Guest guest Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 dear tw ji, any reference of KSK for point no.3? or it is used by vaikary rammurty. -sunil gondhalekar On 2/27/08, tw853 <tw853 wrote: Dear Friends,1. The 'rule taking the results of its sub ONLY, if a planet is in its own star' is NOT KP.2. Because as per KP 'a planet in its own star strongly gives the results of the house occupied and the empty house(s) owned by that planet'. Neglecting these house significators is NOT KP.3. In the 'rule taking the houses for whose cusps a planet is the sub lord as the strong significators, if a planet has no planet in its star', the strong significators of the relevant cusps are taken 'in addition to' the signifcators of 'the house occupied and the empty house(s) owned by that planet'. 4. Asrology is not monopoly and applying the rule in point 1 is up to the preference of an astrologer. Here the point is that 'it is NOT KP.' Regards,tw , sandeep patel <sandeeppatel21 wrote:>> To put the record straight, this is not my rule. I came across this rule in the books of Shri Suresh Shahasane. I have read two of his books; Krishnamurti Jyotish Rahasya (published in 1992) and Krishnamurti Jyotish Ved (published in 2007). Both the books are in Marathi. The first one is seminal work on the Krishnamurti Paddhati. In my opinion, it is virtually a compendium of the KP system.> In the final analysis, proof of the pudding is in the eating. The method which I follow when I come across something new is to try it out. If it works, that is, if it gives good results, I adopt it. And if it doesn't work, I discard it. And in my limited experience I have found that this rule works perfectly.> Regards,> Sandeep > > > > Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 Dear sunil gondhalekar ji, As mentioned in Msg#16626, Rule-3 has been found introduced in KP & Astrology 2001 article and then commonly applied in 2002, 2004, 2005 & 2006 articles, Msg#2695 & 2697, and KPE-Zine 2007 Feb (www.loger.com) by Shri Kuppu Ganapathi, who swears only KP, and also widely applied by others such as Prof. Vaikari Ramamurthy in KPE-Zine 2007 Feb, Kanak Bosmia in Msg#8071 & 10298 and KPE-Zine with successful results. Regards, tw , " sunil gondhalekar " <sunilalaka wrote: > > dear tw ji, > any reference of KSK for point no.3? > or it is used by vaikary rammurty. > -sunil gondhalekar > > > On 2/27/08, tw853 <tw853 wrote: > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > 1. The 'rule taking the results of its sub ONLY, if a planet is in > > its own star' is NOT KP. > > > > 2. Because as per KP 'a planet in its own star strongly gives the > > results of the house occupied and the empty house(s) owned by that > > planet'. Neglecting these house significators is NOT KP. > > > > 3. In the 'rule taking the houses for whose cusps a planet is the > > sub lord as the strong significators, if a planet has no planet in > > its star', the strong significators of the relevant cusps are > > taken 'in addition to' the signifcators of 'the house occupied and > > the empty house(s) owned by that planet'. > > > > 4. Asrology is not monopoly and applying the rule in point 1 is up > > to the preference of an astrologer. Here the point is that 'it is > > NOT KP.' > > > > Regards, > > > > tw > > > > > > <% 40>, sandeep > > patel > > <sandeeppatel21@> wrote: > > > > > > To put the record straight, this is not my rule. I came across > > this rule in the books of Shri Suresh Shahasane. I have read two of > > his books; Krishnamurti Jyotish Rahasya (published in 1992) and > > Krishnamurti Jyotish Ved (published in 2007). Both the books are in > > Marathi. The first one is seminal work on the Krishnamurti Paddhati. > > In my opinion, it is virtually a compendium of the KP system. > > > In the final analysis, proof of the pudding is in the eating. > > The method which I follow when I come across something new is to try > > it out. If it works, that is, if it gives good results, I adopt it. > > And if it doesn't work, I discard it. And in my limited experience I > > have found that this rule works perfectly. > > > Regards, > > > Sandeep > > > > > > > > > > > > Never miss a thing. Make your homepage. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2008 Report Share Posted February 28, 2008 dear tw ji, that means rule is not specified by KSK but widely used by the welknown astrologers. thanks for information -sunil gondhalekar On 2/27/08, tw853 <tw853 wrote: Dear sunil gondhalekar ji,As mentioned in Msg#16626, Rule-3 has been found introduced in KP & Astrology 2001 article and then commonly applied in 2002, 2004, 2005 & 2006 articles, Msg#2695 & 2697, and KPE-Zine 2007 Feb (www.loger.com) by Shri Kuppu Ganapathi, who swears only KP, and also widely applied by others such as Prof. Vaikari Ramamurthy in KPE-Zine 2007 Feb, Kanak Bosmia in Msg#8071 & 10298 and KPE-Zine with successful results.Regards,tw , " sunil gondhalekar " <sunilalaka wrote:>> dear tw ji,> any reference of KSK for point no.3?> or it is used by vaikary rammurty.> -sunil gondhalekar> > > On 2/27/08, tw853 <tw853 wrote: > >> > Dear Friends,> >> > 1. The 'rule taking the results of its sub ONLY, if a planet is in> > its own star' is NOT KP.> >> > 2. Because as per KP 'a planet in its own star strongly gives the > > results of the house occupied and the empty house(s) owned by that> > planet'. Neglecting these house significators is NOT KP.> >> > 3. In the 'rule taking the houses for whose cusps a planet is the > > sub lord as the strong significators, if a planet has no planet in> > its star', the strong significators of the relevant cusps are> > taken 'in addition to' the signifcators of 'the house occupied and> > the empty house(s) owned by that planet'.> >> > 4. Asrology is not monopoly and applying the rule in point 1 is up> > to the preference of an astrologer. Here the point is that 'it is > > NOT KP.'> >> > Regards,> >> > tw> >> >> > <% 40>, sandeep> > patel> > <sandeeppatel21@> wrote: > > >> > > To put the record straight, this is not my rule. I came across> > this rule in the books of Shri Suresh Shahasane. I have read two of> > his books; Krishnamurti Jyotish Rahasya (published in 1992) and > > Krishnamurti Jyotish Ved (published in 2007). Both the books are in> > Marathi. The first one is seminal work on the Krishnamurti Paddhati.> > In my opinion, it is virtually a compendium of the KP system. > > > In the final analysis, proof of the pudding is in the eating.> > The method which I follow when I come across something new is to try> > it out. If it works, that is, if it gives good results, I adopt it.> > And if it doesn't work, I discard it. And in my limited experience I> > have found that this rule works perfectly.> > > Regards,> > > Sandeep> > > > > >> > > > > > Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.> > >> >> > > >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2008 Report Share Posted February 28, 2008 Dear sunil gondhalekar ji, 1. It's true as explained from the start in Msg#16626. The difference is-- 2. You've found KSK's retrogression not working in Horary as well as Natal by rarely applying yourself Horary and relying mainly on Natal but 4 step is using retrogression in checking transit for Natal or Horary. 3. They've found that additional result in addition to the Guruji KSK's given result by aplying that rule in both Natal and Horary all the time and some other members have also applied that rule in this forum. Regards, tw , " sunil gondhalekar " <sunilalaka wrote: > > dear tw ji, > that means rule is not specified by KSK but widely used by the > welknown astrologers. > thanks for information > -sunil gondhalekar > > > On 2/27/08, tw853 <tw853 wrote: > > > > Dear sunil gondhalekar ji, > > > > As mentioned in Msg#16626, Rule-3 has been found introduced in KP & > > Astrology 2001 article and then commonly applied in 2002, 2004, 2005 > > & 2006 articles, Msg#2695 & 2697, and KPE-Zine 2007 Feb > > (www.loger.com) by Shri Kuppu Ganapathi, who swears only KP, > > and also widely applied by others such as Prof. Vaikari Ramamurthy > > in KPE-Zine 2007 Feb, Kanak Bosmia in Msg#8071 & 10298 and KPE- Zine > > with successful results. > > > > Regards, > > > > tw > > > > <% 40>, " sunil > > gondhalekar " > > <sunilalaka@> wrote: > > > > > > dear tw ji, > > > any reference of KSK for point no.3? > > > or it is used by vaikary rammurty. > > > -sunil gondhalekar > > > > > > > > > On 2/27/08, tw853 <tw853@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > > > > > 1. The 'rule taking the results of its sub ONLY, if a planet is > > in > > > > its own star' is NOT KP. > > > > > > > > 2. Because as per KP 'a planet in its own star strongly gives the > > > > results of the house occupied and the empty house(s) owned