Guest guest Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 Dear members I have a new thought regarding this problem. Say 7th Cusp falls in 14 Deg Aris. Also a planet is exactly 14 Deg Aris. Cusp is a virtual point , planet is a real body. But both of them must express equally the quality of the point in zodiac defined by Sign-Star-Sub of the point. Here comes my point… When we want to analyse the potential of the point through Cusp, we put our attention mostly on Sub of the cusp. We hardly take star of the cusp as main signification and sub as decider. Whereas When we want to analyse the potential of the point through the planet, we put our attention mostly on Star of the planet. We do take star of the cusp as main signification and sub as decider. But As both of them represents the same point, they must express the same potential. So, if we put stress on sub of a cusp only, we must put stress on sub of the planet only. Or If we put stress on star of a planet, the cusp also to be judged with signification of the its star. Your comments please. Regards Suprakash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 Dear All, For the planet or the cuspal sublord (which is a planet), a common practice is to cosider all three levels of signification at palnet, star and sub according to the fundimental KP principle, " The planet is the source, constellation indicates nature of the result and the sub is a 'deciding factor' whether the matter is favorable or not. " Pl see Msg#18414 & 18435 Regards, tw , " Suprakash Ghosh " <suprakash.ghosh wrote: > > Dear members > > I have a new thought regarding this problem. > > Say 7th Cusp falls in 14 Deg Aris. > > Also a planet is exactly 14 Deg Aris. > > > Cusp is a virtual point , planet is a real body. But both of > them must express equally the quality of the point in zodiac defined by > Sign-Star-Sub of the point. > > > Here comes my point. > > > When we want to analyse the potential of the point through Cusp, we put > our attention mostly on Sub of the cusp. We hardly take star of the cusp > as main signification and sub as decider. > > Whereas > > When we want to analyse the potential of the point through the planet, > we put our attention mostly on Star of the planet. We do take star of > the cusp as main signification and sub as decider. > > > But As both of them represents the same point, they must > express the same potential. > > > So, if we put stress on sub of a cusp only, we must put > stress on sub of the planet only. > > Or > > If we put stress on star of a planet, the cusp also to be > judged with signification of the its star. > > > > Your comments please. > > > Regards > > Suprakash > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 Dear Tin Win In the case of cusp, the starting point is the cuspal sublord. We are totally neglecting the cuspal signlord and cuspal starlord. In the 4 step method also, the first step is cuspal sublord, second step is sub's star,.. Cuspal Sub belongs to which cuspal star, cuspal star belongs to which sign are important. Mr.KSK gave importance to signlord and added 6 subs in adition to 243. Neglecting cuspal signlord and cuspal starlord cannot be taken as a common practice. With reference to volumeII(1966), for Horary, Mr.KSK has taken the signlord. I have already proved that the signlord in volume II is just replaced with sublord in the Reader while copying. It has been proved beyond doubt that the Readers are not written by Mr.KSK. Mr.Raichur and Mr.Gondhalekar also accept that some of the articles in the Readers are not written by Mr.KSK Dhanabalan --- On Fri, 8/15/08, tw853 <tw853 wrote: tw853 <tw853 Re: Which is correct? Date: Friday, August 15, 2008, 11:53 AM Dear All,For the planet or the cuspal sublord (which is a planet), a common practice is to cosider all three levels of signification at palnet, star and sub according to the fundimental KP principle, "The planet is the source, constellation indicates nature of the result and the sub is a 'deciding factor' whether the matter is favorable or not."Pl see Msg#18414 & 18435Regards,tw@gro ups.com, "Suprakash Ghosh" <suprakash.ghosh@ ...> wrote:>> Dear members> > I have a new thought regarding this problem.> > Say 7th Cusp falls in 14 Deg Aris. > > Also a planet is exactly 14 Deg Aris.> > > Cusp is a virtual point , planet is a real body. But both of> them must express equally the quality of the point in zodiac defined by> Sign-Star-Sub of the point.> > > Here comes my point.> > > When we want to analyse the potential of the point through Cusp, we put> our attention mostly on Sub of the cusp. We hardly take star of the cusp> as main signification and sub as decider.