Guest guest Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 Dear Sir, It is not that the sequence is important here. The rule is written regarding transit. It is regarding transit of lords of Dasa and Bhukti and one of the luminaries. Dasa Lord is Mars, Bhukti lord is Kethu, Antara Lord is also Kethu and the luminary is Sun. So the planets are Mars, Kethu and Sun. Sun is not a ruling planet. The ruling planets are only Mars and Kethu. The rule says the planets should transit in such a zone that is ruled by Mars and Kethu, the Dasa, Bhukti and Antara lords. The sequence of Mars and Kethu is not important but the zone should be ruled by both Mars and Kethu. Had the period was ruled by Mars Dasa, Kethu Bhukti and Venus Antara then then these lords should transit in such a zone that is governed by Mars, kethu and Venus conjointly in any sequence. Sun ought to transit also in such a zone. Dr. Rath Vishram Deshpande <vishram_deshpandeKP System Forum Sat, October 24, 2009 1:41:15 PM Sub lord or sub-sub lord ? Dear Friends, On page 162, KP reader 5, (2007) there is a rule. "If Mars Dasa Kethu Bhukthi Kethu Anthra operates, then 0 to 0 -46' - 40" may be transitted or Kethu star, Mars sub, Ket sub sub OR ethu star, Kethu sub, Mars sub sub eill be transitted by Mars Kethu or Sun." There is one more rule on page 161 "Thus the source is indicated by the transitting planet & what will happen is shown by the lord of constellation. Whether it will materialiseor not, whether it is favourable or not is indicated by sub lordaccording to the house signified by the sub lord" Now my doubt..... In the first rule Guruji has told to check transitin a sequence Sign- Star- Sub. Second option is Star- sub- sub sub. Third option is yet another variety of Star- sub- sub sub. To find whether the transit is favourable or not we have to think of sub lord. In the first option of transit, sub is third level sub division of the first part of sequence (i.e. of sign) In the second or third options sub is second level sub division of the of the first part of sequence (i.e. of star) Now my doubt is -- If a planet is transitting through sequence of second or third option, can we consider the lord of sub sub as lord of sub , because this is the third level sub division of the of the first part of the sequence (i.e. of star) ? I feel that this matches with the basic consept adopted by Guruji. Or we have to take only the real sub lord which lord of second level sub division of the first part of sequence ? Most respectfully I would like to say that many of the doubts posted earlier have not been attended yet by any one. Previously, there was a chance to others to tell me to read the "original" material, but now, these doubts have come up when I read all six readers & couldn't find the related rule. Thanks & regards, Vishram Deshpande India has a new look. Take a sneak peek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 Dear Rathji,Your explanation mentioned below is quite simple & easy to understand. I too had the similar doubt but didn't want to duplicate it as Vishramji has already raised it.The effect of the luminary transit on the ruling planets (DBA lords) is studied / analyzed. The sequence of the DBA Lords are not important but the zone should be ruled by the DBA Lords, if my understanding is correct. Thanks.Jai Maa Kaali, Devbrato Sarkar"Wealth is not just about making the money BUT making the MAN while he is making money".--- On Sat, 10/24/09, Luther Rath <rathluther wrote:Luther Rath <rathlutherRe: Sub lord or sub-sub lord ? Date: Saturday, October 24, 2009, 1:23 PM Dear Sir, It is not that the sequence is important here. The rule is written regarding transit. It is regarding transit of lords of Dasa and Bhukti and one of the luminaries. Dasa Lord is Mars, Bhukti lord is Kethu, Antara Lord is also Kethu and the luminary is Sun. So the planets are Mars, Kethu and Sun. Sun is not a ruling planet. The ruling planets are only Mars and Kethu. The rule says the planets should transit in such a zone that is ruled by Mars and Kethu, the Dasa, Bhukti and Antara lords. The sequence of Mars and Kethu is not important but the zone should be ruled by both Mars and Kethu. Had the