rathore ji
IMHO we need to look at the sloka in original Sanskrit to determine whether there is a possibility of an extra line.
As I wrote earlier these texts are written in Anushtup Chandas. It has 4 charanas of exactly 8 letters. Addition of even a single extra letter to the sloka; let alone a whole line altogether - would disturb the Chandas. It would reflect badly on the sloka recitation too.
I have examined all slokas starting with sloka 1. They all closely follow the rules of Anushtup chandas. There is no extra line anywhere nor missprint of sloka numbers in sloka 8 or anywhere else. Please verify the Sanskrit slokas from your end and let me know.
I also examined sloka 8 & 9. Their meanings are different.
It appears that the mess up has originated in the translation you were referring to. The translator has taken some extra freedom by combining a full sloka AS WELL AS part of another sloka. Now he is left with the remaining part - which he combines with the first part of the next sloka. From then onwards we see the pattern emerging of the translator combining disparate padas of consecutive slokas & thus creating wrong slokas & obviously wrong meanings.
Wrong translation - BPHS
Forum rules
READ Forum-Wide Rules and Guidelines NOTICE: OFFENSIVE POSTS WILL BE DELETED, AND OFFENDERS WILL HAVE ALL POSTS MODERATED.
READ Forum-Wide Rules and Guidelines NOTICE: OFFENSIVE POSTS WILL BE DELETED, AND OFFENDERS WILL HAVE ALL POSTS MODERATED.
But sometimes right in the middle of a sloka a new topic is introduced. Hence in sloka 9 the 2nd pada starting with Kujedha.... introduces a new topic. But this new topic ends at the 2nd pada of sloka 10 ie in paape dwadasakamasthe...
From then onwards normal service is resumed. ie we read slokas 11;12 etc as it appears in the text. If we dont do this then the whole system of ordering the slokas in Sanskrit will be rendered meaningless.
This however is my understanding after going thru the slokas. I dont claim to be anywhere near a Sanskrit scholar eventhough I have dabbled a bit with Sanskrit texts.
From then onwards normal service is resumed. ie we read slokas 11;12 etc as it appears in the text. If we dont do this then the whole system of ordering the slokas in Sanskrit will be rendered meaningless.
This however is my understanding after going thru the slokas. I dont claim to be anywhere near a Sanskrit scholar eventhough I have dabbled a bit with Sanskrit texts.
Hari ji, it looks like the mess up is there in the translation as well as the link you provided.
Please see the image.
#7 (yellow) translation:
The native will befriend barren females, if Sun is in 7th. Moon there in will cause association with such female as corresponding to the Rashi becoming 7th.
Mars placed in 7th, will denote association with marriageable girls (those with menses), or with barren females.
#8 (grayish) translation:
Mercury indicates harlots, mean females and females belonging to traders community.
Wife of a Brahmin or a pregnant female will be in the natives association, if Jupiter is in 7th.
#9 (yellow) translation:
Base females and females, having attained their courses, are denoted by Saturn, Rahu/Ketu in 7th.
Mars denotes a female with attractive breasts. Saturn indicates sick and weak spouse.
So here at #9 it seems the error starts. Here Sloka #9 first line is continuing the results from previous two Slokas (but for Saturn, Rahu/Ketu in 7th), but suddenly in its second line it starts talking about breasts which continues on to #10 like this..
#10 (grayish) translation:
Jupiter will bring a spouse with hard and prominent breasts. Venus will bring bulky and excellent breasts.
Malefics in 12th and 7th, while decreasing Moon is in 5th denotes.
#11 (yellow) translation:
That the native will be controlled by spouse,who will be inimical to the race (or family).
If 7th House is occupied, or owned by Saturn/Mars.
#12 (grayish) translation:
The native will beget a harlot, as his spouse
Should Venus be in a Navamsa of Mars or in a Rasi of Mars.
#13 (yellow) translation:
Aspect from or be conjunct with Mars, the native will kiss the private parts of the female.
If Venus is so related to Saturn.
#14 (grayish) translation:
The native will kiss the private parts of the male.
If the 7th Lord is exalted ....continued
This certainly looks like it is broken starting from #9. What do you think?
Rathore
Please see the image.
#7 (yellow) translation:
The native will befriend barren females, if Sun is in 7th. Moon there in will cause association with such female as corresponding to the Rashi becoming 7th.
Mars placed in 7th, will denote association with marriageable girls (those with menses), or with barren females.
#8 (grayish) translation:
Mercury indicates harlots, mean females and females belonging to traders community.
Wife of a Brahmin or a pregnant female will be in the natives association, if Jupiter is in 7th.
#9 (yellow) translation:
Base females and females, having attained their courses, are denoted by Saturn, Rahu/Ketu in 7th.
Mars denotes a female with attractive breasts. Saturn indicates sick and weak spouse.
So here at #9 it seems the error starts. Here Sloka #9 first line is continuing the results from previous two Slokas (but for Saturn, Rahu/Ketu in 7th), but suddenly in its second line it starts talking about breasts which continues on to #10 like this..
#10 (grayish) translation:
Jupiter will bring a spouse with hard and prominent breasts. Venus will bring bulky and excellent breasts.
Malefics in 12th and 7th, while decreasing Moon is in 5th denotes.
#11 (yellow) translation:
That the native will be controlled by spouse,who will be inimical to the race (or family).
If 7th House is occupied, or owned by Saturn/Mars.
#12 (grayish) translation:
The native will beget a harlot, as his spouse
Should Venus be in a Navamsa of Mars or in a Rasi of Mars.
#13 (yellow) translation:
Aspect from or be conjunct with Mars, the native will kiss the private parts of the female.
If Venus is so related to Saturn.
#14 (grayish) translation:
The native will kiss the private parts of the male.
If the 7th Lord is exalted ....continued
This certainly looks like it is broken starting from #9. What do you think?
