Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 Dear Ron, Same star and same sub....please...! lyrastro1.anant raichur <anant_1608 wrote: Dear Rongaaunt In Hindoo Aspects there are no ORBS. Only signs are considered.rongaunt <rongaunt wrote: Dear Yogesh and Kanak, et al,Kanak,I was wondering again about the question of aspects of RPs. Ifusing Hindu rather than Western aspects what spread do youobserve? Traditional Hindu aspect covers the whole sign but Isuspect using this method, with all the aspects from all theplanets and nodes that all or practically all the planets wouldbecome RPs. Do you limit the orb of the Hindu aspects? Yogesh,You state: ' a planet being posited in same star and sub,of anRP,could also "create" another RP...in my experience...'Must it be in BOTH ie. Star AND Sub, or either on their own?Ron Gaunt>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:58:52 +0000, you wrote:>Dears Kanak & Ron,> Allow me to add that in recent times the sublords of the Ascendant and the Moon are also being included as Ruling Planets...> In my experience,atleast so far, I have found both these sublords, quite useful,many a time,especially in horary astrology...> Aspects,rapt conjunctions and also,a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an RP,could also "create" another RP...in my experience...> Yours sincerely,> lyrastro1> GOOD LUCK !>>Kanakkumar Bosmia wrote:>>Dear Ron ji,>>My coments in Bold Red Letter.....>>Regards>>kanak bosmia>>>>rongaunt >> >> >>Re: Re: Ruling Planets >>Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:24:25 +1000 >> >> >>Kanak, >> >>Many thanks for this example. Just a comment and a few >>questions. >> >>I initially wrote on RPs after seeing the inconsistent way they >>were applied in the books. I have since gone back to basics >>and looked for information from the Source ie Prof KK. In the >>6th Reader page 123 and again on page 126 the author does not >>include Subs as RPs. However, in later examples he does include >>them. As you also include them I presume this is now the >>accepted way. Is this correct or is there any division between >>>KP astrologers on this? >>All kp astreologer include up to sub.>>> >>Your comment on Mars aspect to Saturn suggests that aspects of >>>a RP also creates other RPs. Is this correct? >>Yes>> If so what >>>>aspects do you use - Western by Degree, or Hindu by Sign? >>Yes Hindu sign ( in my early stage i count both but i found that hindu aspect work better then western)>>> >>You note in the example that Rahu is agent of Ketu. Is this >>>because Rahu is in Ketu Star? >>Yes>>> >>You do not appear to have used Saturn (Day Lord) as RP - but have >>included it as Star Lord of the Moon. Is this a deliberate >>omission - ie. not being considered? Or is it not included >>because it is included as RP Star Lord of the Moon? >>DL also consider but due to avoid of repetition of SAT i dont mention. >>>Three questions unrelated to your example: >> >>1. On page 123 of the 6th Reader it states that if the Lord of >>the rising sign owns two houses and either Rahu or Ketu were >>to be found in EITHER of these signs the Node must be considered >>>as RP. Is this still accepted? >>nothing is confusing... suppose rahu is in SAT sign and SAT is in RP , RAH also considred as RP.always check node in with sing lord not in witch sign so you never confuse.( never consider Rahu is in Aries or scorpi sign but consider as Rahu is in MAR sign)>>> >>2. Again on page 123 the author mentions that if Rahu and/or Ketu >>are in the sign of the Lord of the Day planet then they must be >>considered as RP. ie. if the Prasna is on a Sunday and Ketu is >>>in Leo it will be RP. Is this still accepted? >>Yes>>> >>3. Assume conditions 1 and 2 exist and these are the only way >>that the Nodes are RPs. If Rahu or Ketu are related in some >>other way to another planet ie by association or aspect, are the >>contacted planets also considered RPs. ie. in the example 2 above >>Sunday prasna, Ketu in Leo becomes RP. If Ketu is conjunct >>say Jupiter which is not otherwise RP, does Jupiter become so >>>because of this contact? >> we consider node as a agent for other planet. now ketu is conjunct with JUP .according to aspect JUP be a RP but KET is agent of JUP(by aspect/conj,) so KET work for JUP and no need of JUP. I think it will clear your doubt.>>> >>Your replies will possibly enlighten us newcomers who have no >>idea of the ongoing changes since Prof KKs early discoveries and >>his initial writings. >> >>Thanks >> >> >>Ron Gaunt >> >> >> >> >On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:31:57 -0800, you wrote: >> >>PLACE : AHMEDABAD GUJARAT :: INDIA >>DATE SATURDAY: 15 - 1 - 2005 >> : TIME: 13 H. 47 M. 0 S. >> >>Day Lord: SAT >> >>ASC 1 28 28 8 Mar Sun Mar >>MOON 12 7 45 38 Jup Sat Ket >> >>RAHU 1 3 43 36 Mar Ket >>KETU 7 3 43 36 Ven Mar >> >>RP are MAR(ASC SIGN LORD),SUN(ASC STARLORD),MAR(ASC >>SUBLORD),JUP(MOON SIGN LORD),SAT (MOON SATRLORD),KET(MOON SUB >>LORD),RAHU(AGENT OF MAR & KET). >> >>NOTE: ONLY MAR ASPECT SAT BY HIS 8TH ASPECT.BOTH ARE IN RP. >> >>So finaly RP are MAR,SUN,MAR,JUP,KET,RAHU (IF ANY PLANET IS IN >>SATR OF SUB OF RETRO >>PLANET DO NOT COUNT IN RP.IN OUR EXAMPLE RP ARE NOT IN STAR OR >>SUB of RETRO PLANT) >> >>regards >> >>kanak bosmia >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>Do you know all the things you can do with a Hotmail account? Click here! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 Dear Ron, Our Guru,KSK always advocated the Western system of aspects,orbs etc...as they were found to be,and demonstrated to be, more correct,and hence adopted into K.P.,by KSK himself,after years of experimentation... lyrastro1 anant raichur <anant_1608 wrote: Dear Rongaaunt In Hindoo Aspects there are no ORBS. Only signs are considered.rongaunt <rongaunt wrote: Dear Yogesh and Kanak, et al,Kanak,I was wondering again about the question of aspects of RPs. Ifusing Hindu rather than Western aspects what spread do youobserve? Traditional Hindu aspect covers the whole sign but Isuspect using this method, with all the aspects from all theplanets and nodes that all or practically all the planets wouldbecome RPs. Do you limit the orb of the Hindu aspects? Yogesh,You state: ' a planet being posited in same star and sub,of anRP,could also "create" another RP...in my experience...'Must it be in BOTH ie. Star AND Sub, or either on their own?Ron Gaunt>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:58:52 +0000, you wrote:>Dears Kanak & Ron,> Allow me to add that in recent times the sublords of the Ascendant and the Moon are also being included as Ruling Planets...> In my experience,atleast so far, I have found both these sublords, quite useful,many a time,especially in horary astrology...> Aspects,rapt conjunctions and also,a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an RP,could also "create" another RP...in my experience...> Yours sincerely,> lyrastro1> GOOD LUCK !>>Kanakkumar Bosmia wrote:>>Dear Ron ji,>>My coments in Bold Red Letter.....>>Regards>>kanak bosmia>>>>rongaunt >> >> >>Re: Re: Ruling Planets >>Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:24:25 +1000 >> >> >>Kanak, >> >>Many thanks for this example. Just a comment and a few >>questions. >> >>I initially wrote on RPs after seeing the inconsistent way they >>were applied in the books. I have since gone back to basics >>and looked for information from the Source ie Prof KK. In the >>6th Reader page 123 and again on page 126 the author does not >>include Subs as RPs. However, in later examples he does include >>them. As you also include them I presume this is now the >>accepted way. Is this correct or is there any division between >>>KP astrologers on this? >>All kp astreologer include up to sub.>>> >>Your comment on Mars aspect to Saturn suggests that aspects of >>>a RP also creates other RPs. Is this correct? >>Yes>> If so what >>>>aspects do you use - Western by Degree, or Hindu by Sign? >>Yes Hindu sign ( in my early stage i count both but i found that hindu aspect work better then western)>>> >>You note in the example that Rahu is agent of Ketu. Is this >>>because Rahu is in Ketu Star? >>Yes>>> >>You do not appear to have used Saturn (Day Lord) as RP - but have >>included it as Star Lord of the Moon. Is this a deliberate >>omission - ie. not being considered? Or is it not included >>because it is included as RP Star Lord of the Moon? >>DL also consider but due to avoid of repetition of SAT i dont mention. >>>Three questions unrelated to your example: >> >>1. On page 123 of the 6th Reader it states that if the Lord of >>the rising sign owns two houses and either Rahu or Ketu were >>to be found in EITHER of these signs the Node must be considered >>>as RP. Is this still accepted? >>nothing is confusing... suppose rahu is in SAT sign and SAT is in RP , RAH also considred as RP.always check node in with sing lord not in witch sign so you never confuse.( never consider Rahu is in Aries or scorpi sign but consider as Rahu is in MAR sign)>>> >>2. Again on page 123 the author mentions that if Rahu and/or Ketu >>are in the sign of the Lord of the Day planet then they must be >>considered as RP. ie. if the Prasna is on a Sunday and Ketu is >>>in Leo it will be RP. Is this still accepted? >>Yes>>> >>3. Assume conditions 1 and 2 exist and these are the only way >>that the Nodes are RPs. If Rahu or Ketu are related in some >>other way to another planet ie by association or aspect, are the >>contacted planets also considered RPs. ie. in the example 2 above >>Sunday prasna, Ketu in Leo becomes RP. If Ketu is conjunct >>say Jupiter which is not otherwise RP, does Jupiter become so >>>because of this contact? >> we consider node as a agent for other planet. now ketu is conjunct with JUP .according to aspect JUP be a RP but KET is agent of JUP(by aspect/conj,) so KET work for JUP and no need of JUP. I think it will clear your doubt.>>> >>Your replies will possibly enlighten us newcomers who have no >>idea of the ongoing changes since Prof KKs early discoveries and >>his initial writings. >> >>Thanks >> >> >>Ron Gaunt >> >> >> >> >On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:31:57 -0800, you wrote: >> >>PLACE : AHMEDABAD GUJARAT :: INDIA >>DATE SATURDAY: 15 - 1 - 2005 >> : TIME: 13 H. 47 M. 0 S. >> >>Day Lord: SAT >> >>ASC 1 28 28 8 Mar Sun Mar >>MOON 12 7 45 38 Jup Sat Ket >> >>RAHU 1 3 43 36 Mar Ket >>KETU 7 3 43 36 Ven Mar >> >>RP are MAR(ASC SIGN LORD),SUN(ASC STARLORD),MAR(ASC >>SUBLORD),JUP(MOON SIGN LORD),SAT (MOON SATRLORD),KET(MOON SUB >>LORD),RAHU(AGENT OF MAR & KET). >> >>NOTE: ONLY MAR ASPECT SAT BY HIS 8TH ASPECT.BOTH ARE IN RP. >> >>So finaly RP are MAR,SUN,MAR,JUP,KET,RAHU (IF ANY PLANET IS IN >>SATR OF SUB OF RETRO >>PLANET DO NOT COUNT IN RP.IN OUR EXAMPLE RP ARE NOT IN STAR OR >>SUB of RETRO PLANT) >> >>regards >> >>kanak bosmia >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>Do you know all the things you can do with a Hotmail account? Click here! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 Dear Yogesh, Please see question ** .................... ** Ron Gaunt On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:47:50 +0000, you wrote: >Dear Ron, > Same star and same sub....please...! > lyrastro1. ** Isn't this the same as being a close conjunction or close trine?. If so this then would come under creation of RP by aspect. ** > >anant raichur <anant_1608 wrote: >Dear Rongaaunt >In Hindoo Aspects there are no ORBS. Only signs are considered. > >rongaunt <rongaunt wrote: > > >Dear Yogesh and Kanak, et al, > >Kanak, > >I was wondering again about the question of aspects of RPs. If >using Hindu rather than Western aspects what spread do you >observe? Traditional Hindu aspect covers the whole sign but I >suspect using this method, with all the aspects from all the >planets and nodes that all or practically all the planets would >become RPs. Do you limit the orb of the Hindu aspects? > >Yogesh, > >You state: ' a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an >RP,could also " create " another RP...in my experience...' >Must it be in BOTH ie. Star AND Sub, or either on their own? > >Ron Gaunt > > >>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:58:52 +0000, you wrote: > >>Dears Kanak & Ron, >> Allow me to add that in recent times the sublords of the Ascendant and the Moon are also being included as Ruling Planets... >> In my experience,atleast so far, I have found both these sublords, quite useful,many a time,especially in horary astrology... >> Aspects,rapt conjunctions and also,a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an RP,could also " create " another RP...in my experience... >> Yours sincerely, >> lyrastro1 >> GOOD LUCK ! >> >>Kanakkumar Bosmia wrote: >> >>Dear Ron ji, >> >>My coments in Bold Red Letter..... >> >>Regards >> >>kanak bosmia >> >> >>>rongaunt >>> >>> >>>Re: Re: Ruling Planets >>>Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:24:25 +1000 >>> >>> >>>Kanak, >>> >>>Many thanks for this example. Just a comment and a few >>>questions. >>> >>>I initially wrote on RPs after seeing the inconsistent way they >>>were applied in the books. I have since gone back to basics >>>and looked for information from the Source ie Prof KK. In the >>>6th Reader page 123 and again on page 126 the author does not >>>include Subs as RPs. However, in later examples he does include >>>them. As you also include them I presume this is now the >>>accepted way. Is this correct or is there any division between >> >>>KP astrologers on this? >> >>All kp astreologer include up to sub. >> >>> >>>Your comment on Mars aspect to Saturn suggests that aspects of >> >>>a RP also creates other RPs. Is this correct? >> >>Yes >> >> If so what >> >> >>>aspects do you use - Western by Degree, or Hindu by Sign? >> >>Yes Hindu sign ( in my early stage i count both but i found that hindu aspect work better then western) >> >>> >>>You note in the example that Rahu is agent of Ketu. Is this >> >>>because Rahu is in Ketu Star? >> >>Yes >> >>> >>>You do not appear to have used Saturn (Day Lord) as RP - but have >>>included it as Star Lord of the Moon. Is this a deliberate >>>omission - ie. not being considered? Or is it not included >>>because it is included as RP Star Lord of the Moon? >> >>DL also consider but due to avoid of repetition of SAT i dont mention. >> >>>Three questions unrelated to your example: >>> >>>1. On page 123 of the 6th Reader it states that if the Lord of >>>the rising sign owns two houses and either Rahu or Ketu were >>>to be found in EITHER of these signs the Node must be considered >> >>>as RP. Is this still accepted? >> >>nothing is confusing... suppose rahu is in SAT sign and SAT is in RP , RAH also considred as RP.always check node in with sing lord not in witch sign so you never confuse.( never consider Rahu is in Aries or scorpi sign but consider as Rahu is in MAR sign) >> >>> >>>2. Again on page 123 the author mentions that if Rahu and/or Ketu >>>are in the sign of the Lord of the Day planet then they must be >>>considered as RP. ie. if the Prasna is on a Sunday and Ketu is >> >>>in Leo it will be RP. Is this still accepted? >> >>Yes >> >>> >>>3. Assume conditions 1 and 2 exist and these are the only way >>>that the Nodes are RPs. If Rahu or Ketu are related in some >>>other way to another planet ie by association or aspect, are the >>>contacted planets also considered RPs. ie. in the example 2 above >>>Sunday prasna, Ketu in Leo becomes RP. If Ketu is conjunct >>>say Jupiter which is not otherwise RP, does Jupiter become so >> >>>because of this contact? >> >> we consider node as a agent for other planet. now ketu is conjunct with JUP ..according to aspect JUP be a RP but KET is agent of JUP(by aspect/conj,) so KET work for JUP and no need of JUP. I think it will clear your doubt. >> >>> >>>Your replies will possibly enlighten us newcomers who have no >>>idea of the ongoing changes since Prof KKs early discoveries and >>>his initial writings. >>> >>>Thanks >>> >>> >>>Ron Gaunt >>> >>> >>> >>> >On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:31:57 -0800, you wrote: >>> >>>PLACE : AHMEDABAD GUJARAT :: INDIA >>>DATE SATURDAY: 15 - 1 - 2005 >>> : TIME: 13 H. 47 M. 0 S. >>> >>>Day Lord: SAT >>> >>>ASC 1 28 28 8 Mar Sun Mar >>>MOON 12 7 45 38 Jup Sat Ket >>> >>>RAHU 1 3 43 36 Mar Ket >>>KETU 7 3 43 36 Ven Mar >>> >>>RP are MAR(ASC SIGN LORD),SUN(ASC STARLORD),MAR(ASC >>>SUBLORD),JUP(MOON SIGN LORD),SAT (MOON SATRLORD),KET(MOON SUB >>>LORD),RAHU(AGENT OF MAR & KET). >>> >>>NOTE: ONLY MAR ASPECT SAT BY HIS 8TH ASPECT.BOTH ARE IN RP. >>> >>>So finaly RP are MAR,SUN,MAR,JUP,KET,RAHU (IF ANY PLANET IS IN >>>SATR OF SUB OF RETRO >>>PLANET DO NOT COUNT IN RP.IN OUR EXAMPLE RP ARE NOT IN STAR OR >>>SUB of RETRO PLANT) >>> >>>regards >>> >>>kanak bosmia >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>Do you know all the things you can do with a Hotmail account? Click here! >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 - " rongaunt " <rongaunt Monday, January 17, 2005 12:37 PM Re: Re: Ruling Planets > > > Dear Yogesh, > > Please see question ** .................... ** > > Ron Gaunt > > > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:47:50 +0000, you wrote: > > >Dear Ron, > > Same star and same sub....please...! > > lyrastro1. > > ** Isn't this the same as being a close conjunction > or close trine?. If so this then would come under > creation of RP by aspect. ** > > > > > >anant raichur <anant_1608 wrote: > >Dear Rongaaunt > >In Hindoo Aspects there are no ORBS. Only signs are considered. > > > >rongaunt <rongaunt wrote: > > > > > >Dear Yogesh and Kanak, et al, > > > >Kanak, > > > >I was wondering again about the question of aspects of RPs. If > >using Hindu rather than Western aspects what spread do you > >observe? Traditional Hindu aspect covers the whole sign but I > >suspect using this method, with all the aspects from all the > >planets and nodes that all or practically all the planets would > >become RPs. Do you limit the orb of the Hindu aspects? > > > >Yogesh, > > > >You state: ' a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an > >RP,could also " create " another RP...in my experience...' > >Must it be in BOTH ie. Star AND Sub, or either on their own? > > > >Ron Gaunt > > > > > >>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:58:52 +0000, you wrote: > > > >>Dears Kanak & Ron, > >> Allow me to add that in recent times the sublords of the Ascendant and the Moon are also being included as Ruling Planets... > >> In my experience,atleast so far, I have found both these sublords, quite useful,many a time,especially in horary astrology... > >> Aspects,rapt conjunctions and also,a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an RP,could also " create " another RP...in my experience... > >> Yours sincerely, > >> lyrastro1 > >> GOOD LUCK ! > >> > >>Kanakkumar Bosmia wrote: > >> > >>Dear Ron ji, > >> > >>My coments in Bold Red Letter..... > >> > >>Regards > >> > >>kanak bosmia > >> > >> > >>>rongaunt > >>> > >>> > >>>Re: Re: Ruling Planets > >>>Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:24:25 +1000 > >>> > >>> > >>>Kanak, > >>> > >>>Many thanks for this example. Just a comment and a few > >>>questions. > >>> > >>>I initially wrote on RPs after seeing the inconsistent way they > >>>were applied in the books. I have since gone back to basics > >>>and looked for information from the Source ie Prof KK. In the > >>>6th Reader page 123 and again on page 126 the author does not > >>>include Subs as RPs. However, in later examples he does include > >>>them. As you also include them I presume this is now the > >>>accepted way. Is this correct or is there any division between > >> > >>>KP astrologers on this? > >> > >>All kp astreologer include up to sub. > >> > >>> > >>>Your comment on Mars aspect to Saturn suggests that aspects of > >> > >>>a RP also creates other RPs. Is this correct? > >> > >>Yes > >> > >> If so what > >> > >> > >>>aspects do you use - Western by Degree, or Hindu by Sign? > >> > >>Yes Hindu sign ( in my early stage i count both but i found that hindu aspect work better then western) > >> > >>> > >>>You note in the example that Rahu is agent of Ketu. Is this > >> > >>>because Rahu is in Ketu Star? > >> > >>Yes > >> > >>> > >>>You do not appear to have used Saturn (Day Lord) as RP - but have > >>>included it as Star Lord of the Moon. Is this a deliberate > >>>omission - ie. not being considered? Or is it not included > >>>because it is included as RP Star Lord of the Moon? > >> > >>DL also consider but due to avoid of repetition of SAT i dont mention. > >> > >>>Three questions unrelated to your example: > >>> > >>>1. On page 123 of the 6th Reader it states that if the Lord of > >>>the rising sign owns two houses and either Rahu or Ketu were > >>>to be found in EITHER of these signs the Node must be considered > >> > >>>as RP. Is this still accepted? > >> > >>nothing is confusing... suppose rahu is in SAT sign and SAT is in RP , RAH also considred as RP.always check node in with sing lord not in witch sign so you never confuse.( never consider Rahu is in Aries or scorpi sign but consider as Rahu is in MAR sign) > >> > >>> > >>>2. Again on page 123 the author mentions that if Rahu and/or Ketu > >>>are in the sign of the Lord of the Day planet then they must be > >>>considered as RP. ie. if the Prasna is on a Sunday and Ketu is > >> > >>>in Leo it will be RP. Is this still accepted? > >> > >>Yes > >> > >>> > >>>3. Assume conditions 1 and 2 exist and these are the only way > >>>that the Nodes are RPs. If Rahu or Ketu are related in some > >>>other way to another planet ie by association or aspect, are the > >>>contacted planets also considered RPs. ie. in the example 2 above > >>>Sunday prasna, Ketu in Leo becomes RP. If Ketu is conjunct > >>>say Jupiter which is not otherwise RP, does Jupiter become so > >> > >>>because of this contact? > >> > >> we consider node as a agent for other planet. now ketu is conjunct with JUP .according to aspect JUP be a RP but KET is agent of JUP(by aspect/conj,) so KET work for JUP and no need of JUP. I think it will clear your doubt. > >> > >>> > >>>Your replies will possibly enlighten us newcomers who have no > >>>idea of the ongoing changes since Prof KKs early discoveries and > >>>his initial writings. > >>> > >>>Thanks > >>> > >>> > >>>Ron Gaunt > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:31:57 -0800, you wrote: > >>> > >>>PLACE : AHMEDABAD GUJARAT :: INDIA > >>>DATE SATURDAY: 15 - 1 - 2005 > >>> : TIME: 13 H. 47 M. 0 S. > >>> > >>>Day Lord: SAT > >>> > >>>ASC 1 28 28 8 Mar Sun Mar > >>>MOON 12 7 45 38 Jup Sat Ket > >>> > >>>RAHU 1 3 43 36 Mar Ket > >>>KETU 7 3 43 36 Ven Mar > >>> > >>>RP are MAR(ASC SIGN LORD),SUN(ASC STARLORD),MAR(ASC > >>>SUBLORD),JUP(MOON SIGN LORD),SAT (MOON SATRLORD),KET(MOON SUB > >>>LORD),RAHU(AGENT OF MAR & KET). > >>> > >>>NOTE: ONLY MAR ASPECT SAT BY HIS 8TH ASPECT.BOTH ARE IN RP. > >>> > >>>So finaly RP are MAR,SUN,MAR,JUP,KET,RAHU (IF ANY PLANET IS IN > >>>SATR OF SUB OF RETRO > >>>PLANET DO NOT COUNT IN RP.IN OUR EXAMPLE RP ARE NOT IN STAR OR > >>>SUB of RETRO PLANT) > >>> > >>>regards > >>> > >>>kanak bosmia > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Do you know all the things you can do with a Hotmail account? Click here! > >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 Dear Ron, Same starlord same sublord...to be more precise,it could be in a different sign...! I had presumed you would gather that... lyrastro1raju bokaariya tel 0912442-222802 <bokaariya wrote: -"rongaunt" <rongauntMonday, January 17, 2005 12:37 PMRe: Re: Ruling Planets>>> Dear Yogesh,>> Please see question ** .................... **>> Ron Gaunt>>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:47:50 +0000, you wrote:>> >Dear Ron,> > Same star and same sub....please...!> > lyrastro1.>> ** Isn't this the same as being a close conjunction> or close trine?. If so this then would come under> creation of RP by aspect. **>>> >> >anant raichur <anant_1608 wrote:> >Dear Rongaaunt> >In Hindoo Aspects there are no ORBS. Only signs are considered.> >> >rongaunt <rongaunt wrote:> >> >> >Dear Yogesh and Kanak, et al,> >> >Kanak,> >> >I was wondering again about the question of aspects of RPs. If> >using Hindu rather than Western aspects what spread do you> >observe? Traditional Hindu aspect covers the whole sign but I> >suspect using this method, with all the aspects from all the> >planets and nodes that all or practically all the planets would> >become RPs. Do you limit the orb of the Hindu aspects?> >> >Yogesh,> >> >You state: ' a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an> >RP,could also "create" another RP...in my experience...'> >Must it be in BOTH ie. Star AND Sub, or either on their own?