Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Guest guest

condemning the bible of astrology - Mohan Jyotishi

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

You have quite revolutionary outbursts on Parasara and the Vedic astrology. May

be you are correct. But a doubt remains - you are a Jyotishi by name itself and

how can you condemn the bible of Jyotishis Brihat Parasara Hora?

 

What then is your reference for practising astrology? What is the astrology you practice?

 

If Parasara work was not available to someone in 7th century or 8th century can

it be not available to Sitaram Jha at a later time in some other place?

 

 

surya rao

Mohan Jyotishi <jyotishi231 > wrote:

Dear Mr. Karunaakaran Raghavan,"Vedic astrology" is actually a misnomer and a

squarepeg in a round hole!The Vedas do not contain Rashis like Mesha,

Vrishaetc. nor is there any mention of planets like Mangal,Budha, Shani etc.

"Vedanga Jyotisha" is a treatise of thirteenth centuryBCE which gives the

methods of calculating mean tithi,nakshatra, months and Uttarayana etc. Even

thatorignial indigenous work neither refers to Rashis norto planets right from

Budha to Rahu -- both inclusive!In other words, just the mention of Surya and

Chandrais there, which means there was no predictiveastrology even as late as

thirteenth Centruy BCE ---Not to speak of the Vedic period of about 3000 BCE --

in India. Obviusly, to call predictive astrology, andthat also the so called

nirayana predictive astrology.as

"Vedic" or "Vedanga Jyotisha" is a square peg in around hole, much against the

very spriti of the Vedasand the Vedanga Jyotisha!Thus the very first Indian

work of predictiveastrology is Brihat Jatakam by Varahamihira and he

hasmentioned more Greek words like Kullera, Apoklima,Panaphara etc. etc. than

Sanskrit in them. The English translation of "Brihat ParasharaHorashastram"

suppoed to have been written byParashara Rishi also shows its indebtedness to

theGreeks through Varahamihira, since it mentionsSunapha, Anapaha and Durdhura

Yogas etc. etc. ---which could never be of Indian origin, much lessSanskrit

origin. Evidently, Indian astrology isindebted to Greeks more than to any Hindu

scriptures,much less to Parashara Rishi, whatever trumpets we mayblow!"Ravana

Samhita" is a "magnificent" example of suchhocus pocus!As a matter of fact,

predictive astrology is againstthe very

spirit of Hindu scriptures since it is likegoing on a fishing expedition of

peeping into futurethrough astrology. That was actually a full time jobof

Babylon in about 4000 BCE, and just see foryourself the "magnificent" fate of

that country forsuch a "glorious" pastime!I am sure you would not like India

also to have asimilar destiny!It maybe news to you that Sitaram Jha, the

"creator"of "Brihat Parashara Hora Shastram", an Englishtranslation of which is

doing the rounds these days,wanted the readers to follow Surya

Sidhantacalculations/ayanamsha, since that was the AyanamshaMr. Jha had found

giving correct results! Thus youhave three ayanamshas being advocated by

same"Parashara" -- The Mumbai edition followsGrahalaghava Ayanamsha; Sita Ram

Jha follows SuryaSidhanta Ayanamsha whereas the English translatorfollows

Lahiri Ayabnamsha! Ironically,all thejyotishis are finding correct

results from all thethree ayanamshas--nay even editions, though oneedition does

not agree with the other in any way! Andas already seen, the original

Parashara Rishi, in hisoriginal Vishnu Purana, did not even know anythingabout

Ayanamshas since he has made it catagoricallyclear that Vasant Sampat and Mesha

Sankrangti aresynonyms and so ae Utarayana and Makar Sankranti

etc.!Dhanyavad.Mohan Jyotishi> vedic astrology,

KARUNAAKARAM> RAAGHAVAM> <munisevitham> wrote:> > NaNamaste> Thanks for

your mail.My quest is to know :> >If the Sage Veda VyVyass a non bebelieverf>

Astrology,> > that how come Indian Hindu Astrology could become> a> >

VeVedaganga VeVedic Astrology ! ?> While my requests for above clarifications

till> rests> with the list,you have given me an opopportunityo> learn that

the author's name of BHBHPSs> debatable.Since BPBPHServes my purpose,I shelve

the> question of who authored it[bHBHPSfor the time> being.> > ---

MoMohanyJyotishijyjyotishi1> wrote:> > >> > Dear Mr.