period was ruled by Mars Dasa, Kethu Bhukti and Venus Antara then then these lords should transit in such a zone that is governed by Mars, kethu and Venus conjointly in any sequence. Sun ought to transit also in such a zone. Dr. Rath Vishram Deshpande <vishram_deshpande@ .co. in>KP System Forum <@gro ups.com>Sat, October 24, 2009 1:41:15 PM Sub lord or sub-sub lord ? Dear Friends, On page 162, KP reader 5, (2007) there is a rule. "If Mars Dasa Kethu Bhukthi Kethu Anthra operates, then 0 to 0 -46' - 40" may be transitted or Kethu star, Mars sub, Ket sub sub OR ethu star, Kethu sub, Mars sub sub eill be transitted by Mars Kethu or Sun." There is one more rule on page 161 "Thus the source is indicated by the transitting planet & what will happen is shown by the lord of constellation. Whether it will materialiseor not, whether it is favourable or not is indicated by sub lordaccording to the house signified by the sub lord" Now my doubt..... In the first rule Guruji has told to check transitin a sequence Sign- Star- Sub. Second option is Star- sub- sub sub. Third option is yet another variety of Star- sub- sub sub. To find whether the transit is favourable or not we have to think of sub lord. In the first option of transit, sub is third level sub division of the first part of sequence (i.e. of sign) In the second or third options sub is second level sub division of the of the first part of sequence (i.e. of star) Now my doubt is -- If a planet is transitting through sequence of second or third option, can we consider the lord of sub sub as lord of sub , because this is the third level sub division of the of the first part of the sequence (i.e. of star) ? I feel that this matches with the basic consept adopted by Guruji. Or we have to take only the real sub lord which lord of second level sub division of the first part of sequence ? Most respectfully I would like to say that many of the doubts posted earlier have not been attended yet by any one. Previously, there was a chance to others to tell me to read the "original" material, but now, these doubts have come up when I read all six readers & couldn't find the related rule. Thanks & regards, Vishram Deshpande India has a new look. Take a sneak peek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 Dear Dr Rath ji & Ramani ji,To avoid duplication I am sending same mail to both of you. First of all I thank both of you for your guidance & showing interest to help.As mentioned by Rath ji, I understand that the sequence is not important & its clear to me.As mentioned by Ramani ji, I don't think I am confused. Sign is the biggest, star is medium & sub is smallest. If we think this way, sub becomes third level sub division of sign.(I purposely didn't say "step", that could have confused readers even more) This has no connection with any steps/folds but its a common man's language.If we see them in three different font sizes according to sizes of sign star sub you will come to know why I called them third level sub division. (Sign star sub) May be , the wording used by me didn't serve the purpose, but I am very clear about what exactly I wanted to ask. As written by by Ramani ji, I didn't write sub sub sub (3 times) but its sub sub only. He says that there is no mention of sub sub in any KP book. This is surprising. KP reader 5, page 162, (2007) There it is clearly mentioned. Pl see in red colour "If Mars Dasa Kethu Bhukthi Kethu Anthra operates, then 0 to 0 -46' - 40" may be transited or Kethu star, Mars sub, Ket sub sub OR kethu star, Kethu sub, Mars sub sub will be transited by Mars Kethu or Sun."Now coming to the main point again, I still feel that my real doubt is yet not cleared. Let me put it again in some other words. If we think of two different transits & if we have to find out whether they are favourable or not we will have to consider sub lord.Case 1 Sign(A) Star(B) sub©case 2 Star(X) sub(Y) sub sub(Z)In case 1, sub lord is C & at third level but in case 2, sub lord is Y & at second level. My question is do we need to select the sub lord only, no matter at what level it is ? Or we need to consider level also ? If we consider level it will be sub sub lord. Hope this conveys my doubt.Dear Sirs, I