Re-examining Sahams (Sensitive Points) in Astrology: Chart-Specific Polarity

Author’s Note

Mr. Subhamoy Bhattacharjee
Kolkata, India

I have been engaged in continuous research and practice in astrology for over 35 years. From the earliest phase of my formal study, I observed a fundamental problem within classical astrological literature: multiple, often contradictory formulas are prescribed to determine the same event, particularly in timing techniques. In many cases, different methods applied to the same horoscope yield different results for the same event. An event, however, can occur only once; it cannot have multiple correct timings.

This contradiction became the starting point of my research. If astrology is to be regarded as a science, it must function with complete internal consistency. A system that succeeds in 99% of cases but fails in 1% cannot be considered scientific. In any objective system, two plus two will always equal four, without exception.

After decades of systematic case studies, rectifications, and long-term observational analysis, I have developed techniques that, when applied correctly, do not fail. These include original frameworks such as Bhattacharjee Ayanamsa, JeevaBindu, and other precision-oriented predictive methods derived through empirical validation.

Astrology is not a commercial activity for me. It is a discipline of knowledge and a sacred science. My objective is not to preserve tradition for its own sake, but to remove ambiguity, eliminate contradiction, and restore logical and mathematical coherence so that astrology can operate as a truly predictive science.

Re-examining Sahamas (Sensitive Points)

Why Universal Benefic–Malefic Assumptions Fail and How Chart-Specific Polarity Restores Predictive Power

Abstract

Sahamas (also known as sensitive points or Arabic Parts) occupy a unique position in astrological practice, bridging mathematical construction and symbolic interpretation. Despite their theoretical elegance, many practitioners observe that transits of slow-moving planets over Sahamas often fail to produce tangible results. This article argues that the primary reason for this inconsistency lies not in the concept of Sahamas themselves, but in the universal assumption of benefic and malefic planets embedded in their classical formulas. By demonstrating the chart-relative nature of planetary auspiciousness and proposing a refined, functionally consistent framework, this paper aims to restore Sahamas as reliable predictive tools.

1. Introduction: The Practical Problem with Sahamas

In practical astrology, a repeated observation emerges across decades of chart analysis:
major planetary transits over Sahamas frequently do not correspond with significant life events, even when the transiting planet is Jupiter, Saturn, or the lunar nodes.

The common explanation — that transits are weak or overridden by other factors — does not sufficiently account for the systematic nature of this failure. Instead, the issue lies deeper, at the level of how Sahamas are defined.

2. Classical Construction of Sahamas

Traditionally, Sahamas are calculated using linear combinations of three points, for example:

This formula is widely used for the so-called Good Fortune or Good Luck Sahama. Embedded within this formula is an implicit assumption:

Similar assumptions appear across Sahama formulas: Jupiter and Venus as default benefics, Saturn and Mars as default malefics.

3. The Core Flaw: Universal vs. Chart-Relative Auspiciousness

In reality, planetary effects are never universal. They are always chart-specific.

Yet classical Sahama formulas treat these planets as fixed in polarity, regardless of the individual horoscope.

4. Empirical Evidence of the Flaw

5. Historical Context of the Assumption

7. A Functionally Consistent Reformulation

To restore Sahamas as effective predictive tools, the following principle must be adopted:

8. Avoiding Subjectivity: A Necessary Refinement

To maintain rigor and reproducibility, “most auspicious” and “most inauspicious” should not be chosen arbitrarily.

This transforms Sahamas from static formulas into context-aware sensitive points.

9. Implications for Research and Software

Software that blindly applies universal benefic–malefic assumptions will inevitably underperform. Adaptive Sahama calculation, based on chart-specific functional polarity, offers a path toward measurable improvement in accuracy.

10. Conclusion

The inconsistent performance of Sahamas is not evidence of their weakness, but of an outdated assumption embedded in their construction.

By replacing universal benefic–malefic polarity with chart-specific functional evaluation, Sahamas regain:

This is not a rejection of tradition, but its natural evolution — guided by experience, logic, and long-term observation.