> >> >Ron Gaunt> >> >> >>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:58:52 +0000, you wrote:> >> >>Dears Kanak & Ron,> >> Allow me to add that in recent times the sublords of the Ascendant andthe Moon are also being included as Ruling Planets...> >> In my experience,atleast so far, I have found both these sublords,quite useful,many a time,especially in horary astrology...> >> Aspects,rapt conjunctions and also,a planet being posited in same starand sub,of an RP,could also "create" another RP...in my experience...> >> Yours sincerely,> >> lyrastro1> >> GOOD LUCK !> >>> >>Kanakkumar Bosmia wrote:> >>> >>Dear Ron ji,> >>> >>My coments in Bold Red Letter.....> >>> >>Regards> >>> >>kanak bosmia> >>> >>> >>>rongaunt> >>> > >>> > >>>Re: Re: Ruling Planets> >>>Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:24:25 +1000> >>>> >>>> >>>Kanak,> >>>> >>>Many thanks for this example. Just a comment and a few> >>>questions.> >>>> >>>I initially wrote on RPs after seeing the inconsistent way they> >>>were applied in the books. I have since gone back to basics> >>>and looked for information from the Source ie Prof KK. In the> >>>6th Reader page 123 and again on page 126 the author does not> >>>include Subs as RPs. However, in later examples he does include> >>>them. As you also include them I presume this is now the> >>>accepted way. Is this correct or is there any division between> >>> >>>KP astrologers on this?> >>> >>All kp astreologer include up to sub.> >>> >>>> >>>Your comment on Mars aspect to Saturn suggests that aspects of> >>> >>>a RP also creates other RPs. Is this correct?> >>> >>Yes> >>> >> If so what> >>> >>> >>>aspects do you use - Western by Degree, or Hindu by Sign?> >>> >>Yes Hindu sign ( in my early stage i count both but i found that hinduaspect work better then western)> >>> >>>> >>>You note in the example that Rahu is agent of Ketu. Is this> >>> >>>because Rahu is in Ketu Star?> >>> >>Yes> >>> >>>> >>>You do not appear to have used Saturn (Day Lord) as RP - but have> >>>included it as Star Lord of the Moon. Is this a deliberate> >>>omission - ie. not being considered? Or is it not included> >>>because it is included as RP Star Lord of the Moon?> >>> >>DL also consider but due to avoid of repetition of SAT i dont mention.> >>> >>>Three questions unrelated to your example:> >>>> >>>1. On page 123 of the 6th Reader it states that if the Lord of> >>>the rising sign owns two houses and either Rahu or Ketu were> >>>to be found in EITHER of these signs the Node must be considered> >>> >>>as RP. Is this still accepted?> >>> >>nothing is confusing... suppose rahu is in SAT sign and SAT is in RP ,RAH also considred as RP.always check node in with sing lord not in witchsign so you never confuse.( never consider Rahu is in Aries or scorpi signbut consider as Rahu is in MAR sign)> >>> >>>> >>>2. Again on page 123 the author mentions that if Rahu and/or Ketu> >>>are in the sign of the Lord of the Day planet then they must be> >>>considered as RP. ie. if the Prasna is on a Sunday and Ketu is> >>> >>>in Leo it will be RP. Is this still accepted?> >>> >>Yes> >>> >>>> >>>3. Assume conditions 1 and 2 exist and these are the only way> >>>that the Nodes are RPs. If Rahu or Ketu are related in some> >>>other way to another planet ie by association or aspect, are the> >>>contacted planets also considered RPs. ie. in the example 2 above> >>>Sunday prasna, Ketu in Leo becomes RP. If Ketu is conjunct> >>>say Jupiter which is not otherwise RP, does Jupiter become so> >>> >>>because of this contact?> >>> >> we consider node as a agent for other planet. now ketu is conjunct withJUP .according to aspect JUP be a RP but KET is agent of JUP(byaspect/conj,) so KET work for JUP and no need of JUP. I think it will clearyour doubt.> >>> >>>> >>>Your replies will possibly enlighten us newcomers who have no> >>>idea of the ongoing changes since Prof KKs early discoveries and> >>>his initial writings.> >>>> >>>Thanks> >>>> >>>> >>>Ron Gaunt> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:31:57 -0800, you wrote:> >>>> >>>PLACE : AHMEDABAD GUJARAT :: INDIA> >>>DATE SATURDAY: 15 - 1 - 2005> >>> : TIME: 13 H. 47 M. 0 S.> >>>> >>>Day Lord: SAT> >>>> >>>ASC 1 28 28 8 Mar Sun Mar> >>>MOON 12 7 45 38 Jup Sat Ket> >>>> >>>RAHU 1 3 43 36 Mar Ket> >>>KETU 7 3 43 36 Ven Mar> >>>> >>>RP are MAR(ASC SIGN LORD),SUN(ASC STARLORD),MAR(ASC> >>>SUBLORD),JUP(MOON SIGN LORD),SAT (MOON SATRLORD),KET(MOON SUB> >>>LORD),RAHU(AGENT OF MAR & KET).> >>>> >>>NOTE: ONLY MAR ASPECT SAT BY HIS 8TH ASPECT.BOTH ARE IN RP.> >>>> >>>So finaly RP are MAR,SUN,MAR,JUP,KET,RAHU (IF ANY PLANET IS IN> >>>SATR OF SUB OF RETRO> >>>PLANET DO NOT COUNT IN RP.IN OUR EXAMPLE RP ARE NOT IN STAR OR> >>>SUB of RETRO PLANT)> >>>> >>>regards> >>>> >>>kanak bosmia> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Do you know all the things you can do with a Hotmail account? Clickhere!> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 Dear Yogesh, I must be missing something here, or misinterpreting what you are saying. Isn't the only different sign possible for the same Starlord one that is trine to another of the same StarLord? This is why I asked my previous question. Ron Gaunt On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 08:24:43 +0000, you wrote: >Dear Ron, > Same starlord same sublord...to be more precise,it could be in a different sign...! I had presumed you would gather that... > lyrastro1 > >raju bokaariya tel 0912442-222802 <bokaariya wrote: > >- > " rongaunt " <rongaunt > >Monday, January 17, 2005 12:37 PM >Re: Re: Ruling Planets > > >> >> >> Dear Yogesh, >> >> Please see question ** .................... ** >> >> Ron Gaunt >> >> >> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:47:50 +0000, you wrote: >> >> >Dear Ron, >> > Same star and same sub....please...! >> > lyrastro1. >> >> ** Isn't this the same as being a close conjunction >> or close trine?. If so this then would come under >> creation of RP by aspect. ** >> >> >> > >> >anant raichur <anant_1608 wrote: >> >Dear Rongaaunt >> >In Hindoo Aspects there are no ORBS. Only signs are considered. >> > >> >rongaunt <rongaunt wrote: >> > >> > >> >Dear Yogesh and Kanak, et al, >> > >> >Kanak, >> > >> >I was wondering again about the question of aspects of RPs. If >> >using Hindu rather than Western aspects what spread do you >> >observe? Traditional Hindu aspect covers the whole sign but I >> >suspect using this method, with all the aspects from all the >> >planets and nodes that all or practically all the planets would >> >become RPs. Do you limit the orb of the Hindu aspects? >> > >> >Yogesh, >> > >> >You state: ' a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an >> >RP,could also " create " another RP...in my experience...' >> >Must it be in BOTH ie. Star AND Sub, or either on their own? >> > >> >Ron Gaunt >> > >> > >> >>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:58:52 +0000, you wrote: >> > >> >>Dears Kanak & Ron, >> >> Allow me to add that in recent times the sublords of the Ascendant and >the Moon are also being included as Ruling Planets... >> >> In my experience,atleast so far, I have found both these sublords, >quite useful,many a time,especially in horary astrology... >> >> Aspects,rapt conjunctions and also,a planet being posited in same star >and sub,of an RP,could also " create " another RP...in my experience... >> >> Yours sincerely, >> >> lyrastro1 >> >> GOOD LUCK ! >> >> >> >>Kanakkumar Bosmia wrote: >> >> >> >>Dear Ron ji, >> >> >> >>My coments in Bold Red Letter..... >> >> >> >>Regards >> >> >> >>kanak bosmia >> >> >> >> >> >>>rongaunt >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>Re: Re: Ruling Planets >> >>>Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:24:25 +1000 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>Kanak, >> >>> >> >>>Many thanks for this example. Just a comment and a few >> >>>questions. >> >>> >> >>>I initially wrote on RPs after seeing the inconsistent way they >> >>>were applied in the books. I have since gone back to basics >> >>>and looked for information from the Source ie Prof KK. In the >> >>>6th Reader page 123 and again on page 126 the author does not >> >>>include Subs as RPs. However, in later examples he does include >> >>>them. As you also include them I presume this is now the >> >>>accepted way. Is this correct or is there any division between >> >> >> >>>KP astrologers on this? >> >> >> >>All kp astreologer include up to sub. >> >> >> >>> >> >>>Your comment on Mars aspect to Saturn suggests that aspects of >> >> >> >>>a RP also creates other RPs. Is this correct? >> >> >> >>Yes >> >> >> >> If so what >> >> >> >> >> >>>aspects do you use - Western by Degree, or Hindu by Sign? >> >> >> >>Yes Hindu sign ( in my early stage i count both but i found that hindu >aspect work better then western) >> >> >> >>> >> >>>You note in the example that Rahu is agent of Ketu. Is this >> >> >> >>>because Rahu is in Ketu Star? >> >> >> >>Yes >> >> >> >>> >> >>>You do not appear to have used Saturn (Day Lord) as RP - but have >> >>>included it as Star Lord of the Moon. Is this a deliberate >> >>>omission - ie. not being considered? Or is it not included >> >>>because it is included as RP Star Lord of the Moon? >> >> >> >>DL also consider but due to avoid of repetition of SAT i dont mention. >> >> >> >>>Three questions unrelated to your example: >> >>> >> >>>1. On page 123 of the 6th Reader it states that if the Lord of >> >>>the rising sign owns two houses and either Rahu or Ketu were >> >>>to be found in EITHER of these signs the Node must be considered >> >> >> >>>as RP. Is this still accepted? >> >> >> >>nothing is confusing... suppose rahu is in SAT sign and SAT is in RP , >RAH also considred as RP.always check node in with sing lord not in witch >sign so you never confuse.( never consider Rahu is in Aries or scorpi sign >but consider as Rahu is in MAR sign) >> >> >> >>> >> >>>2. Again on page 123 the author mentions that if Rahu and/or Ketu >> >>>are in the sign of the Lord of the Day planet then they must be >> >>>considered as RP. ie. if the Prasna is on a Sunday and Ketu is >> >> >> >>>in Leo it will be RP. Is this still accepted? >> >> >> >>Yes >> >> >> >>> >> >>>3. Assume conditions 1 and 2 exist and these are the only way >> >>>that the Nodes are RPs. If Rahu or Ketu are related in some >> >>>other way to another planet ie by association or aspect, are the >> >>>contacted planets also considered RPs. ie. in the example 2 above >> >>>Sunday prasna, Ketu in Leo becomes RP. If Ketu is conjunct >> >>>say Jupiter which is not otherwise RP, does Jupiter become so >> >> >> >>>because of this contact? >> >> >> >> we consider node as a agent for other planet. now ketu is conjunct with >JUP .according to aspect JUP be a RP but KET is agent of JUP(by >aspect/conj,) so KET work for JUP and no need of JUP. I think it will clear >your doubt. >> >> >> >>> >> >>>Your replies will possibly enlighten us newcomers who have no >> >>>idea of the ongoing changes since Prof KKs early discoveries and >> >>>his initial writings. >> >>> >> >>>Thanks >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>Ron Gaunt >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:31:57 -0800, you wrote: >> >>> >> >>>PLACE : AHMEDABAD GUJARAT :: INDIA >> >>>DATE SATURDAY: 15 - 1 - 2005 >> >>> : TIME: 13 H. 47 M. 0 S. >> >>> >> >>>Day Lord: SAT >> >>> >> >>>ASC 1 28 28 8 Mar Sun Mar >> >>>MOON 12 7 45 38 Jup Sat Ket >> >>> >> >>>RAHU 1 3 43 36 Mar Ket >> >>>KETU 7 3 43 36 Ven Mar >> >>> >> >>>RP are MAR(ASC SIGN LORD),SUN(ASC STARLORD),MAR(ASC >> >>>SUBLORD),JUP(MOON SIGN LORD),SAT (MOON SATRLORD),KET(MOON SUB >> >>>LORD),RAHU(AGENT OF MAR & KET). >> >>> >> >>>NOTE: ONLY MAR ASPECT SAT BY HIS 8TH ASPECT.BOTH ARE IN RP. >> >>> >> >>>So finaly RP are MAR,SUN,MAR,JUP,KET,RAHU (IF ANY PLANET IS IN >> >>>SATR OF SUB OF RETRO >> >>>PLANET DO NOT COUNT IN RP.IN OUR EXAMPLE RP ARE NOT IN STAR OR >> >>>SUB of RETRO PLANT) >> >>> >> >>>regards >> >>> >> >>>kanak bosmia >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Do you know all the things you can do with a Hotmail account? Click >here! >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 Dear Friends I believe we are drifting into discusions by trying to EXPAND the definition of Ruling Planets, by including Sub Lors, Planets by Aspects etc. Late Prof KSK gave only 5 R.P.S 1. Day Lord> 2. Sign Lord of Moon: 3. Star Lord of Moon4. Sign Lord of Asc. 5 Star Lord of asc. He also stated that these are in Reverse Order of Strength. Further Rahu ketu were to be include in the List, if they were in the Signs of these RPS. Actually being Stronger, they would replav ce the Planes, in whose sign they are. So there will be only 5 or less RPS. Other authours have extended this original classificatio., probably to justify the results of one or two cases they were studying . Prof KSK had warned that an astrologer May be wrong, but not the Science. So unless there is sufficient data and reserch to prove that original definition has to enlarged, I believe it would not be correct to chane it. good luck t Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1 wrote: Dear Ron, Same starlord same sublord...to be more precise,it could be in a different sign...! I had presumed you would gather that... lyrastro1raju bokaariya tel 0912442-222802 <bokaariya wrote: -"rongaunt" <rongauntMonday, January 17, 2005 12:37 PMRe: Re: Ruling Planets>>> Dear Yogesh,>> Please see question ** .................... **>> Ron Gaunt>>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:47:50 +0000, you wrote:>> >Dear Ron,> > Same star and same sub....please...!> > lyrastro1.>> ** Isn't this the same as being a close conjunction> or close trine?. If so this then would come under> creation of RP by aspect. **>>> >> >anant raichur <anant_1608 wrote:> >Dear Rongaaunt> >In Hindoo Aspects there are no ORBS. Only signs are considered.> >> >rongaunt <rongaunt wrote:> >> >> >Dear Yogesh and Kanak, et al,> >> >Kanak,> >> >I was wondering again about the question of aspects of RPs. If> >using Hindu rather than Western aspects what spread do you> >observe? Traditional Hindu aspect covers the whole sign but I> >suspect using this method, with all the aspects from all the> >planets and nodes that all or practically all the planets would> >become RPs. Do you limit the orb of the Hindu aspects?> >> >Yogesh,> >> >You state: ' a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an> >RP,could also "create" another RP...in my experience...'> >Must it be in BOTH ie. Star AND Sub, or either on their own?> >> >Ron Gaunt> >> >> >>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:58:52 +0000, you wrote:> >> >>Dears Kanak & Ron,> >> Allow me to add that in recent times the sublords of the Ascendant andthe Moon are also being included as Ruling Planets...> >> In my experience,atleast so far, I have found both these sublords,quite useful,many a time,especially in horary astrology...> >> Aspects,rapt conjunctions and also,a planet being posited in same starand sub,of an RP,could also "create" another RP...in my experience...> >> Yours sincerely,> >> lyrastro1> >> GOOD LUCK !> >>> >>Kanakkumar Bosmia wrote:> >>> >>Dear Ron ji,> >>> >>My coments in Bold Red Letter.....> >>> >>Regards> >>> >>kanak bosmia> >>> >>> >>>rongaunt> >>> > >>> > >>>Re: Re: Ruling Planets> >>>Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:24:25 +1000> >>>> >>>> >>>Kanak,> >>>> >>>Many thanks for this example. Just a comment and a few> >>>questions.> >>>> >>>I initially wrote on RPs after seeing the inconsistent way they> >>>were applied in the books. I have since gone back to basics> >>>and looked for information from the Source ie Prof KK. In the> >>>6th Reader page 123 and again on page 126 the author does not> >>>include Subs as RPs. However, in later examples he does include> >>>them. As you also include them I presume this is now the> >>>accepted way. Is this correct or is there any division between> >>> >>>KP astrologers on this?> >>> >>All kp astreologer include up to sub.> >>> >>>> >>>Your comment on Mars aspect to Saturn suggests that aspects of> >>> >>>a RP also creates other RPs. Is this correct?> >>> >>Yes> >>> >> If so what> >>> >>> >>>aspects do you use - Western by Degree, or Hindu by Sign?> >>> >>Yes Hindu sign ( in my early stage i count both but i found that hinduaspect work better then western)> >>> >>>> >>>You note in the example that Rahu is agent of Ketu. Is this> >>> >>>because Rahu is in Ketu Star?> >>> >>Yes> >>> >>>> >>>You do not appear to have used Saturn (Day Lord) as RP - but have> >>>included it as Star Lord of the Moon. Is this a deliberate> >>>omission - ie. not being considered? Or is it not included> >>>because it is included as RP Star Lord of the Moon?> >>> >>DL also consider but due to avoid of repetition of SAT i dont mention.> >>> >>>Three questions unrelated to your example:> >>>> >>>1. On page 123 of the 6th Reader it states that if the Lord of> >>>the rising sign owns two houses and either Rahu or Ketu were> >>>to be found in EITHER of these signs the Node must be considered> >>> >>>as RP. Is this still accepted?> >>> >>nothing is confusing... suppose rahu is in SAT sign and SAT is in RP ,RAH also considred as RP.always check node in with sing lord not in witchsign so you never confuse.( never consider Rahu is in Aries or scorpi signbut consider as Rahu is in MAR sign)> >>> >>>> >>>2. Again on page 123 the author mentions that if Rahu and/or Ketu> >>>are in the sign of the Lord of the Day planet then they must be> >>>considered as RP. ie. if the Prasna is on a Sunday and Ketu is> >>> >>>in Leo it will be RP. Is this still accepted?> >>> >>Yes> >>> >>>> >>>3. Assume conditions 1 and 2 exist and these are the only way> >>>that the Nodes are RPs. If Rahu or Ketu are related in some> >>>other way to another planet ie by association or aspect, are the> >>>contacted planets also considered RPs. ie. in the example 2 above> >>>Sunday prasna, Ketu in Leo becomes RP. If Ketu is conjunct> >>>say Jupiter which is not otherwise RP, does Jupiter become so> >>> >>>because of this contact?> >>> >> we consider node as a agent for other planet. now ketu is conjunct withJUP .according to aspect JUP be a RP but KET is agent of JUP(byaspect/conj,) so KET work for JUP and no need of JUP. I think it will clearyour doubt.> >>> >>>> >>>Your replies will possibly enlighten us newcomers who have no> >>>idea of the ongoing changes since Prof KKs early discoveries and> >>>his initial writings.> >>>> >>>Thanks> >>>> >>>> >>>Ron Gaunt> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:31:57 -0800, you wrote:> >>>> >>>PLACE : AHMEDABAD GUJARAT :: INDIA> >>>DATE SATURDAY: 15 - 1 - 2005> >>> : TIME: 13 H. 47 M. 0 S.> >>>> >>>Day Lord: SAT> >>>> >>>ASC 1 28 28 8 Mar Sun Mar> >>>MOON 12 7 45 38 Jup Sat Ket> >>>> >>>RAHU 1 3 43 36 Mar Ket> >>>KETU 7 3 43 36 Ven Mar> >>>> >>>RP are MAR(ASC SIGN LORD),SUN(ASC STARLORD),MAR(ASC> >>>SUBLORD),JUP(MOON SIGN LORD),SAT (MOON SATRLORD),KET(MOON SUB> >>>LORD),RAHU(AGENT OF MAR & KET).> >>>> >>>NOTE: ONLY MAR ASPECT SAT BY HIS 8TH ASPECT.BOTH ARE IN RP.> >>>> >>>So finaly RP are MAR,SUN,MAR,JUP,KET,RAHU (IF ANY PLANET IS IN> >>>SATR OF SUB OF RETRO> >>>PLANET DO NOT COUNT IN RP.IN OUR EXAMPLE RP ARE NOT IN STAR OR> >>>SUB of RETRO PLANT)> >>>> >>>regards> >>>> >>>kanak bosmia> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Do you know all the things you can do with a Hotmail account? Clickhere!> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 I fully agree. The page v and xiii of book RP & KP by sh. Hariharan have all the rules for RP. Mukesh - anant raichur Monday, January 17, 2005 9:45 PM Re: Re: Ruling Planets Dear Friends I believe we are drifting into discusions by trying to EXPAND the definition of Ruling Planets, by including Sub Lors, Planets by Aspects etc. Late Prof KSK gave only 5 R.P.S 1. Day Lord> 2. Sign Lord of Moon: 3. Star Lord of Moon4. Sign Lord of Asc. 5 Star Lord of asc. He also stated that these are in Reverse Order of Strength. Further Rahu ketu were to be include in the List, if they were in the Signs of these RPS. Actually being Stronger, they would replav ce the Planes, in whose sign they are. So there will be only 5 or less RPS. Other authours have extended this original classificatio., probably to justify the results of one or two cases they were studying . Prof KSK had warned that an astrologer May be wrong, but not the Science. So unless there is sufficient data and reserch to prove that original definition has to enlarged, I believe it would not be correct to chane it. good luck t Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1 wrote: Dear Ron, Same starlord same sublord...to be more precise,it could be in a different sign...! I had presumed you would gather that... lyrastro1raju bokaariya tel 0912442-222802 <bokaariya wrote: -"rongaunt" <rongauntMonday, January 17, 2005 12:37 PMRe: Re: Ruling Planets>>> Dear Yogesh,>> Please see question ** .................... **>> Ron Gaunt>>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:47:50 +0000, you wrote:>> >Dear Ron,> > Same star and same sub....please...!> > lyrastro1.>> ** Isn't this the same as being a close conjunction> or close trine?. If so this then would come under> creation of RP by aspect. **>>> >> >anant raichur <anant_1608 wrote:> >Dear Rongaaunt> >In Hindoo Aspects there are no ORBS. Only signs are considered.> >> >rongaunt <rongaunt wrote:> >> >> >Dear Yogesh and Kanak, et al,> >> >Kanak,> >> >I was wondering again about the question of aspects of RPs. If> >using Hindu rather than Western aspects what spread do you> >observe? Traditional Hindu aspect covers the whole sign but I> >suspect using this method, with all the aspects from all the> >planets and nodes that all or practically all the planets would> >become RPs. Do you limit the orb of the Hindu aspects?> >> >Yogesh,> >> >You state: ' a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an> >RP,could also "create" another RP...in my experience...'> >Must it be in BOTH ie. Star AND Sub, or either on their own?> >> >Ron Gaunt> >> >> >>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:58:52 +0000, you wrote:> >> >>Dears Kanak & Ron,> >> Allow me to add that in recent times the sublords of the Ascendant andthe Moon are also being included as Ruling Planets...> >> In my experience,atleast so far, I have found both these sublords,quite useful,many a time,especially in horary astrology...> >> Aspects,rapt conjunctions and also,a planet being posited in same starand sub,of an RP,could also "create" another RP...in my experience...> >> Yours sincerely,> >> lyrastro1> >> GOOD LUCK !> >>> >>Kanakkumar Bosmia wrote:> >>> >>Dear Ron ji,> >>> >>My coments in Bold Red Letter.....> >>> >>Regards> >>> >>kanak bosmia> >>> >>> >>>rongaunt> >>> > >>> > >>>Re: Re: Ruling Planets> >>>Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:24:25 +1000> >>>> >>>> >>>Kanak,> >>>> >>>Many thanks for this example. Just a comment and a few> >>>questions.> >>>> >>>I initially wrote on RPs after seeing the inconsistent way they> >>>were applied in the books. I have since gone back to basics> >>>and looked for information from the Source ie Prof KK. In the> >>>6th Reader page 123 and again on page 126 the author does not> >>>include Subs as RPs. However, in later examples he does include> >>>them. As you also include them I presume this is now the> >>>accepted way. Is this correct or is there any division between> >>> >>>KP astrologers on this?> >>> >>All kp astreologer include up to sub.> >>> >>>> >>>Your comment on Mars aspect to Saturn suggests that aspects of> >>> >>>a RP also creates other RPs. Is this correct?> >>> >>Yes> >>> >> If so what> >>> >>> >>>aspects do you use - Western by Degree, or Hindu by Sign?> >>> >>Yes Hindu sign ( in my early stage i count both but i found that hinduaspect work better then western)> >>> >>>> >>>You note in the example that Rahu is agent of Ketu. Is this> >>> >>>because Rahu is in Ketu Star?> >>> >>Yes> >>> >>>> >>>You do not appear to have used Saturn (Day Lord) as RP - but have> >>>included it as Star Lord of the Moon. Is this a deliberate> >>>omission - ie. not being considered? Or is it not included> >>>because it is included as RP Star Lord of the Moon?> >>> >>DL also consider but due to avoid of repetition of SAT i dont mention.> >>> >>>Three questions unrelated to your example:> >>>> >>>1. On page 123 of the 6th Reader it states that if the Lord of> >>>the rising sign owns two houses and either Rahu or Ketu were> >>>to be found in EITHER of these signs the Node must be considered> >>> >>>as RP. Is this still accepted?> >>> >>nothing is confusing... suppose rahu is in SAT sign and SAT is in RP ,RAH also considred as RP.always check node in with sing lord not in witchsign so you never confuse.