KaKarunaakaranaRaghavan> > How on earth did you get the idea that sage>

PrPrashara> believed in astrology!> >> > The Vishnu Purana, the only authentic

work by> > MaMaharshi> PaParasharaoes not refer to any work> on> astrology by>

> sage PaParashara On the other hand, it is full of> > astronomical discussions

about RaRasichakrand the> > seasons but ironically, there is no mention of any>

> so> > called ninirayanaaRashichakramuch less a LaLahirir> >

RaRamanaaRashichakra All that he has done in the> > Vishnu Purana is discussed

thoroughly the> phenomenon> > of seasons and

declared MeMeshaaSankantis the day> of> > Spring Equinox -- mentioning

specifically that> the> > day and night are equal on that date, and so on.> >

What> > is all the more surprising is that in that work> viz.> > ViVishuurana,

also, the nanakshatrahchakratarts> from> > KrKrittikajust like it started in

the Vedas,> instead> > of from the so called AsAshviniivision, as is> >

happening these days!> >> > Similarly, MaMakaraSankrantias been depicted as a>

> synonym of the UtUttarayanathe shortest day of the> > year, dadakshinayanand

KaKarkataSankantire one and> > the> > same thing i.e. the longest day of the

year and> > Autumn> > Equinox (HeHemantaSampatand TuTulaaSankrantiave> been> >

clubbed together making it very clear that there> is> >

no> > other TuTulaaSankrantixcepting the one on which> days> > and nights are

equal!> >> > Regarding BrBrihatrPrasharaora ShShastrasupposed> to> > have been

written by "Sage PrPrashara> BhBhatotpalaf> > Kashmir had said in his

commentary on the> BrBrihat>> JaJatakamn the seventh century AD that he had

heard> > about some PaParashariut it was not available> > anywhere! That is

why S. B. DiDikshitn his> > "BhBharatiya> JyJyotishsays that if it was not>

available in the> > seventh century, how could it be available now> that> > is>

> in the nineteenth century, when he had compiled> that> > book!> >> > The

earliest edition of BrBrihatrPrasharaora> ShShastra> that is avavilalbehese

days with original> Sanskrit> > text is from VeVenkateshwararess,

Bombay, and the> > preface of that books states clearly that it is> (not> > by

MaMaharshiaParasharaut) by some unknown author> > who> > has collected

different pieces of astrological> > knowledge from different places and then

put them> > together under the name of "BrBrihataParasharaora> > ShShastra> >>

> (Much like RaRavanaSamhita> >> > To add insult to injury, that>

"BrBrihataParasharaora> > ShShastrawants us to adopt>

GrGrahalaghavayAyanamsha>> and> > asaseverybodynows, GrGrahaghavaf>

GaGaneshaDaivagyas> > a> > sixteenth century work!> > In other words,

"MaMaharshiaParasharf BrBrihat>> PrPrasharais a "descendant of Ganesha

DaDaivagya> >> > Then there is ananotehraParashariritten by> SiSitaram> JhJha>

and pupulbishedy Master>

KhKhelariaLalnd sons of> > Varanasi with original Sanskrit shshlokasnd Hindi> >

translation. It is entirely different from that> of> > VeVenkateshwarress

edition. However, even> SiSitaram> JhJha> has not said anywhere that that>

work> is by PaParashara> RiRishi> >> > The present English translation

avavilablen the> > market> > is the one of the same work of SiSitaam JhJhand

it> > prefers a LaLahiraRayanamshawhich means> PaParashara> RiRishif that

BrBrihataParasharis a> "descendant---a> > fofollwerf---- LaLahiri> >> > And

that is that!> > DhDhanyavad> > MoMohandyJyotishi>> > --- In

vevedicstrology@yaom,> > KAKARUNAAKARAM> > RARAAGHAVAM> >>

<mumunisevitham...>> wrote:> > >> > >

