Fwd: RE: condemning the bible of astrology - Mohan Jyotishi

[Guest guest]

RE: [vedic astrology] Re: condemning the bible of astrology - Mohan

Jyotishi

 

 

is this that simple?? I wonder

 

Satyaacharya speaks of yavana in the sloka -

 

na kumbha lagnam shubhamaaha satya

 

naa nyadhaaH yavannaH vadanti

 

and in Varaha Hora

 

Mihira says referring to drekkana swaroopas

 

iti yavanopadishtam; iti yavanairudaahridam

 

IMHO these references are to

 

Sphoorjjitadhwaja Yavanaraja and his descendants and not to Greeks.

 

This great King of Gujarat wrote Yavana Jataka, vruddha yavana jataka

etc. Till a copy was found in Nepal Maharaja's library, the books

were deemed lost. It was published by Harvard U. The publisher

claimed it is " Greek Astrology " on the basis of the author's name

being Yavana Raja. The introduction in the original text mentions his

lineage and that he is a King in present day Gujarat.

 

Later there are indications that the family lost caste - that maybe

the reason for referring to this lineage as Mlecha.

 

I am not an expert. These are random thoughts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Menon

 

----

----------

Mohan Jyotishi <jyotishi231

vedic astrology

Vedic astrology <vedic astrology >

CC: hindu calendar <HinduCalendar >

[vedic astrology] Re: condemning the bible of astrology -

Mohan Jyotishi

Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:57:12 -0700 (PDT)

MIME-Version: 1.0

X-Originating-IP: 66.163.179.159

X-Sender: jyotishi231

Received: from n12a.bulk.scd. ([66.94.237.20]) by mc3-

f9.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 27 Oct 2005

13:48:39 -0700

Received: from [66.218.69.5] by n12.bulk.scd. with NNFMP; 27

Oct 2005 16:57:14 -0000

Received: from [66.218.66.29] by mailer5.bulk.scd. with

NNFMP; 27 Oct 2005 16:57:14 -0000

Received: (qmail 18219 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2005 16:57:12 -

0000

Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m23.grp.scd. with

QMQP; 27 Oct 2005 16:57:12 -0000

Received: from unknown (HELO web35705.mail.mud.)

(66.163.179.159) by mta6.grp.scd. with SMTP; 27 Oct 2005

16:57:12 -0000

Received: (qmail 18253 invoked by uid 60001); 27 Oct 2005 16:57:12 -

0000

Received: from [202.177.155.206] by web35705.mail.mud. via

HTTP; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:57:12 PDT

 

 

Dear Mr. Sreenadh,

It is a pleasure to see the logical reasoning behind

your presetation. It is the real way of an academic

discussion!

 

Now my answers:

I must make it very clear at the outset that these

discussions are to thrash out the points whether there

is predictive astrology in the Vedas or not, and it

has nothing to do with what Mohan or Sreenadh thinks!

Either there is predictive astrology in them or there

is not---that is the point of discussion.

 

Now about BPHS:

I have all the three editions of BPHS avaialble in

Northern India viz the original Sitaram Jha edition,

the Nirnay Sagar Press Edition and the English

translation edition.

 

But before discussing their merits or demerits, let us

discuss Brihat Jatakam and Brihat Samhita first:

 

1. Varahamihira has not said anywhere that he is

following any Vedic system of predictions. This is a

point worth pondering over sicne every scholar in the

earlier ages harked to the Vedas for thier guidance

and enlightenment of a subject if the Vedas had any

thing to do with that subject.

 

2. Varahamihira has paid fulsome tributes to Yavanas

whom he himself calls mlechhas to the extent that he

wants them to be worshipped like Rishis! He is very

catagorical that " this (jyotish shastra of predictive

astrology as well as calculations) is established in

them (the Yavanas) thoroughly " . in Chapter seven,

verse 1, he has listed his predecessor astrologers as

" Maya, Yavana, Manitha " then in the same verse he

says " Shakti Purvair " . From this, it is evident that

there was a glut of Greek astrologers prior to

Varahamihira and the meaning of this verse is clear

that they were all predecessors to " Shakti " i.e.

Parashara! It also means that Varahamihira is not

referring to Sage Parashara since Varahamihira should

have known that if Veda-Vyasa was supposed to have

existed in Dwapara Yuga, his father could not have

succeeded him after the advent of Greeks into India!

