Skyscript Astrology Forum
https://www.skylab.build.applab.net/forums/
https://www.skylab.build.applab.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11213
To summarize:Kalyana Varma (6th century AD), Vaidyanatha (13th century AD) and Mantreswara [Phaladeepika] (16th century AD) are some other important names. Kalyana Varma [Saravali] crystalises very comprehensively Varahamihira's works as well as those of others like Yavana while Vaidyanatha models his wonderful work Jataka Parijata after Varahamihira and Kalyana Varma. His work is widely acclaimed, and is also among the prescribed list of texts for any serious student.
Thank you Martin. I was aware the historical authenticity of the version of the text passed down to us is a matter of considerable uncertainty. It doesn't really surprise me to hear their are quite different renditions of parts of the text in Hindi and English translations.I have only seen two English translations (R. Santhanam and G.C. Sharma), but there may be more out there today. Both are very free and occasionally less than correct, but more importantly, the Sharma one contains material not present in the Santhanam one. If memory serves, Sharma has at least one additional chapter, and there may be differences within chapters (I haven't compared them verse by verse).
Another cause for concern is that when you compare the Santhanam/Sharma Sanskrit text(s) with that used for the Hindi translation by Devachandra Jha as vol. 220 in the Kashi Sanskrit Series, the text itself is often completely different, which makes you wonder how many Sanskrit versions there really are, lying around in manuscript libraries in India. My guess is that Sharma may have used Santhanam's text as a basis for his own translation, adding some material that he had found elsewhere, so that the overall agreement of those two editions could be misleading.
So more of a caveat than a recommendation; sorry about that.
I don't think the N.N.K. Rao translation is in print so as you suggest whatever, their flaws it appears the Santhanam & Sharma editions are the only readily available English translations in print at present.Graha Sutras is the first Volume of a series of Jyoitsh texts dealing with the predictive methods and principles found in Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. 384 pages of Grahas, Planets and more Grahas make Graha Sutras the most thorough text available on the Planets. Contains Sanskrit Astrological Sutras with original and precise translations that will bring the planets to life in a profound manner. Original artwork portrays the images of the planets in accordance with the precise descriptions found in Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. There is even a chapter devoted to Graha Shanti - pacifying the planets. This Vedic Astrology text is largely a commentary of Brihat Parashara Hora Shastras Sutras on the Grahas. The translation will often be found to be slightly different than what is in the available translations as I have striven to give a more precise and literal and, as mentioned, more accurate translation than most. Where my translations differ on significant points I have explained my reasoning as to the correctness of my translation. In addition to the Sutras provided by Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra, I have found it worthwhile to add a few Sutras from other important texts such as Jataka Parijata and Yavana Jataka. Lastly I have included two chapters entirely my own: one on Grahas and numbers and the other on the myths surrounding the Grahas. My intention is thus to present an entirely complete manual for the study of the Grahas, after which you will only be in need of deepening your contemplations on this vast subject.
Ok. I am sure youir right and the source is no doubt Pingree. Probably time to fess up less on my less than academically authorative source:Mark: I would be very surprised if Jan Gonda had written on the history of astrological Sanskrit texts. You're not by any chance referring to Pingree's Jyotiḥś??stra: Astral and Mathematical Literature (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1981), which belongs to a series edited by Gonda (A History of Indian Literature)?
The editions you mention agree more or less with Pingree's entry in CESS A4 (p. 202), available here (though for how long is an open question, so save it if you want it), with some minor mistakes. Sitaram Jha's Sanskrit-Hindi version is not a translation of Thakurdas Chudamani's Sanskrit-Bengali version, though I can understand how Pingree's phrasing in CESS might give someone that impression.
