Guest guest Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 Dear Wendy, (I have changed the subject heading to something more appropriate to the clarification that I am seeking.) jyotish-vidya, "Wendy Vasicek" <wenvas@j...> wrote: > > It's no secret that I believe a good grounding in the basics (an > intimate knowledge of the Grahas/Bhavas) along with Vimsottari dasa > system can reveal the whole karma of this cyclic existence. I don't > have anything against Jaimini (or other) techniques per se, but I do > think people can run into endless contradictions by mixing the > different techniques together. Certainly one can examine both > side-by-side (as a confirmation perhaps), however the danger is that > the focus on the basics, which is pure Parashara, is often > neglected. > Your statement that we should concentrate on the basics is unexceptionable and thanks to that advise of yours, that is precisely what I am trying to do. But when we define basics as 'pure Parashara' system, then I get into difficulties because the contour lines between Parashara and jaimini, as it appears to me now, are not that clear. I am now reading BPHS and I find Rasi aspects discussed in chapter 8 if I remeber right. In fact Rasi aspects are discussed even before Planetary aspects. Still we say Rasi aspects belong to Jaimini and exclude them from the scope of Parashari system. I understand that BPHS subsequently discusses Chara Karakas (both the 7 and 8 Karaka varieties), Arudha Pada, Argala etc which are all excluded from the Parashari system as belonging to Jaimini.It is the logic of this exclusion that I am not able to understand. Is it because that later Parashara commentators like Varahamihira (Brihat Jataka), Kalyan Verma (Saravali), Mantreshwara (PhalaDeepika) excluded them their description of the Parashara system or is there some other basis for their exclusion? I would be grateful for whatever clarification that you may provide on the subject. Regards, Venkat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 Dear Venkat, Literature (jyotish literature in particular) is a guide...we are meant to use our own logic. Spare a moment to think deeply about the differences between the two major systems of prediction... And remember, above all, that much of Jaimini has been included in BPHS. But if you're clear about the difference in techniques i.e; sign aspects/sign based dasas, graha aspects/vimsottari dasa you shouldn't have a problem...what does your common-sense tell you? We need to be aware that the book on our bookshelf called BPHS was not compiled by Parashara himself...to the best of my knowledge (and I'm not an expert on this - nowhere near it) the slokas have been copied from old manuscripts by who knows who and translated into English. Without even any knowledge of the process of this it's obvious that much of Jaimini has been added to Parashara and, quite probably, a lot of Parashara could be missing. But this is pure speculation and not really something I'm qualified to debate. Best Wishes, Mrs. Wendy http://JyotishVidya.com jyotish-vidya - "S. Venkatraman" <svenkat52 <jyotish-vidya> Tuesday, February 15, 2005 4:29 PM Parashara and Jaimini Dear Wendy, (I have changed the subject heading to something more appropriate to the clarification that I am seeking.) jyotish-vidya, "Wendy Vasicek" <wenvas@j...> wrote: > > It's no secret that I believe a good grounding in the basics (an > intimate knowledge of the Grahas/Bhavas) along with Vimsottari dasa > system can reveal the whole karma of this cyclic existence. I don't > have anything against Jaimini (or other) techniques per se, but I do > think people can run into endless contradictions by mixing the > different techniques together. Certainly one can examine both > side-by-side (as a confirmation perhaps), however the danger is that > the focus on the basics, which is pure Parashara, is often > neglected. > Your statement that we should concentrate on the basics is unexceptionable and thanks to that advise of yours, that is precisely what I am trying to do. But when we define basics as 'pure Parashara' system, then I get into difficulties because the contour lines between Parashara and jaimini, as it appears to me now, are not that clear. I am now reading BPHS and I find Rasi aspects discussed in chapter 8 if I remeber right. In fact Rasi aspects are discussed even before Planetary aspects. Still we say Rasi aspects belong to Jaimini and exclude them from the scope of Parashari system. I understand that BPHS subsequently discusses Chara Karakas (both the 7 and 8 Karaka varieties), Arudha Pada, Argala etc which are all excluded from the Parashari system as belonging to Jaimini.It is the logic of this exclusion that I am not able to understand. Is it because that later Parashara commentators like Varahamihira (Brihat Jataka), Kalyan Verma (Saravali), Mantreshwara (PhalaDeepika) excluded them their description of the Parashara system or is there some other basis for their exclusion? I would be grateful for whatever clarification that you may provide on the subject. Regards, Venkat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 Dear Venkat, >>But when we define basics as 'pure Parashara' system, then I get into difficulties because the contour lines between Parashara and jaimini, as it appears to me now, are not that clear.<< I agree I could have phrased that better :-( Best Wishes, Mrs. Wendy http://JyotishVidya.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.