KENNETH JOHNSON IN A DISCUSSION IN SKYSCRIPT ABOUT THE BPHS

The reference to "Parashara" in Varaha Mihira probably does not refer to the authors of the
BPH (as it was called until the 20th century, when it "acquired" the "S" for Shastra). His
reference is to a quote re: the cycles of Mercury, a passage which does not appear in the BPH.
The name Parashara was not at all uncommon in Classical Sanskrit. Pingree mentions an
author by that name whose writings had to do with nimitta or celestial omens; this is probably
the individual to whom Varaha Mihira refers.

The oldest ms. of the BPH isn't very old and dates only to the 17th century. This is in contrast
to VM's Brhat Jataka, the oldest ms. of which dates to the 9th or 10th (kept in the royal library
of Nepal). Pingree's collation (in Jyotisastra) of the chapters in the oldest BPH ms. bears only
marginal resemblance to any of the current volumes in publication. The oldest ms. is in a
mixture of poetry and prose, whereas the published versions have all been reworked into
anustubh meter. The oldest ms. is comprised of about 60 chapters, whereas published versions
can include up to 90 or even more (they are all different). The published versions also rework
the whole book into dialogue form, which was true of only parts of the earliest ms. The
anustubh meter has often been cited as evidence of the work's antiquity, but this argument
does not hold up well. Though anustubh was indeed a common meter in the Rgveda, it was
also in continuous use until the demise of Sanskrit as a spoken language. In any case, there
could not have been a Vedic original in anustubh: the text that we have includes the
compound nouns typical of Classical Sanskrit, and none of the verbs are in the aorist form. In
Vedic Sanskrit, nouns are declined separately rather than compounded, and the aorist is
common. To write the text out in Vedic Sanskrit would add a few syllables to each line with
separate declensions or aorists, hence no more anustubh.

Beyond that, early authors such as Prthuyasas (600) and Kalyana Varman (800) don't mention
Parasara at all. His work is mentioned by Mantresvara, mostly in connection with the
Vimsottari Dasa system, but Mantresvara dates from about 1500.

The famous invocation to Vishnu that begins the published versions is not found in the earliest
ms. The principal references to deities in the original are to be found in chapters on "exotic"
techniques such as Sudarshana Chakra, Chara Dasha, and Kalachakra Dasha, and all of these
chapters are in the form of dialogues between Shiva and Parvati, suggesting a Tantric origin. If
Pingree's dates for BPH are anywhere near correct (650-750 CE), this suggests northwest India
as a place of origin and Kaulika Tantra as a principal influence. The chapter on incarnations of
Vishnu appears to be a 19th or even 20th century addition included to give the text a more
"orthodox" appearance.

Despite the fact that the BPH has been severely messed with, it still has great value. Here we
see Jyotish moving away from its Hellenistic roots in Ujjain and becoming much more
"Indianized." The Parasara writers (for there are clearly several hands involved) can be
credited with introducing the nakshatra-based dasha systems, thus moving away from the
Hellenistically inspired systems of the YJ and Varaha Mihira and returning to indigenous roots -
- which in time became the paradigm for time lord systems in India. We owe the dashas to the
BPH.
Sorry for the inconsistent Sanskrit spellings. No time for editing!

-------------------------

It's a bit of a muddle, to be sure. As Martin points out, Shyamasundara is from the Krsna
Consciousness movement, and follows his guru Prabhupad in regarding mythology as literal
history, so I rather doubt if his dates can be taken seriously. He is, however, correct when he
asserts that all the ancient writers regard Varahamihira rather than Parasara as the sine qua
non of the astrological art. Though contemporary jyotisis for the most part take Parasara as
the "bible" of astrology, this is a fairly recent development which seems to me to have begun
in the late 19th century and which has not yet taken hold in Kerala where, as Shyamasundara
correctly states, the Kerala tradition of prasna (horary astrology) continues to regard
Varahamihira as the ultimate authority.

On p. 90 of his Jyotihsastra, Pingree refuses to accept the attribution of the Horasara to

Prthuyasas, son of Varahamihira. His grounds for rejecting Prthuyasas' authorship are that the
author of Horasara is clearly borrowing certain key passages from the Saravali of
Kalyanavarman, which, as Martin has pointed out, is commonly dated to 800 CE. Though the
Saravali was written a bit later than the BPHS, it does not contain the Vimsottari Dasa. Here we
may be dealing with a time period wherein the new, naksatra-based dasa systems, though
already in existence, had not yet become the dominant paradigm.

On p. 111, however, Pingree accepts Prthuyasas as the author of the horary work entitled
Satpancasika. In a certain way, this makes sense. Both the Brhajjataka of VM and the
Satpancasika are written in a similar style of Sanskrit, condensed and abbreviated almost to
the point of incomprehensibility. This style is typical of what we would call a "foundation text"
-- one which is intended to stand as the basis for an entire scholarly discipline, and is
deliberately written in ambivalent language in order to invite lengthy commentaries that seek
out its inner meanings. For example, Panini's work on Sanskrit grammar is written as a
foundation text -- the original work is about 28 pages long, while the average commentary is
more than 1000.

It should be noted that while the Brhajjataka and Satpancasika are both written in the style of
foundation texts, both the Horasara and the BPHS are written in a quite different style, the
BPHS in particular being discursive and chatty.

As for Satyacarya, Pingree regards him (p. 83) as a very early writer, after the YJ of 269 but
before Minaraja in 325 (following Pingree's dates just for the sake of placing Satya in some sort
of context while admitting that the new article by Mak does indeed cast a great deal of doubt
on the date of the YJ). He also states that Satya's work is lost. This assumes that the works
which now bear his name are spurious attributions.

So, it seems to me that Varahamihira (c. 550) is using a dasa system derived from Hellenistic
models and his work predates the rise of naksatra based dasas. These new systems begin to
arise c. 600 or a bit later and make their first appearance in the BPHS (compiled between 600
and 800), but have not yet become the predominant time lord systems by 800, when the
Saravali is composed. They are noted in the Horasara, which Pingree thinks (though he may be
simply guessing) was composed about 850, and here we see the new time lord systems
beginning to make an impact on the tradition.