I believe Wilhelm is sincere but as for the quality of sanskrit skills or textual awareness I leave it to scholars like yourself to judge. The bigger question is surely why are we having to rely on the efforts of well meaning amateur enthusiasts like Wilhelm rather than academics from India? Considering the status of astrology in India one would assume there would be major academic activity there to unravel the Jyotisha texts. So why is Pingree still our core source on all these texts all these decades later? All the pioneering scholarship I read about today e.g. Bill Mak, Yano Michi or Jeffrey Kotyk is by academics located outside India. I admit I don't read Hindi so perhaps I am being thoroughly unfair to contemporary academics in India. Still, I cant help thinking the strong Hindutva climate isn't helping objective scholarship.As a general tip, specialized Indian booksellers can often be very helpful in locating out-of-print books and procuring photocopies (or perhaps scans these days?) if you make it worth their while. Although I haven't seen this book, earlier English translations tend to be better and more carefully produced than what you typically encounter today. This includes Ernst Wilhelm's efforts: he clearly knows some Sanskrit, but not enough, and is unfamiliar with its literary genres: the Bṛhatp??r??śarahor??[ś??stra] is not a sūtra work.
No, the politicized climate doesn't help. (I would argue that that is equally, or at least nearly equally and increasingly, true of much scholarship in the western world, although the ideological directions differ.) But there are other factors too, one, as you say, being language.Mark wrote:Considering the status of astrology in India one might assume there would be major academic activity there to unravel the Jyotisha texts. I mean why is Pingree still our core source on all these texts all these decades later? All the pioneering scholarship I read about today e.g. Bill Mak, Yano Michi or Jeffrey Kotyk is by academics located outside India. I admit I don't read Hindi so perhaps I am being thoroughly unfair to contemporary academics in India. Still, I cant help thinking the strong Hindutva climate isn't helping objective scholarship.
Yes I am entering into this with open and critical eyes. I posted this link about the historical authenticity of the BPHS on this very forum page several years ago:hi mark,
good question.. i have stayed away from BPHS because it sounds like it has been corrupted along the way...i recall a conversation you and therese had about this.... it seems parashara and jaimini concepts have all been rolled into one in many of the versions of BPHS today... i am curious to hear others feedback on your question... martins comment basically is more of the same impression i have gotten to date.. cheers james
Following the advice of Martin on Skyscript I bought a copy of Brihat Jataka about a decade ago as a good starting point for early Jyotish. So I am more advanced in my studies than where you or your friend seems to think I am. Financial strictures and time constraints prohibited me extending my library beyond downloads. However, I am now intending to purchase copies of all the Jyotish classics. I think Hellenistic , Perso-Arabic and renaissance astrology is still my main interest as its techniques seem more logically stated. At least that is my perception. Others may well disagree! I find some Jyotish rules quite arbitrary and the faith based focus at times off putting. I am not a Hindu so chanting for the assistance of deities like Ganesha or Vishnu does not feel comfortable for me. Still, Jyotish is very interesting in comparative terms with Hellenistic and Perso-Arabic astrology. Especially, as I am researching topics like the lunar nodes, fixed stars and the different approach to retrograde planets. The vargas are interesting too but I prefer working with the lots. Ultimately, when delineating a chart you cannot have your cake and eat it. For example I understand in Shad Bala (specifically Kala bala) Saturn is seen as better in a night chart and at its strongest at midnight. In contrast, in hellenistic planetary sect theory Saturn is regarded as diurnal and therefore best placed in a day chart above the horizon. Similarly, in Shad Bala (Kala Bala) Venus is seen as at its strongest at midday and powerless in a midnight chart. This totally contradicts the Hellenistic planetary sect theory where Venus is seen as better placed in a night chart. By definition delineation requires selectivity.here is aj's take on this when i asked him about it - take it fwiw...
"Yes Martin is mostly correct, there are three editions of this book in English but only two are currently in that print that I know of. Perhaps there is a more recent one but I doubt it. Ranjan and Sagar have both an available edition each by the mentioned authors.
It's with having both editions as they do vary slightly and both have different notes.
Better to start with Brihat Jataka IMO rather than BPHS for reasons we have talked about, the best available edition is by B. Suryanarayana Rao."
Another very major factor is the lamentable fact that humanities all over the world are in terrible shape compared to the situation just 40-50 years ago. (...)
But however bad things are in Europe and North America, they are worse in India, where very few can afford the attempt to pursue an academic career in a field so unlikely to land them a secure job. Parents who send their children to university are making an investment on which they need a safe return, which is at least part of the reason why so many become doctors, lawyers, or computer engineers, rather than historians of astrology.
