|
|
||
|
Home | Hindi | Kabir | Poetry | Workshop | BoloKids | Writers | Contribute | Search | Contact Shop Online |
|||
|
|
||
|
Home | Hindi | Kabir | Poetry | Workshop | BoloKids | Writers | Contribute | Search | Contact Shop Online |
|||
|
Astrology / Vedic Jyotish Astro-Treasures that have survived through Time - 2 There
is a likelihood that most if not all of jyotish texts that we have today
were scribed around the time of Lord Buddha (few centuries before
Christian Era began). It must
be emphasized that this is when things were written down and represent
neither the date of the original creation of jyotish on earth nor of its
transmission from the Divine, if such were the case!
If one peruses Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra, one notes that when
describing the planetary representation of the avatars such as Rama,
Narasimha, etc., Lord Buddha is also mentioned as the avatar indicated by
the planet mercury (budh graha in sanskrit) [BPHS, Sharma, Chapter II,
Athawataarakathanadhyaaya, page 10, shloka 5, 1995 reprint].
Now, I submit before you the following to ponder upon:
BPHS
is a remarkably well-compiled book with a great degree of contextual
organization and the order of presentation of information.
Yet when it comes to the lunar nodes, there seems to be a
departure. Parashara mentions
that rahu and ketu are nodes, shadowy planets (this distinction that he
made from other planets is remarkable since the lunar nodes are really two
mathematical points created by the nodes of intersection of the path of
the earth around the sun {apparent path of sun around the earth!} and the
path of the moon around the earth). Parashara
does not attribute any sign rulership to the nodes when he describes the
rulership of signs of other planets [BPHS, Sharma, Chapter IV,
Atharashiswaaroopadhyaaya, pages 54-57, shlokas 6-24, 1995 reprint] but
clearly indicates that these nodes give the results of the house whose
lord they are conjoined with or the house they occupy [BPHS, Sharma,
Chapter XXXVI, Athayogakarakadhyaaya, page 479, shloka 16, 1995 reprint].
In an earlier chapter [BPHS, Sharma, Chapter III,
Athagrihagunaswaroopadhyaayaha, planetary characteristics and description,
pages 36-37, shlokas 49-54, 1995 reprint], no mention is made of rahu or
ketu attributing any special signs (exaltation, debilitation or
moolatrikona} as had been done for all other planets used in jyotish.
However, later on in [BPHS, Sharma, Chapter XXXXIX,
Athadashaphaladdhyaaya, page 123, shlokas 35-36, 1995 reprint], the text
suddenly goes into great details and mentions the exaltation,
debilitation, moolatrikona and own signs of rahu and ketu!
One
immediately wonders as to why the original author was keeping this unsaid
until so late in the book. And,
in stating this is almost contradicting his own statements from an earlier
chapter. If one browses
around a bit more in chapter 49 one would see that the basic framework of
the chapter includes the describing of planetary effects, during
vimshottari dasha periods, based upon the rulership and dignities of the
planets in a given chart (exaltation, moolatrikona, etc.).
Obviously, rahu and ketu would not fit in this context and so
‘had’ to be provided with the relevant ‘attributes’.
I do not think I am being cynical if I do not see in this a case of
oversight on the part of “Parashara” in not describing the places of
dignity for rahu and ketu in Chapter 4 and making up for it in Chapter 49
when he was up again a wall while describing rahu and ketu’s dasha
effects. Instead, what is in
Chapter 49 represents an insertion, an embellishment that was perhaps not
in the original. It also
makes one wonder if some of these later chapters were: (a) in the original
discourse, or (b) did BPHS gradually evolved as a compilation over many
years after having originally seeded from the discourse that took place
between Parashara and his disciple.
In
a text that is so ancient, it is not surprising that discrepancies exist,
but the beginner in jyotish should be watchful about these and should
approach what is stated in these books with an open and questioning mind.
Much of astrology is definable in terms of clear logical threads,
although there is a lot where logic is not apparent.
One must not hesitate to question if such situations represent
missing logic, missing keys or are simply inaccurate.
In this context, it bothers me quite a bit to notice the near
absence of example horoscopes right across the board in jyotish classics.
Most
of the authorities, such as Parashara, Jaimini, Varahamihira, Satyacharya,
and the later day doyens, Mukunda Daivagnya, Dhundiraja, Kalidasa, in
books after books after books have not left any illustrations of the
principles propounded by them (or in some case with Divine guidance) or a
companion workbook which contained horoscopes from their times that would:
(a) illustrate from a practical point of view at least some of the
thousands of principles and combinations so prolifically produced by them,
and (b) would have allowed us to ‘time’ their period of existence with
greater accuracy and certainty. The
only significant body of horoscopes and real data that has been bequeathed
to us modern jyotishis exists in the form of yet another jealously guarded
collection that constitute the nadis of Bhrigu and many others.
Even those are questionably detailed in terms of birth data, etc.
It is extremely strange and disturbing – this absence of examples
to complement the principles that abound in jyotish classics aplenty. To me, jyotish is not a
religion or something where faith needs to reign supreme.
Jyotish texts, are a legacy that we are grateful for – how else
could we have learned astrology without having to reinvent the wheel?
However, these must not be considered immune to further examination
and given the time that has passed since their creation and today, these
must not be accepted as gospel or as above or beyond examination.
Particularly in their current state of incompleteness glaringly
exemplified by the near total absence of illustrative material, horoscope
examples, etc. The jyotishi, of
eastern or western roots, must not forget that the primary purpose of
jyotish is to address the needs of the worldly individual, the
stereotypical householder. Those
who have renounced the world and are on a lofty path of detached
self-realization have no need for astrology.
They are beyond the grasp of the grahas! If jyotish must be practiced as a pragmatic, living and breathing craft and if we really want to understand it as a predictable, logic-based, scientifically-testable set of principles, then we have to come out of the ‘religious’ mode that many insist to incarcerate jyotish in. Unless we are willing to do that and unless we are prepared to question all that we have received over time and attempt to examine its relevance and applicability, we shall not be able to release jyotish from the dark crypts of secrecy, confusion, sensationalism and mysticism where it has been lying in a wasteful state of isolation for a long time. Otherwise, it shall continue to remain in the minds of the majority of the human population -- a curiosity at best and a superstition at the worst. –
Rohini Ranjan Top | Astrology / Vedic Jyotish Published in arrangement with Crystal Pages, Ottawa. |
|
|
|
|
Analysis |
Architecture |
Astrology |
Ayurveda |
Book Reviews |
Buddhism |
Cartoons | Cinema |
Computing |
Culture |
Dances |
|
Home | Hindi | Bolography | BoloKids | Kabir | Poetry | Quotes | Workshop | Writers | Contribute | Search | Contact |
|
|
