Who was Sripati?

[Guest guest]

Who is Sripati/Sripathi? When was he born and lived? Was he before Parashar Muni

or after or contemporary? Other than the house division which is identical to

what was used by tropicalists and named Porphyrii House Division System and

balas (implicitly), what were his other contributions to Jyotish?

 

Please contribute without rancour, if it is possible. Citations not essential

but would add weight to statements ...

 

 

Regards,

 

Rohiniranjan

[Guest guest]

Rohini Da,

 

For Shripati, there is a brief but good article on web :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sripati

 

Shripati's greatest contribution was introduction of planetary

computations without the use of trigonometric functions like sine,

cosine, etc. This short-cut method made the task of panchanga making

easy and therefore interest in mastering the detailed theories and

practical techniques of siddhantas were gradually forgotten.

Grahalaaghava is the most famous teatise using the Shripati technique.

The very name Grahalaaghava means " short-cut or Laaghava technique for

computing Grahas " . Knowledge of ancient siddhantas was thus lost.

 

Shripati did not introduce any type of House Division. Goel Ji says :

 

<<<

Pt Devendra Jha and G.C.Sharma had introduced Sripat method of house

divisions in their versions of BPHS.This , in my opinion is dis-sevice

to ancient astrology. Sripati calculates the Ascendant and MC in correct

manner according to spherical trignametry and then divide houses in

between by method of simple division arithmetically . Which is not

consistent.

>>>

 

Goel Ji has not read BPHS properly. He wrongly names Pt Devachandra Jha

as Devendra Jha (he committed similar mistake last year). Chowkhamba's

edition of BPHS edited by Pt Devachandra Jha gives the detailed method

of computation of Bhaavachalita in verses 23-37 of

Grahaadi-saadhana-adhyaaya, in which details of computaions of lagna and

dasham are given. After getting first (lagna) and

tenth (dasham) houses' midpoints, seventh and fourth points are obtained

by adding 180 degrees respectively : " shadraashi-sahitam tat (ie, from

lagna) cha saptam bhavanam matam " and " sa-shadbhe dashame jnyeyam

chaturtham dvijasattama " . After thus deriving first, fouth, seventh and

tenth house, one can " divide houses in between by method of simple

division arithmetically " (-Goel Ji) according to verses 36-37, but Goel

Ji forgets fourth and seventh houses and says simple arithmetic division

should be done between lagna and dasham which is neither mentioned in

BPHS nor in Siddhaantashekhara of Shripati. If chaturtha is not computed

by adding 180 degrees to dasham, and if seventh is not computed by

adding 180 degrees to lagna, then we will get wrong houses which Goel Ji

is doing by simply dividing the difference between dasham and lagna for

getting all other houses, which is not prescribed by any ancient or

modern text. Instead of labelling this wrong technique as Shripati

Method or Parashara Method, it should be named Goel Method of House

Division, which even Goel Ji does not use.

 

Goel Ji gives five methods of house division, in which he excludes the

only correct method used by ancients as well as Lahiri Ji (which I

described above) :

 

<<<

Now following five Main methods of house division are available to us:

1. Compartmental method ( where a house is within the boundary of a

zodiac sign) with 15 degree deeptansa on either side.

2 Equal house division where Ascending point is the mid-point

3. Equal House Division , but ascending point is Caspal Point i.e from

were house commences

4. Shripat method of house division

5 KP METHOD ( IN FACT RAFEL METHOD OR ' PLACIDUAS ' OR SEMI-ARC SYSTEM)

>>>>>

 

BPHS also gives method in verses 38-43 for bhaava-lagna, horaa-lagna,

and ghati-lagna. Lagna at the time of Sunrise is exactly equal to True

Sun's longitude at that time (ch-4, verse 39, Chowkhamba edition by

Devachandra Jha), because Lagna is defined in siddhanta as that point on

the ecliptic (kraanti-vrita) which touches the eastern horizon. Adding 2

hours to this Sunrise value of Sun, one will get successive twelve

houses. This simplistic method does not need trigonometric computations

of lagna and dashama and saves time, but it gives equal divisions. A

majority of traditional and modern vedic astrologers use this simple

method and teach it to pupils. That is why many of them have come to

regard this simplistic method as divine.

 

Raashi-chakra has equal divisions at intervals of 30 degrees.