> > Whereas> > When we want to analyse the potential of the point through the planet,> we put our attention mostly on Star of the planet. We do take star of> the cusp as main signification and sub as decider.> > > But As both of them represents the same point, they must> express the same potential.> > > So, if we put stress on sub of a cusp only, we must put> stress on sub of the planet only.> > Or> > If we put stress on star of a planet, the cusp also to be> judged with signification of the its star.> > > > Your comments please.> > > Regards> > Suprakash> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2008 Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 Dear Twji I think I could not communicate properly my point through mail. Let me try again... What is a cusp? Cusp is a point in the zodiac defined by Sign-Star-Sublords. Think a planet on exact degree of a cusp (for simplicity).The planet will also be defined by the same Sign-Star-Sublords of the cusp. As they are on the same point of the zodiac, they must signify same potentialities of the point they occupy. Now how we judge the potentiality of a cusp? By analyzing the sublord only. We see the star and sub (star of the sub in 4step) of the cuspal sublord. How we analyse a planet? Like a cusp, we never concentrate on the sub part of the planet only. We see the star also. So logically, we adopt two different systems while defining potentiality of zodiac point. It appeared to me that, if we put stress on sub of a cusp only, we must also put stress on sub of the planet only and vice-versa. Regards Suprakash On Behalf Of tw853 Friday, August 15, 2008 5:24 PM Re: Which is correct? Dear All, For the planet or the cuspal sublord (which is a planet), a common practice is to cosider all three levels of signification at palnet, star and sub according to the fundimental KP principle, " The planet is the source, constellation indicates nature of the result and the sub is a 'deciding factor' whether the matter is favorable or not. " Pl see Msg#18414 & 18435 Regards, tw , " Suprakash Ghosh " <suprakash.ghosh wrote: > > Dear members > > I have a new thought regarding this problem. > > Say 7th Cusp falls in 14 Deg Aris. > > Also a planet is exactly 14 Deg Aris. > > > Cusp is a virtual point , planet is a real body. But both of > them must express equally the quality of the point in zodiac defined by > Sign-Star-Sub of the point. > > > Here comes my point. > > > When we want to analyse the potential of the point through Cusp, we put > our attention mostly on Sub of the cusp. We hardly take star of the cusp > as main signification and sub as decider. > > Whereas > > When we want to analyse the potential of the point through the planet, > we put our attention mostly on Star of the planet. We do take star of > the cusp as main signification and sub as decider. > > > But As both of them represents the same point, they must > express the same potential. > > > So, if we put stress on sub of a cusp only, we must put > stress on sub of the planet only. > > Or > > If we put stress on star of a planet, the cusp also to be > judged with signification of the its star. > > > > Your comments please. > > > Regards > > Suprakash > --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2008 Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 Respected members Its my purely personal opinion and thinking not supported by any reference but want comment from learned stalwarts. 1-Planets have the characteristic of mass and occuply the space as its separate identity, we all know between two which posses masses a force will always act depending on distance for which newton's formula is already exist. cuspal position is simply a point which denotes a particular place of zodic because for astrological work zodic has been divided in parts giving every particular points having the influence of particular planets effect,but it is purely a position and dont have any characteristic like planets. 2-In the light of above how much it is convincing to treat cuspal sublord as pure planet??? 