala? (Parasara/Jaimini System) - Rashi Drishti Doubt - 1

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadh,

 

I think it is better to think whether one's own understanding is

deficient in the matter of whether there are exceptions to drishti being

seen in navamsha and Dwadashamsha charts, instead of assuming

Bhattotpala making a mistake. Not only that, Varaha Mihira also says

what is commented upon by Bhattotpala.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

Sreenadh wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> ==>

> I think you have, also, not read the interpretation given by

> Bhattotpala

> the learned commentator on Brihat jataka. He clearly tells that the

> drishtis are to be taken in Dwadashamsha and navamsha as in the rasi

> chart in case of results told when Chandra is aspected by Surya and

> other grahas also are obtained in navamsha and DwaadashaMsha.

> Dashaadhyaayi is supposed to be commentary on the first 10

> adhyaayas of Brihatjataka and the shloka I quoted is appearing in the

> 19th adhyaaya. So are you certain that Dashaadhyaayi interprets the

> same shloka?

> <==

> Prasnamarga says " Bhattolapaladi rachta vivitee vilokya, spashtam

> karotu hridi daivavidarthamasya " meaning, An astrologer should

> clarify the meaning of Varaha hora slokas by reading commentries like

> the one written by " Bhattolpala " . Prasamarga also states that the

> astrologer should be well versed in Dasadhayayi and understand it

> thoroughly.

> So I don't think Bhattolpala will commit such a mistake! I do have

> the copy of Sanskrit Bhattolpala commentary for Brihat Jataka with

> me. Can you please provide the chapter and sloka number under

> discussion. I will cross check and respond back.

> By the way even though Dasadhyayi is a commentary based on the first

> 10 chapters of Brihajjataka, it deals with almost all the subjects

> dealt with in Brihat jataka, and there fore should be considered as

> equivalent to a complete commentary. Dasadhyayi is NOT a mere

> commentary of 10 chapters.

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I think we are talking at cross purposes. Dashaadhyaayi may not be

> the

> > right text to understand rasi drishti as that concept does not

> appear in

> > Brihat jataka.

> >

> > having said that if Dashaadhyaayi is to be used to understand

> aspects in

> > Navamsha then that is the right approach. Now the statement that

> grahas

> > have navamshaka in 12 rasis is not something that is unique to

> > Dashaadhyaayi. That is said in all texts. It means that as grahas

> own

> > rasis so do they own navamshas within certain rasis. But when you

> say

> > that these can only be seen in reference to rasis, then you are

> saying

> > something that is different from what Satyacharya says. He as well

> as

> > the author of Dashaadhyaayi is talking about Chandra navamsha being

> > considered in the same manner as Chandra rasi for Sunapha/

> > anapha/Durudhara yoga (or rather cancellation of Kemadruma) as

> indicated

> > by you. This means that the graha does not have to be in the next

> > navamsha but in Mithuna or Simha or both navamsha in any of the

> rasis

> > that those navamsha fall in. here then is a clear break between

> > infallible rasi amsha relation that is generally considered and

> this

> > only proves that not every time rasi navamsha are to be read only

> with

> > respect to the rasi holding the graha.

> >

> > I think you have, also, not read the interpretation given by

> Bhattotpala

> > the learned commentator on Brihat jataka. He clearly tells that the

> > drishtis are to be taken in Dwadashamsha and navamsha as in the

> rasi

> > chart in case of results told when Chandra is aspected by Surya and

> > other grahas also are obtained in navamsha and DwaadashaMsha.

> > Dashaadhyaayi is supposed to be commentary on the first 10

> adhyaayas of

> > Brihatjataka and the shloka I quoted is appearing in the 19th

> adhyaaya.

> > So are you certain that Dashaadhyaayi interprets the same shloka?

> >

> > As to looking at Karakamsha lagna as the navamsha rasi holding

> Chara

> > Atmakaraka in rasi chart is concerned, would the sages not have

> called

> > it as Karaka lagna instead of Karakamsha lagna? One must remember

> that

> > when we are talking of Karakamsha we are talking about an arc of 3

> > degrees 20 minutes and not 30 degrees, which is what the rasi

> chakra

> > rasi would be. Other Chara Karakas will also occupy such arcs of 3

> > degrees 20 minutes and they could be within the same rasi also or

> in the

> > rasi next to it. How are we now going to read them in the Rasi

> chart is

> > something that must be thought over. Merely saying that Karakamsha

> Lagna

> > should be read in rasi chakra may take us away from this basic

> truth of

> > these sensitive points. Again why should one then look at 7th from

> lagna

> > navamsha for spouse, as agreed by you, if everything is to be

> mapped

> > back to rasi chart needs to be thought over. The 7th from lagna

> navamsha

> > could lie within the lagna rasi itself and mapping it back to the

> > benefic lagna rasi would mean it being a benefic even if it falls

> in

> > malefic navamsha. Kshetra being rasi, the moment you map it back to

> Rasi

> > chart, it will not be in malefic kshetra. Now this means that the

> > principles given in Brihat jataka or Dashaadhyaayi do not hold

> good. I

> > am sure you do not mean that.

> >

> > By the way, I have already said that the drishti in navamsha or for

> that

> > matter dwadashaamsha is to be viewed as multiples of the arc of

> zodiac

> > represented by each of such division. That is the Amsha sambandha

> that

> > the sages refer to.

> >

> > Take care,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Thanks for the explanations on Rashi drishti.But some how i feel,i

> > > have not been clear enough.I have understood the fact that ,it is

> the

> > > rashis that decide the drishti and grahas placed can aspect

> because

> > > of the said rashi drishti.No dispute here.Kindly see the examples

> i

> > > have provided.

> > >

> > > Aries aspect Leo.Jupiter and Saturn are not placed there.As per

> > > definition of Rashi drishti,only the grahas placed there can

> aspect

> > > because of aspects between dispositing rashis.Hope you

> understand.In

> > > the shlokas from dashadhyayi it has been explained that grahas

> have

> > > amshaka in meshadi dwadasha ksehthras.Rashi drishti talks about

> > > planets placed in the Rashi and not those having amshaka sambandha

> > > there.

> > >

> > > Also it is mentioned in dashadhyayi,that some acharyas like jeeva

> > > sharma says kemadruma,does not happen if there is a graha in

> chandra

> > > kendra or in chandra NAVAMSHAKA rashi.Also for Sunabha etc if a

> > > planet is placed in 2/12 etc from Chandra NAVAMSHAKA Rashi -

> > > explaining how navamsha/rashi are related and how they are to be

> > > interpreted.

> > >

> > > Regarding your shloka - It is mentioned that,check the hora in

> which

> > > chandra is placed(it can be of surya or chandra ).Drishti from

> > > planets in that Hora is good for Chandra.Similarly drishti from

> > > drekkanadhipathi of Chandra is good.Similarly from planets placed

> in

> > > the friendly kshethras of chandra is good.

> > > Also it says,the results for aspects to chandra having

> dwadashamshaka

> > > in meshadi dwadasha rashis are the same as when placed in those

> > > rashis.In all these places and from numerous shlokas it has been

> made

> > > clear that amshaka is happening within the same rashi chakra and

> > > therefore one will have no confusion in attributing drishties,as

> they

> > > are seen in rashi chakra.

> > >

> > > Karakamsha

> > > There is no place where it is mentioned that results are to be

> read

> > > from navamsha arrangement.When we read the texts in full we see

> how

> > > the amsha of a graha and aspect on them are studied.Karakamsha is

> > > again the amsha of a planet.A Bhava can only be studied with

> > > reference to a Rashi.This Rashi can be Karakamsha lagna,navamsha

> > > lagna etc.This is explained better in the following shloka.As you

> > > know one learned Guru had tried to get away with the KA usage

> amshaka

> > > and amsha.They are purely pointing to frame of reference -

> > > Bhaumarkshe ,Bhaumashe and LagnamshaKA rashi explains this.

> > >

> > > Sthree jatakadhyaya - 10th Shloka.

> > >

> > > As i have said before,numbers 1/4/7 etc are representing the

> order of

> > > tattwas in which vargas of a Rashi are constituted.This is another

> > > reason why Bhavat Bhavam is possible.Every nth rashi from a

> reference

> > > (chandra lagna,karakamsha lagna etc )have a particular

> significance

> > > and i have no dispute here.So is the case with Navamsha

> Lagna.That is

> > > why i have said one can see 1,7,10 etc in rashi chakra from Lagna

> > > navamsha.

> > >

> > > In the 10th shloka in Stree jatakadhyaya too the case is no

> > > different.One has to find if the amshaka of the 7th from

> lagnamsha is

> > > falling in Kuja kshethra.Check if Shanis is aspecting this

> > > Kujakshethra - Yoni Roga results.Whether you count from Rashi or

> > > navamsha it gives the same result - but the important point to

> note

> > > is 7th from lagna navamsha reference points to wife.It falls in a

> > > malefic kshethra and has malefic drishti.Acharya also asked us to

> > > compare the strengths of 7th bhava as well as the above said

> > > kshethra.Stronger one prevails.This similar to lagna rashi having

> > > strength or lagnamshaka rashi having strength.Only difference is

> > > strength of 7th from lagnamshaka rashi is considered as 7th refers

> > > to wife.Bhavat Bhavam from lagna navamsha.Aspect is seen from

> shani

> > > to the said Kuja kshethra.

> > >

> > > I feel the main confusion that we are having is because of not

> > > treating amshas as amshaka sambandhas within the same 12

> Rashis.This

> > > has been clearly explained by the texts that i read.

> > >

> > > Thanks for the trust that you have placed in me

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I am glad you got the diagram and could decipher it well.

> > > >

> > > > I think there is some confusion about rasi drishti in your

> mind. I

> > > think

> > > > I have also said that the rasi drishti is a mutual static

> relation

> > > > between rasis due to their nature, unaffected by the graha's

> > > placement.

> > > > If grahas also happen to be in an aspecting rasi then that graha

> > > also

> > > > aspects, is the dictum. If you look at aspects as influences,

> that

> > > may

> > > > be easier to understand. The difference between the graha and

> rasi

> > > > drishti may be looked at this way. If one is standing on the

> roof

> > > of a

> > > > building, one can look at the direction one wants to look at and

> > > this is

> > > > like graha drishti where the aspects are per the nature of the

> > > > individual graha irrespective of the rasi occupied. If how ever

> one

> > > is

> > > > in a room with only three windows, no matter who you are you can

> > > only

> > > > look out through those windows only and can see, or in other

> words

> > > > influence, only the area allowed by that room with its own

> specific

> > > > window placement.

> > > >

> > > > So rasi drishti talks about the ability of a rasi to influence

> > > some

> > > > other rasis and also making the grahas occupying them also to

> > > influence

> > > > those rasis.

> > > >

> > > > I have already sent you some shlokas that indicate the yogas

> > > occurring

> > > > without reference to rasis occupied by grahas and only based on

> the

> > > > navamshas occupied by them. If you look at the shloka 10 of

> > > > streejatakaadhyaaya you will also see that the results for rasi

> or

> > > > navamsha in the 7th of rasi of various grahas are identical. So

> the

> > > > bhavas on navamshas are obviously seen as identical to that of

> rasi

> > > > chakra and this is chart that I said one can look at on a

> different

> > > > basis than other D-charts. There is also a shloka in

> Brihatjataka

> > > that

> > > > indicates that the results told when Chandra is aspected by

> Surya

> > > and

> > > > other grahas also are obtained in navamsha and DvaadashaMsha

> > > indicating

> > > > drishtis in those D-Charts. I am giving the shloka below, for

> ready

> > > > reference. As usual the first and alternate line after that is

> in

> > > > Sanskrit 99 fonts and second line and alternate from it are in

> URW

> > > > Palladio IT fonts. The shloka is from drishti adhayaaya. I would

> > > like to

> > > > know how Dashaadhyaayi has translated this, as I do not have

> that

> > > text

> > > > with me.

> > > >

> > > > haerez]RdlaiïtE> zuÉkrae +ò> zzI tÌt-

> > > > horeçarkñadaläçritaiù çubhakaro dåñöaù çaçé tadgata-

> > > > ô(<ze tTpitiÉ> suùÑvngEvaR vIi]t> zSyte,

> > > > stryaàçe tatpatibhiù suhådbhavanagairvä vékñitaù çasyate|

> > > > yTàae´< àitraizvI][)l< tdoeÖadza<ze Sm & t<

> > > > yatproktaà pratiräçivékñaëaphalaà taddvädaçäàçe småtaà

> > > > suyaR*Ervlaeikte=ip zizin }ey< nva<ze:vt>.19,4.