( never consider Rahu is in Aries or scorpi signbut consider as Rahu is in MAR sign)> >>> >>>> >>>2. Again on page 123 the author mentions that if Rahu and/or Ketu> >>>are in the sign of the Lord of the Day planet then they must be> >>>considered as RP. ie. if the Prasna is on a Sunday and Ketu is> >>> >>>in Leo it will be RP. Is this still accepted?> >>> >>Yes> >>> >>>> >>>3. Assume conditions 1 and 2 exist and these are the only way> >>>that the Nodes are RPs. If Rahu or Ketu are related in some> >>>other way to another planet ie by association or aspect, are the> >>>contacted planets also considered RPs. ie. in the example 2 above> >>>Sunday prasna, Ketu in Leo becomes RP. If Ketu is conjunct> >>>say Jupiter which is not otherwise RP, does Jupiter become so> >>> >>>because of this contact?> >>> >> we consider node as a agent for other planet. now ketu is conjunct withJUP .according to aspect JUP be a RP but KET is agent of JUP(byaspect/conj,) so KET work for JUP and no need of JUP. I think it will clearyour doubt.> >>> >>>> >>>Your replies will possibly enlighten us newcomers who have no> >>>idea of the ongoing changes since Prof KKs early discoveries and> >>>his initial writings.> >>>> >>>Thanks> >>>> >>>> >>>Ron Gaunt> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:31:57 -0800, you wrote:> >>>> >>>PLACE : AHMEDABAD GUJARAT :: INDIA> >>>DATE SATURDAY: 15 - 1 - 2005> >>> : TIME: 13 H. 47 M. 0 S.> >>>> >>>Day Lord: SAT> >>>> >>>ASC 1 28 28 8 Mar Sun Mar> >>>MOON 12 7 45 38 Jup Sat Ket> >>>> >>>RAHU 1 3 43 36 Mar Ket> >>>KETU 7 3 43 36 Ven Mar> >>>> >>>RP are MAR(ASC SIGN LORD),SUN(ASC STARLORD),MAR(ASC> >>>SUBLORD),JUP(MOON SIGN LORD),SAT (MOON SATRLORD),KET(MOON SUB> >>>LORD),RAHU(AGENT OF MAR & KET).> >>>> >>>NOTE: ONLY MAR ASPECT SAT BY HIS 8TH ASPECT.BOTH ARE IN RP.> >>>> >>>So finaly RP are MAR,SUN,MAR,JUP,KET,RAHU (IF ANY PLANET IS IN> >>>SATR OF SUB OF RETRO> >>>PLANET DO NOT COUNT IN RP.IN OUR EXAMPLE RP ARE NOT IN STAR OR> >>>SUB of RETRO PLANT)> >>>> >>>regards> >>>> >>>kanak bosmia> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Do you know all the things you can do with a Hotmail account? Clickhere!> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 Dear Anant, Kanak, and Group, Thank you Anant…I thought so too, but was beginning to think I had missed (big time) some “official” updates (in some publication other than the 6 KP Readers) that were subsequently approved by the founder of KP. I was (silently) thinking that if we continue to carry this “RP thing” much further, soon we will have every single planet – to include the inner and outer planets – designated as a RP in every prashna we draw up, and end up with a royal mass of confusion –basically evolving into RP’s being totally useless for any type of KP delineation. L So we definitely need some boundaries in place – because we appear to be bordering on overshooting the basic and original KP parameters. When referencing the controversy with respect to Eastern aspects versus Western aspects, I wholeheartedly agree with Kanak when he says “Leave this metter on individual experience.some use western and some use hidu aspect.all have personal experience. so discossion will going on and on......” Individual experience does matter when one has been studying astrology for years and years – and once a starting point is in place, we can experiment from there as to what works for each of us as individual astrologers. One of the most intellectually appealing reasons for me, to have even initially made the decision to study KP to begin with, was the fact that KP seems to have taken the best of both the east and the west, and synthesized a few of the better techniques to create a system that poo poos neither eastern or western systems of astrology, but integrates the best of both worlds. One more thing - I think another basic confusion for KP newcomers is in determining and understanding the role of the nodes…such as under what specific conditions they are designated as “agents” for the planets – whether for the RP’s or simply for chart delineation. Could one of the Senior list members comment on this, listing exactly what conditions must be in place for the nodes to act as agents/replacements for the planets – (or when they will not act as agents)? I thought I was absolutely clear on this, but now I’m not so sure after reading some of the discussions and the opinions of others when they delineate charts… Thanks. All the Best, Sandy Crowther http://www.jupitersweb.com anant raichur [anant_1608] Monday, January 17, 2005 11:16 AM Re: Re: Ruling Planets Dear Friends I believe we are drifting into discusions by trying to EXPAND the definition of Ruling Planets, by including Sub Lors, Planets by Aspects etc. Late Prof KSK gave only 5 R.P.S 1. Day Lord> 2. Sign Lord of Moon: 3. Star Lord of Moon 4. Sign Lord of Asc. 5 Star Lord of asc. He also stated that these are in Reverse Order of Strength. Further Rahu ketu were to be include in the List, if they were in the Signs of these RPS. Actually being Stronger, they would replav ce the Planes, in whose sign they are. So there will be only 5 or less RPS. Other authours have extended this original classificatio., probably to justify the results of one or two cases they were studying . Prof KSK had warned that an astrologer May be wrong, but not the Science. So unless there is sufficient data and reserch to prove that original definition has to enlarged, I believe it would not be correct to chane it. good luck t Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1 wrote: Dear Ron, Same starlord same sublord...to be more precise,it could be in a different sign...! I had presumed you would gather that... lyrastro1 raju bokaariya tel 0912442-222802 <bokaariya wrote: - " rongaunt " <rongaunt Monday, January 17, 2005 12:37 PM Re: Re: Ruling Planets > > > Dear Yogesh, > > Please see question ** .................... ** > > Ron Gaunt > > > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:47:50 +0000, you wrote: > > >Dear Ron, > > Same star and same sub....please...! > > lyrastro1. > > ** Isn't this the same as being a close conjunction > or close trine?. If so this then would come under > creation of RP by aspect. ** > > > > > >anant raichur <anant_1608 wrote: > >Dear Rongaaunt > >In Hindoo Aspects there are no ORBS. Only signs are considered. > > > >rongaunt <rongaunt wrote: > > > > > >Dear Yogesh and Kanak, et al, > > > >Kanak, > > > >I was wondering again about the question of aspects of RPs. If > >using Hindu rather than Western aspects what spread do you > >observe? Traditional Hindu aspect covers the whole sign but I > >suspect using this method, with all the aspects from all the > >planets and nodes that all or practically all the planets would > >become RPs. Do you limit the orb of the Hindu aspects? > > > >Yogesh, > > > >You state: ' a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an > >RP,could also " create " another RP...in my experience...' > >Must it be in BOTH ie. Star AND Sub, or either on their own? > > > >Ron Gaunt > > > > > >>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:58:52 +0000, you wrote: > > > >>Dears Kanak & Ron, > >> Allow me to add that in recent times the sublords of the Ascendant and the Moon are also being included as Ruling Planets... > >> In my experience,atleast so far, I have found both these sublords, quite useful,many a time,especially in horary astrology... > >> Aspects,rapt conjunctions and also,a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an RP,could also " create " another RP...in my experience... > >> Yours sincerely, > >> lyrastro1 > >> GOOD LUCK ! > >> > >>Kanakkumar Bosmia wrote: > >> > >>Dear Ron ji, > >> > >>My coments in Bold Red Letter..... > >> > >>Regards > >> > >>kanak bosmia > >> > >> > >>>rongaunt > >>> > >>> > >>>Re: Re: Ruling Planets > >>>Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:24:25 +1000 > >>> > >>> > >>>Kanak, > >>> > >>>Many thanks for this example. Just a comment and a few > >>>questions. > >>> > >>>I initially wrote on RPs after seeing the inconsistent way they > >>>were applied in the books. I have since gone back to basics > >>>and looked for information from the Source ie Prof KK. In the > >>>6th Reader page 123 and again on page 126 the author does not > >>>include Subs as RPs. However, in later examples he does include > >>>them. As you also include them I presume this is now the > >>>accepted way. Is this correct or is there any division between > >> > >>>KP astrologers on this? > >> > >>All kp astreologer include up to sub. > >> > >>> > >>>Your comment on Mars aspect to Saturn suggests that aspects of > >> > >>>a RP also creates other RPs. Is this correct? > >> > >>Yes > >> > >> If so what > >> > >> > >>>aspects do you use - Western by Degree, or Hindu by Sign? > >> > >>Yes Hindu sign ( in my early stage i count both but i found that hindu aspect work better then western) > >> > >>> > >>>You note in the example that Rahu is agent of Ketu. Is this > >> > >>>because Rahu is in Ketu Star? > >> > >>Yes > >> > >>> > >>>You do not appear to have used Saturn (Day Lord) as RP - but have > >>>included it as Star Lord of the Moon. Is this a deliberate > >>>omission - ie. not being considered? Or is it not included > >>>because it is included as RP Star Lord of the Moon? > >> > >>DL also consider but due to avoid of repetition of SAT i dont mention. > >> > >>>Three questions unrelated to your example: > >>> > >>>1. On page 123 of the 6th Reader it states that if the Lord of > >>>the rising sign owns two houses and either Rahu or Ketu were > >>>to be found in EITHER of these signs the Node must be considered > >> > >>>as RP. Is this still accepted? > >> > >>nothing is confusing... suppose rahu is in SAT sign and SAT is in RP , RAH also considred as RP.always check node in with sing lord not in witch sign so you never confuse.( never consider Rahu is in Aries or scorpi sign but consider as Rahu is in MAR sign) > >> > >>> > >>>2. Again on page 123 the author mentions that if Rahu and/or Ketu > >>>are in the sign of the Lord of the Day planet then they must be > >>>considered as RP. ie. if the Prasna is on a Sunday and Ketu is > >> > >>>in Leo it will be RP. Is this still accepted? > >> > >>Yes > >> > >>> > >>>3. Assume conditions 1 and 2 exist and these are the only way > >>>that the Nodes are RPs. If Rahu or Ketu are related in some > >>>other way to another planet ie by association or aspect, are the > >>>contacted planets also considered RPs. ie. in the example 2 above > >>>Sunday prasna, Ketu in Leo becomes RP. If Ketu is conjunct > >>>say Jupiter which is not otherwise RP, does Jupiter become so > >> > >>>because of this contact? > >> > >> we consider node as a agent for other planet. now ketu is conjunct with JUP .according to aspect JUP be a RP but KET is agent of JUP(by aspect/conj,) so KET work for JUP and no need of JUP. I think it will clear your doubt. > >> > >>> > >>>Your replies will possibly enlighten us newcomers who have no > >>>idea of the ongoing changes since Prof KKs early discoveries and > >>>his initial writings. > >>> > >>>Thanks > >>> > >>> > >>>Ron Gaunt > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:31:57 -0800, you wrote: > >>> > >>>PLACE : AHMEDABAD GUJARAT :: INDIA > >>>DATE SATURDAY: 15 - 1 - 2005 > >>> : TIME: 13 H. 47 M. 0 S. > >>> > >>>Day Lord: SAT > >>> > >>>ASC 1 28 28 8 Mar Sun Mar > >>>MOON 12 7 45 38 Jup Sat Ket > >>> > >>>RAHU 1 3 43 36 Mar Ket > >>>KETU 7 3 43 36 Ven Mar > >>> > >>>RP are MAR(ASC SIGN LORD),SUN(ASC STARLORD),MAR(ASC > >>>SUBLORD),JUP(MOON SIGN LORD),SAT (MOON SATRLORD),KET(MOON SUB > >>>LORD),RAHU(AGENT OF MAR & KET). > >>> > >>>NOTE: ONLY MAR ASPECT SAT BY HIS 8TH ASPECT.BOTH ARE IN RP. > >>> > >>>So finaly RP are MAR,SUN,MAR,JUP,KET,RAHU (IF ANY PLANET IS IN > >>>SATR OF SUB OF RETRO > >>>PLANET DO NOT COUNT IN RP.IN OUR EXAMPLE RP ARE NOT IN STAR OR > >>>SUB of RETRO PLANT) > >>> > >>>regards > >>> > >>>kanak bosmia > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Do you know all the things you can do with a Hotmail account? Click here! > >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Mukesh, The problem is that the author of 'RP & KP' was not consistent. For instance examples on pages 5,9 & 15 do not show Subs as RPs. However pages 65, 79, 104, and 108 shows that he included Subs of both the Lagna and Moon as RPs. There was even another variation on pages 107, 109, 110 and 129 where he included Sub of Lagna - but not Sub of the Moon. Looking at the dates of the examples it appears that the author experimented with Subs as RPs from around mid to end of 1972. In early 1979 he appears to have again experimented but this time only using the Sub of the Lagna. The bulk of his work appears to ignore Sub RPs; and a later example on page 131 for mid 1984 reverts to no Sub RPs at all. Ron Gaunt On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:22:44 +0530, you wrote: >I fully agree. The page v and xiii of book RP & KP by sh. Hariharan have all the rules for RP. > >Mukesh > - > anant raichur > > Monday, January 17, 2005 9:45 PM > Re: Re: Ruling Planets > > > Dear Friends > > I believe we are drifting into discusions by trying to EXPAND the definition of Ruling Planets, by including Sub Lors, Planets by Aspects etc. Late Prof KSK gave only 5 R.P.S > 1. Day Lord> 2. Sign Lord of Moon: 3. Star Lord of Moon > 4. Sign Lord of Asc. 5 Star Lord of asc. > He also stated that these are in Reverse Order of Strength. > Further Rahu ketu were to be include in the List, if they were in the Signs of these RPS. Actually being Stronger, they would replav > ce the Planes, in whose sign they are. So there will be only 5 or less RPS. > > Other authours have extended this original classificatio., probably to justify the results of one or two cases they were studying . > > Prof KSK had warned that an astrologer May be wrong, but not the Science. So unless there is sufficient data and reserch to prove that original definition has to enlarged, I believe it would not be correct to chane it. > good luck > t > > Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1 wrote: > Dear Ron, > Same starlord same sublord...to be more precise,it could be in a different sign...! I had presumed you would gather that... > lyrastro1 > > raju bokaariya tel 0912442-222802 <bokaariya wrote: > > - > " rongaunt " <rongaunt > > Monday, January 17, 2005 12:37 PM > Re: Re: Ruling Planets > > > > > > > > Dear Yogesh, > > > > Please see question ** .................... ** > > > > Ron Gaunt > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:47:50 +0000, you wrote: > > > > >Dear Ron, > > > Same star and same sub....please...! > > > lyrastro1. > > > > ** Isn't this the same as being a close conjunction > > or close trine?. If so this then would come under > > creation of RP by aspect. ** > > > > > > > > > >anant raichur <anant_1608 wrote: > > >Dear Rongaaunt > > >In Hindoo Aspects there are no ORBS. Only signs are considered. > > > > > >rongaunt <rongaunt wrote: > > > > > > > > >Dear Yogesh and Kanak, et al, > > > > > >Kanak, > > > > > >I was wondering again about the question of aspects of RPs. If > > >using Hindu rather than Western aspects what spread do you > > >observe? Traditional Hindu aspect covers the whole sign but I > > >suspect using this method, with all the aspects from all the > > >planets and nodes that all or practically all the planets would > > >become RPs. Do you limit the orb of the Hindu aspects? > > > > > >Yogesh, > > > > > >You state: ' a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an > > >RP,could also " create " another RP...in my experience...' > > >Must it be in BOTH ie. Star AND Sub, or either on their own? > > > > > >Ron Gaunt > > > > > > > > >>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:58:52 +0000, you wrote: > > > > > >>Dears Kanak & Ron, > > >> Allow me to add that in recent times the sublords of the Ascendant and > the Moon are also being included as Ruling Planets... > > >> In my experience,atleast so far, I have found both these sublords, > quite useful,many a time,especially in horary astrology... > > >> Aspects,rapt conjunctions and also,a planet being posited in same star > and sub,of an RP,could also " create " another RP...in my experience... > > >> Yours sincerely, > > >> lyrastro1 > > >> GOOD LUCK ! > > >> > > >>Kanakkumar Bosmia wrote: > > >> > > >>Dear Ron ji, > > >> > > >>My coments in Bold Red Letter..... > > >> > > >>Regards > > >> > > >>kanak bosmia > > >> > > >> > > >>>rongaunt > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Re: Re: Ruling Planets > > >>>Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:24:25 +1000 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Kanak, > > >>> > > >>>Many thanks for this example. Just a comment and a few > > >>>questions. > > >>> > > >>>I initially wrote on RPs after seeing the inconsistent way they > > >>>were applied in the books. I have since gone back to basics > > >>>and looked for information from the Source ie Prof KK. In the > > >>>6th Reader page 123 and again on page 126 the author does not > > >>>include Subs as RPs. However, in later examples he does include > > >>>them. As you also include them I presume this is now the > > >>>accepted way. Is this correct or is there any division between > > >> > > >>>KP astrologers on this? > > >> > > >>All kp astreologer include up to sub. > > >> > > >>> > > >>>Your comment on Mars aspect to Saturn suggests that aspects of > > >> > > >>>a RP also creates other RPs. Is this correct? > > >> > > >>Yes > > >> > > >> If so what > > >> > > >> > > >>>aspects do you use - Western by Degree, or Hindu by Sign? > > >> > > >>Yes Hindu sign ( in my early stage i count both but i found that hindu > aspect work better then western) > > >> > > >>> > > >>>You note in the example that Rahu is agent of Ketu. Is this > > >> > > >>>because Rahu is in Ketu Star? > > >> > > >>Yes > > >> > > >>> > > >>>You do not appear to have used Saturn (Day Lord) as RP - but have > > >>>included it as Star Lord of the Moon. Is this a deliberate > > >>>omission - ie. not being considered? Or is it not included > > >>>because it is included as RP Star Lord of the Moon? > > >> > > >>DL also consider but due to avoid of repetition of SAT i dont mention. > > >> > > >>>Three questions unrelated to your example: > > >>> > > >>>1. On page 123 of the 6th Reader it states that if the Lord of > > >>>the rising sign owns two houses and either Rahu or Ketu were > > >>>to be found in EITHER of these signs the Node must be considered > > >> > > >>>as RP. Is this still accepted? > > >> > > >>nothing is confusing... suppose rahu is in SAT sign and SAT is in RP , > RAH also considred as RP.always check node in with sing lord not in witch > sign so you never confuse.( never consider Rahu is in Aries or scorpi sign > but consider as Rahu is in MAR sign) > > >> > > >>> > > >>>2. Again on page 123 the author mentions that if Rahu and/or Ketu > > >>>are in the sign of the Lord of the Day planet then they must be > > >>>considered as RP. ie. if the Prasna is on a Sunday and Ketu is > > >> > > >>>in Leo it will be RP. Is this still accepted? > > >> > > >>Yes > > >> > > >>> > > >>>3. Assume conditions 1 and 2 exist and these are the only way > > >>>that the Nodes are RPs. If Rahu or Ketu are related in some > > >>>other way to another planet ie by association or aspect, are the > > >>>contacted planets also considered RPs. ie. in the example 2 above > > >>>Sunday prasna, Ketu in Leo becomes RP. If Ketu is conjunct > > >>>say Jupiter which is not otherwise RP, does Jupiter become so > > >> > > >>>because of this contact? > > >> > > >> we consider node as a agent for other planet. now ketu is conjunct with > JUP .according to aspect JUP be a RP but KET is agent of JUP(by > aspect/conj,) so KET work for JUP and no need of JUP. I think it will clear > your doubt. > > >> > > >>> > > >>>Your replies will possibly enlighten us newcomers who have no > > >>>idea of the ongoing changes since Prof KKs early discoveries and > > >>>his initial writings. > > >>> > > >>>Thanks > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Ron Gaunt > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:31:57 -0800, you wrote: > > >>> > > >>>PLACE : AHMEDABAD GUJARAT :: INDIA > > >>>DATE SATURDAY: 15 - 1 - 2005 > > >>> : TIME: 13 H. 47 M. 0 S. > > >>> > > >>>Day Lord: SAT > > >>> > > >>>ASC 1 28 28 8 Mar Sun Mar > > >>>MOON 12 7 45 38 Jup Sat Ket > > >>> > > >>>RAHU 1 3 43 36 Mar Ket > > >>>KETU 7 3 43 36 Ven Mar > > >>> > > >>>RP are MAR(ASC SIGN LORD),SUN(ASC STARLORD),MAR(ASC > > >>>SUBLORD),JUP(MOON SIGN LORD),SAT (MOON SATRLORD),KET(MOON SUB > > >>>LORD),RAHU(AGENT OF MAR & KET). > > >>> > > >>>NOTE: ONLY MAR ASPECT SAT BY HIS 8TH ASPECT.BOTH ARE IN RP. > > >>> > > >>>So finaly RP are MAR,SUN,MAR,JUP,KET,RAHU (IF ANY PLANET IS IN > > >>>SATR OF SUB OF RETRO > > >>>PLANET DO NOT COUNT IN RP.IN OUR EXAMPLE RP ARE NOT IN STAR OR > > >>>SUB of RETRO PLANT) > > >>> > > >>>regards > > >>> > > >>>kanak bosmia > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>Do you know all the things you can do with a Hotmail account? Click > here! > > >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Dear Sandy Crowther, I do beleieve that you've already read about Rahu and Ketu in KP REader III, 1984, Part 1, pp 123-124 under the heading " BEHAVIOUR OF PLANETS " where clearly explained with priority of signification. My posting is in Msg #1832. Best regards, tw , " Sandy Crowther " <sandycrowther@a...> wrote: > Dear Anant, Kanak, and Group, > > > > Thank you Anant.I thought so too, but was beginning to think I had missed > (big time) some " official " updates (in some publication other than the 6 KP > Readers) that were subsequently approved by the founder of KP. I was > (silently) thinking that if we continue to carry this " RP thing " much > further, soon we will have every single planet - to include the inner and > outer planets - designated as a RP in every prashna we draw up, and end up > with a royal mass of confusion -basically evolving into RP's being totally > useless for any type of KP delineation. :-( So we definitely need some > boundaries in place - because we appear to be bordering on overshooting the > basic and original KP parameters. > > > > When referencing the controversy with respect to Eastern aspects versus > Western aspects, I wholeheartedly agree with Kanak when he says " Leave this > metter on individual experience.some use western and some use hidu > aspect.all have personal experience. so discossion will going on and > on...... " > > Individual experience does matter when one has been studying astrology for > years and years - and once a starting point is in place, we can experiment > from there as to what works for each of us as individual astrologers. One of > the most intellectually appealing reasons for me, to have even initially > made the decision to study KP to begin with, was the fact that KP seems to > have taken the best of both the east and the west, and synthesized a few of > the better techniques to create a system that poo poos neither eastern or > western systems of astrology, but integrates the best of both worlds. > > > > One more thing - I think another basic confusion for KP newcomers is in > determining and understanding the role of the nodes.such as under what > specific conditions they are designated as " agents " for the planets - > whether for the RP's or simply for chart delineation. Could one of the > Senior list members comment on this, listing exactly what conditions must be > in place for the nodes to act as agents/replacements for the planets - (or > when they will not act as agents)? I thought I was absolutely clear on this, > but now I'm not so sure after reading some of the discussions and the > opinions of others when they delineate charts. Thanks. > > > > All the Best, > > Sandy Crowther > > http://www.jupitersweb.com > > > > > > > > anant raichur [anant_1608] > Monday, January 17, 2005 11:16 AM > > Re: Re: Ruling Planets > > > > Dear Friends > > > > I believe we are drifting into discusions by trying to EXPAND the definition > of Ruling Planets, by including Sub Lors, Planets by Aspects etc. Late Prof > KSK gave only 5 R.P.S > > 1. Day Lord> 2. Sign Lord of Moon: 3. Star Lord of Moon > 4. Sign Lord of Asc. 5 Star Lord of asc. > > He also stated that these are in Reverse Order of Strength. > > Further Rahu ketu were to be include in the List, if they were in the Signs > of these RPS. Actually being Stronger, they would replav > > ce the Planes, in whose sign they are. So there will be only 5 or less RPS. > > > > Other authours have extended this original classificatio., probably to > justify the results of one or two cases they were studying . > > > > Prof KSK had warned that an astrologer May be wrong, but not the Science. > So unless there is sufficient data and reserch to prove that original > definition has to enlarged, I believe it would not be correct to chane it. > > good luck > > t > > > Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1> wrote: > > Dear Ron, > > Same starlord same sublord...to be more precise,it could be in > a different sign...! I had presumed you would gather that... > > lyrastro1 > > raju bokaariya tel 0912442-222802 <bokaariya@s...