Guest guest Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 Dear Sreenadh, About the BPHS and Jaimini concept of ARGALA, are there different interpretation of this? What is the main point of this concept? To decide about the fructification of a promise(house or planet)? I have seen the following : Benefics in 2,4 and 11 will support the promise and malefics will obstruct. Planets in 12,10,3 respectivelly will obstruct the argala of 2,4,11, sound for me a incomplete theory, why? If natural benefic will give support and natural malefics will obstruct an argala, there is no need to compare with corresponding conter-argala of 12,10 and 3, Lets see one example. Argalas of house 2 ( incomings) Argalas in houses 3,5 and12 conter-argalas 1,11 and 4 ----------- benefics in house 3 will give habilite to negociate, discuss, speech, malefics will give habilite to fight against adversary also helping acquisition of money, why planets in its corresponding conter-argala house 1 would debilitate acquisition of money? yes malefic would prejudice health, but nothing related to acquisition of money but in general. What makes argala concept unique and useful? I appreciate any comment and clarification Thanks Evencio On 7/8/07, Sreenadh <sreesog wrote: Dear All,Below given is some of my thoughts about BPHS and Jaimini Sutra======================================================BPHS and Jaimini Sutra-----------------------The currently available BPHS is a text that deviates a lot from the Ancient Indian System of Astrology as depicted in slokas availablefrom well known Rishi horas like – Skanda hora, Brihat PrajaptyaVasishta Hora, Kausika Hora, Garga Hora, Saunaka Hora etc and themedieval texts like Brihajjatataka, Sarvali etc. It is not even in tune with the Yavana stream of astrology (a deviation of AncientIndian stream) as depicted in Yavana Jataka, Spujidhwaja Hora,Meenaraja Hora etc and the medieval texts on the same stream likeManasagari etc. The concepts such as Argala, Pada (Arudha pada, Bhava pada, Upapada etc), Karakamsa (Atma karaka, Amatya karaka etc), Rasidrishti are unique to BPHS, and Jaimini Sutra. The first impression ofanyone who reads BPHS and Jaimini sutra would be that –• Both of them are incomplete texts • Either Jaimini adopted Parasara system or Parasara adopted Jaiminisystem. Parasara is mentioned among the 18 Acharyas of astrology, but we can'tJaimini anywhere in the many lists available! Even though many (above mentioned) ancient and mediaeval texts mention Parasara, they not evenindicate or refer to the above unique concepts discussed in BPHS, asif it was not there at all in the then available BPHS! The naturalquestion arises in our mind are – • What is the period of Parasara and Jaimini? (When BPHS and Jaiminisutra originated?)• Where in India this system of prediction was practiced from theancient past?• If these texts got modified when and where? Available well written texts such as Bhattolpala vyakhya of BrihatSamhita, and Adbhuta sagaraH of Vallalasena (A king of 12th centuryAD) refers Parasara and both of them quotes extensively from ParasaraSamhita. Bhattolpala says, " It is said that Parasara has written texts for all the 3 branches of astrology (such s Parasara Sidhanta,Parasara Samhita and Parasara Hora). But I have seen only ParasaraSamhita and not Parasara Hora " . It is possible that even though BPHSwas not available to Bhattolpala the same existed at the other parts of the country as evident from the many available rudimentarymanuscripts of the same in various manuscript libraries such asSaraswati Mahal, Tanjavoor.As per a sloka of Parasara Samhita quoted by both Bhattolpala and Vallalasena about seasons and Ayana, in the period of ParasaraUttarayana started from the beginning of Sravishta and Dakshinayanastarted at the middle of Aslesha. This is possible only around theperiod of BC 1400. Thus it is evident that BPHS originated around this period. Thus it becomes clear that the Parasara who wrote ParasaraSidhanta, Samhita and Hora is one different from the father of Vyasa(the author of Mahabharata epic). Was it an original reference byParasara himself as per the observations he made or was he quoting from somewhere? We don't know. If the currently available BPHS is asold as BC 1400, how can we justify the absence of reference toconcepts that are unique to Parasara such as Argala, Rasi drishti,Pada, Karakamsa etc in texts written up to the 6th century AD?! We can't! This points to the fact that this age old text BPHS originatedaround BC 1400 got corrupted due to the interpolations done possiblymany times between 1st to 10th century AD. How can we say so? What is our evidence? Yes, we have some literary evidence for the same.BPHS (ch 41 sloka 32 – santhanam edition) refers to " salivahana " , aking who lived in the 1st century AD. (The salivahana became the king and an era based on the start date of his rulership is still in use,which starts from AD 72). If it was a prediction given by sageParasara who can visualize past-present-future; the reference wouldhave been to better known kings such as Chandra Gupta Mourya, Asoka, or even to the British rule of India. But as we could easily guess,this is not a prediction by sage Parasara, but the result of someinterpolation effort by some corrupted mind who lived in the period ofSalivahana or after that! Thus it is evident that corrupting the original BPHS started possibly in 1st century AD itself. Even medieval texts like " Sambhu Hora Prakash " refers to Parasara as amodern author! Punja Rajacharya who was an astrologer lived in theperiod of Sambhu raja dates Parasara Sidhanta as a text AFTER the period of Soma Sidhanta, Brahma Sidhata, Surya sidhanta, VasishtaSidhata, Paulisa sidhanta and Lomasa sidhanta in order! Essentially itindicates that Parasara Sidhanta originated possibly somewhere around1st century AD, and the mention of Salivahana of 1st century AD could be supportive to the same! But still giving preference to earlierreference of seasons let us assume that it was just and interpolationeffort that happened at that time, even though we feel totallydoubtful about this text. The period of Parasara sidhanta is the period of Parasara itself. If the Parasara who wrote Parasaraskandhtraya (Parasara sidhanta, Parasara Samhita and Parasara Hora) isthis modern, he is not at all the puranic fame Parasara but a modernastrologer born in the But till 5th or 6th century AD, BPHS must have maintained uncorruptedcredibility to an extend, as is evident from the fact that no textstill that period refers to those unique concepts (such as Argala) mentioned in BPHS anywhere. Thus it is clear that at least till 6thcentury AD these concepts were not part of BPHS. It seems that it isthe origin of Jaimini sutra and the related prediction system thatstarted the full swing interpolation of BPHS. But what is the period of Jaimini sutra, a text attributed to Sage Jaimini who finds nomention in the Acharya list of Astrology? Is it an ancient text or amedieval creation? It is cute to note that Jaimini sutra extensivelyuses the KTPY number notation system originated around 4th century