NaNamaste> > >> > > I was recently viewing the MAMAHAHBHARATpisode 4> > > filmed

by B.R.ChChpra Ravi Chopra( Epic's Hindi> > > version with English caption) ----

in the> > beginning> > > of> > > the 4ththpisode Sage VyVyasays to Mata>

SaSatyavati> > > time flows like a river …… it is better that> man> > > is> >

> unable to read future.What is fate to happen> will> > > happen,some times

ignorance is bliss and some> > times> > > prprenowledge is a cause for

sorrow….fate means> > that> > > only God knows what is in store for an>

individual> > > .."> > >> > > The above purported didialoguef Sage Veda>

VyVyason> > > of> > > Sage PaParasarepicts Him to be a non believer of> > >

Astrology ! Is it tuturehat Sage Veda VyVyasas a> > non> > > bebeliverf

Astrology? While is father Patronized> > > Astrology?> > > If the Sage Veda

VyVyass a non bebeliverf> > Astrology,> > > that how come Indian Hindu

Astrology could> become> > a> > > VeVedaganga VeVedic Astrology ! ?> > >> > > I

request the veteran Astrologers to clarify my> > > doubts.> > >> > > --- Gail

Francisco <gagailfrancisco...> wrote:> > >> > > > Om

nanamohbhagavateavasyudevaya> > >> > > > VyVyasaJSJCircle, California, USA> > >

>> > > > JyJyotishuru's: Freedom Tobias Cole & Lakshmi> > Kary> > > > Address:

652, NoNorvelltreet, El' CeCerritoCA> > > 94530,> > > > USA> > > >

Phone: 510-938-1570> > > > 23 October, Sunday> > > > Time: 11:00 am> > >

>> > > > VyVyasatudy circle in California - San> Francisco> > > Bay> > > >

Area.> > > >> > > > Topic for discussion: BrBrihataParasaraora> > > ShShastra>

> > and PaPanchanga> > > Please bring> a> === message truncated ===

Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice

2005

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Dear Mohan,

It is right that Bhattolpala says that he heard about Parasara

Hora and Parasara Samhita but never seen it. But Bhattolpala had

Parasara Samhita with him! Just because Bhattolpala hadn't seen the

text, should we conclude that Parasara Hora was non-existent at that

time?

 

[1) Statement 1: Bhattolpala (7th century) never saw Parasara Hora.

2) Statement 2: Parasara Hora could be non-existent at that time.

3) Wrong conclusion: Since Bhattolpala hadn't seen Parasara

Hora, 'None' living in the same period heard or seen about the text

and that the text was non-existent at that time.

Your argument rests on a single premise, and then tries to

generalize that "As Bhattolpala hadn't seen Parasara Hora then that

text was non-extistent at that time." It is a logical error!! Please

try to see the fact.]

 

Acharya Balabhadra of 10th Centuary and Kikulangara (The scholar

who wrote Hridyapadha vyakhya of Varahahora. Hridyapadha amply

quotes from Rishi Horas) qotes many slokas from Parasara Hora, and

most of them are available in present day BPH. Can't you see that

this text was available in India even from ancient times?! If you

are not convinced about the existence of manuscript and palm leaf

scripts of BPH in Indian libraries, go to Sarswathi Mahal library of

Tamilnadu, where 2 copies of the palm leaf manuscript is still

available. I can provide you the catalog number all the other

relevant details. It might be possible that there is

many 'prekshiptha slokas' in BPH available to us today, and that the

text is not in its original form. But don't say that BPH was a non-

existent text or that none of the slokas are original. From the

ancient reference (By Balabhadra and Kikulangara) it is pretty clear

that the BPH available today contains most of the slokas qoted by

these uncorrepted scholers.

