Time and again spirited discussions happen on internet fora pertaining to a examination of the status of a variety of jyotish parameters, including chara dasha (a sign based planetary period astrofactor) and also karakamsha (that the navamsha in which the atmakaraka (most advanced planet in longitude) is placed. As characteristically happens, several of the discussants begun to branch to other negative discussions that really had nothing more related to all the initial questions or issues along with some actually became a little exercised and emotional, as also usually happens on the internet where attention spans of weeks and days have been required in order to get to the underside of things and where some times a topic is being discussed on many unique boards and lots of topics simultaneously on a particular board! As too is average, nothing has been resolved, and some of the regulars began expressing their insecurities concerning those issues coming up again and again and again directing visitors to writings . Alas, the ya-hoo forums/fora are those that only limited searching of past messages is possible without losing all one's hair, and the writings sometimes are maintained onto another yahoo site and that this will not help matters when all one wants is to get a quick overview of what the others are already using and when possible their reasons for adopting a certain position! This latter usually brings forth more gall than good information even though the intention of the person posing the question might have been very commendable and maybe not in any respect confrontational.
Somewhere, across the path of this former pursuit, yet another topic got born and began questioning the use of varga kundalis or even varga chakras, divisional horoscopes that are the center of jyotish and have already been used by tropical astrologers in the form of harmonic charts. This really is some thing that is found in Jyotish going straight back to nearly the initial memories of even the earliest members at the discussion that finally admitted to such being the situation. I myself, even though myself not that mature, have experienced horoscopes that were attracted in the century before where the jyotishi had attracted the rashi chakra and navamsha along with dashamsha and thus forth and much more to the point had commented on these graphs in his own reading. kalyan panel chart Therefore, at the very least some individuals were utilizing varga-charts even a couple of 100 years ago and conceivably perhaps even prior to those times.
Somewhere through the conversation, in just one of the lists, a number of the members made available an article in which the author had voiced thoughts to the contrary, i.e., vargas must not be used at a graph format. A discussion ensued which side stepped the important and applicable matter of the technical virtues of using of navamsha varga being an secondary chart. A few individuals asked for proofs in classics that indicates that ancient jyotishis urged of varga chakras. The discussants emphasized that ONLY rashi chakra has to be used and varga placements should just be useful for discovering the strengths of planets etc..
Nowadays, people who have studied BPHS would understand , that 16 vargas had been defined by the Sage beginning with rashi ehich is known as'kshetra' (field or area) and so on. This was really true and a positive step forward in the discussion. There were also parallel discussions going on which were rehashing that BPHS was not original and was perhaps not even a timeless and written by one or even a group of'latter day saints' [my term, not the original poster!] In Jyotish and consequently cannot be treated as a classic. Evidently, there is some support for this could possibly be similarly expected if somebody should happen to make a comment that Jyotish was nothing but a derivative of Babylonian astrology that the army that came with Alexander brought to India. An issue that has been known to attract even untoward jyotishis out on the"warpath!"
To those who have been still interested and intrigued by thisparticular, there looked to be two streams of thought prevailing:
(a) Just Rashi horoscopes ought to be used. Other varga kundalis will be the product of corrupted comprehension of the classics which themselves many agree might not have endured in pure shape [although a number of these have mercifully survived in reasonably good shape1]. Underlying this is the belief some could harbor that, alike the iceberg, available Jyotish is only 1/10th of their total human body as the submerged 9/10th is mostly lost and partially hidden in the secret chambers of paramparas and a number of the secret documents which exist but jealously safeguarded by the custodian families. I do not know just how a lot with the iceberg postulate is established data and just how much is wishful fiction. As stated by the purists with the flow of thought, vargas MUST only be applied as measures of qualitative and quantitative strength of planets and also because of that consideration of this deities and primal forces people represent although maybe not at the form of a horoscope and clearly no critical consideration has to be given to aspects and bhava considerations. Just for clarity, they would assert, for instance, that as the next dwelling lord at navamsha is a significant index, the fact it is placed in the second navamsha varga from the navamsha lagna (essentially in 2nd house in navamsha chart) is not important.
(b) Regardless of if specifically clarified or perhaps not, one other stream of thinking asserts that varga kundalis have a significant part to play in Jyotish and potentially are of significant usefulness in identifying chief mandates matters regarding the prescription given by sages. In other words, navamsha chart, as an instance, would hold significant influence over matters of marriage and spouse, while saptamsha graph would be of import in the examination of kids in a particular nativity's reading. These Vargas should be examined in a chart format.
In actuality, most of them utilized theories from (a) and (b) streams. There appeared to be a few different people who entirely denied the veracity of thought stream (b) and also a few were a little taciturn about any of this, perhaps in order to avoid acrimony and becoming ensnared in the controversy. Or there were several other good reasons, known only to them.