AD! Vararuchi of 4th century is thought to be the originator of KTPYnumber notation system. We find the same extensively used in JaiminiSutra! There is not even a single evidence for the use of KTPYnotation in any datable texts prior to 4th century AD. This clearly shows that the text Jaimini Sutra is a text originated after 4thcentury for sure, and possibly after 6th century AD (the period ofVaraha Mihira). No wonder this modern sage Jaimini to whom Jaiminisutra is ascribed to finds no mention in the age old acharyas list of astrology quoted by many including Panini and Mihira (No not even byParasara of BPHS himself).If these new systems mentioned in BPHS and Jaimini sutra was availableon those days Mihira, Bhattolapa of 10th century must have mentioned the same, or at least indicated the same somewhere. We fail to find areference of these systems even in Adbhuta SagaraH (16th century) andHora Sara of Balbhadra (17th century). Jaimini sutra must have been a text that originated possibly somewhere between 6th and 15th centuryAD, and when the same became popular, the people who followed the samemust have interpolated the Vridha karika slokas that refer to the samein BPHS as well. But for sure we can confidently state that till 4th century AD (the period at which KTPY notation system originated) noJaimini sutra was there, and BPHS was in its original state with outany reference to methods such as Argala, Pada, Karakamsa etc. Now themajor question is – • If this much interpolated how can we trust this text?We should also not that even the astrologers who emphasis that theyfollow BPHS, resort to the use of ancient system of indian astrology,keeping aside all these Argala, Pada, Karakamsa etc when it comes to actual prediction and result derivation! A thousand dasas and takingany sign as Lagna (Arudha Lagna, Varnada Lagna, Prana Pada, HoraLagna, Ghati Lagna and what not!) become useless and they resort toVimsottari dasa and Natal Lagna for result derivation! Yes, Vimsottari dasa system is a valuable contribution of sage Parasara, and the sameis true for the results predicted for the placement of house lords invarious houses. Note that these things are in tune with the ancient indian astrological system, and possibly they must have been part ofthe original BPHS itself, originated around BC 1400. The blame goesnot to sage Parasara but the culprits who corrupted this text withtheir made up slokas in later years. Further scrutiny and study of these texts may reveal better clarifyinginformation regarding the location of origin of Jaimini sutra and theinterpolated version of BPHS. Note: The same is the story of sage Kaasyapa (the person born in Kasyapa gotra ), who finds no mention among the 18 acharyas ofastrology. In an available quote from Kaasyapa samhita (quoted inAdbhuta sagara), Kaasyapa says that " In the PAST the Uttarayanastarted from Sravishta and Dakshinayana from the Middle of Aslesha. But now it is not so " . This clearly indicates that he lived AFTER theperiod when Uttarayana started at Sravishta, i.e., AFTER BC 1400, andpossibly many years later! These two sages seem to be of AD origin than BC. ====================================================Love,Sreenadh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2007 Report Share Posted July 9, 2007 Dear Evencio ji, I am totally new to BPHS and Jaimini systems. But still I think this could help- ============================================= All the results indicated by houses in Adirisyardha (Non-visible half) houses such as 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 will be reflected and made visible by the Drisyardha (Visible half) houses such as 7-8-9-10-11-12-1. Any obstruction caused by planets in Visible half houses can hide the results indicated by non-visible houses, and vise-versa. This is a logical argument, and the fundamental concept behind Argala. ANY planet in ANY Adirshyardha house can cause Argala ( in which case the result indicated by that planet-house combination is fixed, i.e. will occur for sure) and the planets in corresponding planet in Adirshyardha can cause Virodhargala (opposition, i.e. not allowing the results to get locked or fixed) to the same. The same is true for ANY planet in Drishyardha. The opposite of the word 'Argala' is `Anargala' is more popular in literature. `Anargala' means continuous, i.e. without obstruction, and is a word in frequent use not only in Sanskrit but also in many other Indian languages. Thus `Argala' means obstruction or bondage. It could also mean Chain or lock, in essence obstruction itself. Thus it is clear that `Argala' whether caused by benefices or malefics cause some kind of obstruction. The results that should be attributed to Argala yoga is `good'. A correct derivation would be that if unobstructed Argala yoga is present for any house, the result indicated by that Sign-House-Planet combination would actualize for sure. In such case irrespective of whether the Argala is caused by malefics or benefics - the result will be positive for the native for worldly success. That is why the Argala yoga is `good'. for worldly success. That is why the Argala yoga is `good'.(The word Argala also has the meaning door bolt, which too indicate that if this yoga is present the results indicated by that Sign-House-Planet combination will actualize for sure). P.S.: You may refer to the following file for more details. URL:Sreen adh/Jaimini Sutra - Beginning.pdf Please note that this file is prepared when I recently started looking into the Jaimini Sutra text. I was unaware of the KTPY notation used in Jaimini sutra at that time. Therefore go through it with a pinch of salt . I will prepare a better, detailed, and complete commentary - or criticism - of Jaimni Sutra as the time permits; and as my understanding of this system matures. ============================================= Love, Sreenadh , " Evencio Mendes " <evenciomendes wrote: > > Dear Sreenadh, > About the BPHS and Jaimini concept of ARGALA, are there different > interpretation of this? > What is the main point of this concept? To decide about the fructification > of a promise(house or planet)? > I have seen the following : > Benefics in 2,4 and 11 will support the promise and malefics will obstruct. > Planets in 12,10,3 respectivelly will obstruct the argala of 2,4,11, sound > for me a incomplete theory, why? > If natural benefic will give support and natural malefics will obstruct an > argala, there is no need to compare with corresponding conter- argala of > 12,10 and 3, > Lets see one example. > Argalas of house 2 ( incomings) > Argalas in houses 3,5 and12 > conter-argalas 1,11 and 4 > ----------- > benefics in house 3 will give habilite to negociate, discuss, speech, > malefics will give habilite to fight against adversary also helping > acquisition of money, why planets in its corresponding conter- argala house 1 > would debilitate acquisition of money? yes malefic would prejudice health, > but nothing related to acquisition of money but in general. > > What makes argala concept unique and useful? > I appreciate any comment and clarification > > Thanks > Evencio