As far as the question 'Whether nirayana astrology Vedic/Non-

vedic?' please see my previous detailed mail on the subject, which

was written as an answer to Koul.

Love,

Sreenadh

 

vedic astrology, Mohan Jyotishi

<jyotishi231> wrote:

>

>

>

> Dear Mr. Surya Rao,

> If Sita Ram Jha did not say anywhere himself that he

> was translating/compiling the original "Brihat

> Parashara Horashastra" how can we claim it on his

> behalf that he had done so i.e. translated the

> original Parashari, especially when no Parshari ever

> existed!

>

> The comments of English translator of "Parashari" on

> page 11 are more revealing than any other proof! This

> is what he has says:

> "After scrutinizing the four manuscripts, I have for

> reasons of more credibility chosen the Sanskrit

> version rendered by Sitaram Jha"

> This statement of English translator itself is

> self-contradictory since he has not given any proofs

> in support of his arguments as to how it is more

> credible than other editions! Similarly, if the

> English translator had so much of faith in Sitaram Jha

> he should have followed SuryaSidhanta calculatkions,

> since those are the ones followed by Jha, and not that

> of N. C. Lahir! It means that Parshar Rishi was

> waiting for N. C. Lahiri to be born so that the former

> could write his most "mafnificent masterpiece" of

> "Vedic astrology" according to Lahiri Ayanamsha.

> Well, we must have at lest some common sense to sift

> grain from the cdhaff!

>

> Similarly, if there had been any original Parashari,

> there would not have been different versions---none

> agreeing with the other! Besides, different

> Ayanamshas could not have been correct for one and the

> same work, as every "Parshara" advocates a different

> Ayanamsha much to the chagrin of real Parashara who

> has not referred to any ayanamsha ghost even

> inadvertantly in his Vishnu Purana! In other words,

> if, much against all the proofs, there is any real

> Parashari it should have been based on a Sayana

> Rashichakra and not on the so called Surya Sidhanta or

> Lahiri or Ramana or Grihalaghava Rashichakras! That

> is another proof of the ignorance of these

> "Parasharas" of the real works of real Parashara!

>

> Venkateshwar Press, Mumbai, edition/version of "Brihat

> Parashari" is much older than Sita Ram Jha's---by

> about a hundred years and it has been referred to by

> S. B. Dikshit in his "Bhaatiya Jyotish" in 1890 AD.

> He has proved it there with all the logic and

> reasoning that the so called original Parashari was

> not available anywhere since he had not been able to

> find it anywhere in any library or market in spite of

> his best efforts!

>

> Alberuni's India also does not refer to any Parashari

> though that work refers to every prominent work on

> astronomy and astrology like Brihat Jataka, Brihat

> Samhita, Khandkhadyaka etc. etc.

>

> I have also an off line communication from a gentleman

> that none of the libraries in the world contain any

> manuscript of "Briohat Parashara Horashastram". It

> means it is just an imaginary work!

>

> In my self-introduction on this forum, I have made it

> very clear that I am highly confused about "Vedic

> astrology" and I hope that those confusions would be

> removed by "Vedic scholars" on this forum. I am not

> claiming to be a predictive astrologer, though I have

> this "jyotishi" sirname! Why should I change it now

> if "Vedic Jyotishis" call some predictive astrology as

> "Vedic astrology" in spite of the fact that there is

> no astrology in the Vedas, since as clarified already,

> Vedanga Jotisha is not a work of predictive astrology

> as it does not even mention rashis or planets like

> Mangal,Budha etc. etc.

>

> THE MOST CONVINCING ARGUMENT THAT NO PARASHARI WAS

> EVER AVAILABLE IS FROM THE FACT THAT LATE DR. B. V.