Rathore
rathore ji
I planned to visit the Public library in the last weekend to verify the BPHS text given in the link against the text in hard copy - but couldnt go due to some sudden preoccupations.
But I was able to do so a few days ago. And I found the texts agree (with regard to this chapter). I thought it better to verify this before posting further - since eventhough they say in the website that the text is proof read there is a chance that mistakes might have crept in. And this interesting thread/discussion is worth the effort taken.
Now in this regard another notable fact is - all online translations I have referred to have used the same text as is found in the link. If we consider the translation you have quoted - we can see that the translator does not add any extra content (which might indicate an extra sloka/line in the text he has been referring to).
The issue is not that there is any variation in the text. The issue is whether the translator is right in combining the slokas and arriving at meanings as he did. Hence it is established that the Sanskrit text in the online link does not indicate mistakes as far as this chapter is concerned & follows a well accepted version of the text. I hope I have answered your query.
BPHS in content and style looks a pauraNika text ( the puraNaas/upapuraaNas are my field of research btw). As you know the puraaNas have characteristically been rewritten/modified over millennia. Nevertheless I “guess“ BPHS over the years has assumed canonical proportions with major sections of the astrological community. So I expect that any other versions of the text - if found - would have been subjected to close scrutiny. If you have come across any other version of the text/slokas I would be interested.
Nice job posting the relevant slokas/translations in this discussion.
I planned to visit the Public library in the last weekend to verify the BPHS text given in the link against the text in hard copy - but couldnt go due to some sudden preoccupations.
But I was able to do so a few days ago. And I found the texts agree (with regard to this chapter). I thought it better to verify this before posting further - since eventhough they say in the website that the text is proof read there is a chance that mistakes might have crept in. And this interesting thread/discussion is worth the effort taken.
Now in this regard another notable fact is - all online translations I have referred to have used the same text as is found in the link. If we consider the translation you have quoted - we can see that the translator does not add any extra content (which might indicate an extra sloka/line in the text he has been referring to).
The issue is not that there is any variation in the text. The issue is whether the translator is right in combining the slokas and arriving at meanings as he did. Hence it is established that the Sanskrit text in the online link does not indicate mistakes as far as this chapter is concerned & follows a well accepted version of the text. I hope I have answered your query.
BPHS in content and style looks a pauraNika text ( the puraNaas/upapuraaNas are my field of research btw). As you know the puraaNas have characteristically been rewritten/modified over millennia. Nevertheless I “guess“ BPHS over the years has assumed canonical proportions with major sections of the astrological community. So I expect that any other versions of the text - if found - would have been subjected to close scrutiny. If you have come across any other version of the text/slokas I would be interested.
Nice job posting the relevant slokas/translations in this discussion.
Regarding the break in #9 I noticed it too. I have explained it in my message posted earlier. It is quite common for such texts to start a new topic right at the middle of a sloka.
Now suppose if we assume that another version of BPHS exist(ed) with an extra line at the end of #9 or anywhere before #12 starts. Then the sloka #12 should as you had given translation in the beginning. If the text is accepted as it is now; or if two such (lost) lines existed; then the sloka could be read as I posted/translated.
Now if we examine the meanings of the slokas - the way #12 is given in the online text - a connection between Bhauma & Shukra in the Navamsa is related to excess libido for the wife (Navamsa). I think this is in sync with our general understanding of such Kuja-Shukra connections (as we learnt from other slokas). I think this makes more sense than if we bring in the last pada of #11 wherein Shani & Kuja are considered in the Rasi.
Now suppose if we assume that another version of BPHS exist(ed) with an extra line at the end of #9 or anywhere before #12 starts. Then the sloka #12 should as you had given translation in the beginning. If the text is accepted as it is now; or if two such (lost) lines existed; then the sloka could be read as I posted/translated.
Now if we examine the meanings of the slokas - the way #12 is given in the online text - a connection between Bhauma & Shukra in the Navamsa is related to excess libido for the wife (Navamsa). I think this is in sync with our general understanding of such Kuja-Shukra connections (as we learnt from other slokas). I think this makes more sense than if we bring in the last pada of #11 wherein Shani & Kuja are considered in the Rasi.
Regarding the break in #9 I noticed it too. I have explained it in my message posted earlier. It is quite common for such texts to start a new topic right at the middle of a sloka.
Now suppose if we assume that another version of BPHS exist(ed) with an extra line at the end of #9 or anywhere before #12 starts. Then the sloka #12 should as you had given translation in the beginning. If the text is accepted as it is now; or if two such (lost) lines existed; then the sloka could be read as I posted/translated.
Now if we examine the meanings of the slokas - the way #12 is given in the online text - a connection between Bhauma & Shukra in the Navamsa is related to excess libido for the wife (Navamsa). I think this is in sync with our general understanding of such Kuja-Shukra connections (as we learnt from other slokas). I think this makes more sense than if we bring in the last pada of #11 wherein Shani & Kuja are considered in the Rasi.
Now suppose if we assume that another version of BPHS exist(ed) with an extra line at the end of #9 or anywhere before #12 starts. Then the sloka #12 should as you had given translation in the beginning. If the text is accepted as it is now; or if two such (lost) lines existed; then the sloka could be read as I posted/translated.
Now if we examine the meanings of the slokas - the way #12 is given in the online text - a connection between Bhauma & Shukra in the Navamsa is related to excess libido for the wife (Navamsa). I think this is in sync with our general understanding of such Kuja-Shukra connections (as we learnt from other slokas). I think this makes more sense than if we bring in the last pada of #11 wherein Shani & Kuja are considered in the Rasi.
Respected Hari ji,
I am very glad to be interacting on this topic with a real researcher of our texts. This thread must have been started on a good muhurtam to have gotten your kind attention.
If the Sanskrit text is accepted as-is (i.e. new verses start right in the middle such as #9 and no lines are missing) then the translation provided by Santhanam seems correct & in line with the Sanskrit text (i.e. no mistake has been made in grouping the translations).
