Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra Girish Chand Sharma Pdf

[Carlota Sproul]

Theidea that one gets, especially for followers of Lord Krsna's Vedic culture, is that the modern edition of BPHS is a very ancient text dating back to the beginning of Kali-yuga (3102 B.C.). Hence, the views set forth in the BPHS are seen by many as sacrosanct, infallible and on par with sacred scriptures like the Vedas or Srimad Bhagavatam. And, hence BPHS is often quoted as pramana -- authoritative evidence -- in Vedic astrological discourse. But what is the real status of BPHS and the implications to Vedic astrology?

important in particular Prasna Marga. His grandfather B. Suryanarayana Rao translated and commented on several important classics including Brhat Jataka, Jaimini Sutras and Sarvartha Cintamani. This is not a complete list of translators and titles.

In The Astrological Magazine we read that in South India, especially Kerala, one was not considered a scholar of jyotish unless he had memorized both Brhat Jataka and Prasna Marga not BPHS. Brhat Jataka

Whereas today BPHS would be one of the first books a new student would be recommended to purchase I had barely heard of it what to speak of seen it. It was not until my third year of intense study did I stumble upon BPHS

and commentary on Hora Sara came out later that year and 2 years later they came out with Santanam's translation of the first volume of BPHS. And, later Santanam translated and published a steady stream of texts, many of which had been on my list.

From this point onward, BPHS became the "bible of astrology" replacing Brhat Jataka as a primary authority on the premise that BPHS was the older text. I also followed this trend. However I was somehow disturbed by what I perceived to be a focus only on BPHS and the demise of the tradition of studying other classics especially Brhat Jataka among the younger astrologers especially those who got into astrology via the internet and had never visited India.

In the summer of 1999 while reading B. S. Rao's annotated translation of Brhat Jataka with commentary of Bhattotpala (Mihira, 1986) I came across an interesting point in his commentary to the 7th chapter.

In Brhat Jataka 7.1 Varaha Mihira directly refers to Parasara Muni by the name of Saktipurva (son of Sakti). Later in Brhat Jataka 7.9. Rao mentions that the learned commentator Bhattotpala laments that while he has a copy of Parasara Samhita he was unable to acquire a copy of Parasara Hora which Mihira refers to in Brhat Jataka 7.1. This struck Rao as significant because it now made him doubt the authenticity of Jataka Candrika which is supposedly an abstract of Parasara Hora but much later than the time of Bhattotpala. On this basis Ajay Mitra Sastri (Shastri, 1969, p. 449) also doubted the authenticity of Laghu Parasari and BPHS.

In South India Brhat Jataka (and its commentaries) is held in the highest esteem, not BPHS. Why? Because of its many ancient commentaries by Bhattopala and others especially the Dasadhyayi of Talakkulathur Govindam Bhattathiri.

We can have reasonable faith and trust in the authenticity of the present version of Brhat Jataka because there are a number of commentaries on this text some of them very ancient. These commentaries preserve the text and its structure in a way that is hard to do without commentaries.

"Brhat Jataka ... is stated to have more than twenty commentaries in Sanskrit itself, like Mudrakshari, Subhodhini, Sripatiyam, Bhatttopalavritti, besides, those in other languages. Dasadhyayi is one of such commentaries in Sanskrit, by Talakkulathur Govindam Bhattathiri. Perhaps next prominent one is Vivaranam of Rudra." (Kalyanraman, 2007, p. 203)

Varaha Mihira has extracted from these works the essence of what is important in Jyotish (Brhat Jataka 1.2) hence a comparison of the contents of Brhat Jataka and the modern BPHS may give us some clues as to what has been interpolated into the later.

In the modern BPHS 5.20-24 we are taught how to calculate the unequal house system commonly known as the Sripati house system. However in Brhat Jataka 1.4 and Saravali 3.8 a different house system is taught where Rasi and Bhava are synonymous.

of Astamangala Prasna in Kerala. It is also the method used in Jaimini system. (Jaimini, 2006, p. ii) It is very obvious that this unequal house system was a much later interpolation into the modern BPHS. At some future date we will write an essay describing the faults of the unequal house system.

Parasara was the father of an incarnation of Krsna (Vedavyasa), Srimad Bahgavatam 1.3.21. Maitreya states that Parasara learned the Srimad Bhagavatam from Sankhyayana and then he taught it to Maitreya, Srimad Bhagavatam 3.8.8-9. Parasara is also the speaker of the Visnu Purana. Both Srimad Bhagavatam and Visnu Purana

we supposedly find Parasara Muni recommending practices totally at variance with his own teachings that he spoke in Srimad Bhagavatam and Visnu Purana naturally make us question their inclusion in any work he authored.