> RAMAN HAD NOT REFERRED TO THIS WORK IN ANY OF HIS

> ARTICLES, EDITORIALS OR WROKS --- AND HE WAS A VERY

> PROLIFIC WRITER AND SUPPOSED TO BE THE "GREATEST VEDIC

> ASTROLOGER OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY". HE CERTAINLY

> MUST HAVE HAD HIS REASONS AND THE MAIN ONE WAS THAT HE

> KNEW THAT THE REAL PARASHARA HAD NOT WRITTEN ANY

> PARASHARI!

>

> Besides, if he had at all referred to any such work

> of Parashara, he would have been caught on the wrong

> foot for following a so called nirayana rashichakra,

> and that also with Ramana Ayanamsha, as against the

> Tropical i.e. seasonal, i.e. sayana rashichakra

> followed by the Vishnu Purana of Maharshi parashara!

>

> Thus if we have chosen a "wrong bible" we are

> ourselves to blame, instead of our "stars".

> And that is that!

> Dhanyavad

> Mohan Jyotishi

>

>

> > vedic astrology, Surya Rao

> > <suryarao12> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Mohan Jyotishi,

> >

> > You have quite revolutionary outbursts on Parasara

> > and the Vedic

> > astrology. May be you are correct. But a doubt

> > remains - you are a

> > Jyotishi by name itself and how can you condemn the

> > bible of Jyotishis

> > Brihat Parasara Hora?

> >

> > What then is your reference for practising

> > astrology? What is the

> > astrology you practice?

> >

> > If Parasara work was not available to someone in 7th

> > century or 8th

> > century can it be not available to Sitaram Jha at a

> > later time in some

> > other place?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > surya rao

> >

> >

> > Mohan Jyotishi <jyotishi231> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Mr. Karunaakaran Raghavan,

> > "Vedic astrology" is actually a misnomer and a

> > square

> > peg in a round hole!

> >

> > The Vedas do not contain Rashis like Mesha, Vrisha

> > etc. nor is there any mention of planets like

> > Mangal,

> > Budha, Shani etc.

> >

> > "Vedanga Jyotisha" is a treatise of thirteenth

> > century

> > BCE which gives the methods of calculating mean

> > tithi,

> > nakshatra, months and Uttarayana etc. Even that

> > orignial indigenous work neither refers to Rashis

> > nor

> > to planets right from Budha to Rahu -- both

> > inclusive!

> > In other words, just the mention of Surya and

> > Chandra

> > is there, which means there was no predictive

> > astrology even as late as thirteenth Centruy BCE ---

> > Not to speak of the Vedic period of about 3000 BCE

> > --

> > in India. Obviusly, to call predictive astrology,

> > and

> > that also the so called nirayana predictive

> > astrology.

> > as "Vedic" or "Vedanga Jyotisha" is a square peg in

> > a

> > round hole, much against the very spriti of the

> > Vedas

> > and the Vedanga Jyotisha!

> >

> > Thus the very first Indian work of predictive

> > astrology is Brihat Jatakam by Varahamihira and he

> > has

> > mentioned more Greek words like Kullera, Apoklima,

> > Panaphara etc. etc. than Sanskrit in them.

> >

> > The English translation of "Brihat Parashara

> > Horashastram" suppoed to have been written by

> > Parashara Rishi also shows its indebtedness to the

> > Greeks through Varahamihira, since it mentions

> > Sunapha, Anapaha and Durdhura Yogas etc. etc. ---

> > which could never be of Indian origin, much less

> > Sanskrit origin. Evidently, Indian astrology is

> > indebted to Greeks more than to any Hindu

> > scriptures,

> > much less to Parashara Rishi, whatever trumpets we

> > may

> > blow!

> >

> > "Ravana Samhita" is a "magnificent" example of such

> > hocus pocus!

> >

> > As a matter of fact, predictive astrology is against

> > the very spirit of Hindu scriptures since it is like

> > going on a fishing expedition of peeping into future

> > through astrology. That was actually a full time job

> > of Babylon in about 4000 BCE, and just see for

> > yourself the "magnificent" fate of that country for

> > such a "glorious" pastime!