respect both of you as you are highly experienced in KP. I see myself being respected at the place where I am working because I have 30 years of experience as an engineer. Very similarly I feel that every experienced person in any field must be respected. Please don't misunderstand me.Thanks & regards.Vishram DeshpandeLuther Rath <rathluther Sent: Sat, 24 October, 2009 6:53:20 PMRe: Sub lord or sub-sub lord ? Dear Sir, It is not that the sequence is important here. The rule is written regarding transit. It is regarding transit of lords of Dasa and Bhukti and one of the luminaries. Dasa Lord is Mars, Bhukti lord is Kethu, Antara Lord is also Kethu and the luminary is Sun. So the planets are Mars, Kethu and Sun. Sun is not a ruling planet. The ruling planets are only Mars and Kethu. The rule says the planets should transit in such a zone that is ruled by Mars and Kethu, the Dasa, Bhukti and Antara lords. The sequence of Mars and Kethu is not important but the zone should be ruled by both Mars and Kethu. Had the period was ruled by Mars Dasa, Kethu Bhukti and Venus Antara then then these lords should transit in such a zone that is governed by Mars, kethu and Venus conjointly in any sequence. Sun ought to transit also in such a zone. Dr. Rath Vishram Deshpande <vishram_deshpande@ .co. in>KP System Forum <@gro ups.com>Sat, October 24, 2009 1:41:15 PM Sub lord or sub-sub lord ? Dear Friends, On page 162, KP reader 5, (2007) there is a rule. "If Mars Dasa Kethu Bhukthi Kethu Anthra operates, then 0 to 0 -46' - 40" may be transitted or Kethu star, Mars sub, Ket sub sub OR ethu star, Kethu sub, Mars sub sub eill be transitted by Mars Kethu or Sun." There is one more rule on page 161 "Thus the source is indicated by the transitting planet & what will happen is shown by the lord of constellation. Whether it will materialiseor not, whether it is favourable or not is indicated by sub lordaccording to the house signified by the sub lord" Now my doubt..... In the first rule Guruji has told to check transitin a sequence Sign- Star- Sub. Second option is Star- sub- sub sub. Third option is yet another variety of Star- sub- sub sub. To find whether the transit is favourable or not we have to think of sub lord. In the first option of transit, sub is third level sub division of the first part of sequence (i.e. of sign) In the second or third options sub is second level sub division of the of the first part of sequence (i.e. of star) Now my doubt is -- If a planet is transitting through sequence of second or third option, can we consider the lord of sub sub as lord of sub , because this is the third level sub division of the of the first part of the sequence (i.e. of star) ? I feel that this matches with the basic consept adopted by Guruji. Or we have to take only the real sub lord which lord of second level sub division of the first part of sequence ? Most respectfully I would like to say that many of the doubts posted earlier have not been attended yet by any one. Previously, there was a chance to others to tell me to read the "original" material, but now, these doubts have come up when I read all six readers & couldn't find the related rule. Thanks & regards, Vishram Deshpande India has a new look. Take a sneak peek. Keep up with people you care about with India Mail. Learn how. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Thanks Dear Sarkarji. Dr. Rath Dev Sarkar <sarkar_dbx Sent: Sat, October 24, 2009 7:25:44 PMRe: Sub lord or sub-sub lord ? Dear Rathji,Your explanation mentioned below is quite simple & easy to understand. I too had the similar doubt but didn't want to duplicate it as Vishramji has already raised it.The effect of the luminary transit on the ruling planets (DBA lords) is studied / analyzed. The sequence of the DBA Lords are not important but the zone should be ruled by the DBA Lords, if my understanding is correct. Thanks. Jai Maa Kaali, Devbrato Sarkar "Wealth is not just about making the money BUT making the MAN while he is making money".--- On Sat, 10/24/09, Luther Rath <rathluther > wrote: Luther Rath <rathluther >Re: Sub lord or sub-sub lord ?