> > > > suryädyairavalokite'pi çaçini jïeyaà naväàçeñvataù||19|4||

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > You can also find yogas described by Varahamihira about Moon

> from

> > > sama

> > > > rasi in mutual aspect to Sun in Vishama rasi leading to some

> > > results and

> > > > so on. If you think about the fact that both Moon and Sun have

> only

> > > 7th

> > > > house aspect as graha drishti, how are those yogas possible, if

> not

> > > for

> > > > rasi drishti. Think about this.

> > > >

> > > > I can not comment on views of KNR or Sanjay Rath as everybody

> has a

> > > > right to his own views. I have never held any brief for secret

> > > Parampara

> > > > as I have never believed that the divine knowledge was meant to

> be

> > > > secret, it being taught to all students in days long gone by.

> > > >

> > > > There is no clear cut reference for the need to read Karakamsha

> in

> > > rasi

> > > > chart that I have seen so far. To me the very work Karakamsha

> means

> > > the

> > > > amsha occupied by the karaka and amsha is seen in navamsha

> > > generally. If

> > > > someone points a reference in an astro text making it necessary

> to

> > > see

> > > > Karakamsha in rasi chakra only, I could always correct my views,

> > > the

> > > > weight of authority so quoted, so warranting it.

> > > >

> > > > I have never misunderstood you as I know you for a true seeker

> of

> > > knowledge.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Take care,

> > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks a lot for the diagram.Being a Mechanical engineer i

> feel

> > > you

> > > > > would had done lots of machine drawing!!.

> > > > > As i am having only a malayalam translation of BPHS,written by

> > > late

> > > > > Professor Muthuswamy,written in many parts,and as i am not

> having

> > > all

> > > > > those parts with me here,diagram was new to me.It wasreally

> > > > > helpful.Infact i had tried to draw a diagram based on

> directions

> > > and

> > > > > did find a linear link,as i had mentioned in my first mail

> > > relating

> > > > > to this thread.This diagram thus clear my doubts.Interstingly

> as

> > > we

> > > > > have understood,drishties are based on spatial/physical

> > > > > disposition.This also confirms why Graha drishti is

> impossible,in

> > > a

> > > > > diagram holding amsha rashi relations of our Lagna and

> planets.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now the next point is Rashi drishti.Suppose Mars is placed in

> > > Aries

> > > > > and Sun is in Leo,then as per definition from sage Mars

> aspects

> > > > > Sun.Now let us assume Jupiter is having navamsha in Aries and

> > > Saturn

> > > > > in Leo.As per the explanation given by you,Jupiter should

> aspect

> > > > > Saturn.I personally with all due respect have doubts and

> tends and

> > > > > prefer a disagreement.Going by the same rules of spatial

> > > > > arrangement - as Jupiter and Saturn are placed somewhere else

> they

> > > > > cannot effect an aspect by virtue of aspects between Aries and

> > > > > Leo.The placement in those Rashis gives such a capacity.Hope

> i am

> > > > > clear.

> > > > >

> > > > > For the same reason,i have always been supporting K.N.Raojis

> views

> > > > > about Karakamsha to be read in Rashi chakra.There are numerous

> > > > > shlokas relating to Karakamsha,involving aspects of planets.My

> > > > > personal view is one has to first reach an agreement on

> whether

> > > rashi

> > > > > drishti or graha drishti is the apt one.I can agree if you say

> > > Rashi

> > > > > drishti is possible as both the drishties are valid.Then

> there is

> > > a

> > > > > major difference.If we consider this from a navamsha

> arrangement -

> > > > > Rashi dristies taken are violating rule as mentioned

> above.Thus

> > > they

> > > > > have to be the Graha PLACEMENTS in rashi chakra w.r to

> Karakamsha

> > > > > lagna ,which is able to cast aspects.

> > > > >

> > > > > I would also like to point out that i feel,it is Shri Sanjay

> Rath

> > > who

> > > > > has proposed this theory and such a kind of drishti pattern

> > > (isolated

> > > > > amsha diagrams). But i can say that one will be reluctant to

> > > accept

> > > > > it as from parampara,as there were numerous cases where shri

> Rath

> > > > > considered garaha drishti in varga arrangements in the

> past,before

> > > > > resorting to rashi drishti,which again is used

> inappropriately as

> > > per

> > > > > my personal view.

> > > > >

> > > > > Kindly pardon if have committed any errors here.As you are

> > > aware,the

> > > > > intention is only to gain true knowledge.No matter whetehr i

> am

> > > wrong

> > > > > or other learned souls.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have sent the diagram to your personal address, as

> desired.

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thanks for mail.Kindly send the diagram to

> vijayadas_pradeep@

> > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep%40>

> > > > > > > as i have opted for reading from the group site.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > The reference to south indian chart is actually to just

> > > point

> > > > > out

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > there are more than one style of charts that have to be

> > > > > considered

> > > > > > > when

> > > > > > > > we consider interpretation of abhipashyanti rikshaani.

> All

> > > other

> > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > aspecting each other the cardinal signs also aspect each

> > > others

> > > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > their position of being in a corner. So the side wise

> view

> > > is on

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > Rasis not aspected by other group of rasis, which lead

> to

> > > their

> > > > > > > > aspecting only other cardinal rasis.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There is a circular diagram that explains this concept

> of

> > > > > aspect to

> > > > > > > > rasis in front and sides, barring the adjacent rasis,

> > > > > beautifully

> > > > > > > and I

> > > > > > > > have tried to draw it for you and it is attached for

> your

> > > > > > > information in

> > > > > > > > .doc format. Only you will have to pardon my limited

> skills

> > > with

> > > > > > > drawing

> > > > > > > > tools. The concept is actually elaborated at length by

> both

> > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > and also in Vriddha karikas. So there is no ambiguity

> in the

> > > > > matter.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation.Even if we take South

> Indian

> > > > > > > chart,there

> > > > > > > > > is a problem.

> > > > > > > > > If we say front,then why is Sag not aspecting

> > > Aquarius,which

> > > > > is on

> > > > > > > > > front,but aspects Meena which comes after

> Aqua.Similarly

> > > > > Kanya and

> > > > > > > > > Karka.similarly there are other concerns.

> > > > > > > > > As you have mentioned,commentators might have been

> > > influenced

> > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > south indian style.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will find

> > > that

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > signs

> > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means

> side of

> > > the

> > > > > body

> > > > > > > > > and the

> > > > > > > > > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the signs

> to

> > > their

> > > > > > > side.

> > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult.

> However

> > > there

> > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > Vriddha

> > > > > > > > > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal clear.

> > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > uses

> > > > > > > > > > the same terminology but goes on th explain that the

> > > > > adjacent

> > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi

> > > aspect is

> > > > > > > > > clarified

> > > > > > > > > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his

> > > > > commentary on

> > > > > > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > > > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas

> > > occupying

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > > also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > It is really informative to read your recent

> > > historical

> > > > > write

> > > > > > > up's

> > > > > > > > > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

> > > > > > > Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > > > > > > > > you very much.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental

> doubt

> > > > > > > regarding

> > > > > > > > > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri

> Surya

> > > > > Narain

> > > > > > > Rao.

> > > > > > > > > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs

> aspect

> > > > > each

> > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha.

> Excepting.the

> > > next

> > > > > > > > > zodiacal

> > > > > > > > > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat.

> Those

> > > > > planets

> > > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets

> found

> > > in

> > > > > such

> > > > > > > > > houses.

> > > > > > > > > > > Respected translator makes the following HONEST

> > > > > statement -

> > > > > > > ''The

> > > > > > > > > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in

> their

> > > > > FRONT. I

> > > > > > > DO

> > > > > > > > > NOT

> > > > > > > > > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word

> > > FRONT''.Then

> > > > > he

> > > > > > > says

> > > > > > > > > > > commentators observe - Mesha has

> Vrishchika,Mithuna

> > > has

> > > > > > > > > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>, " Sreenadh "

> > > > > <sreesog@>

> > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion

> about

> > > the

> > > > > same?

> > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any

> > > > > contradictions

> > > > > > > > > between

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini?

> What

> > > is

> > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > opinion?

> > > > > > > > > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > -----------------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

> > > Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ---------------------

> ----

> > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

> Release

> > > Date:

> > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

==>

Me: " Parasara Samhita " (not BPHS) provides us with a sloka that helps

us in determining the date of Parasara. The sloka is quoted by

Bhattolpala in the commentary of Brihat Samhita.

 

You:This is for the first time I have learnt that Brihat samhita

contains reference to Argalas. I would be obliged if you could give

the reference to the Shloka of Brihat Samhita for which Bhattotpala

thought it fit to refer to what Parashara said about Argalas. This

would add to my knowledge

<==

 

Chandrasekhar ji, What is this?!! What I am saying and what you are

hearing?!!

 

==>

> Could you also give me the address of the publisher of the

> commentary of Bhattotpala on Brihat samhita? I have his commentary

> on Brihat jataka, but Brihat samhita commentary from Bhattotpala is

> something that I have heard so late in my life that I would like to

> add it to my library.

<==

I took it from the library, and was later returned it.. I have only

the photocopy of Bhattolpalas commentary on Brihat Jataka with me.

Yes, Bhattolpala wrote elaborate commentary for Brihat Jataka as well

as Brihat Samhita. Many Hindi and Eglish transilations to

Bhattolpalas commentary of these texts got published as well. I think

from Mottilal Banarasi Das publishers you could find a copy of the

same. If my memory is right, it was the book published them that i

read; I have photo copied some of the pages, and kept with me. I need

to buy that book (Bhattolpala's commentary on Brihat Samhita) soon

from some where (I know that it would be currently available in the

Market, In Delhi or in Varanasi) since it is a valuable resource.

Love,

Sreenadh

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadh,

>

> My comments in red, below what you said (in quotes).

>

> " Ok. With enough supporting evidence it could, also extend the

info

> that BPHS could be neither original nor complete. But for sure it a

> very useful, authentic, valuable, resource, that depict the system

> followed by Parasara school. "

>

> I agree that the text does prove to be invaluable in understanding

the

> basic principles of astrology. No doubt about it.

> *******

> " * Presents of a certain yoga in Yudhishthira's horasope in BPHS.*

> indicating him being alive at the time of Mahabharata.That is new

> knowledge to me - please provide the chapter number and sloka

number; I

> will refer to BPHS to have a better idea about the same. "

>

> Oh! I thought you knew that one. If you have the Santanam edition

> (Ranjan Publication) too, look at shloka 32 chapter 41 where not

only it

> is said that in the present days (time when the text was recited to

> Maitreya) Yudhishthira has Parijatamsha related to rajyoga causing

> grahas, it it further told that in future Shalivahana shall have

similar

> yoga.

> *******

> " There is a better chance for the same; but even when fragmented

the

> bits and pieces of the ancient knowledge available through such

texts

> should be valued very much. Remember that the ancient epics speaks

and

> quotes shlokas from " Agneya Purana " and what we have today is " Agni

> Purana " and " Vahni Purana " and many slokas of " Agneya Purana "

quoted by

> other Puranas are missing in both of them. It could be the case

with

> many other texts - even astrological classics like BPHS. "

>

> I am not sure Agneya Purana is one of the 18 mahapuranas. But that

is

> besides the point of discussion. If you think that BPHS is only a

myriad

> collection of shlokas and not given by Parashara, then the

insistence

> that Jaimini Sutras being an attempt by Jaimini to spread the

teaching

> of Parashara is even more questionable. Or that is how I would look

at it.