3- Is it appropriate that all the rules which are made for any planets should also use for cuspal lords taking these are as planets which are mostly done by astrologers? Respected members I may be astrologically vage but since I felt strong urge to acquire answerfor my innocent query therefore I have put here . WITH REGARDS AMIT , Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan wrote: > > Dear Tin Win > > In the case of cusp, the starting point is the cuspal sublord. We are totally neglecting the cuspal signlord and cuspal starlord. > > In the 4 step method also, the first step is cuspal sublord, second step is sub's star,.. > > Cuspal Sub belongs to which cuspal star, cuspal star belongs to which sign are important. > Mr.KSK gave importance to signlord and added 6 subs in adition to 243. > > Neglecting cuspal signlord and cuspal starlord cannot be taken as a common practice. > With reference to volumeII(1966), for Horary, Mr.KSK has taken the signlord.. > > I have already proved that the signlord in volume II is just replaced with sublord in the Reader while copying. > > It has been proved beyond doubt that the Readers are not written by Mr.KSK. > > Mr.Raichur and Mr.Gondhalekar also accept that some of the articles in the Readers are not written by Mr.KSK > > Dhanabalan > > --- On Fri, 8/15/08, tw853 <tw853 wrote: > > tw853 <tw853 > Re: Which is correct? > > Friday, August 15, 2008, 11:53 AM Dear All, > > For the planet or the cuspal sublord (which is a planet), a common > practice is to cosider all three levels of signification at palnet, > star and sub according to the fundimental KP principle, " The planet > is the source, constellation indicates nature of the result and the > sub is a 'deciding factor' whether the matter is favorable or not. " > > Pl see Msg#18414 & 18435 > > Regards, > > tw > > @gro ups.com, " Suprakash Ghosh " > <suprakash.ghosh@ ...> wrote: > > > > Dear members > > > > I have a new thought regarding this problem. > > > > Say 7th Cusp falls in 14 Deg Aris. > > > > Also a planet is exactly 14 Deg Aris. > > > > > > Cusp is a virtual point , planet is a real body. But > both of > > them must express equally the quality of the point in zodiac > defined by > > Sign-Star-Sub of the point. > > > > > > Here comes my point. > > > > > > When we want to analyse the potential of the point through Cusp, > we put > > our attention mostly on Sub of the cusp. We hardly take star of > the cusp > > as main signification and sub as decider. > > > > Whereas > > > > When we want to analyse the potential of the point through the > planet, > > we put our attention mostly on Star of the planet. We do take star > of > > the cusp as main signification and sub as decider. > > > > > > But As both of them represents the same point, they > must > > express the same potential. > > > > > > So, if we put stress on sub of a cusp only, we must put > > stress on sub of the planet only. > > > > Or > > > > If we put stress on star of a planet, the cusp also to > be > > judged with signification of the its star. > > > > > > > > Your comments please. > > > > > > Regards > > > > Suprakash > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2008 Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 Dear Amit ji, Interesting point. What rules do you think should not be applicable for the cuspal lords? Though the idea of treating zodiacal point is nothing new and has been used in vedic astrology as well as western astrology. KP has just borrowed and used it as it is. Thanks & Regards,Punit Pandey On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:05 PM, dubeyamitkumar <dubeyamitkumar wrote: Respected membersIts my purely personal opinion and thinking notsupported by any reference but want comment from learned stalwarts.1-Planets have the characteristic of mass and occuply the space as its separate identity, we all know between two which posses masses aforce will always act depending on distance for which newton'sformula is already exist.cuspal position is simply a point which denotes a particular place of zodic because for astrological work zodic hasbeen divided in parts giving every particular points having theinfluence of particular planets effect,but it is purely a position anddont have any characteristic like planets. 2-In the light of above how much it is convincing to treat cuspalsublord as pure planet???3- Is it appropriate that all the rules which are made for any planetsshould also use for cuspal lords taking these are as planets which are mostly done by astrologers?Respected members I may be astrologically vage but sinceI felt strong urge to acquire answerfor my innocent query therefore Ihave put here . WITH REGARDSAMIT , Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan wrote:>> Dear Tin Win> > In the case of cusp, the starting point is the cuspal sublord. We are totally neglecting the cuspal signlord and cuspal starlord. > > In the 4 step method also, the first step is cuspal sublord, secondstep is sub's star,..> > Cuspal Sub belongs to which cuspal star, cuspal star belongs to which sign are important.> Mr.KSK gave importance to signlord and added 6 subs in adition to 243.> > Neglecting cuspal signlord and cuspal starlord cannot be taken as acommon practice.> With reference to volumeII(1966), for Horary, Mr.KSK has taken the signlord..