Time and spirited discussions occur on internet fora regarding an study of the status of a variety of jyotish parameters, including chara dasha (a sign based planetary period astrofactor) and karakamsha (that the navamsha where the atmakaraka (most complex planet in longitude) is placed. As characteristically happens, a number of the discussants began to branch into other side discussions that really had nothing related to the first questions or themes along with some even became a little resolved and emotional, as also often happens on the internet where attention spans of weeks and days are demanded inorder to get to the bottom of things and where sometimes an interest is being discussed on a lot of distinct boards and many topics simultaneously on a particular board! As too is typical, nothing was resolved, and a few of the regulars began expressing their frustrations about those topics coming again and again and again directing people to writings . Alas, the yahoo forums/fora are such that just limited hunting of previous messages is possible without losing all one's hair, and also the archives are often maintained on yet another yahoo site so that this will not help matters when all one wants is to find a quick overview of what others are already using and if possible their good reasons for adopting a certain position! This latter usually brings about more gall than good information even though the intention of the person posing the question may have been quite noble and not at all confrontational. Knowing Jyotish does not protect one from harbouring Neurotic faculties!
Somewhere, over the path with the 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 been used by tropical astrologers in the form of harmonic charts. This is something which is found in Jyotish going straight back to nearly the initial memories of the earliest members at the discussion who finally confessed to such being the case. I myself, though myself maybe not that senior, have experienced horoscopes that were attracted from the century before last where the jyotishi had drawn the rashi chakra and navamsha and dashamsha and so forth and much more to the point had commented on these charts in his reading. kalyan chart Therefore, at least many people were utilizing varga-charts a couple of 100 years ago and possibly maybe even prior to those times.
Somewhere during the conversation, in another of those lists, one of the members left available an article in that the writer had expressed notions to the contrary, i.e., vargas must not be utilised at a graph format. A conversation ensued which sidestepped the important and relevant matter of these practical merits of using of navamsha varga being a secondary graph. A couple of individuals requested for accusations in classics which indicates that early jyotishis advocated of varga chakras. The discussants highlighted that ONLY rashi chakra must be used and varga placements should just be used for determining the strengths of planets etc..
Now, those who have studied BPHS will understand that 16 vargas had been characterized by the Sage starting with rashi ehich is known as'kshetra' (field or area) etc. One of the members attracted on all astrologers' attention that Parashara had described very plainly how to find out bhavas from the rashi graph (ascendant, 10th dwelling and then trisection of those arcs, etc. in Chapter V of BPHS). This was really true and also a positive step ahead of the conversation. There were parallel discussions going on which were rehashing that BPHS wasn't original and was perhaps not even a timeless and published by one or a set of'latter day saints' [my word, not the initial poster's!] In Jyotish and consequently cannot be treated like being a timeless. Evidently, there is some support for this could be similarly expected if some one were to produce a comment that Jyotish had been only a derivative of Babylonian astrology which the army that came with Alexander brought to India. An issue that's been proven to attract even untoward jyotishis out on the"warpath!"
To those who were interested and intrigued by thisparticular, there looked to be just two streams of thought prevailing:
(a) Only Rashi horoscopes should be used. Other varga kundalis would be the item of corrupt understanding of the classics which themselves many concur may not have endured in pure shape [although some of them have thankfully survived in reasonably good shape1]. I don't know how much of the iceberg postulate is based facts and how much is wishful fiction. According to the purists with the particular stream of thought, vargas MUST only be applied as measures of qualitative and quantitative strength of planets and also for that consideration of this deities and primal forces people represent although not in the kind of a horoscope and certainly no significant consideration has to be directed at aspects along with bhava considerations. Just for clarity, they would maintain, for example, that while the second dwelling lord at navamsha is an important indicator, the fact it is placed in the next navamsha varga from the navamsha lagna (essentially in 2 nd house in navamsha graph ) is not important.
(b) Regardless of if specifically clarified or perhaps not, the other flow of believing maintains that varga kundalis have an important part to play in Jyotish and possibly are of significant utility in discerning chief mandates matters regarding the prescription given by sages. To put it differently, navamsha chart, for example, would hold significant sway on matters of marriage and spouse, while saptamsha graph would be of similar import in the study of children in a given nativity's reading. These Vargas should be examined in a graph format.
I do not remember anybody in the'camp (b)' saying that the first part of (a) isn't correct, especially, the Varga rankings have to be contemplated, by itself, for an examination of strength and quality of a planet as prescribed over the Jyotish framework. There seemed to be a few other people who entirely denied the veracity of thought flow (b) and a few were a little taciturn about it, perhaps to prevent acrimony and becoming ensnared from the controversy. Or there were other motives, known only to them.