@gro ups.comSaturday, October 24, 2009, 1:23 PM Dear Sir, It is not that the sequence is important here. The rule is written regarding transit. It is regarding transit of lords of Dasa and Bhukti and one of the luminaries. Dasa Lord is Mars, Bhukti lord is Kethu, Antara Lord is also Kethu and the luminary is Sun. So the planets are Mars, Kethu and Sun. Sun is not a ruling planet. The ruling planets are only Mars and Kethu. The rule says the planets should transit in such a zone that is ruled by Mars and Kethu, the Dasa, Bhukti and Antara lords. The sequence of Mars and Kethu is not important but the zone should be ruled by both Mars and Kethu. Had the period was ruled by Mars Dasa, Kethu Bhukti and Venus Antara then then these lords should transit in such a zone that is governed by Mars, kethu and Venus conjointly in any sequence. Sun ought to transit also in such a zone. Dr. Rath Vishram Deshpande <vishram_deshpande@ .co. in>KP System Forum <@gro ups.com>Sat, October 24, 2009 1:41:15 PM Sub lord or sub-sub lord ? Dear Friends, On page 162, KP reader 5, (2007) there is a rule. "If Mars Dasa Kethu Bhukthi Kethu Anthra operates, then 0 to 0 -46' - 40" may be transitted or Kethu star, Mars sub, Ket sub sub OR ethu star, Kethu sub, Mars sub sub eill be transitted by Mars Kethu or Sun." There is one more rule on page 161 "Thus the source is indicated by the transitting planet & what will happen is shown by the lord of constellation. Whether it will materialiseor not, whether it is favourable or not is indicated by sub lordaccording to the house signified by the sub lord" Now my doubt..... In the first rule Guruji has told to check transitin a sequence Sign- Star- Sub. Second option is Star- sub- sub sub. Third option is yet another variety of Star- sub- sub sub. To find whether the transit is favourable or not we have to think of sub lord. In the first option of transit, sub is third level sub division of the first part of sequence (i.e. of sign) In the second or third options sub is second level sub division of the of the first part of sequence (i.e. of star) Now my doubt is -- If a planet is transitting through sequence of second or third option, can we consider the lord of sub sub as lord of sub , because this is the third level sub division of the of the first part of the sequence (i.e. of star) ? I feel that this matches with the basic consept adopted by Guruji. Or we have to take only the real sub lord which lord of second level sub division of the first part of sequence ? Most respectfully I would like to say that many of the doubts posted earlier have not been attended yet by any one. Previously, there was a chance to others to tell me to read the "original" material, but now, these doubts have come up when I read all six readers & couldn't find the related rule. Thanks & regards, Vishram Deshpande India has a new look. Take a sneak peek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Respected Vishram Deshpandeji, In short I wish to say that we need to select the sub-lord only, no matter at what level it is. With Due Regards. Dr. Rath Vishram Deshpande <vishram_deshpande Sent: Sun, October 25, 2009 12:11:48 AMRe: Sub lord or sub-sub lord ? Dear Dr Rath ji & Ramani ji,To avoid duplication I am sending same mail to both of you. First of all I thank both of you for your guidance & showing interest to help.As mentioned by Rath ji, I understand that the sequence is not important & its clear to me.As mentioned by Ramani ji, I don't think I am confused. Sign is the biggest, star is medium & sub is smallest. If we think this way, sub becomes third level sub division of sign.(I purposely didn't say "step", that could have confused readers even more) This has no connection with any steps/folds but its a common man's language.If we see them in three different font sizes according to sizes of sign star sub you will come to know why I called them third level sub division. (Sign star sub) May be , the wording used by me didn't serve the purpose, but I am very clear about what exactly I wanted to ask. As written by by Ramani ji, I didn't write sub sub sub (3 times) but its sub sub only. He says that there is no mention of sub sub in any KP book. This is surprising. KP reader 5, page 162, (2007) There it is clearly mentioned. Pl see in