On 7/8/07, Sreenadh <sreesog wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > Below given is some of my thoughts about BPHS and Jaimini Sutra > > ====================================================== > > BPHS and Jaimini Sutra > > ----------------------- > > The currently available BPHS is a text that deviates a lot from the > > Ancient Indian System of Astrology as depicted in slokas available > > from well known Rishi horas like – Skanda hora, Brihat Prajaptya > > Vasishta Hora, Kausika Hora, Garga Hora, Saunaka Hora etc and the > > medieval texts like Brihajjatataka, Sarvali etc. It is not even in > > tune with the Yavana stream of astrology (a deviation of Ancient > > Indian stream) as depicted in Yavana Jataka, Spujidhwaja Hora, > > Meenaraja Hora etc and the medieval texts on the same stream like > > Manasagari etc. The concepts such as Argala, Pada (Arudha pada, Bhava > > pada, Upapada etc), Karakamsa (Atma karaka, Amatya karaka etc), Rasi > > drishti are unique to BPHS, and Jaimini Sutra. The first impression of > > anyone who reads BPHS and Jaimini sutra would be that – > > • Both of them are incomplete texts > > • Either Jaimini adopted Parasara system or Parasara adopted Jaimini > > system. > > Parasara is mentioned among the 18 Acharyas of astrology, but we can't > > Jaimini anywhere in the many lists available! Even though many (above > > mentioned) ancient and mediaeval texts mention Parasara, they not even > > indicate or refer to the above unique concepts discussed in BPHS, as > > if it was not there at all in the then available BPHS! The natural > > question arises in our mind are – > > • What is the period of Parasara and Jaimini? (When BPHS and Jaimini > > sutra originated?) > > • Where in India this system of prediction was practiced from the > > ancient past? > > • If these texts got modified when and where? > > Available well written texts such as Bhattolpala vyakhya of Brihat > > Samhita, and Adbhuta sagaraH of Vallalasena (A king of 12th century > > AD) refers Parasara and both of them quotes extensively from Parasara > > Samhita. Bhattolpala says, " It is said that Parasara has written texts > > for all the 3 branches of astrology (such s Parasara Sidhanta, > > Parasara Samhita and Parasara Hora). But I have seen only Parasara > > Samhita and not Parasara Hora " . It is possible that even though BPHS > > was not available to Bhattolpala the same existed at the other parts > > of the country as evident from the many available rudimentary > > manuscripts of the same in various manuscript libraries such as > > Saraswati Mahal, Tanjavoor. > > As per a sloka of Parasara Samhita quoted by both Bhattolpala and > > Vallalasena about seasons and Ayana, in the period of Parasara > > Uttarayana started from the beginning of Sravishta and Dakshinayana > > started at the middle of Aslesha. This is possible only around the > > period of BC 1400. Thus it is evident that BPHS originated around this > > period. Thus it becomes clear that the Parasara who wrote Parasara > > Sidhanta, Samhita and Hora is one different from the father of Vyasa > > (the author of Mahabharata epic). Was it an original reference by > > Parasara himself as per the observations he made or was he quoting > > from somewhere? We don't know. If the currently available BPHS is as > > old as BC 1400, how can we justify the absence of reference to > > concepts that are unique to Parasara such as Argala, Rasi drishti, > > Pada, Karakamsa etc in texts written up to the 6th century AD?! We > > can't! This points to the fact that this age old text BPHS originated > > around BC 1400 got corrupted due to the interpolations done possibly > > many times between 1st to 10th century AD. How can we say so? What is > > our evidence? Yes, we have some literary evidence for the same. > > BPHS (ch 41 sloka 32 – santhanam edition) refers to " salivahana " , a > > king who lived in the 1st century AD. (The salivahana became the king > > and an era based on the start date of his rulership is still in use, > > which starts from AD 72). If it was a prediction given by sage > > Parasara who can visualize past-present-future; the reference would > > have been to better known kings such as Chandra Gupta Mourya, Asoka, > > or even to the British rule of India. But as we could easily guess, > > this is not a prediction by sage Parasara, but the result of some > > interpolation effort by some corrupted mind who lived in the period of > > Salivahana or after that! Thus it is evident that corrupting the > > original BPHS started possibly in 1st century AD itself. > > Even medieval texts like " Sambhu Hora Prakash " refers to Parasara as a > > modern author! Punja Rajacharya who was an astrologer lived in the > > period of Sambhu raja dates Parasara Sidhanta as a text AFTER the > > period of Soma Sidhanta, Brahma Sidhata, Surya sidhanta, Vasishta > > Sidhata, Paulisa sidhanta and Lomasa sidhanta in order! Essentially it > > indicates that Parasara Sidhanta originated possibly somewhere around > > 1st century AD, and the mention of Salivahana of 1st century AD could > > be supportive to the same! But still giving preference to earlier > > reference of seasons let us assume that it was just and interpolation > > effort that happened at that time, even though we feel totally > > doubtful about this text. The period of Parasara sidhanta is the > > period of Parasara itself. If the Parasara who wrote Parasara > > skandhtraya (Parasara sidhanta, Parasara Samhita and Parasara Hora) is > > this modern, he is not at all the puranic fame Parasara but a modern > > astrologer born in the > > > > But till 5th or 6th century AD, BPHS must have maintained uncorrupted > > credibility to an extend, as is evident from the fact that no texts > > till that period refers to those unique concepts (such as Argala) > > mentioned in BPHS anywhere. Thus it is clear that at least till 6th > > century AD these concepts were not part of BPHS. It seems that it is > > the origin of Jaimini sutra and the related prediction system that > > started the full swing interpolation of BPHS. But what is the period > > of Jaimini sutra, a text attributed to Sage Jaimini who finds no > > mention in the Acharya list of Astrology? Is it an ancient text or a > > medieval creation? It is cute to note that Jaimini sutra extensively > > uses the KTPY number notation system originated around 4th century AD! > > Vararuchi of 4th century is thought to be the originator of KTPY > > number notation system. We find the same extensively used in Jaimini > > Sutra! There is not even a single evidence for the use of KTPY > > notation in any datable texts prior to 4th century AD. This clearly > > shows that the text Jaimini Sutra is a text originated after 4th > > century for sure, and possibly after 6th century AD (the period of > > Varaha Mihira). No wonder this modern sage Jaimini to whom Jaimini > > sutra is ascribed to finds no mention in the age old acharyas list of > > astrology quoted by many including Panini and Mihira (No not even by > > Parasara of BPHS himself). > > If these new systems mentioned in BPHS and Jaimini