Guest guest Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? Rohiniranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Could it be corrupted by inducting things that were later imported, as claimed by Mr. Kaul? Regards Hari Malla , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani wrote: > > We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. > > I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. > > And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. > > Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? > > Rohiniranjan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Who is Mr. Kaul? I do not know him or read any of his claims, etc.? Does he post on this forum? Would you kindly quote a few message numbers, if it is not too much trouble? I hate to waste the time of other members, all of whom I am sure are very busy. RR , " harimalla " <harimalla wrote: > > Could it be corrupted by inducting things that were later imported, as claimed by Mr. Kaul? > Regards > Hari Malla > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. > > > > I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. > > > > And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. > > > > Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Rohini Da, BPHS was written down in mediaeval period, and many versions were written down in late mediaeval and even early modern age. Sanskrit had ceased to be a native language, and the compilers had often to invent verses for the sayings which they had learnt through oral guru-shishya tradition. But as all its versions say, it was " revealed " to Sage Parashara by Lord Brahmaa ( " Brahma-mukhaat-shrutam " , verse-8 in ch-1). Only rishis have the capacity to hear directly from the mouth of Brahmaa Ji. It is foolish to imagine that a mediaeval work claiming to be coming out of Brahmaa Ji's mouth will be accepted as such by the whole country. All pandits on India could not have conspired to create a new work with nearly same matter but in different wordings. Hence, the original BPHS is an archaic work, a part of Shruti, a real Vedaanga. Besides BPHS, Jaimini Sutra is the only Aarsha text in Phalita, but only twi chapters of Jaimini Sutra have survived, which 99 chapters of BPHS were recovered by Pt Devachandra Jha who travelled afoot from village to village for colling its manuscripts , his version was published by Chowkhamba Sanskrit Sansthaana. The internet version has only 98 chapters and many verses in those 98 chapters are missing, and verses are spurious as well. Surprisingly, the language of not a single verse of this internet edition tallies with that of Chowkhamba, but almost all verses carry same meaning !! The only possible explanation is that some modern pandit rewrote the entire BPHS for showing off his erudition and this spurious edition was adopted by Maharshi Mahesh Yogi's chelas and by some other modernisers. The available texts indicate that BPHS is the only comprehensive work of Phalita which can be declared to be apaurusheya in its original version, excluding some minor interpolations, and in Siddhanta-Ganita Suryasiddhanta is the only apaurusheya text. -VJ ===================== == ________________________________ " harimalla " <harimalla Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:36:14 AM Re: An innocANT question... Could it be corrupted by inducting things that were later imported, as claimed by Mr. Kaul? Regards Hari Malla , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. > > I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. > > And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. > > Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? > > Rohiniranjan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Thank you Vinay Ji, And that is where a honey bee gains supremacy over an ant! While each engaged in their personal karma to serve and save their family and dependants, the honey bee ends up feeding many more than its children! If the human being helps (exploits?) the honey bee... RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Rohini Da, > > BPHS was written down in mediaeval period, and many versions were written down in late mediaeval and even early modern age. Sanskrit had ceased to be a native language, and the compilers had often to invent verses for the sayings which they had learnt through oral guru-shishya tradition. > > But as all its versions say, it was " revealed " to Sage Parashara by Lord Brahmaa ( " Brahma-mukhaat-shrutam " , verse-8 in ch-1). Only rishis have the capacity to hear directly from the mouth of Brahmaa Ji. It is foolish to imagine that a mediaeval work claiming to be coming out of Brahmaa Ji's mouth will be accepted as such by the whole country. All pandits on India could not have conspired to create a new work with nearly same matter but in different wordings. Hence, the original BPHS is an archaic work, a part of Shruti, a real Vedaanga. > > Besides BPHS, Jaimini Sutra is the only Aarsha text in Phalita, but only twi chapters of Jaimini Sutra have survived, which 99 chapters of BPHS were recovered by Pt Devachandra Jha who travelled afoot from village to village for colling its manuscripts , his version was published by Chowkhamba Sanskrit Sansthaana. The internet version has only 98 chapters and many verses in those 98 chapters are missing, and verses are spurious as well. Surprisingly, the language of not a single verse of this internet edition tallies with that of Chowkhamba, but almost all verses carry same meaning !! The only possible explanation is that some modern pandit rewrote the entire BPHS for showing off his erudition and this spurious edition was adopted by Maharshi Mahesh Yogi's chelas and by some other modernisers. > > The available texts indicate that BPHS is the only comprehensive work of Phalita which can be declared to be apaurusheya in its original version, excluding some minor interpolations, and in Siddhanta-Ganita Suryasiddhanta is the only apaurusheya text. > > -VJ > ===================== == > > > ________________________________ > " harimalla " <harimalla > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:36:14 AM > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > Could it be corrupted by inducting things that were later imported, as claimed by Mr. Kaul? > Regards > Hari Malla > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. > > > > I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. > > > > And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. > > > > Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Rohini Da, Mr AK Kaul is a famous (or infamous) celebrity in astrological forums, who has almost no knowledge of astrology and claims that the concept of Rashi should be expelled from Indian astrology, and says such concepts were imported from Greece. When refuted, he deputes his chelas to abuse and attack his opponents, instead of arguing. -VJ =================== == ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani Saturday, July 11, 2009 8:01:21 AM Re: An innocANT question... Who is Mr. Kaul? I do not know him or read any of his claims, etc.? Does he post on this forum? Would you kindly quote a few message numbers, if it is not too much trouble? I hate to waste the time of other members, all of whom I am sure are very busy. RR , " harimalla@. .. " <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > Could it be corrupted by inducting things that were later imported, as claimed by Mr. Kaul? > Regards > Hari Malla > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ > wrote: > > > > We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. > > > > I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. > > > > And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. > > > > Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Vinay Ji, I do not know him or ever ran into him. So, cannot comment! RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Rohini Da, > > Mr AK Kaul is a famous (or infamous) celebrity in astrological forums, who has almost no knowledge of astrology and claims that the concept of Rashi should be expelled from Indian astrology, and says such concepts were imported from Greece. When refuted, he deputes his chelas to abuse and attack his opponents, instead of arguing. > > -VJ > > =================== == > > > ________________________________ > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 8:01:21 AM > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > Who is Mr. Kaul? > > I do not know him or read any of his claims, etc.? Does he post on this forum? Would you kindly quote a few message numbers, if it is not too much trouble? I hate to waste the time of other members, all of whom I am sure are very busy. > > RR > > , " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > Could it be corrupted by inducting things that were later imported, as claimed by Mr. Kaul? > > Regards > > Hari Malla > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ > wrote: > > > > > > We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. > > > > > > I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. > > > > > > And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. > > > > > > Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Rohini Da, You are fortunate and farsighted not to run into troubled waters. There is a big gang aiming its guns at Vedic Astrology. I have no intention to quarrel with them, but sometimes I am forced to, esp when they start abusing Suryasiddhanta in spite of their ignorance ofthis difficult text. One should not abuse a text before understanding it. -VJ ======================= == ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:07:59 PM Re: An innocANT question... Vinay Ji, I do not know him or ever ran into him. So, cannot comment! RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Rohini Da, > > Mr AK Kaul is a famous (or infamous) celebrity in astrological forums, who has almost no knowledge of astrology and claims that the concept of Rashi should be expelled from Indian astrology, and says such concepts were imported from Greece. When refuted, he deputes his chelas to abuse and attack his opponents, instead of arguing. > > -VJ > > ============ ======= == > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 8:01:21 AM > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > Who is Mr. Kaul? > > I do not know him or read any of his claims, etc.? Does he post on this forum? Would you kindly quote a few message numbers, if it is not too much trouble? I hate to waste the time of other members, all of whom I am sure are very busy. > > RR > > , " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > Could it be corrupted by inducting things that were later imported, as claimed by Mr. Kaul? > > Regards > > Hari Malla > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ > wrote: > > > > > > We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. > > > > > > I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. > > > > > > And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. > > > > > > Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Rohini Da, I forgot to add that there were 100 chapters in original BPHS and one chapter is still missing from all available manuscripts. -VJ ================== == ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:04:55 PM Re: An innocANT question... Thank you Vinay Ji, And that is where a honey bee gains supremacy over an ant! While each engaged in their personal karma to serve and save their family and dependants, the honey