> ********

> " Please refer to the previous mail - I said that " Parasara Samhita "

(not

> BPHS) provides us with a sloka that helps us in determining the

> date of Parasara. The sloka is quoted by Bhattolpala in the

commentary

> of Brihat Samhita. I have written a detailed write up on the same

in

> vedic astrology group long time back, If you do a search there you

will

> get it for sure. (As time permits I too will try to locate it, to

save

> my self from re-writing it again) Of course Jaimini Sutras are in

Sutra

> form - but not sutras that completely satisfies the definition of

> Sutras. My argument was that it is because, Jaimini sutra was not

an

> original work but rather an teaching/abbreviation effort of unique

> concepts discussed by Parasara. "

>

> But you do say at the end of your pdf document that you have uses

> Sitaram Jha edition for reference. Anyway, could you indicate the

> chapter of Brihat Samhita in the commentary of which Bhattotpala

has

> given the shloka you have indicated. This is for the first time I

have

> learnt that Brihat samhita contains reference to Argalas. I would

be

> obliged if you could give the reference to the Shloka of Brihat

Samhita

> for which Bhattotpala thought it fit to refer to what Parashara

said

> about Argalas. This would add to my knowledge. Could you also give

me

> the address of the publisher of the commentary of Bhattotpala on

Brihat

> samhita? I have his commentary on Brihat jataka, but Brihat samhita

> commentary from Bhattotpala is something that I have heard so late

in my

> life that I would like to add it to my library. Whether Jaimini

sutras

> satisfies condition of sutras is something that is your opinion but

it

> does not appear to be supported by other learned commentators. If

this

> logic is to be accepted then even brahmasutras may not qualify to

be

> called as sutras, since some are single word and others quite long.

>

> That is why I said let us agree to disagree.

>

> Take care,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

>

>

> Sreenadh wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> >

> > ==>

> > > I think it has been mentioned by the early acharyas of Kashi

> > > Vishwavidyalaya, who compiled the original shlokas of the BPHS,

> > > that the manuscripts that they based BPHS on were not

> > > titled " Brihad Paraashara Hora Shastra " .

> > <==

> > Ok. With enough supporting evidence it could, also extend the info

> > that BPHS could be neither original nor complete. But for sure it

a

> > very useful, authentic, valuable, resource, that depict the system

> > followed by Parasara school.

> >

> > ==>

> > > The conjecture of Parashara who gave the current text

> > > being of 1400 b.c. must remain a conjecture as the text mentions

> > > that Yudhishthira is having a certain yoga and enumerates others

> > > who had similar yogas in the text indicating him being alive at

the

> > > time of Mahabharata. Mahabharata ends with death of Lord

Krishna or

> > > soon after that which is around 3102 B. C. If this is not

> > > acceptable then the contents of the texts must have been

collection

> > > of myriad granthas and nothing more.

> > <==

> > * Presents of a certain yoga in Yudhishtira's horasope in BPHS.

> > * indicating him being alive at the time of Mahabharata.

> > That is new knowledge to me - please provide the chapter number

and

> > sloka number; I will refer to BPHS to have a better idea about the

> > same.

> >

> > ==>

> > > If this is not

> > > acceptable then the contents of the texts must have been

collection

> > > of myriad granthas and nothing more.

> > <==

> > There is a better chance for the same; but even when fragmented

the

> > bits and pieces of the ancient knowledge available through such

texts

> > should be valued very much. Remember that the ancient epics speaks

> > and quotes slokas from " Agneya Purana " and what we have today

> > is " Agni Purana " and " Vahni Purana " and many slokas of " Agneya

> > Purana " quoted by other Puranas are missing in both of them. It

could

> > be the case with many other texts - even astrological classics

like

> > BPHS.

> > ==>

> > > If you could quote the shloka in Paraashari that gives the

> > > date of the text and it having been written by Parashara I

would be

> > > obliged much. The edition which gives those shlokas may also be

> > > quoted, so that checking them will be easy.

> > <==

> > Please refer to the previous mail - I said that " Parasara Samhita "

> > (not BPHS) provides us with a sloka that helps us in determining

the

> > date of Parasara. The sloka is quoted by Bhattolpala in the

> > commentary of Brihat Samhita. I have written a detailed write up

on

> > the same in vedic astrology group long time back, If you do a

search

> > there you will get it for sure. (As time permits I too will try to

> > locate it, to save my self from re-writing it again)

> > Of course Jaimini Sutras are in Sutra form - but not sutras that

> > completely satisfies the definition of Sutras. My argument was

that

> > it is because, Jaimini sutra was not an original work but rather

an

> > teaching/abbreviation effort of unique concepts discussed by

Parasara.

> >

> > ==>

> > > That is why I said let us agree to disagree.

> > <==

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, agreement or disagreement shouldn't be a

pre-

> > condition; but a natural result. And we are always free to

agree,

> > disagree, or agree to diagree - if not friendship what can give us

> > that freedom.

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > >

> > > I think it has been mentioned by the early acharyas of Kashi

> > > Vishwavidyalaya, who compiled the original shlokas of the BPHS,

> > that the

> > > manuscripts that they based BPHS on were not titled " Brihad

> > Paraashara

> > > Hora Shastra " . The conjecture of Parashara who gave the current

> > text

> > > being of 1400 b.c. must remain a conjecture as the text mentions

> > that

> > > Yudhishthira is having a certain yoga and enumerates others who

had

> > > similar yogas in the text indicating him being alive at the

time of

> > > Mahabharata. Mahabharata ends with death of Lord Krishna or soon

> > after

> > > that which is around 3102 B. C. If this is not acceptable then

the

> > > contents of the texts must have been collection of myriad

granthas

> > and

> > > nothing more. If you could quote the shloka in Paraashari that

> > gives the

> > > date of the text and it having been written by Parashara I

would be

> > > obliged much. The edition which gives those shlokas may also be

> > quoted,

> > > so that checking them will be easy.

> > >

> > > The definition of sutras given by you is right. But the clarity

is

> > for

> > > ones who are well versed in that science and not for everyone,

as

> > > guarding the divine knowledge was the reason sutras have

brevity.

> > So I

> > > do not think any Sanskrit scholar ( I am not one) would declare

> > them

> > > anything but sutras. I have sought opinion of the learned in

that

> > > language and their uniform opinion is that they are sutras.

> > >

> > > That is why I said let us agree to disagree.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > It is not Parashara of Mahabharata (the father of Vyasa) who

wrote

> > > > Parasara Hora. But a Parasara who lived around BC 1400 wrote

> > Parasara

> > > > Sidhanta, Parasara Hora and Parasara Samhita, as the proof

for the

> > > > same is provided by an availabe sloka of Parasara Samhita.

> > > > BPHS definitely mentions the names of Parasara and Mitreya,

and

> > > > since the book is as told by Parasara and that is why the name

> > Brihat

> > > > Parasara Hora Sastra is attributed to it.

> > > > Coming to Jaimini sutra, the text does not even fulfill the

prime

> > > > condition for a Sutra text. As per the definition-

> > > > " Alpaksharam Aasannigdtham Sutram Sutravido vidu "

> > > > [A sutra should contain less number of characters and the

meaning

> > of

> > > > the sutra should be crystal clear]

> > > > Even though the sutras in Jaimini sutra contains less number

of

> > > > characters, they does not satisfy the second condition the

meaning

> > > > should be unambiguous and crystal clear.

> > > > Look at any other sutra text - such as Brigu Sutra in

Astrology,

> > > > Sutras of Patanjali in grammar, Yoga Sutras of Patanjali,

Chanakya

> > > > Sutra etc - you will see the great difference between their

> > approach

> > > > and presentation and the mere 'Abbreviation effort' of

Jaimini.

> > > >

> > > > Love,

> > > > Sreenadh

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > >

> > > > > Carrying the logic further what proof is there that the

> > Parashara who

> > > > > was father of Vyasa wrote the BPHS? Nobody wrote books in

those

> > days

> > > > > they were memorized and carried by word of mouth. Even BPHS

> > does not

> > > > > mention that being its name.

> > > > >

> > > > > I think there is a bit of difference between sutras and

> > shlokas. I do

> > > > > not think there is any evidence that suggests that it is

> > > > presentation of

> > > > > concepts of Parashara in abbreviated manner. Could you

point to

> > those

> > > > > sutras that do this?

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > I have another question - what proof is there to say that

the

> > book

> > > > > > is written by sage Jaimini? The book does not even mention

> > the auther,

> > > > > > then what to say about his guru?

> > > > > > The book 'Jaimini Sutra' is written by a student of some

> > teacher

> > > > > > (let us positively hope that it is Jaimini), and collects

and

> > presents

> > > > > > the advice given by the teacher, as indicated by the first

> > sutra of

> > > > > > the text itself. One more thing - where in the book it is

> > mentioned

> > > > > > that the name of the book is 'Jaimini Sutra'?

> > > > > > But the internal proof - the slokas, the terminology,

concepts

> > > > > > described etc - clearly tells us that it an effort to

present

> > the

> > > > > > concepts presented by Parasara in an abriviated manner.

This

> > being the

> > > > > > situation, I too would agree to disagree...

> > > > > > P.S: I am uploading my thoughts on some of the intial

slokas

> > of

> > > > > > Jaimini sutra, and the link is provided in the next post.

> > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I could have agreed to the contention had Jaimini

mentioned

> > > > somewhere

> > > > > > > about Parashara having been his Guru, as was the

practice

> > in ancient

> > > > > > > sages. Even Parashara tells his having given the

knowledge

> > > > received by

> > > > > > > Shaunaka who got it through Garga who in turn received

it

> > through

> > > > > > > Narada. But then I am an obstinate old person who was

> > taught to base

> > > > > > his

> > > > > > > judgement of the ancient astrological texts, on both

> > Pramana and

> > > > tarka.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So let us agree to disagree on this.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > 1)Even though Jaimini sutra provides a special set of

> > > > principles as

> > > > > > > > compared to the available (printed) BPHS, there are

many

> > > > slokas that

> > > > > > > > supports the same, as available from commentaries of

> > Jaimini sutra

> > > > > > > > and virdha karikas.

> > > > > > > > There are many slokas of Parasara available, about

many

> > such

> > > > > > > > concepts that are not present in the printed BPHS, but

> > present in

> > > > > > > > various commentaries of Jaimini sutra.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 2) It is not the simple study of Argala concept alone

that

> > > > helps us

> > > > > > > > in reaching the conclusion that " Jaimini sutra is a

guide

> > and

> > > > > > > > extension of BPHS, that tries to teach Parasara's

> > concepts " , but

> > > > > > > > rather-

> > > > > > > > * the study of the whole book and its approach

> > > > > > > > * comparison of concepts and words used within it

> > > > > > > > * the methodology of presentation followed in the book

> > > > > > > > and many more.

> > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > But if the two are giving different sets of

principles,

> > as

> > > > > > > > indicated by

> > > > > > > > > you in another mail, then how do you verify the

> > veracity of the

> > > > > > > > sutras.

> > > > > > > > > Anyway, I still do not find enough evidence to think

> > that

> > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > Anargala and Jaimini is Argala. Only Lord Shiva is

> > Anargala

> > > > and we

> > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > not have access to him.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > > > I think the interpretation of Jaimini sutras

become

> > far more

> > > > > > > > easier

> > > > > > > > > > if we find the bolt and the key.

> > > > > > > > > > * The Bolt is: Jaimini sutra is not an independent

> > text,

> > > > it is a

> > > > > > > > > > guide to BPHS concepts, extending them a bit.

> > > > > > > > > > * The Key is: Refer to BPHS first always for

clarity,

> > and

> > > > then try

> > > > > > > > > > unlocking Jaimini sutra with the same.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > P.S: May be BPHS is Anargala and Jaimini sutra is

the

> > > > Argala. )

> > > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will

find

> > > > that the

> > > > > > > > signs

> > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means

> > side of

> > > > the body

> > > > > > > > > > and the

> > > > > > > > > > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the

signs

> > to their

> > > > > > > > side.

> > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult.

> > However

> > > > there are

> > > > > > > > > > Vriddha

> > > > > > > > > > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal

clear.

> > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > > uses

> > > > > > > > > > > the same terminology but goes on th explain

that the

> > > > adjacent

> > > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the

rasi

> > aspect is

> > > > > > > > > > clarified

> > > > > > > > > > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in

his

> > > > commentary on

> > > > > > > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > > > > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas

> > > > occupying the

> > > > > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > > > also have identical aspects as those of the

rasis.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > It is really informative to read your recent

> > > > historical write

> > > > > > > > up's

> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

> > > > > > > > Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > > > > > > > > > you very much.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a

fundamental

> > doubt

> > > > > > > > regarding

> > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri

> > Surya

> > > > Narain

> > > > > > > > Rao.

> > > > > > > > > > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal

signs

> > aspect

> > > > each

> > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha.

> > Excepting.the next

> > > > > > > > > > zodiacal

> > > > > > > > > > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha

tadvat.

