We had a nice Jyotish workshop at Boston.
I see a lot of emails on "Parashari vs Jaimini systems". Unfortunately, I have time to neither read those emails nor argue with these gentlemen at great lengths.
I just want to pose a small question to those who are using the term "Parashari system".
The question is simple: What is the definition of "Parashari system" and what parameetrs and techniques does it include?
What I am getting at is: Are chara karakas, arudha padas of house, arudha padas of planets, sign aspects, argalas, chara dasa, sthira dasa, trikona dasa, mandooka dasa, shoola dasa, brahma dasa, drigdasa etc included in the so-called "Parashari system"?
If yes, what really is the difference between basic parameters of the two "systems" in question then?
If not, why not? They are mentioned in the available works of Parashara (BPHS in the form available today). Did Parashara come in your dream and tell you to ignore half the material in his available works?
Whether Parasara lived before or after Jaimini and whether Parasara lived in 5000 BC or 700 AD is irrelevant here. The relevant point is that the available works of Parasara contain all the parameters I mentioned above. If any "system" is attributed to Parasara, it must contain all those parameters.
You define "Parashari system" based on what Parasara taught. If you define "Parashari system" based on what Mantreshwara or Varahamihira taught, it would be a misuse of Parasara's name! Kindly give it another name!
My intention is not to win a debate here. With the time I get to spend on this, I cannot. If I can influence a handful of talented youngsters to overcome this sadly popular notion, my job is done. IMHO, this non-existent distinction between the two "systems" is a hindrance to fully understanding the teachings of either of the two Sages!
May Jupiter's light shine on us,
>>Whether Parasara lived before or after Jaimini and whether Parasara
lived in 5000 BC or 700 AD is irrelevant here.<<
If we completely ignore historical facts and rely merely on our personal religious beliefs, then we will get chronology of hindu astrological methods all wrong, and any serious and sound debate about these astrological methods soon becomes futile. This is why the question if "Parasara lived before or after Jaimini and whether Parasara lived in 5000 BC or 700 AD" is highly relevant both here and in so many other connections.
I am afraid you missed the point.
This is not about "personal religious beliefs". This is about WHAT Parasara - whoever he was and whenever he lived - TAUGHT.
When you attribute a "system" to his name, make sure that you are including all the basic parameters HE taught.
What people are doing is to define a "Parasari system" in which half of Parasara's available teachings are conveniently omitted, so that they can be included in the so-called "Jaimini system".
Define "Parashari system" based on what Parasara taught and NOT based on what Mantreshwara or Varahamihira taught.
May Jupiter's light shine on us,
> How can anyone define what Parashara taught, when the real and
> genuine Parasara Hora has been lost for so many centuries? All
> left is a few quotation in Varahamihiras "Brihat Jataka", nothing
> Hopefully it will show up some day.
> BPHS is not an original work, but merely a compilation of
> astrological material from different sources collected somewhere
> 800-1600 AD and presented in the name of Parasara, thereby
> peoples religious faith and make them believe BPHS was the biggest
> foremost authority on hindu astrology. This was a very smart thing
> do, and it obviously worked, even upto today...
To keep the argument simple, let me accept this for a moment. Let us say that the "original" Sage Parasara did not teach all these things and a newer Parasara "compiled" whatever was available and put together BPHS.
You say that the teachings of the "original" Parasara were lost. Then how can you define a "Parashari system" based on his teachings? How do you know exactly what parameters were included in his teachings, given that you believe that his teachings are lost? Are you simply going by your beliefs and wishes to come up with what should constitute "Parasari system"?
When we only have the teachings (or "compilations") of the latter Parasara - however manipulating and conspiratory he might have been as you accuse above - it is natural to define "Parashari system" based on them! Any other definition of "Parashari system" has no basis.
Your view amounts to saying "BPHS is a fake propaganda work and not the work of the real Parasara. I don't know what exactly real Parasara taught. But it does not include arudha padas, chara dasa etc that were taught by Jaimini." I can then ask "how do you know that".
Now, on a different note, BPHS includes a lot of complex knowledge NOT found in ANY other classic. I find it hard to believe that it was merely a "compilation" and not the teachings of a maharshi.
* * *
> Dear Group,
> Can anyone define what is God? Can anyone define why
> the supernatural phenomenon exists? Can anyone define
> his own destiny? Can anyone define his own family? Can
> anyone define his/her friends, brothers/sisters and et
> Then why the need to define Parashara or Jaimini or
> Garga or their Samhitas or later Samhitas or Horas.
Dear Sir, I asked for the definition when people started throwing around the term "Parashari system" and saying that it was incompatible with "Jaimini system". When one says that, it is but
natural to question the definitions of the two systems and the basis for the definition.
If one says that arudha padas are used only in "Jaimini system" and not in "Parashari system", they better know exactly what constitutes "Parashari system" and why.
If one does not know what exactly Parasara taught, one should stop throwing around the term "Parashari system".
> humble request is that lets stick to what we have,
> (considering ourselves lucky) and try to learn to use
Fair enough. What we have is BPHS attributed to Parasara. It includes arudha padas, sign aspects, chara dasa, sthira dasa, argalas etc. Shall we then agree to not omit them from "Parasari system" and just study them as a part of Parasara's available teachings and figure out how to use them along with the other techniques of BPHS such as nakshatra dasas?!
* * *
> In BPHS, there are many references to earlier rishis and higher
> beings (all the way up to Brahma) by name. Parashara certainly was
> not shy about giving credit where it was due in his BPHS. I fail
> understand why he would not acknowledge Jaimini if indeed
> got the 'system' from some earlier Rishi Jaimini! Simply does not
> make sense.
> Ergo, whatever frail or nonexistent **historical** references that
> have been waved during the last one or two decades can be
> dismissed until they demonstrate otherwise with documented
> which will have to be examined and accepted by experts in history.
> And hopefully those would not be self-proclaimed experts!!
I completely agree with what you wrote. I am trying to keep the argument simple and hence temporarily agreeing with some things that I would normally reject outright.
The funny thing is that these gentlemen still have no coherent answers. They claim that BPHS is put together by a fake Parasara (a huge claim...let us accept it for a moment). They are hell-bent on having a "Parasari system" (perhaps so that they can differentiate it from "Jaimini system"). They don't want to define it based on BPHS, as it is compiled by a fake Parasara. They can't define it based on the teachings of the original Parasara as well, as they claim that his teachings are lost. Still, they insist that there IS a "Parasari system", that it is incompatible with "Jaimini system" and that it does not include arudha padas etc. How do they know??? They simply KNOW it!!
On top of all this, they talk about beliefs, religious beliefs and
May Jupiter's light shine on us,
Refer the thread the at the above given link for more details -editor