by > > that > > > > planet'. Neglecting these house significators is NOT KP. > > > > > > > > 3. In the 'rule taking the houses for whose cusps a planet is the > > > > sub lord as the strong significators, if a planet has no planet > > in > > > > its star', the strong significators of the relevant cusps are > > > > taken 'in addition to' the signifcators of 'the house occupied > > and > > > > the empty house(s) owned by that planet'. > > > > > > > > 4. Asrology is not monopoly and applying the rule in point 1 is > > up > > > > to the preference of an astrologer. Here the point is that 'it is > > > > NOT KP.' > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > tw > > > > > > > > > > > > <% 40><% > > 40>, sandeep > > > > patel > > > > <sandeeppatel21@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > To put the record straight, this is not my rule. I came across > > > > this rule in the books of Shri Suresh Shahasane. I have read two > > of > > > > his books; Krishnamurti Jyotish Rahasya (published in 1992) and > > > > Krishnamurti Jyotish Ved (published in 2007). Both the books are > > in > > > > Marathi. The first one is seminal work on the Krishnamurti > > Paddhati. > > > > In my opinion, it is virtually a compendium of the KP system. > > > > > In the final analysis, proof of the pudding is in the eating. > > > > The method which I follow when I come across something new is to > > try > > > > it out. If it works, that is, if it gives good results, I adopt > > it. > > > > And if it doesn't work, I discard it. And in my limited > > experience I > > > > have found that this rule works perfectly. > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Sandeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Never miss a thing. Make your homepage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2008 Report Share Posted February 28, 2008 Mr. Raichur and Mr. Tin-Win, Both of you are very senior and respected members of this group and your contribution to the group is invaluable. So, it with utmost respect and total humility I am putting forward my views. It is common knowledge that Shri KSK had mastered both Indian and Western systems of Astrology. But when he could not get satisfactory results in spite of applying their principles, he experimented and after a lot of painstaking work he put forward a path breaking new system in the form of Krishnamurti Paddhati. A system so radical, so intuitive, so simple and so elegant, it is breathtaking. In one stroke he did away with complex yogas and aspects and Navamansha and exaltations and debilitations. Having done this he did not rest. During the course of his research he found that occasionally while, results of a particular house was indicated, the results experienced were diametrically opposite. This intrigued him and after experimenting further he formulated the Sub theory by dividing the Star in nine unequal segments called the Subs in proportion to their Vimshottari Dasha values. In Horary astrology he began by asking a number between 1 and 108, using the Navamansha divisions, but later changed it to a more scientific and logical 249. The point I am trying to make here is that innovation and continuous improvement is the hallmark of the KP system. Had Shri KSK not questioned the established wisdom of his time, KP would not have seen the light of the day. Even after Shri KSK passed away many innovative ideas and theories have been put forward like Dr. Kar’s theory, the Sub-Sub theory, MR. Khullar’s Cuspal Interlink Theory and our own Mr. Sunil Gondhalekar’s Four Step Theory. All of them have made some very significant and valuable contributions to the Krishnamurti Paddhati. So, to say, when a new idea is put forward which we have not come across earlier, that it is not KP, in my opinion, amounts to doing a disservice to the very idea of KP. Simply because Krishnamurti Paddhati itself is a supreme innovation which broke the old moulds, rejected the archaic and antiquated ways of interpreting the data and brought a fresh new logical way of thinking in the realm of astrology. Any science thrives on innovations. If innovations are scoffed at or dismissed there can be no progress. Progress in all sciences follows a particular cycle, (A) Inadequacy of the old theory to explain new data (B) A New theory © Experimental confirmation of the new theory (D) Adoption or Rejection of the