> > Those

> > > > planets

> > > > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets

> > found

> > > > in such

> > > > > > > > > > houses.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respected translator makes the following

HONEST

> > > > statement -

> > > > > > > > ''The

> > > > > > > > > > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in

> > their

> > > > FRONT. I

> > > > > > > > DO

> > > > > > > > > > NOT

> > > > > > > > > > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word

> > > > FRONT''.Then he

> > > > > > > > says

> > > > > > > > > > > > commentators observe - Mesha has

> > Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front

signs.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > 40>, " Sreenadh "

> > > > <sreesog@>

> > > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion

> > about

> > > > the same?

> > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any

> > > > contradictions

> > > > > > > > > > between

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and

Jaimini?

> > What

> > > > is your

> > > > > > > > > > > > opinion?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > -------------

----

> > --------

> > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.8.9/832 -

> > > > Release Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -----------------

----

> > ----

> > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

> > Release Date:

> > > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > -------------------------

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

Release

> > Date:

> > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadh,

 

This happened as I though you were referring to the shloka that you had

given to prove that argala from 7th is also considered and said that it

is from Bhattotpala's commentary on Brihat samhita. If that is not the

case, it is perhaps my lack of concentration due to the flood of mails I

am getting these days. I have a habit of trying to reply the same day,

but of late it is taking me well past 2 in the night to complete the

responses and my age perhaps clouds my brains these days. Could you,

however, provide the shloka from Parashari Samhita that is quoted by

Bhattotpala in that commentary to prove Parashara was form 1400 b.c. or

so. Also as I requested you please give me the name of the publisher so

that I can obtain the commentary by Bhattotpala on Brihat samhita, for

my reference.

 

**********

Bhattotpala's commentary on Brihat samhita is available at " Jyotish

Prakashan, Chowk Varanasi 221001 " You could get it from them or Thakur

Prasad bookseller Kolkata.

 

I do not think Motilal Banarasidas published Bhattotpala's commentary on

Brihat samhita. They have published that By M. R. Bhat that I do have

with me. It is so sad that we can not get the book from which the

shlokas are given for understanding the reason of dating Parashara so

late despite evidence in his own text.

*********

 

Regards,

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

Sreenadh wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> ==>

> Me: " Parasara Samhita " (not BPHS) provides us with a sloka that helps

> us in determining the date of Parasara. The sloka is quoted by

> Bhattolpala in the commentary of Brihat Samhita.

>

> You:This is for the first time I have learnt that Brihat samhita

> contains reference to Argalas. I would be obliged if you could give

> the reference to the Shloka of Brihat Samhita for which Bhattotpala

> thought it fit to refer to what Parashara said about Argalas. This

> would add to my knowledge

> <==

>

> Chandrasekhar ji, What is this?!! What I am saying and what you are

> hearing?!!

>

> ==>

> > Could you also give me the address of the publisher of the

> > commentary of Bhattotpala on Brihat samhita? I have his commentary

> > on Brihat jataka, but Brihat samhita commentary from Bhattotpala is

> > something that I have heard so late in my life that I would like to

> > add it to my library.

> <==

> I took it from the library, and was later returned it.. I have only

> the photocopy of Bhattolpalas commentary on Brihat Jataka with me.

> Yes, Bhattolpala wrote elaborate commentary for Brihat Jataka as well

> as Brihat Samhita. Many Hindi and Eglish transilations to

> Bhattolpalas commentary of these texts got published as well. I think

> from Mottilal Banarasi Das publishers you could find a copy of the

> same. If my memory is right, it was the book published them that i

> read; I have photo copied some of the pages, and kept with me. I need

> to buy that book (Bhattolpala's commentary on Brihat Samhita) soon

> from some where (I know that it would be currently available in the

> Market, In Delhi or in Varanasi) since it is a valuable resource.

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sreenadh,

> >

> > My comments in red, below what you said (in quotes).

> >

> > " Ok. With enough supporting evidence it could, also extend the

> info

> > that BPHS could be neither original nor complete. But for sure it a

> > very useful, authentic, valuable, resource, that depict the system

> > followed by Parasara school. "

> >

> > I agree that the text does prove to be invaluable in understanding

> the

> > basic principles of astrology. No doubt about it.

> > *******

> > " * Presents of a certain yoga in Yudhishthira's horasope in BPHS.*

> > indicating him being alive at the time of Mahabharata.That is new

> > knowledge to me - please provide the chapter number and sloka

> number; I

> > will refer to BPHS to have a better idea about the same. "

> >

> > Oh! I thought you knew that one. If you have the Santanam edition

> > (Ranjan Publication) too, look at shloka 32 chapter 41 where not

> only it

> > is said that in the present days (time when the text was recited to

> > Maitreya) Yudhishthira has Parijatamsha related to rajyoga causing

> > grahas, it it further told that in future Shalivahana shall have

> similar

> > yoga.

> > *******

> > " There is a better chance for the same; but even when fragmented

> the

> > bits and pieces of the ancient knowledge available through such

> texts

> > should be valued very much. Remember that the ancient epics speaks

> and

> > quotes shlokas from " Agneya Purana " and what we have today is " Agni

> > Purana " and " Vahni Purana " and many slokas of " Agneya Purana "

> quoted by

> > other Puranas are missing in both of them. It could be the case

> with

> > many other texts - even astrological classics like BPHS. "

> >

> > I am not sure Agneya Purana is one of the 18 mahapuranas. But that

> is

> > besides the point of discussion. If you think that BPHS is only a

> myriad

> > collection of shlokas and not given by Parashara, then the

> insistence

> > that Jaimini Sutras being an attempt by Jaimini to spread the

> teaching

> > of Parashara is even more questionable. Or that is how I would look

> at it.

> > ********

> > " Please refer to the previous mail - I said that " Parasara Samhita "

> (not

> > BPHS) provides us with a sloka that helps us in determining the

> > date of Parasara. The sloka is quoted by Bhattolpala in the

> commentary

> > of Brihat Samhita. I have written a detailed write up on the same

> in

> > vedic astrology group long time back, If you do a search there you

> will

> > get it for sure. (As time permits I too will try to locate it, to

> save

> > my self from re-writing it again) Of course Jaimini Sutras are in

> Sutra

> > form - but not sutras that completely satisfies the definition of

> > Sutras. My argument was that it is because, Jaimini sutra was not

> an

> > original work but rather an teaching/abbreviation effort of unique

> > concepts discussed by Parasara. "

> >

> > But you do say at the end of your pdf document that you have uses

> > Sitaram Jha edition for reference. Anyway, could you indicate the

> > chapter of Brihat Samhita in the commentary of which Bhattotpala

> has

> > given the shloka you have indicated. This is for the first time I

> have

> > learnt that Brihat samhita contains reference to Argalas. I would

> be

> > obliged if you could give the reference to the Shloka of Brihat

> Samhita

> > for which Bhattotpala thought it fit to refer to what Parashara

> said

> > about Argalas. This would add to my knowledge. Could you also give

> me

> > the address of the publisher of the commentary of Bhattotpala on

> Brihat

> > samhita? I have his commentary on Brihat jataka, but Brihat samhita

> > commentary from Bhattotpala is something that I have heard so late

> in my

> > life that I would like to add it to my library. Whether Jaimini

> sutras

> > satisfies condition of sutras is something that is your opinion but

> it

> > does not appear to be supported by other learned commentators. If

> this

> > logic is to be accepted then even brahmasutras may not qualify to

> be

> > called as sutras, since some are single word and others quite long.

> >

> > That is why I said let us agree to disagree.

> >

> > Take care,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Sreenadh wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > >

> > > ==>

> > > > I think it has been mentioned by the early acharyas of Kashi

> > > > Vishwavidyalaya, who compiled the original shlokas of the BPHS,

> > > > that the manuscripts that they based BPHS on were not

> > > > titled " Brihad Paraashara Hora Shastra " .

> > > <==

> > > Ok. With enough supporting evidence it could, also extend the info

> > > that BPHS could be neither original nor complete. But for sure it

> a

> > > very useful, authentic, valuable, resource, that depict the system

> > > followed by Parasara school.

> > >

> > > ==>

> > > > The conjecture of Parashara who gave the current text

> > > > being of 1400 b.c. must remain a conjecture as the text mentions

> > > > that Yudhishthira is having a certain yoga and enumerates others

> > > > who had similar yogas in the text indicating him being alive at

> the

> > > > time of Mahabharata. Mahabharata ends with death of Lord

> Krishna or

> > > > soon after that which is around 3102 B. C. If this is not

> > > > acceptable then the contents of the texts must have been

> collection

> > > > of myriad granthas and nothing more.

> > > <==

> > > * Presents of a certain yoga in Yudhishtira's horasope in BPHS.

> > > * indicating him being alive at the time of Mahabharata.

> > > That is new knowledge to me - please provide the chapter number

> and

> > > sloka number; I will refer to BPHS to have a better idea about the

> > > same.

> > >

> > > ==>

> > > > If this is not

> > > > acceptable then the contents of the texts must have been

> collection

> > > > of myriad granthas and nothing more.

> > > <==

> > > There is a better chance for the same; but even when fragmented

> the

> > > bits and pieces of the ancient knowledge available through such

> texts

> > > should be valued very much. Remember that the ancient epics speaks

> > > and quotes slokas from " Agneya Purana " and what we have today

> > > is " Agni Purana " and " Vahni Purana " and many slokas of " Agneya

> > > Purana " quoted by other Puranas are missing in both of them. It

> could

> > > be the case with many other texts - even astrological classics

> like

> > > BPHS.

> > > ==>

> > > > If you could quote the shloka in Paraashari that gives the

> > > > date of the text and it having been written by Parashara I

> would be

> > > > obliged much. The edition which gives those shlokas may also be

> > > > quoted, so that checking them will be easy.

> > > <==

> > > Please refer to the previous mail - I said that " Parasara Samhita "

> > > (not BPHS) provides us with a sloka that helps us in determining

> the

> > > date of Parasara. The sloka is quoted by Bhattolpala in the

> > > commentary of Brihat Samhita. I have written a detailed write up

> on

> > > the same in vedic astrology group long time back, If you do a

> search

> > > there you will get it for sure. (As time permits I too will try to

> > > locate it, to save my self from re-writing it again)

> > > Of course Jaimini Sutras are in Sutra form - but not sutras that

> > > completely satisfies the definition of Sutras. My argument was

> that

> > > it is because, Jaimini sutra was not an original work but rather

> an

> > > teaching/abbreviation effort of unique concepts discussed by

> Parasara.

> > >

> > > ==>

> > > > That is why I said let us agree to disagree.

> > > <==

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, agreement or disagreement shouldn't be a

> pre-

> > > condition; but a natural result. And we are always free to

> agree,

> > > disagree, or agree to diagree - if not friendship what can give us

> > > that freedom.

> > > Love,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > >

> > > > I think it has been mentioned by the early acharyas of Kashi

> > > > Vishwavidyalaya, who compiled the original shlokas of the BPHS,

> > > that the

> > > > manuscripts that they based BPHS on were not titled " Brihad

> > > Paraashara

> > > > Hora Shastra " . The conjecture of Parashara who gave the current

> > > text

> > > > being of 1400 b.c. must remain a conjecture as the text mentions

> > > that

> > > > Yudhishthira is having a certain yoga and enumerates others who

> had

> > > > similar yogas in the text indicating him being alive at the

> time of

> > > > Mahabharata. Mahabharata ends with death of Lord Krishna or soon

> > > after

> > > > that which is around 3102 B. C. If this is not acceptable then

> the

> > > > contents of the texts must have been collection of myriad

> granthas

> > > and

> > > > nothing more. If you could quote the shloka in Paraashari that

> > > gives the

> > > > date of the text and it having been written by Parashara I

> would be

> > > > obliged much. The edition which gives those shlokas may also be

> > > quoted,

> > > > so that checking them will be easy.

> > > >

> > > > The definition of sutras given by you is right. But the clarity

> is

> > > for

> > > > ones who are well versed in that science and not for everyone,

> as

> > > > guarding the divine knowledge was the reason sutras have

> brevity.

> > > So I

> > > > do not think any Sanskrit scholar ( I am not one) would declare

> > > them

> > > > anything but sutras. I have sought opinion of the learned in

> that

> > > > language and their uniform opinion is that they are sutras.

> > > >

> > > > That is why I said let us agree to disagree.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > It is not Parashara of Mahabharata (the father of Vyasa) who

> wrote

> > > > > Parasara Hora. But a Parasara who lived around BC 1400 wrote

> > > Parasara

> > > > > Sidhanta, Parasara Hora and Parasara Samhita, as the proof

> for the

> > > > > same is provided by an availabe sloka of Parasara Samhita.

