Guest guest Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Om Namah Sivaya  Namaste Sri Narasimha,  Please go through the following.  You Wrote : Though Some people believe that the keys to Jaimini’s cryptic teachings lie with some secret paramparas, it is a questionable belief.  I beg to differ in this issue. It is not a belief, but a fact. I have ample references to support that this system has been a secret and I have provided them in a couple of instances earlier. When Somanatha Mishra writes in his Kalpalatha that this Jaimini system is a secret one, do you think or understand that he is lying? If you think so, it is really an indological view. When Somanatha Mishra writes that the calculation of the rasi dasas was clearly explained in Mula Sasthra by Kalidasa and Krishna Mishra writes he wrote this science based on Sarvajna Muni commentary of Jaimini, is it they are lying or Are we blind enough?. Somanatha or whoever the commentator writes something on Jaimini and declares this as a Secret science, they mean it and they want to state the factual issue. You can check out even the very recent commentator like Durga Prasada Dvivedi, the author of Jaimini Padyamritam, verbally declares the view of Vriddha Karika on Argala is secret. The same is the case with the Raghava Bhatta. So, it is not a belief but a fact. All these commentators do write to educate and enrich our knowledge, not to bluff nor wrote for fear of some learned scholar questions their writing in future.  Before answering and at least considering the points above, declaring at you will the above things are simple beliefs is regretted.  You wrote: Some more people believe that keys to Jaimini’s cryptic teachings lie in some commentaries by scholars such as Neelakantha, Raghava Bhatta, Nrisimha Suri etc. that too a questionable belief. The caliber and reliability of these not-so-ancient scholars, who came during an interesting period in Indian astrology and astronomy, is unclear.  Alas, as somebody pointed out, you are axing anything and everything. To judge one’s caliber and reliability on the basis of their period of existence is very dogmatic. It is no problem if you try to understand anything with an independent interpretation. But, if you axe any knowledge on Jaimini to prove your point is highly questionable. Do believe whatever you want, but don’t propagate these not so factual issues.  Can you tell me the period of Krishna Mishra or the most ancient literature available on Jaimini Vaanchanaathiyam? Can you tell me how pious or bad living they had? Is it somebody becomes not intelligent or great by their period. What nonsense is this? Do you mean the medieval people are not reliable? In fact, it is for their invaluable service, we have all these ancient knowledge survived. They devoted their families to protect the ancient manuscripts to the possible extent from the non-hindu invaders.  Yes, we all believe and venerate Sage Parasara. Yet, we never know whether the author of the present available BPHS is the puranic Sage Parasara. Try to find out the period of Krishna Mishra, who is definitely after Varahamihira as he declares that he is Raj Jyotish of Vikramaditya, so that we can decide how ancient he was.  Do you believe if I say there are some commentaries which explain the applicability of Rasi dasas based on the yoga on the horoscope? Can you show me the instance in BHPS which explain Rasi dasa applicability? If not how can we conclude that BPHS is the most reliable and final authority on Jaimini pointers? As you always points out, we don’t have these many dasas without a purpose. I agree that PHPS holds valuable information on Astrology, but kindly remember it as a compendium. The real clue to the Jaimini lies in Bhashyas (commentaries) not in BPHS. Why Raghava Bhatta interpretation of Arudha Padas and dasa years and calculation of Hora, Ghatika Lagna endorsed by Nadi work like Chandra Kala Nadi. And that has been used by scholars in Andhra Pradesh for centuries? Are they blind to this so called Bible of Astrology BPHS. It is like the famous dialog in Kanyasulkam play “Anni Vedallone Unnaishaâ€.  One final question. Kindly state, at least according to humble knowledge, which one is the Parasara authored text from the following list.  BPHS compiled by Sitaram Jha BPHS compiled by Devaki Chandra Jha BPHS compiled by Sridhara Pandita PHPS compiled by Ganesha Datta Pathak BPHS commented by Girish Chandra Sharma BPHS commented by Santaanam and others BPHS commented by Madhura Krishna Murthy  Of course, the above list is not comprehensive and do feel free to state if any other BPHS version, is the real one authored by Sage Parasara.  Why I write all this is for I know how much I respect and believe in you. If I read your recent views I might someday believe what preach is correct. You have been and are a most influential person to me and so are to most of students here.  I end this mail with a note that Jaimini not being cryptic. It is Amrita, the sacred nectar and if you really try for this you will get it. That’s why my Guru named his commentary “Jaimini Sutramritamâ€. As long as we long for a simple honey or sugar cane juice, we never feel the nectar. My personal request and humble submission to you that please read the other valuable information on Jaimini along with BPHS to understand this science, else it would be a futile attempt, however the sincere it be.  