new theory. So, when something new comes up, the least we can do is to apply that principle and see whether it works. If it works, adopt it; if it doesn’t, discard it. What Mr. Shahasane is proposing is that “When a planet is in its own star then it gives results indicated by its Sub and if it is in its own star and its own Sub then it gives results indicated by its Sub-Sub.” Suppose in a chart where the Ascendant is Aries 25 degrees and Saturn is in the 7th house in Scorpio 15 degrees in its own star Anuradha and the sub of Jupiter. Jupiter is placed in Leo in the 5th house and owns 9th and 12th houses. There are no planets in Capricorn and Aquarius. Now, what needs to be determined is what results this person gets during Saturn Mahadasha. Will he enjoy great success in business and fantastic earnings as promised by Saturn? “Saturn 7-10-11 Saturn 7-10-11”. Or will he get the results of 5th, 9th and 12th houses indicated by Jupiter? That is, loss of job, or loss in the business, bad investments etc. Mr. Suresh Shahasane is a very well known practicing KP astrologer based in Mumbai with a very wide experience. So, let us not just dismiss what he is proposing without giving it a fair trial. Irrespective of whether what he has proposed is true or false, in the process we will learn something. I would like to make a submission to you, sirs. There are more than 1900 members in our group. Let us assume that only 10% of these, i.e. 190 members are active. If each of these 190 members posts data of only one such chart along with the details of the results people to whom the charts belong to experienced during the Dashas of such planets, we will have database of 190 charts to study and find out for ourselves the truth or falsity of this rule. Sirs, I would love to hear your views on this. Regards, Sandeep Never miss a thing. Make your homepage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 29, 2008 Report Share Posted February 29, 2008 Dear Sandeep Patel, Firstly, this forum is to learn KP by discussing on issues not on person. Any new idea or rule with a proof of research is helpful for memebers as Guruji KSK has encouraged research for for further develoment of KP. Without a proof any new idea or rule is not creditable or unreliable for the practical application. For instance, we have to think how reliable is one's finding of Guruji KSK retrogression in Horary not working by rarely applying himself Horary, even though this issue controversial. To break a well established rule or to make a new rule, a study of standard 100 charts or events may be required. Secondly, " When a planet is in its own star then it gives results indicated by its Sub and if it is in its own star and its own Sub then it gives results indicated by its Sub-Sub. " rule is not KP because as per the well established KP rule the house occupied and the empty houses owned by that planet are the strong/garde A (as per KP) or full (by K.M. Subramaniam of Sub Lord Speaks) or primary (by 4 step)significators. If it's in both own star and sub, these significations are stronger. In this regards, I appretiate Mr. Baskaran's clear view and confidence by mentioning the difference in the rules by KP and KB (his own) at the end of the earliest publishing Cuspal Interlinks book, without taking any cover of KP in ineventing the Cuspal Interlinks Theory. Thirdly, as mentioned earlier, we are not against this rule; we don't know who are applying or how it's working; whether apply it or not is up to the free choice of an astrolger, depending how it gives him the better results. Fourthly, we are intersested in applicable rules with sound rationale but not in person. For instance, the foreign settlement rule of Mr. Nadu, the contributor of only one article only one time in the KP & Astrology is interesting as per KP principles and has been found working well in 'A SURVEY OF 100 CHARTS OF FOREIGN SETTLEMENT' in the file section of this group under 'New Researches in KP'. Finally, the bottom line is that this forum is not a tribunal but to learn KP practically. The burden of proof is on your side to show how this rule is practically working by collecting the charts by yourself as a resaercher used to do. Thanks and regards, tw , sandeep patel <sandeeppatel21 wrote: > > Mr. Raichur and Mr. Tin-Win, > > Both of you are very senior and respected members of this group and your contribution to the group is invaluable. So, it with utmost respect and total humility I am putting forward my views. > > It is common knowledge that Shri KSK had mastered both Indian and Western systems of Astrology. But when he could not get satisfactory results in spite of applying their principles, he experimented and after a lot of painstaking work he put forward a path breaking new system in the form of Krishnamurti Paddhati. A system so radical, so intuitive, so simple and so elegant, it is breathtaking. In one stroke he did away with complex yogas and aspects and Navamansha and exaltations and debilitations. > > Having done this he did not rest. During the course of his research he found that occasionally while, results of a particular house was indicated, the results experienced were diametrically opposite. This intrigued him and after experimenting further he formulated the Sub theory by dividing the Star in nine unequal segments called the Subs in proportion to their Vimshottari Dasha values. > > In Horary astrology he began by asking a number between 1 and 108, using the Navamansha divisions, but later changed it to a more scientific and logical 249. The point I am trying to make here is that innovation and continuous improvement is the hallmark of the KP system. Had Shri KSK not questioned the established wisdom of his time, KP would not have seen the light of the day. > > Even after Shri KSK passed away many innovative ideas and theories have been put forward like Dr. Kar's theory, the Sub-Sub theory, MR. Khullar's Cuspal Interlink Theory and our own Mr. Sunil Gondhalekar's Four Step Theory. All of them have made some very significant and valuable contributions to the Krishnamurti Paddhati. > > So, to say, when a new idea is put forward which we have not come across earlier, that it is not KP, in my opinion, amounts to doing a disservice to the very idea of KP. Simply because Krishnamurti Paddhati itself is a supreme innovation which broke the old moulds, rejected the archaic and antiquated ways of interpreting the data and brought a fresh new logical way of thinking in the realm of astrology. > > Any science thrives on innovations. If innovations are scoffed at or dismissed there can be no progress. Progress in all sciences follows a particular cycle, (A) Inadequacy of the old theory to explain new data (B) A New theory © Experimental confirmation of the new theory (D) Adoption or Rejection of the new theory. So, when something new comes up, the least we can do is to apply that principle and see whether it works. If it works, adopt it; if it doesn't, discard it. > > What Mr. Shahasane is proposing is that " When a planet is in its own star then it gives results indicated by its Sub and if it is in its own star and its own Sub then it gives results indicated by its Sub-Sub. " Suppose in a chart where the Ascendant is Aries 25 degrees and Saturn is in the 7th house in Scorpio 15 degrees in its own star Anuradha and the sub of Jupiter. Jupiter is placed in Leo in the 5th house and owns 9th and 12th houses. There are no planets in Capricorn and Aquarius. Now, what needs to be determined is what results this person gets during Saturn Mahadasha. Will he enjoy great success in business and fantastic earnings as promised by Saturn? " Saturn 7-10-11 Saturn 7-10-11 " . Or will he get the results of 5th, 9th and 12th houses indicated by Jupiter? That is, loss of job, or loss in the business, bad investments etc. > > Mr. Suresh Shahasane is a very well known practicing KP astrologer based in Mumbai with a very wide experience. So, let us not just dismiss what he is proposing without giving it a fair trial. Irrespective of whether what he has proposed is true or false, in the process we will learn something. > > I would like to make a submission to you, sirs. There are more than 1900 members in our group. Let us assume that only 10% of these, i.e. 190 members are active. If each of these 190 members posts data of only one such chart along with the details of the results people to whom the charts belong to experienced during the Dashas of such planets, we will have database of 190 charts to study and find out for ourselves the truth or falsity of this rule. Sirs, I would love to hear your views on this. > > Regards, > > Sandeep > > Never miss a thing. Make your homepage. > 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.