Sub lord or sub-sub lord ?

[Guest guest]

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.