varga placements or vargas as charts?

This topic comes up from time to time. I wrote an article on the topic some years ago. To save internet band-width, I am giving the link of this eclectic literature site:

http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=1092

Regards,

RR

Another fine and well-crafter article-thanks for the reference.

In my own highly eclectic (and often highly idiosyncratic!) approach to Vedic, I too believe the divisional charts should be judged as such, and not merely as "parts" of the D1 (rashi) chart alone: in fact I think this is yet another of the numerous historical differences between Vedic and oldtime Hellenist astrology:

-in Hellenist astrology, decans and duodenaries were used (these would be the drekkana and dwadashama of Vedic)
-yet in Hellenist astrology, decans and duodenaries were always delineated as "sub-parts" of the basic (D1) chart, and there is not even a hint in the available Hellenist literature of erecting charts BASED on these divisions
-as you have outlined in your article, historical evidence seems to demonstrate that the Vedic classic authorities DID advocate that seperate charts based on the divisions of the D1 (rashi) should be erected and delineated IN ADDITION TO the D1

...so this is (in my opinion) yet another significant difference in Vedic astrology from Hellenist concepts and methods (I mention this point because I disagree with the widely held view that Vedic astrology is an "Indianized" version of Greek astrology; that Hellenist astrology influenced Vedic I have no doubt, but the idea that jyotish is not much more than a "clone" of the Greeks, I vigorously reject!)

In your article you mentioned a distiction between aspect and conjunction re to the terms used in Vedic astrological reference texts: in Western astrology, technically conjunctions are NOT the same as aspects-this difference goes back (in the West) to the earliest texts, so I think you have shown the same differentiation between these terms to have also been understood (and intended) by the classical jyotish authors you have quoted.

Dear Dr. Farr,

Although communication is a property or characteristic of all living beings (some insist that the so-called non-living things such as crystal, metal, earth, air, fire etc. communicate as well in unique ways with living beings!), human beings are probably unique in their ability and even inherent urge and propensity of communicating their thoughts and emotions through languages, verbal, non verbal (sign language) etc. Animals lower on the Darwinian scale, another highly-charged area which can at times get quite noisy;-), do visibly communicate their emotions!

So, I have no feeling of surprise or shock that ancient cultures communicated. Whatever the gradient of flow of information was is somewhat immaterial! But what amazes me is that with travel times being what those must have been, before relatively faster means such as ships and boats etc, even back *then*, individuals if not masses and throngs (like today) contacted distant places!

Globalization, or at least the move towards that is indeed not a new idea, but an ancient inner drive and ambition of human beings!

Regards,

Rohiniranjan