Bhaava-chalita is computed along the principles given in BPHS which are

based on Suryasiddhantic equations and has unequal divisions. In Medini

Jyotisha, Raashichakra is fixed on map and Bhaavachalita moves on it at

an average rate of one full cycle per day, that is why bhaavachakra is

named Chalita. It is the real bhaava chart because the first bhaava is

lagna which is a point on ecliptic and not on circular celestial orbit

which means bhaavachakra must be elliptical and not circular in sky.

 

I have tested the efficacy of bhaavachalita in rainfall, earthquakes,

individual charts, national affairs like growth rates of national

income, etc. It is suicidal to write it off. Goel Ji is doing great

disservice to astrology by propounding wrong views about house

divisions. Raju Gupta was right.

 

PVR still regards Sanjay Ji as his guru and respects him, but if Sanjay

Ji gives a wrong definition of Kaalachakra dashaa (KCD) sequences, PVR

has a right to express his own opinions. Goel Ji should have judged the

merits and demerits of both on the issue under discussion (KCD).

Instead, he buried the issue and made it a personality clash between

guru and shishya, denouncing the shishya for opposing the guru. It is

not sincerity. The issue must be discussed and not the persons. Mr

Sanjay Rath and Mr PVR have both served Jyotisha. None of them should be

denounced. The matter is which of the KCD sequences is correct, which

Goel Ji happily forgets.

 

I request Goel Ji to check original texts like BPHS (Devachandra Jha

edition which he quoted wrongly) and Siddhaantashekhara before informing

us about the on their contents. I also request him not to convert an

intellectual issue into personality clash and portray the correct side

as wrong just because it belongs to shishya. In this case, PVR is in the

right.

 

-VJ

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

vedic astrology , " rohinicrystal "

<jyotish_vani wrote:

>

> Who is Sripati/Sripathi? When was he born and lived? Was he before

Parashar Muni or after or contemporary? Other than the house division

which is identical to what was used by tropicalists and named Porphyrii

House Division System and balas (implicitly), what were his other

contributions to Jyotish?

>

> Please contribute without rancour, if it is possible. Citations not

essential but would add weight to statements ...

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Rohiniranjan

>

[Guest guest]

Okay, so since Shripati or Sripati lived between 1019–1066 according to the

reference you provided, he was probably born much later than Parashara and lived

only for 46-47 years! If that was the norm back then, then average

life-expectancy has improved dramatically in the ensuing KALIYUGA, generally

speaking!

 

Thanks for taking the time for the reference.

 

Rohiniranjan

 

vedic astrology , " VJha " <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> Rohini Da,

>

> For Shripati, there is a brief but good article on web :

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sripati

> ...

[Guest guest]

His illustrious follower Ganesh, is reputed to have written Grahalaghava at the

age of 14. If people can write such books at 14, there is no harm in dying at

47.

 

(I think both " facts " are concocted. Grahalaghava uses a base year Shake-1440

for karana-technique which gave rise to the false belief that Grahalaghava was

composed in Shake-1440.)

 

-vj

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

vedic astrology , " rohinicrystal " <jyotish_vani

wrote:

>

> Okay, so since Shripati or Sripati lived between 1019–1066 according to the

reference you provided, he was probably born much later than Parashara and lived

only for 46-47 years! If that was the norm back then, then average

life-expectancy has improved dramatically in the ensuing KALIYUGA, generally

speaking!

>

> Thanks for taking the time for the reference.

>

> Rohiniranjan

>

> vedic astrology , " VJha " <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:

> >

> > Rohini Da,

> >

> > For Shripati, there is a brief but good article on web :

> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sripati

> > ...

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr Jha

You wrote -

==== Point -1 =====

Raashi-chakra has equal divisions at intervals of 30 degrees.

Bhaava-chalita is computed along the principles given in BPHS which are

based on Suryasiddhantic equations and has unequal divisions. In Medini

Jyotisha, Raashichakra is fixed on map and Bhaavachalita moves on it at

an average rate of one full cycle per day, that is why bhaavachakra is

named Chalita. It is the real bhaava chart because the first bhaava is

lagna which is a point on ecliptic and not on circular celestial orbit

which means bhaavachakra must be elliptical and not circular in sky.

 

I have tested the efficacy of bhaavachalita in rainfall, earthquakes,

individual charts, national affairs like growth rates of national

income, etc. It is suicidal to write it off. Goel Ji is doing great

disservice to astrology by propounding wrong views about house

divisions. Raju Gupta was right.

