|
|
Astrology
Astro-Treasures
that have Survived through Time
by
Rohini Ranjan
 In
this article I am addressing a very delicate issue which many
contemporary jyotishis may be extremely sensitive to. This pertains to what many of us treat as Gospel, namely,
the classic texts in jyotish that have survived through time. Some of the fairly standard texts in the field of natal
jyotish principles (jaataka siddhantas) include: Brihat Parashar
Hora Shastra [BPHS], Laghu and Madhya Parashari, Brihat Jataka,
Upadesha Sutras (Jaimini), Phaladeepika, Saravali, Hora Ratnam,
Hora Sara, Uttara Kalamrita, Nashta Jataka, Deva Keralam (Chandra
Kala Nadi), Bhrigu Nadi, Satya Jatakam, etc. Some of these and many other texts, were written in
relatively recent times (last few hundred years). Uttarakalamrita
and Daivagna Vallabh would serve as examples of such more recent
texts.
Almost
by consensus, Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra is accepted as the gold
standard where jyotish principles are concerned. This is a huge compilation of hundreds of shlokas (Sanskrit verses)
which touch upon many aspects of Vedic astrology or jyotish. It is presented as a transcript of the discourses between Sage
Parashara and his student Maitraya on all aspects of astrology (including
what is known as Jaimini system because of some of its unique differences
from the mainstream Parashari principles) and wanders briefly in places
into Ayurveda, philosophy and religion. No student of jyotish can escape this huge tome and indeed his
education will remain incomplete without studying it.
The
heartburn arises when we realize that there exist at least a few
‘original’ versions of Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra!. Two of the popular English translations, one by R. Santhanam
(Ranjan Publications) and the other by Girish Chand Sharma (Sagar
Publications) have significant differences in the distribution of
chapters, etc. and at places less than optimal clarity creeps in as to
what is the pure translation and what constitutes the notes and personal
observations of the translators. While
gratefully acknowledging the significance of their attempt at translating
these huge bodies of Sanskrit treatises, it is true that not all
contemporary translators are equally proficient in Sanskrit, and this only
adds to the problem of a faithful translation becoming possible. Overall, though, there is a wealth of knowledge trapped between the
covers of these tomes, and some minefields.
It
is accepted by consensus that most of the earlier texts (including Brihat
Parashara Hora Shastra) were part of the oral tradition which still
continues in jyotish. Information
and knowledge was transmitted from teacher to student and preserved
through meticulous attention to details and a razor sharp memory, the
contents of which were duly transmitted to the next in line before the
ravages of time dulled ones memory. According
to some, unique keys were incorporated to serve as “checksums” for
detecting errors (similar to what is done for digital information in
computer applications). It is
also a popular belief that jyotishi is a revealed knowledge. That it was revealed to sages of yore (18 of whom have been named
by KN Saraswati and her father in their translation of Brihajjataka) from
divine sources and then transmitted from generation to generation through
the oral tradition.
At
this distant point in time, we do not have any evidence if some or all of
these were ever written down until much later. What we see today, as the different versions, could presumably be
the result of notes taken by different individuals possibly at some point
afterwards during the generations of sojourn of jyotish principles from
mind to mind, and can explain at least some of the discrepancies. If one thinks about it, the ability to write and take notes must
have led to (triggered by?) the dulling of ones memory, since with the
faintest mark of ‘ink’ being stronger than the strongest memory, there
was less necessity to remember! Less
exercising of memory was necessary, in other words.
Comparing
this with a modern observation would be the reducing capability of
performing mental mathematical operations by the different generations. Baby boomers who did not have calculators can add, subtract,
multiply and divide numbers more easily in their head than the subsequent
generations with their handy calculators. The mental math muscles have atrophied from disuse! It is not inconceivable that the same could have happened to
man’s memory capabilities as we switched towards becoming a writing,
note-taking, documenting type of creatures.
A
more serious matter, than missed facts or details during translations and
scribing, is embellishment and inserting of material into the original
body. This should not
immediately strike one with horror because of the nefarious and less than
ethical finger-pointing that the statement implies. It is quite conceivable that because of so many individuals
involved in the process of preserving the classics, as well as other
influences such as invasions, temporal decay and degeneration of material,
natural disasters (they did have floods, earthquakes and pestilence back
then!) there could have been damage incurred to the original followed by
well-intentioned attempts at restoring what was damaged. This underlies
the discrepancies noted by contemporary translators when they comment that
a certain passage or word does not make sense in the context in which it
appears.
Regardless
of the original motives, these ‘restorations’ have not been
consistently annotated by the later scribes and one wonders about the
authenticity of everything that we dote upon in the classics and which
some are loathe to question, almost as if that would be a sacrilege. In all fairness, there are many others who conservatively and
probably rightly caution that what we think of as having been modified if
not tampered might not be so, and it is wise not to throw the baby with
the bathwater. In some
situations, this is good advice but does not make our task any easier to
separate the wheat from the chaff.
Jyotish
has survived through centuries (some would prefer to say millennia) and it
is not inconceivable that we have lost many important interpretive keys. It is also possible that many of these keys are available today to
only a select few because of the age old tradition of playing cards close
to the chest and a paranoid fear that astrology can be readily misused by
some. These could be
legitimate and real concerns but unfortunately also limit the reach of
jyotish to wider masses leaving fewer to figure out how best to run the
shop.
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:
-
was
this reference made in the original verbal discourse between Parashara
and Maitraya presumably ‘thousands’ of years ago which amounts to
Parashara essentially predicting Gautama Buddha’s birth in future,
or
-
did
the discourse occur after the birth of Buddha, or
-
the
reference was inserted subsequently to account for Buddha and to make
it complete?
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.
November 9, 2000
Top | Astrology
Image under license with Gettyimages.com
Published in arrangement with
Crystal
Pages, Ottawa.
|
|