So it should be: If Saturn or Mars are in the 7th house and also own the 7th house the native will beget a harlot as his spouse.
Reasons:
The verse above it has 2 Sanskrit lines saying - Malefics in 12th and 7th, while decreasing Moon is in 5th denotes, that the native will be controlled by spouse, who will be inimical to the race (or family).
- This makes sense because this 2 line verse comes right after verses talking about breasts and types of female in association. So this verse is independent of the verses above it for sure.
If we go to the Verse after the one in discussion (Saturn/Mars in 7th house) then it continues like this: Should Venus be in the Navamsa/Rasi or in aspect to Mars then the native will kiss the private parts of a female (2 Sanskrit lines).
Then the next verse (2 Sanskrit lines) is: If the same type of relation (of Venus) exists with Saturn then the native will kiss the private parts of a male. And then starts the "Worthy Spouse" verse.
Both of the above two verses too make sense in terms of grouping, order as well as content (talking about Venus's relation to two malefics and declaring the result in each case).
So it looks like all these Verses were grouped correctly in order when looking at their content.
The other factor that I am taking in consideration is: Venus stays in a Sign for a month (plus minus few days) so just by being in Aries or Scorpio (16.6% of the time) and even in other signs 16.6% of the time it will be in the Navamsa of Mars. So essentially the verse is saying for 33% of the population the spouse would behave like a harlot. That doesn't seem right because 33% is huge. Of course this is without considering neutralizing factors yet 33% is huge to begin with.
On the other hand what Santhanam's translation says for Mars/Saturn in 7th covers 4% of the population and hence seems more believable.
Rathore
I am very glad to be interacting on this topic with a real researcher of our texts. This thread must have been started on a good muhurtam to have gotten your kind attention.
If the Sanskrit text is accepted as-is (i.e. new verses start right in the middle such as #9 and no lines are missing) then the translation provided by Santhanam seems correct & in line with the Sanskrit text (i.e. no mistake has been made in grouping the translations).
So it should be: If Saturn or Mars are in the 7th house and also own the 7th house the native will beget a harlot as his spouse.
Reasons:
The verse above it has 2 Sanskrit lines saying - Malefics in 12th and 7th, while decreasing Moon is in 5th denotes, that the native will be controlled by spouse, who will be inimical to the race (or family).
- This makes sense because this 2 line verse comes right after verses talking about breasts and types of female in association. So this verse is independent of the verses above it for sure.
If we go to the Verse after the one in discussion (Saturn/Mars in 7th house) then it continues like this: Should Venus be in the Navamsa/Rasi or in aspect to Mars then the native will kiss the private parts of a female (2 Sanskrit lines).
Then the next verse (2 Sanskrit lines) is: If the same type of relation (of Venus) exists with Saturn then the native will kiss the private parts of a male. And then starts the "Worthy Spouse" verse.
Both of the above two verses too make sense in terms of grouping, order as well as content (talking about Venus's relation to two malefics and declaring the result in each case).
So it looks like all these Verses were grouped correctly in order when looking at their content.
The other factor that I am taking in consideration is: Venus stays in a Sign for a month (plus minus few days) so just by being in Aries or Scorpio (16.6% of the time) and even in other signs 16.6% of the time it will be in the Navamsa of Mars. So essentially the verse is saying for 33% of the population the spouse would behave like a harlot. That doesn't seem right because 33% is huge. Of course this is without considering neutralizing factors yet 33% is huge to begin with.
On the other hand what Santhanam's translation says for Mars/Saturn in 7th covers 4% of the population and hence seems more believable.
Rathore
-
satishdesh
- Registered User
- Posts: 49
- Joined: 07 May 2012
Dear rathoreji - namaste
जामित्रे मंदभौमे च तदीशे मन्दभूमिजे |
वेश्या वा जारिणी वापि तस्य भार्या न संशयः || ११ ||
अर्थ-
यह व्यभिचारिणी स्त्री योग को दर्शाता है| किसी पुरुष की कुंडली में यदि सप्तम स्थान में शनि या मंगल हों तथा वे ही सप्तमेश हों तो उस मनुष्य की पत्नी वेश्या या परपुरुषगामिनी (अर्थात- किसी भी दूसरे पुरुष के साथ चली जाने वाली या साथ रहने वाली) होती है|
This is my first post on this forum so my prior apology for any mistake/misquote as I am not familiar with forum rules.
Best luck for your journey towards a good translation of BPHS. Over the centuries this Bible of astrology got corrupted as a natural phenomenon. What we read today is a corrupt version of a brilliant doctrine. We can have n no of mistakes in translation if we study a shloka by shloka en route.
I think this shloka do have another meaning which is supported by a bphs version of khemraj prakashan Mumbai. तदीशे मन्दभूमिजे should/can be interpreted as sat/mars with 7th lord which gives more devastated feel at 7th house. When the 7th lord/house both are afflicted it is a possibility that wife will not have satisfaction/happiness from native leading to have such a bad option or wife is too corrupt; only if other conditions like bad ven, 2/4th houses etc are there.
Generally house lord do not tend to spoil own house though he is a malefic and house lord influenced by a singular enemy will not give such a terrible result. Calculate such a condition for all lagnas from this new meaning and we can notice that at the same time 2/4 house lords are afflicted, there is an involvement of some trika lords and so on.
For cancer lagna we have yutiyoga of 5/7/10 lords and for leo lagna 7/9 lords, which seems to be a good one if we go by earlier interpretation and this will not provoke his wife for such a drastic immorality.
Hope Sanskrit and astro scholars can give us more in-depth meaning.