 

Rath: The Bhava Lagna is an important factor which all of you are also ignoring.

What is the role of the Bhava Lagna which is specifically mentioned by

Parashara?

Secondly, if you see the method of computation of Hora Lagna and Ghatika Lagna,

is it not a circular path? Then on what basis are you suggesting that the bhava

calculated from the Hora Lagna and Ghatika lagna should be elliptical?

 

==== Point 2 ====

 

PVR still regards Sanjay Ji as his guru and respects him, but if Sanjay

Ji gives a wrong definition of Kaalachakra dashaa (KCD) sequences, PVR

has a right to express his own opinions. Goel Ji should have judged the

merits and demerits of both on the issue under discussion (KCD).

Instead, he buried the issue and made it a personality clash between

guru and shishya, denouncing the shishya for opposing the guru. It is

not sincerity. The issue must be discussed and not the persons. Mr

Sanjay Rath and Mr PVR have both served Jyotisha. None of them should be

denounced. The matter is which of the KCD sequences is correct, which

Goel Ji happily forgets.

 

Rath: PVR does not regard nor consider Sanjay Rath as his guru. He seems to have

forgotten what was so painstakingly taught in so many years. That is kali Yuga.

Secondly the language used by him in the mails in the last 3-4 years is

definitely not acceptable in any teaching forum. I think you too have taught in

the past and would not accept such behavior if your students talked in this

fashion with you. When people cannot talk decently, it is best not to talk to

them.

So, lets be clear on one thing. There is no debate. As and when I have time, I

try to show the mess he is making of jyotish. Rest is his karma.

 

You seem to have your own conclusions about right and wrong already. You talk of

a debate where one person speaks and the other is not to be seen.

 

Just getting the facts right

 

 

 

Best Wishes

Sanjay Rath

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sanjay Ji,

Namaste,

 

I like works of both of you (you & PVR), although I do not agree with

all the points. I refer your articles to my friends and students. I

consistently kept away from expressing my differences because I like to

concentrate on my works. If PVR has something important to say about

some issue of Jyotisha, he must have a say. I do not know the whole

issue, and I read about your views about the KCD sequence only from his

message. I agree with you that he should not use words like " dishonesty "

& c for a person who was a guru even for a few minutes. A guru is always

a guru. I hope he will observe this " paramparaa " while expressing his

views about cardinal issues of Jyotisha.

 

As for your comments about bhaava, BPHS gives both methods : 14 verses

are deavoted to computations of houses of bhaavachalita while only two

verses are devoted to Bhaavalagna. I mentioned both methods in my

message (number 118796), but you wrongly say I ignored Bhaavalagna. BPHS

mentions the astrological (phalita) significance of Bhaavalagna. But

nowhere it is said that bhaavas like chaturtha or dasham should be

computed with reference to Bhaavalagna, while it is specifically

mentioned in the 14 verses on Bhaavachalita that all twelve bhaavas must

be computed according to differential computations of lagna and dasham

which gives unequal divisions, ie, an elliptical orbit.

 

Moreover, Suryasiddhanta also says that lagna is defined as the rising

point of ecliptic. We know that the ecliptic (path of Sun, which is

almost same as heliocentric orbit of Earth) is elliptical.

 

Lahiri Ji also gives similar tables for unequal twelve houses.

 

I mentioned both bhaavachalita and bhaavalagna, and did not ignore

anyone. Instead, you are ignoring bhaavachalita. Yet I do not think you

are dishonestly ignoring it or deliberately distorting my message. I

know you are not insincere. BPHS specifically mentions horalagna or

bhaavalagna wherever they are needed in phalita. But whenever general

bhaavas like saptam or dasham are mentioned, they must be reckoned

according to the rules of computations of saptam or dasham, and I do not

want to repeat again and again that these are unequal. If you have

doubts, see the 14 verses of bhaava computations in

grahaadi-saadhana-adhyaaya. I know you are already well aware of all

this, but are facing the problem which all those astrologers face : how

to change their past habits. I use bhaavalagna method even for computing

all 12 bhaavas when I am away from my desk and lack any panchanga or

computer. I memorised logarithmic tables in my boyhood and do not need

calculators for such purposes. But when I have computers, I never use

bhaavalagna for 12 bhaavas, and I use bhaavalagna only when BPHS

specifically asks us to use it. When BPHS asks us to use bhaavas like

dasham & c, we must use the BPHS method of comoputing dasham & c, and this

method, already known to you , gives unequal houses. Unequal houses is

possible only when there is an elliptical shape. The euations of modern

mathematics for computing divisions of ellipse are called infinite

ibntegrals and are very difficult to compute, and impossible manually.