> > > > > BPHS definitely mentions the names of Parasara and Mitreya,

> and

> > > > > since the book is as told by Parasara and that is why the name

> > > Brihat

> > > > > Parasara Hora Sastra is attributed to it.

> > > > > Coming to Jaimini sutra, the text does not even fulfill the

> prime

> > > > > condition for a Sutra text. As per the definition-

> > > > > " Alpaksharam Aasannigdtham Sutram Sutravido vidu "

> > > > > [A sutra should contain less number of characters and the

> meaning

> > > of

> > > > > the sutra should be crystal clear]

> > > > > Even though the sutras in Jaimini sutra contains less number

> of

> > > > > characters, they does not satisfy the second condition the

> meaning

> > > > > should be unambiguous and crystal clear.

> > > > > Look at any other sutra text - such as Brigu Sutra in

> Astrology,

> > > > > Sutras of Patanjali in grammar, Yoga Sutras of Patanjali,

> Chanakya

> > > > > Sutra etc - you will see the great difference between their

> > > approach

> > > > > and presentation and the mere 'Abbreviation effort' of

> Jaimini.

> > > > >

> > > > > Love,

> > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Carrying the logic further what proof is there that the

> > > Parashara who

> > > > > > was father of Vyasa wrote the BPHS? Nobody wrote books in

> those

> > > days

> > > > > > they were memorized and carried by word of mouth. Even BPHS

> > > does not

> > > > > > mention that being its name.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I think there is a bit of difference between sutras and

> > > shlokas. I do

> > > > > > not think there is any evidence that suggests that it is

> > > > > presentation of

> > > > > > concepts of Parashara in abbreviated manner. Could you

> point to

> > > those

> > > > > > sutras that do this?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > I have another question - what proof is there to say that

> the

> > > book

> > > > > > > is written by sage Jaimini? The book does not even mention

> > > the auther,

> > > > > > > then what to say about his guru?

> > > > > > > The book 'Jaimini Sutra' is written by a student of some

> > > teacher

> > > > > > > (let us positively hope that it is Jaimini), and collects

> and

> > > presents

> > > > > > > the advice given by the teacher, as indicated by the first

> > > sutra of

> > > > > > > the text itself. One more thing - where in the book it is

> > > mentioned

> > > > > > > that the name of the book is 'Jaimini Sutra'?

> > > > > > > But the internal proof - the slokas, the terminology,

> concepts

> > > > > > > described etc - clearly tells us that it an effort to

> present

> > > the

> > > > > > > concepts presented by Parasara in an abriviated manner.

> This

> > > being the

> > > > > > > situation, I too would agree to disagree...

> > > > > > > P.S: I am uploading my thoughts on some of the intial

> slokas

> > > of

> > > > > > > Jaimini sutra, and the link is provided in the next post.

> > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I could have agreed to the contention had Jaimini

> mentioned

> > > > > somewhere

> > > > > > > > about Parashara having been his Guru, as was the

> practice

> > > in ancient

> > > > > > > > sages. Even Parashara tells his having given the

> knowledge

> > > > > received by

> > > > > > > > Shaunaka who got it through Garga who in turn received

> it

> > > through

> > > > > > > > Narada. But then I am an obstinate old person who was

> > > taught to base

> > > > > > > his

> > > > > > > > judgement of the ancient astrological texts, on both

> > > Pramana and

> > > > > tarka.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > So let us agree to disagree on this.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > > 1)Even though Jaimini sutra provides a special set of

> > > > > principles as

> > > > > > > > > compared to the available (printed) BPHS, there are

> many

> > > > > slokas that

> > > > > > > > > supports the same, as available from commentaries of

> > > Jaimini sutra

> > > > > > > > > and virdha karikas.

> > > > > > > > > There are many slokas of Parasara available, about

> many

> > > such

> > > > > > > > > concepts that are not present in the printed BPHS, but

> > > present in

> > > > > > > > > various commentaries of Jaimini sutra.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 2) It is not the simple study of Argala concept alone

> that

> > > > > helps us

> > > > > > > > > in reaching the conclusion that " Jaimini sutra is a

> guide

> > > and

> > > > > > > > > extension of BPHS, that tries to teach Parasara's

> > > concepts " , but

> > > > > > > > > rather-

> > > > > > > > > * the study of the whole book and its approach

> > > > > > > > > * comparison of concepts and words used within it

> > > > > > > > > * the methodology of presentation followed in the book

> > > > > > > > > and many more.

> > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > But if the two are giving different sets of

> principles,

> > > as

> > > > > > > > > indicated by

> > > > > > > > > > you in another mail, then how do you verify the

> > > veracity of the

> > > > > > > > > sutras.

> > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I still do not find enough evidence to think

> > > that

> > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > Anargala and Jaimini is Argala. Only Lord Shiva is

> > > Anargala

> > > > > and we

> > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > not have access to him.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > > > > I think the interpretation of Jaimini sutras

> become

> > > far more

> > > > > > > > > easier

> > > > > > > > > > > if we find the bolt and the key.

> > > > > > > > > > > * The Bolt is: Jaimini sutra is not an independent

> > > text,

> > > > > it is a

> > > > > > > > > > > guide to BPHS concepts, extending them a bit.

> > > > > > > > > > > * The Key is: Refer to BPHS first always for

> clarity,

> > > and

> > > > > then try

> > > > > > > > > > > unlocking Jaimini sutra with the same.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > P.S: May be BPHS is Anargala and Jaimini sutra is

> the

> > > > > Argala. )

> > > > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will

> find

> > > > > that the

> > > > > > > > > signs

> > > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means

> > > side of

> > > > > the body

> > > > > > > > > > > and the

> > > > > > > > > > > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the

> signs

> > > to their

> > > > > > > > > side.

> > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult.

> > > However

> > > > > there are

> > > > > > > > > > > Vriddha

> > > > > > > > > > > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal

> clear.

> > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > > > uses

> > > > > > > > > > > > the same terminology but goes on th explain

> that the

> > > > > adjacent

> > > > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the

> rasi

> > > aspect is

> > > > > > > > > > > clarified

> > > > > > > > > > > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in

> his

> > > > > commentary on

> > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > > > > > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas

> > > > > occupying the

> > > > > > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > > > > also have identical aspects as those of the

> rasis.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > It is really informative to read your recent

> > > > > historical write

> > > > > > > > > up's

> > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

> > > > > > > > > Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > > > > > > > > > > you very much.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a

> fundamental

> > > doubt

> > > > > > > > > regarding

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri

> > > Surya

> > > > > Narain

> > > > > > > > > Rao.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal

> signs

> > > aspect

> > > > > each

> > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha.

> > > Excepting.the next

> > > > > > > > > > > zodiacal

> > > > > > > > > > > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha

> tadvat.

> > > Those

> > > > > planets

> > > > > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > > > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets

> > > found

> > > > > in such

> > > > > > > > > > > houses.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Respected translator makes the following

> HONEST

> > > > > statement -

> > > > > > > > > ''The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in

> > > their

> > > > > FRONT. I

> > > > > > > > > DO

> > > > > > > > > > > NOT

> > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word

> > > > > FRONT''.Then he

> > > > > > > > > says

> > > > > > > > > > > > > commentators observe - Mesha has

> > > Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front

> signs.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > 40>, " Sreenadh "

> > > > > <sreesog@>

> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion

> > > about

> > > > > the same?

> > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any

> > > > > contradictions

> > > > > > > > > > > between

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and

> Jaimini?

> > > What

> > > > > is your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > opinion?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------

> ----

> > > --------

> > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.8.9/832 -

> > > > > Release Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > -----------------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

> > > Release Date:

> > > > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > -------------------------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

> Release

> > > Date:

> > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

That sloka from Bhattolpala commentry on Brihat samhita is already

quoted in my forwarded mail old from Vedic-astrology to this group

(which I did for whole sake of providing that sloka to you only)

Please check the message number:15264

You will find that sloka and the explanation in it.

 

Thanks for providing the Publishers info about the Bhattolpala's

commentry on Brihat Samhita.

Love,

Sreenadh

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadh,

>

> This happened as I though you were referring to the shloka that you had

> given to prove that argala from 7th is also considered and said that it

> is from Bhattotpala's commentary on Brihat samhita. If that is not the

> case, it is perhaps my lack of concentration due to the flood of

mails I

> am getting these days. I have a habit of trying to reply the same day,

> but of late it is taking me well past 2 in the night to complete the

> responses and my age perhaps clouds my brains these days. Could you,

> however, provide the shloka from Parashari Samhita that is quoted by

> Bhattotpala in that commentary to prove Parashara was form 1400 b.c. or

> so. Also as I requested you please give me the name of the publisher so

> that I can obtain the commentary by Bhattotpala on Brihat samhita, for

> my reference.

>

> **********

> Bhattotpala's commentary on Brihat samhita is available at " Jyotish

> Prakashan, Chowk Varanasi 221001 " You could get it from them or Thakur

> Prasad bookseller Kolkata.

>

> I do not think Motilal Banarasidas published Bhattotpala's

commentary on

> Brihat samhita. They have published that By M. R. Bhat that I do have

> with me. It is so sad that we can not get the book from which the

> shlokas are given for understanding the reason of dating Parashara so

> late despite evidence in his own text.

> *********

>

> Regards,

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> Sreenadh wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > ==>

> > Me: " Parasara Samhita " (not BPHS) provides us with a sloka that helps

> > us in determining the date of Parasara. The sloka is quoted by

> > Bhattolpala in the commentary of Brihat Samhita.

> >

> > You:This is for the first time I have learnt that Brihat samhita

> > contains reference to Argalas. I would be obliged if you could give

> > the reference to the Shloka of Brihat Samhita for which Bhattotpala

> > thought it fit to refer to what Parashara said about Argalas. This

> > would add to my knowledge

> > <==

> >

> > Chandrasekhar ji, What is this?!! What I am saying and what you are

> > hearing?!!

> >

> > ==>

> > > Could you also give me the address of the publisher of the

> > > commentary of Bhattotpala on Brihat samhita? I have his commentary

> > > on Brihat jataka, but Brihat samhita commentary from Bhattotpala is

> > > something that I have heard so late in my life that I would like to

> > > add it to my library.

> > <==

> > I took it from the library, and was later returned it.. I have only

> > the photocopy of Bhattolpalas commentary on Brihat Jataka with me.

> > Yes, Bhattolpala wrote elaborate commentary for Brihat Jataka as well

> > as Brihat Samhita. Many Hindi and Eglish transilations to

> > Bhattolpalas commentary of these texts got published as well. I think

> > from Mottilal Banarasi Das publishers you could find a copy of the

> > same. If my memory is right, it was the book published them that i

> > read; I have photo copied some of the pages, and kept with me. I need

> > to buy that book (Bhattolpala's commentary on Brihat Samhita) soon

> > from some where (I know that it would be currently available in the

> > Market, In Delhi or in Varanasi) since it is a valuable resource.

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > >

> > > My comments in red, below what you said (in quotes).

> > >

> > > " Ok. With enough supporting evidence it could, also extend the

> > info

> > > that BPHS could be neither original nor complete. But for sure it a

> > > very useful, authentic, valuable, resource, that depict the system

> > > followed by Parasara school. "

> > >

> > > I agree that the text does prove to be invaluable in understanding

> > the

> > > basic principles of astrology. No doubt about it.

> > > *******

> > > " * Presents of a certain yoga in Yudhishthira's horasope in BPHS.*

> > > indicating him being alive at the time of Mahabharata.That is new

> > > knowledge to me - please provide the chapter number and sloka

> > number; I

> > > will refer to BPHS to have a better idea about the same. "

> > >

> > > Oh! I thought you knew that one. If you have the Santanam edition

> > > (Ranjan Publication) too, look at shloka 32 chapter 41 where not

> > only it

> > > is said that in the present days (time when the text was recited to

> > > Maitreya) Yudhishthira has Parijatamsha related to rajyoga causing

> > > grahas, it it further told that in future Shalivahana shall have

> > similar

> > > yoga.