sutra was available > > on those days Mihira, Bhattolapa of 10th century must have mentioned > > the same, or at least indicated the same somewhere. We fail to find a > > reference of these systems even in Adbhuta SagaraH (16th century) and > > Hora Sara of Balbhadra (17th century). Jaimini sutra must have been a > > text that originated possibly somewhere between 6th and 15th century > > AD, and when the same became popular, the people who followed the same > > must have interpolated the Vridha karika slokas that refer to the same > > in BPHS as well. But for sure we can confidently state that till 4th > > century AD (the period at which KTPY notation system originated) no > > Jaimini sutra was there, and BPHS was in its original state with out > > any reference to methods such as Argala, Pada, Karakamsa etc. Now the > > major question is – > > • If this much interpolated how can we trust this text? > > We should also not that even the astrologers who emphasis that they > > follow BPHS, resort to the use of ancient system of indian astrology, > > keeping aside all these Argala, Pada, Karakamsa etc when it comes to > > actual prediction and result derivation! A thousand dasas and taking > > any sign as Lagna (Arudha Lagna, Varnada Lagna, Prana Pada, Hora > > Lagna, Ghati Lagna and what not!) become useless and they resort to > > Vimsottari dasa and Natal Lagna for result derivation! Yes, Vimsottari > > dasa system is a valuable contribution of sage Parasara, and the same > > is true for the results predicted for the placement of house lords in > > various houses. Note that these things are in tune with the ancient > > indian astrological system, and possibly they must have been part of > > the original BPHS itself, originated around BC 1400. The blame goes > > not to sage Parasara but the culprits who corrupted this text with > > their made up slokas in later years. > > Further scrutiny and study of these texts may reveal better clarifying > > information regarding the location of origin of Jaimini sutra and the > > interpolated version of BPHS. > > Note: The same is the story of sage Kaasyapa (the person born in > > Kasyapa gotra ), who finds no mention among the 18 acharyas of > > astrology. In an available quote from Kaasyapa samhita (quoted in > > Adbhuta sagara), Kaasyapa says that " In the PAST the Uttarayana > > started from Sravishta and Dakshinayana from the Middle of Aslesha. > > But now it is not so " . This clearly indicates that he lived AFTER the > > period when Uttarayana started at Sravishta, i.e., AFTER BC 1400, and > > possibly many years later! These two sages seem to be of AD origin > > than BC. > > ==================================================== > > Love, > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2007 Report Share Posted July 9, 2007 Dear Sreenadh, Thank you for your response, sounds good and I will read your translation of jaimini. Only for your info and if you want to discuss further, I will put a view of the author of 'VEDIC ASTROLOGY AN INTEGRATED APPROACH' PVR Narasimha Rao about Argala: 'The 4th house stands for education. The 2nd,4th and 11th from 4th house are 5th,7th and 2nd houses respectivelly. One's intelligenc(5th),interation with others(7th) and overall character ans samskara(2nd) make or break one's education. If Jupiter is in 5th, he will give intelligence and his subhargala(benefic intervention) on 4th will help one's education. If Rahu is in 5th, his paapaargala(malefic intervention) on 4th cause obstacles in one's education by way of poor intelligence. Interaction(7th) and samskara are things that decide one's education.They have a decisive role.'I dont aggree with the author about poor inteligence to Rahu and wonder if argala may be applyed more efficiently. The author uses natural malefics as papaargala allways and natural benefics as subhargala also, maybe he was simplifying for didatic reasons. Any comments are wellcome Regards Evencio On 7/9/07, Sreenadh <sreesog wrote: Dear Evencio ji,I am totally new to BPHS and Jaimini systems. But still I think this could help-=============================================All the results indicated by houses in Adirisyardha (Non-visible half) houses such as 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 will be reflected and made visible by the Drisyardha (Visible half) houses such as 7-8-9-10-11-12-1. Any obstruction caused by planets in Visible half houses can hide the results indicated by non-visible houses, and vise-versa. This is a logical argument, and the fundamental concept behind Argala.ANY planet in ANY Adirshyardha house can cause Argala ( inwhich case the result indicated by that planet-house combination is fixed, i.e. will occur for sure) and the planets in corresponding planet in Adirshyardha can cause Virodhargala (opposition, i.e. not allowing the results to get locked or fixed) to the same. The same is true for ANY planet in Drishyardha. The opposite of the word 'Argala' is `Anargala' is more popular in literature. `Anargala' means continuous, i.e. without obstruction, and is a word in frequent use not only in Sanskrit but also in many other Indian languages. Thus `Argala' means obstruction or bondage. It could also mean Chain or lock, in essence obstruction itself. Thus it is clear that `Argala' whether caused by benefices or malefics cause some kind of obstruction.The results that should be attributed to Argala yoga is `good'. A correct derivation would be that if unobstructed Argala yoga is present for any house, the result indicated by that Sign-House-Planet combination would actualize for sure. In such case irrespective of whether the Argala is caused by malefics or benefics - the result will be positive for the native for worldly success. That is why the Argala yoga is `good'. for worldly success. That is why the Argala yoga is `good'.(The word Argala also has the meaning door bolt, which too indicate that if this yoga is present the results indicated by that Sign-House-Planet combination will actualize for sure). P.S.: You may refer to the following file for more details. URL:Sreen adh/Jaimini Sutra - Beginning.pdf Please note that this file is prepared when I recently started looking into the Jaimini Sutra text. I was unaware of the KTPY notation used in Jaimini sutra at that time. Therefore go through it with a pinch of salt . I will prepare a better, detailed, and complete commentary - or criticism - of Jaimni Sutra as the time permits; and as my understanding of this system matures.============================================= Love,Sreenadh , " Evencio Mendes " <evenciomendes wrote:>> Dear Sreenadh,> About the BPHS and Jaimini concept of ARGALA, are there different> interpretation of this? > What is the main point of this concept? To decide about the fructification> of a promise(house or planet)?> I have seen the following :> Benefics in 2,4 and 11 will support the promise and malefics will obstruct.> Planets in 12,10,3 respectivelly will obstruct the argala of 2,4,11, sound> for me a incomplete theory, why?> If natural benefic will give support and natural malefics will obstruct an > argala, there is no need to compare with corresponding conter-argala of> 12,10 and 3,> Lets see one example.