But the technique of Suryasiddhanta and BPHS are very simple, yet

accurate. Unfortunately, modern mathematicians do not credit our

ancestors for making such marvellous discoveries.

 

At the end, I am quoting you : " Then on what basis are you suggesting

that the bhava calculated from the Hora Lagna and Ghatika lagna should

be elliptical? " I never said so. Read message number 118796. I only

said houses or bhaavas must be computed according to unequal divisions

mentioned in BPHS. I did not elaborate the uses of BL, HL and GL

(Bhaavalagna, Horalagna, Ghatilagna), which led you to conclude that I

want unequal division in HL and GL too.

 

I use equal division method to construct raashichakra which I use for

all mathematical purposes like drishti, friendship, combustion, etc, but

I never use this chart for phalaadesh of twelve bhaavas.

 

If you think equal division is to be applied to bhaava chakra too, then

we will have to delete verses of unequal disions from BPHS and of lagna

& c from ancient siddhantas which define lagna as a point on ecliptic and

not on any circular non-existent orbit.

 

-VJ

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

vedic astrology , " Sanjay Rath " <sjrath

wrote:

>

> Dear Mr Jha

> You wrote -

> ==== Point -1 =====

> Raashi-chakra has equal divisions at intervals of 30 degrees.

> Bhaava-chalita is computed along the principles given in BPHS which

are

> based on Suryasiddhantic equations and has unequal divisions. In

Medini

> Jyotisha, Raashichakra is fixed on map and Bhaavachalita moves on it

at

> an average rate of one full cycle per day, that is why bhaavachakra is

> named Chalita. It is the real bhaava chart because the first bhaava is

> lagna which is a point on ecliptic and not on circular celestial orbit

> which means bhaavachakra must be elliptical and not circular in sky.

>

> I have tested the efficacy of bhaavachalita in rainfall, earthquakes,

> individual charts, national affairs like growth rates of national

> income, etc. It is suicidal to write it off. Goel Ji is doing great

> disservice to astrology by propounding wrong views about house

> divisions. Raju Gupta was right.

>

> Rath: The Bhava Lagna is an important factor which all of you are also

ignoring. What is the role of the Bhava Lagna which is specifically

mentioned by Parashara?

> Secondly, if you see the method of computation of Hora Lagna and

Ghatika Lagna, is it not a circular path? Then on what basis are you

suggesting that the bhava calculated from the Hora Lagna and Ghatika

lagna should be elliptical?

>

> ==== Point 2 ====

>

> PVR still regards Sanjay Ji as his guru and respects him, but if

Sanjay

> Ji gives a wrong definition of Kaalachakra dashaa (KCD) sequences, PVR

> has a right to express his own opinions. Goel Ji should have judged

the

> merits and demerits of both on the issue under discussion (KCD).

> Instead, he buried the issue and made it a personality clash between

> guru and shishya, denouncing the shishya for opposing the guru. It is

> not sincerity. The issue must be discussed and not the persons. Mr

> Sanjay Rath and Mr PVR have both served Jyotisha. None of them should

be

> denounced. The matter is which of the KCD sequences is correct, which

> Goel Ji happily forgets.

>

> Rath: PVR does not regard nor consider Sanjay Rath as his guru. He

seems to have forgotten what was so painstakingly taught in so many

years. That is kali Yuga. Secondly the language used by him in the mails

in the last 3-4 years is definitely not acceptable in any teaching

forum. I think you too have taught in the past and would not accept such

behavior if your students talked in this fashion with you. When people

cannot talk decently, it is best not to talk to them.

> So, lets be clear on one thing. There is no debate. As and when I have

time, I try to show the mess he is making of jyotish. Rest is his karma.

>

> You seem to have your own conclusions about right and wrong already.

You talk of a debate where one person speaks and the other is not to be

seen.

>

> Just getting the facts right

>

>

>

> Best Wishes

> Sanjay Rath

>

>