Why not BPHS

Dear Friends,

I am copy and pasting one of the reply I gave on a group regarding the BPHS and Jaimini System. Of course, I know most of the points are repeats from earlier articles, still I thought I better put it here. Hope you enjoy.

Om Namah Sivaya

Namaste All,

Kindly let me add a few points here.

Yes, The mixing is not forbidden, but there has been a humble suggestion by experts in Jaimini Astrology not to mix Parasari principles with Jaimini. Yes, the taste of pudding is in eating and of course on the ability of the cook as well. Yet, as Sri Bhaskar pointed out we eat south indian idli sambar as a whole and other noth indian dishes, but I guess not mixing them in the same plate/bowl. Kindly take it light.

Well, now the real question why most scholars take Parasara and Jaimini different. There is a valid reason behind this apart from the discrepancy in versions, chapters, sloka etc.

No, ancient commentator of Jaimini sutras take reference to Parasara. They always quote the authenticity of Vriddha Karikas, but not Sage Parasara. For example, Somanatha, the author of Kalpalatha, a wonderful commentary on Jaimini, referred to Brihat Jataka, but not Parasara. If we follow, Sridhara Pandita Sanskrit commentary on BPHS, published a century back, the concepts regarding Jaimini, are more in line with ancient commentators, where as relatively modern commentary by Sitaram Jha differs.

If you take available BPHS, you never find the Sampat Dasas like Chara Paryaya, Sthira Paryaya, Bhava Rahasya dasa etc. which find an important place in most of Jaimini commentaries. Even, if they do in some editions, they may different to the ways used by Jaimini classics. Their way of calculating Drig Dasa, Manduka Dasa is entirely different from what BPHS gives and they mentions the parameters to be used with each dasa, quoting the authenticity of either Vriddha Karika or the Jaimini Sutras, but not BPHS. Evan the later commentators like Durga Prasada Dwivedi never quote Parasara. He took refernce to Bala Krishnananada Swami, Neelakantha etc.

It is only the modern commentator Sri Sanjay Rath, who quotes only BPHS in commenting Jaimini Sutras and no Vriddha Karikas. Kindly have a look at Shyamasundara Dasa's article on BPHS.

It is not prudent to argue that these commentators didn't have access to BPHS or they didn't care to follow Sage Parasara, since they talk of Udu dasas and the Nakshtras and their lord etc. They always claim that this system is a secret system and to be used as such. For example, they mention a number of Ayurdasa like Hora, Atmanadi, Atmano Bhava Pamsa etc. and call them Antaranga sasthra and asks us to use sparingly and they talk of Bahiranga sasthra as predictive Phalita dasas as well.

If we closely follow them, their way of calculating Argala, Rajayoga, Arudha etc. are very different from the concepts given by BPHS. So, it will good to follow the advice by our elders not to mix. Anyway, as Sri B.V.Raman puts it, Astrology both Scince as well as Art, so it is upto the astrologer to use the tools.

Sarve Janaah Sukhinoh Bhavantu

Warm Regards,

Shanmukha

P.S : Somanatha writes that Jaimini system can broadly be divided as Antaranga and Bahiranga system. The Phalita dasas come under Bahiranga system and be freely used for horoscopic analysis, where as Ayur dasas come under Antaranga system and be used sparingly from Raja Yoga horoscopes. He clearly mentions that Drekkana chart is a Antaranga system and have prime importance in Jaimini even over Navamsa chart and shall be used in deciding Rajayoga of the native. There has been an extensive details about a Drekkana Dasa in Jataka Sara Sangraha as a Rajayoga dasa used in charts of Kings .