> Argalas of house 2 ( incomings)> Argalas in houses 3,5 and12> conter-argalas 1,11 and 4 > -----------> benefics in house 3 will give habilite to negociate, discuss, speech,> malefics will give habilite to fight against adversary also helping> acquisition of money, why planets in its corresponding conter- argala house 1> would debilitate acquisition of money? yes malefic would prejudice health,> but nothing related to acquisition of money but in general.> > What makes argala concept unique and useful? > I appreciate any comment and clarification> > Thanks> Evencio> > > > > > > On 7/8/07, Sreenadh <sreesog wrote:> >> > Dear All,> > Below given is some of my thoughts about BPHS and Jaimini Sutra> > ====================================================== > > BPHS and Jaimini Sutra> > -----------------------> > The currently available BPHS is a text that deviates a lot from the> > Ancient Indian System of Astrology as depicted in slokas available > > from well known Rishi horas like – Skanda hora, Brihat Prajaptya> > Vasishta Hora, Kausika Hora, Garga Hora, Saunaka Hora etc and the> > medieval texts like Brihajjatataka, Sarvali etc. It is not even in > > tune with the Yavana stream of astrology (a deviation of Ancient> > Indian stream) as depicted in Yavana Jataka, Spujidhwaja Hora,> > Meenaraja Hora etc and the medieval texts on the same stream like > > Manasagari etc. The concepts such as Argala, Pada (Arudha pada, Bhava> > pada, Upapada etc), Karakamsa (Atma karaka, Amatya karaka etc), Rasi> > drishti are unique to BPHS, and Jaimini Sutra. The first impression of> > anyone who reads BPHS and Jaimini sutra would be that –> > • Both of them are incomplete texts> > • Either Jaimini adopted Parasara system or Parasara adopted Jaimini > > system.> > Parasara is mentioned among the 18 Acharyas of astrology, but we can't> > Jaimini anywhere in the many lists available! Even though many (above> > mentioned) ancient and mediaeval texts mention Parasara, they not even> > indicate or refer to the above unique concepts discussed in BPHS, as> > if it was not there at all in the then available BPHS! The natural> > question arises in our mind are – > > • What is the period of Parasara and Jaimini? (When BPHS and Jaimini> > sutra originated?)> > • Where in India this system of prediction was practiced from the> > ancient past? > > • If these texts got modified when and where?> > Available well written texts such as Bhattolpala vyakhya of Brihat> > Samhita, and Adbhuta sagaraH of Vallalasena (A king of 12th century > > AD) refers Parasara and both of them quotes extensively from Parasara> > Samhita. Bhattolpala says, " It is said that Parasara has written texts> > for all the 3 branches of astrology (such s Parasara Sidhanta, > > Parasara Samhita and Parasara Hora). But I have seen only Parasara> > Samhita and not Parasara Hora " . It is possible that even though BPHS> > was not available to Bhattolpala the same existed at the other parts> > of the country as evident from the many available rudimentary> > manuscripts of the same in various manuscript libraries such as> > Saraswati Mahal, Tanjavoor.> > As per a sloka of Parasara Samhita quoted by both Bhattolpala and > > Vallalasena about seasons and Ayana, in the period of Parasara> > Uttarayana started from the beginning of Sravishta and Dakshinayana> > started at the middle of Aslesha. This is possible only around the > > period of BC 1400. Thus it is evident that BPHS originated around this> > period. Thus it becomes clear that the Parasara who wrote Parasara> > Sidhanta, Samhita and Hora is one different from the father of Vyasa> > (the author of Mahabharata epic). Was it an original reference by> > Parasara himself as per the observations he made or was he quoting> > from somewhere? We don't know. If the currently available BPHS is as> > old as BC 1400, how can we justify the absence of reference to> > concepts that are unique to Parasara such as Argala, Rasi drishti,> > Pada, Karakamsa etc in texts written up to the 6th century AD?! We > > can't! This points to the fact that this age old text BPHS originated> > around BC 1400 got corrupted due to the interpolations done possibly> > many times between 1st to 10th century AD. How can we say so? What is> > our evidence? Yes, we have some literary evidence for the same.> > BPHS (ch 41 sloka 32 – santhanam edition) refers to " salivahana " , a> > king who lived in the 1st century AD. (The salivahana became the king> > and an era based on the start date of his rulership is still in use,> > which starts from AD 72). If it was a prediction given by sage> > Parasara who can visualize past-present-future; the reference would> > have been to better known kings such as Chandra Gupta Mourya, Asoka,> > or even to the British rule of India. But as we could easily guess,> > this is not a prediction by sage Parasara, but the result of some > > interpolation effort by some corrupted mind who lived in the period of> > Salivahana or after that! Thus it is evident that corrupting the> > original BPHS started possibly in 1st century AD itself. > > Even medieval texts like " Sambhu Hora Prakash " refers to Parasara as a> > modern author! Punja Rajacharya who was an astrologer lived in the> > period of Sambhu raja dates Parasara Sidhanta as a text AFTER the > > period of Soma Sidhanta, Brahma Sidhata, Surya sidhanta, Vasishta> > Sidhata, Paulisa sidhanta and Lomasa sidhanta in order! Essentially it> > indicates that Parasara Sidhanta originated possibly somewhere around> > 1st century AD, and the mention of Salivahana of 1st century AD could> > be supportive to the same! But still giving preference to earlier> > reference of seasons let us assume that it was just and interpolation> > effort that happened at that time, even though we feel totally> > doubtful about this text. The period of Parasara sidhanta is the> > period of Parasara itself. If the Parasara who wrote Parasara > > skandhtraya (Parasara sidhanta, Parasara Samhita and Parasara Hora) is> > this modern, he is not at all the puranic fame Parasara but a modern> > astrologer born in the> > > > But till 5th or 6th century AD, BPHS must have maintained uncorrupted> > credibility to an extend, as is evident from the fact that no texts> > till that period refers to those unique concepts (such as Argala) > > mentioned in BPHS anywhere. Thus it is clear that at least till 6th> > century AD these concepts were not part of BPHS. It seems that it is> > the origin of Jaimini sutra and the related prediction system that > > started the full swing interpolation of BPHS. But what is the period> > of Jaimini sutra, a text attributed to Sage Jaimini who finds no> > mention in the Acharya list of Astrology? Is it an ancient text or a> > medieval creation? It is cute to note that Jaimini sutra extensively> > uses the KTPY number notation system originated around 4th century AD!