> > I have already proved that the signlord in volume II is justreplaced with sublord in the Reader while copying. > > It has been proved beyond doubt that the Readers are not written by Mr.KSK.> > Mr.Raichur and Mr.Gondhalekar also accept that some of the articlesin the Readers are not written by Mr.KSK> > Dhanabalan > > --- On Fri, 8/15/08, tw853 <tw853 wrote: > > tw853 <tw853 > Re: Which is correct?> > Friday, August 15, 2008, 11:53 AM > > > > > > > Dear All,> > For the planet or the cuspal sublord (which is a planet), a common > practice is to cosider all three levels of signification at palnet, > star and sub according to the fundimental KP principle, " The planet > is the source, constellation indicates nature of the result and the > sub is a 'deciding factor' whether the matter is favorable or not. " > > Pl see Msg#18414 & 18435> > Regards,> > tw> > @gro ups.com, " Suprakash Ghosh " > <suprakash.ghosh@ ...> wrote: > >> > Dear members> > > > I have a new thought regarding this problem.> > > > Say 7th Cusp falls in 14 Deg Aris. > > > > Also a planet is exactly 14 Deg Aris. > > > > > > Cusp is a virtual point , planet is a real body. But > both of> > them must express equally the quality of the point in zodiac > defined by> > Sign-Star-Sub of the point. > > > > > > Here comes my point.> > > > > > When we want to analyse the potential of the point through Cusp, > we put> > our attention mostly on Sub of the cusp. We hardly take star of > the cusp> > as main signification and sub as decider.> > > > Whereas> > > > When we want to analyse the potential of the point through the > planet,> > we put our attention mostly on Star of the planet. We do take star > of> > the cusp as main signification and sub as decider.> > > > > > But As both of them represents the same point, they > must> > express the same potential. > > > > > > So, if we put stress on sub of a cusp only, we must put> > stress on sub of the planet only.> > > > Or> > > > If we put stress on star of a planet, the cusp also to > be> > judged with signification of the its star.> > > > > > > > Your comments please.> > > > > > Regards> > > > Suprakash > >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2008 Report Share Posted August 17, 2008 || Om Gurave Namah ||Om SreeMahaGanaadhipataye Namah Hari Om, Dear Amit ji, Just a thought. Planets have mass and occupy space.Good and right. But here Rsi refer it Bhuva loka.In terms of science It is solar system. Constellations are beyond Bhuva loka. It is beyond solar system. Say for simplicity swarg loka. We are at earth and experiencing influence of planets from solar system space.. If we extend constellation can be mapped to same Zodiac. Now as you have correctly defined sub but wondered How you can treat is like planet? May i call for your attention? What is the basis for calling a planet as lord of a sign? I have been taught , that Sign have some attributes and characterstics. Planets which resemble those similar attributes and Characterstics are termed as their Ruler. If this is so, Is it not possible that Rsi might have hypothetically mapped constellations to zodiac points.Equally it can apply planets too. So symbolically is it not possible to co relate and arrive at Sub lord behaving in terms of Planets. Just a thought. with regards. OM TATSAT------------------------Swami_RCS -----------------------" Let us meditate on the glorious effulgence of that Divine Being who hascreated the three worlds.May He Direct our understanding."-- - Punit Pandey Saturday, August 16, 2008 10:24 PM Re: Re: Which is correct? Dear Amit ji, Interesting point. What rules do you think should not be applicable for the cuspal lords? Though the idea of treating zodiacal point is nothing new and has been used in vedic astrology as well as western astrology. KP has just borrowed and used it as it is. Thanks & Regards,Punit Pandey On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:05 PM, dubeyamitkumar <dubeyamitkumar > wrote: Respected membersIts my purely personal opinion and thinking notsupported by any reference but want comment from learned stalwarts.1-Planets have the characteristic of mass and occuply the space asits separate identity, we all know between two which posses masses aforce will always act depending on distance for which newton'sformula is already exist.cuspal position is simply a point which denotes aparticular place of zodic because for astrological work zodic hasbeen divided in parts giving every particular points having theinfluence of particular planets effect,but it is purely a position anddont have any characteristic like planets.2-In the light of above how much it is convincing to treat cuspalsublord as pure planet???3- Is it appropriate that all the rules which are made for any planetsshould also use for cuspal lords taking these are as planets which aremostly done by astrologers?Respected members I may be astrologically vage but sinceI felt strong urge to acquire answerfor my innocent query therefore Ihave put here . WITH REGARDSAMIT , Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan wrote:>> Dear Tin Win> > In the case of cusp, the starting point is the cuspal sublord. Weare totally neglecting the cuspal signlord and cuspal starlord. > > In the 4 step method also, the first step is cuspal sublord, secondstep is sub's star,..