Guest guest Posted May 6, 2001 Report Share Posted May 6, 2001 Namaste, "there inclusion in BPHS does not qualify them to become Parashari astrology" What does then? Parsara wrote BPHS, so how can a part of this not be Parasari? Just because Jaimini went into a little more depth about certain aspects of the system, does not mean that he created it. Likewise there are numerous other texts such as Saravali or Brihat Jataka that deal with certain aspects of BPHS in more depth. But does that mean that those sections of BPHS is based on them? The rules given by Parasara regarding the so-called "Jaimini" sections also slightly vary from what is found in Jaimini. There are also numerous yogas mentioned in various parts of the text that require Rasi dristi. It is not as if there is one or two chapters inserted into the text, there are slokas found in many places that use rasi dristi, etc. regards, Alex J gjlist, "Manoj Pathak" <manojpathak@h...> wrote: > Hello > > Yes, some parts of Jaimini astrology are there in BPHS and the translators > have not only included them but have commented on them too. But there > inclusion in BPHS does not qualify them to become Parashari astrology. Keep > the two different, is how I cart my wheel forward. > > Manoj > ____________________ ___ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. 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.