> > Vararuchi of 4th century is thought to be the originator of KTPY > > number notation system. We find the same extensively used in Jaimini> > Sutra! There is not even a single evidence for the use of KTPY> > notation in any datable texts prior to 4th century AD. This clearly> > shows that the text Jaimini Sutra is a text originated after 4th> > century for sure, and possibly after 6th century AD (the period of> > Varaha Mihira). No wonder this modern sage Jaimini to whom Jaimini > > sutra is ascribed to finds no mention in the age old acharyas list of> > astrology quoted by many including Panini and Mihira (No not even by> > Parasara of BPHS himself).> > If these new systems mentioned in BPHS and Jaimini sutra was available> > on those days Mihira, Bhattolapa of 10th century must have mentioned> > the same, or at least indicated the same somewhere. We fail to find a> > reference of these systems even in Adbhuta SagaraH (16th century) and> > Hora Sara of Balbhadra (17th century). Jaimini sutra must have been a> > text that originated possibly somewhere between 6th and 15th century> > AD, and when the same became popular, the people who followed the same> > must have interpolated the Vridha karika slokas that refer to the same> > in BPHS as well. But for sure we can confidently state that till 4th> > century AD (the period at which KTPY notation system originated) no> > Jaimini sutra was there, and BPHS was in its original state with out> > any reference to methods such as Argala, Pada, Karakamsa etc. Now the> > major question is –> > • If this much interpolated how can we trust this text? > > We should also not that even the astrologers who emphasis that they> > follow BPHS, resort to the use of ancient system of indian astrology,> > keeping aside all these Argala, Pada, Karakamsa etc when it comes to> > actual prediction and result derivation! A thousand dasas and taking> > any sign as Lagna (Arudha Lagna, Varnada Lagna, Prana Pada, Hora> > Lagna, Ghati Lagna and what not!) become useless and they resort to> > Vimsottari dasa and Natal Lagna for result derivation! Yes, Vimsottari> > dasa system is a valuable contribution of sage Parasara, and the same> > is true for the results predicted for the placement of house lords in> > various houses. Note that these things are in tune with the ancient> > indian astrological system, and possibly they must have been part of> > the original BPHS itself, originated around BC 1400. The blame goes> > not to sage Parasara but the culprits who corrupted this text with> > their made up slokas in later years.> > Further scrutiny and study of these texts may reveal better clarifying > > information regarding the location of origin of Jaimini sutra and the> > interpolated version of BPHS.> > Note: The same is the story of sage Kaasyapa (the person born in> > Kasyapa gotra ), who finds no mention among the 18 acharyas of > > astrology. In an available quote from Kaasyapa samhita (quoted in> > Adbhuta sagara), Kaasyapa says that " In the PAST the Uttarayana> > started from Sravishta and Dakshinayana from the Middle of Aslesha.> > But now it is not so " . This clearly indicates that he lived AFTER the> > period when Uttarayana started at Sravishta, i.e., AFTER BC 1400, and> > possibly many years later! These two sages seem to be of AD origin > > than BC. > > ====================================================> > Love,> > Sreenadh> >> > > >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2007 Report Share Posted July 9, 2007 Dear Evencio ji, Thanks for the mail. PVR's words - ==> > 'The 4th house stands for education. The 2nd,4th and 11th from 4th > house are 5th,7th and 2nd houses respectivelly. One's intelligenc > (5th),interation with others(7th) and overall character ans samskara > (2nd) make or break one's education. If Jupiter is in 5th, he will > give intelligence and his subhargala(benefic intervention) on 4th > will help one's education. If Rahu is in 5th, his paapaargala > (malefic intervention) on 4th cause obstacles in one's education > by way of poor intelligence. Interaction(7th) and samskara are > things that decide one's education.They have a decisive role.' <== Sounds good - but if those words about Rahu in 5th was right, I am definitely a fool. Yes, I have papargala in 5th caused by Rahu. BPHS and Jaimini sutra gives only good results for Argala in any house caused by any planet (benefic or malefic) - the how come PVR derive this result. ==> > I dont aggree with the author about poor inteligence to Rahu and > wonder if argala may be applyed more efficiently. <== Yes, that is the right approach, and clear logic. ==> > The author uses natural malefics as papaargala allways and natural > benefics as subhargala also, <== Yes, as you clearly mentioned it seems to be a wrong approach. May be he has some other references, who knows. As far as I am concerned I am bit in doubt about the purpose of this whole 'Argala system' itself (as it is not part of Ancient Indian Astrological stream); especially owning to the huge amount of interpolations and incompleteness clearly visible especially in BPHS (which will become clear to you when you go through that small introductory article on Jaimini sutra). Regards, Sreenadh , " Evencio Mendes " <evenciomendes wrote: > > Dear Sreenadh, > Thank you for your response, sounds good and I will read your translation of > jaimini. Only for your info and if you want to discuss further, I will put a > view of the author of 'VEDIC ASTROLOGY AN INTEGRATED APPROACH' PVR Narasimha > Rao about Argala: > 'The 4th house stands for education. The 2nd,4th and 11th from 4th house are > 5th,7th and 2nd houses respectivelly. One's intelligenc (5th),interation with > others(7th) and overall character ans samskara(2nd) make or break one's > education. > If Jupiter is in 5th, he will give intelligence and his subhargala (benefic > intervention) on 4th will help one's education. > If Rahu is in 5th, his paapaargala(malefic intervention) on 4th cause > obstacles in one's education by way of poor intelligence. Interaction(7th) > and samskara are things that decide one's education.They have a decisive > role.' > > I dont aggree with the author about poor inteligence to Rahu and wonder if > argala may be applyed more efficiently. > The author uses natural malefics as papaargala allways and natural benefics > as subhargala also, maybe he was simplifying for didatic reasons. > Any comments are wellcome > Regards > Evencio > On 7/9/07, Sreenadh <sreesog wrote: > > > > Dear Evencio ji, > > I am totally new to BPHS and Jaimini systems. But still I think > > this could help- > > ============================================= > > All the results indicated by houses in Adirisyardha (Non-visible > > half) houses such as 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 will be reflected and made visible > > by the Drisyardha (Visible half) houses such as 7-8-9-10-11-12-1. Any > > obstruction caused by planets in Visible half houses can hide the > > results indicated by non-visible houses, and vise-versa. This is a > > logical argument, and the fundamental concept behind Argala. > > ANY planet in ANY Adirshyardha house can cause Argala ( in > > which case the result indicated by that planet-house combination is > > fixed, i.e. will occur