> > Cuspal Sub belongs to which cuspal star, cuspal star belongs towhich sign are important.> Mr.KSK gave importance to signlord and added 6 subs in adition to 243.> > Neglecting cuspal signlord and cuspal starlord cannot be taken as acommon practice.> With reference to volumeII(1966), for Horary, Mr.KSK has taken thesignlord..> > I have already proved that the signlord in volume II is justreplaced with sublord in the Reader while copying. > > It has been proved beyond doubt that the Readers are not written byMr.KSK.> > Mr.Raichur and Mr.Gondhalekar also accept that some of the articlesin the Readers are not written by Mr.KSK> > Dhanabalan > > --- On Fri, 8/15/08, tw853 <tw853 wrote:> > tw853 <tw853 > Re: Which is correct?> > Friday, August 15, 2008, 11:53 AM> > > > > > > Dear All,> > For the planet or the cuspal sublord (which is a planet), a common > practice is to cosider all three levels of signification at palnet, > star and sub according to the fundimental KP principle, "The planet > is the source, constellation indicates nature of the result and the > sub is a 'deciding factor' whether the matter is favorable or not."> > Pl see Msg#18414 & 18435> > Regards,> > tw> > @gro ups.com, "Suprakash Ghosh" > <suprakash.ghosh@ ...> wrote:> >> > Dear members> > > > I have a new thought regarding this problem.> > > > Say 7th Cusp falls in 14 Deg Aris. > > > > Also a planet is exactly 14 Deg Aris.> > > > > > Cusp is a virtual point , planet is a real body. But > both of> > them must express equally the quality of the point in zodiac > defined by> > Sign-Star-Sub of the point.> > > > > > Here comes my point.> > > > > > When we want to analyse the potential of the point through Cusp, > we put> > our attention mostly on Sub of the cusp. We hardly take star of > the cusp> > as main signification and sub as decider.> > > > Whereas> > > > When we want to analyse the potential of the point through the > planet,> > we put our attention mostly on Star of the planet. We do take star > of> > the cusp as main signification and sub as decider.> > > > > > But As both of them represents the same point, they > must> > express the same potential.> > > > > > So, if we put stress on sub of a cusp only, we must put> > stress on sub of the planet only.> > > > Or> > > > If we put stress on star of a planet, the cusp also to > be> > judged with signification of the its star.> > > > > > > > Your comments please.> > > > > > Regards> > > > Suprakash> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2008 Report Share Posted August 17, 2008 Dear Swami The zodiacal points are imaginary points and are not actual. So every scientist is calculating this imaginary points as they like. Placidus system is famous in United States, Koch system is famous in Europe countries. The Topocentric system is said to be an improved system of Placidus system. There may be a difference around one degree in cuspal positions between Placidus and Topocentric system. About two degree difference between Koch and Placidus system. No one is sure about the exactness of these imaginary points. The sublord may differ from system to system. Mr.KSK has chosen the Placidus system in the year 1960. After that the Koch and Topocentric system have come. The Topocentric and Koch system may be better than Placidus system. No one checked so far. Under these circumstances, it is better to stop at cuspal star level. Going beyond cuspal star level may not be a safe one. Dhanabalan--- On Sun, 8/17/08, swami <swami wrote: swami <swamiRe: Re: Which is correct? Date: Sunday, August 17, 2008, 2:22 PM || Om Gurave Namah ||Om SreeMahaGanaadhipat aye Namah Hari Om, Dear Amit ji, Just a thought. Planets have mass and occupy space.Good and right. But here Rsi refer it Bhuva loka.In terms of science It is solar system. Constellations are beyond Bhuva loka. It is beyond solar system. Say for simplicity swarg loka. We are at earth and experiencing influence of planets from solar system space.. If we extend constellation can be mapped to same Zodiac. Now as you have correctly defined sub but wondered How you can treat is like planet? May i call for your