The Brihat Parashar Hora Shastra, first published in 1905 and subsequently translated into English in 1984, is arguably the most widely recognized Hora Shastra in the northern regions of India. Nevertheless, its authenticity remains questionable. I have endeavored to outline the key aspects that cast doubt on the authenticity of the Brihat Parashar Hora Shastra (hereafter referred to as BPHS).
Image Source : Pinterest.
1. Compilation Of Several Rishi Horas
Although Maharshi Parashara is often referred to as the father of astrology, this title is not entirely accurate. The reasons for this misconception are not widely understood, as many individuals have accepted popular beliefs without seeking deeper knowledge. The teachings of the Jyotishmati Upanishad were known only to a group of sages, including Brahma, Prajapati Daksha, Marichi, Angiras, Atri, Vasishtha, Pulaha, Pulastya, Bhrigu, and Kratu. This profound knowledge was initially acquired by Skanda (Kartikeya Swami) through extensive meditation and subsequently transmitted to Brahma Deva, who then imparted it to Prajapati Daksha.
According to Kashyapa Samhita :
1. Surya, 2. Pitamaha (Brahma), 3. Vyasa, 4. Vasishtha, 5. Atri, 6. Parashara, 7, Kashyapa, 8.
Narada, 9. Garga, 10. Marichi, 11. Manu, 12. Angiras, 13. Lomasa, 14. Paulisa, 15. Chyavana,
16. Yavana, 17. Bhrigu, 18. Shaunaka - are the eighteen originators of the scriptures of Jyotish.
The scholar Acharya Bhattotpala, who authored a commentary on the Brihat Jataka, expresses his regret over the inability to locate the Parashar Hora for his studies though he has heard about it. The Dasadhyayi commentary on Brihat Jataka provides few verses from Parashara Jataka which do not match with the modern BPHS. Acharya Bhattotpala states in his commentary -
पाराशरीया संहिता केवलमस्माभिरदृष्टा, न जातकम्। श्रूयते स्कन्धत्रयं पराशरस्येति। तदर्थं वराहमिहीरः शक्तिपूर्वैरित्याह।
Upon examining Acharya Balabhadra's Hora Ratnam, one encounters numerous references to ancient texts that remain unfamiliar to us, likely due to their loss during historical invasions. While he occasionally cites the Parashar Jataka, his primary references are to Garga Hora, Kashyapa Hora, and majorly Vriddha Yavan Hora. Notably, the verses attributed to Parashar Jataka appear to differ from those found in the contemporary BPHS, suggesting that the modern BPHS has undergone significant interpolation. A careful analysis indicates the presence of remnants from Garga Hora and Lomash Hora. One may also find few segments of Shuka Jataka. For example, the initial chapters of BPHS including Shristi Krama and Avatara Kathana Adhyaya, Rashi Swaroop Adhyaya are directly copied from Lomash Samhita. The Varga Viveka Adhyaya and Bhava Adhyaya also trace their origin to Lomash Samhita. (I wonder how did it go unnoticed?)
The Brihat Jataka is also an amalgamation of various Rishi Horas. A commentary in Malayalam on the Brihat Jataka indicates that Acharya Varahamihira cited several texts, including Skanda Hora, Brihat Prajapatya, Laghu Prajapatya, Parashar Hora (both Brihat and Laghu), Shaunaka Hora (Brihat and Laghu), and Kaushika Hora. In addition to these Rishi Horas, Acharya Varahamihira mentions Garga Hora, Gargi Hora, Vriddha Garga Hora, Yavaneshwara Hora, Sphujidhwaja Hora, Maya Hora, Maniththa Hora, Shrutkeerti Hora, Satyacharya Hora, Siddhasena Hora, Jeevasharma Hora, and Vishnugupta Hora. Notably, the structure of this work is more coherent compared to the contemporary BPHS, which is often perceived as perplexing and disorganized. It is believed that the Brihat or Laghu Parashar Hora referenced by Acharya Varahamihira differs from the modern BPHS. The success of Acharya Varahamihira's Brihat Jataka led subsequent authors to place significant emphasis on his contributions. This is evident from the classics such as Saravali, Sarvartha Chintamani, Phaladeepika & Jataka Parijat.
