thanks therese,

your personal comments are especially interesting and rewarding to read.. thanks...

i have the book and have very casually looked at some of the passages.. it is hard to know what i can get from the book.. in a funny way it reminds me of MATHESEOS LIBRI VIII - Ancient Astrology Theory & Practice - Firmicus Maternus - which i have read.. some of it is worth knowing... some of it is for one to rack their brain trying to figure out why they said what they said on it all! maybe most of it falls into this later category.. just opening brihat jataka randomly - "The Sun in Aquarius makes a man mean, separated from children and wealth, and poor."" apply that to jeffery epstein, LOLOL.. oh wait.. dang - he is a sun in aquarius in tropical, but not sidereal!!! continuing on - i can see how they could say some of that, but not sure about all of that...

i think a person has to figure out a lot about astrology for themselves, independent of the books they are supposed to read or not.. i could be wrong but that is how i continue to see it..

cheers james

James wrote:

I think a person has to figure out a lot about astrology for themselves, independent of the books they are supposed to read or not.. i could be wrong but that is how i continue to see it..

Study the books as best you can (or attend classes and lectures), then figure it out on your own. That's what we all have to do. Get the foundation, then build the house yourself that suits you best. But don't make major changes, for example, deciding that the Sun rules Aquarius and the Moon is exalted in Scorpio. Certain principles have to remain the same.

James, I'm wondering about the version of Rao's Brihat Jataka you have. What is the publication date? An Amazon reviewer wrote in 2017:

If you can get the first edition & First print then it is worth it. Lot of so called modern day jyotish gurus have put in the latest nonsense trends in Vedic Astrology [that have] no true basis on original classics

This review was for a book listed with two authors, but it looks only like Rao's name was changed around: Bangalore Suryanarain Rao (Author), Suryanarain B. Rao (author)

I don't believe any of India's classic astrological texts are free from Western influence, some good, some bad. By Varaha Mihira's time (6th century) there had already been a great deal of inter-communication between cultures in east and west.

hi therese,

varaha mihira's brihat jataka
b. suryanarain rao


on the inside of the book is says

translated by Bangalore Suryanarain Rao

edited by bangalore venkata raman
5th edition 1986...8th reprinted 2018

copyright b.v. raman

the preface by b.v. ramans says

"it is with feeling of considerable pride that i present the fifth edition of my grandfather's english translation of brihat jataka..

there are several translations of this matchless book into english available in the market... but prof. rao's translation has been acclaimed not only as authentic, based mainly on the commentaries of bhattopala but also as embodying in the notes, prof. rao's vast practical experience in the field of astrology..

it is hoped that this translation, out of print for a long time, will supply a long felt want to the vast number of astrological students and savants, for an authoritative presentation of varaha mihira's treatise in simple english..

i must record my appreciation of the helpful attitude displayed by my good friend mr. g.k. ananthram in readily coming forward to publish this book in an attractive manner.. my thanks are due to him."

8-9-1986 b.v. raman"


regarding the quote i gave you - i literally opened the book yesterday and quoted from it.. i don't have the page number! i can't find it with a quick perusal... cheers james

Thank you, James. Your version seems to be the same as mine, although mine was published many years ealier. Your quote certainly doesn't highly recommend Brihat Jakata, does it?!

An open minded translator will admit there are a number of Greek references in Brihat Jataka. I wonder if your quoted words on Aquarius have their origin in Valens? Quoting from the Riley on-line translation:

Aquarius is:... base, with few offspring...Men born under this sign are malicious, haters of their own families, incorrigible, self willed, deceitful, tricky, concealing everything, misanthropic, godless, accusers, betrayers of reputations and the truth, envious, petty, occasionally generous (because of [this sign’s flow of water)...

https://beyondtheheaven.files.wordpress ... .-blue.pdf

When we study the characteristics of the twelve signs in ancient texts, it seems obvious that sign traits were more or less copied from the ruling planets. It does seem that many of these descriptions were streams of consciousness from various astrologers, much as modern texts that have large sections on the traits of zodiac signs which couldn't have possibly been tested and verfied by the authors of these books.

It's interesting that the section of Brihat Jataka which contains the descriptions of planets in signs is near the end of the book and isn't included in the introductory material on signs in Chapter 1. This material generally lacks commentary by the translators. Perhaps they just shook their heads in bewilderment, and more or less ignored that section of the text! Or was this material a later interpolation to the basic text? (Even the basic text shows Greek influence, however.)

P. S. Sastri translates this Aquarian passage as "One having the Sun in Aquarius is engaged in unbecoming actions. He become bereft of sons and good luck." (Ranjan Publications, 2007, p. 138)

Note: It's interesting that Swami Vijnandanda's translation (which I've only obtained recently) has every word of the Sanskrit translated in separate paragraphs for anyone who wants to explore the original Sanskrit. (The Brihata Jatakam of Varaha Mihira, Delhi: India, Satguru Publications, 2008) This is a nicely made hardback digital copy of the original 1912 publication.

thanks therese,

yes - the quote i shared is reminiscent of valens.. i was mentioning matheseos earlier, but matheseos and valens seem to share a lot in common!

i think you might be right about sign characteristics being copied from descriptions of the ruling planets... what conclusions do you personally draw from this?

James wrote:

I think you might be right about sign characteristics being copied from descriptions of the ruling planets... what conclusions do you personally draw from this?

My conclusion?? That these ancient traits and many modern traits are figments of the imagination and bogus. If you had asked for the paper I mentioned a while back, that paper covers the traits I've found to be genuine. Certain triplicity symbolism is solidly based on Aristotle and the planets--but not as Valens and others have recorded. In general India was wise in ignoring bogus traits. I have no idea what the planets-in-sign material is doing in Brihat Jataka. This is the section that contains your Aquarius quote (Chapter eighteen).

I wish I had time to compare Hellenistic and Medieval western texts with India's classics. I've done this to some extent, and the inter-communication is clear. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the twelve sign zodiac has its origin in the west. But India took that zodiac and developed it in extensive and unique ways as well as combining it with the nakshatras. So at present I believe that India has the most accurate zodiac and astrology.

okay thanks therese,

i thought you might have more to say on this.. thanks for sharing a quick overview on your thoughts here... cheers james