Even if we take it as a " grammatical error " or an

" oversight " on the part of Varahamihira, why did he

not make the verse start from Parashara and then

extoll Maya, Yavana and Manitha and so on! You do not

list a person last of all if you have respect for him

but on the other hand you pay tribute to him before

anybody else! It is thus clear that Varahamihira was

more indebted to " Maya, Yavana and Manitha " than to

Parashara!

 

Thus it is possible that there might have been some

work by some " Shakti-Parashara " who could have been of

Parashara gotra or with Parashara sirname, but it

certainly could not have been the Sage Parashara, the

way Varahamihira has shown disrespect to him and

extolled Yavanas! Varahamihira has referred to quite

a few other astroloers also like Garga, Satyacharya,

Vishnugupta and Jeevsharma etc. but nobody is certain

as to what works they had compiled and how independent

of Greek influence they were.

 

3. If this " Parashari " was not available at the time

of Bhatotpala, it means it was not a prominent work

even at that time, much less the " bible " of

astrologers as otherwise it certainly could not have

gone underground!

Bhatotpala also has made it very clear that Yavana

Jataka was avialable in his time!

 

4. The second most surprising question is that if

Parashari had been of sage Parashara and if there had

been predictive astrology in the same way it is being

presented these days in the name of Parashari,

Varahamihira would certainly not have referred to

Mesha, Vrisha etc. Rahsis by their Greek names like

Kriya, Taburi,Jituma,Kulira,Leya, Pathona, Juka,

Karupa, Tauksika, Akokara,Hrdroga,Antyabhya!

Similarly, Dreshkan, Panphar, Apoklima, kendra etc.

etc. are all Greek words. Thus if any Indian system

of astrology was prevailing at the time of

Varahamihira, why did he have to take recourse to all

these Greek words?

 

And as everybody knows, these very yogas and words

like apoklima etc. appear in almost all the versions

of Parashari available in the market today!

5. We find Vimshottari Dasha in all the versions of

BPHS and surprisingly it is conspicuous by its absence

in Varahamihira's works! Nor has he referred to any

ohter system of Dasha-bhuktis of Parashara having been

prevailing at his time. He has referred to Jivsharma

etc. for calculating Ayurdaya but nowehere to

Parashara!

 

Thus a question arises that if simple ways of

delineating results by Vimshottari or Ashtottari or

Yogini etc. had been enunciated by Parashara prior to

Varahamihira, why did the latter not take them as it

is and why did he have to give elaborate and

cumbersome calculatons for calculating the same?

 

It is clear from these facts that the BHPS we are

having today is not even a ghostly version of the

original " Parashari " .

 

6. Alberuni has devoted a lot of attention to Indian

astrology and astronomy but he has just made a passing

reference to Parashara's astrological work. Though

whenever Alberuni has referred to Sage parashara, he

has qualified his statment with words like " Parashara,

the father of Veda Vyasa " but in the case of

Parashara's book on astrology, he has not done

anything like that!

 

7. Varahamihira in his Brihat Samhita, chapter 11,has

clubbed Parshara with " Gargi, Asit,Devala and several

others " which means that the astrologer Parashara did

not wield any respectful position as compared to

others. If it had been the sage Parashara who had

written Parashari, it could never been have that

disrpesct for him. Besides, in the Samhita,

Varahamihira appears to be referring to Parshara

Samhita, which was also available at Bhatotpala's

time.

 

8. This is what the English translator of current BPHS

has said on page 11:

" After scrutinizing critcally the four manuscripts

(viz. Venkateshwara Press, 2 Sitaram Jha edition, 3

Devachandra Jha edition and Hindi translation of

Ganesha Datta " ... Then on the same page he says,

" Other versions that I have come across are: 1. Tamil

translation by C.G. Rajan - for only 36 chapters,

without Sanskrit verses

2. English trnslation by N. N. K.Rao for only 25

chapters without Sanskrit slokas " .

It measn he also was not aware of any other edition

either on palm leaves or in any other form available

in any library.

Now that you say there is a manuscript available in

Sarsswati Library of Tamil Nadu, I suggest that those

interested in the real BPHS should approach that

library and have it published/printed without delay.

This will give every reader/astrologer a chance to see

the oldest available BPHS. I donot know as to if any

carbon dating etc. of that manuscript has been done,

but being a seeker after truth and facts, I would

request you personally to approach the concerned

people/authorities to do so. It will be a great

service not only to astrologers but even to

non-astrologer scholars since we must ferret out the

facts as early as possible.

Dhanyavad.

Mohan Jyotishi

PS I am sorry I had mis-spelt your name in my earlier

posting.

 

> vedic astrology , " Sreenadh "

> <sreelid> wrote:

>

> 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