> wrote: > > > - > " rongaunt " <rongaunt@b...> > > Monday, January 17, 2005 12:37 PM > Re: Re: Ruling Planets > > > > > > > > Dear Yogesh, > > > > Please see question ** .................... ** > > > > Ron Gaunt > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:47:50 +0000, you wrote: > > > > >Dear Ron, > > > Same star and same sub....please...! > > > lyrastro1. > > > > ** Isn't this the same as being a close conjunction > > or close trine?. If so this then would come under > > creation of RP by aspect. ** > > > > > > > > > >anant raichur <anant_1608> wrote: > > >Dear Rongaaunt > > >In Hindoo Aspects there are no ORBS. Only signs are considered. > > > > > >rongaunt <rongaunt@b...> wrote: > > > > > > > > >Dear Yogesh and Kanak, et al, > > > > > >Kanak, > > > > > >I was wondering again about the question of aspects of RPs. If > > >using Hindu rather than Western aspects what spread do you > > >observe? Traditional Hindu aspect covers the whole sign but I > > >suspect using this method, with all the aspects from all the > > >planets and nodes that all or practically all the planets would > > >become RPs. Do you limit the orb of the Hindu aspects? > > > > > >Yogesh, > > > > > >You state: ' a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an > > >RP,could also " create " another RP...in my experience...' > > >Must it be in BOTH ie. Star AND Sub, or either on their own? > > > > > >Ron Gaunt > > > > > > > > >>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:58:52 +0000, you wrote: > > > > > >>Dears Kanak & Ron, > > >> Allow me to add that in recent times the sublords of the Ascendant and > the Moon are also being included as Ruling Planets... > > >> In my experience,atleast so far, I have found both these sublords, > quite useful,many a time,especially in horary astrology... > > >> Aspects,rapt conjunctions and also,a planet being posited in same star > and sub,of an RP,could also " create " another RP...in my experience... > > >> Yours sincerely, > > >> lyrastro1 > > >> GOOD LUCK ! > > >> > > >>Kanakkumar Bosmia wrote: > > >> > > >>Dear Ron ji, > > >> > > >>My coments in Bold Red Letter..... > > >> > > >>Regards > > >> > > >>kanak bosmia > > >> > > >> > > >>>rongaunt > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Re: Re: Ruling Planets > > >>>Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:24:25 +1000 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Kanak, > > >>> > > >>>Many thanks for this example. Just a comment and a few > > >>>questions. > > >>> > > >>>I initially wrote on RPs after seeing the inconsistent way they > > >>>were applied in the books. I have since gone back to basics > > >>>and looked for information from the Source ie Prof KK. In the > > >>>6th Reader page 123 and again on page 126 the author does not > > >>>include Subs as RPs. However, in later examples he does include > > >>>them. As you also include them I presume this is now the > > >>>accepted way. Is this correct or is there any division between > > >> > > >>>KP astrologers on this? > > >> > > >>All kp astreologer include up to sub. > > >> > > >>> > > >>>Your comment on Mars aspect to Saturn suggests that aspects of > > >> > > >>>a RP also creates other RPs. Is this correct? > > >> > > >>Yes > > >> > > >> If so what > > >> > > >> > > >>>aspects do you use - Western by Degree, or Hindu by Sign? > > >> > > >>Yes Hindu sign ( in my early stage i count both but i found that hindu > aspect work better then western) > > >> > > >>> > > >>>You note in the example that Rahu is agent of Ketu. Is this > > >> > > >>>because Rahu is in Ketu Star? > > >> > > >>Yes > > >> > > >>> > > >>>You do not appear to have used Saturn (Day Lord) as RP - but have > > >>>included it as Star Lord of the Moon. Is this a deliberate > > >>>omission - ie. not being considered? Or is it not included > > >>>because it is included as RP Star Lord of the Moon? > > >> > > >>DL also consider but due to avoid of repetition of SAT i dont mention. > > >> > > >>>Three questions unrelated to your example: > > >>> > > >>>1. On page 123 of the 6th Reader it states that if the Lord of > > >>>the rising sign owns two houses and either Rahu or Ketu were > > >>>to be found in EITHER of these signs the Node must be considered > > >> > > >>>as RP. Is this still accepted? > > >> > > >>nothing is confusing... suppose rahu is in SAT sign and SAT is in RP , > RAH also considred as RP.always check node in with sing lord not in witch > sign so you never confuse.( never consider Rahu is in Aries or scorpi sign > but consider as Rahu is in MAR sign) > > >> > > >>> > > >>>2. Again on page 123 the author mentions that if Rahu and/or Ketu > > >>>are in the sign of the Lord of the Day planet then they must be > > >>>considered as RP. ie. if the Prasna is on a Sunday and Ketu is > > >> > > >>>in Leo it will be RP. Is this still accepted? > > >> > > >>Yes > > >> > > >>> > > >>>3. Assume conditions 1 and 2 exist and these are the only way > > >>>that the Nodes are RPs. If Rahu or Ketu are related in some > > >>>other way to another planet ie by association or aspect, are the > > >>>contacted planets also considered RPs. ie. in the example 2 above > > >>>Sunday prasna, Ketu in Leo becomes RP. If Ketu is conjunct > > >>>say Jupiter which is not otherwise RP, does Jupiter become so > > >> > > >>>because of this contact? > > >> > > >> we consider node as a agent for other planet. now ketu is conjunct with > JUP .according to aspect JUP be a RP but KET is agent of JUP(by > aspect/conj,) so KET work for JUP and no need of JUP. I think it will clear > your doubt. > > >> > > >>> > > >>>Your replies will possibly enlighten us newcomers who have no > > >>>idea of the ongoing changes since Prof KKs early discoveries and > > >>>his initial writings. > > >>> > > >>>Thanks > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Ron Gaunt > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:31:57 -0800, you wrote: > > >>> > > >>>PLACE : AHMEDABAD GUJARAT :: INDIA > > >>>DATE SATURDAY: 15 - 1 - 2005 > > >>> : TIME: 13 H. 47 M. 0 S. > > >>> > > >>>Day Lord: SAT > > >>> > > >>>ASC 1 28 28 8 Mar Sun Mar > > >>>MOON 12 7 45 38 Jup Sat Ket > > >>> > > >>>RAHU 1 3 43 36 Mar Ket > > >>>KETU 7 3 43 36 Ven Mar > > >>> > > >>>RP are MAR(ASC SIGN LORD),SUN(ASC STARLORD),MAR(ASC > > >>>SUBLORD),JUP(MOON SIGN LORD),SAT (MOON SATRLORD),KET(MOON SUB > > >>>LORD),RAHU(AGENT OF MAR & KET). > > >>> > > >>>NOTE: ONLY MAR ASPECT SAT BY HIS 8TH ASPECT.BOTH ARE IN RP. > > >>> > > >>>So finaly RP are MAR,SUN,MAR,JUP,KET,RAHU (IF ANY PLANET IS IN > > >>>SATR OF SUB OF RETRO > > >>>PLANET DO NOT COUNT IN RP.IN OUR EXAMPLE RP ARE NOT IN STAR OR > > >>>SUB of RETRO PLANT) > > >>> > > >>>regards > > >>> > > >>>kanak bosmia > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>Do you know all the things you can do with a Hotmail account? Click > here! > > >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Dear Anant, You made a good point. But on the flip side, well known astrologers like N.Nataraj, Punneswara Rao et al tried to expand the concept to include other planets which fall in some category. For instance planets in 120 deg aspect with Rps are supposed to be very strong and they should be considered with RP's. If you refer to older KP magazines, you will find RP's have been used but with a twist. They say that fruitful ruling planets are those that are in star & Sub of fruitful significators. Probably the best way could be to take around 10 cases and just utilize RP's to find the outcome. Regards, Nagesh , anant raichur <anant_1608> wrote: > Dear Friends > > I believe we are drifting into discusions by trying to EXPAND the definition of Ruling Planets, by including Sub Lors, Planets by Aspects etc. Late Prof KSK gave only 5 R.P.S > 1. Day Lord> 2. Sign Lord of Moon: 3. Star Lord of Moon > 4. Sign Lord of Asc. 5 Star Lord of asc. > He also stated that these are in Reverse Order of Strength. > Further Rahu ketu were to be include in the List, if they were in the Signs of these RPS. Actually being Stronger, they would replav > ce the Planes, in whose sign they are. So there will be only 5 or less RPS. > > Other authours have extended this original classificatio., probably to justify the results of one or two cases they were studying . > > Prof KSK had warned that an astrologer May be wrong, but not the Science. So unless there is sufficient data and reserch to prove that original definition has to enlarged, I believe it would not be correct to chane it. > good luck > t > > Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1> wrote: > Dear Ron, > Same starlord same sublord...to be more precise,it could be in a different sign...! I had presumed you would gather that... > lyrastro1 > > raju bokaariya tel 0912442-222802 <bokaariya@s...> wrote: > > - > " rongaunt " <rongaunt@b...> > > Monday, January 17, 2005 12:37 PM > Re: Re: Ruling Planets > > > > > > > > Dear Yogesh, > > > > Please see question ** .................... ** > > > > Ron Gaunt > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:47:50 +0000, you wrote: > > > > >Dear Ron, > > > Same star and same sub....please...! > > > lyrastro1. > > > > ** Isn't this the same as being a close conjunction > > or close trine?. If so this then would come under > > creation of RP by aspect. ** > > > > > > > > > >anant raichur <anant_1608> wrote: > > >Dear Rongaaunt > > >In Hindoo Aspects there are no ORBS. Only signs are considered. > > > > > >rongaunt <rongaunt@b...> wrote: > > > > > > > > >Dear Yogesh and Kanak, et al, > > > > > >Kanak, > > > > > >I was wondering again about the question of aspects of RPs. If > > >using Hindu rather than Western aspects what spread do you > > >observe? Traditional Hindu aspect covers the whole sign but I > > >suspect using this method, with all the aspects from all the > > >planets and nodes that all or practically all the planets would > > >become RPs. Do you limit the orb of the Hindu aspects? > > > > > >Yogesh, > > > > > >You state: ' a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an > > >RP,could also " create " another RP...in my experience...' > > >Must it be in BOTH ie. Star AND Sub, or either on their own? > > > > > >Ron Gaunt > > > > > > > > >>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:58:52 +0000, you wrote: > > > > > >>Dears Kanak & Ron, > > >> Allow me to add that in recent times the sublords of the Ascendant and > the Moon are also being included as Ruling Planets... > > >> In my experience,atleast so far, I have found both these sublords, > quite useful,many a time,especially in horary astrology... > > >> Aspects,rapt conjunctions and also,a planet being posited in same star > and sub,of an RP,could also " create " another RP...in my experience... > > >> Yours sincerely, > > >> lyrastro1 > > >> GOOD LUCK ! > > >> > > >>Kanakkumar Bosmia wrote: > > >> > > >>Dear Ron ji, > > >> > > >>My coments in Bold Red Letter..... > > >> > > >>Regards > > >> > > >>kanak bosmia > > >> > > >> > > >>>rongaunt > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Re: Re: Ruling Planets > > >>>Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:24:25 +1000 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Kanak, > > >>> > > >>>Many thanks for this example. Just a comment and a few > > >>>questions. > > >>> > > >>>I initially wrote on RPs after seeing the inconsistent way they > > >>>were applied in the books. I have since gone back to basics > > >>>and looked for information from the Source ie Prof KK. In the > > >>>6th Reader page 123 and again on page 126 the author does not > > >>>include Subs as RPs. However, in later examples he does include > > >>>them. As you also include them I presume this is now the > > >>>accepted way. Is this correct or is there any division between > > >> > > >>>KP astrologers on this? > > >> > > >>All kp astreologer include up to sub. > > >> > > >>> > > >>>Your comment on Mars aspect to Saturn suggests that aspects of > > >> > > >>>a RP also creates other RPs. Is this correct? > > >> > > >>Yes > > >> > > >> If so what > > >> > > >> > > >>>aspects do you use - Western by Degree, or Hindu by Sign? > > >> > > >>Yes Hindu sign ( in my early stage i count both but i found that hindu > aspect work better then western) > > >> > > >>> > > >>>You note in the example that Rahu is agent of Ketu. Is this > > >> > > >>>because Rahu is in Ketu Star? > > >> > > >>Yes > > >> > > >>> > > >>>You do not appear to have used Saturn (Day Lord) as RP - but have > > >>>included it as Star Lord of the Moon. Is this a deliberate > > >>>omission - ie. not being considered? Or is it not included > > >>>because it is included as RP Star Lord of the Moon? > > >> > > >>DL also consider but due to avoid of repetition of SAT i dont mention. > > >> > > >>>Three questions unrelated to your example: > > >>> > > >>>1. On page 123 of the 6th Reader it states that if the Lord of > > >>>the rising sign owns two houses and either Rahu or Ketu were > > >>>to be found in EITHER of these signs the Node must be considered > > >> > > >>>as RP. Is this still accepted? > > >> > > >>nothing is confusing... suppose rahu is in SAT sign and SAT is in RP , > RAH also considred as RP.always check node in with sing lord not in witch > sign so you never confuse.( never consider Rahu is in Aries or scorpi sign > but consider as Rahu is in MAR sign) > > >> > > >>> > > >>>2. Again on page 123 the author mentions that if Rahu and/or Ketu > > >>>are in the sign of the Lord of the Day planet then they must be > > >>>considered as RP. ie. if the Prasna is on a Sunday and Ketu is > > >> > > >>>in Leo it will be RP. Is this still accepted? > > >> > > >>Yes > > >> > > >>> > > >>>3. Assume conditions 1 and 2 exist and these are the only way > > >>>that the Nodes are RPs. If Rahu or Ketu are related in some > > >>>other way to another planet ie by association or aspect, are the > > >>>contacted planets also considered RPs. ie. in the example 2 above > > >>>Sunday prasna, Ketu in Leo becomes RP. If Ketu is conjunct > > >>>say Jupiter which is not otherwise RP, does Jupiter become so > > >> > > >>>because of this contact? > > >> > > >> we consider node as a agent for other planet. now ketu is conjunct with > JUP .according to aspect JUP be a RP but KET is agent of JUP(by > aspect/conj,) so KET work for JUP and no need of JUP. I think it will clear > your doubt. > > >> > > >>> > > >>>Your replies will possibly enlighten us newcomers who have no > > >>>idea of the ongoing changes since Prof KKs early discoveries and > > >>>his initial writings. > > >>> > > >>>Thanks > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Ron Gaunt > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:31:57 -0800, you wrote: > > >>> > > >>>PLACE : AHMEDABAD GUJARAT :: INDIA > > >>>DATE SATURDAY: 15 - 1 - 2005 > > >>> : TIME: 13 H. 47 M. 0 S. > > >>> > > >>>Day Lord: SAT > > >>> > > >>>ASC 1 28 28 8 Mar Sun Mar > > >>>MOON 12 7 45 38 Jup Sat Ket > > >>> > > >>>RAHU 1 3 43 36 Mar Ket > > >>>KETU 7 3 43 36 Ven Mar > > >>> > > >>>RP are MAR(ASC SIGN LORD),SUN(ASC STARLORD),MAR(ASC > > >>>SUBLORD),JUP(MOON SIGN LORD),SAT (MOON SATRLORD),KET(MOON SUB > > >>>LORD),RAHU(AGENT OF MAR & KET). > > >>> > > >>>NOTE: ONLY MAR ASPECT SAT BY HIS 8TH ASPECT.BOTH ARE IN RP. > > >>> > > >>>So finaly RP are MAR,SUN,MAR,JUP,KET,RAHU (IF ANY PLANET IS IN > > >>>SATR OF SUB OF RETRO > > >>>PLANET DO NOT COUNT IN RP.IN OUR EXAMPLE RP ARE NOT IN STAR OR > > >>>SUB of RETRO PLANT) > > >>> > > >>>regards > > >>> > > >>>kanak bosmia > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>Do you know all the things you can do with a Hotmail account? Click > here! > > >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Dear Sandy, I think its going to be 'challenging' to come up with clear cut rules for RP's let alone the nodes. The reason behind this is that I was fortunate to look into some older KP magazines few years back; Most of them used Prof K.P's fundamentals as basis and then built their theory to prove their case. Regards, Nagesh , " Sandy Crowther " <sandycrowther@a...> wrote: > Dear Anant, Kanak, and Group, > > > > Thank you Anant.I thought so too, but was beginning to think I had missed > (big time) some " official " updates (in some publication other than the 6 KP > Readers) that were subsequently approved by the founder of KP. I was > (silently) thinking that if we continue to carry this " RP thing " much > further, soon we will have every single planet - to include the inner and > outer planets - designated as a RP in every prashna we draw up, and end up > with a royal mass of confusion -basically evolving into RP's being totally > useless for any type of KP delineation. :-( So we definitely need some > boundaries in place - because we appear to be bordering on overshooting the > basic and ori ginal KP parameters. > > > > When referencing the controversy with respect to Eastern aspects versus > Western aspects, I wholeheartedly agree with Kanak when he says " Leave this > metter on individual experience.some use western and some use hidu > aspect.all have personal experience. so discossion will going on and > on...... " > > Individual experience does matter when one has been studying astrology for > years and years - and once a starting point is in place, we can experiment > from there as to what works for each of us as individual astrologers. One of > the most intellectually appealing reasons for me, to have even initially > made the decision to study KP to begin with, was the fact that KP seems to > have taken the best of both the east and the west, and synthesized a few of > the better techniques to create a system that poo poos neither eastern or > western systems of astrology, but integrates the best of both worlds. > > > > One more thing - I think another basic confusion for KP newcomers is in > determining and understanding the role of the nodes.such as under what > specific conditions they are designated as " agents " for the planets - > whether for the RP's or simply for chart delineation. Could one of the > Senior list members comment on this, listing exactly what conditions must be > in place for the nodes to act as agents/replacements for the planets - (or > when they will not act as agents)? I thought I was absolutely clear on this, > but now I'm not so sure after reading some of the discussions and the > opinions of others when they delineate charts. Thanks. > > > > All the Best, > > Sandy Crowther > > http://www.jupitersweb.com > > > > > > > > anant raichur [anant_1608] > Monday, January 17, 2005 11:16 AM > > Re: Re: Ruling Planets > > > > Dear Friends > > > > I believe we are drifting into discusions by trying to EXPAND the definition > of Ruling Planets, by including Sub Lors, Planets by Aspects etc. Late Prof > KSK gave only 5 R.P.S > > 1. Day Lord> 2. Sign Lord of Moon: 3. Star Lord of Moon > 4. Sign Lord of Asc. 5 Star Lord of asc. > > He also stated that these are in Reverse Order of Strength. > > Further Rahu ketu were to be include in the List, if they were in the Signs > of these RPS. Actually being Stronger, they would replav > > ce the Planes, in whose sign they are. So there will be only 5 or less RPS. > > > > Other authours have extended this original classificatio., probably to > justify the results of one or two cases they were studying . > > > > Prof KSK had warned that an astrologer May be wrong, but not the Science. > So unless there is sufficient data and reserch to prove that original > definition has to enlarged, I believe it would not be correct to chane it. > > good luck > > t > > > Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1> wrote: > > Dear Ron, > > Same starlord same sublord...to be more precise,it could be in > a different sign...! I had presumed you would gather that... > > lyrastro1 > > raju bokaariya tel 0912442-222802 <bokaariya@s...> wrote: > > > - > " rongaunt " <rongaunt@b...> > > Monday, January 17, 2005 12:37 PM > Re: Re: Ruling Planets > > > > > > > > Dear Yogesh, > > > > Please see question ** .................... ** > > > > Ron Gaunt > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:47:50 +0000, you wrote: > > > > >Dear Ron, > > > Same star and same sub....please...! > > > lyrastro1. > > > > ** Isn't this the same as being a close conjunction > > or close trine?. If so this then would come under > > creation of RP by aspect. ** > > > > > > > > > >anant raichur <anant_1608> wrote: > > >Dear Rongaaunt > > >In Hindoo Aspects there are no ORBS. Only signs are considered. > > > > > >rongaunt <rongaunt@b...> wrote: > > > > > > > > >Dear Yogesh and Kanak, et al, > > > > > >Kanak, > > > > > >I was wondering again about the question of aspects of RPs. If > > >using Hindu rather than Western aspects what spread do you > > >observe? Traditional Hindu aspect covers the whole sign but I > > >suspect using this method, with all the aspects from all the > > >planets and nodes that all or practically all the planets would > > >become RPs. Do you limit the orb of the Hindu aspects? > > > > > >Yogesh, > > > > > >You state: ' a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an > > >RP,could also " create " another RP...in my experience...' > > >Must it be in BOTH ie. Star AND Sub, or either on their own? > > > > > >Ron Gaunt > > > > > > > > >>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:58:52 +0000, you wrote: > > > > > >>Dears Kanak & Ron, > > >> Allow me to add that in recent times the sublords of the Ascendant and > the Moon are also being included as Ruling Planets... > > >> In my experience,atleast so far, I have found both these sublords, > quite useful,many a time,especially in horary astrology... > > >> Aspects,rapt conjunctions and also,a planet being posited in same star > and sub,of an RP,could also " create " another RP...in my experience... > > >> Yours sincerely, > > >> lyrastro1 > > >> GOOD LUCK ! > > >> > > >>Kanakkumar Bosmia wrote: > > >> > > >>Dear Ron ji, > > >> > > >>My coments in Bold Red Letter..... > > >> > > >>Regards > > >> > > >>kanak bosmia > > >> > > >> > > >>>rongaunt > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Re: Re: Ruling Planets > > >>>Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:24:25 +1000 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Kanak, > > >>> > > >>>Many thanks for this example. Just a comment and a few > > >>>questions. > > >>> > > >>>I initially wrote on RPs after seeing the inconsistent way they > > >>>were applied in the books. I have since gone back to basics > > >>>and looked for information from the Source ie Prof KK. In the > > >>>6th Reader page 123 and again on page 126 the author does not > > >>>include Subs as RPs. However, in later examples he does include > > >>>them. As you also include them I presume this is now the > > >>>accepted way. Is this correct or is there any division between > > >> > > >>>KP astrologers on this? > > >> > > >>All kp astreologer include up to sub. > > >> > > >>> > > >>>Your comment on Mars aspect to Saturn suggests that aspects of > > >> > > >>>a RP also creates other RPs. Is this correct? > > >> > > >>Yes > > >> > > >> If so what > > >> > > >> > > >>>aspects do you use - Western by Degree, or Hindu by Sign? > > >> > > >>Yes Hindu sign ( in my early stage i count both but i found that hindu > aspect work better then western) > > >> > > >>> > > >>>You note in the example that Rahu is agent of Ketu. Is this > > >> > > >>>because Rahu is in Ketu Star? > > >> > > >>Yes > > >> > > >>> > > >>>You do not appear to have used Saturn (Day Lord) as RP - but have > > >>>included it as Star Lord of the Moon. Is this a deliberate > > >>>omission - ie. not being considered? Or is it not included > > >>>because it is included as RP Star Lord of the Moon? > > >> > > >>DL also consider but due to avoid of repetition of SAT i dont mention. > > >> > > >>>Three questions unrelated to your example: > > >>> > > >>>1. On page 123 of the 6th Reader it states that if the Lord of > > >>>the rising sign owns two houses and either Rahu or Ketu were > > >>>to be found in EITHER of these signs the Node must be considered > > >> > > >>>as RP. Is this still accepted? > > >> > > >>nothing is confusing... suppose rahu is in SAT sign and SAT is in RP , > RAH also considred as RP.always check node in with sing lord not in witch > sign so you never confuse.