attention? What is the basis for calling a planet as lord of a sign? I have been taught , that Sign have some attributes and characterstics. Planets which resemble those similar attributes and Characterstics are termed as their Ruler. If this is so, Is it not possible that Rsi might have hypothetically mapped constellations to zodiac points.Equally it can apply planets too. So symbolically is it not possible to co relate and arrive at Sub lord behaving in terms of Planets. Just a thought. with regards. OM TATSAT------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------Swami_RCS ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------" Let us meditate on the glorious effulgence of that Divine Being who hascreated the three worlds.May He Direct our understanding. "------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -- - Punit Pandey @gro ups.com Saturday, August 16, 2008 10:24 PM Re: Re: Which is correct? Dear Amit ji, Interesting point. What rules do you think should not be applicable for the cuspal lords? Though the idea of treating zodiacal point is nothing new and has been used in vedic astrology as well as western astrology. KP has just borrowed and used it as it is. Thanks & Regards,Punit Pandey On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:05 PM, dubeyamitkumar <dubeyamitkumar@ > wrote: Respected membersIts my purely personal opinion and thinking notsupported by any reference but want comment from learned stalwarts.1-Planets have the characteristic of mass and occuply the space asits separate identity, we all know between two which posses masses aforce will always act depending on distance for which newton'sformula is already exist.cuspal position is simply a point which denotes aparticular place of zodic because for astrological work zodic hasbeen divided in parts giving every particular points having theinfluence of particular planets effect,but it is purely a position anddont have any characteristic like planets.2-In the light of above how much it is convincing to treat cuspalsublord as pure planet???3- Is it appropriate that all the rules which are made for any planetsshould also use for cuspal lords taking these are as planets which aremostly done by astrologers?Respected members I may be astrologically vage but sinceI felt strong urge to acquire answerfor my innocent query therefore Ihave put here . WITH REGARDSAMIT @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:>> Dear Tin Win> > In the case of cusp, the starting point is the cuspal sublord. Weare totally neglecting the cuspal signlord and cuspal starlord. > > In the 4 step method also, the first step is cuspal sublord, secondstep is sub's star,..> > Cuspal Sub belongs to which cuspal star, cuspal star belongs towhich sign are important.> Mr.KSK gave importance to signlord and added 6 subs in adition to 243.> > Neglecting cuspal signlord and cuspal starlord cannot be taken as acommon practice.> With reference to volumeII(1966) , for Horary, Mr.KSK has taken thesignlord..> > I have already proved that the signlord in volume II is justreplaced with sublord in the Reader while copying. > > It has been proved beyond doubt that the Readers are not written byMr.KSK.> > Mr.Raichur and Mr.Gondhalekar also accept that some of the articlesin the Readers are not written by Mr.KSK> > Dhanabalan > > --- On Fri, 8/15/08, tw853 <tw853 wrote:> > tw853 <tw853 > Re: Which is correct?> @gro ups.com> Friday, August 15, 2008, 11:53 AM> > > > > > > Dear All,> > For the planet or the cuspal sublord (which is a planet), a common > practice is to cosider all three levels of signification at palnet, > star and sub according to the fundimental KP principle, "The planet > is the source, constellation indicates nature of the result and the > sub is a 'deciding factor' whether the matter is favorable or not."> > Pl see Msg#18414 & 18435> > Regards,> > tw> > @gro ups.com, "Suprakash Ghosh" > <suprakash.ghosh@ ...> wrote:> >> > Dear members> > > > I have a new thought regarding this problem.> > > > Say 7th Cusp falls in 14 Deg Aris. > > > > Also a planet is exactly 14 Deg Aris.> > > > > > Cusp is a virtual point , planet is a real body. But > both of> > them must express equally the quality of the point in zodiac > defined by> > Sign-Star-Sub of the point.> > > > > > Here comes my point.> > > > > > When we want to analyse the potential of the point through Cusp, > we put> > our attention mostly on Sub of the cusp. We hardly take star of > the cusp> > as main signification and sub as decider.> > > > Whereas> > > > When we want to analyse the potential of the point through the > planet,> > we put our attention mostly on Star of the planet. We do take star > of> > the cusp as main signification and sub as decider.