for sure) and the planets in corresponding > > planet in Adirshyardha can cause Virodhargala (opposition, i.e. not > > allowing the results to get locked or fixed) to the same. The same is > > true for ANY planet in Drishyardha. > > The opposite of the word 'Argala' is `Anargala' is more popular in > > literature. `Anargala' means continuous, i.e. without obstruction, > > and is a word in frequent use not only in Sanskrit but also in many > > other Indian languages. Thus `Argala' means obstruction or bondage. > > It could also mean Chain or lock, in essence obstruction itself. Thus > > it is clear that `Argala' whether caused by benefices or malefics > > cause some kind of obstruction. > > The results that should be attributed to Argala yoga is `good'. A > > correct derivation would be that if unobstructed Argala yoga is > > present for any house, the result indicated by that Sign-House- Planet > > combination would actualize for sure. In such case irrespective of > > whether the Argala is caused by malefics or benefics - the result > > will be positive for the native for worldly success. That is why the > > Argala yoga is `good'. for worldly success. That is why the Argala > > yoga is `good'.(The word Argala also has the meaning door bolt, which > > too indicate that if this yoga is present the results indicated by > > that Sign-House-Planet combination will actualize for sure). > > > > P.S.: You may refer to the following file for more details. > > URL:Sreen > > adh/Jaimini Sutra - Beginning.pdf > > > > Please note that this file is prepared when I recently started > > looking into the Jaimini Sutra text. I was unaware of the KTPY > > notation used in Jaimini sutra at that time. Therefore go through it > > with a pinch of salt . I will prepare a better, detailed, and > > complete commentary - or criticism - of Jaimni Sutra as the time > > permits; and as my understanding of this system matures. > > ============================================= > > Love, > > Sreenadh > > > > --- In <% 40>, > > " Evencio Mendes " > > <evenciomendes@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > About the BPHS and Jaimini concept of ARGALA, are there different > > > interpretation of this? > > > What is the main point of this concept? To decide about the > > fructification > > > of a promise(house or planet)? > > > I have seen the following : > > > Benefics in 2,4 and 11 will support the promise and malefics will > > obstruct. > > > Planets in 12,10,3 respectivelly will obstruct the argala of > > 2,4,11, sound > > > for me a incomplete theory, why? > > > If natural benefic will give support and natural malefics will > > obstruct an > > > argala, there is no need to compare with corresponding conter- > > argala of > > > 12,10 and 3, > > > Lets see one example. > > > Argalas of house 2 ( incomings) > > > Argalas in houses 3,5 and12 > > > conter-argalas 1,11 and 4 > > > ----------- > > > benefics in house 3 will give habilite to negociate, discuss, > > speech, > > > malefics will give habilite to fight against adversary also helping > > > acquisition of money, why planets in its corresponding conter- > > argala house 1 > > > would debilitate acquisition of money? yes malefic would prejudice > > health, > > > but nothing related to acquisition of money but in general. > > > > > > What makes argala concept unique and useful? > > > I appreciate any comment and clarification > > > > > > Thanks > > > Evencio > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/8/07, Sreenadh <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > Below given is some of my thoughts about BPHS and Jaimini Sutra > > > > ====================================================== > > > > BPHS and Jaimini Sutra > > > > ----------------------- > > > > The currently available BPHS is a text that deviates a lot from > > the > > > > Ancient Indian System of Astrology as depicted in slokas available > > > > from well known Rishi horas like – Skanda hora, Brihat Prajaptya > > > > Vasishta Hora, Kausika Hora, Garga Hora, Saunaka Hora etc and the > > > > medieval texts like Brihajjatataka, Sarvali etc. It is not even in > > > > tune with the Yavana stream of astrology (a deviation of Ancient > > > > Indian stream) as depicted in Yavana Jataka, Spujidhwaja Hora, > > > > Meenaraja Hora etc and the medieval texts on the same stream like > > > > Manasagari etc. The concepts such as Argala, Pada (Arudha pada, > > Bhava > > > > pada, Upapada etc), Karakamsa (Atma karaka, Amatya karaka etc), > > Rasi > > > > drishti are unique to BPHS, and Jaimini Sutra. The first > > impression of > > > > anyone who reads BPHS and Jaimini sutra would be that – > > > > • Both of them are incomplete texts > > > > • Either Jaimini adopted Parasara system or Parasara adopted > > Jaimini > > > > system. > > > > Parasara is mentioned among the 18 Acharyas of astrology, but we > > can't > > > > Jaimini anywhere in the many lists available! Even though many > > (above > > > > mentioned) ancient and mediaeval texts mention Parasara, they not > > even > > > > indicate or refer to the above unique concepts discussed in BPHS, > > as > > > > if it was not there at all in the then available BPHS! The natural > > > > question arises in our mind are – > > > > • What is the period of Parasara and Jaimini? (When BPHS and > > Jaimini > > > > sutra originated?) > > > > • Where in India this system of prediction was practiced from the > > > > ancient past? > > > > • If these texts got modified when and where? > > > > Available well written texts such as Bhattolpala vyakhya of Brihat > > > > Samhita, and Adbhuta sagaraH of Vallalasena (A king of 12th > > century > > > > AD) refers Parasara and both of them quotes extensively from > > Parasara > > > > Samhita. Bhattolpala says, " It is said that Parasara has written > > texts > > > > for all the 3 branches of astrology (such s Parasara Sidhanta, > > > > Parasara Samhita and Parasara Hora). But I have seen only Parasara > > > > Samhita and not Parasara Hora " . It is possible that even though > > BPHS > > > > was not available to Bhattolpala the same existed at the other > > parts > > > > of the country as evident from the many available rudimentary > > > > manuscripts of the same in various manuscript libraries such as > > > > Saraswati Mahal, Tanjavoor. > > > > As per a sloka of Parasara Samhita quoted by both Bhattolpala and > > > > Vallalasena about seasons and Ayana, in the period of Parasara > > > > Uttarayana started from the beginning of Sravishta and > > Dakshinayana > > > > started at the middle of Aslesha. This is possible only around the > > > > period of BC 1400. Thus it is evident that BPHS originated around > > this > > > > period. Thus it becomes clear that the Parasara who wrote Parasara > > > > Sidhanta, Samhita and Hora is one different from the father of > > Vyasa > > > > (the author of Mahabharata epic). Was it an original reference by > > > > Parasara himself as per the observations he made or was he quoting > > > > from somewhere? We don't know. If the currently available BPHS is > > as > > > > old as BC 1400, how can we justify the absence of reference to > > > > concepts that are unique to Parasara such as Argala, Rasi drishti, > > > > Pada, Karakamsa etc in texts written up to the 6th century AD?! We > > > > can't! This points to the fact that this age old text BPHS > > originated > > > > around BC 1400 got corrupted due to the interpolations done > > possibly > > > > many times between 1st to 10th century AD. How can we say so? > > What is > > > > our evidence? Yes, we have some literary evidence for the same. > > > > BPHS (ch 41 sloka 32 – santhanam edition) refers to " salivahana " , > > a > > > > king who lived in the 1st century AD. (The salivahana became the > > king > > > > and an era based on the start date of his rulership is still in > > use, > > > > which starts from AD 72). If it was a prediction given by sage > > > > Parasara who can visualize past-present-future; the reference > > would > > > > have been to better known kings such as Chandra Gupta Mourya, > > Asoka, > > > > or even to the British rule of India. But as we could easily > > guess, > > > > this is not a prediction by sage Parasara, but the result of some > > > > interpolation effort by some corrupted mind who lived in the > > period of > > > > Salivahana or after that! Thus it is evident that corrupting the > > > > original BPHS started possibly in 1st century AD itself. > > > > Even medieval texts like " Sambhu Hora Prakash " refers to Parasara > > as a > > > > modern author! Punja Rajacharya who was an astrologer lived in the > > > > period of Sambhu raja dates Parasara Sidhanta as a text AFTER the > > > > period of Soma Sidhanta, Brahma Sidhata, Surya sidhanta, Vasishta > > > > Sidhata, Paulisa sidhanta and Lomasa sidhanta in order! > > Essentially it > > > > indicates that Parasara Sidhanta originated possibly somewhere > > around > > > > 1st century AD, and the mention of Salivahana of 1st century AD > > could > > > > be supportive to the same! But still giving preference to earlier > > > > reference of seasons let us assume that it was just and > > interpolation > > > > effort that happened at that time, even though we feel totally > > > > doubtful about this text. The period of Parasara sidhanta is the > > > > period of Parasara itself. If the Parasara who wrote Parasara > > > > skandhtraya (Parasara sidhanta, Parasara Samhita and Parasara > > Hora) is > > > > this modern, he is not at all the puranic fame Parasara but a > > modern > > > > astrologer born in the > > > > > > > > But till 5th or 6th century AD, BPHS must have maintained > > uncorrupted > > > > credibility to an extend, as is evident from the fact that no > > texts > > > > till that period refers to those unique concepts (such as Argala) > > > > mentioned in BPHS anywhere. Thus it is clear that at least till > > 6th > > > > century AD these concepts were not part of BPHS. It seems that it > > is > > > > the origin of Jaimini sutra and the related prediction system that > > > > started the full swing interpolation of BPHS. But what is the > > period > > > > of Jaimini sutra, a text attributed to Sage Jaimini who finds no > > > > mention in the Acharya list of Astrology? Is it an ancient text > > or a > > > > medieval creation? It is cute to note that Jaimini sutra > > extensively > > > > uses the KTPY number notation system originated around 4th > > century AD! > > > > Vararuchi of 4th century is thought to be the originator of KTPY > > > > number notation system. We find the same extensively used in > > Jaimini > > > > Sutra! There is not even a single evidence for the use of KTPY > > > > notation in any datable texts prior to 4th century AD. This > > clearly > > > > shows that the text Jaimini Sutra is a text originated after 4th > > > > century for sure, and possibly after 6th century AD (the period of > > > > Varaha Mihira). No wonder this modern sage Jaimini to whom Jaimini > > > > sutra is ascribed to finds no mention in the age old acharyas > > list of > > > > astrology quoted by many including Panini and Mihira (No not even > > by > > > > Parasara of BPHS himself). > > > > If these new systems mentioned in BPHS and Jaimini sutra was > > available > > > > on those days Mihira, Bhattolapa of 10th century must have > > mentioned > > > > the same, or at least indicated the same somewhere. We fail to > > find a > > > > reference of these systems even in Adbhuta SagaraH (16th century) > > and > > > > Hora Sara of Balbhadra (17th century). Jaimini sutra must have > > been a > > > > text that originated possibly somewhere between 6th and 15th > > century > > > > AD, and when the same became popular, the people who followed the > > same > > > > must have interpolated the Vridha karika slokas that refer to the > > same > > > > in BPHS as well. But for sure we can confidently state that till > > 4th > > > > century AD (the period at which KTPY notation system originated) > > no > > > > Jaimini sutra was there, and BPHS was in its original state with > > out > > > > any reference to methods such as Argala, Pada, Karakamsa etc. Now > > the > > > > major question is – > > > > • If this much interpolated how can we trust this text? > > > > We should also not that even the astrologers who emphasis that > > they > > > > follow BPHS, resort to the use of ancient system of indian > > astrology, > > > > keeping aside all these Argala, Pada, Karakamsa etc when it comes > > to > > > > actual prediction and result derivation! A thousand dasas and > > taking > > > > any sign as Lagna (Arudha Lagna, Varnada Lagna, Prana Pada, Hora > > > > Lagna, Ghati Lagna and what not!) become useless and they resort > > to > > > > Vimsottari dasa and Natal Lagna for result derivation! Yes, > > Vimsottari > > > > dasa system is a valuable contribution of sage Parasara, and the > > same > > > > is true for the results predicted for the placement of house > > lords in > > > > various houses. Note that these things are in tune with the > > ancient > > > > indian astrological system, and possibly they must have been part > > of > > > > the original BPHS itself, originated around BC 1400. The blame > > goes > > > > not to sage Parasara but the culprits who corrupted this text with > > > > their made up slokas in later years. > > > > Further scrutiny and study of these texts may reveal better > > clarifying > > > > information regarding the location of origin of Jaimini sutra and > > the > > > > interpolated version of BPHS. > > > > Note: The same is the story of sage Kaasyapa (the person born in > > > > Kasyapa gotra ), who finds no mention among the 18 acharyas of > > > > astrology. In an available quote from Kaasyapa samhita (quoted in > > > > Adbhuta sagara), Kaasyapa says that " In the PAST the Uttarayana > > > > started from Sravishta and Dakshinayana from the Middle of > > Aslesha. > > > > But now it is not so " . This clearly indicates that he lived AFTER > > the > > > > period when Uttarayana started at Sravishta, i.e., AFTER BC 1400, > > and > > > > possibly many years later! These two sages seem to be of AD origin > > > > than BC. > > > > ==================================================== > > > > Love, > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.