> > > *******

> > > " There is a better chance for the same; but even when fragmented

> > the

> > > bits and pieces of the ancient knowledge available through such

> > texts

> > > should be valued very much. Remember that the ancient epics speaks

> > and

> > > quotes shlokas from " Agneya Purana " and what we have today is " Agni

> > > Purana " and " Vahni Purana " and many slokas of " Agneya Purana "

> > quoted by

> > > other Puranas are missing in both of them. It could be the case

> > with

> > > many other texts - even astrological classics like BPHS. "

> > >

> > > I am not sure Agneya Purana is one of the 18 mahapuranas. But that

> > is

> > > besides the point of discussion. If you think that BPHS is only a

> > myriad

> > > collection of shlokas and not given by Parashara, then the

> > insistence

> > > that Jaimini Sutras being an attempt by Jaimini to spread the

> > teaching

> > > of Parashara is even more questionable. Or that is how I would look

> > at it.

> > > ********

> > > " Please refer to the previous mail - I said that " Parasara Samhita "

> > (not

> > > BPHS) provides us with a sloka that helps us in determining the

> > > date of Parasara. The sloka is quoted by Bhattolpala in the

> > commentary

> > > of Brihat Samhita. I have written a detailed write up on the same

> > in

> > > vedic astrology group long time back, If you do a search there you

> > will

> > > get it for sure. (As time permits I too will try to locate it, to

> > save

> > > my self from re-writing it again) Of course Jaimini Sutras are in

> > Sutra

> > > form - but not sutras that completely satisfies the definition of

> > > Sutras. My argument was that it is because, Jaimini sutra was not

> > an

> > > original work but rather an teaching/abbreviation effort of unique

> > > concepts discussed by Parasara. "

> > >

> > > But you do say at the end of your pdf document that you have uses

> > > Sitaram Jha edition for reference. Anyway, could you indicate the

> > > chapter of Brihat Samhita in the commentary of which Bhattotpala

> > has

> > > given the shloka you have indicated. This is for the first time I

> > have

> > > learnt that Brihat samhita contains reference to Argalas. I would

> > be

> > > obliged if you could give the reference to the Shloka of Brihat

> > Samhita

> > > for which Bhattotpala thought it fit to refer to what Parashara

> > said

> > > about Argalas. This would add to my knowledge. Could you also give

> > me

> > > the address of the publisher of the commentary of Bhattotpala on

> > Brihat

> > > samhita? I have his commentary on Brihat jataka, but Brihat samhita

> > > commentary from Bhattotpala is something that I have heard so late

> > in my

> > > life that I would like to add it to my library. Whether Jaimini

> > sutras

> > > satisfies condition of sutras is something that is your opinion but

> > it

> > > does not appear to be supported by other learned commentators. If

> > this

> > > logic is to be accepted then even brahmasutras may not qualify to

> > be

> > > called as sutras, since some are single word and others quite long.

> > >

> > > That is why I said let us agree to disagree.

> > >

> > > Take care,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > >

> > > > ==>

> > > > > I think it has been mentioned by the early acharyas of Kashi

> > > > > Vishwavidyalaya, who compiled the original shlokas of the BPHS,

> > > > > that the manuscripts that they based BPHS on were not

> > > > > titled " Brihad Paraashara Hora Shastra " .

> > > > <==

> > > > Ok. With enough supporting evidence it could, also extend the info

> > > > that BPHS could be neither original nor complete. But for sure it

> > a

> > > > very useful, authentic, valuable, resource, that depict the system

> > > > followed by Parasara school.

> > > >

> > > > ==>

> > > > > The conjecture of Parashara who gave the current text

> > > > > being of 1400 b.c. must remain a conjecture as the text mentions

> > > > > that Yudhishthira is having a certain yoga and enumerates others

> > > > > who had similar yogas in the text indicating him being alive at

> > the

> > > > > time of Mahabharata. Mahabharata ends with death of Lord

> > Krishna or

> > > > > soon after that which is around 3102 B. C. If this is not

> > > > > acceptable then the contents of the texts must have been

> > collection

> > > > > of myriad granthas and nothing more.

> > > > <==

> > > > * Presents of a certain yoga in Yudhishtira's horasope in BPHS.

> > > > * indicating him being alive at the time of Mahabharata.

> > > > That is new knowledge to me - please provide the chapter number

> > and

> > > > sloka number; I will refer to BPHS to have a better idea about the

> > > > same.

> > > >

> > > > ==>

> > > > > If this is not

> > > > > acceptable then the contents of the texts must have been

> > collection

> > > > > of myriad granthas and nothing more.

> > > > <==

> > > > There is a better chance for the same; but even when fragmented

> > the

> > > > bits and pieces of the ancient knowledge available through such

> > texts

> > > > should be valued very much. Remember that the ancient epics speaks

> > > > and quotes slokas from " Agneya Purana " and what we have today

> > > > is " Agni Purana " and " Vahni Purana " and many slokas of " Agneya

> > > > Purana " quoted by other Puranas are missing in both of them. It

> > could

> > > > be the case with many other texts - even astrological classics

> > like

> > > > BPHS.

> > > > ==>

> > > > > If you could quote the shloka in Paraashari that gives the

> > > > > date of the text and it having been written by Parashara I

> > would be

> > > > > obliged much. The edition which gives those shlokas may also be

> > > > > quoted, so that checking them will be easy.

> > > > <==

> > > > Please refer to the previous mail - I said that " Parasara Samhita "

> > > > (not BPHS) provides us with a sloka that helps us in determining

> > the

> > > > date of Parasara. The sloka is quoted by Bhattolpala in the

> > > > commentary of Brihat Samhita. I have written a detailed write up

> > on

> > > > the same in vedic astrology group long time back, If you do a

> > search

> > > > there you will get it for sure. (As time permits I too will try to

> > > > locate it, to save my self from re-writing it again)

> > > > Of course Jaimini Sutras are in Sutra form - but not sutras that

> > > > completely satisfies the definition of Sutras. My argument was

> > that

> > > > it is because, Jaimini sutra was not an original work but rather

> > an

> > > > teaching/abbreviation effort of unique concepts discussed by

> > Parasara.

> > > >

> > > > ==>

> > > > > That is why I said let us agree to disagree.

> > > > <==

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, agreement or disagreement shouldn't be a

> > pre-

> > > > condition; but a natural result. And we are always free to

> > agree,

> > > > disagree, or agree to diagree - if not friendship what can give us

> > > > that freedom.

> > > > Love,

> > > > Sreenadh

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > >

> > > > > I think it has been mentioned by the early acharyas of Kashi

> > > > > Vishwavidyalaya, who compiled the original shlokas of the BPHS,

> > > > that the

> > > > > manuscripts that they based BPHS on were not titled " Brihad

> > > > Paraashara

> > > > > Hora Shastra " . The conjecture of Parashara who gave the current

> > > > text

> > > > > being of 1400 b.c. must remain a conjecture as the text mentions

> > > > that

> > > > > Yudhishthira is having a certain yoga and enumerates others who

> > had

> > > > > similar yogas in the text indicating him being alive at the

> > time of

> > > > > Mahabharata. Mahabharata ends with death of Lord Krishna or soon

> > > > after

> > > > > that which is around 3102 B. C. If this is not acceptable then

> > the

> > > > > contents of the texts must have been collection of myriad

> > granthas

> > > > and

> > > > > nothing more. If you could quote the shloka in Paraashari that

> > > > gives the

> > > > > date of the text and it having been written by Parashara I

> > would be

> > > > > obliged much. The edition which gives those shlokas may also be

> > > > quoted,

> > > > > so that checking them will be easy.

> > > > >

> > > > > The definition of sutras given by you is right. But the clarity

> > is

> > > > for

> > > > > ones who are well versed in that science and not for everyone,

> > as

> > > > > guarding the divine knowledge was the reason sutras have

> > brevity.

> > > > So I

> > > > > do not think any Sanskrit scholar ( I am not one) would declare

> > > > them

> > > > > anything but sutras. I have sought opinion of the learned in

> > that

> > > > > language and their uniform opinion is that they are sutras.

> > > > >

> > > > > That is why I said let us agree to disagree.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > It is not Parashara of Mahabharata (the father of Vyasa) who

> > wrote

> > > > > > Parasara Hora. But a Parasara who lived around BC 1400 wrote

> > > > Parasara

> > > > > > Sidhanta, Parasara Hora and Parasara Samhita, as the proof

> > for the

> > > > > > same is provided by an availabe sloka of Parasara Samhita.

> > > > > > BPHS definitely mentions the names of Parasara and Mitreya,

> > and

> > > > > > since the book is as told by Parasara and that is why the name

> > > > Brihat

> > > > > > Parasara Hora Sastra is attributed to it.

> > > > > > Coming to Jaimini sutra, the text does not even fulfill the

> > prime

> > > > > > condition for a Sutra text. As per the definition-

> > > > > > " Alpaksharam Aasannigdtham Sutram Sutravido vidu "

> > > > > > [A sutra should contain less number of characters and the

> > meaning

> > > > of

> > > > > > the sutra should be crystal clear]

> > > > > > Even though the sutras in Jaimini sutra contains less number

> > of

> > > > > > characters, they does not satisfy the second condition the

> > meaning

> > > > > > should be unambiguous and crystal clear.

> > > > > > Look at any other sutra text - such as Brigu Sutra in

> > Astrology,

> > > > > > Sutras of Patanjali in grammar, Yoga Sutras of Patanjali,

> > Chanakya

> > > > > > Sutra etc - you will see the great difference between their

> > > > approach

> > > > > > and presentation and the mere 'Abbreviation effort' of

> > Jaimini.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Carrying the logic further what proof is there that the

> > > > Parashara who

> > > > > > > was father of Vyasa wrote the BPHS? Nobody wrote books in

> > those

> > > > days

> > > > > > > they were memorized and carried by word of mouth. Even BPHS

> > > > does not

> > > > > > > mention that being its name.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I think there is a bit of difference between sutras and

> > > > shlokas. I do

> > > > > > > not think there is any evidence that suggests that it is

> > > > > > presentation of

> > > > > > > concepts of Parashara in abbreviated manner. Could you

> > point to

> > > > those

> > > > > > > sutras that do this?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > I have another question - what proof is there to say that

> > the

> > > > book

> > > > > > > > is written by sage Jaimini? The book does not even mention

> > > > the auther,

> > > > > > > > then what to say about his guru?

> > > > > > > > The book 'Jaimini Sutra' is written by a student of some

> > > > teacher

> > > > > > > > (let us positively hope that it is Jaimini), and collects

> > and

> > > > presents

> > > > > > > > the advice given by the teacher, as indicated by the first

> > > > sutra of

> > > > > > > > the text itself. One more thing - where in the book it is

> > > > mentioned

> > > > > > > > that the name of the book is 'Jaimini Sutra'?

> > > > > > > > But the internal proof - the slokas, the terminology,

> > concepts

> > > > > > > > described etc - clearly tells us that it an effort to

> > present

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > concepts presented by Parasara in an abriviated manner.

> > This

> > > > being the

> > > > > > > > situation, I too would agree to disagree...

> > > > > > > > P.S: I am uploading my thoughts on some of the intial

> > slokas

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > Jaimini sutra, and the link is provided in the next post.

> > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I could have agreed to the contention had Jaimini

> > mentioned

> > > > > > somewhere

> > > > > > > > > about Parashara having been his Guru, as was the

> > practice

> > > > in ancient

> > > > > > > > > sages. Even Parashara tells his having given the

> > knowledge

> > > > > > received by

> > > > > > > > > Shaunaka who got it through Garga who in turn received

> > it

> > > > through

> > > > > > > > > Narada. But then I am an obstinate old person who was

> > > > taught to base

> > > > > > > > his

> > > > > > > > > judgement of the ancient astrological texts, on both

> > > > Pramana and

> > > > > > tarka.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > So let us agree to disagree on this.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > > > 1)Even though Jaimini sutra provides a special set of

> > > > > > principles as

> > > > > > > > > > compared to the available (printed) BPHS, there are

> > many

> > > > > > slokas that

> > > > > > > > > > supports the same, as available from commentaries of

> > > > Jaimini sutra

> > > > > > > > > > and virdha karikas.

> > > > > > > > > > There are many slokas of Parasara available, about

> > many

> > > > such

> > > > > > > > > > concepts that are not present in the printed BPHS, but

> > > > present in

> > > > > > > > > > various commentaries of Jaimini sutra.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 2) It is not the simple study of Argala concept alone

> > that

> > > > > > helps us

> > > > > > > > > > in reaching the conclusion that " Jaimini sutra is a

> > guide

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > extension of BPHS, that tries to teach Parasara's

> > > > concepts " , but

> > > > > > > > > > rather-

> > > > > > > > > > * the study of the whole book and its approach

> > > > > > > > > > * comparison of concepts and words used within it

> > > > > > > > > > * the methodology of presentation followed in the book

> > > > > > > > > > and many more.

> > > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > But if the two are giving different sets of

> > principles,

> > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > indicated by

> > > > > > > > > > > you in another mail, then how do you verify the

> > > > veracity of the

> > > > > > > > > > sutras.

> > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I still do not find enough evidence to think

> > > > that

> > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > Anargala and Jaimini is Argala. Only Lord Shiva is

> > > > Anargala

> > > > > > and we

> > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > not have access to him.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > > > > > I think the interpretation of Jaimini sutras

> > become

> > > > far more

> > > > > > > > > > easier

> > > > > > > > > > > > if we find the bolt and the key.

> > > > > > > > > > > > * The Bolt is: Jaimini sutra is not an independent

> > > > text,

> > > > > > it is a

> > > > > > > > > > > > guide to BPHS concepts, extending them a bit.

> > > > > > > > > > > > * The Key is: Refer to BPHS first always for

> > clarity,

> > > > and

> > > > > > then try

> > > > > > > > > > > > unlocking Jaimini sutra with the same.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > P.S: May be BPHS is Anargala and Jaimini sutra is

> > the

> > > > > > Argala. )

> > > > > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will

> > find

> > > > > > that the

> > > > > > > > > > signs

> > > > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means

> > > > side of

> > > > > > the body

> > > > > > > > > > > > and the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the

> > signs

> > > > to their

> > > > > > > > > > side.

> > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult.

> > > > However

> > > > > > there are

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vriddha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal

> > clear.

> > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > > > > uses

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the same terminology but goes on th explain

> > that the

> > > > > > adjacent

> > > > > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the

> > rasi

> > > > aspect is

> > > > > > > > > > > > clarified

> > > > > > > > > > > > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in

> > his

> > > > > > commentary on

> > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > > > > > > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas

> > > > > > occupying the

> > > > > > > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > > > > > also have identical aspects as those of the

> > rasis.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is really informative to read your recent

> > > > > > historical write

> > > > > > > > > > up's

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

> > > > > > > > > > Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you very much.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a

> > fundamental

> > > > doubt

> > > > > > > > > > regarding

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri

> > > > Surya

> > > > > > Narain

> > > > > > > > > > Rao.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal

> > signs

> > > > aspect

> > > > > > each

> > > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha.

> > > > Excepting.the next

> > > > > > > > > > > > zodiacal

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha

> > tadvat.

> > > > Those

> > > > > > planets

> > > > > > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets

> > > > found

> > > > > > in such

> > > > > > > > > > > > houses.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respected translator makes the following

> > HONEST

> > > > > > statement -

> > > > > > > > > > ''The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in

> > > > their

> > > > > > FRONT. I

> > > > > > > > > > DO

> > > > > > > > > > > > NOT

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word

> > > > > > FRONT''.Then he

> > > > > > > > > > says

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > commentators observe - Mesha has

> > > > Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front

> > signs.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > 40>, " Sreenadh "

> > > > > > <sreesog@>

> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion

> > > > about

> > > > > > the same?

> > > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any

> > > > > > contradictions

> > > > > > > > > > > > between

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and

> > Jaimini?

> > > > What

> > > > > > is your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > opinion?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------

> > ----

> > > > --------

> > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > 269.8.9/832 -

> > > > > > Release Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > -----------------

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

> > > > Release Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > -------------------------

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

> > Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadh,

 

The address I gave you is about Bhattotpala's commentary on Brihat

jataka and not Brihat Samhita. I am getting out of the discussions which

are not getting anywhere.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

Sreenadh wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> That sloka from Bhattolpala commentry on Brihat samhita is already

> quoted in my forwarded mail old from Vedic-astrology to this group

> (which I did for whole sake of providing that sloka to you only)

> Please check the message number:15264

> You will find that sloka and the explanation in it.

>

> Thanks for providing the Publishers info about the Bhattolpala's

> commentry on Brihat Samhita.

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sreenadh,

> >

> > This happened as I though you were referring to the shloka that you had

> > given to prove that argala from 7th is also considered and said that it

> > is from Bhattotpala's commentary on Brihat samhita. If that is not the

> > case, it is perhaps my lack of concentration due to the flood of

> mails I

> > am getting these days. I have a habit of trying to reply the same day,

> > but of late it is taking me well past 2 in the night to complete the

> > responses and my age perhaps clouds my brains these days. Could you,

> > however, provide the shloka from Parashari Samhita that is quoted by

> > Bhattotpala in that commentary to prove Parashara was form 1400 b.c. or

> > so. Also as I requested you please give me the name of the publisher so

> > that I can obtain the commentary by Bhattotpala on Brihat samhita, for

> > my reference.

> >

> > **********

> > Bhattotpala's commentary on Brihat samhita is available at " Jyotish

> > Prakashan, Chowk Varanasi 221001 " You could get it from them or Thakur

> > Prasad bookseller Kolkata.

> >

> > I do not think Motilal Banarasidas published Bhattotpala's

> commentary on

> > Brihat samhita. They have published that By M. R. Bhat that I do have

> > with me. It is so sad that we can not get the book from which the

> > shlokas are given for understanding the reason of dating Parashara so

> > late despite evidence in his own text.

> > *********

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > Sreenadh wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > ==>

> > > Me: " Parasara Samhita " (not BPHS) provides us with a sloka that helps

> > > us in determining the date of Parasara. The sloka is quoted by

> > > Bhattolpala in the commentary of Brihat Samhita.

> > >

> > > You:This is for the first time I have learnt that Brihat samhita

> > > contains reference to Argalas. I would be obliged if you could give

> > > the reference to the Shloka of Brihat Samhita for which Bhattotpala

> > > thought it fit to refer to what Parashara said about Argalas. This

> > > would add to my knowledge

> > > <==

> > >

> > > Chandrasekhar ji, What is this?!! What I am saying and what you are

> > > hearing?!!

> > >

> > > ==>

> > > > Could you also give me the address of the publisher of the

> > > > commentary of Bhattotpala on Brihat samhita? I have his commentary

> > > > on Brihat jataka, but Brihat samhita commentary from Bhattotpala is

> > > > something that I have heard so late in my life that I would like to

> > > > add it to my library.

> > > <==

> > > I took it from the library, and was later returned it.. I have only

> > > the photocopy of Bhattolpalas commentary on Brihat Jataka with me.

> > > Yes, Bhattolpala wrote elaborate commentary for Brihat Jataka as well

> > > as Brihat Samhita. Many Hindi and Eglish transilations to

> > > Bhattolpalas commentary of these texts got published as well. I think

> > > from Mottilal Banarasi Das publishers you could find a copy of the

> > > same. If my memory is right, it was the book published them that i

> > > read; I have photo copied some of the pages, and kept with me. I need

> > > to buy that book (Bhattolpala's commentary on Brihat Samhita) soon

> > > from some where (I know that it would be currently available in the

> > > Market, In Delhi or in Varanasi) since it is a valuable resource.

> > > Love,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > >

> > > > My comments in red, below what you said (in quotes).

> > > >

> > > > " Ok. With enough supporting evidence it could, also extend the

> > > info

> > > > that BPHS could be neither original nor complete. But for sure it a

> > > > very useful, authentic, valuable, resource, that depict the system

> > > > followed by Parasara school. "

> > > >

> > > > I agree that the text does prove to be invaluable in understanding

> > > the

> > > > basic principles of astrology. No doubt about it.

> > > > *******

> > > > " * Presents of a certain yoga in Yudhishthira's horasope in BPHS.*

> > > > indicating him being alive at the time of Mahabharata.That is new

> > > > knowledge to me - please provide the chapter number and sloka

> > > number; I

> > > > will refer to BPHS to have a better idea about the same. "

> > > >

> > > > Oh! I thought you knew that one. If you have the Santanam edition

> > > > (Ranjan Publication) too, look at shloka 32 chapter 41 where not

> > > only it

> > > > is said that in the present days (time when the text was recited to

> > > > Maitreya) Yudhishthira has Parijatamsha related to rajyoga causing

> > > > grahas, it it further told that in future Shalivahana shall have

> > > similar

> > > > yoga.

> > > > *******

> > > > " There is a better chance for the same; but even when fragmented

> > > the

> > > > bits and pieces of the ancient knowledge available through such

> > > texts

> > > > should be valued very much. Remember that the ancient epics speaks

> > > and

> > > > quotes shlokas from " Agneya Purana " and what we have today is " Agni

> > > > Purana " and " Vahni Purana " and many slokas of " Agneya Purana "

> > > quoted by

> > > > other Puranas are missing in both of them. It could be the case

> > > with

> > > > many other texts - even astrological classics like BPHS. "

> > > >

> > > > I am not sure Agneya Purana is one of the 18 mahapuranas. But that

> > > is

> > > > besides the point of discussion. If you think that BPHS is only a

> > > myriad

> > > > collection of shlokas and not given by Parashara, then the

> > > insistence

> > > > that Jaimini Sutras being an attempt by Jaimini to spread the

> > > teaching

> > > > of Parashara is even more questionable. Or that is how I would look

> > > at it.

> > > > ********

> > > > " Please refer to the previous mail - I said that " Parasara Samhita "

> > > (not

> > > > BPHS) provides us with a sloka that helps us in determining the

> > > > date of Parasara. The sloka is quoted by Bhattolpala in the

> > > commentary

> > > > of Brihat Samhita. I have written a detailed write up on the same

> > > in

> > > > vedic astrology group long time back, If you do a search there you

> > > will

> > > > get it for sure. (As time permits I too will try to locate it, to

> > > save

> > > > my self from re-writing it again) Of course Jaimini Sutras are in

> > > Sutra

> > > > form - but not sutras that completely satisfies the definition of

> > > > Sutras. My argument was that it is because, Jaimini sutra was not

> > > an

> > > > original work but rather an teaching/abbreviation effort of unique

> > > > concepts discussed by Parasara. "

> > > >

> > > > But you do say at the end of your pdf document that you have uses

> > > > Sitaram Jha edition for reference. Anyway, could you indicate the

> > > > chapter of Brihat Samhita in the commentary of which Bhattotpala

> > > has

> > > > given the shloka you have indicated. This is for the first time I

> > > have

> > > > learnt that Brihat samhita contains reference to Argalas. I would

> > > be

> > > > obliged if you could give the reference to the Shloka of Brihat

> > > Samhita

> > > > for which Bhattotpala thought it fit to refer to what Parashara

> > > said

> > > > about Argalas. This would add to my knowledge. Could you also give

> > > me

> > > > the address of the publisher of the commentary of Bhattotpala on

> > > Brihat

> > > > samhita? I have his commentary on Brihat jataka, but Brihat samhita

> > > > commentary from Bhattotpala is something that I have heard so late

> > > in my

> > > > life that I would like to add it to my library. Whether Jaimini

> > > sutras

> > > > satisfies condition of sutras is something that is your opinion but

> > > it

> > > > does not appear to be supported by other learned commentators. If

> > > this

> > > > logic is to be accepted then even brahmasutras may not qualify to

> > > be

> > > > called as sutras, since some are single word and others quite long.

> > > >

> > > > That is why I said let us agree to disagree.

> > > >

> > > > Take care,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > I think it has been mentioned by the early acharyas of Kashi

> > > > > > Vishwavidyalaya, who compiled the original shlokas of the BPHS,

> > > > > > that the manuscripts that they based BPHS on were not

> > > > > > titled " Brihad Paraashara Hora Shastra " .

> > > > > <==

> > > > > Ok. With enough supporting evidence it could, also extend the info

> > > > > that BPHS could be neither original nor complete. But for sure it

> > > a

> > > > > very useful, authentic, valuable, resource, that depict the system

> > > > > followed by Parasara school.

> > > > >

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > The conjecture of Parashara who gave the current text

> > > > > > being of 1400 b.c. must remain a conjecture as the text mentions

> > > > > > that Yudhishthira is having a certain yoga and enumerates others

> > > > > > who had similar yogas in the text indicating him being alive at

> > > the

> > > > > > time of Mahabharata. Mahabharata ends with death of Lord

> > > Krishna or

> > > > > > soon after that which is around 3102 B. C. If this is not

> > > > > > acceptable then the contents of the texts must have been

> > > collection

> > > > > > of myriad granthas and nothing more.