Regards
satish
जामित्रे मंदभौमे च तदीशे मन्दभूमिजे |
वेश्या वा जारिणी वापि तस्य भार्या न संशयः || ११ ||
अर्थ-
यह व्यभिचारिणी स्त्री योग को दर्शाता है| किसी पुरुष की कुंडली में यदि सप्तम स्थान में शनि या मंगल हों तथा वे ही सप्तमेश हों तो उस मनुष्य की पत्नी वेश्या या परपुरुषगामिनी (अर्थात- किसी भी दूसरे पुरुष के साथ चली जाने वाली या साथ रहने वाली) होती है|
This is my first post on this forum so my prior apology for any mistake/misquote as I am not familiar with forum rules.
Best luck for your journey towards a good translation of BPHS. Over the centuries this Bible of astrology got corrupted as a natural phenomenon. What we read today is a corrupt version of a brilliant doctrine. We can have n no of mistakes in translation if we study a shloka by shloka en route.
I think this shloka do have another meaning which is supported by a bphs version of khemraj prakashan Mumbai. तदीशे मन्दभूमिजे should/can be interpreted as sat/mars with 7th lord which gives more devastated feel at 7th house. When the 7th lord/house both are afflicted it is a possibility that wife will not have satisfaction/happiness from native leading to have such a bad option or wife is too corrupt; only if other conditions like bad ven, 2/4th houses etc are there.
Generally house lord do not tend to spoil own house though he is a malefic and house lord influenced by a singular enemy will not give such a terrible result. Calculate such a condition for all lagnas from this new meaning and we can notice that at the same time 2/4 house lords are afflicted, there is an involvement of some trika lords and so on.
For cancer lagna we have yutiyoga of 5/7/10 lords and for leo lagna 7/9 lords, which seems to be a good one if we go by earlier interpretation and this will not provoke his wife for such a drastic immorality.
Hope Sanskrit and astro scholars can give us more in-depth meaning.
Regards
satish
Dear Satish ji, namaste,
Thanks you for the wishes. Yes, not only spurious translations happen but even some of the content of BPHS is questionable as to there seems to be chapters added at a later stage. Still it is one of the very few texts that are comprehensive while many other texts are cookbooks. Some of the Verses even have original copyist errors.
The verse on this thread, I got it translated from a couple of Sanskrit scholars too as the Santhanam translation of it is definitely incorrect. Their translation matched the G S Kapoor translation. As you know in Jyotish a result is to be told when at least 2 to 3 indicators are present so yes you are right, it doesn't apply just by itself.
Usually 7th lord afflicted by malefics gives health problems here & there to the spouse which is why texts talk about spouse dying/sick when 7th lord is afflicted. For placement of planets in the 7th house they talk about the spouse's general disposition maybe that is why this verse is talking of Mars & Saturn in 7th house first and then adds if they are the lords too. But then the rule of the lord being in own house also applies which is why the thing needs to be seen holistically. This is the theme of any Sutras, they are concise & the student is supposed to know (usually through the Guru) that once something is told, it will not repeat (in the Sutras) and the student needs to apply previous Sutras intelligently.
If you could please post a photo of the Khemraj BPHS translation, that would be great.
Rathore
Thanks you for the wishes. Yes, not only spurious translations happen but even some of the content of BPHS is questionable as to there seems to be chapters added at a later stage. Still it is one of the very few texts that are comprehensive while many other texts are cookbooks. Some of the Verses even have original copyist errors.
The verse on this thread, I got it translated from a couple of Sanskrit scholars too as the Santhanam translation of it is definitely incorrect. Their translation matched the G S Kapoor translation. As you know in Jyotish a result is to be told when at least 2 to 3 indicators are present so yes you are right, it doesn't apply just by itself.
Usually 7th lord afflicted by malefics gives health problems here & there to the spouse which is why texts talk about spouse dying/sick when 7th lord is afflicted. For placement of planets in the 7th house they talk about the spouse's general disposition maybe that is why this verse is talking of Mars & Saturn in 7th house first and then adds if they are the lords too. But then the rule of the lord being in own house also applies which is why the thing needs to be seen holistically. This is the theme of any Sutras, they are concise & the student is supposed to know (usually through the Guru) that once something is told, it will not repeat (in the Sutras) and the student needs to apply previous Sutras intelligently.
If you could please post a photo of the Khemraj BPHS translation, that would be great.
Rathore
-
satishdesh
- Registered User
- Posts: 49
- Joined: 07 May 2012
Namaste rathorji
BPHS {preferably with English translation} which we read today is not at all authentic. There was a scholarly discussion in [No Personal Contact Details on Public Forum] groups w.r.t to this topic among shri k n rao and others few years back. If you want to have a closer look go to archives of jyotish group[feb 2005]. When I read BPHS { g s Kapoor} for the first time in my life I was shocked, stunned to read some ugly adhhyayas of strijataka [ female horoscopy]. I always wonder, if a sage like personalities can write, compile, teach such a things in the name of astrology. Then I read that discussion on authenticity of bphs and get hold of khemraj bphs. I was very much happy when I go through that version, as those ugly, bad addhyayas were not part of [may be real] bphs. Yes, that version is not 100% correct, authentic but still it serves the purpose of clearing the darkness.
There is digital version of that bphs free for everybody on digital library of india site, only you need ttf reader/dil downloader for that. I am giving link to that but it would be better to have hard copy of Mumbai edition as this is one of the oldest version, even ganeshdatta Pathak version is fully based on this.
I do have both English and one khemraj edition; so Kapoor translation is also not correct. This is from Kapoor edition:
There can be no doubt in it that the native’s wife will be a harlot or she will have illegal relations with other man than her husband, if Saturn or mars are placed in the 7th house.
You can easily understand that he merely talk of either or of the singular placement of them. Why he left तदिशे; and use sat or mars [he should have written sat and mars] is beyond my understanding. Even you can see same problem with santaram version. At least grammatically translation of deeprelax is somewhat acceptable.
As all these treaties were written by men there is a gender bias in all our ancient texts. Apply all this to male equally. Also i think one of the most imp thing is that woman was more at risk to have death in pregnancy/delivery in those time frames; so her horoscope was looked at very carefully.