bee ends up feeding many more than its children! If the human being helps (exploits?) the honey bee... RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Rohini Da, > > BPHS was written down in mediaeval period, and many versions were written down in late mediaeval and even early modern age. Sanskrit had ceased to be a native language, and the compilers had often to invent verses for the sayings which they had learnt through oral guru-shishya tradition. > > But as all its versions say, it was " revealed " to Sage Parashara by Lord Brahmaa ( " Brahma-mukhaat- shrutam " , verse-8 in ch-1). Only rishis have the capacity to hear directly from the mouth of Brahmaa Ji. It is foolish to imagine that a mediaeval work claiming to be coming out of Brahmaa Ji's mouth will be accepted as such by the whole country. All pandits on India could not have conspired to create a new work with nearly same matter but in different wordings. Hence, the original BPHS is an archaic work, a part of Shruti, a real Vedaanga. > > Besides BPHS, Jaimini Sutra is the only Aarsha text in Phalita, but only twi chapters of Jaimini Sutra have survived, which 99 chapters of BPHS were recovered by Pt Devachandra Jha who travelled afoot from village to village for colling its manuscripts , his version was published by Chowkhamba Sanskrit Sansthaana. The internet version has only 98 chapters and many verses in those 98 chapters are missing, and verses are spurious as well. Surprisingly, the language of not a single verse of this internet edition tallies with that of Chowkhamba, but almost all verses carry same meaning !! The only possible explanation is that some modern pandit rewrote the entire BPHS for showing off his erudition and this spurious edition was adopted by Maharshi Mahesh Yogi's chelas and by some other modernisers. > > The available texts indicate that BPHS is the only comprehensive work of Phalita which can be declared to be apaurusheya in its original version, excluding some minor interpolations, and in Siddhanta-Ganita Suryasiddhanta is the only apaurusheya text. > > -VJ > ============ ========= == > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > " harimalla@. .. " <harimalla@. ..> > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:36:14 AM > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > Could it be corrupted by inducting things that were later imported, as claimed by Mr. Kaul? > Regards > Hari Malla > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. > > > > I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. > > > > And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. > > > > Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 BPHS is ancient but for obvious reason the Greekophiles would not accept the truth. --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani wrote: Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani An innocANT question... Friday, July 10, 2009, 4:59 PM We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? Rohiniranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Kaul's views are for the consumption of the Kaulians. --- On Fri, 7/10/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: harimalla <harimalla Re: An innocANT question... Friday, July 10, 2009, 7:06 PM Could it be corrupted by inducting things that were later imported, as claimed by Mr. Kaul? Regards Hari Malla , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. > > I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. > > And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. > > Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? > > Rohiniranjan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 How do you know that? :-) RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Rohini Da, > > I forgot to add that there were 100 chapters in original BPHS and one chapter is still missing from all available manuscripts. > > -VJ > ================== == > > > ________________________________ > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:04:55 PM > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > Thank you Vinay Ji, > > And that is where a honey bee gains supremacy over an ant! While each engaged in their personal karma to serve and save their family and dependants, the honey bee ends up feeding many more than its children! > > If the human being helps (exploits?) the honey bee... > > RR > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > BPHS was written down in mediaeval period, and many versions were written down in late mediaeval and even early modern age. Sanskrit had ceased to be a native language, and the compilers had often to invent verses for the sayings which they had learnt through oral guru-shishya tradition. > > > > But as all its versions say, it was " revealed " to Sage Parashara by Lord Brahmaa ( " Brahma-mukhaat- shrutam " , verse-8 in ch-1). Only rishis have the capacity to hear directly from the mouth of Brahmaa Ji. It is foolish to imagine that a mediaeval work claiming to be coming out of Brahmaa Ji's mouth will be accepted as such by the whole country. All pandits on India could not have conspired to create a new work with nearly same matter but in different wordings. Hence, the original BPHS is an archaic work, a part of Shruti, a real Vedaanga. > > > > Besides BPHS, Jaimini Sutra is the only Aarsha text in Phalita, but only twi chapters of Jaimini Sutra have survived, which 99 chapters of BPHS were recovered by Pt Devachandra Jha who travelled afoot from village to village for colling its manuscripts , his version was published by Chowkhamba Sanskrit Sansthaana. The internet version has only 98 chapters and many verses in those 98 chapters are missing, and verses are spurious as well. Surprisingly, the language of not a single verse of this internet edition tallies with that of Chowkhamba, but almost all verses carry same meaning !! The only possible explanation is that some modern pandit rewrote the entire BPHS for showing off his erudition and this spurious edition was adopted by Maharshi Mahesh Yogi's chelas and by some other modernisers. > > > > The available texts indicate that BPHS is the only comprehensive work of Phalita which can be declared to be apaurusheya in its original version, excluding some minor interpolations, and in Siddhanta-Ganita Suryasiddhanta is the only apaurusheya text. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:36:14 AM > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > Could it be corrupted by inducting things that were later imported, as claimed by Mr. Kaul? > > Regards > > Hari Malla > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. > > > > > > I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. > > > > > > And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. > > > > > > Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 It is mentioned by Chowkhamba Edition in the introduction. ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani Saturday, July 11, 2009 11:18:45 PM Re: An innocANT question... How do you know that? :-) RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Rohini Da, > > I forgot to add that there were 100 chapters in original BPHS and one chapter is still missing from all available manuscripts. > > -VJ > ============ ====== == > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:04:55 PM > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > Thank you Vinay Ji, > > And that is where a honey bee gains supremacy over an ant! While each engaged in their personal karma to serve and save their family and dependants, the honey bee ends up feeding many more than its children! > > If the human being helps (exploits?) the honey bee... > > RR > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > BPHS was written down in mediaeval period, and many versions were written down in late mediaeval and even early modern age. Sanskrit had ceased to be a native language, and the compilers had often to invent verses for the sayings which they had learnt through oral guru-shishya tradition. > > > > But as all its versions say, it was " revealed " to Sage Parashara by Lord Brahmaa ( " Brahma-mukhaat- shrutam " , verse-8 in ch-1). Only rishis have the capacity to hear directly from the mouth of Brahmaa Ji. It is foolish to imagine that a mediaeval work claiming to be coming out of Brahmaa Ji's mouth will be accepted as such by the whole country. All pandits on India could not have conspired to create a new work with nearly same matter but in different wordings. Hence, the original BPHS is an archaic work, a part of Shruti, a real Vedaanga. > > > > Besides BPHS, Jaimini Sutra is the only Aarsha text in Phalita, but only twi chapters of Jaimini Sutra have survived, which 99 chapters of BPHS were recovered by Pt Devachandra Jha who travelled afoot from village to village for colling its manuscripts , his version was published by Chowkhamba Sanskrit Sansthaana. The internet version has only 98 chapters and many verses in those 98 chapters are missing, and verses are spurious as well. Surprisingly, the language of not a single verse of this internet edition tallies with that of Chowkhamba, but almost all verses carry same meaning !! The only possible explanation is that some modern pandit rewrote the entire BPHS for showing off his erudition and this spurious edition was adopted by Maharshi Mahesh Yogi's chelas and by some other modernisers. > > > > The available texts indicate that BPHS is the only comprehensive work of Phalita which can be declared to be apaurusheya in its original version, excluding some minor interpolations, and in Siddhanta-Ganita Suryasiddhanta is the only apaurusheya text. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:36:14 AM > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > Could it be corrupted by inducting things that were later imported, as claimed by Mr. Kaul? > > Regards > > Hari Malla > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. > > > > > > I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. > > > > > > And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. > > > > > > Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 As soon as it arrives -- there will be more questions ;-) RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > It is mentioned by Chowkhamba Edition in the introduction. > > > > ________________________________ > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 11:18:45 PM > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > How do you know that? :-) > > RR > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > I forgot to add that there were 100 chapters in original BPHS and one chapter is still missing from all available manuscripts. