Fw: Various versions of Parasara Hora Shastra

[Guest guest]

To  All,

 

It is noteworthy that ancient and mediaeval Sanskrit scholars did not write any

commentory (bhaashya) on BPHS ; it was because no one dares to explain the full

logic behind Sage Parashara's sayings. Only a Rishi can do so. We can attempt

only partially. Translators were needed only in our age, when Sanskrit went out

of vogue even among a lot of Indian astrologers.

 

Among all editors and translators of BPHS, Pt Tarachandra Shastri (and his son),

Pt Sitaram Jha, Pt Devachandra Jha, Ganeshdatt Pathak and Padmanabha Sharma

were reputed teachers and learned scholars of Sanskrit language. The original

Khemraj edition by Pt Tarachandra Shastri had many loopholes which irritated Pt

Sitaram Jha. When Pt Sitaram Jha found some real or imaginary fault in any

scholar, he could not control his anger and foul language. Even Pt Sudhakar

Dwivedi could not escape Pt Sitaram Jha's ire. In spite of all his erudition, Pt

Sitaram Jha had no respect for other scholars and had a habit of throwing the

baby with bathtub. Such an egotist person cannot edit or translate another's

work properly. The unpardonable crime of Pt Sitaram Jha was that he added a

large number of verses and even chapters into BPHS, which he acknowledges in his

preface, without even mentioning which portions were original and which were

added by him. He said that

(1) he added some parts related to Samhitaa (ie, not a part of Horaa),

(2) he  " corrected " many verses in the manuscript which did not suit his

tastes, and (3) added some unspecified portions from some unspecified sources.

 

This type of behaviour with an ancient text is simply unpardonable and is a sign

of lack of proper education and training in this field. Moreover, it is

dishonesty. Deliberate distortion of an ancient text for any reason is a crime.

Pt Sitaram Jha was a good scholar of Sanskrit, and one of the unspecified

souces of his additions into BPHS  was his own inventiveness. This type of

unruly treatment of ancient Puranas, Mahabharata, etc is well known. Such

pandits did not know that instead of performing Rishi-yajna, they were

destroying the works of Rishis and were incurring sins.

 

Pt Devachandra Jha was better than Pt Sitaram Jha. Pt Devachandra

Jha  " corrected " many verses according to rules of Sanskrit grammar and prosody

which were illegible in the manuscripts. But unlike Pt Sitaram Jha, Pt

Devachandra Jha did not tamper with the original unless the original was

illegible. Moreover, Pt Devachandra Jha travelled a lot to procure a lot of

manuscripts, while Pt Sitaram Jha relied on a single manuscript and did not try

to unearth others. None of the editors of BPHS  made any strenuous effort to

procure as many manuscripts as possible, excepting Pt Devachandra Jha. English

translators had no interest in consulting any manuscript at all.

 

It does not mean Pt Devachandra Jha was above board. He blindly accepted the

additional chapters introduced by Pt Sitaram Jha, because he was under a

pressure to produce 100 chapters through any means. But Pt Devachandra Jha did

not accept Pt Sitaram Jha's  whimsical  " corrections "   or additions in those

chapters which were legible and clear in manuscripts. Pt Ganeshadatt Pathak did

the same. Pt Devachandra Jha and Pt Ganeshadatt Pathak must be thanked for

their efforts. The Khemraj edition cannot be accepted blindly.

 

The only proper method is to prepare a text based on all available original

material, indicating their sources. My guess is that BPHS had nearly 13000 or

more verses originally (11000 in initial 80 chapters, and unspecified number of

verses in remaining 20 chapters), and however hard we try we cannot recover even

half of these original verses, unless some unknown manuscripts are unearthed.

 

In the preface of this forthcoming edition of BPHS, I will  request / warn 

all publishers not to add imaginary verses into BPHS without concrete evidences,

otherwise I will sue them in proper courts of law.

 

-Vinay Jha

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

 

________________________________

Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937

vedic astrology

Cc: sohamsa <sohamsa >

Sat, March 27, 2010 7:04:42 AM

[vedic astrology] Fw: Varios versons of Parasara Hora Shastra

 

 

 

 

Dear Jha ji,

Your effort to bring yet another version of BPHS is commendable.

It is need of the hour.

I may like it to call as Brihat as this will be going to be a very voluminous

edition.

THE POPULAR NORTH- INDIA VERSION OF MAHABHARATA WAS CONTAINING

97,000 VERSES. SOUTH-INDIA VERSION WAS CONTAINING 1, 07. 000 VERSES.

WHEN GITA PRESS MERGED BOTH VERSIONS , COMBINED VERSION WAS NOW CONTAINING

1,13,000 VERSES. THERE WAS NO WAY TO ASCERTAIN THE ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION

OF SAGE VAYASA , THUS THEY PUBLISHED ALL AVAILABLE VERSES.

Parasara mentioned in Vishnu Purana that VEPoint WAS presently in 1st pada of

Kritika.

This means that hora shashtra might have been narrated some where around 2000

BC.

It will be very difficult to ascertain the originality of all verses available

in various versions

AT THIS LATTER STAGE.

 

Sita Ram Jha had given some order to verses , that made his version more easy to

understand.

He had made some positive contributions through his translation and that should

be appreciated.

This is the one reason that other later authorities followed his order.You

should bring out

his posotive contribution rather than putting him in negative light (I purchesed

Khemraj

version in 1989 at Rs. 100 but I could draw benefit only after study of Jha's

version purchased in

1996)

I do not think Laghu and Madya Parasari were ever the parts of original Hora

shastra.Laghu

Parasari teaches us the impact of planets on account of their lordship of houses

and Madhya

Parasari deals the impact on dasa result on account of Vargas and mutual

placement of planets

( on account of Sthithi pf planets) , because Hora shastra says that the results

of planets

should be ascertained after knowing Swabhava and placement of planets. These are

two Karikas of Hora shastra , the time and name of author is not known.

 

Santham was in bad financial state and he was also not having any team of

competent

astrologers to support him . He had given his reasons honestly for choosing a

version.

He could do the translation of only first part on account of financial dispute

with publishes.

 

G.C.Sharma woks in Govt. department.In spare time he does give astrological

consultations.

HE is not an scholar of astrology or Sanskrit or ENGLISH,his WORK IS ONLY A

COMPILATION.

HE STANDS NO COMPERISION WITH SITARAM JHA.

 

I SUGGEST YOU PUBLISH ONLY TWO EDITIONS , SANSKRIT VERSES WITH HINDI TRANSLATION

AND WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

Translation OF VERSES AND PUTTING THEN IN SOME ORDER WILL BE A BIGGER CHALLENGE.

LET GOD GIVE YOU WISDOM , STRENGTH AND RESOURCES TO COMPLETE THIS HERCULEAN

TASk.

With best regards,

 

G.K.GOEL

Ph: 09350311433

Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR

NEW DELHI-110 076

INDIA

 

____________ _________ _________ __

The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Homepage.

 

The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Homepage.

http://in.. com/