( never consider Rahu is in Aries or scorpi sign > but consider as Rahu is in MAR sign) > > >> > > >>> > > >>>2. Again on page 123 the author mentions that if Rahu and/or Ketu > > >>>are in the sign of the Lord of the Day planet then they must be > > >>>considered as RP. ie. if the Prasna is on a Sunday and Ketu is > > >> > > >>>in Leo it will be RP. Is this still accepted? > > >> > > >>Yes > > >> > > >>> > > >>>3. Assume conditions 1 and 2 exist and these are the only way > > >>>that the Nodes are RPs. If Rahu or Ketu are related in some > > >>>other way to another planet ie by association or aspect, are the > > >>>contacted planets also considered RPs. ie. in the example 2 above > > >>>Sunday prasna, Ketu in Leo becomes RP. If Ketu is conjunct > > >>>say Jupiter which is not otherwise RP, does Jupiter become so > > >> > > >>>because of this contact? > > >> > > >> we consider node as a agent for other planet. now ketu is conjunct with > JUP .according to aspect JUP be a RP but KET is agent of JUP(by > aspect/conj,) so KET work for JUP and no need of JUP. I think it will clear > your doubt. > > >> > > >>> > > >>>Your replies will possibly enlighten us newcomers who have no > > >>>idea of the ongoing changes since Prof KKs early discoveries and > > >>>his initial writings. > > >>> > > >>>Thanks > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Ron Gaunt > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:31:57 -0800, you wrote: > > >>> > > >>>PLACE : AHMEDABAD GUJARAT :: INDIA > > >>>DATE SATURDAY: 15 - 1 - 2005 > > >>> : TIME: 13 H. 47 M. 0 S. > > >>> > > >>>Day Lord: SAT > > >>> > > >>>ASC 1 28 28 8 Mar Sun Mar > > >>>MOON 12 7 45 38 Jup Sat Ket > > >>> > > >>>RAHU 1 3 43 36 Mar Ket > > >>>KETU 7 3 43 36 Ven Mar > > >>> > > >>>RP are MAR(ASC SIGN LORD),SUN(ASC STARLORD),MAR(ASC > > >>>SUBLORD),JUP(MOON SIGN LORD),SAT (MOON SATRLORD),KET(MOON SUB > > >>>LORD),RAHU(AGENT OF MAR & KET). > > >>> > > >>>NOTE: ONLY MAR ASPECT SAT BY HIS 8TH ASPECT.BOTH ARE IN RP. > > >>> > > >>>So finaly RP are MAR,SUN,MAR,JUP,KET,RAHU (IF ANY PLANET IS IN > > >>>SATR OF SUB OF RETRO > > >>>PLANET DO NOT COUNT IN RP.IN OUR EXAMPLE RP ARE NOT IN STAR OR > > >>>SUB of RETRO PLANT) > > >>> > > >>>regards > > >>> > > >>>kanak bosmia > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>Do you know all the things you can do with a Hotmail account? Click > here! > > >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Dear Friends, I totally agree with Sh Raichur on his views on the RP's.My personal experience also says the same. Unless proved beyond doubt we should stick to the basics.It is always correct. With warm regards Dilip --- anant raichur <anant_1608 wrote: > Dear Friends > > I believe we are drifting into discusions by trying > to EXPAND the definition of Ruling Planets, by > including Sub Lors, Planets by Aspects etc. Late > Prof KSK gave only 5 R.P.S > 1. Day Lord> 2. Sign Lord of Moon: 3. Star Lord of > Moon > 4. Sign Lord of Asc. 5 Star Lord of asc. > He also stated that these are in Reverse Order of > Strength. > Further Rahu ketu were to be include in the List, if > they were in the Signs of these RPS. Actually being > Stronger, they would replav > ce the Planes, in whose sign they are. So there > will be only 5 or less RPS. > > Other authours have extended this original > classificatio., probably to justify the results of > one or two cases they were studying . > > Prof KSK had warned that an astrologer May be wrong, > but not the Science. So unless there is sufficient > data and reserch to prove that original definition > has to enlarged, I believe it would not be correct > to chane it. > good luck > t > > Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1 wrote: > Dear Ron, > Same starlord same sublord...to be > more precise,it could be in a different sign...! I > had presumed you would gather that... > lyrastro1 > > raju bokaariya tel 0912442-222802 > <bokaariya wrote: > > - > " rongaunt " <rongaunt > > Monday, January 17, 2005 12:37 PM > Re: Re: Ruling Planets > > > > > > > > Dear Yogesh, > > > > Please see question ** .................... ** > > > > Ron Gaunt > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:47:50 +0000, you wrote: > > > > >Dear Ron, > > > Same star and same > sub....please...! > > > lyrastro1. > > > > ** Isn't this the same as being a close > conjunction > > or close trine?. If so this then would come > under > > creation of RP by aspect. ** > > > > > > > > > >anant raichur <anant_1608 wrote: > > >Dear Rongaaunt > > >In Hindoo Aspects there are no ORBS. Only signs > are considered. > > > > > >rongaunt <rongaunt wrote: > > > > > > > > >Dear Yogesh and Kanak, et al, > > > > > >Kanak, > > > > > >I was wondering again about the question of > aspects of RPs. If > > >using Hindu rather than Western aspects what > spread do you > > >observe? Traditional Hindu aspect covers the > whole sign but I > > >suspect using this method, with all the aspects > from all the > > >planets and nodes that all or practically all the > planets would > > >become RPs. Do you limit the orb of the Hindu > aspects? > > > > > >Yogesh, > > > > > >You state: ' a planet being posited in same star > and sub,of an > > >RP,could also " create " another RP...in my > experience...' > > >Must it be in BOTH ie. Star AND Sub, or either on > their own? > > > > > >Ron Gaunt > > > > > > > > >>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:58:52 +0000, you wrote: > > > > > >>Dears Kanak & Ron, > > >> Allow me to add that in recent times the > sublords of the Ascendant and > the Moon are also being included as Ruling > Planets... > > >> In my experience,atleast so far, I have found > both these sublords, > quite useful,many a time,especially in horary > astrology... > > >> Aspects,rapt conjunctions and also,a planet > being posited in same star > and sub,of an RP,could also " create " another RP...in > my experience... > > >> Yours sincerely, > > >> lyrastro1 > > >> GOOD LUCK ! > > >> > > >>Kanakkumar Bosmia wrote: > > >> > > >>Dear Ron ji, > > >> > > >>My coments in Bold Red Letter..... > > >> > > >>Regards > > >> > > >>kanak bosmia > > >> > > >> > > >>>rongaunt > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Re: Re: Ruling Planets > > >>>Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:24:25 +1000 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Kanak, > > >>> > > >>>Many thanks for this example. Just a comment > and a few > > >>>questions. > > >>> > > >>>I initially wrote on RPs after seeing the > inconsistent way they > > >>>were applied in the books. I have since gone > back to basics > > >>>and looked for information from the Source ie > Prof KK. In the > > >>>6th Reader page 123 and again on page 126 the > author does not > > >>>include Subs as RPs. However, in later examples > he does include > > >>>them. As you also include them I presume this > is now the > > >>>accepted way. Is this correct or is there any > division between > > >> > > >>>KP astrologers on this? > > >> > > >>All kp astreologer include up to sub. > > >> > > >>> > > >>>Your comment on Mars aspect to Saturn suggests > that aspects of > > >> > > >>>a RP also creates other RPs. Is this correct? > > >> > > >>Yes > > >> > > >> If so what > > >> > > >> > > >>>aspects do you use - Western by Degree, or > Hindu by Sign? > > >> > > >>Yes Hindu sign ( in my early stage i count both > but i found that hindu > aspect work better then western) > > >> > > >>> > > >>>You note in the example that Rahu is agent of > Ketu. Is this > > >> > > >>>because Rahu is in Ketu Star? > > >> > > >>Yes > > >> > > >>> > > >>>You do not appear to have used Saturn (Day > Lord) as RP - but have > > >>>included it as Star Lord of the Moon. Is this a > deliberate > > >>>omission - ie. not being considered? Or is it > not === message truncated === ______________________ India Matrimony: Find your life partner online Go to: http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Dear TW, Please see my comments below... All the Best, Sandy Crowther http://www.jupitersweb.com tw853 [tw853] Monday, January 17, 2005 7:27 PM Re: Ruling Planets Dear Sandy Crowther, I do beleieve that you've already read about Rahu and Ketu in KP REader III, 1984, Part 1, pp 123-124 under the heading " BEHAVIOUR OF PLANETS " where clearly explained with priority of signification. [sandy] Thanks – Yes, I have, however (unfortunately) I have not yet had the time to go through Readers 4, 5, and 6, and wanted to know if future provisions had been applied in either Krishnamurti’s later writings or in other reputable KP publications… My posting is in Msg #1832. [sandy] Excellent -Thank you… Best regards, tw , " Sandy Crowther " <sandycrowther@a...> wrote: > Dear Anant, Kanak, and Group, > > > > Thank you Anant.I thought so too, but was beginning to think I had missed > (big time) some " official " updates (in some publication other than the 6 KP > Readers) that were subsequently approved by the founder of KP. I was > (silently) thinking that if we continue to carry this " RP thing " much > further, soon we will have every single planet - to include the inner and > outer planets - designated as a RP in every prashna we draw up, and end up > with a royal mass of confusion -basically evolving into RP's being totally > useless for any type of KP delineation. :-( So we definitely need some > boundaries in place - because we appear to be bordering on overshooting the > basic and original KP parameters. > > > > When referencing the controversy with respect to Eastern aspects versus > Western aspects, I wholeheartedly agree with Kanak when he says " Leave this > metter on individual experience.some use western and some use hidu > aspect.all have personal experience. so discossion will going on and > on...... " > > Individual experience does matter when one has been studying astrology for > years and years - and once a starting point is in place, we can experiment > from there as to what works for each of us as individual astrologers. One of > the most intellectually appealing reasons for me, to have even initially > made the decision to study KP to begin with, was the fact that KP seems to > have taken the best of both the east and the west, and synthesized a few of > the better techniques to create a system that poo poos neither eastern or > western systems of astrology, but integrates the best of both worlds. > > > > One more thing - I think another basic confusion for KP newcomers is in > determining and understanding the role of the nodes.such as under what > specific conditions they are designated as " agents " for the planets - > whether for the RP's or simply for chart delineation. Could one of the > Senior list members comment on this, listing exactly what conditions must be > in place for the nodes to act as agents/replacements for the planets - (or > when they will not act as agents)? I thought I was absolutely clear on this, > but now I'm not so sure after reading some of the discussions and the > opinions of others when they delineate charts. Thanks. > > > > All the Best, > > Sandy Crowther > > http://www.jupitersweb.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anant raichur [anant_1608] > Monday, January 17, 2005 11:16 AM > > Re: Re: Ruling Planets > > > > Dear Friends > > > > I believe we are drifting into discusions by trying to EXPAND the definition > of Ruling Planets, by including Sub Lors, Planets by Aspects etc. Late Prof > KSK gave only 5 R.P.S > > 1. Day Lord> 2. Sign Lord of Moon: 3. Star Lord of Moon > 4. Sign Lord of Asc. 5 Star Lord of asc. > > He also stated that these are in Reverse Order of Strength. > > Further Rahu ketu were to be include in the List, if they were in the Signs > of these RPS. Actually being Stronger, they would replav > > ce the Planes, in whose sign they are. So there will be only 5 or less RPS. > > > > Other authours have extended this original classificatio., probably to > justify the results of one or two cases they were studying . > > > > Prof KSK had warned that an astrologer May be wrong, but not the Science. > So unless there is sufficient data and reserch to prove that original > definition has to enlarged, I believe it would not be correct to chane it. > > good luck > > t > > > Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1> wrote: > > Dear Ron, > > Same starlord same sublord...to be more precise,it could be in > a different sign...! I had presumed you would gather that... > > lyrastro1 > > raju bokaariya tel 0912442-222802 <bokaariya@s...> wrote: > > > - > " rongaunt " <rongaunt@b...> > > Monday, January 17, 2005 12:37 PM > Re: Re: Ruling Planets > > > > > > > > Dear Yogesh, > > > > Please see question ** .................... ** > > > > Ron Gaunt > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:47:50 +0000, you wrote: > > > > >Dear Ron, > > > Same star and same sub....please...! > > > lyrastro1. > > > > ** Isn't this the same as being a close conjunction > > or close trine?. If so this then would come under > > creation of RP by aspect. ** > > > > > > > > > >anant raichur <anant_1608> wrote: > > >Dear Rongaaunt > > >In Hindoo Aspects there are no ORBS. Only signs are considered. > > > > > >rongaunt <rongaunt@b...> wrote: > > > > > > > > >Dear Yogesh and Kanak, et al, > > > > > >Kanak, > > > > > >I was wondering again about the question of aspects of RPs. If > > >using Hindu rather than Western aspects what spread do you > > >observe? Traditional Hindu aspect covers the whole sign but I > > >suspect using this method, with all the aspects from all the > > >planets and nodes that all or practically all the planets would > > >become RPs. Do you limit the orb of the Hindu aspects? > > > > > >Yogesh, > > > > > >You state: ' a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an > > >RP,could also " create " another RP...in my experience...' > > >Must it be in BOTH ie. Star AND Sub, or either on their own? > > > > > >Ron Gaunt > > > > > > > > >>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:58:52 +0000, you wrote: > > > > > >>Dears Kanak & Ron, > > >> Allow me to add that in recent times the sublords of the Ascendant and > the Moon are also being included as Ruling Planets... > > >> In my experience,atleast so far, I have found both these sublords, > quite useful,many a time,especially in horary astrology... > > >> Aspects,rapt conjunctions and also,a planet being posited in same star > and sub,of an RP,could also " create " another RP...in my experience... > > >> Yours sincerely, > > >> lyrastro1 > > >> GOOD LUCK ! > > >> > > >>Kanakkumar Bosmia wrote: > > >> > > >>Dear Ron ji, > > >> > > >>My coments in Bold Red Letter..... > > >> > > >>Regards > > >> > > >>kanak bosmia > > >> > > >> > > >>>rongaunt > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Re: Re: Ruling Planets > > >>>Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:24:25 +1000 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Kanak, > > >>> > > >>>Many thanks for this example. Just a comment and a few > > >>>questions. > > >>> > > >>>I initially wrote on RPs after seeing the inconsistent way they > > >>>were applied in the books. I have since gone back to basics > > >>>and looked for information from the Source ie Prof KK. In the > > >>>6th Reader page 123 and again on page 126 the author does not > > >>>include Subs as RPs. However, in later examples he does include > > >>>them. As you also include them I presume this is now the > > >>>accepted way. Is this correct or is there any division between > > >> > > >>>KP astrologers on this? > > >> > > >>All kp astreologer include up to sub. > > >> > > >>> > > >>>Your comment on Mars aspect to Saturn suggests that aspects of > > >> > > >>>a RP also creates other RPs. Is this correct? > > >> > > >>Yes > > >> > > >> If so what > > >> > > >> > > >>>aspects do you use - Western by Degree, or Hindu by Sign? > > >> > > >>Yes Hindu sign ( in my early stage i count both but i found that hindu > aspect work better then western) > > >> > > >>> > > >>>You note in the example that Rahu is agent of Ketu. Is this > > >> > > >>>because Rahu is in Ketu Star? > > >> > > >>Yes > > >> > > >>> > > >>>You do not appear to have used Saturn (Day Lord) as RP - but have > > >>>included it as Star Lord of the Moon. Is this a deliberate > > >>>omission - ie. not being considered? Or is it not included > > >>>because it is included as RP Star Lord of the Moon? > > >> > > >>DL also consider but due to avoid of repetition of SAT i dont mention. > > >> > > >>>Three questions unrelated to your example: > > >>> > > >>>1. On page 123 of the 6th Reader it states that if the Lord of > > >>>the rising sign owns two houses and either Rahu or Ketu were > > >>>to be found in EITHER of these signs the Node must be considered > > >> > > >>>as RP. Is this still accepted? > > >> > > >>nothing is confusing... suppose rahu is in SAT sign and SAT is in RP , > RAH also considred as RP.always check node in with sing lord not in witch > sign so you never confuse.( never consider Rahu is in Aries or scorpi sign > but consider as Rahu is in MAR sign) > > >> > > >>> > > >>>2. Again on page 123 the author mentions that if Rahu and/or Ketu > > >>>are in the sign of the Lord of the Day planet then they must be > > >>>considered as RP. ie. if the Prasna is on a Sunday and Ketu is > > >> > > >>>in Leo it will be RP. Is this still accepted? > > >> > > >>Yes > > >> > > >>> > > >>>3. Assume conditions 1 and 2 exist and these are the only way > > >>>that the Nodes are RPs. If Rahu or Ketu are related in some > > >>>other way to another planet ie by association or aspect, are the > > >>>contacted planets also considered RPs. ie. in the example 2 above > > >>>Sunday prasna, Ketu in Leo becomes RP. If Ketu is conjunct > > >>>say Jupiter which is not otherwise RP, does Jupiter become so > > >> > > >>>because of this contact? > > >> > > >> we consider node as a agent for other planet. now ketu is conjunct with > JUP .according to aspect JUP be a RP but KET is agent of JUP(by > aspect/conj,) so KET work for JUP and no need of JUP. I think it will clear > your doubt. > > >> > > >>> > > >>>Your replies will possibly enlighten us newcomers who have no > > >>>idea of the ongoing changes since Prof KKs early discoveries and > > >>>his initial writings. > > >>> > > >>>Thanks > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Ron Gaunt > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:31:57 -0800, you wrote: > > >>> > > >>>PLACE : AHMEDABAD GUJARAT :: INDIA > > >>>DATE SATURDAY: 15 - 1 - 2005 > > >>> : TIME: 13 H. 47 M. 0 S. > > >>> > > >>>Day Lord: SAT > > >>> > > >>>ASC 1 28 28 8 Mar Sun Mar > > >>>MOON 12 7 45 38 Jup Sat Ket > > >>> > > >>>RAHU 1 3 43 36 Mar Ket > > >>>KETU 7 3 43 36 Ven Mar > > >>> > > >>>RP are MAR(ASC SIGN LORD),SUN(ASC STARLORD),MAR(ASC > > >>>SUBLORD),JUP(MOON SIGN LORD),SAT (MOON SATRLORD),KET(MOON SUB > > >>>LORD),RAHU(AGENT OF MAR & KET). > > >>> > > >>>NOTE: ONLY MAR ASPECT SAT BY HIS 8TH ASPECT.BOTH ARE IN RP. > > >>> > > >>>So finaly RP are MAR,SUN,MAR,JUP,KET,RAHU (IF ANY PLANET IS IN > > >>>SATR OF SUB OF RETRO > > >>>PLANET DO NOT COUNT IN RP.IN OUR EXAMPLE RP ARE NOT IN STAR OR > > >>>SUB of RETRO PLANT) > > >>> > > >>>regards > > >>> > > >>>kanak bosmia > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>Do you know all the things you can do with a Hotmail account? Click > here! > > >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Dear Sandy, I hope to be able to answer ur query,on nodes,to your satisfaction ... 1) The nodes are always stronger than the planet they represent/officiate for... 2) The nodes always represent a planet in whose sign they are posited, 3) The nodes also represent the planets with whom they conjunct with,and powerfully aspect...in that order... 4) The nodes can substitute any planet,in whose star and sub,they are posited ...eg.,if Rahu is in Mars star Mars sub, Rahu completely represnts Mars... 5) The node is always the stronger...! I hope,I have been able to answer your query fully... Also,simply computing the RPs is not enough,among them ONLY those who are posited in the subs of the strong significators of the houses relevant/or the Karaka planet will prove to be fruitful significators...and those RPs who are retrograde themselves and also posited in retrograde subs should be rejected outright... Thus,Sandy,if the significators are very carefully zeroed-in upon,and checked for their star and sub positions,timing of events rarely go awry...A cool,calm and stepwise approach will alone help,and will not lead to any confusion at all,I hasten to assure you... For unparallelled accuracy in timing of events,after the significatirs are correctly selected,find out the probable dasa period of the ETF(expected time of fructification),then pin-point the event by Transit... This again is not as "tricky" as it seems...again,proceed in a cool and calm way,mark out the 3 points which are ruling the sign-lord,star -lord and sub-lord ...corresponding to the dasa lord,bhukti-lord and anthara-lord...then,find out in which sign the sublord of the XIth cusp sublord,is posited...and select the sensitive point for the transit consideration accordingly,as given in K.P. Readers very clearly...in moveable,fixed and common sign etc... In this way,dear Sandy,you will surprise yourself and your consultant with your accuracy... Yes,and a fair amount of practice will surely a long way...! Am awaiting the,soon-to-come-day ,when Sandy Crowther will emerge as "the most accurate astrologer in Europe"...! ! ! With best wishes, lyrastro1 GOOD LUCK ! Sandy Crowther <sandycrowther wrote: Dear Anant, Kanak, and Group, Thank you Anant…I thought so too, but was beginning to think I had missed (big time) some “official” updates (in some publication other than the 6 KP Readers) that were subsequently approved by the founder of KP. I was (silently) thinking that if we continue to carry this “RP thing” much further, soon we will have every single planet – to include the inner and outer planets – designated as a RP in every prashna we draw up, and end up with a royal mass of confusion –basically evolving into RP’s being totally useless for any type of KP delineation. L So we definitely need some boundaries in place – because we appear to be bordering on overshooting the basic and original KP parameters. When referencing the controversy with respect to Eastern aspects versus Western aspects, I wholeheartedly agree with Kanak when he says “Leave this metter on individual experience.some use western and some use hidu aspect.all have personal experience. so discossion will going on and on......” Individual experience does matter when one has been studying astrology for years and years – and once a starting point is in place, we can experiment from there as to what works for each of us as individual astrologers. One of the most intellectually appealing reasons for me, to have even initially made the decision to study KP to begin with, was the fact that KP seems to have taken the best of both the east and the west, and synthesized a few of the better techniques to create a system that poo poos neither eastern or western systems of astrology, but integrates the best of both worlds. One more thing - I think another basic confusion for KP newcomers is in determining and understanding the role of the nodes…such as under what specific conditions they are designated as “agents” for the planets – whether for the RP’s or simply for chart delineation. Could one of the Senior list members comment on this, listing exactly what conditions must be in place for the nodes to act as agents/replacements for the planets – (or when they will not act as agents)? I thought I was absolutely clear on this, but now I’m not so sure after reading some of the discussions and the opinions of others when they delineate charts… Thanks. All the Best, Sandy Crowther http://www.jupitersweb.com anant raichur [anant_1608] Monday, January 17, 2005 11:16 AM Subject: Re: Re: Ruling Planets Dear Friends I believe we are drifting into discusions by trying to EXPAND the definition of Ruling Planets, by including Sub Lors, Planets by Aspects etc. Late Prof KSK gave only 5 R.P.S 1. Day Lord> 2. Sign Lord of Moon: 3. Star Lord of Moon4. Sign Lord of Asc. 5 Star Lord of asc. He also stated that these are in Reverse Order of Strength. Further Rahu ketu were to be include in the List, if they were in the Signs of these RPS. Actually being Stronger, they would replav ce the Planes, in whose sign they are. So there will be only 5 or less RPS. Other authours have extended this original classificatio., probably to justify the results of one or two cases they were studying . Prof KSK had warned that an astrologer May be wrong, but not the Science. So unless there is sufficient data and reserch to prove that original definition has to enlarged, I believe it would not be correct to chane it. good luck t Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1 wrote: Dear Ron, Same starlord same sublord...to be more precise,it could be in a different sign...! I had presumed you would gather that... lyrastro1raju bokaariya tel 0912442-222802 <bokaariya wrote: -"rongaunt" <rongauntMonday, January 17, 2005 12:37 PMRe: Re: Ruling Planets>>> Dear Yogesh,>> Please see question ** .................... **>> Ron Gaunt>>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:47:50 +0000, you wrote:>> >Dear Ron,> > Same star and same sub....please...!