2. Haphazardly Arranged
Engaging with the extensive content of BPHS can undoubtedly be a perplexing endeavor due to its disorganized structure. The text transitions erratically between topics such as Graha Drishti and Rashi Drishti, as well as Vimshottari Dasha and Kalachakra Dasha, among others. Nevertheless, Vimshottari Dasha, particularly in its pure form without any conditional Dashas, is regarded as the most effective Dasha system. This sentiment is echoed by Satyacharya, who is referenced by notable figures such as Acharya Varahamihira, Acharya Bhattotpala, and many others.
3. Different Versions
Numerous editions of BPHS exist, each authored by different individuals and published by various publishers, featuring a diverse range of verses and chapters. For instance, the edition by Shri Suresh Chandra Mishra includes a chapter dedicated to the determination of profession, a feature absent in other versions. Likewise, the Bombay edition, attributed to Shri Tarachand Shastri, contains a verse addressing the aspects of Rahu and Ketu, which is not present in the other editions.
According to Wikipedia, the first edition of BPHS contained 5781 verses in total while the edition by Shri Sitaram Jha contains 5100 verses (681 less). The subsequent authors seem to have followed the edition by Shri Sitaram Jha in their translations.
4. Absence Of Commentaries
Acharya Varahamihira's Brihat Jataka is a renowned classic in Kerala. A distinct system of Jyotish has emerged based on the principles outlined in Brihat Jataka, largely due to Acharya Vararuchi, a contemporary of Acharya Varahamihira at King Vikramaditya's court, who later settled in Kerala to impart knowledge of Brihat Jataka. This historical context accounts for the existence of approximately 20 commentaries on Brihat Jataka. It is important to acknowledge that numerous families in Kerala may possess various handwritten notes, manuscripts, and commentaries that apply the teachings of Brihat Jataka. In contrast, there is a notable absence of commentaries on Brihat Parashar Hora Shastra, with only a few translations available, many of which contain inaccuracies.
5. Erroneous Translations
The BPHS has been translated into Hindi, English, and various regional languages such as Gujarati, Tamil, and Bengali. These translations have been carried out by humans, and it is evident that they may contain inaccuracies. In contrast, many other classical texts benefit from existing commentaries that facilitate the interpretation of their verses. Additionally, it is noteworthy that the translators of the BPHS may not have possessed the necessary skills in prediction or may have lacked interest in disclosing their interpretations. Furthermore, English is significantly inferior to Surabhasha Sanskrit (the language of the Devas), rendering English terminology inadequate for conveying the nuances of Sanskrit terms.
6. Mixing The Jaimini System
Maharshi Parashar, as emphasized by a specific school of thought, did not provide any references to the Jaimini System. If he had indeed outlined such methods, it raises the question of why Acharya Varahamihira, who acknowledged Maharshi Parashara, did not incorporate any principles from the Jaimini System. Furthermore, subsequent authors of texts such as Saravali, Phaladeepika, Sarvartha Chintamani, and Yavana Jataka have also refrained from utilizing the Jaimini System. To date, Jaimini Sutras remains one of the most perplexing texts, with the individual interpretations from the 'tradition' contributing to the existing confusion. Additionally, there are only two classical works that address the Jaimini System. Moreover, scholars from Kerala appear to have entirely overlooked the Jaimini System. It was not until the 20th century that it gained traction in northern regions. Regardless of differing opinions, there is a significant distinction between the Parashari and Jaimini Systems, and they cannot be practiced concurrently. Some astrologers attempt to blend the two under the guise of 'tradition', yet their methodologies remain questionable. While the Jaimini Sutram indicates that it serves as a Upadesha, it remains ambiguous as to which specific treatise is being elucidated. In the Arsha Jyotish system, among the 18 Acharyas, the name of Rishi Jaimini is conspicuously absent. This absence may suggest two possibilities:
1. The author of the Jaimini Sutram may not be Maharshi Jaimini himself, but rather another scholar. (This assumption may be incorrect when considering the Katapayadi system and the intricate coding employed throughout the text.)
2. Maharshi Jaimini may have proposed principles that diverged from the original Arsha Jyotish system.
The Jaimini Upadesh Sutras is a text characterized by intricate coding and profound significance, making its interpretation a challenging endeavor. Contemporary astrologers have limited its application to the concepts of Atmakaraka and Darakaraka for the analysis of an individual's personality or that of a potential partner, a practice that is fundamentally flawed and warrants scrutiny.