It should also be noted that all the authors up to the time of Saravali lived before Bhattotapala and from an inspection of their works evidently had access to Parasara Hora and were much influenced by him yet they have no trace of Jaimini in them.

The only texts that I could find that had any trace of Jaimini were Uttara Kalamrta 1.4.34-45 which has some elements of a simplified Jaimini. P.S. Sastri estimates that Uttara Kalamrta is a fairly modern work written sometime after the 16th or 17th century AD (Kalidasa, 2005, p. iv). And, Jataka Tattva, (allegedly) authored in 1871 by Mahadeva, also uses some concepts of Jaimini such as atmakaraka -- Jataka Tattva 1.66 (Mahadeva, 1941).

The best known commentary on Jaimini Sutras is that of Nilakantha who is estimated by my Jaimini guru, Sriman Iranganti Rangacarya, to have flourished in the 17th century AD (Jaimini, 1995 p. i). We note that both Uttara Kalamrta and Jataka Tattva are contemporary or later than Nilakantha suggesting that he is their source on Jaimini in their works. This also strongly suggests that the chapters on Jaimini were inserted into the modern BPHS sometime after Nilakantha (17th century AD) by someone who was not an expert on Jaimini. We will comment why he was not an expert later.

Whereas, there are the Vriddhakarikas, and Vanchhanathiyam as well as other lesser known commentators such as Krsna Misra (Phalaratnamala) and Somanatha Misra (Kalpalata ) who are considered earlier than Nilakantha but exactly how much earlier is open to speculation (guessing).

Jaimini Sutras are of the same antiquity as Parasara but it was not included in the original BPHS. It was not popular with later astrologers and hence never included in their redactions of astrological texts.

My guru for Jaimini Sutra, Sriman Iranganti Rangacarya, translator and commentator of Jaimini Sutramritam with more than 40 years experience in Jaimini system, directly told me to strictly ignore whatever so-called Jaimini material is found in BPHS because it will simply lead to confusion and contradictions. One example should suffice to see what quagmire one can end up in.

Thus according to classical Jaimini School argala is only to be applied to what Sriman Iranganti Rangacarya calls the "aspecting planet." Whereas, in the so-called "Jaimini system" found in BPHS, argala is applied indiscriminately to all planets and houses alike.

What to speak of the confusion that arises if you mix the real Jaimini system with what is represented as Jaimini system in BPHS even more confusion will arise if the student of Parasara system mixes in Jaimini methods indiscriminately. P.S. Sastri warns "If

difference in how astakavarga was calculated in the modern BPHS and Varaha Mihira's Brhat Jataka. I (wrongly) assumed that since the modern BPHS was older than Brhat Jataka then the values it gave for astakavarga must be the original values for that system. Now I would take the views of Brhat Jataka as having precedence over modern BPHS. The same principle holds for any contradiction between modern BPHS

Thanks for this timely article, by Shri Shyamasundara Das Ji. If you remember I brought this question up a few weeks ago in an email, and you had replied to that, in a similar vein. Shri Das Ji has laid it out so beautifully, but, even to me, some one who has not studied astrology for decades, some obvious questions came to mind (which I voiced in that original email). One of the questions was so fundamental and I restate that with a permise:

2. I searched for such traditions and was able to identify two such traditions on North America - Both these teachers are very low key and have very few serious students (less than 10). Unfortunately due to the extradionary commitment that is required, I feel unable to follow them, full fledged. (I avoid mentioning names for obvious reasons).

3. I was struck by the fact that BOTH these teachers had an unanimous message: BPHS was a compilation and not an original work. If you take BPHS as a Gospel, you have NOT studied Ancient Indian Astrology, in its full form.

4. Also unanimous was their stand that Parasara and Jaimini streams were distinct and separate and in their oral tradition there was NO question of mixing the two methods. So any such mixture needs to be construed as experimental.

5. However both these teachers did say that BPHS had some very useful and instructive teaching tools, which, when combined with study of all the other traditional literature (that Shri Shyamasundara Das Ji mentions and may be even more) enhances the study of the subject.

Ever since 1984 with the publication of the first volume of Brhat Parasara Hora Sastra (Parasara, 1984) with translation and commentary by R. Santanam, Brhat Parasara Hora Sastra (henceforth BPHS) has been successfully marketed to Vedic astrologers in India and abroad as the preeminent text on Vedic astrology. Ranjan, the publishers, described it as: "The Gospel Book of Hindu Astrology with Master Key to Divination" (I coined the term "Vedic Astrology" but had not yet popularized it until 1988). This reputation was further cemented when Sagar published their superior edition of the same work with translation and commentary by Sriman Girish Chand Sharma (Parasara, 1994).

3a8082e126