> > lyrastro1.>> ** Isn't this the same as being a close conjunction> or close trine?. If so this then would come under> creation of RP by aspect. **>>> >> >anant raichur <anant_1608 wrote:> >Dear Rongaaunt> >In Hindoo Aspects there are no ORBS. Only signs are considered.> >> >rongaunt <rongaunt wrote:> >> >> >Dear Yogesh and Kanak, et al,> >> >Kanak,> >> >I was wondering again about the question of aspects of RPs. If> >using Hindu rather than Western aspects what spread do you> >observe? Traditional Hindu aspect covers the whole sign but I> >suspect using this method, with all the aspects from all the> >planets and nodes that all or practically all the planets would> >become RPs. Do you limit the orb of the Hindu aspects?> >> >Yogesh,> >> >You state: ' a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an> >RP,could also "create" another RP...in my experience...'> >Must it be in BOTH ie. Star AND Sub, or either on their own?> >> >Ron Gaunt> >> >> >>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:58:52 +0000, you wrote:> >> >>Dears Kanak & Ron,> >> Allow me to add that in recent times the sublords of the Ascendant andthe Moon are also being included as Ruling Planets...> >> In my experience,atleast so far, I have found both these sublords,quite useful,many a time,especially in horary astrology...> >> Aspects,rapt conjunctions and also,a planet being posited in same starand sub,of an RP,could also "create" another RP...in my experience...> >> Yours sincerely,> >> lyrastro1> >> GOOD LUCK !> >>> >>Kanakkumar Bosmia wrote:> >>> >>Dear Ron ji,> >>> >>My coments in Bold Red Letter.....> >>> >>Regards> >>> >>kanak bosmia> >>> >>> >>>rongaunt> >>> > >>> > >>>Re: Re: Ruling Planets> >>>Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:24:25 +1000> >>>> >>>> >>>Kanak,> >>>> >>>Many thanks for this example. Just a comment and a few> >>>questions.> >>>> >>>I initially wrote on RPs after seeing the inconsistent way they> >>>were applied in the books. I have since gone back to basics> >>>and looked for information from the Source ie Prof KK. In the> >>>6th Reader page 123 and again on page 126 the author does not> >>>include Subs as RPs. However, in later examples he does include> >>>them. As you also include them I presume this is now the> >>>accepted way. Is this correct or is there any division between> >>> >>>KP astrologers on this?> >>> >>All kp astreologer include up to sub.> >>> >>>> >>>Your comment on Mars aspect to Saturn suggests that aspects of> >>> >>>a RP also creates other RPs. Is this correct?> >>> >>Yes> >>> >> If so what> >>> >>> >>>aspects do you use - Western by Degree, or Hindu by Sign?> >>> >>Yes Hindu sign ( in my early stage i count both but i found that hinduaspect work better then western)> >>> >>>> >>>You note in the example that Rahu is agent of Ketu. Is this> >>> >>>because Rahu is in Ketu Star?> >>> >>Yes> >>> >>>> >>>You do not appear to have used Saturn (Day Lord) as RP - but have> >>>included it as Star Lord of the Moon. Is this a deliberate> >>>omission - ie. not being considered? Or is it not included> >>>because it is included as RP Star Lord of the Moon?> >>> >>DL also consider but due to avoid of repetition of SAT i dont mention.> >>> >>>Three questions unrelated to your example:> >>>> >>>1. On page 123 of the 6th Reader it states that if the Lord of> >>>the rising sign owns two houses and either Rahu or Ketu were> >>>to be found in EITHER of these signs the Node must be considered> >>> >>>as RP. Is this still accepted?> >>> >>nothing is confusing... suppose rahu is in SAT sign and SAT is in RP ,RAH also considred as RP.always check node in with sing lord not in witchsign so you never confuse.( never consider Rahu is in Aries or scorpi signbut consider as Rahu is in MAR sign)> >>> >>>> >>>2. Again on page 123 the author mentions that if Rahu and/or Ketu> >>>are in the sign of the Lord of the Day planet then they must be> >>>considered as RP. ie. if the Prasna is on a Sunday and Ketu is> >>> >>>in Leo it will be RP. Is this still accepted?> >>> >>Yes> >>> >>>> >>>3. Assume conditions 1 and 2 exist and these are the only way> >>>that the Nodes are RPs. If Rahu or Ketu are related in some> >>>other way to another planet ie by association or aspect, are the> >>>contacted planets also considered RPs. ie. in the example 2 above> >>>Sunday prasna, Ketu in Leo becomes RP. If Ketu is conjunct> >>>say Jupiter which is not otherwise RP, does Jupiter become so> >>> >>>because of this contact?> >>> >> we consider node as a agent for other planet. now ketu is conjunct withJUP .according to aspect JUP be a RP but KET is agent of JUP(byaspect/conj,) so KET work for JUP and no need of JUP. I think it will clearyour doubt.> >>> >>>> >>>Your replies will possibly enlighten us newcomers who have no> >>>idea of the ongoing changes since Prof KKs early discoveries and> >>>his initial writings.> >>>> >>>Thanks> >>>> >>>> >>>Ron Gaunt> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:31:57 -0800, you wrote:> >>>> >>>PLACE : AHMEDABAD GUJARAT :: INDIA> >>>DATE SATURDAY: 15 - 1 - 2005> >>> : TIME: 13 H. 47 M. 0 S.> >>>> >>>Day Lord: SAT> >>>> >>>ASC 1 28 28 8 Mar Sun Mar> >>>MOON 12 7 45 38 Jup Sat Ket> >>>> >>>RAHU 1 3 43 36 Mar Ket> >>>KETU 7 3 43 36 Ven Mar> >>>> >>>RP are MAR(ASC SIGN LORD),SUN(ASC STARLORD),MAR(ASC> >>>SUBLORD),JUP(MOON SIGN LORD),SAT (MOON SATRLORD),KET(MOON SUB> >>>LORD),RAHU(AGENT OF MAR & KET).> >>>> >>>NOTE: ONLY MAR ASPECT SAT BY HIS 8TH ASPECT.BOTH ARE IN RP.> >>>> >>>So finaly RP are MAR,SUN,MAR,JUP,KET,RAHU (IF ANY PLANET IS IN> >>>SATR OF SUB OF RETRO> >>>PLANET DO NOT COUNT IN RP.IN OUR EXAMPLE RP ARE NOT IN STAR OR> >>>SUB of RETRO PLANT)> >>>> >>>regards> >>>> >>>kanak bosmia> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Do you know all the things you can do with a Hotmail account? Clickhere!> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Dear Shri Raichur, The book by Shri K.Subramaniam,"Astrosecrets & K.P., as also several articles by K.Balachandran,Vaikari Ramamurthy,K.R,Kar et al,have begun including the sublods of the ascendant and the Moon,among the RPs... This seems to be the latest "trend"... With highest regards, lyrastro1anant raichur <anant_1608 wrote: Dear Friends I believe we are drifting into discusions by trying to EXPAND the definition of Ruling Planets, by including Sub Lors, Planets by Aspects etc. Late Prof KSK gave only 5 R.P.S 1. Day Lord> 2. Sign Lord of Moon: 3. Star Lord of Moon4. Sign Lord of Asc. 5 Star Lord of asc. He also stated that these are in Reverse Order of Strength. Further Rahu ketu were to be include in the List, if they were in the Signs of these RPS. Actually being Stronger, they would replav ce the Planes, in whose sign they are. So there will be only 5 or less RPS. Other authours have extended this original classificatio., probably to justify the results of one or two cases they were studying . Prof KSK had warned that an astrologer May be wrong, but not the Science. So unless there is sufficient data and reserch to prove that original definition has to enlarged, I believe it would not be correct to chane it. good luck t Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1 wrote: Dear Ron, Same starlord same sublord...to be more precise,it could be in a different sign...! I had presumed you would gather that... lyrastro1raju bokaariya tel 0912442-222802 <bokaariya wrote: -"rongaunt" <rongauntMonday, January 17, 2005 12:37 PMRe: Re: Ruling Planets>>> Dear Yogesh,>> Please see question ** .................... **>> Ron Gaunt>>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:47:50 +0000, you wrote:>> >Dear Ron,> > Same star and same sub....please...!> > lyrastro1.>> ** Isn't this the same as being a close conjunction> or close trine?. If so this then would come under> creation of RP by aspect. **>>> >> >anant raichur <anant_1608 wrote:> >Dear Rongaaunt> >In Hindoo Aspects there are no ORBS. Only signs are considered.> >> >rongaunt <rongaunt wrote:> >> >> >Dear Yogesh and Kanak, et al,> >> >Kanak,> >> >I was wondering again about the question of aspects of RPs. If> >using Hindu rather than Western aspects what spread do you> >observe? Traditional Hindu aspect covers the whole sign but I> >suspect using this method, with all the aspects from all the> >planets and nodes that all or practically all the planets would> >become RPs. Do you limit the orb of the Hindu aspects?> >> >Yogesh,> >> >You state: ' a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an> >RP,could also "create" another RP...in my experience...'> >Must it be in BOTH ie. Star AND Sub, or either on their own?> >> >Ron Gaunt> >> >> >>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:58:52 +0000, you wrote:> >> >>Dears Kanak & Ron,> >> Allow me to add that in recent times the sublords of the Ascendant andthe Moon are also being included as Ruling Planets...> >> In my experience,atleast so far, I have found both these sublords,quite useful,many a time,especially in horary astrology...> >> Aspects,rapt conjunctions and also,a planet being posited in same starand sub,of an RP,could also "create" another RP...in my experience...> >> Yours sincerely,> >> lyrastro1> >> GOOD LUCK !> >>> >>Kanakkumar Bosmia wrote:> >>> >>Dear Ron ji,> >>> >>My coments in Bold Red Letter.....> >>> >>Regards> >>> >>kanak bosmia> >>> >>> >>>rongaunt> >>> > >>> > >>>Re: Re: Ruling Planets> >>>Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:24:25 +1000> >>>> >>>> >>>Kanak,> >>>> >>>Many thanks for this example. Just a comment and a few> >>>questions.> >>>> >>>I initially wrote on RPs after seeing the inconsistent way they> >>>were applied in the books. I have since gone back to basics> >>>and looked for information from the Source ie Prof KK. In the> >>>6th Reader page 123 and again on page 126 the author does not> >>>include Subs as RPs. However, in later examples he does include> >>>them. As you also include them I presume this is now the> >>>accepted way. Is this correct or is there any division between> >>> >>>KP astrologers on this?> >>> >>All kp astreologer include up to sub.> >>> >>>> >>>Your comment on Mars aspect to Saturn suggests that aspects of> >>> >>>a RP also creates other RPs. Is this correct?> >>> >>Yes> >>> >> If so what> >>> >>> >>>aspects do you use - Western by Degree, or Hindu by Sign?> >>> >>Yes Hindu sign ( in my early stage i count both but i found that hinduaspect work better then western)> >>> >>>> >>>You note in the example that Rahu is agent of Ketu. Is this> >>> >>>because Rahu is in Ketu Star?> >>> >>Yes> >>> >>>> >>>You do not appear to have used Saturn (Day Lord) as RP - but have> >>>included it as Star Lord of the Moon. Is this a deliberate> >>>omission - ie. not being considered? Or is it not included> >>>because it is included as RP Star Lord of the Moon?> >>> >>DL also consider but due to avoid of repetition of SAT i dont mention.> >>> >>>Three questions unrelated to your example:> >>>> >>>1. On page 123 of the 6th Reader it states that if the Lord of> >>>the rising sign owns two houses and either Rahu or Ketu were> >>>to be found in EITHER of these signs the Node must be considered> >>> >>>as RP. Is this still accepted?> >>> >>nothing is confusing... suppose rahu is in SAT sign and SAT is in RP ,RAH also considred as RP.always check node in with sing lord not in witchsign so you never confuse.( never consider Rahu is in Aries or scorpi signbut consider as Rahu is in MAR sign)> >>> >>>> >>>2. Again on page 123 the author mentions that if Rahu and/or Ketu> >>>are in the sign of the Lord of the Day planet then they must be> >>>considered as RP. ie. if the Prasna is on a Sunday and Ketu is> >>> >>>in Leo it will be RP. Is this still accepted?> >>> >>Yes> >>> >>>> >>>3. Assume conditions 1 and 2 exist and these are the only way> >>>that the Nodes are RPs. If Rahu or Ketu are related in some> >>>other way to another planet ie by association or aspect, are the> >>>contacted planets also considered RPs. ie. in the example 2 above> >>>Sunday prasna, Ketu in Leo becomes RP. If Ketu is conjunct> >>>say Jupiter which is not otherwise RP, does Jupiter become so> >>> >>>because of this contact?> >>> >> we consider node as a agent for other planet. now ketu is conjunct withJUP .according to aspect JUP be a RP but KET is agent of JUP(byaspect/conj,) so KET work for JUP and no need of JUP. I think it will clearyour doubt.> >>> >>>> >>>Your replies will possibly enlighten us newcomers who have no> >>>idea of the ongoing changes since Prof KKs early discoveries and> >>>his initial writings.> >>>> >>>Thanks> >>>> >>>> >>>Ron Gaunt> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:31:57 -0800, you wrote:> >>>> >>>PLACE : AHMEDABAD GUJARAT :: INDIA> >>>DATE SATURDAY: 15 - 1 - 2005> >>> : TIME: 13 H. 47 M. 0 S.> >>>> >>>Day Lord: SAT> >>>> >>>ASC 1 28 28 8 Mar Sun Mar> >>>MOON 12 7 45 38 Jup Sat Ket> >>>> >>>RAHU 1 3 43 36 Mar Ket> >>>KETU 7 3 43 36 Ven Mar> >>>> >>>RP are MAR(ASC SIGN LORD),SUN(ASC STARLORD),MAR(ASC> >>>SUBLORD),JUP(MOON SIGN LORD),SAT (MOON SATRLORD),KET(MOON SUB> >>>LORD),RAHU(AGENT OF MAR & KET).> >>>> >>>NOTE: ONLY MAR ASPECT SAT BY HIS 8TH ASPECT.BOTH ARE IN RP.> >>>> >>>So finaly RP are MAR,SUN,MAR,JUP,KET,RAHU (IF ANY PLANET IS IN> >>>SATR OF SUB OF RETRO> >>>PLANET DO NOT COUNT IN RP.IN OUR EXAMPLE RP ARE NOT IN STAR OR> >>>SUB of RETRO PLANT)> >>>> >>>regards> >>>> >>>kanak bosmia> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Do you know all the things you can do with a Hotmail account? Clickhere!> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Dear Rongaunt, The Book RP & KP is compilation of articles from magazine collaborated by various auothers. But basic rules are only for 5 Rp's and same are also given in KP reader 6 at page 123 (1999 edition). Mukesh - rongaunt Tuesday, January 18, 2005 4:40 AM Re: Re: Ruling Planets Mukesh,The problem is that the author of 'RP & KP' was not consistent.For instance examples on pages 5,9 & 15 do not show Subs asRPs. However pages 65, 79, 104, and 108 shows that he includedSubs of both the Lagna and Moon as RPs.There was even another variation on pages 107, 109, 110 and 129where he included Sub of Lagna - but not Sub of the Moon.Looking at the dates of the examples it appears that the authorexperimented with Subs as RPs from around mid to end of 1972.In early 1979 he appears to have again experimented but this timeonly using the Sub of the Lagna.The bulk of his work appears to ignore Sub RPs; and a laterexample on page 131 for mid 1984 reverts to no Sub RPs at all.Ron GauntOn Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:22:44 +0530, you wrote:>I fully agree. The page v and xiii of book RP & KP by sh. Hariharan have all the rules for RP.>>Mukesh> - > anant raichur > > Monday, January 17, 2005 9:45 PM> Re: Re: Ruling Planets>>> Dear Friends>> I believe we are drifting into discusions by trying to EXPAND the definition of Ruling Planets, by including Sub Lors, Planets by Aspects etc. Late Prof KSK gave only 5 R.P.S > 1. Day Lord> 2. Sign Lord of Moon: 3. Star Lord of Moon> 4. Sign Lord of Asc. 5 Star Lord of asc. > He also stated that these are in Reverse Order of Strength. > Further Rahu ketu were to be include in the List, if they were in the Signs of these RPS. Actually being Stronger, they would replav> ce the Planes, in whose sign they are. So there will be only 5 or less RPS.>> Other authours have extended this original classificatio., probably to justify the results of one or two cases they were studying .>> Prof KSK had warned that an astrologer May be wrong, but not the Science. So unless there is sufficient data and reserch to prove that original definition has to enlarged, I believe it would not be correct to chane it.> good luck> t>> Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1 wrote:> Dear Ron,> Same starlord same sublord...to be more precise,it could be in a different sign...! I had presumed you would gather that...> lyrastro1>> raju bokaariya tel 0912442-222802 <bokaariya wrote:>> -> "rongaunt" <rongaunt> > Monday, January 17, 2005 12:37 PM> Re: Re: Ruling Planets>>> >> >> > Dear Yogesh,> >> > Please see question ** .................... **> >> > Ron Gaunt> >> >> > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:47:50 +0000, you wrote:> >> > >Dear Ron,> > > Same star and same sub....please...!> > > lyrastro1.> >> > ** Isn't this the same as being a close conjunction> > or close trine?. If so this then would come under> > creation of RP by aspect. **> >> >> > >> > >anant raichur <anant_1608 wrote:> > >Dear Rongaaunt> > >In Hindoo Aspects there are no ORBS. Only signs are considered.> > >> > >rongaunt <rongaunt wrote:> > >> > >> > >Dear Yogesh and Kanak, et al,> > >> > >Kanak,> > >> > >I was wondering again about the question of aspects of RPs. If> > >using Hindu rather than Western aspects what spread do you> > >observe? Traditional Hindu aspect covers the whole sign but I> > >suspect using this method, with all the aspects from all the> > >planets and nodes that all or practically all the planets would> > >become RPs. Do you limit the orb of the Hindu aspects?> > >> > >Yogesh,> > >> > >You state: ' a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an> > >RP,could also "create" another RP...in my experience...'> > >Must it be in BOTH ie. Star AND Sub, or either on their own?> > >> > >Ron Gaunt> > >> > >> > >>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:58:52 +0000, you wrote:> > >> > >>Dears Kanak & Ron,> > >> Allow me to add that in recent times the sublords of the Ascendant and> the Moon are also being included as Ruling Planets...> > >> In my experience,atleast so far, I have found both these sublords,> quite useful,many a time,especially in horary astrology...> > >> Aspects,rapt conjunctions and also,a planet being posited in same star> and sub,of an RP,could also "create" another RP...in my experience...> > >> Yours sincerely,> > >> lyrastro1> > >> GOOD LUCK !> > >>> > >>Kanakkumar Bosmia wrote:> > >>> > >>Dear Ron ji,> > >>> > >>My coments in Bold Red Letter.....> > >>> > >>Regards> > >>> > >>kanak bosmia> > >>> > >>> > >>>rongaunt> > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Re: Re: Ruling Planets> > >>>Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:24:25 +1000> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>Kanak,> > >>>> > >>>Many thanks for this example. Just a comment and a few> > >>>questions.> > >>>> > >>>I initially wrote on RPs after seeing the inconsistent way they> > >>>were applied in the books. I have since gone back to basics> > >>>and looked for information from the Source ie Prof KK. In the> > >>>6th Reader page 123 and again on page 126 the author does not> > >>>include Subs as RPs. However, in later examples he does include> > >>>them. As you also include them I presume this is now the> > >>>accepted way. Is this correct or is there any division between> > >>> > >>>KP astrologers on this?> > >>> > >>All kp astreologer include up to sub.> > >>> > >>>> > >>>Your comment on Mars aspect to Saturn suggests that aspects of> > >>> > >>>a RP also creates other RPs. Is this correct?> > >>> > >>Yes> > >>> > >> If so what> > >>> > >>> > >>>aspects do you use - Western by Degree, or Hindu by Sign?> > >>> > >>Yes Hindu sign ( in my early stage i count both but i found that hindu> aspect work better then western)> > >>> > >>>> > >>>You note in the example that Rahu is agent of Ketu. Is this> > >>> > >>>because Rahu is in Ketu Star?> > >>> > >>Yes> > >>> > >>>> > >>>You do not appear to have used Saturn (Day Lord) as RP - but have> > >>>included it as Star Lord of the Moon. Is this a deliberate> > >>>omission - ie. not being considered? Or is it not included> > >>>because it is included as RP Star Lord of the Moon?> > >>> > >>DL also consider but due to avoid of repetition of SAT i dont mention.> > >>> > >>>Three questions unrelated to your example:> > >>>> > >>>1. On page 123 of the 6th Reader it states that if the Lord of> > >>>the rising sign owns two houses and either Rahu or Ketu were> > >>>to be found in EITHER of these signs the Node must be considered> > >>> > >>>as RP. Is this still accepted?> > >>> > >>nothing is confusing... suppose rahu is in SAT sign and SAT is in RP ,> RAH also considred as RP.always check node in with sing lord not in witch> sign so you never confuse.( never consider Rahu is in Aries or scorpi sign> but consider as Rahu is in MAR sign)> > >>> > >>>> > >>>2. Again on page 123 the author mentions that if Rahu and/or Ketu> > >>>are in the sign of the Lord of the Day planet then they must be> > >>>considered as RP. ie. if the Prasna is on a Sunday and Ketu is> > >>> > >>>in Leo it will be RP. Is this still accepted?> > >>> > >>Yes> > >>> > >>>> > >>>3. Assume conditions 1 and 2 exist and these are the only way> > >>>that the Nodes are RPs. If Rahu or Ketu are related in some> > >>>other way to another planet ie by association or aspect, are the> > >>>contacted planets also considered RPs. ie. in the example 2 above> > >>>Sunday prasna, Ketu in Leo becomes RP. If Ketu is conjunct> > >>>say Jupiter which is not otherwise RP, does Jupiter become so> > >>> > >>>because of this contact?> > >>> > >> we consider node as a agent for other planet. now ketu is conjunct with> JUP .according to aspect JUP be a RP but KET is agent of JUP(by> aspect/conj,) so KET work for JUP and no need of JUP. I think it will clear> your doubt.> > >>> > >>>> > >>>Your replies will possibly enlighten us newcomers who have no> > >>>idea of the ongoing changes since Prof KKs early discoveries and> > >>>his initial writings.> > >>>> > >>>Thanks> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>Ron Gaunt> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> >On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:31:57 -0800, you wrote:> > >>>> > >>>PLACE : AHMEDABAD GUJARAT :: INDIA> > >>>DATE SATURDAY: 15 - 1 - 2005> > >>> : TIME: 13 H. 47 M. 0 S.> > >>>> > >>>Day Lord: SAT> > >>>> > >>>ASC 1 28 28 8 Mar Sun Mar> > >>>MOON 12 7 45 38 Jup Sat Ket> > >>>> > >>>RAHU 1 3 43 36 Mar Ket> > >>>KETU 7 3 43 36 Ven Mar> > >>>> > >>>RP are MAR(ASC SIGN LORD),SUN(ASC STARLORD),MAR(ASC> > >>>SUBLORD),JUP(MOON SIGN LORD),SAT (MOON SATRLORD),KET(MOON SUB> > >>>LORD),RAHU(AGENT OF MAR & KET).> > >>>> > >>>NOTE: ONLY MAR ASPECT SAT BY HIS 8TH ASPECT.BOTH ARE IN RP.> > >>>> > >>>So finaly RP are MAR,SUN,MAR,JUP,KET,RAHU (IF ANY PLANET IS IN> > >>>SATR OF SUB OF RETRO> > >>>PLANET DO NOT COUNT IN RP.IN OUR EXAMPLE RP ARE NOT IN STAR OR> > >>>SUB of RETRO PLANT)> > >>>> > >>>regards> > >>>> > >>>kanak bosmia> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>Do you know all the things you can do with a Hotmail account? Click> here!> > >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Dear Yogesh Rao Lajmi, Great post! Yes, you have been most helpful. Thanks for giving such a lucid and elaborate explanation. You have fully answered my question to my satisfaction - and then some. J (I also appreciate the added little KP tidbits you provided.) All the Best, Sandy Crowther http://www.jupitersweb.com Yogesh Rao Lajmi [lyrastro1] Tuesday, January 18, 2005 1:14 AM RE: Re: Ruling Planets Dear Sandy, I hope to be able to answer ur query,on nodes,to your satisfaction .... 1) The nodes are always stronger than the planet they represent/officiate for... 2) The nodes always represent a planet in whose sign they are posited, 3) The nodes also represent the planets with whom they conjunct with,and powerfully aspect...in that order... 