> >

> > I am sure you would not like India also to have a

> > similar destiny!

> >

> > It maybe news to you that Sitaram Jha, the "creator"

> > of "Brihat Parashara Hora Shastram", an English

> > translation of which is doing the rounds these days,

> > wanted the readers to follow Surya Sidhanta

> > calculations/ayanamsha, since that was the Ayanamsha

> > Mr. Jha had found giving correct results! Thus you

> > have three ayanamshas being advocated by same

> > "Parashara" -- The Mumbai edition follows

> > Grahalaghava Ayanamsha; Sita Ram Jha follows Surya

> > Sidhanta Ayanamsha whereas the English translator

> > follows Lahiri Ayabnamsha! Ironically,all the

> > jyotishis are finding correct results from all the

> > three ayanamshas--nay even editions, though one

> > edition does not agree with the other in any way!

> > And

> > as already seen, the original Parashara Rishi, in

> > his

> > original Vishnu Purana, did not even know anything

> > about Ayanamshas since he has made it catagorically

> > clear that Vasant Sampat and Mesha Sankrangti are

> > synonyms and so ae Utarayana and Makar Sankranti

> > etc.!

> >

> > Dhanyavad.

> > Mohan Jyotishi

> >

> > > vedic astrology,

> > KARUNAAKARAM

> > > RAAGHAVAM

> > > <munisevitham> wrote:

> > >

> > > NaNamaste

> > > Thanks for your mail.My quest is to know :

> > > >If the Sage Veda VyVyass a non bebelieverf

> > > Astrology,

> > > > that how come Indian Hindu Astrology could

> > become

> > > a

> > > > VeVedaganga VeVedic Astrology ! ?

> > > While my requests for above clarifications till

> > > rests

> > > with the list,you have given me an opopportunityo

> > > learn that the author's name of BHBHPSs

> > > debatable.Since BPBPHServes my purpose,I shelve

> > the

> > > question of who authored it[bHBHPSfor the time

> > > being.

> > >

> > > --- MoMohanyJyotishijyjyotishi1> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear Mr. KaKarunaakaranaRaghavan

> > > > How on earth did you get the idea that sage

> > > PrPrashara> believed in astrology!

> > > >

> > > > The Vishnu Purana, the only authentic work by

> > > > MaMaharshi> PaParasharaoes not refer to any work

> > > on

> > > astrology by

> > > > sage PaParashara On the other hand, it is full

> > of

> > > > astronomical discussions about RaRasichakrand

> > the

> > > > seasons but ironically, there is no mention of

> > any

> > > > so

> > > > called ninirayanaaRashichakramuch less a

> > LaLahirir

> > > > RaRamanaaRashichakra All that he has done in the

> > > > Vishnu Purana is discussed thoroughly the

> > > phenomenon

> > > > of seasons and declared MeMeshaaSankantis the

> > day

> > > of

> > > > Spring Equinox -- mentioning specifically that

> > > the

> > > > day and night are equal on that date, and so on.

> > > > What

> > > > is all the more surprising is that in that work

> > > viz.

> > > > ViVishuurana, also, the nanakshatrahchakratarts

> > > from

> > > > KrKrittikajust like it started in the Vedas,

> > > instead

> > > > of from the so called AsAshviniivision, as is

> > > > happening these days!

> > > >

> > > > Similarly, MaMakaraSankrantias been depicted as

> > a

> > > > synonym of the UtUttarayanathe shortest day of

> > the

> > > > year, dadakshinayanand KaKarkataSankantire one

> > and

> > > > the

> > > > same thing i.e. the longest day of the year and

> > > > Autumn

> > > > Equinox (HeHemantaSampatand TuTulaaSankrantiave

> > > been

> > > > clubbed together making it very clear that there

> > > is

> > > > no

> > > > other TuTulaaSankrantixcepting the one on which

> >

> === message truncated ===

 

> Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×