red colour "If Mars Dasa Kethu Bhukthi Kethu Anthra operates, then 0 to 0 -46' - 40" may be transited or Kethu star, Mars sub, Ket sub sub OR kethu star, Kethu sub, Mars sub sub will be transited by Mars Kethu or Sun."Now coming to the main point again, I still feel that my real doubt is yet not cleared. Let me put it again in some other words. If we think of two different transits & if we have to find out whether they are favourable or not we will have to consider sub lord.Case 1 Sign(A) Star(B) sub©case 2 Star(X) sub(Y) sub sub(Z)In case 1, sub lord is C & at third level but in case 2, sub lord is Y & at second level. My question is do we need to select the sub lord only, no matter at what level it is ? Or we need to consider level also ? If we consider level it will be sub sub lord. Hope this conveys my doubt.Dear Sirs, I respect both of you as you are highly experienced in KP. I see myself being respected at the place where I am working because I have 30 years of experience as an engineer. Very similarly I feel that every experienced person in any field must be respected. Please don't misunderstand me.Thanks & regards.Vishram Deshpande Luther Rath <rathluther >@gro ups.comSat, 24 October, 2009 6:53:20 PMRe: Sub lord or sub-sub lord ? Dear Sir, It is not that the sequence is important here. The rule is written regarding transit. It is regarding transit of lords of Dasa and Bhukti and one of the luminaries. Dasa Lord is Mars, Bhukti lord is Kethu, Antara Lord is also Kethu and the luminary is Sun. So the planets are Mars, Kethu and Sun. Sun is not a ruling planet. The ruling planets are only Mars and Kethu. The rule says the planets should transit in such a zone that is ruled by Mars and Kethu, the Dasa, Bhukti and Antara lords. The sequence of Mars and Kethu is not important but the zone should be ruled by both Mars and Kethu. Had the period was ruled by Mars Dasa, Kethu Bhukti and Venus Antara then then these lords should transit in such a zone that is governed by Mars, kethu and Venus conjointly in any sequence. Sun ought to transit also in such a zone. Dr. Rath Vishram Deshpande <vishram_deshpande@ .co. in>KP System Forum <@gro ups.com>Sat, October 24, 2009 1:41:15 PM Sub lord or sub-sub lord ? Dear Friends, On page 162, KP reader 5, (2007) there is a rule. "If Mars Dasa Kethu Bhukthi Kethu Anthra operates, then 0 to 0 -46' - 40" may be transitted or Kethu star, Mars sub, Ket sub sub OR ethu star, Kethu sub, Mars sub sub eill be transitted by Mars Kethu or Sun." There is one more rule on page 161 "Thus the source is indicated by the transitting planet & what will happen is shown by the lord of constellation. Whether it will materialiseor not, whether it is favourable or not is indicated by sub lordaccording to the house signified by the sub lord" Now my doubt..... In the first rule Guruji has told to check transitin a sequence Sign- Star- Sub. Second option is Star- sub- sub sub. Third option is yet another variety of Star- sub- sub sub. To find whether the transit is favourable or not we have to think of sub lord. In the first option of transit, sub is third level sub division of the first part of sequence (i.e. of sign) In the second or third options sub is second level sub division of the of the first part of sequence (i.e. of star) Now my doubt is -- If a planet is transitting through sequence of second or third option, can we consider the lord of sub sub as lord of sub , because this is the third level sub division of the of the first part of the sequence (i.e. of star) ? I feel that this matches with the basic consept adopted by Guruji. Or we have to take only the real sub lord which lord of second level sub division of the first part of sequence ? Most respectfully I would like to say that many of the doubts posted earlier have not been attended yet by any one. Previously, there was a chance to others to tell me to read the "original" material, but now, these doubts have come up when I read all six readers & couldn't find the related rule. Thanks & regards, Vishram Deshpande India has a new look. Take a sneak peek. Keep up with people you care about with India Mail. Learn how. 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.