4) The nodes can substitute any planet,in whose star and sub,they are posited ...eg.,if Rahu is in Mars star Mars sub, Rahu completely represnts Mars... 5) The node is always the stronger...! I hope,I have been able to answer your query fully... Also,simply computing the RPs is not enough,among them ONLY those who are posited in the subs of the strong significators of the houses relevant/or the Karaka planet will prove to be fruitful significators...and those RPs who are retrograde themselves and also posited in retrograde subs should be rejected outright... Thus,Sandy,if the significators are very carefully zeroed-in upon,and checked for their star and sub positions,timing of events rarely go awry...A cool,calm and stepwise approach will alone help,and will not lead to any confusion at all,I hasten to assure you... For unparallelled accuracy in timing of events,after the significatirs are correctly selected,find out the probable dasa period of the ETF(expected time of fructification),then pin-point the event by Transit... This again is not as " tricky " as it seems...again,proceed in a cool and calm way,mark out the 3 points which are ruling the sign-lord,star -lord and sub-lord ...corresponding to the dasa lord,bhukti-lord and anthara-lord...then,find out in which sign the sublord of the XIth cusp sublord,is posited...and select the sensitive point for the transit consideration accordingly,as given in K.P. Readers very clearly...in moveable,fixed and common sign etc... In this way,dear Sandy,you will surprise yourself and your consultant with your accuracy... Yes,and a fair amount of practice will surely a long way...! Am awaiting the,soon-to-come-day ,when Sandy Crowther will emerge as " the most accurate astrologer in Europe " ...! ! ! With best wishes, lyrastro1 GOOD LUCK ! Sandy Crowther <sandycrowther wrote: Dear Anant, Kanak, and Group, Thank you Anant…I thought so too, but was beginning to think I had missed (big time) some “official” updates (in some publication other than the 6 KP Readers) that were subsequently approved by the founder of KP. I was (silently) thinking that if we continue to carry this “RP thing” much further, soon we will have every single planet – to include the inner and outer planets – designated as a RP in every prashna we draw up, and end up with a royal mass of confusion –basically evolving into RP’s being totally useless for any type of KP delineation. L So we definitely need some boundaries in place – because we appear to be bordering on overshooting the basic and original KP parameters. When referencing the controversy with respect to Eastern aspects versus Western aspects, I wholeheartedly agree with Kanak when he says “Leave this metter on individual experience.some use western and some use hidu aspect.all have personal experience. so discossion will going on and on......” Individual experience does matter when one has been studying astrology for years and years – and once a starting point is in place, we can experiment from there as to what works for each of us as individual astrologers. One of the most intellectually appealing reasons for me, to have even initially made the decision to study KP to begin with, was the fact that KP seems to have taken the best of both the east and the west, and synthesized a few of the better techniques to create a system that poo poos neither eastern or western systems of astrology, but integrates the best of both worlds. One more thing - I think another basic confusion for KP newcomers is in determining and understanding the role of the nodes…such as under what specific conditions they are designated as “agents” for the planets – whether for the RP’s or simply for chart delineation. Could one of the Senior list members comment on this, listing exactly what conditions must be in place for the nodes to act as agents/replacements for the planets – (or when they will not act as agents)? I thought I was absolutely clear on this, but now I’m not so sure after reading some of the discussions and the opinions of others when they delineate charts… Thanks. All the Best, Sandy Crowther http://www.jupitersweb.com anant raichur [anant_1608] Monday, January 17, 2005 11:16 AM Re: Re: Ruling Planets Dear Friends I believe we are drifting into discusions by trying to EXPAND the definition of Ruling Planets, by including Sub Lors, Planets by Aspects etc. Late Prof KSK gave only 5 R.P.S 1. Day Lord> 2. Sign Lord of Moon: 3. Star Lord of Moon 4. Sign Lord of Asc. 5 Star Lord of asc. He also stated that these are in Reverse Order of Strength. Further Rahu ketu were to be include in the List, if they were in the Signs of these RPS. Actually being Stronger, they would replav ce the Planes, in whose sign they are. So there will be only 5 or less RPS. Other authours have extended this original classificatio., probably to justify the results of one or two cases they were studying . Prof KSK had warned that an astrologer May be wrong, but not the Science. So unless there is sufficient data and reserch to prove that original definition has to enlarged, I believe it would not be correct to chane it. good luck t Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1 wrote: Dear Ron, Same starlord same sublord...to be more precise,it could be in a different sign...! I had presumed you would gather that... lyrastro1 raju bokaariya tel 0912442-222802 <bokaariya wrote: - " rongaunt " <rongaunt Monday, January 17, 2005 12:37 PM Re: Re: Ruling Planets > > > Dear Yogesh, > > Please see question ** .................... ** > > Ron Gaunt > > > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:47:50 +0000, you wrote: > > >Dear Ron, > > Same star and same sub....please...! > > lyrastro1. > > ** Isn't this the same as being a close conjunction > or close trine?. If so this then would come under > creation of RP by aspect. ** > > > > > >anant raichur <anant_1608 wrote: > >Dear Rongaaunt > >In Hindoo Aspects there are no ORBS. Only signs are considered. > > > >rongaunt <rongaunt wrote: > > > > > >Dear Yogesh and Kanak, et al, > > > >Kanak, > > > >I was wondering again about the question of aspects of RPs. If > >using Hindu rather than Western aspects what spread do you > >observe? Traditional Hindu aspect covers the whole sign but I > >suspect using this method, with all the aspects from all the > >planets and nodes that all or practically all the planets would > >become RPs. Do you limit the orb of the Hindu aspects? > > > >Yogesh, > > > >You state: ' a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an > >RP,could also " create " another RP...in my experience...' > >Must it be in BOTH ie. Star AND Sub, or either on their own? > > > >Ron Gaunt > > > > > >>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:58:52 +0000, you wrote: > > > >>Dears Kanak & Ron, > >> Allow me to add that in recent times the sublords of the Ascendant and the Moon are also being included as Ruling Planets... > >> In my experience,atleast so far, I have found both these sublords, quite useful,many a time,especially in horary astrology... > >> Aspects,rapt conjunctions and also,a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an RP,could also " create " another RP...in my experience... > >> Yours sincerely, > >> lyrastro1 > >> GOOD LUCK ! > >> > >>Kanakkumar Bosmia wrote: > >> > >>Dear Ron ji, > >> > >>My coments in Bold Red Letter..... > >> > >>Regards > >> > >>kanak bosmia > >> > >> > >>>rongaunt > >>> > >>> > >>>Re: Re: Ruling Planets > >>>Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:24:25 +1000 > >>> > >>> > >>>Kanak, > >>> > >>>Many thanks for this example. Just a comment and a few > >>>questions. > >>> > >>>I initially wrote on RPs after seeing the inconsistent way they > >>>were applied in the books. I have since gone back to basics > >>>and looked for information from the Source ie Prof KK. In the > >>>6th Reader page 123 and again on page 126 the author does not > >>>include Subs as RPs. However, in later examples he does include > >>>them. As you also include them I presume this is now the > >>>accepted way. Is this correct or is there any division between > >> > >>>KP astrologers on this? > >> > >>All kp astreologer include up to sub. > >> > >>> > >>>Your comment on Mars aspect to Saturn suggests that aspects of > >> > >>>a RP also creates other RPs. Is this correct? > >> > >>Yes > >> > >> If so what > >> > >> > >>>aspects do you use - Western by Degree, or Hindu by Sign? > >> > >>Yes Hindu sign ( in my early stage i count both but i found that hindu aspect work better then western) > >> > >>> > >>>You note in the example that Rahu is agent of Ketu. Is this > >> > >>>because Rahu is in Ketu Star? > >> > >>Yes > >> > >>> > >>>You do not appear to have used Saturn (Day Lord) as RP - but have > >>>included it as Star Lord of the Moon. Is this a deliberate > >>>omission - ie. not being considered? Or is it not included > >>>because it is included as RP Star Lord of the Moon? > >> > >>DL also consider but due to avoid of repetition of SAT i dont mention. > >> > >>>Three questions unrelated to your example: > >>> > >>>1. On page 123 of the 6th Reader it states that if the Lord of > >>>the rising sign owns two houses and either Rahu or Ketu were > >>>to be found in EITHER of these signs the Node must be considered > >> > >>>as RP. Is this still accepted? > >> > >>nothing is confusing... suppose rahu is in SAT sign and SAT is in RP , RAH also considred as RP.always check node in with sing lord not in witch sign so you never confuse.( never consider Rahu is in Aries or scorpi sign but consider as Rahu is in MAR sign) > >> > >>> > >>>2. Again on page 123 the author mentions that if Rahu and/or Ketu > >>>are in the sign of the Lord of the Day planet then they must be > >>>considered as RP. ie. if the Prasna is on a Sunday and Ketu is > >> > >>>in Leo it will be RP. Is this still accepted? > >> > >>Yes > >> > >>> > >>>3. Assume conditions 1 and 2 exist and these are the only way > >>>that the Nodes are RPs. If Rahu or Ketu are related in some > >>>other way to another planet ie by association or aspect, are the > >>>contacted planets also considered RPs. ie. in the example 2 above > >>>Sunday prasna, Ketu in Leo becomes RP. If Ketu is conjunct > >>>say Jupiter which is not otherwise RP, does Jupiter become so > >> > >>>because of this contact? > >> > >> we consider node as a agent for other planet. now ketu is conjunct with JUP .according to aspect JUP be a RP but KET is agent of JUP(by aspect/conj,) so KET work for JUP and no need of JUP. I think it will clear your doubt. > >> > >>> > >>>Your replies will possibly enlighten us newcomers who have no > >>>idea of the ongoing changes since Prof KKs early discoveries and > >>>his initial writings. > >>> > >>>Thanks > >>> > >>> > >>>Ron Gaunt > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:31:57 -0800, you wrote: > >>> > >>>PLACE : AHMEDABAD GUJARAT :: INDIA > >>>DATE SATURDAY: 15 - 1 - 2005 > >>> : TIME: 13 H. 47 M. 0 S. > >>> > >>>Day Lord: SAT > >>> > >>>ASC 1 28 28 8 Mar Sun Mar > >>>MOON 12 7 45 38 Jup Sat Ket > >>> > >>>RAHU 1 3 43 36 Mar Ket > >>>KETU 7 3 43 36 Ven Mar > >>> > >>>RP are MAR(ASC SIGN LORD),SUN(ASC STARLORD),MAR(ASC > >>>SUBLORD),JUP(MOON SIGN LORD),SAT (MOON SATRLORD),KET(MOON SUB > >>>LORD),RAHU(AGENT OF MAR & KET). > >>> > >>>NOTE: ONLY MAR ASPECT SAT BY HIS 8TH ASPECT.BOTH ARE IN RP. > >>> > >>>So finaly RP are MAR,SUN,MAR,JUP,KET,RAHU (IF ANY PLANET IS IN > >>>SATR OF SUB OF RETRO > >>>PLANET DO NOT COUNT IN RP.IN OUR EXAMPLE RP ARE NOT IN STAR OR > >>>SUB of RETRO PLANT) > >>> > >>>regards > >>> > >>>kanak bosmia > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Do you know all the things you can do with a Hotmail account? Click here! > >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Dear Sandy Crowther, 1. Regarding Node, you may notice that what is explained in Reader III is repeated in Reader V, pp 123-124, and order of significators is a little bit different in Reader VI, p 187 and " Node is ever stronger than the lord of the sign, the planet or planets with which it is conjoined " is repeated in examples. And also explained in Astrosecrets, but there is not a loophole in KSK's rule to add. 2. Then someone said that aspect should be Western. The lovely spirit of Guruji KSK is simplification by putting rectification of birth time at the end of Reader III, taking Hindu aspects in his examples, (even though aspects are not taken much saying that 5th order significator is very weak but encouraging to study Western aspects), giving only five RPs, saying to take 30 days a month in calculation of bhukti and ayanamsa up to minute and the same one for the whole year. Now the trend looks like rectification first, Western aspects, more RPs, ayanamsa up to sec and to DOB and so on hopefully for improvement. Best regards, tw , " Sandy Crowther " <sandycrowther@a...> wrote: > > > Dear TW, > > > > Please see my comments below... > > > > All the Best, > > Sandy Crowther > > http://www.jupitersweb.com <http://www.jupitersweb.com/> > > tw853 [tw853] > Monday, January 17, 2005 7:27 PM > > Re: Ruling Planets > Dear Sandy Crowther, > > > > I do beleieve that you've already read about Rahu and Ketu in KP > > REader III, 1984, Part 1, pp 123-124 under the heading " BEHAVIOUR OF > > PLANETS " where clearly explained with priority of signification. > > > > [sandy] Thanks - Yes, I have, however (unfortunately) I have not yet had > the time to go through Readers 4, 5, and 6, and wanted to know if future > provisions had been applied in either Krishnamurti's later writings or in > other reputable KP publications. > > > > My > > posting is in Msg #1832. > > > > [sandy] Excellent -Thank you. > > > > Best regards, > > > > tw > > > > , " Sandy Crowther " > > <sandycrowther@a...> wrote: > > > Dear Anant, Kanak, and Group, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Anant.I thought so too, but was beginning to think I had > > missed > > > (big time) some " official " updates (in some publication other than > > the 6 KP > > > Readers) that were subsequently approved by the founder of KP. I was > > > (silently) thinking that if we continue to carry this " RP thing " > > much > > > further, soon we will have every single planet - to include the > > inner and > > > outer planets - designated as a RP in every prashna we draw up, and > > end up > > > with a royal mass of confusion -basically evolving into RP's being > > totally > > > useless for any type of KP delineation. :-( So we definitely need > > some > > > boundaries in place - because we appear to be bordering on > > overshooting the > > > basic and original KP parameters. > > > > > > > > > > > > When referencing the controversy with respect to Eastern aspects > > versus > > > Western aspects, I wholeheartedly agree with Kanak when he > > says " Leave this > > > metter on individual experience.some use western and some use hidu > > > aspect.all have personal experience. so discossion will going on and > > > on...... " > > > > > > Individual experience does matter when one has been studying > > astrology for > > > years and years - and once a starting point is in place, we can > > experiment > > > from there as to what works for each of us as individual > > astrologers. One of > > > the most intellectually appealing reasons for me, to have even > > initially > > > made the decision to study KP to begin with, was the fact that KP > > seems to > > > have taken the best of both the east and the west, and synthesized > > a few of > > > the better techniques to create a system that poo poos neither > > eastern or > > > western systems of astrology, but integrates the best of both > > worlds. > > > > > > > > > > > > One more thing - I think another basic confusion for KP newcomers > > is in > > > determining and understanding the role of the nodes.such as under > > what > > > specific conditions they are designated as " agents " for the > > planets - > > > whether for the RP's or simply for chart delineation. Could one of > > the > > > Senior list members comment on this, listing exactly what > > conditions must be > > > in place for the nodes to act as agents/replacements for the > > planets - (or > > > when they will not act as agents)? I thought I was absolutely clear > > on this, > > > but now I'm not so sure after reading some of the discussions and > > the > > > opinions of others when they delineate charts. Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > All the Best, > > > > > > Sandy Crowther > > > > > > http://www.jupitersweb.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anant raichur [anant_1608] > > > Monday, January 17, 2005 11:16 AM > > > > > > Re: Re: Ruling Planets > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Friends > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe we are drifting into discusions by trying to EXPAND the > > definition > > > of Ruling Planets, by including Sub Lors, Planets by Aspects etc. > > Late Prof > > > KSK gave only 5 R.P.S > > > > > > 1. Day Lord> 2. Sign Lord of Moon: 3. Star Lord of Moon > > > 4. Sign Lord of Asc. 5 Star Lord of asc. > > > > > > He also stated that these are in Reverse Order of Strength. > > > > > > Further Rahu ketu were to be include in the List, if they were in > > the Signs > > > of these RPS. Actually being Stronger, they would replav > > > > > > ce the Planes, in whose sign they are. So there will be only 5 or > > less RPS. > > > > > > > > > > > > Other authours have extended this original classificatio., probably > > to > > > justify the results of one or two cases they were studying . > > > > > > > > > > > > Prof KSK had warned that an astrologer May be wrong, but not the > > Science. > > > So unless there is sufficient data and reserch to prove that > > original > > > definition has to enlarged, I believe it would not be correct to > > chane it. > > > > > > good luck > > > > > > t > > > > > > > > > Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Ron, > > > > > > Same starlord same sublord...to be more precise,it > > could be in > > > a different sign...! I had presumed you would gather that... > > > > > > lyrastro1 > > > > > > raju bokaariya tel 0912442-222802 <bokaariya@s...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > " rongaunt " <rongaunt@b...> > > > > > > Monday, January 17, 2005 12:37 PM > > > Re: Re: Ruling Planets > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Yogesh, > > > > > > > > Please see question ** .................... ** > > > > > > > > Ron Gaunt > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:47:50 +0000, you wrote: > > > > > > > > >Dear Ron, > > > > > Same star and same sub....please...! > > > > > lyrastro1. > > > > > > > > ** Isn't this the same as being a close conjunction > > > > or close trine?. If so this then would come under > > > > creation of RP by aspect. ** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >anant raichur <anant_1608> wrote: > > > > >Dear Rongaaunt > > > > >In Hindoo Aspects there are no ORBS. Only signs are considered. > > > > > > > > > >rongaunt <rongaunt@b...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Dear Yogesh and Kanak, et al, > > > > > > > > > >Kanak, > > > > > > > > > >I was wondering again about the question of aspects of RPs. If > > > > >using Hindu rather than Western aspects what spread do you > > > > >observe? Traditional Hindu aspect covers the whole sign but I > > > > >suspect using this method, with all the aspects from all the > > > > >planets and nodes that all or practically all the planets would > > > > >become RPs. Do you limit the orb of the Hindu aspects? > > > > > > > > > >Yogesh, > > > > > > > > > >You state: ' a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an > > > > >RP,could also " create " another RP...in my experience...' > > > > >Must it be in BOTH ie. Star AND Sub, or either on their own? > > > > > > > > > >Ron Gaunt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:58:52 +0000, you wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>Dears Kanak & Ron, > > > > >> Allow me to add that in recent times the sublords of the > > Ascendant and > > > the Moon are also being included as Ruling Planets... > > > > >> In my experience,atleast so far, I have found both these > > sublords, > > > quite useful,many a time,especially in horary astrology... > > > > >> Aspects,rapt conjunctions and also,a planet being posited in > > same star > > > and sub,of an RP,could also " create " another RP...in my > > experience... > > > > >> Yours sincerely, > > > > >> lyrastro1 > > > > >> GOOD LUCK ! > > > > >> > > > > >>Kanakkumar Bosmia wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>Dear Ron ji, > > > > >> > > > > >>My coments in Bold Red Letter..... > > > > >> > > > > >>Regards > > > > >> > > > > >>kanak bosmia > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>>rongaunt > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Re: Re: Ruling Planets > > > > >>>Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:24:25 +1000 > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Kanak, > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Many thanks for this example. Just a comment and a few > > > > >>>questions. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>I initially wrote on RPs after seeing the inconsistent way they > > > > >>>were applied in the books. I have since gone back to basics > > > > >>>and looked for information from the Source ie Prof KK. In the > > > > >>>6th Reader page 123 and again on page 126 the author does not > > > > >>>include Subs as RPs. However, in later examples he does include > > > > >>>them. As you also include them I presume this is now the > > > > >>>accepted way. Is this correct or is there any division between > > > > >> > > > > >>>KP astrologers on this? > > > > >> > > > > >>All kp astreologer include up to sub. > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Your comment on Mars aspect to Saturn suggests that aspects of > > > > >> > > > > >>>a RP also creates other RPs. Is this correct? > > > > >> > > > > >>Yes > > > > >> > > > > >> If so what > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>>aspects do you use - Western by Degree, or Hindu by Sign? > > > > >> > > > > >>Yes Hindu sign ( in my early stage i count both but i found > > that hindu > > > aspect work better then western) > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>You note in the example that Rahu is agent of Ketu. Is this > > > > >> > > > > >>>because Rahu is in Ketu Star? > > > > >> > > > > >>Yes > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>You do not appear to have used Saturn (Day Lord) as RP - but > > have > > > > >>>included it as Star Lord of the Moon. Is this a deliberate > > > > >>>omission - ie. not being considered? Or is it not included > > > > >>>because it is included as RP Star Lord of the Moon? > > > > >> > > > > >>DL also consider but due to avoid of repetition of SAT i dont > > mention. > > > > >> > > > > >>>Three questions unrelated to your example: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>1. On page 123 of the 6th Reader it states that if the Lord of > > > > >>>the rising sign owns two houses and either Rahu or Ketu were > > > > >>>to be found in EITHER of these signs the Node must be > > considered > > > > >> > > > > >>>as RP. Is this still accepted? > > > > >> > > > > >>nothing is confusing... suppose rahu is in SAT sign and SAT is > > in RP , > > > RAH also considred as RP.always check node in with sing lord not in > > witch > > > sign so you never confuse.( never consider Rahu is in Aries or > > scorpi sign > > > but consider as Rahu is in MAR sign) > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>2. Again on page 123 the author mentions that if Rahu and/or > > Ketu > > > > >>>are in the sign of the Lord of the Day planet then they must be > > > > >>>considered as RP. ie. if the Prasna is on a Sunday and Ketu is > > > > >> > > > > >>>in Leo it will be RP. Is this still accepted? > > > > >> > > > > >>Yes > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>3. Assume conditions 1 and 2 exist and these are the only way > > > > >>>that the Nodes are RPs. If Rahu or Ketu are related in some > > > > >>>other way to another planet ie by association or aspect, are > > the > > > > >>>contacted planets also considered RPs. ie. in the example 2 > > above > > > > >>>Sunday prasna, Ketu in Leo becomes RP. If Ketu is conjunct > > > > >>>say Jupiter which is not otherwise RP, does Jupiter become so > > > > >> > > > > >>>because of this contact? > > > > >> > > > > >> we consider node as a agent for other planet. now ketu is > > conjunct with > > > JUP .according to aspect JUP be a RP but KET is agent of JUP(by > > > aspect/conj,) so KET work for JUP and no need of JUP. I think it > > will clear > > > your doubt. > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Your replies will possibly enlighten us newcomers who have no > > > > >>>idea of the ongoing changes since Prof KKs early discoveries > > and > > > > >>>his initial writings. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Thanks > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Ron Gaunt > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> >On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:31:57 -0800, you wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>PLACE : AHMEDABAD GUJARAT :: INDIA > > > > >>>DATE SATURDAY: 15 - 1 - 2005 > > > > >>> : TIME: 13 H. 47 M. 0 S. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Day Lord: SAT > > > > >>> > > > > >>>ASC 1 28 28 8 Mar Sun Mar > > > > >>>MOON 12 7 45 38 Jup Sat Ket > > > > >>> > > > > >>>RAHU 1 3 43 36 Mar Ket > > > > >>>KETU 7 3 43 36 Ven Mar > > > > >>> > > > > >>>RP are MAR(ASC SIGN LORD),SUN(ASC STARLORD),MAR(ASC > > > > >>>SUBLORD),JUP(MOON SIGN LORD),SAT (MOON SATRLORD),KET(MOON SUB > > > > >>>LORD),RAHU(AGENT OF MAR & KET). > > > > >>> > > > > >>>NOTE: ONLY MAR ASPECT SAT BY HIS 8TH ASPECT.BOTH ARE IN RP. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>So finaly RP are MAR,SUN,MAR,JUP,KET,RAHU (IF ANY PLANET IS IN > > > > >>>SATR OF SUB OF RETRO > > > > >>>PLANET DO NOT COUNT IN RP.IN OUR EXAMPLE RP ARE NOT IN STAR OR > > > > >>>SUB of RETRO PLANT) > > > > >>> > > > > >>>regards > > > > >>> > > > > >>>kanak bosmia > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>Do you know all the things you can do with a Hotmail account? > > Click > > > here! > > > > >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 Dear Sandy, Thanks for the compliment...but there is a small correction please... The correct sentence is : "...and those RPs who are themselves retrograde,and posited in stars and subs...who are also both, retrograde,should be rejected outright..." Truly I am already seeing you blossom into an expert KP astrologer...and soon...! With the very best wishes, lyrastro1 GOOD LUCK !Sandy Crowther <sandycrowther wrote: Dear Yogesh Rao Lajmi, Great post! Yes, you have been most helpful. Thanks for giving such a lucid and elaborate explanation. You have fully answered my question to my satisfaction - and then some. J (I also appreciate the added little KP tidbits you provided.) All the Best, Sandy Crowther http://www.jupitersweb.com Yogesh Rao Lajmi [lyrastro1] Tuesday, January 18, 2005 1:14 AM Subject: RE: Re: Ruling Planets Dear Sandy, I hope to be able to answer ur query,on nodes,to your satisfaction ... 1) The nodes are always stronger than the planet they represent/officiate for... 2) The nodes always represent a planet in whose sign they are posited, 3) The nodes also represent the planets with whom they conjunct with,and powerfully aspect...in that order... 4) The nodes can substitute any planet,in whose star and sub,they are posited ...eg.,if Rahu is in Mars star Mars sub, Rahu completely represnts Mars... 5) The node is always the stronger...! I hope,I have been able to answer your query fully... Also,simply computing the RPs is not enough,among them ONLY those who are posited in the subs of the strong significators of the houses relevant/or the Karaka planet will prove to be fruitful significators...and those RPs who are retrograde themselves and also posited in retrograde subs should be rejected outright... Thus,Sandy,if the significators are very carefully zeroed-in upon,and checked for their star and sub positions,timing of events rarely go awry...A cool,calm and stepwise approach will alone help,and will not lead to any confusion at all,I hasten to assure you... For unparallelled accuracy in timing of events,after the significatirs are correctly selected,find out the probable dasa period of the ETF(expected time of fructification),then pin-point the event by Transit... This again is not as "tricky" as it seems...again,proceed in a cool and calm way,mark out the 3 points which are ruling the sign-lord,star -lord and sub-lord ...corresponding to the dasa lord,bhukti-lord and anthara-lord...then,find out in which sign the sublord of the XIth cusp sublord,is posited...and select the sensitive point for the transit consideration accordingly,as given in K.P. Readers very clearly...in moveable,fixed and common sign etc... In this way,dear Sandy,you will surprise yourself and your consultant with your accuracy... Yes,and a fair amount of practice will surely a long way...! Am awaiting the,soon-to-come-day ,when Sandy Crowther will emerge as "the most accurate astrologer in Europe"...! ! ! With best wishes, lyrastro1 GOOD LUCK ! Sandy Crowther <sandycrowther wrote: Dear Anant, Kanak, and Group, Thank you Anant…I thought so too, but was beginning to think I had missed (big time) some “official” updates (in some publication other than the 6 KP Readers) that were subsequently approved by the founder of KP. I was (silently) thinking that if we continue to carry this “RP thing” much further, soon we will have every single planet – to include the inner and outer planets – designated as a RP in every prashna we draw up, and end up with a royal mass of confusion –basically evolving into RP’s being totally useless for any type of KP delineation. L So we definitely need some boundaries in place – because we appear to be bordering on overshooting the basic and original KP parameters. When referencing the controversy with respect to Eastern aspects versus Western aspects, I wholeheartedly agree with Kanak when he says “Leave this metter on individual experience.some use western and some use hidu aspect.all have personal experience. so discossion will going on and on......” Individual experience does matter when one has been studying astrology for years and years – and once a starting point is in place, we can experiment from there as to what works for each of us as individual astrologers. One of the most intellectually appealing reasons for me, to have even initially made the decision to study KP to begin with, was the fact that KP seems to have taken the best of both the east and the west, and synthesized a few of the better techniques to create a system that poo poos neither eastern or western systems of astrology, but integrates the best of both worlds. One more thing - I think another basic confusion for KP newcomers is in determining and understanding the role of the nodes…such as under what specific conditions they are designated as “agents” for the planets – whether for the RP’s or simply for chart delineation. Could one of the Senior list members comment on this, listing exactly what conditions must be in place for the nodes to act as agents/replacements for the planets – (or when they will not act as agents)? I thought I was absolutely clear on this, but now I’m not so sure after reading some of the discussions and the opinions of others when they delineate charts… Thanks. All the Best, Sandy Crowther http://www.jupitersweb.com anant raichur [anant_1608] Monday, January 17, 2005 11:16 AM Subject: Re: Re: Ruling Planets Dear Friends I believe we are drifting into discusions by trying to EXPAND the definition of Ruling Planets, by including Sub Lors, Planets by Aspects etc. Late Prof KSK gave only 5 R.P.S 1. Day Lord> 2. Sign Lord of Moon: 3. Star Lord of Moon4. Sign Lord of Asc. 5 Star Lord of asc. He also stated that these are in Reverse Order of Strength. Further Rahu ketu were to be include in the List, if they were in the Signs of these RPS. Actually being Stronger, they would replav ce the Planes, in whose sign they are. So there will be only 5 or less RPS. Other authours have extended this original classificatio., probably to justify the results of one or two cases they were studying . Prof KSK had warned that an astrologer May be wrong, but not the Science. So unless there is sufficient data and reserch to prove that original definition has to enlarged, I believe it would not be correct to chane it. good luck t Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1 wrote: Dear Ron, Same starlord same sublord...to be more precise,it could be in a different sign...! I had presumed you would gather that... lyrastro1raju bokaariya tel 0912442-222802 <bokaariya wrote: -"rongaunt" <rongauntMonday, January 17, 2005 12:37 PMRe: Re: Ruling Planets>>> Dear Yogesh,>> Please see question ** .................... **>> Ron Gaunt>>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:47:50 +0000, you wrote:>> >Dear Ron,> > Same star and same sub....please...!> > lyrastro1.>> ** Isn't this the same as being a close conjunction> or close trine?. If so this then would come under> creation of RP by aspect. **>>> >> >anant raichur <anant_1608 wrote:> >Dear Rongaaunt> >In Hindoo Aspects there are no ORBS. Only signs are considered.> >> >rongaunt <rongaunt wrote:> >> >> >Dear Yogesh and Kanak, et al,> >> >Kanak,> >> >I was wondering again about the question of aspects of RPs. If> >using Hindu rather than Western aspects what spread do you> >observe? Traditional Hindu aspect covers the whole sign but I> >suspect using this method, with all the aspects from all the> >planets and nodes that all or practically all the planets would> >become RPs. Do you limit the orb of the Hindu aspects?> >> >Yogesh,> >> >You state: ' a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an> >RP,could also "create" another RP...in my experience...'> >Must it be in BOTH ie. Star AND Sub, or either on their own?> >> >Ron Gaunt> >> >> >>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:58:52 +0000, you wrote:> >> >>Dears Kanak & Ron,> >> Allow me to add that in recent times the sublords of the Ascendant andthe Moon are also being included as Ruling Planets...> >> In my experience,atleast so far, I have found both these sublords,quite useful,many a time,especially in horary astrology...> >> Aspects,rapt conjunctions and also,a planet being posited in same starand sub,of an RP,could also "create" another RP...in my experience...> >> Yours sincerely,> >> lyrastro1> >> GOOD LUCK !> >>> >>Kanakkumar Bosmia wrote:> >>> >>Dear Ron ji,> >>> >>My coments in Bold Red Letter.....> >>> >>Regards> >>> >>kanak bosmia> >>> >>> >>>rongaunt> >>> > >>> > >>>Re: Re: Ruling Planets> >>>Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:24:25 +1000> >>>> >>>> >>>Kanak,> >>>> >>>Many thanks for this example. Just a comment and a few> >>>questions.> >>>> >>>I initially wrote on RPs after seeing the inconsistent way they> >>>were applied in the books. I have since gone back to basics> >>>and looked for information from the Source ie Prof KK. In the> >>>6th Reader page 123 and again on page 126 the author does not> >>>include Subs as RPs. However, in later examples he does include> >>>them. As you also include them I presume this is now the> >>>accepted way. Is this correct or is there any division between> >>> >>>KP astrologers on this?> >>> >>All kp astreologer include up to sub.> >>> >>>> >>>Your comment on Mars aspect to Saturn suggests that aspects of> >>> >>>a RP also creates other RPs. Is this correct?> >>> >>Yes> >>> >> If so what> >>> >>> >>>aspects do you use - Western by Degree, or Hindu by Sign?> >>> >>Yes Hindu sign ( in my early stage i count both but i found that hinduaspect work better then western)> >>> >>>> >>>You note in the example that Rahu is agent of Ketu. Is this> >>> >>>because Rahu is in Ketu Star?> >>> >>Yes> >>> >>>> >>>You do not appear to have used Saturn (Day Lord) as RP - but have> >>>included it as Star Lord of the Moon. Is this a deliberate> >>>omission - ie. not being considered? Or is it not included> >>>because it is included as RP Star Lord of the Moon?> >>> >>DL also consider but due to avoid of repetition of SAT i dont mention.> >>> >>>Three questions unrelated to your example:> >>>> >>>1. On page 123 of the 6th Reader it states that if the Lord of> >>>the rising sign owns two houses and either Rahu or Ketu were> >>>to be found in EITHER of these signs the Node must be considered> >>> >>>as RP. Is this still accepted?> >>> >>nothing is confusing... suppose rahu is in SAT sign and SAT is in RP ,RAH also considred as RP.always check node in with sing lord not in witchsign so you never confuse.( never consider Rahu is in Aries or scorpi signbut consider as Rahu is in MAR sign)> >>> >>>> >>>2. Again on page 123 the author mentions that if Rahu and/or Ketu> >>>are in the sign of the Lord of the Day planet then they must be> >>>considered as RP. ie. if the Prasna is on a Sunday and Ketu is> >>> >>>in Leo it will be RP. Is this still accepted?> >>> >>Yes> >>> >>>> >>>3. Assume conditions 1 and 2 exist and these are the only way> >>>that the Nodes are RPs. If Rahu or Ketu are related in some> >>>other way to another planet ie by association or aspect, are the> >>>contacted planets also considered RPs. ie. in the example 2 above> >>>Sunday prasna, Ketu in Leo becomes RP. If Ketu is conjunct> >>>say Jupiter which is not otherwise RP, does Jupiter become so> >>> >>>because of this contact?> >>> >> we consider node as a agent for other planet. now ketu is conjunct withJUP .according to aspect JUP be a RP but KET is agent of JUP(byaspect/conj,) so KET work for JUP and no need of JUP. I think it will clearyour doubt.> >>> >>>> >>>Your replies will possibly enlighten us newcomers who have no> >>>idea of the ongoing changes since Prof KKs early discoveries and> >>>his initial writings.> >>>> >>>Thanks> >>>> >>>> >>>Ron Gaunt> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:31:57 -0800, you wrote:> >>>> >>>PLACE : AHMEDABAD GUJARAT :: INDIA> >>>DATE SATURDAY: 15 - 1 - 2005> >>> : TIME: 13 H. 47 M. 0 S.> >>>> >>>Day Lord: SAT> >>>> >>>ASC 1 28 28 8 Mar Sun Mar> >>>MOON 12 7 45 38 Jup Sat Ket> >>>> >>>RAHU 1 3 43 36 Mar Ket> >>>KETU 7 3 43 36 Ven Mar> >>>> >>>RP are MAR(ASC SIGN LORD),SUN(ASC STARLORD),MAR(ASC> >>>SUBLORD),JUP(MOON SIGN LORD),SAT (MOON SATRLORD),KET(MOON SUB> >>>LORD),RAHU(AGENT OF MAR & KET).> >>>> >>>NOTE: ONLY MAR ASPECT SAT BY HIS 8TH ASPECT.BOTH ARE IN RP.> >>>> >>>So finaly RP are MAR,SUN,MAR,JUP,KET,RAHU (IF ANY PLANET IS IN> >>>SATR OF SUB OF RETRO> >>>PLANET DO NOT COUNT IN RP.IN OUR EXAMPLE RP ARE NOT IN STAR OR> >>>SUB of RETRO PLANT)> >>>> >>>regards> >>>> >>>kanak bosmia> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Do you know all the things you can do with a Hotmail account? Clickhere!> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 De4ar List Nagesh's remarks. There are very very few persons who will write and publish an article, unless the prediction has proved correct. In such cases a failed prediction iis a better way to study the rules ? Why did it Fail ?Vizkid <nd44130 wrote: Dear Sandy,I think its going to be 'challenging' to come up withclear cut rules for RP's let alone the nodes. The reason behind thisis that I was fortunate to look into some older KP magazines few yearsback; Most of them used Prof K.P's fundamentals as basis and thenbuilt their theory to prove their case.Regards,Nagesh , "Sandy Crowther"wrote:> Dear Anant, Kanak, and Group,> > > > Thank you Anant.I thought so too, but was beginning to think I hadmissed> (big time) some "official" updates (in some publication other thanthe 6 KP> Readers) that were subsequently approved by the founder of KP. I was> (silently) thinking that if we continue to carry this "RP thing" much> further, soon we will have every single planet - to include theinner and> outer planets - designated as a RP in every prashna we draw up, andend up> with a royal mass of confusion -basically evolving into RP's beingtotally> useless for any type of KP delineation. :-( So we definitely need some> boundaries in place - because we appear to be bordering onovershooting the> basic and original KP parameters. > > > > When referencing the controversy with respect to Eastern aspects versus> Western aspects, I wholeheartedly agree with Kanak when he says"Leave this> metter on individual experience.some use western and some use hidu> aspect.all have personal experience. so discossion will going on and> on......"> > Individual experience does matter when one has been studyingastrology for> years and years - and once a starting point is in place, we canexperiment> from there as to what works for each of us as individualastrologers. One of> the most intellectually appealing reasons for me, to have even initially> made the decision to study KP to begin with, was the fact that KPseems to> have taken the best of both the east and the west, and synthesized afew of> the better techniques to create a system that poo poos neithereastern or> western systems of astrology, but integrates the best of both worlds.> > > > One more thing - I think another basic confusion for KP newcomers is in> determining and understanding the role of the nodes.such as under what> specific conditions they are designated as "agents" for the planets -> whether for the RP's or simply for chart delineation. Could one of the> Senior list members comment on this, listing exactly what conditionsmust be> in place for the nodes to act as agents/replacements for the planets- (or> when they will not act as agents)? I thought I was absolutely clearon this,> but now I'm not so sure after reading some of the discussions and the> opinions of others when they delineate charts. Thanks.> > > > All the Best,> > Sandy Crowther> > http://www.jupitersweb.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anant raichur [anant_1608] > Monday, January 17, 2005 11:16 AM> > Re: Re: Ruling Planets> > > > Dear Friends> > > > I believe we are drifting into discusions by trying to EXPAND thedefinition> of Ruling Planets, by including Sub Lors, Planets by Aspects etc. Late Prof> KSK gave only 5 R.P.S > > 1. Day Lord> 2. Sign Lord of Moon: 3. Star Lord of Moon> 4. Sign Lord of Asc. 5 Star Lord of asc. > > He also stated that these are in Reverse Order of Strength. > > Further Rahu ketu were to be include in the List, if they were inthe Signs> of these RPS. Actually being Stronger, they would replav> > ce the Planes, in whose sign they are. So there will be only 5 orless RPS.> > > > Other authours have extended this original classificatio., probably to> justify the results of one or two cases they were studying .> > > > Prof KSK had warned that an astrologer May be wrong, but not theScience.> So unless there is sufficient data and reserch to prove that original> definition has to enlarged, I believe it would not be correct tochane it.> > good luck> > t> > > Yogesh Rao Lajmi wrote:> > Dear Ron,> > Same starlord same sublord...to be more precise,itcould be in> a different sign...! I had presumed you would gather that...> > lyrastro1> > raju bokaariya tel 0912442-222802 wrote:> > > -> "rongaunt" > > Monday, January 17, 2005 12:37 PM> Re: Re: Ruling Planets> > > >> >> > Dear Yogesh,> >> > Please see question ** .................... **> >> > Ron Gaunt> >> >> > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:47:50 +0000, you wrote:> >> > >Dear Ron,> > > Same star and same sub....please...!> > > lyrastro1.> >> > ** Isn't this the same as being a close conjunction> > or close trine?. If so this then would come under> > creation of RP by aspect. **> >> >> > >> > >anant raichur wrote:> > >Dear Rongaaunt> > >In Hindoo Aspects there are no ORBS. Only signs are considered.> > >> > >rongaunt wrote:> > >> > >> > >Dear Yogesh and Kanak, et al,> > >> > >Kanak,> > >> > >I was wondering again about the question of aspects of RPs. If> > >using Hindu rather than Western aspects what spread do you> > >observe? Traditional Hindu aspect covers the whole sign but I> > >suspect using this method, with all the aspects from all the> > >planets and nodes that all or practically all the planets would> > >become RPs. Do you limit the orb of the Hindu aspects?> > >> > >Yogesh,> > >> > >You state: ' a planet being posited in same star and sub,of an> > >RP,could also "create" another RP...in my experience...'> > >Must it be in BOTH ie. Star AND Sub, or either on their own?> > >> > >Ron Gaunt> > >> > >> > >>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:58:52 +0000, you wrote:> > >> > >>Dears Kanak & Ron,> > >> Allow me to add that in recent times the sublords of theAscendant and> the Moon are also being included as Ruling Planets...> > >> In my experience,atleast so far, I have found both these sublords,> quite useful,many a time,especially in horary astrology...> > >> Aspects,rapt conjunctions and also,a planet being posited insame star> and sub,of an RP,could also "create" another RP...in my experience...> > >> Yours sincerely,> > >> lyrastro1> > >> GOOD LUCK !> > >>> > >>Kanakkumar Bosmia wrote:> > >>> > >>Dear Ron ji,> > >>> > >>My coments in Bold Red Letter.....> > >>> > >>Regards> > >>> > >>kanak bosmia> > >>> > >>> > >>>rongaunt> > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Re: Re: Ruling Planets> > >>>Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:24:25 +1000> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>Kanak,> > >>>> > >>>Many thanks for this example. Just a comment and a few> > >>>questions.> > >>>> > >>>I initially wrote on RPs after seeing the inconsistent way they> > >>>were applied in the books. I have since gone back to basics> > >>>and looked for information from the Source ie Prof KK. In the> > >>>6th Reader page 123 and again on page 126 the author does not> > >>>include Subs as RPs. However, in later examples he does include> > >>>them. As you also include them I presume this is now the> > >>>accepted way. Is this correct or is there any division between> > >>> > >>>KP astrologers on this?> > >>> > >>All kp astreologer include up to sub.> > >>> > >>>> > >>>Your comment on Mars aspect to Saturn suggests that aspects of> > >>> > >>>a RP also creates other RPs. Is this correct?> > >>> > >>Yes> > >>> > >> If so what> > >>> > >>> > >>>aspects do you use - Western by Degree, or Hindu by Sign?> > >>> > >>Yes Hindu sign ( in my early stage i count both but i found thathindu> aspect work better then western)> > >>> > >>>> > >>>You note in the example that Rahu is agent of Ketu. Is this> > >>> > >>>because Rahu is in Ketu Star?> > >>> > >>Yes> > >>> > >>>> > >>>You do not appear to have used Saturn (Day Lord) as RP - but have> > >>>included it as Star Lord of the Moon. Is this a deliberate> > >>>omission - ie. not being considered? Or is it not included> > >>>because it is included as RP Star Lord of the Moon?> > >>> > >>DL also consider but due to avoid of repetition of SAT i dontmention.> > >>> > >>>Three questions unrelated to your example:> > >>>> > >>>1. On page 123 of the 6th Reader it states that if the Lord of> > >>>the rising sign owns two houses and either Rahu or Ketu were> > >>>to be found in EITHER of these signs the Node must be considered> > >>> > >>>as RP. Is this still accepted?> > >>> > >>nothing is confusing... suppose rahu is in SAT sign and SAT isin RP ,> RAH also considred as RP.always check node in with sing lord not inwitch> sign so you never confuse.( never consider Rahu is in Aries orscorpi sign> but consider as Rahu is in MAR sign)> > >>> > >>>> > >>>2. Again on page 123 the author mentions that if Rahu and/or Ketu> > >>>are in the sign of the Lord of the Day planet then they must be> > >>>considered as RP. ie. if the Prasna is on a Sunday and Ketu is> > >>> > >>>in Leo it will be RP. Is this still accepted?> > >>> > >>Yes> > >>> > >>>> > >>>3. Assume conditions 1 and 2 exist and these are the only way> > >>>that the Nodes are RPs. If Rahu or Ketu are related in some> > >>>other way to another planet ie by association or aspect, are the> > >>>contacted planets also considered RPs. ie. in the example 2 above> > >>>Sunday prasna, Ketu in Leo becomes RP. If Ketu is conjunct> > >>>say Jupiter which is not otherwise RP, does Jupiter become so> > >>> > >>>because of this contact?> > >>> > >> we consider node as a agent for other planet. now ketu isconjunct with> JUP .according to aspect JUP be a RP but KET is agent of JUP(by> aspect/conj,) so KET work for JUP and no need of JUP. I think itwill clear> your doubt.> > >>> > >>>> > >>>Your replies will possibly enlighten us newcomers who have no> > >>>idea of the ongoing changes since Prof KKs early discoveries and> > >>>his initial writings.> > >>>> > >>>Thanks> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>Ron Gaunt> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> >On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:31:57 -0800, you wrote:> > >>>> > >>>PLACE : AHMEDABAD GUJARAT :: INDIA> > >>>DATE SATURDAY: 15 - 1 - 2005> > >>> : TIME: 13 H. 47 M. 0 S.> > >>>> > >>>Day Lord: SAT> > >>>> > >>>ASC 1 28 28 8 Mar Sun Mar> > >>>MOON 12 7 45 38 Jup Sat Ket> > >>>> > >>>RAHU 1 3 43 36 Mar Ket> > >>>KETU 7 3 43 36 Ven Mar> > >>>> > >>>RP are MAR(ASC SIGN LORD),SUN(ASC STARLORD),MAR(ASC> > >>>SUBLORD),JUP(MOON SIGN LORD),SAT (MOON SATRLORD),KET(MOON SUB> > >>>LORD),RAHU(AGENT OF MAR & KET).> > >>>> > >>>NOTE: ONLY MAR ASPECT SAT BY HIS 8TH ASPECT.BOTH ARE IN RP.> > >>>> > >>>So finaly RP are MAR,SUN,MAR,JUP,KET,RAHU (IF ANY PLANET IS IN> > >>>SATR OF SUB OF RETRO> > >>>PLANET DO NOT COUNT IN RP.IN OUR EXAMPLE RP ARE NOT IN STAR OR> > >>>SUB of RETRO PLANT)> > >>>> > >>>regards> > >>>> > >>>kanak bosmia> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>Do you know all the things you can do with a Hotmail account? Click> here!> > >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.