Regards, Shanmukha    Looking for local information? Find it on Local http://in.local./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 The Jaimini teachings are so secretive that nobody knows what they are! The book originally existed in four parts, of which only two are known, and those are the last two, such that the introductory part that explains his actual scheme is unknown. Can it be practiced piecemeal? Is there much difference between the available BPHS texts? Dharmapad vedic astrology , teli Shanmukha <teli_sha2002 wrote: > > Om Namah Sivaya >  > Namaste Sri Narasimha, >  > Please go through the following. >  > You Wrote : Though Some people believe that the keys to Jaimini’s cryptic teachings lie with some secret paramparas, it is a questionable belief. >  > I beg to differ in this issue. It is not a belief, but a fact. I have ample references to support that this system has been a secret and I have provided them in a couple of instances earlier. When Somanatha Mishra writes in his Kalpalatha that this Jaimini system is a secret one, do you think or understand that he is lying? If you think so, it is really an indological view. When Somanatha Mishra writes that the calculation of the rasi dasas was clearly explained in Mula Sasthra by Kalidasa and Krishna Mishra writes he wrote this science based on Sarvajna Muni commentary of Jaimini, is it they are lying or Are we blind enough?. Somanatha or whoever the commentator writes something on Jaimini and declares this as a Secret science, they mean it and they want to state the factual issue. You can check out even the very recent commentator like Durga Prasada Dvivedi, the author of Jaimini Padyamritam, verbally declares the view of Vriddha Karika on Argala is > secret. The same is the case with the Raghava Bhatta. So, it is not a belief but a fact. All these commentators do write to educate and enrich our knowledge, not to bluff nor wrote for fear of some learned scholar questions their writing in future. >  > Before answering and at least considering the points above, declaring at you will the above things are simple beliefs is regretted. >  > You wrote: Some more people believe that keys to Jaimini’s cryptic teachings lie in some commentaries by scholars such as Neelakantha, Raghava Bhatta, Nrisimha Suri etc. that too a questionable belief. The caliber and reliability of these not-so-ancient scholars, who came during an interesting period in Indian astrology and astronomy, is unclear. >  > Alas, as somebody pointed out, you are axing anything and everything. To judge one’s caliber and reliability on the basis of their period of existence is very dogmatic. It is no problem if you try to understand anything with an independent interpretation. But, if you axe any knowledge on Jaimini to prove your point is highly questionable. Do believe whatever you want, but don’t propagate these not so factual issues. >  > Can you tell me the period of Krishna Mishra or the most ancient literature available on Jaimini Vaanchanaathiyam? Can you tell me how pious or bad living they had? Is it somebody becomes not intelligent or great by their period. What nonsense is this? Do you mean the medieval people are not reliable? In fact, it is for their invaluable service, we have all these ancient knowledge survived. They devoted their families to protect the ancient manuscripts to the possible extent from the non-hindu invaders. >  > Yes, we all believe and venerate Sage Parasara. Yet, we never know whether the author of the present available BPHS is the puranic Sage Parasara. Try to find out the period of Krishna Mishra, who is definitely after Varahamihira as he declares that he is Raj Jyotish of Vikramaditya, so that we can decide how ancient he was. >  > Do you believe if I say there are some commentaries which explain the applicability of Rasi dasas based on the yoga on the horoscope? Can you show me the instance in BHPS which explain Rasi dasa applicability? If not how can we conclude that BPHS is the most reliable and final authority on Jaimini pointers? As you always points out, we don’t have these many dasas without a purpose. I agree that PHPS holds valuable information on Astrology, but kindly remember it as a compendium. The real clue to the Jaimini lies in Bhashyas (commentaries) not in BPHS. Why Raghava Bhatta interpretation of Arudha Padas and dasa years and calculation of Hora, Ghatika Lagna endorsed by Nadi work like Chandra Kala Nadi. And that has been used by scholars in Andhra Pradesh for centuries? Are they blind to this so called Bible of Astrology BPHS. It is like the famous dialog in Kanyasulkam play “Anni Vedallone Unnaishaâ€. >  > One final question. Kindly state, at least according to humble knowledge, which one is the Parasara authored text from the following list. >  > > BPHS compiled by Sitaram Jha > BPHS compiled by Devaki Chandra Jha > BPHS compiled by Sridhara Pandita > PHPS compiled by Ganesha Datta Pathak > BPHS commented by Girish Chandra Sharma > BPHS commented by Santaanam and others > BPHS commented by Madhura Krishna Murthy >  > Of course, the above list is not comprehensive and do feel free to state if any other BPHS version, is the real one authored by Sage Parasara. >  > Why I write all this is for I know how much I respect and believe in you. If I read your recent views I might someday believe what preach is correct. You have been and are a most influential person to me and so are to most of students here. >  > I end this mail with a note that Jaimini not being cryptic. It is Amrita, the sacred nectar and if you really try for this you will get it. That’s why my Guru named his commentary “Jaimini Sutramritamâ€. As long as we long for a simple honey or sugar cane juice, we never feel the nectar. My personal request and humble submission to you that please read the other valuable information on Jaimini along with BPHS to understand this science, else it would be a futile attempt, however the sincere it be. >  > Regards, > Shanmukha >  >  >  > > > Looking for local information? Find it on Local http://in.local./ > > 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.