भावात् भावपतेश्च कारकवशात् फल योजयेत् is a good dictum to understand present dilemma.
If we go by any form of the translation, 7th lord gets afflicted and so sick wife is there always. But I think we should not have exact word translations here. Affliction to 7th lord can have n no meanings.
Any house indicate the environment, lord the core of house. So just bad conditions will not give such tendencies. Unless and until core does not get corrupt there will not be such a terrible act. And roga can be mental also or she/he can’t get satisfied by a singular partner. There is one word called मद used for 7th house in this adhyaya which indicate uncontrolled sexual behaviour of human being [if all other conditions are there]. In the present contest we can have meaning of this word मद like an elephant example. [मदोन्मत्त] is used for male elephants when they got excited/violent for mating. So this irrational behaviour must have 7th lord and house afflicted.
Or I think more appropriate translation should be, तदिशे मंदभूमिजे indicate a parivartan yoga between a 6/8/12 house and 7th house. For example look at virgo, aries and meena lagna where we can have parivartana yoga of 7th and one trika house where 7th house and lord both loose there inherent strengths. So lagna seems to be an imp factor here.
Go through khemraj pdf but I think more appropriate तदिशे मंदभूमिजे indicate parivartana yoga. But have a look at other classics like phaldipika, sarvarthchintamani, brihat jatak etc. as we can't rely solely on bphs due to such problems.
While i try to type link and attach pdf i got a signal of no authority for this. It seems i am new here so i don't have that rigths. You can send me mail if you need pdf and link.
Regards
satish
BPHS {preferably with English translation} which we read today is not at all authentic. There was a scholarly discussion in [No Personal Contact Details on Public Forum] groups w.r.t to this topic among shri k n rao and others few years back. If you want to have a closer look go to archives of jyotish group[feb 2005]. When I read BPHS { g s Kapoor} for the first time in my life I was shocked, stunned to read some ugly adhhyayas of strijataka [ female horoscopy]. I always wonder, if a sage like personalities can write, compile, teach such a things in the name of astrology. Then I read that discussion on authenticity of bphs and get hold of khemraj bphs. I was very much happy when I go through that version, as those ugly, bad addhyayas were not part of [may be real] bphs. Yes, that version is not 100% correct, authentic but still it serves the purpose of clearing the darkness.
There is digital version of that bphs free for everybody on digital library of india site, only you need ttf reader/dil downloader for that. I am giving link to that but it would be better to have hard copy of Mumbai edition as this is one of the oldest version, even ganeshdatta Pathak version is fully based on this.
I do have both English and one khemraj edition; so Kapoor translation is also not correct. This is from Kapoor edition:
There can be no doubt in it that the native’s wife will be a harlot or she will have illegal relations with other man than her husband, if Saturn or mars are placed in the 7th house.
You can easily understand that he merely talk of either or of the singular placement of them. Why he left तदिशे; and use sat or mars [he should have written sat and mars] is beyond my understanding. Even you can see same problem with santaram version. At least grammatically translation of deeprelax is somewhat acceptable.
As all these treaties were written by men there is a gender bias in all our ancient texts. Apply all this to male equally. Also i think one of the most imp thing is that woman was more at risk to have death in pregnancy/delivery in those time frames; so her horoscope was looked at very carefully.
भावात् भावपतेश्च कारकवशात् फल योजयेत् is a good dictum to understand present dilemma.
If we go by any form of the translation, 7th lord gets afflicted and so sick wife is there always. But I think we should not have exact word translations here. Affliction to 7th lord can have n no meanings.
Any house indicate the environment, lord the core of house. So just bad conditions will not give such tendencies. Unless and until core does not get corrupt there will not be such a terrible act. And roga can be mental also or she/he can’t get satisfied by a singular partner. There is one word called मद used for 7th house in this adhyaya which indicate uncontrolled sexual behaviour of human being [if all other conditions are there]. In the present contest we can have meaning of this word मद like an elephant example. [मदोन्मत्त] is used for male elephants when they got excited/violent for mating. So this irrational behaviour must have 7th lord and house afflicted.
Or I think more appropriate translation should be, तदिशे मंदभूमिजे indicate a parivartan yoga between a 6/8/12 house and 7th house. For example look at virgo, aries and meena lagna where we can have parivartana yoga of 7th and one trika house where 7th house and lord both loose there inherent strengths. So lagna seems to be an imp factor here.
Go through khemraj pdf but I think more appropriate तदिशे मंदभूमिजे indicate parivartana yoga. But have a look at other classics like phaldipika, sarvarthchintamani, brihat jatak etc. as we can't rely solely on bphs due to such problems.
While i try to type link and attach pdf i got a signal of no authority for this. It seems i am new here so i don't have that rigths. You can send me mail if you need pdf and link.
Regards
satish
-
satishdesh
- Registered User
- Posts: 49
- Joined: 07 May 2012
Namaste rathorji
I am giving translations as per your query as I can’t upload pdf still.
Khemraj mumbai
जामित्रे मंदभौमस्थे तदीशे मंदभूमिजे । वेश्या वा जारिणि वापि तस्य भार्या न संशयः ।।
सप्तम भाव में शनि, मंगल और भावेश भी हो तो जातक की स्त्री जारिणी हो अथवा वेश्या ही हो ।।
Ganeshdatta Pathak
जामित्रे मंदभौमे च तदीशे मंदभूमिजे । वेश्या वा जारिणि वापि तस्य भार्या न संशयः ।।
सप्तम भाव में शनि, मंगल हो अथवा सप्तमेश शनि भौम के गृह मे हो तो जातक की स्त्री जारिणी हो अथवा वेश्या होती है ।।
I think this word taadishe is the key here as this can only guide us to correct meaning. It can be as simple as जामित्रे मंदभौमजे च स्वस्वर्क्षमूलस्थिते instead of तदीशे मंदभूमिजे as this would have been so clear. But as it is तदीशे means there is some different meaning. And this script is also unclear as ganeshdatta had translated as अथवा instead of और but still he is quite near to correct interpretation.
It seems it is risky to fully rely on translations, specially english bphs translations.
Hope this may help.
Regards
satish
I am giving translations as per your query as I can’t upload pdf still.
Khemraj mumbai
जामित्रे मंदभौमस्थे तदीशे मंदभूमिजे । वेश्या वा जारिणि वापि तस्य भार्या न संशयः ।।
सप्तम भाव में शनि, मंगल और भावेश भी हो तो जातक की स्त्री जारिणी हो अथवा वेश्या ही हो ।।
Ganeshdatta Pathak
जामित्रे मंदभौमे च तदीशे मंदभूमिजे । वेश्या वा जारिणि वापि तस्य भार्या न संशयः ।।
सप्तम भाव में शनि, मंगल हो अथवा सप्तमेश शनि भौम के गृह मे हो तो जातक की स्त्री जारिणी हो अथवा वेश्या होती है ।।
I think this word taadishe is the key here as this can only guide us to correct meaning. It can be as simple as जामित्रे मंदभौमजे च स्वस्वर्क्षमूलस्थिते instead of तदीशे मंदभूमिजे as this would have been so clear. But as it is तदीशे means there is some different meaning. And this script is also unclear as ganeshdatta had translated as अथवा instead of और but still he is quite near to correct interpretation.
It seems it is risky to fully rely on translations, specially english bphs translations.
Hope this may help.
Regards
satish
Satish ji,
The texts talk about morality of both sexes. I think, the information presented by the Sages is as-is (without them feeling judgmental), its upto us to take it as-is or take it in light of "people being judged/gender bias" manner. The Stree jataka chapters are debatable & can be a later day inclusion too, in my opinion.
Verse: जामित्रे मंदभौमे च तदीशे मंदभूमिजे ।
Note: All the words above seems like they are in सप्तमी विभक्ति but its more likely a special construct of सति-सप्तमी. Here there are two phrases in this construct - जामित्रे मंदभौमे and तदीशे मंदभूमिजे. Accordingly the meanings become
1. when at जामित्र (= in the 7th place), there is मंदभौम and
2. when तदीशे (= its master is) मंदभूमिज.
जामित्र - 7th house
मंद - Saturn
भौम - Mars
च - And
तदीश - Master (lord, सप्तमेश in this case)
भूमिजे - Mars ( Mars is also known as भूमि पुत्र )
Taking the above into account it looks like the translation could be: यदि सप्तम स्थान में शनि या मंगल हों तथा वे ही सप्तमेश हों.
I am not able to see how Ganeshdatta interprets it as सप्तमेश being in the गृह of Mars or Saturn. Do you see the गृह reference?
Rathore
P.S: My Sanskrit skills are elementary.
The texts talk about morality of both sexes. I think, the information presented by the Sages is as-is (without them feeling judgmental), its upto us to take it as-is or take it in light of "people being judged/gender bias" manner. The Stree jataka chapters are debatable & can be a later day inclusion too, in my opinion.
Verse: जामित्रे मंदभौमे च तदीशे मंदभूमिजे ।
Note: All the words above seems like they are in सप्तमी विभक्ति but its more likely a special construct of सति-सप्तमी. Here there are two phrases in this construct - जामित्रे मंदभौमे and तदीशे मंदभूमिजे. Accordingly the meanings become
1. when at जामित्र (= in the 7th place), there is मंदभौम and
2. when तदीशे (= its master is) मंदभूमिज.
जामित्र - 7th house
मंद - Saturn
भौम - Mars
च - And
तदीश - Master (lord, सप्तमेश in this case)
भूमिजे - Mars ( Mars is also known as भूमि पुत्र )
Taking the above into account it looks like the translation could be: यदि सप्तम स्थान में शनि या मंगल हों तथा वे ही सप्तमेश हों.
I am not able to see how Ganeshdatta interprets it as सप्तमेश being in the गृह of Mars or Saturn. Do you see the गृह reference?
Rathore
P.S: My Sanskrit skills are elementary.
-
satishdesh
- Registered User
- Posts: 49
- Joined: 07 May 2012
Namaste rothoreji
All astro texts we study now a days are rudiments of ancient broken traditions which are full of insertion of perverted contents. Compilers of bphs were not sages so they added enormous stuff at there will indicating there perverted minds. Can we think of अंगलक्षणाध्यायः a part of सामुद्रिकशास्त्र as an astrotreaty under the name of strijataka?
We have only four rashi as ascendants when we start to decipher a real meaning. Sat is yogkaraka for Taurus and libra with mars as 7th lord and mars is yogakaraka for cancer/leo with sat as 7th lord. Yes, it’s not necessary that yogkaraka will always deliver auspicious results for the native but at least he do have some inbuilt good qualities. Generally house lord protect house qualities so when he is with 5/9 lords which generally indicate good past deeds can he initiate such a yoga? This yoga is the foundation of such grahaphala along with other bad placements but initial condition is sat & mars in 7th house. If we accept this, the functional malefic/benefice concept is under question mark here. What should we think here? Natural malefic/benefice rule overrides all other dictums?
I am not an expert sanskrit scholar. This might be other way also. Sanskrit being a देवभाषा other translators might have used in different way.
जामि = lady [ युवति] / जामित्र = 7th house / जामित्रे = in the 7th house [ here सप्तमी एकवचन ] / सप्तममें
मंदभौमे च = mars & Saturn / शनि और मंगल, {yes this can be sati saptami} but they have used cha [ might end of sati saptami]
तदीशे [ तद् ईशे ]= lord of that / उसका स्वामी [ ईश यह अकारान्त नंपुसकलिंगी शब्द है सो प्रथमा as they want to indicate either sat or mars]
मंदभूमिजे = मंद + भूमिज / sat & mars. भूमिजे seems to be carefully cross checked here; as if we take this as अकारान्त पुंल्लींगी word, it’s definitely in the sign of sat or mars as it’s सप्तमी एकवचन. I think भूमिज is like देव, राम, नारायण which are अकारांत पुंल्लिंगी words. {It seems khemraj had translated शनीभौमके साथ considering saptami for भूमिज.} If this supposed to be sati saptami this भूमिजे should also indicate some location/event; i.e. in the sign of sat/mars as at this point construct is ending.
जामिजे ( सप्तमी एकवचन) / मंदभौमे ( सतिसप्तमी) / तदिशे ( प्रथमा एकवचन ) / मंदभूमिजे ( सप्तमी एकवचन.
I think here to complete sati saptami construct this should be सप्तमी एकवचन indicating in the sign of or with him. The question here is should we treat this full half stanza as sati saptami construct or only half of half? Language is used to explain referred context which is astrology here so astro dictums/rules are more imp. If we use some out of the box modified rules of any language there is no harm of language inaccuracy. Most of old Sanskrit texts are preserved via oral tradition so to have hymn structure rules might had given some flexibility. Even in puranas like bhagawatpurana, we have आर्ष प्रयोग of Sanskrit language where importance is given to referred meaning and not language rules. This type of freedom is permissible as these are all smritee and not shrutee. Even in vedas such things are there as per some learned scholars. {Scholars always differs}
I think some translators might have got confused by वापि. { जामित्रे मंदभौमे च तदिशे वापि मंदभूमिजे वेश्या वा जारिणी तस्य भार्या न संशयः } So all translators might have used विभक्ती /श्लोकप्रकार variants to come at final translation.
I prefer to go with khemraj / ganeshdatta as this will fulfil भावात् भावपतेश्च कारकवशात् फल योजयेत् up to certain extent as per astro dictums.
Only sage parashara can solve such riddles [there are many] from bphs.
Regards
satish
All astro texts we study now a days are rudiments of ancient broken traditions which are full of insertion of perverted contents. Compilers of bphs were not sages so they added enormous stuff at there will indicating there perverted minds. Can we think of अंगलक्षणाध्यायः a part of सामुद्रिकशास्त्र as an astrotreaty under the name of strijataka?
We have only four rashi as ascendants when we start to decipher a real meaning. Sat is yogkaraka for Taurus and libra with mars as 7th lord and mars is yogakaraka for cancer/leo with sat as 7th lord. Yes, it’s not necessary that yogkaraka will always deliver auspicious results for the native but at least he do have some inbuilt good qualities. Generally house lord protect house qualities so when he is with 5/9 lords which generally indicate good past deeds can he initiate such a yoga? This yoga is the foundation of such grahaphala along with other bad placements but initial condition is sat & mars in 7th house. If we accept this, the functional malefic/benefice concept is under question mark here. What should we think here? Natural malefic/benefice rule overrides all other dictums?
I am not an expert sanskrit scholar. This might be other way also. Sanskrit being a देवभाषा other translators might have used in different way.
जामि = lady [ युवति] / जामित्र = 7th house / जामित्रे = in the 7th house [ here सप्तमी एकवचन ] / सप्तममें
मंदभौमे च = mars & Saturn / शनि और मंगल, {yes this can be sati saptami} but they have used cha [ might end of sati saptami]
तदीशे [ तद् ईशे ]= lord of that / उसका स्वामी [ ईश यह अकारान्त नंपुसकलिंगी शब्द है सो प्रथमा as they want to indicate either sat or mars]
मंदभूमिजे = मंद + भूमिज / sat & mars. भूमिजे seems to be carefully cross checked here; as if we take this as अकारान्त पुंल्लींगी word, it’s definitely in the sign of sat or mars as it’s सप्तमी एकवचन. I think भूमिज is like देव, राम, नारायण which are अकारांत पुंल्लिंगी words. {It seems khemraj had translated शनीभौमके साथ considering saptami for भूमिज.} If this supposed to be sati saptami this भूमिजे should also indicate some location/event; i.e. in the sign of sat/mars as at this point construct is ending.
जामिजे ( सप्तमी एकवचन) / मंदभौमे ( सतिसप्तमी) / तदिशे ( प्रथमा एकवचन ) / मंदभूमिजे ( सप्तमी एकवचन.
I think here to complete sati saptami construct this should be सप्तमी एकवचन indicating in the sign of or with him. The question here is should we treat this full half stanza as sati saptami construct or only half of half? Language is used to explain referred context which is astrology here so astro dictums/rules are more imp. If we use some out of the box modified rules of any language there is no harm of language inaccuracy. Most of old Sanskrit texts are preserved via oral tradition so to have hymn structure rules might had given some flexibility. Even in puranas like bhagawatpurana, we have आर्ष प्रयोग of Sanskrit language where importance is given to referred meaning and not language rules. This type of freedom is permissible as these are all smritee and not shrutee. Even in vedas such things are there as per some learned scholars. {Scholars always differs}
I think some translators might have got confused by वापि. { जामित्रे मंदभौमे च तदिशे वापि मंदभूमिजे वेश्या वा जारिणी तस्य भार्या न संशयः } So all translators might have used विभक्ती /श्लोकप्रकार variants to come at final translation.
I prefer to go with khemraj / ganeshdatta as this will fulfil भावात् भावपतेश्च कारकवशात् फल योजयेत् up to certain extent as per astro dictums.
Only sage parashara can solve such riddles [there are many] from bphs.
Regards
satish
Yogakaraka is Lordship results. Being the lord of good houses Yogakarakas create Yogas (by these good lordships single handedly). The inherent nature of the planet is still the same while its dignity is governed by the Signs it is in.
For e.g. Saturn in 7th house for Taurus Asc. will give 9th lord in 7th & 10th lord in 7th results. Both good Yogas, but by lordship only. Saturn's own malefic nature is still the same & is influenced by the Sign it is in (dignity). So Saturn in 7th in a malefic/inimical Sign results apply too. Also 9th, 10th lord in 7th (good) results get tainted because of being in an inimical/malefic Sign. So even though by virtue of being a Yogakaraka (lordship of good houses) it does good, by virtue of other factors (Sign placement, own nature) it will cause harm also.
As you know, in Jyotish the House-Planet results are primary, the Sign just colors it (even though it can color the result significantly at times). You will note when verses take into account the Sign (such as exaltation, friendly etc.) they give generalized results only. For e.g. exaltation of 7th lord= full happiness from wife (this is a general result and not specific to the spouse's nature).
The verse under discussion is part of a section where the specific nature of the spouse is outlined. First it talks about malefics in 12th, 7th while decreasing Moon in 5th (i.e. House-Planet results only, Sign doesn't matter & will only color the end result) giving specific results about nature of spouse (inimical to native's family). Then it talks about the verse in question, which starts with House-Planet: Saturn/Mars in the 7th & then the confusing part starts:
1) ...while Saturn/Mars is the 7th lord too (specific lordship for 7th house - only two malefic planets in question)
2) ...while 7th lord is in the Sign of Saturn/Mars (general Sign placement of 7th lord - any benefic/malefic 7th lord)
Placement of 7th lord in the Sign of Saturn/Mars should not give specific results as its only a Sign placement (i.e. general results). But since the verse is being combined with House-Planet result so lets see in detail:
If we take #2 to be true then for any Asc. (except Cancer, Leo) for every 1 out of 3 natives (with 7th Saturn) the verse holds. This is because 7th lord can be in Aries, Scorpio, Capricorn, Aquarius i.e. 4 out of 12 Signs. In other words it applies to 33.34% of (non Cancer, Leo Asc.) population with Saturn in 7th (ignoring neutralizing influences). And 33.34% of population with Mars in 7th (non Taurus, Libra Asc.). Hence, malefic lordship of the 7th (Sign in 7th) should have a say here.
For Cancer/Leo Asc. Saturn in 7th comes with a dushthana lord ship. For Taurus Asc. Mars in 7th comes with Dushthana lord ship. For Libra Mars in 7th comes with 2nd house lordship (per some texts 2nd lord in 7th house makes the native & spouse of questionable character). But then they are also in own sign giving rise to Sasa & Ruchaka mahapurush yoga which are described as one with an eye on other's wives i.e. to say even malefics in good dignity can cause questionable results. So maybe this is another reason the Sage says the spouse can be questionable with such placement.
If we take #1 to be true it applies to lesser population & involves natural malefics Signs & Planets exclusively.
Coming to the Sanskrit part: भूमिज means that which come from the Earth which is Mars (bhumi putra).
अंगलक्षणाध्यायः is also available for males so we can't say the texts are biased.
Rathore
For e.g. Saturn in 7th house for Taurus Asc. will give 9th lord in 7th & 10th lord in 7th results. Both good Yogas, but by lordship only. Saturn's own malefic nature is still the same & is influenced by the Sign it is in (dignity). So Saturn in 7th in a malefic/inimical Sign results apply too. Also 9th, 10th lord in 7th (good) results get tainted because of being in an inimical/malefic Sign. So even though by virtue of being a Yogakaraka (lordship of good houses) it does good, by virtue of other factors (Sign placement, own nature) it will cause harm also.
As you know, in Jyotish the House-Planet results are primary, the Sign just colors it (even though it can color the result significantly at times). You will note when verses take into account the Sign (such as exaltation, friendly etc.) they give generalized results only. For e.g. exaltation of 7th lord= full happiness from wife (this is a general result and not specific to the spouse's nature).
The verse under discussion is part of a section where the specific nature of the spouse is outlined. First it talks about malefics in 12th, 7th while decreasing Moon in 5th (i.e. House-Planet results only, Sign doesn't matter & will only color the end result) giving specific results about nature of spouse (inimical to native's family). Then it talks about the verse in question, which starts with House-Planet: Saturn/Mars in the 7th & then the confusing part starts:
1) ...while Saturn/Mars is the 7th lord too (specific lordship for 7th house - only two malefic planets in question)
2) ...while 7th lord is in the Sign of Saturn/Mars (general Sign placement of 7th lord - any benefic/malefic 7th lord)
Placement of 7th lord in the Sign of Saturn/Mars should not give specific results as its only a Sign placement (i.e. general results). But since the verse is being combined with House-Planet result so lets see in detail:
If we take #2 to be true then for any Asc. (except Cancer, Leo) for every 1 out of 3 natives (with 7th Saturn) the verse holds. This is because 7th lord can be in Aries, Scorpio, Capricorn, Aquarius i.e. 4 out of 12 Signs. In other words it applies to 33.34% of (non Cancer, Leo Asc.) population with Saturn in 7th (ignoring neutralizing influences). And 33.34% of population with Mars in 7th (non Taurus, Libra Asc.). Hence, malefic lordship of the 7th (Sign in 7th) should have a say here.
For Cancer/Leo Asc. Saturn in 7th comes with a dushthana lord ship. For Taurus Asc. Mars in 7th comes with Dushthana lord ship. For Libra Mars in 7th comes with 2nd house lordship (per some texts 2nd lord in 7th house makes the native & spouse of questionable character). But then they are also in own sign giving rise to Sasa & Ruchaka mahapurush yoga which are described as one with an eye on other's wives i.e. to say even malefics in good dignity can cause questionable results. So maybe this is another reason the Sage says the spouse can be questionable with such placement.
If we take #1 to be true it applies to lesser population & involves natural malefics Signs & Planets exclusively.
Coming to the Sanskrit part: भूमिज means that which come from the Earth which is Mars (bhumi putra).
अंगलक्षणाध्यायः is also available for males so we can't say the texts are biased.
Rathore