> > > > > > But As both of them represents the same point, they > must> > express the same potential.> > > > > > So, if we put stress on sub of a cusp only, we must put> > stress on sub of the planet only.> > > > Or> > > > If we put stress on star of a planet, the cusp also to > be> > judged with signification of the its star.> > > > > > > > Your comments please.> > > > > > Regards> > > > Suprakash> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 Dear Suprakash Ghosh ji, >>Say 7th Cusp falls in 16 Deg Aris. > >Also a planet is exactly 16 Deg Aris. 1. Both 7th cusp & the planet are in the star of Venus and sub of Sun. 2. According to the fundimental KP principle, " The planet is the source, constellation indicates nature of the result and the sub is a 'deciding factor' whether the matter is favorable or not. " , the occupation-lordship signification at the planet level, Venus star level and Sun sub level is considered, and the Sun sub decides whether the planet can offer the favorable result or unfavorable result. Here it is checked whether the planet is favorable or the planet is a fruitful significator in fixing the DBA. 3. In the case of 7th cusp, the 7th cuspal sublord Sun is checked whether a matter related to the 7th house only is promised or not. There ends the matter. In checking the 7th cuspal sublord Sun, the occupation-lordship signification at the planet Sun level, Sun's star leel vand Sun's sub level is considered and the Sun's sub decides whether the concerned matter is promised or not. A house governs many matters but it is the sub, not Horary as one is saying, which decides whether this or that house matter is promised or not. 4. The planet's sublord Sun is a planet and the 7th cuspal sublord Sun is a planet, i.e. the sublord is a planet. " The sublord is not a planet. The sublord is not a star. " , as quoted by one, will be found to say that the sublord is the King Maker in deciding whether a planet is favorable or a matter governed by the concerned house is promised, if one reads on a liitle further. 5. Since the cuspal position is a mathematical point, it is not the source of the matter and it does not have the occupation-lordship signification like a planet and the star doses not indicate nature of the result. 6. The nature, purpose of checking and the way of checking are different for the planet and the cuspal sublord. Regards, tw , " Suprakash Ghosh " <suprakash.ghosh wrote: > > Dear Twji > > I think I could not communicate properly my point through mail. > > Let me try again... > > What is a cusp? Cusp is a point in the zodiac defined by > Sign-Star-Sublords. > > Think a planet on exact degree of a cusp (for simplicity).The planet > will also be defined by the same Sign-Star-Sublords of the cusp. > > As they are on the same point of the zodiac, they must signify same > potentialities of the point they occupy. > > > Now how we judge the potentiality of a cusp? By analyzing the sublord > only. We see the star and sub (star of the sub in 4step) of the cuspal > sublord. > > > How we analyse a planet? Like a cusp, we never concentrate on the sub > part of the planet only. We see the star also. > > So logically, we adopt two different systems while defining potentiality > of zodiac point. > > > It appeared to me that, if we put stress on sub of a cusp only, we must > also put stress on sub of the planet only and vice-versa. > > > Regards > > Suprakash > > > On > Behalf Of tw853 > Friday, August 15, 2008 5:24 PM > > Re: Which is correct? > > Dear All, > > For the planet or the cuspal sublord (which is a planet), a common > practice is to cosider all three levels of signification at palnet, > star and sub according to the fundimental KP principle, " The planet > is the source, constellation indicates nature of the result and the > sub is a 'deciding factor' whether the matter is favorable or not. " > > Pl see Msg#18414 & 18435 > > Regards, > > tw > > , " Suprakash Ghosh " > <suprakash.ghosh@> wrote: > > > > Dear members > > > > I have a new thought regarding this problem. > > > > Say 7th Cusp falls in 14 Deg Aris. > > > > Also a planet is exactly 14 Deg Aris. > > > > > > Cusp is a virtual point , planet is a real body. But > both of > > them must express equally the quality of the point in zodiac > defined by > > Sign-Star-Sub of the point. > > > > > > Here comes my point. > > > > > > When we want to analyse the potential of the point through Cusp, > we put > > our attention mostly on Sub of the cusp. We hardly take star of > the cusp > > as main signification and sub as decider. > > > > Whereas > > > > When we want to analyse the potential of the point through the > planet, > > we put