> > > > > <==

> > > > > * Presents of a certain yoga in Yudhishtira's horasope in BPHS.

> > > > > * indicating him being alive at the time of Mahabharata.

> > > > > That is new knowledge to me - please provide the chapter number

> > > and

> > > > > sloka number; I will refer to BPHS to have a better idea about the

> > > > > same.

> > > > >

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > If this is not

> > > > > > acceptable then the contents of the texts must have been

> > > collection

> > > > > > of myriad granthas and nothing more.

> > > > > <==

> > > > > There is a better chance for the same; but even when fragmented

> > > the

> > > > > bits and pieces of the ancient knowledge available through such

> > > texts

> > > > > should be valued very much. Remember that the ancient epics speaks

> > > > > and quotes slokas from " Agneya Purana " and what we have today

> > > > > is " Agni Purana " and " Vahni Purana " and many slokas of " Agneya

> > > > > Purana " quoted by other Puranas are missing in both of them. It

> > > could

> > > > > be the case with many other texts - even astrological classics

> > > like

> > > > > BPHS.

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > If you could quote the shloka in Paraashari that gives the

> > > > > > date of the text and it having been written by Parashara I

> > > would be

> > > > > > obliged much. The edition which gives those shlokas may also be

> > > > > > quoted, so that checking them will be easy.

> > > > > <==

> > > > > Please refer to the previous mail - I said that " Parasara Samhita "

> > > > > (not BPHS) provides us with a sloka that helps us in determining

> > > the

> > > > > date of Parasara. The sloka is quoted by Bhattolpala in the

> > > > > commentary of Brihat Samhita. I have written a detailed write up

> > > on

> > > > > the same in vedic astrology group long time back, If you do a

> > > search

> > > > > there you will get it for sure. (As time permits I too will try to

> > > > > locate it, to save my self from re-writing it again)

> > > > > Of course Jaimini Sutras are in Sutra form - but not sutras that

> > > > > completely satisfies the definition of Sutras. My argument was

> > > that

> > > > > it is because, Jaimini sutra was not an original work but rather

> > > an

> > > > > teaching/abbreviation effort of unique concepts discussed by

> > > Parasara.

> > > > >

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > That is why I said let us agree to disagree.

> > > > > <==

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, agreement or disagreement shouldn't be a

> > > pre-

> > > > > condition; but a natural result. And we are always free to

> > > agree,

> > > > > disagree, or agree to diagree - if not friendship what can give us

> > > > > that freedom.

> > > > > Love,

> > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I think it has been mentioned by the early acharyas of Kashi

> > > > > > Vishwavidyalaya, who compiled the original shlokas of the BPHS,

> > > > > that the

> > > > > > manuscripts that they based BPHS on were not titled " Brihad

> > > > > Paraashara

> > > > > > Hora Shastra " . The conjecture of Parashara who gave the current

> > > > > text

> > > > > > being of 1400 b.c. must remain a conjecture as the text mentions

> > > > > that

> > > > > > Yudhishthira is having a certain yoga and enumerates others who

> > > had

> > > > > > similar yogas in the text indicating him being alive at the

> > > time of

> > > > > > Mahabharata. Mahabharata ends with death of Lord Krishna or soon

> > > > > after

> > > > > > that which is around 3102 B. C. If this is not acceptable then

> > > the

> > > > > > contents of the texts must have been collection of myriad

> > > granthas

> > > > > and

> > > > > > nothing more. If you could quote the shloka in Paraashari that

> > > > > gives the

> > > > > > date of the text and it having been written by Parashara I

> > > would be

> > > > > > obliged much. The edition which gives those shlokas may also be

> > > > > quoted,

> > > > > > so that checking them will be easy.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The definition of sutras given by you is right. But the clarity

> > > is

> > > > > for

> > > > > > ones who are well versed in that science and not for everyone,

> > > as

> > > > > > guarding the divine knowledge was the reason sutras have

> > > brevity.

> > > > > So I

> > > > > > do not think any Sanskrit scholar ( I am not one) would declare

> > > > > them

> > > > > > anything but sutras. I have sought opinion of the learned in

> > > that

> > > > > > language and their uniform opinion is that they are sutras.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That is why I said let us agree to disagree.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > It is not Parashara of Mahabharata (the father of Vyasa) who

> > > wrote

> > > > > > > Parasara Hora. But a Parasara who lived around BC 1400 wrote

> > > > > Parasara

> > > > > > > Sidhanta, Parasara Hora and Parasara Samhita, as the proof

> > > for the

> > > > > > > same is provided by an availabe sloka of Parasara Samhita.

> > > > > > > BPHS definitely mentions the names of Parasara and Mitreya,

> > > and

> > > > > > > since the book is as told by Parasara and that is why the name

> > > > > Brihat

> > > > > > > Parasara Hora Sastra is attributed to it.

> > > > > > > Coming to Jaimini sutra, the text does not even fulfill the

> > > prime

> > > > > > > condition for a Sutra text. As per the definition-

> > > > > > > " Alpaksharam Aasannigdtham Sutram Sutravido vidu "

> > > > > > > [A sutra should contain less number of characters and the

> > > meaning

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > the sutra should be crystal clear]

> > > > > > > Even though the sutras in Jaimini sutra contains less number

> > > of

> > > > > > > characters, they does not satisfy the second condition the

> > > meaning

> > > > > > > should be unambiguous and crystal clear.

> > > > > > > Look at any other sutra text - such as Brigu Sutra in

> > > Astrology,

> > > > > > > Sutras of Patanjali in grammar, Yoga Sutras of Patanjali,

> > > Chanakya

> > > > > > > Sutra etc - you will see the great difference between their

> > > > > approach

> > > > > > > and presentation and the mere 'Abbreviation effort' of

> > > Jaimini.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Carrying the logic further what proof is there that the

> > > > > Parashara who

> > > > > > > > was father of Vyasa wrote the BPHS? Nobody wrote books in

> > > those

> > > > > days

> > > > > > > > they were memorized and carried by word of mouth. Even BPHS

> > > > > does not

> > > > > > > > mention that being its name.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I think there is a bit of difference between sutras and

> > > > > shlokas. I do

> > > > > > > > not think there is any evidence that suggests that it is

> > > > > > > presentation of

> > > > > > > > concepts of Parashara in abbreviated manner. Could you

> > > point to

> > > > > those

> > > > > > > > sutras that do this?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > > I have another question - what proof is there to say that

> > > the

> > > > > book

> > > > > > > > > is written by sage Jaimini? The book does not even mention

> > > > > the auther,

> > > > > > > > > then what to say about his guru?

> > > > > > > > > The book 'Jaimini Sutra' is written by a student of some

> > > > > teacher

> > > > > > > > > (let us positively hope that it is Jaimini), and collects

> > > and

> > > > > presents

> > > > > > > > > the advice given by the teacher, as indicated by the first

> > > > > sutra of

> > > > > > > > > the text itself. One more thing - where in the book it is

> > > > > mentioned

> > > > > > > > > that the name of the book is 'Jaimini Sutra'?

> > > > > > > > > But the internal proof - the slokas, the terminology,

> > > concepts

> > > > > > > > > described etc - clearly tells us that it an effort to

> > > present

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > concepts presented by Parasara in an abriviated manner.

> > > This

> > > > > being the

> > > > > > > > > situation, I too would agree to disagree...

> > > > > > > > > P.S: I am uploading my thoughts on some of the intial

> > > slokas

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > Jaimini sutra, and the link is provided in the next post.

> > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I could have agreed to the contention had Jaimini

> > > mentioned

> > > > > > > somewhere

> > > > > > > > > > about Parashara having been his Guru, as was the

> > > practice

> > > > > in ancient

> > > > > > > > > > sages. Even Parashara tells his having given the

> > > knowledge

> > > > > > > received by

> > > > > > > > > > Shaunaka who got it through Garga who in turn received

> > > it

> > > > > through

> > > > > > > > > > Narada. But then I am an obstinate old person who was

> > > > > taught to base

> > > > > > > > > his

> > > > > > > > > > judgement of the ancient astrological texts, on both

> > > > > Pramana and

> > > > > > > tarka.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > So let us agree to disagree on this.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > > > > 1)Even though Jaimini sutra provides a special set of

> > > > > > > principles as

> > > > > > > > > > > compared to the available (printed) BPHS, there are

> > > many

> > > > > > > slokas that

> > > > > > > > > > > supports the same, as available from commentaries of

> > > > > Jaimini sutra

> > > > > > > > > > > and virdha karikas.

> > > > > > > > > > > There are many slokas of Parasara available, about

> > > many

> > > > > such

> > > > > > > > > > > concepts that are not present in the printed BPHS, but

> > > > > present in

> > > > > > > > > > > various commentaries of Jaimini sutra.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > 2) It is not the simple study of Argala concept alone

> > > that

> > > > > > > helps us

> > > > > > > > > > > in reaching the conclusion that " Jaimini sutra is a

> > > guide

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > extension of BPHS, that tries to teach Parasara's

> > > > > concepts " , but

> > > > > > > > > > > rather-

> > > > > > > > > > > * the study of the whole book and its approach

> > > > > > > > > > > * comparison of concepts and words used within it

> > > > > > > > > > > * the methodology of presentation followed in the book

> > > > > > > > > > > and many more.

> > > > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > But if the two are giving different sets of

> > > principles,

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > indicated by

> > > > > > > > > > > > you in another mail, then how do you verify the

> > > > > veracity of the

> > > > > > > > > > > sutras.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I still do not find enough evidence to think

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > Anargala and Jaimini is Argala. Only Lord Shiva is

> > > > > Anargala

> > > > > > > and we

> > > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > not have access to him.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the interpretation of Jaimini sutras

> > > become

> > > > > far more

> > > > > > > > > > > easier

> > > > > > > > > > > > > if we find the bolt and the key.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > * The Bolt is: Jaimini sutra is not an independent

> > > > > text,

> > > > > > > it is a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > guide to BPHS concepts, extending them a bit.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > * The Key is: Refer to BPHS first always for

> > > clarity,

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > then try

> > > > > > > > > > > > > unlocking Jaimini sutra with the same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S: May be BPHS is Anargala and Jaimini sutra is

> > > the

> > > > > > > Argala. )

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will

> > > find

> > > > > > > that the

> > > > > > > > > > > signs

> > > > > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means

> > > > > side of

> > > > > > > the body

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the

> > > signs

> > > > > to their

> > > > > > > > > > > side.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult.

> > > > > However

> > > > > > > there are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vriddha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal

> > > clear.

> > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > > > > > uses

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the same terminology but goes on th explain

> > > that the

> > > > > > > adjacent

> > > > > > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the

> > > rasi

> > > > > aspect is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > clarified

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in

> > > his

> > > > > > > commentary on

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas

> > > > > > > occupying the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > also have identical aspects as those of the

> > > rasis.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is really informative to read your recent

> > > > > > > historical write

> > > > > > > > > > > up's

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

> > > > > > > > > > > Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you very much.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a

> > > fundamental

> > > > > doubt

> > > > > > > > > > > regarding

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri

> > > > > Surya

> > > > > > > Narain

> > > > > > > > > > > Rao.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal

> > > signs

> > > > > aspect

> > > > > > > each

> > > > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha.

> > > > > Excepting.the next

> > > > > > > > > > > > > zodiacal

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha

> > > tadvat.

> > > > > Those

> > > > > > > planets

> > > > > > > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets

> > > > > found

> > > > > > > in such

> > > > > > > > > > > > > houses.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respected translator makes the following

> > > HONEST

> > > > > > > statement -

> > > > > > > > > > > ''The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in

> > > > > their

> > > > > > > FRONT. I

> > > > > > > > > > > DO

> > > > > > > > > > > > > NOT

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word

> > > > > > > FRONT''.Then he

> > > > > > > > > > > says

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commentators observe - Mesha has

> > > > > Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front

> > > signs.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > > 40>, " Sreenadh "

> > > > > > > <sreesog@>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion

> > > > > about

> > > > > > > the same?

> > > > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any

> > > > > > > contradictions

> > > > > > > > > > > > > between

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and

> > > Jaimini?

> > > > > What

> > > > > > > is your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > opinion?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------

> > > ----

> > > > > --------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > 269.8.9/832 -

> > > > > > > Release Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -----------------

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

> > > > > Release Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -------------------------

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

> > > Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >