Time and spirited discussions occur on internet fora regarding an examination of the status of a variety of jyotish parameters, including chara dasha (a signal based longitudinal period astrofactor) and karakamsha (that the navamsha where the atmakaraka (most complex planet in longitude) is set. As happens, some of the discussants began to branch into other negative discussions that had nothing more related to the initial questions or issues along with some actually became a little resolved and emotional, as additionally often happens on the internet where attention spans of weeks and days are required inorder to get to the underside of things and where some times an interest will be discussed on several distinct boards and many topics simultaneously on a particular board! As too is typical, nothing has been resolved, and some of the regulars began expressing their frustrations about those issues coming again and again again and again directing people to archives . Unfortunately, the ya-hoo forums/fora are such that just limited searching of past messages will be possible without losing all of one's hair, and also the writings are often kept on another yahoo site which means that this does not help matters when all one wants is to get yourself a quick overview of what others are using and when possible their good reasons for adopting a certain position! This latter usually brings about more gall than good information even though the aim of the individual posing the question might have been quite noble and maybe not in any respect confrontational. Knowing Jyotish does not protect one from harbouring Neurotic faculties!
Somewhere, across the path with the former quest, another topic got born and began questioning the use of varga kundalis or varga chakras, divisional horoscopes that are the heart of jyotish and have been used by tropical astrologers at the form of harmonic charts. Now this really is some thing which is found in Jyotish going straight back to nearly the initial memories of even the oldest members at the discussion who finally confessed to such being the case. I myself, even though myself perhaps not that mature, have seen horoscopes which were drawn in the century before last where the jyotishi had attracted the rashi chakra and navamsha and dashamsha and thus on and more importantly had commented on these graphs in his hearing. kalyan panel chart Therefore, at the least many people had been utilizing varga-charts even a couple of hundred decades ago and conceivably perhaps even ahead of those times.
Somewhere through the conversation, in just one of these lists, a number of those members made available an article in which the writer had expressed notions to the contrary, i.e., vargas must not be used in a graph format. A conversation ensued which side stepped the important and applicable matter of these technical merits of utilizing navamsha varga like a secondary graph. A couple of individuals asked for proofs in classics that indicates that early jyotishis advocated of varga chakras. The discussants highlighted that ONLY rashi chakra has to be properly used and varga placements should just be useful for discovering the advantages of planets .
This was really true and a positive step forward in the discussion. There were parallel discussions going on which were rehashing that BPHS was not original and was perhaps not even a timeless and written by one or a group of'latter day saints' [my word, not the first poster!] In Jyotish and so can't be treated like a timeless. Obviously, there is some support for this as could be similarly expected if some one should happen to make a comment that Jyotish was nothing but a derivative of Babylonian astrology which the army that came with Alexander attracted to India. An issue that has been proven to bring even sedate jyotishis on the"warpath!"
To individuals who have been still interested and intrigued by thisparticular, there looked to be just two streams of thought prevailing:
(a) Just Rashi horoscopes should be used. Other varga kundalis were the product of corrupt understanding of the classics which themselves many concur may not have lived in pure shape [while a number of these have thankfully survived in reasonably good shape1]. Underlying this is the belief some could harbor this, alike the iceberg, available Jyotish is only 1/10th of their whole human anatomy as the underwater 9/10th is mostly lost and partially hidden in the secret chambers of paramparas and a number of the secret documents that exist however jealously guarded by the custodian families. I do not know just how much with the iceberg postulate is based facts and how much is wishful fiction. According to the purists of this particular stream of thought, vargas MUST simply be applied as measures of quantitative and qualitative strength of planets and because of that consideration of this deities and primal forces people represent although maybe not at the form of a horoscope and certainly no critical consideration must be directed at aspects and bhava considerations. Only for clarity, they'd assert, for example, that as the 2nd dwelling lord at navamsha is a significant index, the fact it is placed in the next navamsha varga from the navamsha lagna (essentially in 2 nd house in navamsha chart) is not important. Or, for example, when Mars is in Aries sign and Libra navamsha, and Saturn is in Gemini sign and Libra navamsha, the two planets are not related (though they'd be portrayed to be conjoined in the same navamsha varga in a navamsha chart).
(b) Irrespective of if explicitly described or perhaps not, one other stream of thinking maintains that varga kundalis have an important part to play at Jyotish and potentially are of significant usefulness in differentiating chief mandates matters pertaining to the prescription given by sages. To put it differently, navamsha graph, for example, would hold significant influence over matters of spouse and marriage, while saptamsha chart are of import from the study of kids in a specific nativity's reading. All these Vargas should be examined in a chart format.
In actuality, the majority of these utilized concepts from both (a) and (b) streams. There appeared to be some other individuals who totally denied that the veracity of thought stream (b) and a few were a bit taciturn about it, perhaps in order to prevent acrimony and becoming ensnared in the controversy. Or perhaps there were some other reasons, known only to them.