our attention mostly on Star of the planet. We do take star > of > > the cusp as main signification and sub as decider. > > > > > > But As both of them represents the same point, they > must > > express the same potential. > > > > > > So, if we put stress on sub of a cusp only, we must put > > stress on sub of the planet only. > > > > Or > > > > If we put stress on star of a planet, the cusp also to > be > > judged with signification of the its star. > > > > > > > > Your comments please. > > > > > > Regards > > > > Suprakash > > > > > > --- > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 Dear Amit Please don't confuse with Astrology, mass and Newton's laws. Regards Suprakash On Behalf Of dubeyamitkumar Saturday, August 16, 2008 10:05 PM Re: Which is correct? Respected members Its my purely personal opinion and thinking not supported by any reference but want comment from learned stalwarts. 1-Planets have the characteristic of mass and occuply the space as its separate identity, we all know between two which posses masses a force will always act depending on distance for which newton's formula is already exist. cuspal position is simply a point which denotes a particular place of zodic because for astrological work zodic has been divided in parts giving every particular points having the influence of particular planets effect,but it is purely a position and dont have any characteristic like planets. 2-In the light of above how much it is convincing to treat cuspal sublord as pure planet??? 3- Is it appropriate that all the rules which are made for any planets should also use for cuspal lords taking these are as planets which are mostly done by astrologers? Respected members I may be astrologically vage but since I felt strong urge to acquire answerfor my innocent query therefore I have put here . WITH REGARDS AMIT , Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan wrote: > > Dear Tin Win > > In the case of cusp, the starting point is the cuspal sublord. We are totally neglecting the cuspal signlord and cuspal starlord. > > In the 4 step method also, the first step is cuspal sublord, second step is sub's star,.. > > Cuspal Sub belongs to which cuspal star, cuspal star belongs to which sign are important. > Mr.KSK gave importance to signlord and added 6 subs in adition to 243. > > Neglecting cuspal signlord and cuspal starlord cannot be taken as a common practice. > With reference to volumeII(1966), for Horary, Mr.KSK has taken the signlord.. > > I have already proved that the signlord in volume II is just replaced with sublord in the Reader while copying. > > It has been proved beyond doubt that the Readers are not written by Mr.KSK. > > Mr.Raichur and Mr.Gondhalekar also accept that some of the articles in the Readers are not written by Mr.KSK > > Dhanabalan > > --- On Fri, 8/15/08, tw853 <tw853 wrote: > > tw853 <tw853 > Re: Which is correct? > > Friday, August 15, 2008, 11:53 AM Dear All, > > For the planet or the cuspal sublord (which is a planet), a common > practice is to cosider all three levels of signification at palnet, > star and sub according to the fundimental KP principle, " The planet > is the source, constellation indicates nature of the result and the > sub is a 'deciding factor' whether the matter is favorable or not. " > > Pl see Msg#18414 & 18435 > > Regards, > > tw > > @gro ups.com, " Suprakash Ghosh " > <suprakash.ghosh@ ...> wrote: > > > > Dear members > > > > I have a new thought regarding this problem. > > > > Say 7th Cusp falls in 14 Deg Aris. > > > > Also a planet is exactly 14 Deg Aris. > > > > > > Cusp is a virtual point , planet is a real body. But > both of > > them must express equally the quality of the point in zodiac > defined by > > Sign-Star-Sub of the point. > > > > > > Here comes my point. > > > > > > When we want to analyse the potential of the point through Cusp, > we put > > our attention mostly on Sub of the cusp. We hardly take star of > the cusp > > as main signification and sub as decider. > > > > Whereas > > > > When we want to analyse the potential of the point through the > planet, > > we put our attention mostly on Star of the planet. We do take star > of > > the cusp as main signification and sub as decider. > > > > > > But As both of them represents the same point, they > must > > express the same potential. > > > > > > So, if we put stress on sub of a cusp only, we must put > > stress on sub of the planet only. > > > > Or > > > > If we put stress on star of a planet, the cusp also to > be > > judged with signification of the its star. > > > > > > > > Your comments please. > > > > > > Regards > > > > Suprakash > > > --- 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.