Note : It is important to clarify that my intention is not to criticize any particular system or methodology. Rather, I aim to emphasize that the current BPHS incorporates additional material derived from the Jaimini Sutras. Some scholars contend that the complete text of the Jaimini Sutram may not be fully accessible. Mastery of this methodology necessitates years of dedicated study and practice.
7. Contradictions
The BPHS contains several inconsistencies. Anyone who has engaged with the texts or scriptures of Vedic literature is likely aware that the author anticipates the reader's familiarity with the material from preceding chapters before advancing to new content. The Rishis, being highly evolved beings, would not contradict their own teachings within the same work. Such discrepancies are characteristic of human error.
In the Graha Bheda Adhyaya of BPHS, the Mooltrikona, Swarashi, and Uccha Neecha Rashi of the seven planets, excluding Rahu and Ketu, are discussed. However, the Dasha Adhyaya abruptly claims that Rahu and Ketu govern the signs of Aquarius and Scorpio. Furthermore, the Yogakaraka Adhyaya asserts that Rahu and Ketu yield results based on their dispositors. Does this not present a contradiction?
8. The Laghu Parashari
The first verse of Laghu Parashari itself says that the text is in accordance with Parashar Hora. Laghu Parashari examines the Lordship of planets over various houses to forecast the outcomes of a horoscope. According to Parashar Hora, it appears that only the Yogakaraka Adhyaya of the BPHS is precise. If the functional characteristics of planets were taken into account in Parashar Hora, the sections on conditional Dashas would be rendered unnecessary, as would the chapters discussing Dasha Antardasha results that focus solely on the inherent significations of the planets. Although some scholars contend that Laghu Parashari was not authored directly by Maharshi Parashara, it is evident that the essence of Parashar Hora can be inferred from it. From ages Laghu Parashari is practiced in several traditions throughout Bharat. These traditions do not rely on BPHS.
9. Reasons For Popularity
Before the English translation of BPHS, the students of Jyotisha were unaware of its existence. Subsequently, several prominent institutions in Delhi, along with their uninformed instructors and unsuspecting students, began to utilize BPHS. The emergence of new 'traditions' that purport to teach the methods of Maharshi Parashara, while actually imparting the principles of Rishi Lomash and Rishi Garga—distinct from those of Maharshi Parashara—contributed to the text's growing popularity.
10. Personal Opinions
After conducting a thorough analysis of the text's reliability and verifying it against the authentic traditions from both the northern and southern regions of Bharat, I have concluded that the text was not written by Maharshi Parashara. A proper study of the text requires the ability to differentiate between the various Rishi Horas, which is a challenging endeavor.
Conclusions :
The Brihat Parashar Hora Shastra (BPHS) that is accessible today was not entirely composed by Maharshi Parashara; rather, it is likely that only certain fragments are derived from the original Parashara Hora.
The contemporary iterations of BPHS are often deemed unreliable and subject to interpolation, leading to considerable confusion.
The credibility of the Brihat Parashar Hora is questionable, as is the legitimacy of any tradition that purports to disseminate the teachings of Maharshi Parashara while incorporating their own imagination.
It is advisable for beginners to refrain from studying BPHS; however, once a solid foundation of knowledge has been established, it may be approached with caution.
It is rather astonishing that individuals with multiple years of experience, as well as those who refer to themselves as Pundits and Acharyas of Jyotish, have overlooked these subtle details, despite asserting that they have thoroughly studied the BPHS. Furthermore, some have established their own schools of thought, through which they propagate their personal fantasies!
Jyotiṣārṇava - Amogh
https://jyotisharnava.blogspot.com/
X (Twitter) - @Jyotisharnava
Other References :
Lomash Samhita - Dr. Girija Shankar Shastri (Chaukhamba).
Lomash Samhita Bhava Phaladhyaya (Khemraj Publishers).
Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra - Pt. Padmanabha Sharma (Chaukhamba).
Hora Ratnam - Shri Murlidhar Chaturvedi (MLBD)
Blog article by Shri. Shyamasundara Dasa Ji : Read Here
What will be the authentic source to begin with, can you give name of classic books which is 100% correct
ReplyDelete