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ====== == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:04:55 PM > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Vinay Ji, > > > > And that is where a honey bee gains supremacy over an ant! While each engaged in their personal karma to serve and save their family and dependants, the honey bee ends up feeding many more than its children! > > > > If the human being helps (exploits?) the honey bee... > > > > RR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > BPHS was written down in mediaeval period, and many versions were written down in late mediaeval and even early modern age. Sanskrit had ceased to be a native language, and the compilers had often to invent verses for the sayings which they had learnt through oral guru-shishya tradition. > > > > > > But as all its versions say, it was " revealed " to Sage Parashara by Lord Brahmaa ( " Brahma-mukhaat- shrutam " , verse-8 in ch-1). Only rishis have the capacity to hear directly from the mouth of Brahmaa Ji. It is foolish to imagine that a mediaeval work claiming to be coming out of Brahmaa Ji's mouth will be accepted as such by the whole country. All pandits on India could not have conspired to create a new work with nearly same matter but in different wordings. Hence, the original BPHS is an archaic work, a part of Shruti, a real Vedaanga. > > > > > > Besides BPHS, Jaimini Sutra is the only Aarsha text in Phalita, but only twi chapters of Jaimini Sutra have survived, which 99 chapters of BPHS were recovered by Pt Devachandra Jha who travelled afoot from village to village for colling its manuscripts , his version was published by Chowkhamba Sanskrit Sansthaana. The internet version has only 98 chapters and many verses in those 98 chapters are missing, and verses are spurious as well. Surprisingly, the language of not a single verse of this internet edition tallies with that of Chowkhamba, but almost all verses carry same meaning !! The only possible explanation is that some modern pandit rewrote the entire BPHS for showing off his erudition and this spurious edition was adopted by Maharshi Mahesh Yogi's chelas and by some other modernisers. > > > > > > The available texts indicate that BPHS is the only comprehensive work of Phalita which can be declared to be apaurusheya in its original version, excluding some minor interpolations, and in Siddhanta-Ganita Suryasiddhanta is the only apaurusheya text. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:36:14 AM > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could it be corrupted by inducting things that were later imported, as claimed by Mr. Kaul? > > > Regards > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. > > > > > > > > I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. > > > > > > > > And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. > > > > > > > > Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? > > > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 RR Ji, <<< " As soon as it arrives... " >>> What does it mean ?? Chowkhamba Edition of BPHS came out in 1973, and I possess the Seventh Edition printed in 2000. Chowkhamba is a group of fifteen world's biggest and among the cheapest publishers of Indological books, esp in Sanskrit and Hindi. Chowkhamba Edition of BPHS is the most authoritative version of BPHS which is prescribed in curriculum of Phalita-achaarya post graduate curriculum of Sanskrit universities. Chowkhamba can be contacted through one of its branches : its website http://www.chowkhambasanskritseries.com/ Its Jyotisha webpage is : http://www.chowkhambasanskritseries.com/products.asp?prodcat=Jyotisa%20Grantha Only a tiny portion of its publications are displayed online, and you should procure the detailed catalogue of 15 Chowkhamba publishers by post. -VJ ======================= == ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:43:56 AM Re: An innocANT question... As soon as it arrives -- there will be more questions ;-) RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > It is mentioned by Chowkhamba Edition in the introduction. > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 11:18:45 PM > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > How do you know that? :-) > > RR > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > I forgot to add that there were 100 chapters in original BPHS and one chapter is still missing from all available manuscripts. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ====== == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:04:55 PM > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Vinay Ji, > > > > And that is where a honey bee gains supremacy over an ant! While each engaged in their personal karma to serve and save their family and dependants, the honey bee ends up feeding many more than its children! > > > > If the human being helps (exploits?) the honey bee... > > > > RR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > BPHS was written down in mediaeval period, and many versions were written down in late mediaeval and even early modern age. Sanskrit had ceased to be a native language, and the compilers had often to invent verses for the sayings which they had learnt through oral guru-shishya tradition. > > > > > > But as all its versions say, it was " revealed " to Sage Parashara by Lord Brahmaa ( " Brahma-mukhaat- shrutam " , verse-8 in ch-1). Only rishis have the capacity to hear directly from the mouth of Brahmaa Ji. It is foolish to imagine that a mediaeval work claiming to be coming out of Brahmaa Ji's mouth will be accepted as such by the whole country. All pandits on India could not have conspired to create a new work with nearly same matter but in different wordings. Hence, the original BPHS is an archaic work, a part of Shruti, a real Vedaanga. > > > > > > Besides BPHS, Jaimini Sutra is the only Aarsha text in Phalita, but only twi chapters of Jaimini Sutra have survived, which 99 chapters of BPHS were recovered by Pt Devachandra Jha who travelled afoot from village to village for colling its manuscripts , his version was published by Chowkhamba Sanskrit Sansthaana. The internet version has only 98 chapters and many verses in those 98 chapters are missing, and verses are spurious as well. Surprisingly, the language of not a single verse of this internet edition tallies with that of Chowkhamba, but almost all verses carry same meaning !! The only possible explanation is that some modern pandit rewrote the entire BPHS for showing off his erudition and this spurious edition was adopted by Maharshi Mahesh Yogi's chelas and by some other modernisers. > > > > > > The available texts indicate that BPHS is the only comprehensive work of Phalita which can be declared to be apaurusheya in its original version, excluding some minor interpolations, and in Siddhanta-Ganita Suryasiddhanta is the only apaurusheya text. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:36:14 AM > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could it be corrupted by inducting things that were later imported, as claimed by Mr. Kaul? > > > Regards > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. > > > > > > > > I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. > > > > > > > > And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. > > > > > > > > Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? > > > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 Dear Vinay-Ji, Please do not get so excited :-) All I meant was that my copy has been acquired in India by well-wishers but has not arrived at my door yet! Please stay with your first impressions about me which you publicly expressed. Those were the correct ones, I assure you! Please take this seriously: I have no personal vested interest in gaining from Jyotish or its politics on internet, in India or elsewhere in this world! SHE has already shown me and given me so much! Please waste your time elsewhere ;-) RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > RR Ji, > > <<< " As soon as it arrives... " >>> > > What does it mean ?? Chowkhamba Edition of BPHS came out in 1973, and I possess the Seventh Edition printed in 2000. Chowkhamba is a group of fifteen world's biggest and among the cheapest publishers of Indological books, esp in Sanskrit and Hindi. Chowkhamba Edition of BPHS is the most authoritative version of BPHS which is prescribed in curriculum of Phalita-achaarya post graduate curriculum of Sanskrit universities. > > Chowkhamba can be contacted through one of its branches : its website http://www.chowkhambasanskritseries.com/ > > Its Jyotisha webpage is : http://www.chowkhambasanskritseries.com/products.asp?prodcat=Jyotisa%20Grantha > > Only a tiny portion of its publications are displayed online, and you should procure the detailed catalogue of 15 Chowkhamba publishers by post. > > -VJ > ======================= == > > > ________________________________ > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani > > Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:43:56 AM > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > As soon as it arrives -- there will be more questions ;-) > > RR > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > It is mentioned by Chowkhamba Edition in the introduction. > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 11:18:45 PM > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you know that? :-) > > > > RR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > I forgot to add that there were 100 chapters in original BPHS and one chapter is still missing from all available manuscripts. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ====== == > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:04:55 PM > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Vinay Ji, > > > > > > And that is where a honey bee gains supremacy over an ant! While each engaged in their personal karma to serve and save their family and dependants, the honey bee ends up feeding many more than its children! > > > > > > If the human being helps (exploits?) the honey bee... > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > > > BPHS was written down in mediaeval period, and many versions were written down in late mediaeval and even early modern age. Sanskrit had ceased to be a native language, and the compilers had often to invent verses for the sayings which they had learnt through oral guru-shishya tradition. > > > > > > > > But as all its versions say, it was " revealed " to Sage Parashara by Lord Brahmaa ( " Brahma-mukhaat- shrutam " , verse-8 in ch-1). Only rishis have the capacity to hear directly from the mouth of Brahmaa Ji. It is foolish to imagine that a mediaeval work claiming to be coming out of Brahmaa Ji's mouth will be accepted as such by the whole country. All pandits on India could not have conspired to create a new work with nearly same matter but in different wordings. Hence, the original BPHS is an archaic work, a part of Shruti, a real Vedaanga. > > > > > > > > Besides BPHS, Jaimini Sutra is the only Aarsha text in Phalita, but only twi chapters of Jaimini Sutra have survived, which 99 chapters of BPHS were recovered by Pt Devachandra Jha who travelled afoot from village to village for colling its manuscripts , his version was published by Chowkhamba Sanskrit Sansthaana. The internet version has only 98 chapters and many verses in those 98 chapters are missing, and verses are spurious as well. Surprisingly, the language of not a single verse of this internet edition tallies with that of Chowkhamba, but almost all verses carry same meaning !! The only possible explanation is that some modern pandit rewrote the entire BPHS for showing off his erudition and this spurious edition was adopted by Maharshi Mahesh Yogi's chelas and by some other modernisers. > > > > > > > > The available texts indicate that BPHS is the only comprehensive work of Phalita which can be declared to be apaurusheya in its original version, excluding some minor interpolations, and in Siddhanta-Ganita Suryasiddhanta is the only apaurusheya text. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:36:14 AM > > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could it be corrupted by inducting things that were later imported, as claimed by Mr. Kaul? > > > > Regards > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. > > > > > > > > > > I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. > > > > > > > > > > And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. > > > > > > > > > > Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? > > > > > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 RR Ji, You write in Sumerian language sometimes. What can I do ? -VJ ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani Sunday, July 12, 2009 2:01:37 PM Re: An innocANT question... Dear Vinay-Ji, Please do not get so excited :-) All I meant was that my copy has been acquired in India by well-wishers but has not arrived at my door yet! Please stay with your first impressions about me which you publicly expressed. Those were the correct ones, I assure you! Please take this seriously: I have no personal vested interest in gaining from Jyotish or its politics on internet, in India or elsewhere in this world! SHE has already shown me and given me so much! Please waste your time elsewhere ;-) RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > RR Ji, > > <<< " As soon as it arrives... " >>> > > What does it mean ?? Chowkhamba Edition of BPHS came out in 1973, and I possess the Seventh Edition printed in 2000. Chowkhamba is a group of fifteen world's biggest and among the cheapest publishers of Indological books, esp in Sanskrit and Hindi. Chowkhamba Edition of BPHS is the most authoritative version of BPHS which is prescribed in curriculum of Phalita-achaarya post graduate curriculum of Sanskrit universities. > > Chowkhamba can be contacted through one of its branches : its website http://www.chowkhambasanskritseries.com/ > > Its Jyotisha webpage is : http://www.chowkham basanskritseries .com/products. asp?prodcat= Jyotisa%20Granth a > > Only a tiny portion of its publications are displayed online, and you should procure the detailed catalogue of 15 Chowkhamba publishers by post. > > -VJ > ============ ========= == == > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:43:56 AM > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > As soon as it arrives -- there will be more questions ;-) > > RR > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > It is mentioned by Chowkhamba Edition in the introduction. > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 11:18:45 PM > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you know that? :-) > > > > RR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > I forgot to add that there were 100 chapters in original BPHS and one chapter is still missing from all available manuscripts. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ====== == > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:04:55 PM > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Vinay Ji, > > > > > > And that is where a honey bee gains supremacy over an ant! While each engaged in their personal karma to serve and save their family and dependants, the honey bee ends up feeding many more than its children! > > > > > > If the human being helps (exploits?) the honey bee... > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > > > BPHS was written down in mediaeval period, and many versions were written down in late mediaeval and even early modern age. Sanskrit had ceased to be a native language, and the compilers had often to invent verses for the sayings which they had learnt through oral guru-shishya tradition. > > > > > > > > But as all its versions say, it was " revealed " to Sage Parashara by Lord Brahmaa ( " Brahma-mukhaat- shrutam " , verse-8 in ch-1). Only rishis have the capacity to hear directly from the mouth of Brahmaa Ji. It is foolish to imagine that a mediaeval work claiming to be coming out of Brahmaa Ji's mouth will be accepted as such by the whole country. All pandits on India could not have conspired to create a new work with nearly same matter but in different wordings. Hence, the original BPHS is an archaic work, a part of Shruti, a real Vedaanga. > > > > > > > > Besides BPHS, Jaimini Sutra is the only Aarsha text in Phalita, but only twi chapters of Jaimini Sutra have survived, which 99 chapters of BPHS were recovered by Pt Devachandra Jha who travelled afoot from village to village for colling its manuscripts , his version was published by Chowkhamba Sanskrit Sansthaana. The internet version has only 98 chapters and many verses in those 98 chapters are missing, and verses are spurious as well. Surprisingly, the language of not a single verse of this internet edition tallies with that of Chowkhamba, but almost all verses carry same meaning !! The only possible explanation is that some modern pandit rewrote the entire BPHS for showing off his erudition and this spurious edition was adopted by Maharshi Mahesh Yogi's chelas and by some other modernisers. > > > > > > > > The available texts indicate that BPHS is the only comprehensive work of Phalita which can be declared to be apaurusheya in its original version, excluding some minor interpolations, and in Siddhanta-Ganita Suryasiddhanta is the only apaurusheya text. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:36:14 AM > > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could it be corrupted by inducting things that were later imported, as claimed by Mr. Kaul? > > > > Regards > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. > > > > > > > > > > I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. > > > > > > > > > > And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. > > > > > > > > > > Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? > > > > > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 Vinay-ji, When we are surrounded by those that do not even speak our language, what do we do? We fall back upon our original skills that we were born with! When we were born, every single one of us that survived -- WHO or WHAT kept us alive that enabled us to chirp so glibly today? Rohiniranjan , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > RR Ji, > > You write in Sumerian language sometimes. What can I do ? > > > -VJ > > > ________________________________ > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani > > Sunday, July 12, 2009 2:01:37 PM > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > Dear Vinay-Ji, > > Please do not get so excited :-) > > All I meant was that my copy has been acquired in India by well-wishers but has not arrived at my door yet! > > Please stay with your first impressions about me which you publicly expressed. Those were the correct ones, I assure you! > > Please take this seriously: I have no personal vested interest in gaining from Jyotish or its politics on internet, in India or elsewhere in this world! SHE has already shown me and given me so much! > > Please waste your time elsewhere ;-) > > RR > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > RR Ji, > > > > <<< " As soon as it arrives... " >>> > > > > What does it mean ?? Chowkhamba Edition of BPHS came out in 1973, and I possess the Seventh Edition printed in 2000. Chowkhamba is a group of fifteen world's biggest and among the cheapest publishers of Indological books, esp in Sanskrit and Hindi. Chowkhamba Edition of BPHS is the most authoritative version of BPHS which is prescribed in curriculum of Phalita-achaarya post graduate curriculum of Sanskrit universities. > > > > Chowkhamba can be contacted through one of its branches : its website http://www.chowkhambasanskritseries.com/ > > > > Its Jyotisha webpage is : http://www.chowkham basanskritseries ..com/products. asp?prodcat= Jyotisa%20Granth a > > > > Only a tiny portion of its publications are displayed online, and you should procure the detailed catalogue of 15 Chowkhamba publishers by post. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:43:56 AM > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > As soon as it arrives -- there will be more questions ;-) > > > > RR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > It is mentioned by Chowkhamba Edition in the introduction. > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 11:18:45 PM > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you know that? :-) > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > > > I forgot to add that there were 100 chapters in original BPHS and one chapter is still missing from all available manuscripts. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:04:55 PM > > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Vinay Ji, > > > > > > > > And that is where a honey bee gains supremacy over an ant! While each engaged in their personal karma to serve and save their family and dependants, the honey bee ends up feeding many more than its children! > > > > > > > > If the human being helps (exploits?) the honey bee... > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > > > > > BPHS was written down in mediaeval period, and many versions were written down in late mediaeval and even early modern age. Sanskrit had ceased to be a native language, and the compilers had often to invent verses for the sayings which they had learnt through oral guru-shishya tradition. > > > > > > > > > > But as all its versions say, it was " revealed " to Sage Parashara by Lord Brahmaa ( " Brahma-mukhaat- shrutam " , verse-8 in ch-1). Only rishis have the capacity to hear directly from the mouth of Brahmaa Ji. It is foolish to imagine that a mediaeval work claiming to be coming out of Brahmaa Ji's mouth will be accepted as such by the whole country. All pandits on India could not have conspired to create a new work with nearly same matter but in different wordings. Hence, the original BPHS is an archaic work, a part of Shruti, a real Vedaanga. > > > > > > > > > > Besides BPHS, Jaimini Sutra is the only Aarsha text in Phalita, but only twi chapters of Jaimini Sutra have survived, which 99 chapters of BPHS were recovered by Pt Devachandra Jha who travelled afoot from village to village for colling its manuscripts , his version was published by Chowkhamba Sanskrit Sansthaana. The internet version has only 98 chapters and many verses in those 98 chapters are missing, and verses are spurious as well. Surprisingly, the language of not a single verse of this internet edition tallies with that of Chowkhamba, but almost all verses carry same meaning !! The only possible explanation is that some modern pandit rewrote the entire BPHS for showing off his erudition and this spurious edition was adopted by Maharshi Mahesh Yogi's chelas and by some other modernisers. > > > > > > > > > > The available texts indicate that BPHS is the only comprehensive work of Phalita which can be declared to be apaurusheya in its original version, excluding some minor interpolations, and in Siddhanta-Ganita Suryasiddhanta is the only apaurusheya text. > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:36:14 AM > > > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could it be corrupted by inducting things that were later imported, as claimed by Mr. Kaul? > > > > > Regards > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. > > > > > > > > > > > > And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? > > > > > > > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Aray Vinay ji, Aab itni bhi kya narazgee ki mujhay Iraq (Alexandria) deport karwa rahay ho, bhai! Un Bum golon kay maidaan may Chinti to bechari maar jaayegi, hain na? Jeev-hatyaa paap hai, even in fleeting thoughts and fantasies :-) RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > RR Ji, > > You write in Sumerian language sometimes. What can I do ? > > > -VJ > > > ________________________________ > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani > > Sunday, July 12, 2009 2:01:37 PM > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > Dear Vinay-Ji, > > Please do not get so excited :-) > > All I meant was that my copy has been acquired in India by well-wishers but has not arrived at my door yet! > > Please stay with your first impressions about me which you publicly expressed. Those were the correct ones, I assure you! > > Please take this seriously: I have no personal vested interest in gaining from Jyotish or its politics on internet, in India or elsewhere in this world! SHE has already shown me and given me so much! > > Please waste your time elsewhere ;-) > > RR > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > RR Ji, > > > > <<< " As soon as it arrives... " >>> > > > > What does it mean ?? Chowkhamba Edition of BPHS came out in 1973, and I possess the Seventh Edition printed in 2000. Chowkhamba is a group of fifteen world's biggest and among the cheapest publishers of Indological books, esp in Sanskrit and Hindi. Chowkhamba Edition of BPHS is the most authoritative version of BPHS which is prescribed in curriculum of Phalita-achaarya post graduate curriculum of Sanskrit universities. > > > > Chowkhamba can be contacted through one of its branches : its website http://www.chowkhambasanskritseries.com/ > > > > Its Jyotisha webpage is : http://www.chowkham basanskritseries ..com/products. asp?prodcat= Jyotisa%20Granth a > > > > Only a tiny portion of its publications are displayed online, and you should procure the detailed catalogue of 15 Chowkhamba publishers by post. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:43:56 AM > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > As soon as it arrives -- there will be more questions ;-) > > > > RR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > It is mentioned by Chowkhamba Edition in the introduction. > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 11:18:45 PM > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you know that? :-) > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > > > I forgot to add that there were 100 chapters in original BPHS and one chapter is still missing from all available manuscripts. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:04:55 PM > > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Vinay Ji, > > > > > > > > And that is where a honey bee gains supremacy over an ant! While each engaged in their personal karma to serve and save their family and dependants, the honey bee ends up feeding many more than its children! > > > > > > > > If the human being helps (exploits?) the honey bee... > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > > > > > BPHS was written down in mediaeval period, and many versions were written down in late mediaeval and even early modern age. Sanskrit had ceased to be a native language, and the compilers had often to invent verses for the sayings which they had learnt through oral guru-shishya tradition. > > > > > > > > > > But as all its versions say, it was " revealed " to Sage Parashara by Lord Brahmaa ( " Brahma-mukhaat- shrutam " , verse-8 in ch-1). Only rishis have the capacity to hear directly from the mouth of Brahmaa Ji. It is foolish to imagine that a mediaeval work claiming to be coming out of Brahmaa Ji's mouth will be accepted as such by the whole country. All pandits on India could not have conspired to create a new work with nearly same matter but in different wordings. Hence, the original BPHS is an archaic work, a part of Shruti, a real Vedaanga. > > > > > > > > > > Besides BPHS, Jaimini Sutra is the only Aarsha text in Phalita, but only twi chapters of Jaimini Sutra have survived, which 99 chapters of BPHS were recovered by Pt Devachandra Jha who travelled afoot from village to village for colling its manuscripts , his version was published by Chowkhamba Sanskrit Sansthaana. The internet version has only 98 chapters and many verses in those 98 chapters are missing, and verses are spurious as well. Surprisingly, the language of not a single verse of this internet edition tallies with that of Chowkhamba, but almost all verses carry same meaning !! The only possible explanation is that some modern pandit rewrote the entire BPHS for showing off his erudition and this spurious edition was adopted by Maharshi Mahesh Yogi's chelas and by some other modernisers. > > > > > > > > > > The available texts indicate that BPHS is the only comprehensive work of Phalita which can be declared to be apaurusheya in its original version, excluding some minor interpolations, and in Siddhanta-Ganita Suryasiddhanta is the only apaurusheya text. > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:36:14 AM > > > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could it be corrupted by inducting things that were later imported, as claimed by Mr. Kaul? > > > > > Regards > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. > > > > > > > > > > > > And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? > > > > > > > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Rohini Da, Our original skills are telepathic, even in all Kaliyugi infants, humans and others, which we shed off as we grow into worldliness. In grown ups, only two types of people keep this faculty to lesser or greater extents : those who have real and intense love, and some real paramhamsa sadhus whom I am fortunate to know personally. Noam Chomsky rightly says that we are born with an innate grammar. -VJ ===================== == ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani Sunday, July 12, 2009 4:20:57 PM Re: An innocANT question... Vinay-ji, When we are surrounded by those that do not even speak our language, what do we do? We fall back upon our original skills that we were born with! When we were born, every single one of us that survived -- WHO or WHAT kept us alive that enabled us to chirp so glibly today? Rohiniranjan , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > RR Ji, > > You write in Sumerian language sometimes. What can I do ? > > > -VJ > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > Sunday, July 12, 2009 2:01:37 PM > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > Dear Vinay-Ji, > > Please do not get so excited :-) > > All I meant was that my copy has been acquired in India by well-wishers but has not arrived at my door yet! > > Please stay with your first impressions about me which you publicly expressed. Those were the correct ones, I assure you! > > Please take this seriously: I have no personal vested interest in gaining from Jyotish or its politics on internet, in India or elsewhere in this world! SHE has already shown me and given me so much! > > Please waste your time elsewhere ;-) > > RR > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > RR Ji, > > > > <<< " As soon as it arrives... " >>> > > > > What does it mean ?? Chowkhamba Edition of BPHS came out in 1973, and I possess the Seventh Edition printed in 2000. Chowkhamba is a group of fifteen world's biggest and among the cheapest publishers of Indological books, esp in Sanskrit and Hindi. Chowkhamba Edition of BPHS is the most authoritative version of BPHS which is prescribed in curriculum of Phalita-achaarya post graduate curriculum of Sanskrit universities. > > > > Chowkhamba can be contacted through one of its branches : its website http://www.chowkhambasanskritseries.com/ > > > > Its Jyotisha webpage is : http://www.chowkham basanskritseries ..com/products. asp?prodcat= Jyotisa%20Granth a > > > > Only a tiny portion of its publications are displayed online, and you should procure the detailed catalogue of 15 Chowkhamba publishers by post. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:43:56 AM > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > As soon as it arrives -- there will be more questions ;-) > > > > RR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > It is mentioned by Chowkhamba Edition in the introduction. > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 11:18:45 PM > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you know that? :-) > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > > > I forgot to add that there were 100 chapters in original BPHS and one chapter is still missing from all available manuscripts. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:04:55 PM > > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Vinay Ji, > > > > > > > > And that is where a honey bee gains supremacy over an ant! While each engaged in their personal karma to serve and save their family and dependants, the honey bee ends up feeding many more than its children! > > > > > > > > If the human being helps (exploits?) the honey bee... > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > > > > > BPHS was written down in mediaeval period, and many versions were written down in late mediaeval and even early modern age. Sanskrit had ceased to be a native language, and the compilers had often to invent verses for the sayings which they had learnt through oral guru-shishya tradition. > > > > > > > > > > But as all its versions say, it was " revealed " to Sage Parashara by Lord Brahmaa ( " Brahma-mukhaat- shrutam " , verse-8 in ch-1). Only rishis have the capacity to hear directly from the mouth of Brahmaa Ji. It is foolish to imagine that a mediaeval work claiming to be coming out of Brahmaa Ji's mouth will be accepted as such by the whole country. All pandits on India could not have conspired to create a new work with nearly same matter but in different wordings. Hence, the original BPHS is an archaic work, a part of Shruti, a real Vedaanga. > > > > > > > > > > Besides BPHS, Jaimini Sutra is the only Aarsha text in Phalita, but only twi chapters of Jaimini Sutra have survived, which 99 chapters of BPHS were recovered by Pt Devachandra Jha who travelled afoot from village to village for colling its manuscripts , his version was published by Chowkhamba Sanskrit Sansthaana. The internet version has only 98 chapters and many verses in those 98 chapters are missing, and verses are spurious as well. Surprisingly, the language of not a single verse of this internet edition tallies with that of Chowkhamba, but almost all verses carry same meaning !! The only possible explanation is that some modern pandit rewrote the entire BPHS for showing off his erudition and this spurious edition was adopted by Maharshi Mahesh Yogi's chelas and by some other modernisers. > > > > > > > > > > The available texts indicate that BPHS is the only comprehensive work of Phalita which can be declared to be apaurusheya in its original version, excluding some minor interpolations, and in Siddhanta-Ganita Suryasiddhanta is the only apaurusheya text. > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:36:14 AM > > > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could it be corrupted by inducting things that were later imported, as claimed by Mr. Kaul? > > > > > Regards > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. > > > > > > > > > > > > And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? > > > > > > > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Ok Sir, I will try to learn your Laconian language. -VJ ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani Monday, July 13, 2009 8:17:20 AM Re: An innocANT question... Aray Vinay ji, Aab itni bhi kya narazgee ki mujhay Iraq (Alexandria) deport karwa rahay ho, bhai! Un Bum golon kay maidaan may Chinti to bechari maar jaayegi, hain na? Jeev-hatyaa paap hai, even in fleeting thoughts and fantasies :-) RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > RR Ji, > > You write in Sumerian language sometimes. What can I do ? > > > -VJ > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > Sunday, July 12, 2009 2:01:37 PM > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > Dear Vinay-Ji, > > Please do not get so excited :-) > > All I meant was that my copy has been acquired in India by well-wishers but has not arrived at my door yet! > > Please stay with your first impressions about me which you publicly expressed. Those were the correct ones, I assure you! > > Please take this seriously: I have no personal vested interest in gaining from Jyotish or its politics on internet, in India or elsewhere in this world! SHE has already shown me and given me so much! > > Please waste your time elsewhere ;-) > > RR > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > RR Ji, > > > > <<< " As soon as it arrives... " >>> > > > > What does it mean ?? Chowkhamba Edition of BPHS came out in 1973, and I possess the Seventh Edition printed in 2000. Chowkhamba is a group of fifteen world's biggest and among the cheapest publishers of Indological books, esp in Sanskrit and Hindi. Chowkhamba Edition of BPHS is the most authoritative version of BPHS which is prescribed in curriculum of Phalita-achaarya post graduate curriculum of Sanskrit universities. > > > > Chowkhamba can be contacted through one of its branches : its website http://www.chowkhambasanskritseries.com/ > > > > Its Jyotisha webpage is : http://www.chowkham basanskritseries ..com/products. asp?prodcat= Jyotisa%20Granth a > > > > Only a tiny portion of its publications are displayed online, and you should procure the detailed catalogue of 15 Chowkhamba publishers by post. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:43:56 AM > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > As soon as it arrives -- there will be more questions ;-) > > > > RR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > It is mentioned by Chowkhamba Edition in the introduction. > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 11:18:45 PM > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you know that? :-) > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > > > I forgot to add that there were 100 chapters in original BPHS and one chapter is still missing from all available manuscripts. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:04:55 PM > > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Vinay Ji, > > > > > > > > And that is where a honey bee gains supremacy over an ant! While each engaged in their personal karma to serve and save their family and dependants, the honey bee ends up feeding many more than its children! > > > > > > > > If the human being helps (exploits?) the honey bee... > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > > > > > BPHS was written down in mediaeval period, and many versions were written down in late mediaeval and even early modern age. Sanskrit had ceased to be a native language, and the compilers had often to invent verses for the sayings which they had learnt through oral guru-shishya tradition. > > > > > > > > > > But as all its versions say, it was " revealed " to Sage Parashara by Lord Brahmaa ( " Brahma-mukhaat- shrutam " , verse-8 in ch-1). Only rishis have the capacity to hear directly from the mouth of Brahmaa Ji. It is foolish to imagine that a mediaeval work claiming to be coming out of Brahmaa Ji's mouth will be accepted as such by the whole country. All pandits on India could not have conspired to create a new work with nearly same matter but in different wordings. Hence, the original BPHS is an archaic work, a part of Shruti, a real Vedaanga. > > > > > > > > > > Besides BPHS, Jaimini Sutra is the only Aarsha text in Phalita, but only twi chapters of Jaimini Sutra have survived, which 99 chapters of BPHS were recovered by Pt Devachandra Jha who travelled afoot from village to village for colling its manuscripts , his version was published by Chowkhamba Sanskrit Sansthaana. The internet version has only 98 chapters and many verses in those 98 chapters are missing, and verses are spurious as well. Surprisingly, the language of not a single verse of this internet edition tallies with that of Chowkhamba, but almost all verses carry same meaning !! The only possible explanation is that some modern pandit rewrote the entire BPHS for showing off his erudition and this spurious edition was adopted by Maharshi Mahesh Yogi's chelas and by some other modernisers. > > > > > > > > > > The available texts indicate that BPHS is the only comprehensive work of Phalita which can be declared to be apaurusheya in its original version, excluding some minor interpolations, and in Siddhanta-Ganita Suryasiddhanta is the only apaurusheya text. > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:36:14 AM > > > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could it be corrupted by inducting things that were later imported, as claimed by Mr. Kaul? > > > > > Regards > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. > > > > > > > > > > > > And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? > > > > > > > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Hmmm... Vinay-ji, I would like to believe you about the telepathic ability of offsprings but truth be told -- most human infants simply WAIL and parents helplessly rush to their assistance! If telepathy alone would have been enough the Divine Ma would not have fitted most brats with powerful bellows known as LUNGS and vocal cords to match! RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Rohini Da, > > Our original skills are telepathic, even in all Kaliyugi infants, humans and others, which we shed off as we grow into worldliness. In grown ups, only two types of people keep this faculty to lesser or greater extents : those who have real and intense love, and some real paramhamsa sadhus whom I am fortunate to know personally. > > Noam Chomsky rightly says that we are born with an innate grammar. > > -VJ > > ===================== == > > > ________________________________ > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani > > Sunday, July 12, 2009 4:20:57 PM > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > Vinay-ji, > > When we are surrounded by those that do not even speak our language, what do we do? We fall back upon our original skills that we were born with! When we were born, every single one of us that survived -- WHO or WHAT kept us alive that enabled us to chirp so glibly today? > > Rohiniranjan > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > RR Ji, > > > > You write in Sumerian language sometimes. What can I do ? > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > Sunday, July 12, 2009 2:01:37 PM > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay-Ji, > > > > Please do not get so excited :-) > > > > All I meant was that my copy has been acquired in India by well-wishers but has not arrived at my door yet! > > > > Please stay with your first impressions about me which you publicly expressed. Those were the correct ones, I assure you! > > > > Please take this seriously: I have no personal vested interest in gaining from Jyotish or its politics on internet, in India or elsewhere in this world! SHE has already shown me and given me so much! > > > > Please waste your time elsewhere ;-) > > > > RR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > RR Ji, > > > > > > <<< " As soon as it arrives... " >>> > > > > > > What does it mean ?? Chowkhamba Edition of BPHS came out in 1973, and I possess the Seventh Edition printed in 2000. Chowkhamba is a group of fifteen world's biggest and among the cheapest publishers of Indological books, esp in Sanskrit and Hindi. Chowkhamba Edition of BPHS is the most authoritative version of BPHS which is prescribed in curriculum of Phalita-achaarya post graduate curriculum of Sanskrit universities. > > > > > > Chowkhamba can be contacted through one of its branches : its website http://www.chowkhambasanskritseries.com/ > > > > > > Its Jyotisha webpage is : http://www.chowkham basanskritseries ..com/products. asp?prodcat= Jyotisa%20Granth a > > > > > > Only a tiny portion of its publications are displayed online, and you should procure the detailed catalogue of 15 Chowkhamba publishers by post. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > > > Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:43:56 AM > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As soon as it arrives -- there will be more questions ;-) > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > It is mentioned by Chowkhamba Edition in the introduction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 11:18:45 PM > > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you know that? :-) > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > > > > > I forgot to add that there were 100 chapters in original BPHS and one chapter is still missing from all available manuscripts. > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > ============ ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:04:55 PM > > > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Vinay Ji, > > > > > > > > > > And that is where a honey bee gains supremacy over an ant! While each engaged in their personal karma to serve and save their family and dependants, the honey bee ends up feeding many more than its children! > > > > > > > > > > If the human being helps (exploits?) the honey bee... > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS was written down in mediaeval period, and many versions were written down in late mediaeval and even early modern age. Sanskrit had ceased to be a native language, and the compilers had often to invent verses for the sayings which they had learnt through oral guru-shishya tradition. > > > > > > > > > > > > But as all its versions say, it was " revealed " to Sage Parashara by Lord Brahmaa ( " Brahma-mukhaat- shrutam " , verse-8 in ch-1). Only rishis have the capacity to hear directly from the mouth of Brahmaa Ji. It is foolish to imagine that a mediaeval work claiming to be coming out of Brahmaa Ji's mouth will be accepted as such by the whole country. All pandits on India could not have conspired to create a new work with nearly same matter but in different wordings. Hence, the original BPHS is an archaic work, a part of Shruti, a real Vedaanga. > > > > > > > > > > > > Besides BPHS, Jaimini Sutra is the only Aarsha text in Phalita, but only twi chapters of Jaimini Sutra have survived, which 99 chapters of BPHS were recovered by Pt Devachandra Jha who travelled afoot from village to village for colling its manuscripts , his version was published by Chowkhamba Sanskrit Sansthaana. The internet version has only 98 chapters and many verses in those 98 chapters are missing, and verses are spurious as well. Surprisingly, the language of not a single verse of this internet edition tallies with that of Chowkhamba, but almost all verses carry same meaning !! The only possible explanation is that some modern pandit rewrote the entire BPHS for showing off his erudition and this spurious edition was adopted by Maharshi Mahesh Yogi's chelas and by some other modernisers. > > > > > > > > > > > > The available texts indicate that BPHS is the only comprehensive work of Phalita which can be declared to be apaurusheya in its original version, excluding some minor interpolations, and in Siddhanta-Ganita Suryasiddhanta is the only apaurusheya text. > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:36:14 AM > > > > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could it be corrupted by inducting things that were later imported, as claimed by Mr. Kaul? > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani Monday, July 13, 2009 2:08:57 PM Re: An innocANT question... Hmmm... Vinay-ji, I would like to believe you about the telepathic ability of offsprings but truth be told -- most human infants simply WAIL and parents helplessly rush to their assistance! If telepathy alone would have been enough the Divine Ma would not have fitted most brats with powerful bellows known as LUNGS and vocal cords to match! RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Rohini Da, > > Our original skills are telepathic, even in all Kaliyugi infants, humans and others, which we shed off as we grow into worldliness. In grown ups, only two types of people keep this faculty to lesser or greater extents : those who have real and intense love, and some real paramhamsa sadhus whom I am fortunate to know personally. > > Noam Chomsky rightly says that we are born with an innate grammar. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= == > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > Sunday, July 12, 2009 4:20:57 PM > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > Vinay-ji, > > When we are surrounded by those that do not even speak our language, what do we do? We fall back upon our original skills that we were born with! When we were born, every single one of us that survived -- WHO or WHAT kept us alive that enabled us to chirp so glibly today? > > Rohiniranjan > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > RR Ji, > > > > You write in Sumerian language sometimes. What can I do ? > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > Sunday, July 12, 2009 2:01:37 PM > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay-Ji, > > > > Please do not get so excited :-) > > > > All I meant was that my copy has been acquired in India by well-wishers but has not arrived at my door yet! > > > > Please stay with your first impressions about me which you publicly expressed. Those were the correct ones, I assure you! > > > > Please take this seriously: I have no personal vested interest in gaining from Jyotish or its politics on internet, in India or elsewhere in this world! SHE has already shown me and given me so much! > > > > Please waste your time elsewhere ;-) > > > > RR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > RR Ji, > > > > > > <<< " As soon as it arrives... " >>> > > > > > > What does it mean ?? Chowkhamba Edition of BPHS came out in 1973, and I possess the Seventh Edition printed in 2000. Chowkhamba is a group of fifteen world's biggest and among the cheapest publishers of Indological books, esp in Sanskrit and Hindi. Chowkhamba Edition of BPHS is the most authoritative version of BPHS which is prescribed in curriculum of Phalita-achaarya post graduate curriculum of Sanskrit universities. > > > > > > Chowkhamba can be contacted through one of its branches : its website http://www.chowkhambasanskritseries.com/ > > > > > > Its Jyotisha webpage is : http://www.chowkham basanskritseries ..com/products. asp?prodcat= Jyotisa%20Granth a > > > > > > Only a tiny portion of its publications are displayed online, and you should procure the detailed catalogue of 15 Chowkhamba publishers by post. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > > > Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:43:56 AM > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As soon as it arrives -- there will be more questions ;-) > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > It is mentioned by Chowkhamba Edition in the introduction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 11:18:45 PM > > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you know that? :-) > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > > > > > I forgot to add that there were 100 chapters in original BPHS and one chapter is still missing from all available manuscripts. > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > ============ ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:04:55 PM > > > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Vinay Ji, > > > > > > > > > > And that is where a honey bee gains supremacy over an ant! While each engaged in their personal karma to serve and save their family and dependants, the honey bee ends up feeding many more than its children! > > > > > > > > > > If the human being helps (exploits?) the honey bee... > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS was written down in mediaeval period, and many versions were written down in late mediaeval and even early modern age. Sanskrit had ceased to be a native language, and the compilers had often to invent verses for the sayings which they had learnt through oral guru-shishya tradition. > > > > > > > > > > > > But as all its versions say, it was " revealed " to Sage Parashara by Lord Brahmaa ( " Brahma-mukhaat- shrutam " , verse-8 in ch-1). Only rishis have the capacity to hear directly from the mouth of Brahmaa Ji. It is foolish to imagine that a mediaeval work claiming to be coming out of Brahmaa Ji's mouth will be accepted as such by the whole country. All pandits on India could not have conspired to create a new work with nearly same matter but in different wordings. Hence, the original BPHS is an archaic work, a part of Shruti, a real Vedaanga. > > > > > > > > > > > > Besides BPHS, Jaimini Sutra is the only Aarsha text in Phalita, but only twi chapters of Jaimini Sutra have survived, which 99 chapters of BPHS were recovered by Pt Devachandra Jha who travelled afoot from village to village for colling its manuscripts , his version was published by Chowkhamba Sanskrit Sansthaana. The internet version has only 98 chapters and many verses in those 98 chapters are missing, and verses are spurious as well. Surprisingly, the language of not a single verse of this internet edition tallies with that of Chowkhamba, but almost all verses carry same meaning !! The only possible explanation is that some modern pandit rewrote the entire BPHS for showing off his erudition and this spurious edition was adopted by Maharshi Mahesh Yogi's chelas and by some other modernisers. > > > > > > > > > > > > The available texts indicate that BPHS is the only comprehensive work of Phalita which can be declared to be apaurusheya in its original version, excluding some minor interpolations, and in Siddhanta-Ganita Suryasiddhanta is the only apaurusheya text. > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:36:14 AM > > > > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could it be corrupted by inducting things that were later imported, as claimed by Mr. Kaul? > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Rohini Da, Sorry for sending empty message. Infants are not paramhamsas. But they possess telepathy to some extent, which gradually withers away. I have seen telepathy in cats and calves too, to some extent. Full fledged telepathy is a prerogative of paramhamsas, when the bounded state of mind is overcome, and real Mana exercizes its innate powers to the full potential. Then, mana acts as a sixth sense. It is one of the 11 indriyas, 11 rudras which go after vishayas and make us weep, but when they get united into one Benevolent Shiva, then Mana becomes the vehicle of moksha (-Yaajnavalkya in Brihadaaranyaka) Upanishada. -VJ ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani Monday, July 13, 2009 2:08:57 PM Re: An innocANT question... Hmmm... Vinay-ji, I would like to believe you about the telepathic ability of offsprings but truth be told -- most human infants simply WAIL and parents helplessly rush to their assistance! If telepathy alone would have been enough the Divine Ma would not have fitted most brats with powerful bellows known as LUNGS and vocal cords to match! RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Rohini Da, > > Our original skills are telepathic, even in all Kaliyugi infants, humans and others, which we shed off as we grow into worldliness. In grown ups, only two types of people keep this faculty to lesser or greater extents : those who have real and intense love, and some real paramhamsa sadhus whom I am fortunate to know personally. > > Noam Chomsky rightly says that we are born with an innate grammar. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= == > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > Sunday, July 12, 2009 4:20:57 PM > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > Vinay-ji, > > When we are surrounded by those that do not even speak our language, what do we do? We fall back upon our original skills that we were born with! When we were born, every single one of us that survived -- WHO or WHAT kept us alive that enabled us to chirp so glibly today? > > Rohiniranjan > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > RR Ji, > > > > You write in Sumerian language sometimes. What can I do ? > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > Sunday, July 12, 2009 2:01:37 PM > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay-Ji, > > > > Please do not get so excited :-) > > > > All I meant was that my copy has been acquired in India by well-wishers but has not arrived at my door yet! > > > > Please stay with your first impressions about me which you publicly expressed. Those were the correct ones, I assure you! > > > > Please take this seriously: I have no personal vested interest in gaining from Jyotish or its politics on internet, in India or elsewhere in this world! SHE has already shown me and given me so much! > > > > Please waste your time elsewhere ;-) > > > > RR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > RR Ji, > > > > > > <<< " As soon as it arrives... " >>> > > > > > > What does it mean ?? Chowkhamba Edition of BPHS came out in 1973, and I possess the Seventh Edition printed in 2000. Chowkhamba is a group of fifteen world's biggest and among the cheapest publishers of Indological books, esp in Sanskrit and Hindi. Chowkhamba Edition of BPHS is the most authoritative version of BPHS which is prescribed in curriculum of Phalita-achaarya post graduate curriculum of Sanskrit universities. > > > > > > Chowkhamba can be contacted through one of its branches : its website http://www.chowkhambasanskritseries.com/ > > > > > > Its Jyotisha webpage is : http://www.chowkham basanskritseries ..com/products. asp?prodcat= Jyotisa%20Granth a > > > > > > Only a tiny portion of its publications are displayed online, and you should procure the detailed catalogue of 15 Chowkhamba publishers by post. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > > > Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:43:56 AM > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As soon as it arrives -- there will be more questions ;-) > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > It is mentioned by Chowkhamba Edition in the introduction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 11:18:45 PM > > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you know that? :-) > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > > > > > I forgot to add that there were 100 chapters in original BPHS and one chapter is still missing from all available manuscripts. > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > ============ ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:04:55 PM > > > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Vinay Ji, > > > > > > > > > > And that is where a honey bee gains supremacy over an ant! While each engaged in their personal karma to serve and save their family and dependants, the honey bee ends up feeding many more than its children! > > > > > > > > > > If the human being helps (exploits?) the honey bee... > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS was written down in mediaeval period, and many versions were written down in late mediaeval and even early modern age. Sanskrit had ceased to be a native language, and the compilers had often to invent verses for the sayings which they had learnt through oral guru-shishya tradition. > > > > > > > > > > > > But as all its versions say, it was " revealed " to Sage Parashara by Lord Brahmaa ( " Brahma-mukhaat- shrutam " , verse-8 in ch-1). Only rishis have the capacity to hear directly from the mouth of Brahmaa Ji. It is foolish to imagine that a mediaeval work claiming to be coming out of Brahmaa Ji's mouth will be accepted as such by the whole country. All pandits on India could not have conspired to create a new work with nearly same matter but in different wordings. Hence, the original BPHS is an archaic work, a part of Shruti, a real Vedaanga. > > > > > > > > > > > > Besides BPHS, Jaimini Sutra is the only Aarsha text in Phalita, but only twi chapters of Jaimini Sutra have survived, which 99 chapters of BPHS were recovered by Pt Devachandra Jha who travelled afoot from village to village for colling its manuscripts , his version was published by Chowkhamba Sanskrit Sansthaana. The internet version has only 98 chapters and many verses in those 98 chapters are missing, and verses are spurious as well. Surprisingly, the language of not a single verse of this internet edition tallies with that of Chowkhamba, but almost all verses carry same meaning !! The only possible explanation is that some modern pandit rewrote the entire BPHS for showing off his erudition and this spurious edition was adopted by Maharshi Mahesh Yogi's chelas and by some other modernisers. > > > > > > > > > > > > The available texts indicate that BPHS is the only comprehensive work of Phalita which can be declared to be apaurusheya in its original version, excluding some minor interpolations, and in Siddhanta-Ganita Suryasiddhanta is the only apaurusheya text. > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:36:14 AM > > > > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could it be corrupted by inducting things that were later imported, as claimed by Mr. Kaul? > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Dear sirs, I have heard of the occult faculties of cats.Intuition is also known as the language of the cow or calf.But telepathy seems to be represented specially by the 'crow' in the Hindu culture.Examples are crow considered as messenger,as Kaga bhusundi, kaka puja 2 days before deepavali and chapter of 'Kokoullukiya' in panchantra.I am much fascinated by this story of Kakoullukiya,the third tantra of Pancha tantra, about the quarrel between the crows and the owls. The crow I think is intuition and owl is blind faith or superstition, who see only in the dark.The quarrel between the crow and the owl seem to exemplify well the present quarrel between the strict sayan vadis and the indefinite nirayan vadis.One sees in the day and the other sees in the dark only. This is just my personal view, please do not be put off if you do not like this view . Just ignore it.Thank you, Regards, Hari Malla , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Rohini Da, > > Sorry for sending empty message. > > Infants are not paramhamsas. But they possess telepathy to some extent, which gradually withers away. I have seen telepathy in cats and calves too, to some extent. Full fledged telepathy is a prerogative of paramhamsas, when the bounded state of mind is overcome, and real Mana exercizes its innate powers to the full potential. > > Then, mana acts as a sixth sense. It is one of the 11 indriyas, 11 rudras which go after vishayas and make us weep, but when they get united into one Benevolent Shiva, then Mana becomes the vehicle of moksha (-Yaajnavalkya in Brihadaaranyaka) Upanishada. > > > -VJ > > > ________________________________ > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani > > Monday, July 13, 2009 2:08:57 PM > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > Hmmm... > > Vinay-ji, I would like to believe you about the telepathic ability of offsprings but truth be told -- most human infants simply WAIL and parents helplessly rush to their assistance! > > If telepathy alone would have been enough the Divine Ma would not have fitted most brats with powerful bellows known as LUNGS and vocal cords to match! > > RR > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > Our original skills are telepathic, even in all Kaliyugi infants, humans and others, which we shed off as we grow into worldliness. In grown ups, only two types of people keep this faculty to lesser or greater extents : those who have real and intense love, and some real paramhamsa sadhus whom I am fortunate to know personally. > > > > Noam Chomsky rightly says that we are born with an innate grammar. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > Sunday, July 12, 2009 4:20:57 PM > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay-ji, > > > > When we are surrounded by those that do not even speak our language, what do we do? We fall back upon our original skills that we were born with! When we were born, every single one of us that survived -- WHO or WHAT kept us alive that enabled us to chirp so glibly today? > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > RR Ji, > > > > > > You write in Sumerian language sometimes. What can I do ? > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > > > Sunday, July 12, 2009 2:01:37 PM > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay-Ji, > > > > > > Please do not get so excited :-) > > > > > > All I meant was that my copy has been acquired in India by well-wishers but has not arrived at my door yet! > > > > > > Please stay with your first impressions about me which you publicly expressed. Those were the correct ones, I assure you! > > > > > > Please take this seriously: I have no personal vested interest in gaining from Jyotish or its politics on internet, in India or elsewhere in this world! SHE has already shown me and given me so much! > > > > > > Please waste your time elsewhere ;-) > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > RR Ji, > > > > > > > > <<< " As soon as it arrives... " >>> > > > > > > > > What does it mean ?? Chowkhamba Edition of BPHS came out in 1973, and I possess the Seventh Edition printed in 2000. Chowkhamba is a group of fifteen world's biggest and among the cheapest publishers of Indological books, esp in Sanskrit and Hindi. Chowkhamba Edition of BPHS is the most authoritative version of BPHS which is prescribed in curriculum of Phalita-achaarya post graduate curriculum of Sanskrit universities. > > > > > > > > Chowkhamba can be contacted through one of its branches : its website http://www.chowkhambasanskritseries.com/ > > > > > > > > Its Jyotisha webpage is : http://www.chowkham basanskritseries ..com/products. asp?prodcat= Jyotisa%20Granth a > > > > > > > > Only a tiny portion of its publications are displayed online, and you should procure the detailed catalogue of 15 Chowkhamba publishers by post. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > > > > > Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:43:56 AM > > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As soon as it arrives -- there will be more questions ;-) > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It is mentioned by Chowkhamba Edition in the introduction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 11:18:45 PM > > > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you know that? :-) > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > > > > > > > I forgot to add that there were 100 chapters in original BPHS and one chapter is still missing from all available manuscripts. > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:04:55 PM > > > > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Vinay Ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > And that is where a honey bee gains supremacy over an ant! While each engaged in their personal karma to serve and save their family and dependants, the honey bee ends up feeding many more than its children! > > > > > > > > > > > > If the human being helps (exploits?) the honey bee... > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS was written down in mediaeval period, and many versions were written down in late mediaeval and even early modern age. Sanskrit had ceased to be a native language, and the compilers had often to invent verses for the sayings which they had learnt through oral guru-shishya tradition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But as all its versions say, it was " revealed " to Sage Parashara by Lord Brahmaa ( " Brahma-mukhaat- shrutam " , verse-8 in ch-1). Only rishis have the capacity to hear directly from the mouth of Brahmaa Ji. It is foolish to imagine that a mediaeval work claiming to be coming out of Brahmaa Ji's mouth will be accepted as such by the whole country. All pandits on India could not have conspired to create a new work with nearly same matter but in different wordings. Hence, the original BPHS is an archaic work, a part of Shruti, a real Vedaanga. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Besides BPHS, Jaimini Sutra is the only Aarsha text in Phalita, but only twi chapters of Jaimini Sutra have survived, which 99 chapters of BPHS were recovered by Pt Devachandra Jha who travelled afoot from village to village for colling its manuscripts , his version was published by Chowkhamba Sanskrit Sansthaana. The internet version has only 98 chapters and many verses in those 98 chapters are missing, and verses are spurious as well. Surprisingly, the language of not a single verse of this internet edition tallies with that of Chowkhamba, but almost all verses carry same meaning !! The only possible explanation is that some modern pandit rewrote the entire BPHS for showing off his erudition and this spurious edition was adopted by Maharshi Mahesh Yogi's chelas and by some other modernisers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The available texts indicate that BPHS is the only comprehensive work of Phalita which can be declared to be apaurusheya in its original version, excluding some minor interpolations, and in Siddhanta-Ganita Suryasiddhanta is the only apaurusheya text. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:36:14 AM > > > > > > > Re: An innocANT question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could it be corrupted by inducting things that were later imported, as claimed by Mr. Kaul? > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have the Vedas and Puraanas and other scriptures and many others that I may not even have heard of. Others here must have because I see a lot of scholars here who are obviously very brilliant, well-read and sincerely serious. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not heard of any of these texts as being incomplete or corrupted over the years. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And yet when we come to Jyotish, its currently available have often been questioned as to their authenticity. Case in point: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is this so? Isn't BPHS ancient? Why did it get distorted while other scriptures were spared? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.